Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMass Grading 73 9 4,. 4, BoPJ2oco Stiff o R A7 H5 S deeemArac 0 fi rfl3obse/. —.2 z9ce o /030 • • T I oNez lz, ittoi ; • _ . _., 1 ' ` 0 y 0 1,,,,,, rr Y= ,s, o'er - - - �> v -" vi `!' • a N V9 J • c • 0 �J - 4 ,. J d N, r ` to {4 IL j F A 14 s y • • '' Ti.; .I � v -1`��/.`▪ „ 4 xl' 'rl �} lY,+ , 1 r. ' ' x • ' r tat t -9 fe+ sq. i::a....,-tr rrc;p.,q... r+{ .a,.t.t i. • $ , ? s .-�. :f-i--",- 6 ♦ f ' ':.,p Se!- 4.4.1 ..:P'4S- Vi ,'' t`Sy a/3,Iin { • aurral sr 4x5 me 4 ��-. .S t"-* ;41.• Y +.i 1 4 dxm+ "fi: v".`�A'"'-- X6'3+9 +^ us r..: �`':w Tr s r u a • r• sc f {v t,u :Y F t ;.5'° q..e - e. ;'? • • GRADING PERMIT PERMIT # : BGR010320 Status : ISSUED Job Address : 32375 CAMINO SAN DIMAS TEM TR. 0.9 '73'4 Issued : 12/12/2001 'f Expires : 06/10/2002 Work Desc : BORROW SITE FOR TR23065-1 . • i . : - Parcel No: 962-190-005 t - V Location: 2001 TG 979 F5 Tract/Lot : TR23064-1 LOT 87 Zoning: SP ZONE APPLICANT TRANS PACIFIC CONSULTANTS Phone : 909 676-7000 27431 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST, TEMECULA CA 92590 OWNER REDHAWK COMMUNITIES INC 43529 RIDGE PARK DR, TEMECULA CA, CA 925900000 ENGINEER TRANS PACIFIC CONSULTANTS Phone : 909 676-7000 27431 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST, TEMECULA CA 92590 FEE INFORMATION Plan Check Fees . : 5, 086 . 67 Transfer Fee . 00 Permit Fees 5, 086 . 67 Renewal Fee • . 00 Addl Inspections : . 00 Microfilm Fees . . : 12 . 50 Addl LMS Surchg. : . 19 Total Calculated Fees : 10, 186 . 03 Additional Fees : 762 . 99 Total Permit Fees : 10 , 949 . 02 CALL FOR INSPECTION Requests for inspection shall be made at least 24 hours in advance by telephone at (909) 600-6100 Additional info at www. tlma. co. riverside . ca.us/lms/lms .htm '.vr COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /,` ° o^ '':', Department of'Building and Safety • ....,. ¢= BUILDING PERMIT This permit shall expire by limitation and become null and void if work is not commenced and a written request for inspection filed within 180 days from the date of issuance or if work has been suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days between the filing of written requests for inspection. ❑ LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9(commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of the Business and Professions ode,and my license is in full force and effect. License Class License No. Date Contractor OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penaltyof perjury that I am exempt from the Contractors License Law for the following reason(Sec.7031.5,Business and Professions Code: Any city or county which requires a permit to construct,alter,improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance,also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that heor she is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractors License Law(Chapter 9[commencing with Section 7000]of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code)or that he or she is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500].): ❑ I,as owner of theropert ,or my employees with wages as their sole compensation,will do the work,and the structure is not intended or offered for sale(Sec.7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply to the owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or herself or through his or her own employees,provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If,however,the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion,the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he or she did not build or improve for the purpose of sale.). ❑ t as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project(Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such projects with a contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractors License Law.). ❑ I am exempt under Sec. , B.&P.C. for this reason Date )—(01.-6 ) OwnerTIO A • &n, WORKERS COMPENSATION DECLARA : 1 hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: ❑ I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers compensation,as provided for by Section 370 of the Labor Code for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. ❑ 1 Rave and will maintain workers compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code,for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Carrier Policy Number (This section need not be completed if the permit 4 for one hundred dollars 1$100J or less). I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the workers compensation laws of California,and agree that if I should become subject to the workers compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code, I shall forthwith comply with those� provisions. Date:/oHioZ—0/Applicant: 72 /� • 6—]Q-tht/ WARNING: FAILURE TO SECURE WORKERS CO ENS'ATION COVERAGE IS UNLAWFUL, AND SHALL SUBJECT AN EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL FINES UP TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000), IN ADDITION TO THE COST OF COMPENSATION, DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF THE LABOR CODE, INTEREST,AND ATTORNEYS FEES. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY: I hereby affirm under penaltyof perjury that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued(Sec. 3097,Civ. C . Lender's Name Lender's Address CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AND AUTHORIZATION OF ENTRY: I certify that I have read this application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all county ordinances and state laws relating to building construction,and hereby authorize representatives of this county to enter upon the above-mentioned property� for inspection purposes. , /0 • A--) It /Vc-1.✓l .T . tAi. /a tok — 0 / ignature o A`.p Want or • gent 'tint •pp ican • tent I ame Date INSPECTION INFORMATION: Work may proceed only at the direction of the field inspector. To request an inspection of work completed, call the appropriate office listed below. Our office hours are 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday. West County: Riverside Office (909)955-1800 South County: South County Office (909)600-6100 East County: Indio Office (760863-8271 REINSPECTION FEE: Reinspection fees may be assessed when the permit card is not properly posted on the work site,the approved plans are not readily available to the inspector,for failure to provide access on the date for which the inspection is requested,or for deviating from plans requiring approval of the Building Official. A reinspection fee may be assessed for each inspection or reinspection when such portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections previously called for are not made. OCCUPANCY:Buildings or structures shall not be used or occupied until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy(or for residential dwellings,the sign-off of the final inspection on the job card by the building inspector). 284-208 (09199) :r. .- ,;e-t .i.Z.,—r— X19 . . RIVERSIDE COUNTYitt,.' DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY • �e ' ..... ' eceae- APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT WORKSHEET PROJECT INFORMATION Permit 11 BGR010320 Jobslte Address Street Nome Rd/St/Etc. Space N 4. ' - Via La Colorado • Thomas Guide Page No. Grid Location Tract 29734 - Lo "87 CIty/Community State Zlp Code Assessor's Parcel Number " Temecula cA 92592 t 962-190-005 . Prupcny Owners Name: Last Fins Redhawk Communities OFFICE USE ONLY Planning Case 0(CUP,PP.etc) PmaeVRxt Map a Par/Lot I Legal Zone Lot Slit F/A Depth Frontage FSB USB Rt SB RSB APPLICATION INFORMATION • NOTE:The applicant will receive ALL billings,correspondence and refunds for deposit. based fee permits. Applicant Name: Lad First Redhawk Communities ' Mailing Address Sired Name Rd/St/Etc. Space I • ' 43529 Ridge Park Dr. City/Community Slate Zip Code Phone Number Temecula CA 92590 (909-1506-6226 Permit Use: Valuation Grading Has or will grading mimed 50 cubic yards? (circle one) YES NO Your Initials: Has or will 1111 be grater duo one foot? (circle out) YES NO Your Initials: CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BUR-DER INFORMATION(chyle one) California Contractor License I Type Exp.Date Firm Name 734094 A/B 3-31-(1l Centex Hnmec Mailing Address Street Name Rd/St/Etc. Space a • 2280 WArdlow Circle 150 City/Community State Zip Code Phone Number Corona CA 92880 909-279-4000 CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BURDER INFORMATION(cIrde one) License I Type Elm Name ARC ENG Mailing Address Stmt Name Rd/St/Etc. Space I City/Community State Zip CodePhone Number I( 1 284199(Rev 5/98) Side t of 2(over) RIVERSIDE COUNTY .. "%cQ . it.;.e. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & SAFETY , APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT WORKSHEET Permit N PROJECT INFORMATION Ike ow320 Jobsite Address Street Name •S -` t, mi N0 Rd/St/Etc. Spaces - --- -fs 5EALA CavC4tq OF Vt A pts sok,-1 Thomas Guide Page No. ' Grid Location • City/Community State Zip Code Assessor's Parcel Number ! -res C.0 t.A CA 01(#2....- toxo 00,5 Property Owner's Name: Last First yteQAAWk '.LQyn tU.t % teS r ,.,.1c,. 1 OFFICE USE ONLY Planning Case p(CUP,PP,etc) -"'—"" Per u - Pakito.9 to 3,64-(off'- a P7 • j Legal Zone Lot Sin F/A t epth Frontage FSB Lf S'' Rt SB R SB I 59241 !0. 6z A APPLICATION INFORMATION [:!.:7: i 1 NOTE: The applicant will receive ALL billings, correspondence and refunds for deposit- based fee permits. Applicant Name: Last First 'f(lhbis- r o1Fl c LC%-1 AJt+fgerr5 q Mailing Address Street Name Rd/St/Etc. Space M • City/Community State Zip Code Phone Number i if 'revile wLab cA an,S9D (qpq) v76-"7001) Permit Use:z. , -p.. 21..Obs- i Valuation . . ,I y�CJe.¢Ov). 4t-6 f09- T{L tTolo5-z • i Has or will grading exceed 50 cubic yards? (circle one) © NO Your Initials: t2•9-F t Has or will fill be greater than one foot? (circle one) 1 E.) NO Your Initials: j-1= CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BUILDER INFORMATION(circle one) California Contractor License a Type Exp.Date Firm Name Mailing Address Street Name Rd/St/Etc. Space a City/Community State Zip Code Phone Number CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BUILDER INFORMATION(circle one) License p Type Finn Name ARC ENG . Mailing Address Street Name Rd/St/Etc. Space# I City/Community State Zip Code Phone Number 2 284.199(Rev 5/98) Go g s, Side I of 2(over) I Tract #: TR23064 Planner: R. GOLDMAN II Status: APPROVED Location: SLY OF HWY. 79. E OF PALA RD.. N OF PI II ISO ML D tatus I, I Condition: SP —PARK SITE '`D" I D ii PI INEFFECTI I D ii P1 Park Site "D" shall be developed on approximately 9.9 acres . INEFFECTI I D u PI adjacent to the Pechanga Reservation, Planning areas 5, 9, INEFFECTI I D ii P1 16 and 17. Park Site "D" shall include paseo, buffer or INEFFECTI jl D u PI other park and greenbelt area amenities as shown on INEFFECTI D ii PI Specific Plan park site exhibits. Park Site "D" shall be INEFFECTI I' D a 'PI fully developed prior to recordation of any final map in INEFFECTI >:I D ii PI Master Phase III. Park Site "D" shall be approved INEFFECTI 1 D ii PI administratively by the Planning Department in accordance INEFFECTI I D ii PI with the landscaping plan review process in order to INEFFECTI II D u P1 expedite construction of the park . Plot Plan approval of INEFFECTI II 0 0 PI Park Site "D" shall not be required. . INEFFECTI <F1>Help, <F7>Exit This is the first line !II • GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8 , 1989 __ J.N . 298-87 • !II Page Eight IIExcavation Characteristics III Based on cur subsurface boring and test pit data, and on our experience with similar earth materials ,• onsite soil, and Pauba Formation bedrock materials will be excavatabie with conventional earthmoving equipment requiring little to moderate prior ripping . !II Removals and Canyon Cleanouts 111 Owing to the typically poorly consolidated and porous nature of near surface alluvial, colluvial, and slope wash deposits , as Ell well as to their susceptibility to hydro-consolidation, removal of unsuitable surface materials and replacement as compacted fill will be required in all canyons , valleys and gullies to receive structural fills . Estimated depths of removal that will be 1111 required are indicated on the accompanying plans . The indicated depths range from 3 to 25 feet. Unless additional subsurface exploration ( and laboratory testing) is performed within major III canyon and valley areas which may indicate shallower removal depths in local areas may be feasible, the indicated depths as shown on the accompanying plans should be considered as minimus . IIIAll uncompacted fill deposits existing within Tracts 23064 and 23065 , as well as underlying unsuitable alluvial materials , will require removal and replacement as properly compacted fill . IIII Depths of removal are anticipated to be on the order of 10 to 2V .Leet . !!: Compacted fills placed against canyon walls and onnatural slope surfaces inclining ar 5 : 1 or greater should be benched through loose residual soils and placed on a series of level benches excavated into competent bearing soils or bedrock. Residual soil materials vary from 1 to 3= feet in thickness on ridge tops and lower descending slopes , and from approximately 3 to 5 feet in Igentle swale areas . Canyon Subdrains Perforated plastic pipe and gravel canyon subdrains should be within all major canyons to be filled in accordance with spec- ifications given in SG-4 of the Standard Grading Specifications . Subdrains should be placed so as to outlet at the lowest practi- cal elevation. In most instances , this will involve the place- ment of fill at the mouth of the canyon prior to installation of e IT, IPGREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8 , 1989 J .N. 298-87 IIPage Eleven PCut Slobe Construction 0 Owing to the general lack of significant adverse bedding of Pauba Formation materials , cut slopes , in general , are expec- ted to be grossly stable . All cut slopes , however , should he inspected by the engineering geologist tc confirm geologic 0 structure. II Slope Landscaping Landscaping for graded cut and fill slopes should consist of fl plant material requiring minimal cultivation and irrigation water to thrive . An irrigation system should be installed. However , overwatering and subsequent saturation of slope surfaces should be avoided. Moreover , the irrigation system ill should consist of very shallow or above grade piping to avoid the need for deep trenching within the slope surfaces . III All graded slopes should be landscaped as soon as practical after the completion of rough grading (whenever water is available for irrigation) . IfJpermanent landscaping cannot III be provided within a reasonable period of time , spray-on pro- ducts designed to seal slope surfaces should be considered as a temporary measure to inhibit surficial erosion. III To inhibit surficial erosion, the tops of all-cut and fill slopes should be protected from surface runoff means compacted earth berms and/or paved drainage catchment and III diverter devices . Natural Slopes 9 Existing natural slopes are underlain by massive, granula. Pauba Formation materials and exhibit no evidence of insta- ll bility. In addition to the recommended compacted fill blanker on e-a_- III light cut lots bordered by descending natural slopes , the adjacent natural slopes should be protected from any further surface runoff by means of top-of-slope compacted earth berms and/or paved drainage catchment and diverter devices . III III 4 --r-e, 9 2 3 41 4t t • II ii GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 3 , 1989 J.N . 298-87 Page Ten Stability Analyses and Calculations Onthe basis of stability calculations ( Appendix D) , proposed cut and fill slopes will be crossly stable at the inclinations ii and to the heights planned. Calculations were performed for a 60 feet high, 2 : l fill slope utilizing weakest shear strength parameters determined for remolded soils . Although -.1rrations were not performed for a similarly configured cut slope, higher factors of safety would result due to greater shear strength 11 values of in place bedrock materials . ® Fill Slope Construction Fill keys excavated into competent bearing soils or bedrock as . approved by the soils engineer should be provided at the base 11 of all proposed fill slopes to be constructed on natural slope surfaces inclining at 5 : 1 or greater. Minimum key widths should I equal one-half proposed fill slope heights , with a minimum width of 15 feet. Minimum key depth should be 2 feet at the toe, and the bottom of the key should be inclined a minimum of 2 percent towards the heel . To obtain proper compaction to the face of fill slopes , low height fill slopes should be overfilled and backrolled during construction, and then trimmed back to the compacted inner core . Where this procedure is not practical for higher fill slopes , final surface compaction should be obtained hy back-rollinc during construction to achieve proper compaction to within il 6 to 8 inches of the finish surface , followed by rolling with a cable-lowered sheepsfoot and grid roller . Track rolling is not recommended. 11 Fill Over Cut Slope Construction where fill over cut slopes are proposed, _ fill key excavated into competent bearing soils or bedrock should be provided at the contact . The width of the fill key should equal one-half 11 the height of the slope , or a minimum of 15 feet, whichever is greater . The bottom of ' the key should alsoThe tilted back into I the slope at a minimum gradient of 2 percent . �y;06.11112. CD1C CN Co$AvntMrrrS 4PPL t-i 4CQuitc !TrO" Co il 23-06 -5-- I e 1 III GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8 , 1989 J.N. 298-87 111 Nine Nine III the subdrain. Approximate locations of recommended subdrains are shown on the enclosed plans . Actual locations will be determined III during grading. • Cut/Fill Transitions _ III Cut/fill transition zones should be eliminated from building pads where the depth of fill exceeds 18 inches . This should III be accomplished by overexcavating the cut portion and replacina the materials as properly compacted fill . Recommended depths of overexcavation are given below: III Depth of Depth of Fill on "Fill" Portion Overexcavation 'Cut" Portion Up to 3 . 0 feet Equal Depth III 3 . 0 to 6 . 0 feet 3 . 0 feet Greater than 6 . 0 feet 1/2 Depth of Fill to a Maximum Death of 13 feet III Compacted Fill Blankets IIIA 3 . 0 foot comparted fill blanket will be recui-ed on _avlight cut pads bordered by descending natural slopes . If deter_ 111 mined during Grading that certain cut slopes W1 , 1 re.rcompacted i ra ztab_ lization by means of a buttress or stability fill , a comb cted fill blanket will also be recuired on all lotslocated above these stability =ill masses . III Fill Placement III1 . All fill should be placed in 6 to 8 inch maximum lifts, watered or dried as necessary to achieve near optimum III moisture conditions , and then compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent . 2 . The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture ill content for each change in soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM D1557-78 . GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8 , 1989 J.N. 298-87 Page Seven Faulting and Seismicity Faulting and seismicity are discussed in detail in References 1, 2 and 5 . Groundwater Shallow groundwater conditions were not encountered in the majority of the borings and test pits excavated within alluvial areas. Groundwater was only encountered in Borings 7 , 13 , 60 , ill and 65 at respective depths of 13 . 0 , 47 . 0 , 12. 5 and 21. 0 feet. Boring 60 was drilled within the flood plain area of Temecula Creek, Tract No. 23067 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General _Based on the results of this supplemental investigation, combined with our previous findings, we conclude from a soils engineering . and engineering geologic viewpoint that development of Tentative Tracts 23064 , 23065 , 23066 and 23067 is feasible provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications . Earthwork All earthwork should conform to the Grading Code of the county of Riverside, the enclosed "Standard Grading Specifications" f' (Appendix C) , and in accordance with the following recommenda- i! tions. Site Clearing I ' All weeds , grasses , scrub brush, trees , and similar vegetation should be stripped from areas to be graded and hauled offsite . GREAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8 , 1989 J.N. 298-87 Page Eight Excavation Characteristics Based on our subsurface boring and test pit data, and on our experience with similar earth materials, onsite soil, and Pauba Formation bedrock materials will be excavatable with conventional earthmoving equipment requiring little to moderate prior ripping. Removals and Canyon Cleanouts Owing to the typically poorly consolidated and porous nature of near surface alluvial, colluvial, and slope wash deposits , as well as to their susceptibility to hydro-consolidation, removal of unsuitable surface materials and replacement as compacted fill will be required in all canyons , valleys and gullies to receive structural fills . Estimated depths of removal that will be required are indicated on the accompanying plans . The indicated • depths range from 3 to 25 feet. Unless additional subsurface exploration ( and laboratory-.-testing) is performed within -major- -- - canyon and valley areas which may indicate shallower removal depths in local areas may be feasible, the indicated depths as shown on the accompanying plans should be considered as minimums . All uncompacted fill deposits existing within Tracts 23064 and 23065 , as well as underlying unsuitable alluvial materials, will require removal and replacement as properly compacted fill . Depths of removal are anticipated to be on the order of 10 to =- 20 feet. - Compacted fills placed against canyon walls and on natural slope surfaces inclining at 5 : 1 or greater should be benched through loose residual soils and placed on a series of level benches excavated into competent bearing soils or bedrock. Residual soil r t, materials vary from 1 to 3+ feet in thickness on ridge tops and lower descending slopes , and from approximately 3 to 6 feet in s, :, gentle swale areas. 4Pr4: '4 / Can Yon Subdrains p° - ;;Perforated plastic pipe and gravel canyon subdrains should be sMithin all major canyons to be filled in accordance with spec- ifications given in SG-4 of the Standard Grading Specifications . drains should be placed so as to outlet at the lowest practi- ?ant '._ ,.al elevation. In most instances , this will involve the place- W � � nt of fill at the mouth of the canyon prior to installation of r i SEAT AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 8 , 1989 !III' ! J.N. 298-87 ;I Page Nine , he subdrain. Approximate locations of recommended subdrains are 1 I ; hown on the enclosed plans . Actual locations will be determined uring grading. i ut/Fill Transitions I ut/fill transition zones should be eliminated from building ads where the depth of fill exceeds 18 inches . This should 0 ; a accomplished by overexcavating the cut portion and replacing ;'; 1 he materials as properly compacted fill. Recommended depths .. , f overexcavation are given below: ' 11 1 I Depth of Depth of 'I(II I' Fill on "Fill" Portion Overexcavation "Cut" Portion :1111 t Up to 3 . 0 feet Equal DepthIII 11 3 . 0 to 6 . 0 feet 3 . 0 feet IIIi! 9 Greater than 6 . 0 feet 1/2 Depth of Fill to a I'il1II . MaximumDepth of 15 feet 1II •i 1 :ompacted Fill BlanketsiV 111 3 . 0 foot compacted fill .blanket will be required on daylight 1';, , :ut pads bordered by descending natural slopes . If it is deter '11'"; I pined during grading that certain cut slopes will require stabi- lization by means of a buttress or stability fill, a compacted "1..� � il+ :ill blanket will also be required on all lots- located above / , :hese stability fill masses . 1i1 .±+ .h' II, Fill Placement ii1 VI L . All fill should be placed in 6 to 8 inch maximum lifts, 11iii' ! watered or dried as necessary to achieve near optimum I . A II + moisture conditions , and then compacted in place to a 11110 minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. p + .i it fI;3 . The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture .1 ' content for each change in soil type should be determined ill I II' in accordance with Test Method :ASTM D1557-78 . MIL ! I ' �! i Ik R.H. ACQUISITION September 23, 1996 J.N. 298-87 Page 2 tributary drainages, the resultant maximum depth of compacted fill will be approximately 55 to 60 feet. Canyon subdrains are planned along the axes of the major canyons and tributary drainages following removal of low density alluvial materials. Cut and fill slopes are planned at a maximum ratio of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The maximum proposed cut slope height is approximately 75 feet and the maximum proposed fill slope height is approximately 45 feet. Mid-slope terrace drains are proposed on all graded slopes exceeding a height of 30 feet. SUBSURFACE SOIL AND BEDROCK CONDITIONS The subject tract is underlain by late Pleistocene sedimentary bedrock materials belonging to the Pauba Formation. In major canyon. areas and tributary drainages, the Pauba Formation is overlain with low density surficial deposits of recent alluvium, colluvium and/or slopewash. In the topographically higher areas, the Pauba Formation is mantled with a relatively thin layer of weathered bedrock(residual soil). A detailed description of the above materials is provided in Reference No. 5. GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS The "Earthwork" recommendations presented in Reference No. 5 remain applicable for the site; however, structural fills have already been placed in several areas along the edges of the adjacent golf course fairways. These compacted fills were placed under the purview of this firm in accordance with the recommendations presented in Reference No. 2. Ii U > I • • REFERENCES 1. Evaluation of Faulting and Liquefaction Potential, Portion of Wolf Valley Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California; report by Earth Research Associates, Inc., dated November 20, 1987. 2. Removal Requirements for Structural Fills Adjacent to Golf Course Fairway Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 18, Redhawk Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, Califor- nia; report by Earth Research Associates, Inc., dated January 18, 1988. 3. Preliminary Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Redhawk Project, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California; report by Earth Research Associates, Inc., dated February 2, 1988. 11 4. Supplemental Evaluation of Faulting, Southwest Portion of Redhawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California; report by Petra Geotechnical, Inc., dated March 1, 1989. 5. , Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066, and 23067, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California; report by Petra Geotechnical, Inc., dated May 8, 1989. 9 I i l 1 J PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J.N. 298-87 1 l'�ZoM I3G(2, 010320 L� PETRA (A /] S5G/Z4 & ) COSTA MESA•NEWPORT BEACH•SAN DIEGO•TEMECULA November 29, 1996 J.N. 298-87 R.H. ACQUISITIONS 355 N. Lantana Street Suite 670 Camarillo, CA 93010 iogss Attention: Mr. Steve Ford jLit lb Subject: Response to County Geotechnical Review L r 1996 Tract 23064-1,2,3 :DUININISTRAT(ONRedhawk Development RRSIDE COUNTY County of Riverside, Californiar'�-� NO DEPARTMFN Gentlemen: . - In accordance with your request and authorization, we have received and reviewed the County of Riverside Geotechnical Report Review Sheet, dated October 30, 1996. The County's Review Comments and our responses follow in order. Review Comment 1: "The September 23, 1996 Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading should include appropriate surficial stability analysis." Response 1: We have collected representative samples of the earth materials anticipated at finish grade on the fill slopes at the subject tracts. Remolded direct shear testing was performed on samples remolded to model the anticipated field conditions. Low overburden pressures were utilized during the testing to reflect conditions at the proposed slope face. The results of the laboratory testing and the surficial stability calculations are presented in Appendix A. Review Comment 2: "The proposed slopes along the South boundary of TR. 23064-1 • are located within a fault setback zone. The stability of these slopes should be analyzed with respect to the fault and fault setback zone considering the potential for ground rupture and strong ground shaking. Alternative methods of seismic analysis such as seismic deformation analysis may be necessary." PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,INC. 27620 Commerce Centre Drive, Suite 103 rie 0237 Temecula.CA -6190Tel:(9091fi99-6193 Fos 1909)599-6197 • i R.H. Acquisitions November 29, 1996 J.N. 298-87 Page 2 Response 2: We have performed additional slope stability analyses for the slopes proposed along the fault hazard setback zone noted on the grading plan. PCSTABL5M by Purdue University was used to calculate static slope stability for a 60-foot high slope (worst case). Soil strength data previously utilized in and presented in our earlier reports were used for this calculation. Utilizing this data we achieved a static factor of safety of 1.85. The pseudostatic analysis was performed utilizing Makdisi and Seed (1978). This method utilizes a seismic coefficient which reduces the factor of safety to 1.0 (the yield acceleration) and an anticipated peak acceleration of 0.6g. Utilizing Makdisi and Seed, the estimated seismic induced slope displacement for a near-field Magnitude 7.5 event is calculated to be less than twelve (12) inches. Twelve inches of slope displacement on these slopes in these materials will not result in catastrophic failure of any critical or habitable structures. Displacement of terrace drains, brow ditches and/or irrigation lines may occur in the event of this amount of slope displacement. We recommend that the developer inform the Home Owner Association of this • possibility and that a method of payment for potential mitigation be developed and maintained. The slope stability calculations and charts for the Makdisi and Seed estimation are presented in Appendix B, attached. Review Comment 3: "The potential for ground water seepage affecting slope stability should be evaluated. Appropriate mitigation measures should be included with the geotechnical review report." Response 3: The majority of the finish slopes manufactured at the site will be fill slopes which are designed generally as stabilization slopes. These slopes will be constructed with drainage devices located behind the fill at the fill/bedrock interface. Shear strengths utilized in the stability calculation are based on saturated conditions. The addition of the drainage devices to minimize water in the system acts as an additional mitigation measure beyond that created by utilization of the saturated soil strength parameters. In the event unforeseen conditions are WP\REPOR"I\298-87.SJ Z 1 1 R.H. Acquisitions November 29, 1996 J.N. 298-87 Page 3 encountered during grading, additional and appropriate remedial measures will be recommended. Review Comment 4: "The reports should include appropriate cross-sections to demonstrate that geologic structure does not affect cut slope stability for the proposed tracts." Response 4: We have reviewed the geologic data previously presented in our • reports entitled, Supplemental Soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation, Portion of Redhawk Project, Vesting Tentative Map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066, and 23067, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California," dated May 8, 1989, and "Supplemental Evaluation of Faulting, Southwest Portion of Redhawk Project, Rancho California Area, County of Riverside, California," dated March 1, 1989. • These reports include logs of over sixty (60) large and small diameter borings and logs of nearly 250 test pits. Bedding as noted in the logs and described in the text is "... generally massive with gradational and indistinct contacts...." Where observed in the area of these tracts, bedding was found to vary from horizontal to low angle dips (0-5°) toward the east. West of the mapped fault location, attitudes between 25 and 45 degrees out of slope were observed in the previous fault location trenches. These steep attitudes occur near the keyway and toe of slope and will not be daylighted after construction. If the steep bedding near the toe poses a constraint or adverse condition, it will be removed during construction. We have not prepared cross-sections showing these features because of a dearth of significant information. Based on our experience with the adjacent developed tracts, if areas of adverse bedding or structure are encountered during grading, they will be very localized. Geologic mapping will be performed during grading to document the conditions encountered. If adverse structure is present, we will make recommendations for its remediation when the conditions are encountered. WP\RE I'o IYI\298-87.SJ 3 J ' ' R.H. Acquisitions November 29, 1996 J.N. 298-87 Page 4 We welcome this opportunity to be of service. Please contact te.�-:•'a-M...zned if there are questions concerning this matter. eRi3 /oyqI •1/4�.• QPµ ]AFROO. 6' Very truly yours, i r...? PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Plo. .641 G 30 °0 ivy eoFcm_ Steptii.n W. Jensen Siamak Ja roudi, Ph.D. Princr•al Geologist Principal Engineer C.E.G. 1074 R.C.E. 3664 SWJ/db Attachments: Appendix A: Review Comments Appendix B: Surficial Stability Analysis Plate 1: Geologic Cross Sections • • WP REPORT\298-87.S.1 7 • S F4t]II : Pet, Geotecr n::8i FW_h!E HO. : ?1- 549 1479 Fhtv. .2S 1996 10:50,1H p.: Surficial Slope Stabilty Analysis 7 ❑ Cut Slope O FII Slope CJ Natural Slope Fo 'Z .7 1 IT F / 4 Ar Parameters Z = Depth of Saturation (feet) = yb = Buoyant Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) = S 7 s yt = Totai Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) = /z-: = Slope Angle = 24 c¢ = Angle of Internal Friction = 44 c = Cohesion (psf) = Force Tending to Cause Movement F, = Zytcosasina = 3Zytsin2a Force Tending to Resist Movement = Zy,cos2atan4) + c Factor of Safety F.S. _ 2Zybcos2atan$ + 2c _ •t ' $ - (,S 2- Zytsin2a a-&g, 3 Petra .Geotechnical, Inc. 5 PROM : Petra Geotec-n:-_.;._ PHONE NO. : ?14 9 1438 Nov. 27 155E 08:50:41 F2 1000 ... rI I L. r/ , 900 1 • I 800 :._ I . ; / 1 I � ; 4 I ✓ m �... ., I ! i r� e 000 s .... .. I • _.. .... 1 I� F a is f L� � ; 500 .. I / r I I o /r a I f, ' . t.. i .iT. ... I... • 40(1 a. cc : L• t 300 . :r II '_�._.i..-..�_ ` 200 I .. 1 I / 1 ,. .. ... 100 / i • E { r fi t , .. 0r; • I } , , 0 1110 2U0 300 400 oGO 700 S 900 1000 NORMAL STRESS - pounds per square fact SAMPLE FRICTION I COHESION I DESCRIPTION LOCATION 1 .ANGLE (PSI) I • A 00.5 Silt,Sams(s%n.Peak 44 $5 T, A g 0.5 Silty Send(SM).Ultimate 37 1 i0 NOTES: Samples Remolded to 90 ga of Maximum Dry Density All Samples Were Inundated Prior to Shearing J.N.298-87 I DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA I November, 1996 -, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. REMOLDED TEST SAMPLES i PLATE B-1 6 FROM : Petra Geotecrnica'i PHONE NO. . 714 549 1432 Nov. 27 1996 00:37141 P3 SIEVE ANALYSIS I HYDROMETER ANALYSIS IGRAVEL 1 SAND I SILT 'CI•Al'I coarse I fine 1 coarse medium I fine 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #'200 T 100 ( I I f f . 11H I �I I 1 1 1 1 I 11 11111 ; l ' IIIIHII H11 i ' I 1 111 ' 90 11 III ' \1' I ; II j 11 1 i 1� iIj f 1 III J ! ' . 1 1 ' 1 1 `l I 1 80 ' - 1 1 I 1i1 � 1 70— I 11 I �� I I j I I I l �Ij � �� 1I ,; 11 I 1 . i I it a ' Ii , � I II1 IH I II I i H a. 50 ! ! '� ! 1 � ', ( 1I Ii � j li t I ,I i Ia w 40 • I . I j 1 I; 1 . I 30 I 1 ' i I � � 1 II x. 111 , ! 1 � 1 '° 1 Ii1 � 11 �li it 1 I1 i ' I II IIII I 1 • I°' ( I itH o L �jl11! iHii 1 EZ O.U1 6 4 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS f CLASS. i 1 SAMPLE LIQUID !PLASTICITY SAND I LOCATION LIMIT 1 INDEX Cc Cu EQUIV (USCS) • a o e.s I I I I 1 I i I1 J.N. 298-87 COMBINED PARTICLE r November, 1996 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I SIZE ANALYSIS 1 PLATE B-2 FR011 Petra GeotecF,ni cel PHONE NC. : 714 549 14x+ Nov. 2? 1926 05:37AH P4 muulunt • utNS1T " s Boring No., Job No.: 1 ,p ,- [rent No.: r...4!' !rr- , Somple No.�� Dcpth 111., : locmion: 7/�fr� II Tested By: (i� Date: ~- /S0 0 -+' J I I i 1 ; I ; TEST DATA N • :annum COMPAt OAI 2 SIZE (7..r.?,Cc . i ...l � TCST STANDARD MOlO � ■■tswson■a■r■ro■tur■� W.40., .1 W. t /00 29'30 I 140 .aaa'■.vvw■■■l■o eae.a !!lIMILta ill l � -=2(c "sem r■dnLRramR■■aoAar■. ? �. rmo'rttu■■■so■■r■■ i w.;o: d 040,1 [�^j7 74 ISL O rr�rprt�u■L�rrtm��r�r�r�ap�rap IIIM tNIMUn;■1� NA elw.;.b f.f ? r.O' 1 2/ce 4-„L„.10:----.. s : ,� Net Del 04.1.6, /31r) I ' II �.: .1. v 13D ' i , ( 4i � Hood D .s,,,,,. r Lvtan-e oh D...:h V /.24(7 VLSI .,_• ••••_----- aninara k �a I MOISTURE 0[ERMR1AT10N r, / G) \ Y I 0491 WI. d 3011 C,�/�s�� j?T.. 'I y r L Ton _ C-14-6 120 ' '�' a l� �Tr=�y��2 D� 11. Tare 1�''��9'L.(("��1.�...$��,/ .� �___ ( NKL%6tsII Wen,et Tole .�17 6 .i 111 tl RI 1 1 1 1 ! 1 � � Not L.N M.Dgn I 1 ' , t l WI Wt. Dry Son I ry I I _ 0- r t , I 1 i i ®L.7�7.i►►'L� "MDry wdebt ~ z' b,/ /DJ • W 1 10MI ,L Y I . 1,.57 RESULTS_ _ _ N ' I a I ' F I 1 , ' L CUSSINCATLON /, 4 2/ r■m!! yenii anamssaisb� 11 u _ !' i .14N4('t n, ` 1Q0 . , 1 I 1 1 1 I ; ' ' 1 I I , I4 I L MOs. Dry Dentily OVfinv,n Moil tutc • , 1111 I I I1 , 1 II , II , I bad e�p� 9� z MpIC � f2 brir.. u. lThilliffilla ac 90 l r l ■■■wirona unsaooaa.■lrlt IIMUMMENI �p ■■�t9o►�■■■rraar■a■r M O I S T U R E mt■■rarmora■■'lilrna atan ■a■■�.r.■a■ e. tur■ara■r■ilanni rao■ IMflaua�;aa■■ad N T 80NEIN9_aa■ra■!r■■.■■raa■a�•,ra�rrra■■r■oara■r su•Mionnaie�orr■r■■■ratt■a■r■ anrwrrrr, 1 I 1 • ' ■r!.■attsaaraa►■1�-��nkg•II arr IE 04••••• rLu ` tilu . + ■■mam�■`ii'eo��r■rr■■■a.au W t. yy�� mil , )-� ■r■ate VYrr■■ra�a ,..^.r asamos■■■a r ■anteaso w■■aar.�M�sztimssTril W 4.. 70 appra■■■ ■rap■■w■■ols■rra■aI■■ Ikwuk•kik _m rr■rarrr■rr■r r err rw■rr■1llraramwau�►91•►�.•■■■■ tnrrr� ws2"'iar.■ar■ra.■wrr►s.� wa � mitla k■ a■r■r■ aaa.r■■■ra■ra.�a llk" nanisialliNnliWNW■.lira■■■■■rs■a■■a p"!I '� HIlla •bib I 1 , 1 1 , I , , , , , rrraa■■W ii i': I , � 1i•' „ "r SO ba 60 30 40 0 10 '`0 • 'MOISTURE AS 7. OF DRY WEIGHT Jab. No.: roL Ye Petra Ceotechnicai, Inc. 8 FRGf1 : Petra Gcotecivn:ca! PHONE NO. : 714 549 1432 Nov. 27 1' 6 03:10P11 P3 ** PCSTABL5M. ** by • Purdue University --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop • or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 11-26-95 Time of Runt 3 : 51pm Run By: Input Data Filename : C:298 . INP Output Filename: C:298 .0UT Plotted Output Filename: C:298 .PLT • PROBLEM DESCRIPTION • BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 5 Total Boundaries • Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 . 00 100 . 00 200. 00 100 . 00 1 2 200 . 00 100 . 00 260 . 00 130 . 00 1 • 3 260 . 00 130 . 00 266 . 00 130 . 00 1 4 265 .00 130 . 00 325 . 00 160 .00 1 5 326 . 00 1,50 . 00 500 . 00 160 . 00 1 • ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type (s) of Soil • Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piet. Type Unit Wt . Unit wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No . (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120 . 0 120 .0 100 . 0 34 . 0 . 00 . 0 0 77923c' 9 FROM : Peira. Geotecnnc.ai PHONE NO. : 714 549 1439 Nov. 27 1996 03:10PM P- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. • 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150 . 00 ft . and X = 200 . 00 ft . Each Surface Terminates Between X = 260 . 00 ft. and X . 400 .00 ft . Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y • .00 ft. 15. 00 ft. Line Segments Define Bach Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First . • * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Pointe • Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (f_) 1 200 .00 100 . 00 2 214 . 70 102 . 98 3 229 .28 106. 51 4 243 .71 110 . 50 5 257 . 92 115 .23 6 272 . 06 120 .40 7 285 . 93 126. 11 8 295 ,58 132 . 34 9 312 . 97 139 . 09 10 326 . 10 146 . 34 11 338 . 95 154 . 06 12 347 . 9E 160 . 00 Circle Center At X - 129 . 6 ; Y - 486 . 0 and Radius, 392 .4 • *** 1 . 853 *** /D FROM : Petra. Gootcc'vi:c.Ei PHONE NO. . 714 549 1433 No. 27 1996 03: 11PM PS Individual data on the 14 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top ' Sot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft (m) Lbs (kg) Lbs (k3) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) 1 14 .7 3859.2 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .0 . 0 2 14 . 6 10937. 6 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 3 14 .4 15790 . 5 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .0 , 0 4 14 .3 21415 . 8 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 5 2 . 0 3369.2 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 6 6. 0 9305 . 8 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .0 7 6. 1 8887 .3 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 9 13 . 9 22040 . 9 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 - . 0 9 13 . 6 23170 . 9 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 .0 10 13 . 4 23:89 . 9 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 11 13 . 0 21978 . 6 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 12 . 1 170 . 9 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 13 12 .8 15088 . 9 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 14 9.0 3199. 7 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 • Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 155 .56 100.00 • 2 170 .42 97. 97 3 185 . 40 97. 15 4 200 . 39 97 . 53 215 , 31 99 . 12 6 230 . 05 101 . 90 7 244 . 52 105 .85 8 258 . 52 110 . 95 9 272 .26 117 . 19 10 235.37 124 .49 11 297. 94 132 . 83 12 309 .60 142 . 14 13 320. 57 152 .35 14 327. 35 160. 00 Circle Center At X - 198 . 2 ; 1 - 283 . 0 and Radius, 155 . 9 *** 1 . 954 *** Failure Surface Specified Sy 8 Coordinate Points • ii FROM : Petra Geoteconital PHONE 1.10. : ?14 549 1439 Nov. 27 1995 03:11PM PS Point X-Surf Y-Surf Nc. (ft) (ft) 1 194 . 44 100 . 00 2 209. 38 98 . 59 3 224 . 31 100 . 06 4 238 . 67 104 . 39 5 251. 95 111 . 37 6 2663 . 54 120 . 77 7 273 .32 132 .23 8 274 .42 134 .21 Circle Center At X = 209 .2 ; Y - 176. 0 and Radius, 77 .4 *** 1. 973 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft; (ft) 1 188 . 89 100 .00 2 203 . 79 98 .26 • 3 216 .70 99 . 89 4 232 . 88 104 .79 • 5 245 . 61 112 .72 6 255 ,25 123 .29 7 260 . 50 130 . 00 Circle Center At X = 204 . 0 ; Y = 165 .2 and Radius , 67 . 0 *** 1 . 973 *** • Failure Surface specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf Nc. (ft) (ft) 1 183 . 33 100 , 00 2 197. 99 96 . 62 3 212 . 95 95 . 67 4 227 . 92 98.58 5 242 .63 99. 52 6 256.80 104 . 45 7 270 . 16 111 .27 8 282 .46 119. 85 9 293 .48 130 . 02 • /02 FROM : Petr=. Geotechri tal PHONE NO. : 714 549 1438 Nov. 27 1996 03:12F11 P7 • 10 303 . 00 141 . 61 11 309 . 11 151 . 55 Circle Center At X = 213 . 8 ; Y = 205 . 2 and Radius, 109. 5 ' *** 1. 987 *** Failure Surface Specified ?y 7 Coordinate Points • Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 200 . 00 100 . 00 2 214 . 95 98.72 3 229.81 100 . 74 4 243 . 87 105 . 96 5 256 .45 114 . 13 6 266 .93 124 . 86 7 271. 93 132 . 97 Circle Center At X - 213 . 3 ; Y = 166 . 8 and Radius, 68 . 1 *** 2 . 002 *** Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) • 1 166 . 67 100 . 00 2 181 .58 98 .43 3 196 . 57 97 . 79 4 211 . 57 98 . 09 5 226 . 52 99 .23 6 241.36 101. 50 7 256. 04 104 . 60 8 270.49 108 . 61 9 284 . 67 113 . 51 10 298 .51 119. 29 11 311. 96 125 . 92 12 324 . 98 133 . 38 13 337 . 50 141 . 54 14 349.48 150 . 67 15 350 .38 160 .00 Circle Center At X = 199 .2 ; Y - 337. 6 and Radius, 239. 8 /3 FROM : Petra Geote„nnicai PHONE NO. : 714 549 1433 Mak). 27 1996 07.1 PM Pie *** 2 . 006 *** Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Poinca Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 161 . 11 .100. 00 2 175 . 73 96. 64 3 190 . 61 94 . 76 4 205 .61 94 . 40 5 220 . 56 95 . 56 6 235 .33 98 . 22 7 249.74 102 .35 8 263 . 67 107. 92 9 276. 97 114 .87 10 289.49 123 . 12 11 301. 12 132 . 59 12 311 . 74 143 . 19 13 321.22 154 .81 14 323 . 99 158 . 99 Circle Center At X = 201 . 7 ; Y = 242 .3 and Radius, 148 . 0 ww* 2 .010 *** Failure Surface Specified Ey 10 Coordinate Pointe Point x-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) • 1 194 . 44 100 . 00 2 209. 14 97 . 01 3 224 . 13 95 .49 4 239. 00 99 .46 5 253 . 34 102 . 86 6 256.76 109 . 57 7 278 . 37 118 .42 8 289.36 129 . 14 9 297 .92 141 .45 10 300 . 71 147. 25 Circle Center At X = 219 . 8 ; Y = 186 . 0 and Radius, 89 .7 *** 2 . 029 *** 1 C:298.PLT zr Ten Most Critical. C:298.PLT 11-26-96 3:51pm o 400 t 1 -1— 1 cu 4 FS Soil Tetel Sreurated Cohesion Friction Pero Pressure Pin. C) ▪ 1.85 Type Unit Wi. Unit Wt. InterceptnAngle Pressure Constant Surface o b 1.96 No. 1121) 120 70o WO Pram. Sp0 y I No. n c 1.97 34 a 1.99 3 • 1.99 r 2.00 }iii s 2.01 b 2.01 I 2.03 300 i 2.04 _ 6 m 0 Y-Axis 200 "' (ft) a AA h b ein rr j A d j Y 100 = - 0 i. Y 0 0 t---'-' "----____L____ -- I -- 1 W 0 100 200 300 ` 400 500 PCSTABL5M FSmin= 1 .85 X-Axis (It) Factors Of Safety Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method l'' CA FROM : Petra Gee-technical PHONE NO. : 71, 5.c 1439 hb•-•. 2' 1996 03:13PM P10 ** PCSTABL5M ** by Purdue University • --Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Scencer's Method cf Slices Run Date : 11-26-94 Time of Run: 3 :49pm Run By: Input Data Filename: C:298A. INP Output Filename: C:298A.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:258A. PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION • BOUNDARY COORDINATES • 5 Tcp Boundaries 5 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below End 1 .00 100 . 00 200 . 00 100 . 00 1 2 200 .00 100 . 00 250 . 00 130 . 00 1 3 260 . 00 120 . 00 266 . 00 130 . 00 1 4 266 . 00 130 .00 326 . 00 160 . 00 1 5 226 .00 160 . 00 500 . 00 160 . 00 1 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Pied. Type Unit Wt . Unit Wt . Intercect Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120 . 0 - 120 . 0 100 . 0 34 . 0 . 00 . 0 0 4 FP011 : Petra Geotr_c-mica! PHONE NO. : 714 54? 143E Nov. 27 1996 93:14PM P11 A Horizontal Earthquake Loadinc Coefficient Of .290 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = . 0 psf • A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced • Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150 . 00 ft . • and X = 200 . 00 ft . Each Surface Terminates Between X 260 . 00 ft . and X - 400 . 00 ft . Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = . CO ft . 15.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Followinc Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated Sy The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 200 . 00 100 . 00 • 2 214 . 70 102 . 9e 3 229. 28 105 . 51 4 243 . 71 110 . 60 5 257. 98 115 . 23 5 272 . 06 120 .40 7 285. 93 126 . 11 • 8 299. 58 132 .34 72rn737 /7 FROM : Petra Oeotec'knical PHONE NO. : 714 549 1439 New. 27 "_996 03:14PM P12 9 312 . 97 139 . 09 10 326 . 10 146 . 34 11 338 . 95 154 . 06 12 347 . 96 160 . 00 Circle Center At X = 129 . 6 ; Y = 485 . 0 and Radius, 392 .4 *** . 991 *** Individual data on the 14 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Sot Norm Tan Hor ver Load No. Ft (m) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) 1 14 .7 3859 .2 . 0 . 0 . 0 .0 1119. 2 . 0 .0 2 14 .6 10937 . 6 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 3171 . 9 . 0 . 0 3 14 . 4 16790 . 5 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 4859 . 2 . 0 . 0 4 14 . 3 21415 . 8 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 6210 . 6 . 0 .0 5 . 2 . 0 3369 .2 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 977. 1 . 0 . 0 6 6. 0 9305 .8 . 0 . 0 . 0 '. 0 2638 . 7 . 0 . 0 7 6. 1 8887 .3 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 2E77 .3 . 0 . 0 E 13 . 9 22040 . 9 .0 . 0 . 0 . 0 6391 .8 . 0 .0 .9 13 . 6 23170 . 9 .0 . 0 . 0 . 0 6719. 5 . 0 .0 10 13 .4 2318a .9 .0 . o . 0 . 0 6724 . 3 . 0 .0 11 13 . 0 21978 . 6 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 6373 . 8 . 0 . 0 12 . 1 170. 9 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 49. 6 . 0 . 0 13 12 .8 15088.9 .0 .0 . 0 . 0 4375.8 . 0 .0 14 9.0 3199. 7 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 927 . 11 . 0 . 0 Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X o"urf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 166 . 67 100 . 00 2 181 .58 96 .43 3 195 .57 97. 79 4 211 .57 98 . 09 5 226 . 52 99 . 33 6 241. 36 101 . 50 7 256 . 04 104 .60 8 270 .49 108 .61 9 284 . 67 113 . 51 10 298 .51 119.29 11 311. 96 125 . 92 12 ' 324 . 98 133 . 38 13 337 . 50 141 . 64 14 349. 43 150 . 67 15 360 . 38 160 . 00 Circle Center At X = 199 .2 ; Y = 337 . 6 and Radius, 239. 8 it, FROM : Pe_r-e. Geotechrr.o i PHONE NO. : 714 549 1438 Nov. 27 1995 03:15PM P13 *** 1 . 059 r** Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf • No. (ft) (ft) 1 155. 56 100 . 00 2 170 .42 97 . 97 3 185 .40 97. 15 4 200.39 37. 53 5 215.31 99 . 12 6 230 . 05 101 . 90 7 244 .52 105 . 35 8 258 . 62 110 . 96 9 272 .26 117 .19 10 285 .37 124.49 11 297 .84 132 . 83 12 209.60 142 . 14 13 320 .57 152 .36 14 227.55 160 . 00 Circle Center At X = 188 .2 ; Y = 283 . 0 and Radius, 185 . 3 •{* 1 .067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 16 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 155. 56 100 . 00 2 170 , 23 96 .87 3 185 . 09 94 . 83 4 200 .06 92 . 90 5 215 . 06 94 . 07 6 230 . 00 95. 36 7 244 . 81 97. 74 8 255.40 101 .21 9 273 . 70 105 . 76 10 287. 62 111 .34 11 301 . 09 117 . 94 12 - 314 . 04 125 .52 13 326 . 38 134 . 02 14 338 . 07 143 .44 15 349 . 03 153 . 68 /9 FROM : Petra Geote::EnIcal PHONE N0. : '14 549 1432 Nov. 17 19% 03:15PM P14 16 354 . 86 160 . 00 Circle Center At X = 205.2 ; Y = 296 . 1 and Radiva, 202 . 3 *** 1 . 093 *** Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points Point X_-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 161 . 11 100 . 00 2 175. 73 96 . 64 3 190 .61 94 . 76 4 205.61 94 .40 5 220 . 56 95 . 56 6 235.33 98.22 7 249.74 102 .35 . 8 263 . 67 107 . 92 9 276. 97. 114.87 10 289.49 123 . 12 11 301 . 12 132 .59 12 311 . 74 143 . 19 13 - 321.22 154 .81 14 323 . 99 158 . 99 Circle Center At X - 201 .7 ; Y = 242 .3 and Radius, 148 . 0 xx* 1 . 095 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 183 .33 100 . 00 2 197 .99 96 . 82 3 212 . 95 95. 67 4 227. 92 96. 58 5 242 .63 99. 52 00 256. 80 104 .45 7 270 . 16 111 .27 8 2E2 .46 119 . 85 9 293 . 43 130 . 02 10 303 . 00 141 . 61 11 309 . 11 151 .55 FROM : Petra Geotecrr c=-: • PHONE H0. : 714 549 143E1 Nov. 27 1996 0.3:16PM P15 Circle Center At X = 213 . 8 Y = 205 . 2 and Radius, 109 .5 **4 1 . 106 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 194 .44 100. 00 2 209.33 98 .59 3 224 .31 100 . 08 4 238 . 67 104 .39 5 251 . 95 111 .37 5 263 . 64 120 . 77 7 273 . 32 132 .23 8 274 .42 134 .21 Circle Center At X = 209. 2 ; Y = 175. 0 and• Radius, 77 .4 *** 1 . 110 *** • Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) - 1 200. 00 100 . 00 2 214 , 95 98 . 72 3 229. 81 100 .74 4 243 .87 105. 96 5 255 .45 114 . 13 6 266 . 93 124 .86 7 271 . 93 132 . 97 Circle Center At X - 213 .3 ; Y = 166 . 8 and Radius, 68. 1 *** Failure Surface Specified Sy 7 Coordinate Pcints d/ FROM : Petra Geotechnical PHONE NO. : 714 5=:9 1433 Nov. 27 1996 03:16FM P16 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 180 . 89 100 . 00 2 203 . 79 98 . 26 3 219 . 70 99 . 89 4 232 . 88 104 . 79 5 245 . 61 112 . 72 6 256 .25 123 . 29 7 26.0 .50 130 . 00 Circle Center At X - 204 .0 ; Y - 165 .2 and Radius, 67 . 0 *** 1 . 132 *** Failure Surface Specified Sy 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 194 .44 100 . 00 2 209. 14 97 . 01 3 224 . 13 96 .49 4 239. 00 98 .46 5 253 .34 102 . 86 6 265 . 76 109 .57 7 278 .87 118 .42 8 289 .36 129 . 14 9 297 . 92 141.46 10 300.71 147 . 36 Circle Center At X = 219 .8 ; Y = 186. 0 and Radius, 89. 7 *** 1 . 138 *** _22)- i , 0 C:298A.PLT 2. Ten Most Critical. C:298A.PLT 11-26-96 3:49pm n 400 -- 1 1 1 Ii, # FS Sao Total Saturated Ceheslon Friction Porn Pressure Plea. a 0.99 Type Salt Wt. Unit Wt- Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface p L 1.06 N1• 11 x4 11t Ted pt Perim. V Na. n c 1.07 4 e 1.09 3" e 1.10 ti, f 1.11 e 1.11 I 1.13 i 1.13 300 - a 1.14 — u g m 0 Y-Axis — 200— (ft) -J a P ee d F f Ot U r ),111.1"/ ,--,n i.7 // \ — 100 1 - - ,._,..,... _ -� T c ti J Np „D S 0 0 I I , 1 _ I CA •. 0 100 200 300 400 500 PCSTABLSM FSmin=0.99 X-Axis UI) Factors Of Safety Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method • JULY IW18 GT7 -: GT7 - DEFORMATIONS 863 1.I ' mmnent displacements arc shown in Fig. 9(b). For a ratio of k,/k,,,, of 1 displacements Int each embankment were normalitedwith respect to itscalculated f!2 [be calculated displacements in this case. ranged between. 30 au-200 cit . first natural period, 5'n, and with respect to the mastmum value, k,,,, , of the (12 in.-80 iii.), and for ratios greater than 9.5 the displacements were less than _ average accelernlhm lime history used in the computation. The resulting norma- ' n 15 cm (0.8 Ill.' Used permanent displacements for the three different earthquakes ale presented I `• In the cases.analyzed for the 8-1/4 magnitude earthquake, an artificial • In Fig. 11(a). It may he seen that a substantial reduction in the scatter of 111 accch:rugtam proposed by Seed and Idriss (21) was used with maximum bate the data is achieved by this normalization procedure as evidenced by comparing I ry' acccletati<ms of 0.4 g and 0.75 g, Two embankments were analyzed in this the results in Figs. 10(h)and 11(a),This shows that forthc ranges of embankment i u casr, and their calculated natural periods ranged between 0.8 sec and 1.5 sec. heights considered in [kis study 175 It--150 ft (50 m-65 m)1 the first natural 11 Table 4 shows the details of the calculations and in Fig. 10(a) the results or ' period of the embankment and the nraxirumn value of acceleration time history the permanent displacement computations are presented. As call he seat from may be considered as two of the parameters having a major influence. on the Fig. Iota) the permanent displacements computed for a ratio of k„/k,,, of calculated permanent displacements. Average curves for the normalized Reimer- i ��� D2 ranged between 200 cm-700 cm (8t1 in.-28 in.), and for ratios higher than sent displacements based on the results in Fig. 11(a) are presented in pig. 0.5 the values were less than 100 cm (40 in.). Note in this case that values ", 11th). Although some scatter still exists in the results as shown in Fig. l lie). of deformations calculated for a yield ratio less than 0.2 may not be realistic. - the average curves presented in Fig. I1(h) arc considered adequate to provide An envelope of the results obtained for each of the Duce earthquake loading an order of magnitude of the induced permanent displacements for different ) / J ��i�fY,l r !/j - Bol 'L•1/4,--art y,�(,)�11 —Tr '�\` ._—_.. • fr7 r ry C .i err / y. \l \ a.-J. • . err.. �-' /yy n-P:: `I .1 4- •-?"i-../i• . I ` . '. I H.r w. r Sil ` Jul Y at I lL In 1 _1 rsn0 nr, _ ai— —.Oe q17--;1— c• O. —air ,o o'C-.�i at ei iJ-1 Illi—1 - n 'Z'r-"— a d. lar a, .,n,,,, 4.1..... t;A FIG. i1.—Variarinnot yletd Arceleratian with: (a)Nonnalired Permenent Displace- FIG t3.—Variation of Permanent Displacement with Yield Acceleration: to Magid- mant--Surwmsryof All Data;and(b)Average Normalized Owa [:mem. rude 8-1/11 Earthquake: (b)Summery of All Date magnitude earthquakes. At yield acceleration ratios less than 0.2 the average conditions is presented in Fig. 10(b)and reveals a large scatter in the computed curves are shown as dashed lines since, as mentioned earlier, the calculated results reaching, is the case of the magnitude G-I/2 earthquake, about one displacements al these low ratios may be unrealistic. S order of magnitude. - Thus, to calculate the permanent deformation in an embankment constructed It can reasonably be expected that for a potential sliding Hass with a specified - of a soil that does not change in strength significantly during art earthquake, to OD yield acceleration, the magnitude of the permanent deformation induced by itissufficient to determine its maximum crest acceleration, n,,,,, and first a certain'earthquake loading is controlled by the following factors: (I) The natural period, To, due to a specified earthquake. Then by the use of the tri amplitude of induced average accelerations, which is a function of the base relationship presented in Fig. 7. the maximum value of average acceleration m motion, the amplifying characteristics of the embankment, and the location of L history, k,,,,, for any level of the specified sliding mass may be determined. the sliding mass Within the embankment;(2)the frequency content of the average Entering the curves in Fig. 11(b) with the appropriate values of k,,,, and 7'r, 0 acceleration time history, which is governed by the embankment height and the permanent displacements can be determined for any value of yield acceleration nu stiffness characteristics, and is usually dominated by the first natural frequency , associated with that particular sliding surface. of the embankment; and (3) the duration of significant shaking, which is a G has been assumed earlier in this paper that in the majority of embankments. -n function of the magnitude of the specified earthquake. - permanent deformations usually occur due to slip of a sliding mass on a horizontal r" Thus to reduce the largescatter exhibitedin the data in Fig. F(Hb),theperrnanent ; falureplane. For those few instances where sliding might occur on au inclined k / Q RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW SHEET REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS INCLUDING: Report Date Date Received Type of Report Preliminary (Initial) 0 Soil Report _ Ingrading or Interim Roughgrade Compact] ElGeologic Report Supplement or Addent x Grading Plan Review X Geotechnical 1-18-89 5-8-89 10-3-96 Paving Design 6-28-89,9-23-96 Final Design X Response 11-29-96 12-3-96 By the Consulting Firm Petra Geotechnical Their Job# 298-87 Tract# 23064-1.2.3 Site Address Redhawk Specific Plan, Rancho California area Lots Grading Plan Check No. (if any) Log#'s 407822. 407823(408234'• 1 Preliminary Grading Permit (# if issued) Precise Grading Permit (#if issued) Assessor's Parcel No(s). Distribution Developer/Owner R.H. Acquisition- Steve Ford X Address 355 N. Lantana St. Ste. 670. Camarillo. CA 93010 Civil Engineer/Architect Ranpac Engineering Soil Engineer Petra Geotechnical Engineering Geologist Petra Geotechnical ACTION ❑ Report Approved X Report Approved Subject to Conditions below: ❑ Prior to approval of report attend to ❑ Prior to report approval and issuance of grading permits submit: The recommendations made in the above referenced reports be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. • cc: Grading / Land Use Report reviewed by: ✓ / Dam: 12-16-96 Steven A. upfe Se. or Ti gin g eologist CEG-1205 G\GEOREV.7R23W4 973 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT REVIEW SHEET i/ REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAT REPORTS INCLUDING. Report Date Date Received Type of Report Preliminary(Initial) ❑ Soil Report Ingrading or Interim Roughgrade Compacti X Geologic Report 4/8/97 4/10/97 Supplement or Addenc Grading Plan Review ❑ Geotechnical _ Paving Design Final Design X Rough Grade 3/12/97 4/10/97 x Interim Fault Eval. By the Consulting Firm Petra Geotechnical. Inc. Their Job# 569-96 Tract# 23064-2 Site Address Redhawk Specific Plan Lots 1-5 (Jvlodel Site) Grading Plan Check No. (if any) Log#408234 Preliminary Grading Permit (#if issued) Precise Grading Permit (#if issued) Assessor's Parcel No(s). Distribution Developer/Owner Colrich Communities X Address 4141 J tl n I Dr . Ste 200. San Diego. CA 92117 Civil Engineer/Architect Ranpac Engineering Soil Engineer Petra Geotechnical X Engineering Geologist Petra Geotechnical x ACCTION 0 Report Approved X Report Approved Subject to Conditions below: 0 Prior to approval of report attend to 0 Prior to report approval and issuance of grading permits submit: This clearance covers the Model Lots (-55)only. Suhmia , , , t „ 'tot . ' it' •” r.' ,1•,•1• I , ,d •, ' , - 1 • - • 1:. ',• ,,: n. •„ ,; made prior to grading clearance of further lots associated with this tract. The fault evaluation report shall be submitted to cc: Grading Lind Use / 4 / —) Report reviewed by: . > aft�� Date: 5/20/97 Steven A. Kupferman, :nior ee g Geologist CEG-1205 G:\GEOREV.TR23064 NTS ASSOCIATES TEL :714-362-0018 Aug 03 .98 22:37 No .004 P .08 JUL 22 '98 89;35c1 1995 MAR?,e STREET DAVID P,ZWE \ RIVERSIDE,CA 92501 • MACS stu > • i+ , 909/275.1200 Mi r� 909!780-9965 FAX RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 14913.1 AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT June 24, 1007 Mr. Khaled Othman Subdivision Engineer Riverside County Transportation Department County Administrative Center Riverside, California peer Mr. Othman: Re: Tract 23064-2 (Improvement Plan Ck. 04) In accordance with the conditions of approval for tentative Tract 23084 set forth in our tetter to the Riverside County Planning Department dated June 22, 1988, the following plans, prepared by Trans-Pacific Consultants, have been Submitted to the District for review: 1. Tract 23064-2, redlined street improvement plans, dated March 26, 1997, consisting of 13 sheets, received by the District March 26, 1997.. 2. Tract 23064-2, rough grading plans, dated April 22, 1007, consisting of 6 sheets, received by the District April 23, 1997, 3, Tract 23064-2, final map, dated March 28, 1997, consisting of 12 sheets, received by the District March 26, 1997. 4. Treat 23084-2, hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. The plans have been reviewed and appear to Meet those conditions for development imposed by the County. The Flood Control District has no objection to the recordation of the final map, or issuance of appropriate permits. A "Flood Control Clearance Form" may be required when permits are applied for. The County Department of Building end Safety must ensure that the developer has obtained a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer o: Trans-Pacific Consultants Attn: Mr. Jai Kim Dept. Of Building and safety �\ .. Attn: Tony Ramaamooj /^ OVA:s1j - s Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc _. _ -x,_• _- __ ._-.— _ .. _ . — ..27431Enterprise Circle West _ --- ft".P.4.-r. i, Temecula CA-92590 - (909)676-7000 ♦Fax(909) 699-7324 - Trans-Pacific' c .. .. CONSULTANTS - -. _ . . _ : LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .TO: 4,..oLt1gS``'C 1 ._YDATE`-- :---- -- -'PROJECTNO - i\4- - oy LO A-✓R-M 0 _ . Utf Cr I'ix1 4't E--s-21/2 ATTENTION: 40 Ute'' peyr . I SUBJECT: . Ti. 'tn,'17 (P•5 - 1 9012,46 SIS . We are transmitting via: Overnight Messenger US Mail Facsimile Pick-Up NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 •f-c%) � -71 . �itr7-7. cF p, ,ue t- S 0?-)G 6 ) . AP?‘A CATI O-j , Tt7 619 k 5 c-x" ' t -I4jHt rt 2 • cz-ic C.) �c'4 ; l$ 334 s� i.J ourof -V v o 8Co- to-7 A6 r✓ri ottc: E . These are transmitted as checked below: your review Per your request , .oryourapproval For signature For Your Use Other - • . Remarks: • If you h e any questions,please feel free to contact me at. - tz.0vRn10 n ' W - chron 10. I 'V . 11.r "e 12. Z. SAN �> ., <. M / >< TeFjc . 3 ir, s. �1 q eel✓ l' C v1 y y�� / 1I I rrf. � „leZ . / ' \ \ /5 Cut 2Lvd J /T L \\ ��� • ¢IC. L y. r v\ 3f; FSC. \ • -TENTA TVE TRACT 2973416. (L 0T 87 - TRACT 23064-2) , \\:„. \ SEE SHEET NO. 2 17. \p '% Si C1 uF , L fi, A ;,y,I" C' J'of Ce.-v,, yj E: C. 3i .> T i - o' S- C= llilT- fnn /l y4. "- ° 19. , / \ e� 20. • \ TT 0 ,� X ' . .......„ „...„_ ,frc, _ . � / � ' k. Y Y• 22. O e,r 23. • EXHIBIT A RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES i�ia �� � = St\ .. lie• -‘17W- #0# . \ alai 0,.. -,--. --.4,- • - ..) -3-L--- c.... \ - ig?./>•-•..,2,, - • --- A -."-:* tr.::: . 2 • ... - -0.....L \---&_=-_. rtf-ini7- --- It IrS\-41- -:111.7 a ere . 0/(7,....7 �. 7.° .47 `1\11-0.1- 6.\ O NO. 23064-3 ' . tee.' t\-1,- \. O N a� O/4 ' - . • ,kA GOLF COURSE \•\ \ • NO. 23064-1 I ` - ` • • . • TR NO. 23084-• 2 %/ \� 141. .• \ \` _ •. _44\ \* .. \ ._ _ y \ 4 • \T1\ `\ 000 >4 srI: .. i� __ \ 0 • \\• I,-. j/ \.,. . \Ne.......--- g .. • /.43.• LEGENDI • /O = NOISE BARRIER / 6 O a MINIMUM NOISE BARRIER / HEIGHT (IN FEET) i , \ = MECHANICAL VENTILATION / REQUIRED \y/ 906-97-002:01 Ric,� REDMA.1'K TRACTS 23064-1 -2 -3 NCISE STUDY. Riv.rai6• County, Caifomia rent !CCCAIB K 6 • 04/11/2001 23:38 90950648211=f (-362 0 'a0 1=i 1e. THE GARRETT GROUP • - • APR-12-2001 THU 10;18 AM PETRA TEMECULA FAX NO,. (MASS &rtADC;� PAGE 02/03 P. 02 6.PETRA . ___. . COSTA MESA•SAN DIEGO•TEMECULA•LOS ANGELES -' "-' - - • - April 12,2001 • LN..165-01 - - . .._._ _ . THE GARRETT GROUP, LIC • 43529 Ridge Park Drive • - - Temecula,California 92590 Attention; Mr. Steve Ford Subject: Geotechnical Update Report,Tract 23065-I,Rcdhawk Acvelnprnent, 'Temecula Area,Riverside County;Calif rnia • Reference: Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 1989, Supplemental soils Engineering and Engineering Geologic Investigation.Portion ofRedhawk Project;Vesting • Tentative Tract map Nos. 23064, 23065, 23066, mid 23067. Rancho California, County of Riverside, California; Pr Great American • Development Company, I.N. 298-87,dated May 8, 1989. Pursuant to your authorization, Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra) has reviewed the above-referenced report and conducted a geologic site reconnaissance on April 10, 2001,to evaluate current site conditions with respect to those addressed in the above- referenced report. - As noted during our site reconnaissance, the subject tract remains in a relatively natural stale. There appears to be no significant changes to the property since the time • of our preliminary geotechnical investigation (Reference). llowever, some of the • adjacent tracts have been graded for consuuc(ion of residential structures-and a school site. Additionally,minor dump piles of soils and miscellaneous debris were noted in localized areas. Based on our review of the referenced report and geologic site reconnaissance, the conclusions and recommendations of the referenced report remain valid and should be adhered to during future grading. PEm.A MUCH-mon!.INC. 27670 Cemmarco Concur Or.519.103 Tom/cola CA 92590, . Tol:(909)699.6193 r0,:(909)699 6197• PrsforoeFUm,nal • • • �I l 1 0/ .04/11/2001 23:38 9095064821 THE GARRETT GROUP PAGE 03/03 APR-12-2001 THU 10:18 RM PETRA TEMECUEA FAX N0. P. 03 THE GARRETT GROUP,LLC April 12.2001 J.N. 165-01 f R 23065-1/Cemecu{a Area Page 2 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. _ . . . .. -Respectfully submitted, PETRA C{EOTEC:HNIC• GINE 711; aele ` Mark Bergin S N°. 13 p z, Principal Gcolog ' EXP. O �-r CEO 1348. Mll/kcb cn: te'; Distribution: (4) Addresscc STOCKPILE REGISTRATION FORM .�JJ�4 • GRADING DIVISION v /l- i • • TU 71-3aG _ Log. No.- E7 • ac. Fy0/ti /Req. No. LOCATION OF STOCKPILE: LOCATION OF BORROWSITE:.SIT_ E Address: :1f_ 412OG' - I ' ' . Address: TI�A;Or ZGY134j' 1 r. Assessor'is Parcel No. : Assessor's Parcel No. :.- Legal Degcription:_ Legal Description:---- —�— OWNER'S NAME: RibHAM( ('fNUttem1 rtss, IANC, OWNER'S NAME:PM4R41K 'eGi9r401%11rr6S- �� MAILING ADDRESS: L}9j921 eV'&G ., MAILING ADDRESS: 439 1(LID Ge. PA0V-- t -Te rnliCiL+‘,A. Cl); s2?,S�l PAI2-1L Aa. , 'Cetiw0i.' - 1 CR . °I aZ i QUANTITY;OF MATERIAL: IG ,iol 07( QUANTITY OF MATERIAL: MAX. DEPTH OF .STOCKPILE: _ MAX. DEPTH OF STOCKPILE: SLOPE RATIO:_ 24_1 PURPOSE OF STOCKPILE: Yat k20U61-1 GA&oj.110 DURATION OF S'TCCKPILE: PERMIT/LOG NO. 01' BORROiq BITE: t336b2 0102.0 Please show the approximate location on the stockpile in relation to property lines. Please include North arrow indicator. (The applicant must pro:i.ce any exhibit/drawing/plan showing details and dimensions of the proposal) . WARNING: Prior to a building permit being issued on the a.ren cr.-se::; stockpile permit, a grading permit, compaction report & letter c_f certificatinr may be required. Owners are responsible for maintaining the •,:it:es. BOTH OWNERS SHALL SIGN THE DISCLAIMER. ... � The issuance of this stockpile registration by the County of Riverside doesn't authorize the applicant to violate any rules and regulations set by Federal, State, County Ordinances, Laws and Departmental Policies, but not limited to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and any amendments thereto (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq) . f ., ;. I ($a5 hereby acknowledge by my signature that I (Md) have read-and agree with the above. STO LE—j�ir{{IITE OWNER(S) BORROW SI -E OWNER(S) S- GNI�TURE(�I! TYRE DATE 01/ ao AD, DATE 01 / aG /Oj .:OFFICIAL UE NLY;' OBTAIN FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTAL CLEARANCES: _Flood Control _Road Dept.. _Planning Dept. _Others ADDITIONAL REPORTS/PLANS REQUIRED: • _Archaeology Biologist Report(K-Rat) _E.A.R./E.I.R. _Soils Report Paleontology _Grading Plan _APPROVED BY: DENIED BY: DATE: / _/ - DATE: / / • REASON FOR DENIAL: Water Course Over 1000CY (Ord. 555) Others • . SIGNATURE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR: 280.12d REV.3/91 P Oct 12 01 01 : 31p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p. 5 1&01/01 12:06 5TDRN b.WTER + 909 699 7324 NU.5Ss P t'b' ho tcc'C _ I State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality Winston H. [CamDivision Sum•Sacrament°.Cel:femie 95114.1916)311-5537 Cray Davis Sroruery/or • Meiling Address: P.O.Boo 1977•Sarnmenio•California•95812.1977 Govemw Env:roman/at Protection FAX(916)341-5503-Intorno Menu: hapJlwwwswrcb.cagovMwmwsrtinecx.hunl P 12 r40 tein 02A October 01,2001 Date Processed:July 24,2001. w PAUL GARRETT • - REDHAWK COMMUNITIES INC 43529 RIDGE PARK DR TEMECULA,CA 92590 RECEIPT OF YOUR NOTICE OF INTEND The State Water Resources Control Board(State Water Beard)has received and processed your NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE TF_RMS OF THE GENERAL PERMITTO DISCHARGE STORM WATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. Accordingly,you are required to comply with • the permit requirements. - r i Your WDID identification number is:9 335316135. Please use this number in any rune communications regarding this permit. SITE DESCRIPTION OWNER:REDHAWK COMMUNITIES INC DEVELOPER:THE GARRETT GROUP LLC COUNTY:RI VERSIDE SITE ADDRESS:DEER HOLLOW WAY TEMECULA;CA 92590 ' COMMENCEMENT DATE:8/15/0I EST.COMPLETION DATE:12/1103 When construction is complete or ownership has been transferred,dischargers are required to notify the Regional Water Board by submitting a Notice of Termination(NOT). All Sate and local requirements must be - • met in accordance with Special Provision No.7 of the General Permit. I have enclosed a NOT for your future use. If you do not notify theStatz Water BnatdthatconstrUction activity has been completed you will continue to be invoiced for the annual fee each July. If you have any questions regarding permit requirements,please contact your Regional Water Board at (619)467.2972. Please visit the.storm water web pap at wwtw.swrcb.ca.gov/storrwStindex.htmt to.obtain • storm water related information and forms. • Sincerely, Storm Water Section Division of Water Quality Enclosure California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recycled Paper • t :,,,,,,,-- ,:.- t.- .. . . ,,, ( . .- — ___:__ __._:„. . . .. 11 IFS I. If , I'' _ raj 62 APN y,50 852 ()19 i ,L F �� t'� ; _ ' .:.--17----- 11 ___ �Y ea' ;r '?1 ,1�� ' ! • , I.I -.---..-..,:::-.-:---:.::::.:.;.-_-_-:-.7=z-:-...--,:::,-,---�=-= _ , '� � Ott alp Ica --'----- tilt-tf-...„ Oki I ' I .----...14Cr---:-.---..."---,L___• --:::::--_-_-__:-2::::: 1 1"•- 4.-::•s.: 1 Ail---- .."--.-.--'''' % _., ----- hiNil *44%- iliolt44441.:-:\• ' 7N i. • I; I ': k\ �� I tr f'"'1 �: \ �, APN 950--852-020 N 950 -85 ( / ` 11" \\. \, 1-020 I Tjc19;: . t:-.--/ ill darl 1 ititit 1,, • -(*` 4 • - /. 1...‘ / A 01111141111 .-7?.A‘ ci-1 . \ 11 'it i intim , L,_, 1>i:rid, 1, •) \ „ ----__________..... ,,,.,, A„. , . Iiiiii,„„„,,m ..,. . ...., i, 1 0) I 1?( ... 1 .:.- 4 -r- , \ ill'CV! �, APN 950-852-021 .�" fy1�Y/i •, a 80 �, o / •-7.......__..._zr 4 '''m'i"i'b. "—m—gn-.--iu--4 -,-,..,70 . , ,., . . , ., ,,,, , ,:, f/1 -1,0 ,;, - /did 1 `�1 ` ' OP,- il/ APN k i 950-852-022 I4 I0 'Ca I i • fl85 � ;; y t •,/ ! 1 r...„.I„,: , I /I 1 r' � t./ 1 i A4 r�� 1 .iii 1 ,s"RCP .— . , . ,I.al i . i • 'VIP --- - ;/!/ APN 950- - . \. ' • r CI - - /! 1,1 .x 852 023 '� � �,�- �„• I I>I 'L I 4,-440 rAIFF41 : //7/:, 6 f ‘1/, l � II A II #' if. iiihr4741' 4 1/7/./ . . • /I ' 0 firliyfe i : -A ./.. 1111110111111111111111 r41,4"--.'-- '''11411 - . ' illffill e, .. if , ,f 1 74 APN 950-852-024IiiiinrIMIII / -i/p., '�9 l 1 , • I y I - ,,• �" fir, l.-- _I � fir!.X� III!_ t • cAr 7,......._ ,,, , .,, ,,, ,! „..... . .. . 1///1 '1 ,„f, „„; 1 , -1 ,. . ., . �i .� . . ..,,, . ,, -As-, - -.. . - ----- - 1 • ,..,....._ iti:'''-------.. ---,7-71/ ' irifi ,..,,Til..,,., 5 ,,... • ,,,,, , • i t/ 1 ' % 1 l 1, . . , ,. . 9-)() -861.-q 1,5 •, 1 II . i1i l I 'Ij •, , i I I I I • \\`' � � r • /1 K.'...4....`N.1-, A ♦)\t • • \ P I � 11 , 1 _ • \9• • * � r 1 ;xAi I \ \ :. 7 %. t •• a., �1 :; _ � r --N c,)•"------4.- , S i -.,.__ irn. .' , , ..,. ,,, _.\.!....._...„..-,--. S. i!l!g4;%r ..., N‘1114,.. • Nillosali, . N.,L,,:- --"..7--- ---___ ...:-:: :•..-: ......'• \ 1 °34 lifl . I f)(;10.--------- ‘ .,. I .111111111111111111111 -:. • ` • ,',\ t f 1 ” " f : may`' tip;•, 01 Q,�*oy �►`� 1 • ! IF - I .; ' , ?/ : I at•-• 'O'rri 1111111110111111M I\ 110 i .1/ /I / 9 . . ,-,:, , . , i .,__ , 644 I1\ . ! ...• 4., 1 lit . \ L�.)(� • {, Ii 7--?,. , !l ,l, fj ( -\ 1~. a ..1�� • 7.-.1.-:;:_---1,--4r? /� `\ `-` `4-::' ' '... •.\. ''.--'4. ti. - i. L - - :,,,aiyi..,,,, ,/ . -- -\ ,, , , xr., / . . • \ • / ''-.'. ' 1' ' Nie .4o\ • ,' • . ):' ''' ---- -.--.1 • 1 i! A . ,,.-• - -.-. :z.. .i.j.1:...:_.___ ...._ C , , i • .. ;4. .....1.::...,..::. ::1-__-_xo...4.-..... ._...,._,_ *Hi: /.,.. -,:-.......::,:::..,,,, , ,,. .--_-...._•.7------.. ------- - .\:<.:..\-‹ .--------: .. -rig° 95U ,�.. -= /1 .\\---:7-• - - % - 1-O9f` .,--- I; :`; - ' 4.7 la 9 efs' - - = i t + 1 fir= -i,....1 -,-- ; I i ,, i ito-et.'''.\ ) .„...t. c y , . . , 1 : . .N. .‘• '' '' \ , . ', .•: '.".. it -- --ll _ 4_2_ i...piiii/! ) ' r . ' - it il I.'._,/ill.','":65./,is ( ''‘'y\\ \'': t99`.. ' 'T!`- • G ��•2f2nig�-�� -.'-417`.---.,;---:::-..„-•//.„:_.// ! r 1 1 .!, .\ i\..---;' '.- j i•'' .. `,`/� 1• . I JV' i j '• (j j: 1 ! } �72----7*--N....?^�' i��' / /.' r • APN 9 0..(5/62' r 1�� , �\ - ._._ fir 9.s5„(ll. , i 1''• a v. �. • ;`�,` 70 6 /� \ It } . a l., i \ 1 \ t. ', ‘ri \h' • • . ' •I • ..' ...., -1\- \\NN's \\\ \ \ ..__ \ \ \\s\S \, \ \\ ‘'. \ \\\.\\:\.\\,\, . -------- ."---..,f_ y • t in . ‘, j t „•'• , , , , ir \ \•)\\s\ \\ : I t �_ \. \ J 1 \ \ t •N. \ 27431 Enterprise Circle West Temecula,CA 92590.4833 Tel. (909)676-7000 Fax(909) 699-7324 e-mail:tpc@pe.ner Trans-IiiCifiC CONSULTANTS September 17, 2001 Mr. Anthony O. Ramsamooj County of Riverside County Building & Safety Dept Deputy Director-Grading 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92052-1409 Re: Tentative Tract 29734, BGR No. 010320 (Lot 87 of Tract 23064-2) Dear Tony, This letter is in regards to your recent plan check for the said above project dated August 27, 2001. We met with Mr. Stuart McKibbin of Riverside County Flood Control last September 13,2001 regarding this project asking their clearance in order for us to pull our grading permit. According to Mr. McKibbin, Flood Control does not review borrow site plans unless there is an obstruction to drainage structures or existing dams. You can call him directly if you have any concerns regarding the issuance of our grading permit. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (909) 676-7000, ext. 234. Sincerely, T' NS-PACIFIC CONSULTANTS a_ - R. _nd Francisco Project Manager cc: Steve Ford,The Garrett Group File No.645-005 Chron Professional Engineering Services Since 1976 `o Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. 27431 Enterprise Circle West ' - { Temecula, CA 92590 (909) 676-7000 ♦ Fax(909) 699=7324 Trans-Pacific • , COIISDLIAKTS • LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: V-+ 1° c.c�,tt•►" DATE PROJECT NO. 4;pty\LI: 6 *Wert f •/l,o . o l I t 111O ATTENTION: • -\'C 121%t'fl A m C7t)J Aetwite,,06 I Ch . SUBJECT: {242-00 5'1--erote. it, --/;30 5 -1 C-�►�-� - nr'rrp 1A-1054) o17 -yogi We are transmitting via: Overnight Messenger US Mail Facsimile-. Pick-Up NUMBER DESCRIPTION • These are transmitted as checked below: mor your review Per your request or your approval For signature For Your Use Other Remarks: v OTOGirLH chi61‘' � TVOTK . Wit'- V.)1;1495-1.- cap 1,t� t Pte. 0)'0a -r} i 1104 ,0- GnCZAO IT, If you ve any questions,please feel free to contact meat .�. } , iarrn 0 FP-Prc.CA 5 CAD . cc: File: C47441" OU' ! Chran- ave vfi 01/ Qt.! 02/ DO/ Q8 G'? Ob az ° 1 1 1 t t t t 1 1 i -04),/ �`' �' -. ani / \ / \ V // \•-- — ._ ,_ -OL 11 / a I, -.51_11 I Z-7 -0811 -561 i _ -o611 . / \ -al bbf l 1 HR Engineering, Inc. Engineers Planners Surveyors FOUNDERS PRINCIPALS Curs E. Hawkins Dale G Gladding Charles E. Robertson Alex R Cabral SEPTEMBER 20, 2001 KHALED OTHMAN SENIOR MANAGING ENGINEER RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PO BOX 1090 RIVERSIDE CA 92502-1090 RE: TRACT 29734 (LOT 87-TRACT 23064-2) ROUGH GRADING PLAN; BORROW SITE FOR TRACT 23065-1,-2; BGR 010320 - PLAN CHECK NO. 1 Dear Mr. Othman: As requested by the Riverside County Flood Control District, HR Engineering has completed Plan Check No. 1 for the subject project. In accordance with the conditions of approval for Tract 23064, as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 8, 1988 the following plans, prepared by Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc., have been submitted to the District on September 11, 2001 for review: 1 . Rough Grading Plan for the Borrow Site, stamp dated September 11, 2001, consisting of 2 sheets. 2. Erosion Control Plan, stamp dated September 11, 2001, consisting of 2 sheets. The Rough Grading Plan for the Borrow Site has been reviewed and is consistent with a previously approved Rough Grading Plan for Tract 23065-1. Therefore, the Flood Control District has no objection to the issuance of a grading permit. The County Department of Building and Safety must ensure that the developer has obtained a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) c uction permit prior to the issuance of a grading permit. incerely, oQr�Or`SS!pir v%,% DALE G. GLADDING No. 17055 P, CIVIL ENGINEER * Exp.6-30-2005 se •F OF q A11F��� 5\_„,k STUART E. McKIBBIN, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT c: Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. Attn: Roland Francisco Department of Building & Safety Attn: Tony Ramsamooj "-12".GC JTJo4Uas Drive, Suite A / Riverside, California 92501 /(909) 684-9522 / FAX (909) 684-2146 Oct 12 01 01 : 30p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324• p. 1 IP; 474.-EY FACSIMILE COVER SHEET ...Y h_l Total No, of Pages 5 Trans-Pacific Including Cover Sheet — CONS LTA NTS Date: October 12, 2001 To: Mr. Khaled Othman County of Riverside Telephone No.: (909) 955-3200 Fax No.: (909) 955-1806 From: H. Jei Kim, PLS TPC Telephone: 909-676-7000 ext. 227 Fax No.: 909-699-7324 Subject: Message: Per your request, see attached fax. 27431 Enterprise Circle West,Temecula, CA 92590 •Telephone 909-676-7000 ♦ Fax 909-699-7324 • 973 K Oct 12 01 01 : 30p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p. 2 . y...._ \ • � Trans-Pacific Consultants, Inc. %it 27431Circle _.v. Enterprise West • ..: ,, Temecula,CA 92590 (909)676-7000 4*Fax(909)699:7324 Trans-Pacific • • CONSULTANTS k LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL • To: acal -i-f Of ie412410e DATE PROJECT NO. 004170446 4) 4,4 te`t oe'r• i o- I- Cl 2 Fi.00(zr t i no 4 et ATTENTION: .1170 1-1""( b2Ar 144 YR cc-i P^Ietzs1 pe. I � orteol1 SUBJECT: Lac Qli- 'fCG4..'3'06 -2 CTS-+rare -(cony 2c}'134.� t3C4 N O, GKo7O'v9,4 <s$Ot ova ` GI-M) We are transmitting via: Overnight Messenger US Mail Facsimile.. Pick-Up NUMBER 4 DESCRIPTION Ore cxirc of -5114i 19-0ce rc FOe.•• V-40-1.1 dF r ge-ti- O S•n• O. cl 3 31&12z) — as WO. o1o7720/a. 2 0)46 STCGLP‘L, Y3e645fZAnC4 c CV- -5€. 2,1 00,5- 2— ,,,a9-1 Z—o 9`1 or T1Sc/ in- eqt -Z of c or h3Tar ✓ (Cp. ,PE . -4a52i1t,t3t ) , 1364 Ao , bic10t4 • These are transmitted as checked below: • For your review your request or your approval For signature For Your Use Other Remarks: • If you ht any questions,please feel free to contact me at raM. 234• . .���t• . • . • Izo 0.0 cc: /.-. File: (AC-00 5 Chron. Oct 12 01 01 : 30p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p. 3 ' STOCKPILE REGISTRATION FORM *le GRADING DIVISION •- Log. No. Req. No. LOCATION QF- STOCKPILE: \ LOCATION OF BORROW SITE: Address: (n 400 69 - 2 \ Address: -vT 91 - Toter 23Ob4-2.;• a_--___ • C- r �a- . last Meet 444l*A) Assessor's arcel. No. : Assessor's Parcel No. : Legal DegCription: Legal Description: . OWNER'S NAME: Qj Avi C l+nu1J1Tt6Glf)tv.OWNER'S NAME: IC6'Q qAL. anliMt.1.31Tlbgrk4e,. MAILING ADDRESS: 4'044 t2 96e RAYI.* . MAILING ADDRESS:M� �� C.4 !i� �2b rive/$/- • 'GpMGCtIEa ca. al?ha1 eL 013-. 5 QUANTIT'l*OF MATERIAL: an./ £i,' 6,7( QUANTITY OF MATERIAL: MAX. DEPTH OF STOCKPILE: -?Y MAX. DEPTH OF STOCKPILE: SLOPE RATIO: 'L:\ PURPOSE OF STOCKPILE: fa. 12OU6W AWING DURATION OF STOCKPILE: PERMIT/LOG NO. OF BORROW KITE: $ -o]-i3a'0 Please show the approximate location on the stockpile in relation to property lines. Please include North arrow indicator. (The applicant must provide any exhibit/drawing/plan showing details and dimensions of the proposal) . WARNING: Prior to a building permit being issued on t:te a::ee cr.-.r: 1 . stockpile permit, a grading permit, compaction report & letter cf certificn+_ihr may be required. Owners are responsible for maintaining the sites. EOR .^.:.':ii OWNERS SHALL SIGN THE DISCLAIMER. The issuance of this stockpile registration by the County of Riverside doesn't authorize the applicant to violate any rules and regulations set by Federal, State, County Ordinances, Laws and Departmental Policies, but not limited to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and any amendments thereto (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq) . I (We) hereby acknowledge by my signature that I (We) have read•and agree with the above. STOCKPILE S r 0 ' 4t ) BORROW S (S SIGNATURES ij,, __. . /1I�i,•..I SIGNAT o '�.(,P 1 • PAW. Cr:RQETT. 'RB- t .e441 }7Rlr� &TDut 1, E::t� eNT . • DATE _ S /a4 /dl DATE q - /av / of • a k > K & O � > a3Y � W �' � m is OF ICI �uses Ly , as„ _._ ? 4 :a ♦Y _ wy wS %gagd h..+'♦. • • OBTAIN FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTAL CLEARANCES: Flood Control _Road Dept. _Planning Dept. _Others _ ADDITIONAL REPORTS/PLANS REQUIRED: ' _Archaeology _Biologist Report(R-Rat) _E.A.R./E.I.R. _Soils Report • _Paleontology _Grading Plan • APPROVED BY: • DENIED BY: • _ DATE: /_/ . . DATE: / / ' • REASON FOR DENIAL: Water Course Over 1000CY. (Ord. 555) Others • • ;c . SIGNATURE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR: 394.-138 REV.3/91 . Trans Pacific Consultants, Inc. • 27431 Enterprise Circle Nest Temecula,CA 92590 (909) 676-7000 ♦Fax(909) 699.7324 _ Trans-Pacific COHSOLTAHTf LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL . • . . ... To: GOu1--11t-f Of 12446eS)Oe DATE PROJECT NO. P>u�LD�r1C� 4) CArr ri \ 0 . 24^ � I f 2- ":p r`-cWy, ‘,0'm 06-1 ST• ATTENTION: -101-4-"( YL14tM %n1 CO—) 1'214e%2-(I)C , CA-. SUBJECT: 1..01 %7 TYz4a 4.3 0 Gs;•_ -(YL/.-C-T 201-7341-) L�.dtt O i -3'2'CD • We are transmitting via: Overnight -ssenger US Mail Facsimile.. Pick-Up NUMBER - DESCRIPTION \ -(*4fc X39 4E1-c' os--= 13‘.A..e t ne of T 1' .1ayoperov0 SITE Z T1te e, (3) "= p>v.ue tam 07 OF- l F. w5) �1 '4- 1/ Y P^ tj GyV tah ny These are transmitted as checked below: l'511 For your review er your request our approval For signature For Your Use Other Remarks: If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at O -4 _ • Is ti,A D ,FKhr) c_oo cc: ova4e, rOCtO•, s A2e.ery . .C'-oue - .. . File: (0211'5-- 00 Chron. Tony Ramsamooj, Re: BGR#010320 Borrow Site Page. From: Ron Goldman To: "tpc@pe.net".MIME.CORNET Date: 12/6/01 11:15AM Subject: Re: BGR#010320-Borrow Site Jei: We cleared our conditions. Tony needs to clear the Building and Safety condition regarding the butterfly and gnatcatcher which he can do based on the EA we just completed. >>>Won Yoo <tpc@pe.net> 12/06/01 12:04PM >>>. Ron, Thanks for your response, however, I just spoke with Tony Ramsamjoo at Building & Safety and he is still saying that there are more conditions that need to be cleared through Planning regarding the gnatcatcher and butterfly. I appreciate all your help regarding this matter. Sincerely, TRANS-PACIFIC CONSULTANTS H. Jei Kim, PLS Vice President CC: Ramsamooj, Tony 12/11/2001 23: 00 9095064821 THE GARRETT GROUP PAGE 01/01 Redhawk Communities, Inc. 43529 Ridge Park Drive Phone(909)506-6556 Temecula, CA 92590 FAX (909)506-4821 December 12.2001 County of Riverside Via Fax 909-600-6145 Building 8 Safety Department To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that Nancy Webb is authorized to sign for Grading Permits on behalf of Redhawk Communities, Inc. Should you require anything additional, please contact me immediately- Since RED J9 COMMUNITIES, INC. A.F1en J. Fo ce President Development SJF-ca