HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Report ti� �. ,
:�c , .� ��.
R .G i�^ �
J+'
.'c.+ '�ipJ'�. •.1:' ..}'t���'r.
.� + , `?� J�'"� y,,
---- — .{_:v . �n!;,2'�;�r',n•`.o�:.»:; .v..,
��'� ����' '�� Geotechnical Engineering Special Material Environmentai
■ Engineering Geology Inspection Testing Assessments
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Expansion of the Doctors' Medical Park
Winchester Road and Ynez Avenue
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project Number: T4086-GS
Prepared for:
Mr. Ed Anderson
c/o RBF & Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400
Temecula, CA 92591
� .
,
41607 Enterprise Circle North • Post Office Box 1568 • Temecula,CalHomia 92593 • (909)676-2745 • FAX(909)699-1757
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Number and Title PaQe
1.0 SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.4 Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.0 PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5.0 FIELD STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1 Site Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2 Subsurface Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3 In-situ Moisture Content and Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.4 Expansian Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.5 Maximum Dry Density / Optimum Moisture Content Relationship . . . . . . . , 6
6.6 Direct Shear Test . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.7 Consolidation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.0 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1 Geologic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2 Faulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.3 Earth Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.4 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.0 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2 Earthwork Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2.2 Clearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2.3 Excavation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.2.5 Remaval and Recompaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Section Number and Title Paqe
9.2.7 Compaction Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2.8 Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2.9 Observation and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.3 Seismic Design Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3.1 Design �ault Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3.2 Ground Accelerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.3.3 Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.4 Foundation Design Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4.2 Foundation Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.4.3 Depth of Embedment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.4.4 Bearing Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.4.5 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.4.6 Lateral Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9.5 Slab-On-Grade Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.5.1 Interior Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.5.2 Exterior Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.6 Pavement Design Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.7 Utility Trench Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.8 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.9 Planter Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.10 Temporary Construction Cut Recommpndations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.0 PLAN REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11 .0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
13.Q CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
14.0 CLOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
APPENDIX:
REFERENCES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
DRAWINGS
SOIL TECH, INC.
� �'�'��:.;. • .,`�:::
, w ,
:f�.: �� ,.:,�" .�;��-.M.,�, � ;.,
� ,;�� .i . .
__._�_ __ •:t•?lF:ti"�P;hS����tin��l•��t`»: .�.v.
�O'� ���� '�� Geotechnicai Engineering Special Material Environmental
' ■ Engineering Geology Irtspecxion Testing Assessments
January 22, 1996
Mr. Ed Anderson
c/o RBF & Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 676-8042 / FAX (909) 676-7240
Attention: Mr. Biil Green
Regarding: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Expansion of the Doctors' Medical Park
Winchester Road and Ynez Road
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Project Number: T4086-GS
Assessor's Parcel Number: 910-110-057
References: A. Soil Tech, Inc., dated January 28, 1993, Geotechnica/ Review and
Supplementa! Recommendations for Design and Construction, Proposed
Doctors' Medica/ Park, Winchester Road, City of Temecula, Riverside
Counry, California; Project No. T4086-CS.
B. Soil Tech, Inc., Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, IVorthwest Side of
Winchester Road and Southeast of Ynez Road, Proposed Dociors'Medical
Park, Temecula, Riverside Couniy, California; Project No. T4086-C.
C. Soil Tech, Inc., Geotechnica/ Report of Post Grading, Northwest Side of
Winchester Road and Southeast of Ynez Road, Proposed Doctors'Medical
Park, Temecula, Riverside County, California; Project No. T4086-C1.
D. RBF & Associates, undated, Conceptual Grading Plan, Doctors Medica!
Park.
E. Technical References - see Appendix
Gentlemen:
According to your request and signed Proposal No. P1572-GS, Soil Tech Inc. has performed a
geotechnical review for the proposed expansion at the referenced site. Submitted, herewith, are
the results of this firm's findings and recommendations, along with the supporting data.
41607 Enterprise Circle North • Post Office Box 1568 • Temecula,Calffomia 92593 • (909)67fr2745 • FAX(909)699-1757
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 2
1.0 SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of work performed for this study was designed to evaluate the surface and
subsurface conditions within the subject expansion area of the site with respect to the
potential for liquefaction and general suitability at the site and to provide
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development. The
scope of work included the following: 1) review of previous studies/reports pertormed for
the subject site and vicinity by others; 2) site reconnaissance; 3) subsurface drilling and
soil sampling; 4) laboratory testing of soil samplings; 5) engineering evaluation of the field
and laboratory data pertormed and analysis from previous reports pertormed for the
subject site and vicinity by others; and 6) the preparation of this report. The scope of
work �erforrned for this report did not include any environmental assessment of the
property or any opinions relating to the possibility of surtace or subsurface contamination
by hazardous or toxic substances.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Conceptual Grading Plan, located in the Appendix of this report, indicates the subject
property will be developed with a single story, slab-on-grade, stucco-on-wood frame
medical office building with accompanying asphaltic concrete driveway and parking areas
with concrete curbs and gutters. The building will be divided into three units and an
atrium totaling approximately 8,500 square feet in size. It is assumed that light loads will
be imposed on the foundations. The foundation loads are not anticipated to exceed
2,000 plf for continuous footings and 5.0 kips for column footings. The proposed floors
for the structure will consist of concrete slabs cast on prepared subgrade, with finish floor
elevations of 1058-feet above mean sea level. The finish floor elevation for the structure
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 3
is within 1 .0 to 2.0-feet of existing site grades. No subterranean construction and/or
retaining walls are anticipated for the proposed development. This office should be
notified in the event that structures, foundation loads, grading and/or details other than
those represented herein are proposed for final design for the purpose of review and
submittal of supplemental recommendations, if required.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1. Location: The subject property comprises approximately 1.02 acres and is located on
the northwest side of Winchester Road, approximately 240-feet northeast of the centerline
of Ynez Road, in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The subject site is
bounded on the northwest by the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel.
3.2 Topoqraphy: The topography of the site at the time c�f this evaluation consisted of
relatively flat land with a maximum relief of approximately 2.5-feet and elevations ranging
from approximately 1,056-�feet to 1,059-feet above mean sea level. In general, drainage
on the property was by sheet flow toward the south-sout:hwest.
3.3 Vegetation: At the time of this study, vegetation across the site was light and consisted
of seasonal native grasses and weeds.
3.4 Structures: At the time of this firm's study, the expansion area of the site contained no
man-made structures.
4.0 PREVIOUS SITE STUDIES
Previous subsurface explorations, liquefaction studies, foundation studies, and grading
observations and testing have been performed an the s�bject site. The results of those
studies were presented in the Reference 'A', 'B', and 'C' reports. The information
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 4
presented in the referenced reports is not entirely repeated herein. However, reference
is made to inform the reader of the existence of the reports.
5.0 FIELD STUDY
5.1 Site Reconnaissance: Site observations and baring layout were conducted on
December 4, 1995, by one of our Field Technicians. The areal distribution of the earth
materials observed is shown on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study Site Plan presented
in the Appendix.
5.2 Subsurface Exploration: A study of the property's subsurface conditian was performed
to evaluate undertying strata and the presence of groundwater. A total of two (2)
exploratory borings were excavated on the study site on December 5, 1995. The borings
were performed by Scott's Drilling Service, using a truck-mounted, CME-55 drill rig
equipped with 8.0-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. The maximum depth explored was
approximately 31-feet below the existing land surface at the excavation locations. Bulk
and relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered were obtained at
various depths in the exploratory borings and returned to our laboratory for verification
of field classifications and testing. Bulk samples were obtained from cuttings developed
during the excavation process and represent a mixture of the soils within the depth
indicated on the logs. Relatively undisturbed samples of the earth materials encountered
were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with 1.0-inch high, 2.42-inch
inside diameter brass rings. The sampler was driven with successive drops of a 140-
pound weight having a free fall of approximately 30-inches. The blow counts for each
successive 6.0-inches of penetration, or fraction thereof, are shown an the Exploratory
Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The ring samples were retained in
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 5
close-fitting moisture-proof containers and returned to our laboratory for testing. The
exploratory excavations were logged by our representative for earth materials and
subsurface conditions encountered. The Iocations of the exploratory excavations are
denoted on the Preliminary Geotechnical Study Site Plan presented in the Appendix. The
dry density and moisture content test results are presented on the Exploratory Backhoe
Log Summaries presented in the Appendix. The exploratary excavations were logged by
our Staff Geologist for earth materials and subsurface conditions encountered. The soil
materials encountered in the exploratory excavations were visually described in general
accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS). The classification, in
addition to the color at natural moisture content, apparent moisture condition, and reiative
density or consistency of the soil materials encountered are presented an the Exploratory
Backhoe Log Summaries. The exploratory boring excavations were backfilled with
excavated soil and with reasonable effort to restore the areas to their initial condition
before leaving the site, but were not compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. In an area as small and deep as a boring excavation, consolidation and
subsidence of the backfill soil may result in time, causing a depression of the excavation
areas and a potentially hazardous condition. The client is advised to examine the
exploratory excavation areas periodically and, if necessary, backfill noted depressions.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
6.1 General: The resul�s of laboratory tests performed on samples of earth materiafs
obtained during the field study are presented in the Appendix. Following is a listing and
a brief explanation of the laboratory tests which were performed. The samples obtained
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 6
during the field study will be discarded 30 days after the date of this report. This office
should be notified immediately if retention of samples is required beyond 30 days.
6.2 Classification: The field classification of soil materials was verified in the laboratory in
general accordance with the Unified Soils C�assification System, ASTM D2488-90
procedures. The final Classification is shown on the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries
presented in the Appendix.
6.3 In-Situ Moisture Content and Density: The in-situ moisture content and dry density
were determined in general accordance with ASTM D2216-90 and D2937-83(90�
procedures, respectively, for each of the undisturbed ring samples obtained. The dry
density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the moisture content is determined
as a percentage of the oven dry weight of the soil. Both results are shown on the
Exploratory Boring Log Summaries presented in the Appendix.
6.4 Expansion Test: Laboratory expansion tests were performed on samples of alluvial
material in general accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard No. 29-2
procedures. In this testing procedure, a remolded sample is compacted in two (2) equal
layers to a total compacted thickness of approximately �.0-inch by using a 5.5-pound
weight dropping 12-inches, with 15 blows per layer. The saturation of the compacted
sample should be between 49 and 51 percent. After remolding, the sample is confined
under a pressure of 144 psf and allowed to soak for a 24-hour time period. The resulting
volume change due ta the increase in moisture content within the sample is recorded and
the Expansion Index (EI) calculated. The expansion test result is presented on the UBC
Laboratory Expansion Test Results sheet.
6.5 Maximum Dry Density / Optimum Moisture Content Relationship: Maximum dry
density / optimum moisture content relationship determinations were performed on
SOIL TECN, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 7
samples of earth material in general accordance with ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures
using a 4.0-inch diameter mold. Samples were prepared at various moisture contents and
compacted in five (5) layers using a 10-pound weight dropping 18-inches with 25 blows
per layer. A plot of the compacted dry density versus the moisture content of the
specimens is constructed and the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
determined from the plot. The results are presented on the Proctor Test Report.
6.6 Direct Shear Test: A direct shear test was performed on a selected in-situ sample of
earth material in general accordance with ASTM D3080-90 procedures. The shear
machine is of the constant strain control type. The shear machine is designed to receive
a 1.0-inch high ring sample. Specimens from the in-situ samples were sheared at various
pressures normal to the face of the specimens. The samples were tested in a submerged
condition. The peak shear pressures were plotted versus the normal confining pressures
so as to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction). The test
results are presented on the Direct Shear Test Report.
6.7 Consolidation Test: Settlement predictions of the natural on-site and compacted soils'
behavior under load were made on the basis of consolidation tests that were performed
in general accordance with ASTM D2435-90 procedures. The consolidation apparatus
is designed to receive a 1.0-inch high ring sample. A load equivalent to the existing
overburden pressure plus the proposed surcharge was applied normal to the face of the
specimen at field moisture condition and the sample was allowed to consolidate. Upon
completion of the cor�solidation process, water was added to the test apparatus to create
a submerged condition and to measure the collapse potential (hydroconsolidation) of the
sampte. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of each specimen
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medtcal Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 8
to permit addition and release of pore water. The resulting change in sample thickness
was recorded. Results are presented on the Consolidation Test Report.
7.0 SITE CONDITIONS
7.1 Geoloqic Settinq: The site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province on
the Perris Block and �tiverside Sub-Block, Jennings (2). Possible Artificial Fill (Afl) and
Alluvium (Qal) underlie the site within the depths explored and as shown in the referenced
reports.
7.2 Faultinq: The project site is located in a seismically active region of Southern California.
The subject site is not located within the limi:s of an Alquist-Priolo or County of Riverside
Special Studies Zone. The following fault zones are considered to have potential impact
on the site during the lifetime of the proposed development:
Elsinore Fault Zone: The Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately 2,000 feet
southwest of the subject property. The Elsinore Fault is a major right lateral strike-
slip fault that has experienced strong earthquakes in historical times, (1856, 1894,
and 1910), anc� exhibits late Quaternary movement, Mann (3).
San Jacinto Fault Zone: The San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 20 miles
northeast of the subject site and trends northwest-southeast. The San Jacinto
Fault is a major right lateral strike-slip fault that has displayed surface rupture and
associated seismic ground shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and
1954, Allen (1).
San Andreas Fault Zone: The southern segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone
is located approximately 40 miles northeast of the site and trends
northwest-southeast across the southern front of the San Bernardino Mountains.
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 9
The San Andreas Fault is a major right lateral strike-slip fault that exhibited major
surface rupture in 1857 during the Fort Tejon earthquake and again in 1868 during
the Dos Palmas Earthquake, Allen (1).
Other Potentially Active Fault Zones: In addition to the above fault zones, other
potentially active faults are located in the general vicinity of the site. These include
the Willard, Murrieta Hot Springs, and Wolf Valley Faults which are located
approximately 1.25 miles to the southwest, 2.5 miles to the north, and 4.0 miles
to the southeast, respectively, from the subject site.
7.3 Earth Materials: A brief description of the earth materials encountered in the exploratory
excavations is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of the
earth materials encountered is presented on the Exploratory Boring Log Summaries
presented in the Appendix. The earth material strata as shown on the logs represents the
conditions in the actual exploratory locations and other variations may accur between the
excavations. Lines o� demarcation represented the approximate boundary between the
material types, but the transition may be gradual.
Artificial Fill (Afl� Artificial fill materials of varying thicknesses are known to exist across
the site. These fills consist of native sails and/or imported soils, documented and tested
as stated in Reference A. The anticipated structure is to be located near the existing
creek bank and will be placed on some artificial fill. The thicknesses of these fills are
assumed to be approximately 6.0-feet.
Alluvium �Qal� Alluvial materials were encountered across the site and consisted of fine
to medium gray sand (SP) and silty sand (SM), a brown sandy silt with traces af clay
(SM), which were found to be slightly moist to moist and medium dense in-place. These
materials were encountered to a maximum depth of 31-feet in Boring 2.
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 10
7.4 Groundwater: Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth explored of
approximately 31-feet below the existing ground level at the boring locations at the time
of completion of the excavations performed for the subsurface study for this report.
Previous studies (Reference 'A'� indicate that groundwater was encountered at a depth
of 36-feet below the existing ground surface on the subject lot and the adjacent lot to the
west at the time the subsurface exploration was performed on April 22, 1988. fn relatively
pervious soils, such as sandy soils, the indicated depths to the water table are
considered reliable groundwater levels. Seasonal variations in temperature and rainfall
conditions may influence the groundwater levels at other times. Previous studies also
indicated that the historical water table level in the general area of the site was
approximately 20-feet below the ground surface.
8.0 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
8.1 General: Liquefaction is a phenomenon where a sudden loss of strength or a decrease
in shearing resistance takes place in low plasticity cohesive soils or fine-grained
cohesionless soils below the water table when the cyclic stresses produced by an
earthquake cause a sudden but temporary increase in porewater pressure in the soils that
becomes equal to or greater than the overburden pressure. The primary factors which
influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater level, soil type, relative density
of the soil, confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Liquefaction
potential is greatest in saturated, loose to medium dense, poorly graded fine sands with
a mean grain size (D5„) in the range of 0.075 to 0.5 mm. These types of soils derive shear
strength from intergranular friction and do not drain easily during earthquakes. Published
studies and field and laboratory data indicate that coarser sands, silty to clayey sands,
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 11
clayey silts and silty clays beyond the above-mentioned mean grain size ranges are
considerably less vulnerable to liquefaction. Seed and Idriss (Reference No. 10) suggest
that if the clay content of a soil (0.005 mm diameter particles or smaller) is 20 percent or
greater, the soil should not be considered liquefiable. To a large extent, the relative
density of the soil also controls the susceptibility to liquefaction for a given number of
cycles and the acceleration level for the design seismic event. Considerable study and
research have been performed to correlate the soil parameters, such as density,
grain-size distribution, and the effects of an earthquake ar cyclic loading. The potential
for liquefaction in zones susceptible to severe ground shaking is generally considered to
be very high where groundwater levels in alluvial deposits are less than 10-feet from the
ground surface. Liquefaction potential decreases as the depth to groundwater increases,
and is considered very unlikely when the depth to groundwater exceeds 30 ta 50-feet,
primarily due to the surcharge effect of overburden earth materials. However, the
increase in pore water pressure below the water table can cause propagation of water
upward into overlying soils and possibly to the ground surface as the excess pore water
escapes.
8.2 Conclusions: The field data, laboratory test results, and liquefaction analyses prepared
by others were compiled and evaluated in conjunction with the referenced research data.
Previous studies indicate that there are several strata within the upper 50-feet of the
alluvium at the site that have a factor of safety of less than 1.0 during the assumed
seismic event and are, therefore, potentially liquefiable. Based on the data available from
the previous studies and performing our own site specific field exploration with laboratory
testing, the potential for liquefaction occurring at the study site is considered to be low.
If total elimination of the risk of liquefaction of the site is desired, additional site
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 12
exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis would be required. Alternate
foundation recommendations or site remedial and/or mitigation procedures, such as
driven piles, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles, wick drains, pressure grouting, vibroflotation
sand or stone columns, dynamic compaction, or other such methods, would be required.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 General: The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
the results of field and laboratory data obtained by us and others, as well as experience
gained from work conducted by this firm on projects in the general vicinity of the subject
site. Based on a review of the field / laboratory data and Engineering analyses, the
propased development is feasible from a geotechnical / geologic standpoint. Therefore,
recomrnendations for general site grading, foundations, slab support, etc. are �resented
in the subsequent paragraphs which consider the potential for liquefaction to occur at the
site. The design recommendations would not mitigate the potential fAr liquefaction of the
site but woulc! reduce, but not eliminate, the structural damage and the potential for
catastrophic collapse of the structures or portions of the structures due to the loss of
found�tion support if liquefaction were to occur at the site during the design seismic
event. The actual conditions of the near-surface supporting material across the site may
vary. If variations of the material become evident during construction of the proposed
development, this office should be notified so as to re-evaluate the characteristics of the
material and make revisions to the recommendations presented herein, if required.
9.2 Earthwork Recommendations:
9.2.1 General: The grading recommendations presented in this report are intended to utilize
near-surface reinforced continuous wall and column foundations and reinforced concrete
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 13
slabs cast on-grade, and to rework unsuitable near-surface earth materials so as to create
an engineered building pad and suitable support for hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.)
and pavement. Some reconditioning of the upper 12 to 18-inches of the existing
documented fill on the site will be required due to the length of time since completion of
grading and the effects of weathering. Verification of the removals of unsuitable materials
prior to the placement of the existing fill and the relative compaction of the existing fill on
the site were pertormed by Soil Tech, Inc. prior to construction of the existing buildings
adjacent to the improvement area to the west, as stated in the Reference 'B' study.
Results indicated the supporting soils to be suitable for their intended use. Therefore,
removal of the existing fill was not performed on the existing building site to the west of
the subject site. Based on this information and our lab data from within the proposed
building area, similar testing for verification will NOT be necessary within the subject area.
Please note, the following recommendations may need to be modified and/or
supplemented during rough grading as field conditions require.
9.2.2 Clearinq: All debris, grasses, weeds and any other deleterious materials should be
removed from the proposed building, hardscape and pavement areas and areas to
receive structural fill prior to any grading. Any man-made objects encountered (irrigation
systems, underground utilities, etc.) should be overexcavated and exported from the site.
9.2.3 Excavation Characteristics: Excavation and trenching within the subject property is
anticipated to be relatively easy and should be able to be accomplished with conventional
earth-moving equipment.
9.2.4 Suitability of On-Site Materials as Fill: In general, all on-site earth materials present are
considered suitable for reuse as fill. Fill materials should be free of significant amounts
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 14
of organic materials and/or debris and should not contain rocks or clumps greater than
6.0-inches in maximum dimension.
9.2.5 Removal and Recompaction: Any undocumented and/or unapproved fill and/or
unsuitable near-surface soil in proposed areas that will support structural fills, structures,
hardscape (sidewalks, patios, etc.) and pavement should be removed to underlying
competent materials. The following recommendations apply to grading in such areas:
■ Depths of overexcavation are anticipated to be approximately 12-inches over most
of the site. It is noted that localized areas, once exposed, may warrant additional
overexcavation to ensure the removal of any existing undocumented fills, soft or
loose near surface soil, and any subsurface obstructions and/or debris that may
be associated with the past usage of the site.
■ Actual depths of removals and the competency of the exposed overexcavation
bottoms sho�wld be determined by the Project Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative during grading operations at the time they are exposed and prior
to scarificatiori and recompaction or the placement of fill.
■ Exposed overexcavation bottom surfaces should be scarified to a minimum depth
of 6.0-inches, brought to within 2.0 percent of optimum moisture content, and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction prior to placement of
fill.
■ The limits of overexcavation in the building and/or footing areas should extend at
least 5.0-feet beyond the structure or footing perimeter or to the depth of the
overexcavation beneath the finish pad grade for the structures, whichever is
greater.
9.2.6 Fill Placement Requirements: All fill material, whether on-site material or import, should
be approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer or his representative prior to
placement. All fill should be free from vegetation, organic material, and other debris.
Import fill should be no more expansive than the existing on-site material which has a low
expansion potential per the attached laboratory testing. Approved fill material should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6.0 to 10-inches in compacted thickness and
watered or aerated as necessary to obtain near optimum moisture content (-2.0% to
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 15
+2.0% of optimum). Each lift should be spread evenly and should be thoroughly mixed
to ensure uniformity of soil moisture throughout. Structural fill should meet a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent of maximum dry density based upon ASTM
D1557-78(90) procedures. Moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than
2.0 percent of optimum, unless approved by the Project Geotechnical Engineer.
9.2.7 Compaction Equipment: It is anticipated that the compaction equipment required for
the project will include a combination of rubber-tired and sheepsfoot rollers to achieve
proper compaction. Compaction by rubber-tired or track-mounted equipment, by itself,
may not be sufficient. Adequate water trucks, water pulls or other suitable equipment
should be available ta provide sufficient moisture and dust control. The final selection of
equipment is the responsibility of the contractor pertorming the work and should be such
that uniform and proper compaction of the fills are achieved.
9.2.8 Shrinkage: Shrinkage of loose fill that is excavated and replaced as compacted fill
should be anticipated. It is estimated that the average shrinkage of the near-surface soils
will be approximately 5.0 percent based on fill volumes when compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent relative compaction.
9.2.9 Observation and Testinq: During grading, observation and testing should be conducted
by a representative of the Geotechnical Engineer to verify that the grading is being
performed according to the recommendations of this report. The Geotechnical Engineer
or his representative should observe the overexcavation bottoms and the placement of
fill and should take tests to verify the moisture content, density, uniformity and degree of
compaction obtained. Where testing demonstrates insufficient density, additional
compaction effort should be applied, with the adjustment of the moisture content where
necessary, until retesting shows satisfactory relative compaction has been obtained. The
Sa1L TECH, INC.
Doctars' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 16
results of observations and testing services should be presented in a formal Rough
Grading Report following completion of the grading operations.
9.3 Seismic Desiqn Recommendations:
9.3.1 Desiqn Fault Zone: The most significant earthquakes that may affect the site are
anticipated to occur along the Elsinore Fault Zone on the Wildomar Fault.
9.3.2 Ground Acceterations: An earthquake originating along the Wildomar Fault in the vicinity
of the site with a Richter magnitude of M 6.7 could be expected to generate a peak
bedrock acceleration at the site in excess of 0.70g, (Seed & Idriss, 10), with a duration
of strong ground shaking of approximately 18 to 24 seconds (Housner, 1970). It should
be noted that the intensity of the anticipated motions will depend on the magnitude of the
earthquake and on the distance of the zone of maximum energy release from the site.
9.3.3 Desiqn Parameters: The above acceleration is a peak bedrock acceleration and is not
considered representative for design parameters. Recent studies suggest that the
repeatable bedrock acceleration should be of greater concern in structural design than
the single maximum peak acceleration. The repeatable bedrock acceleration for the site
is considered to be 65 percent of the peak acceleration, (Ploessel, 4). It is expected that
during a 50-year design life, the proposed structures will experience repeatable bedrock
accelerations of approximately 0.46g. Higher repeatable bedrock accelerations are
possible within the subject property; however, the probability of these accelerations
occurring is considered low. Uniform Building Code Seismic design requirements are
based upon criteria limited to fulfilling life safety concepts. An Effective Peak Acceleration
(EPA) of 0.40g (Z = 0.40) for Seismic Zone 4 has been assumed for the derivation of
seismic formulas presented in Part V, Chapter 23, Part III Earthquake Design of the 1991
Uniform Building Code (UBC}. Based on the Structural Engineers Association of
California, Seismology Committee, 1980, structures designed in accordance with the
provisions of the Uniform Building Code should be able to resist major earthquakes of the
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 17
severity anticipated at the subject site without collapse, although structural damage couid
occur. Therefore, the proposed structures may be designed and constructed according
to Seismic Zone 4 and the Base Shear Formula in Section 23 of the 1991 UBC. However,
because the anticipated repeatable bedrock acceleration at the site may approach 0.46g,
the Project Structural Engineer may choose to use a higher "Z" value. It is the
responsibility of the Project Structural Engineer to determine the critical seismic factors
to be used for building design and to implement the applicable sections of the code.
9.4 Foundation Design Recommendations:
9.4.1 General: Foundations for the proposed structures may consist of column footings and
continuous wall footings founded upon properly compacted fill. Isolated footings are not
recommended due to the potential for differential settlements and/or the loss of footing
support that may be caused by liquefaction during the design seismic event. The
recommendations presented in the subsequent paragraphs are based on the potential
for liquefaction and a low expansion potential for the supporting soils and should not
preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The Structural Engineer for the project
should determine the actual footing widths and depths necessary to resist design vertical,
horizontal and uplift forces. The Structural Engineer may design post-tensioned structural
slab systems as an alternative to the reinforced concrete foundations.
9.4.2 Foundatior� Size: Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18-inches.
Continuous footings should be continuously reinforced with a minimum of two (2) No. 5
steel reinforcing bars located near the top and two (2) No. 5 steel reinforcing bars located
near the bottom of the footings so as to minimize the effects of any slight differential
movements that may occur due to minor variations in the engineering characteristics in
the supporting soils and to provide structural continuity and rigidity. Column footings
should have a minimum width of 18-inches by 18-inches and be suitably reinforced based
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medicai Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 18
on structurai requirements. A grade beam founded at the same depths and reinforced
as the adjacent footings should be provided across doorway and garage entrances.
9.4.3 De�th of Embedment: Exterior and interior footings should extend to a minimum depth
of 1 S-inches below lowest adjacent finish grade in properly compacted fill.
9.4.4 Bearinq Capacitv: Due to the moderate to high liquefaction potential of the site, an
allowable bearing value of 1 ,000 psf is recommended for the design of continuous and
column footings. This value may be increased by 33.3 percent for short durations of live
loading, such as wind ar seismic forces.
9.4.5 Settl_ e= Footings supported on properly compacted fill and designed in accordance
with a 1,000 psf bearing value for continuous and column footings and the maximum
assumed wall and column loads are not anticipated to exceed a maximum settlement of
0.5-inch or a differential settlement of 0.25-inch between similarly sized and loaded
footings under normal conditions (excluding liquefaction induced movements).
9,4.6 Lateral Ca acit _ Additional foundation design parameters based on properly
compacted fill for resistance to lateral forces are as follows:
Allowable Lateral Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Pressure), Passive Case:
Compacted Fill - 150 pcf
Allowable Coefficient of Friction
Compacted Fill - 0.25
The above values are allowable design values and have safety factors of at least 2.0
incorporated into them. For the calculation of passive earth resistance,the upper 1.0-foot
of material should be neglected unless confined by a concrete slab or pavement.
SOIL TECH,INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 19
9.5 Siab-on-Grade Recommendations: The recommendations for the interior concrete
slabs are based upon a potential for liquefaction of the supporting material to occur at
the site and an assumed low expansion potential for the on-site soils.
9.5.1 Interior Slabs: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4.5-inches in
thickness. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #4 reinforcing bars placed at
24-inches on center in both directions and placed mid-depth in the slab. The concrete
section and/or reinforcing steel should be increased for excessive design floor loads or
anticipated concentrated loads. Due to the liquefaction potential of the site, the concrete
floors within the structure are recommended to be structurally tied into the foundation
system. A compacted sand or gravel bedding layer beneath lightly loaded floor slabs is
not considered necessary but may be desirable to enhance the design section for heavy
floor loads. If gravel bedding is utilized, it should consist of a crushed aggregate base
with a gradation as specified by the latest revision of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction (Green Book). The sand or gravel layer should be compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-
78(90) procedures. In areas where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over
the slab, we recommend the use of a polyethylene vapor barrier with a minimum of 6.0
mil in thickness be placed beneath the slab. The moisture barrier should be overlapped
or sealed at splices and covered by a minimum 1.0-inch layer of clean sand to aid in
concrete curing and to minimize potential punctures. If the moisture barrier is placed on
crushed gravel material, it is recommended that a minimum of 2.0-inches of clean sand
or other approved granular material be placed beneath the moisture barrier to prevent
punctures from angular gravel fragments and projections.
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medicai Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 20
9.5.2 Exterior Slabs: Exterior concrete slabs cast on finish subgrade should be a minimum
of 4.0-inches in thickness and be underlain by properly compacted fill per the
recommendations in the Earthwork Recommendations Section of this report, and be
moisture conditioned to at least 110 percent of optimum moisture content to a minimum
depth of 12-inches prior to pouring the slab. Reinforcing in the slabs and the use of a
compacted sand or gravel base beneath the slabs should be in accordance with the
current standards of the City of Temecula.
9.6 Pavement Desiqn Recommendations: The following are our preliminary
recommendations for the structural pavement section for the proposed parking and
driveway areas. The pavement section has been determined in general accordance with
Caltrans design procedures and is based on assumed Traffic Indexes (TI's) for a 10-year
design life and an assumed R-Value of 30 for the anticipated subgrade materials. The
actual R-Value of the pavement subgrade material should be tested and verified at
completion of the rough grading for the site.
Site Area Traffic Index Pavement Section
Driveway and Parking 4.5 3.0"Asphaltic Concrete (A.C.)
Areas for Autos and Light over4.0"Aggregate Base(A.B.)
Weight Vehicles
Driveways and Parking 5.0 3.0" A.C. over 5.5" A.B.
Areas for Delivery
Trucks
Asphalt concrete pavement materials should be as specified in Section 39 of the Caltrans
Standard Specifications or a suitable equivalent. Aggregate base should conform to
Class 2 material as specified in Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications or a
suitable equivalent. The subgrade soil, including utility trench backfills, should be
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medtcal Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 21
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The aggregate base material
should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. If asphaltic concrete is
placed directly on subgrade, the upper 6.0-inches of the subgrade should be compacted
to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content for subgrade and aggregate base materials should be determined according to
ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures. If pavement subgrade soils are prepared at the time of
rough grading of the building site and the areas are not paved immediately, additional
observations and testing will be required prior to placing aggregate base material or
asphaltic concrete so as to locate areas that may have been damaged by construction
traffic, construction activities, and/or seasonal wetting and drying. In the proposed
pavement areas, soil samples should be obtained at the time the subgrade is graded for
R-Value testing in accordance with California Test Method 301 procedures so as to verify
the pavement design recommendations.
9.7 Utilit�Trench Recommendations: Utility trenches within the zone of influence of
foundations or under building floor slabs, hardscape, and/or pavement areas should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil. It is recommended that all utility trenches
excavated to depths of 5.0-feet or deeper be cut back according ta the "Temporary
Construction Cut" section of this report or be adequately shored during construction,
Where interior or exterior utility trenches are proposed parallel to any building footing, the
bottom of the trench should not be located below a 1 :1 plane projected downward from
the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing unless the utility lines are designed for
the footing surcharge loads. Backfill material should be placed in a lift thickness
appropriate for the type of backfill material and compaction equipment utilized. Backfill
material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction by
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 22
mechanical means. Jetting of the backfill material will not be considered a satisfactory
method for compaction unless the procedures are reviewed and approved in writing by
the project Geotechnical Engineer. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
for backfill material should be determined according to ASTM D1557-78(90) procedures.
9.8 Finish Lot Drainage Recommendations: Finish lot surface gradients in unpaved areas
should be provided adjacent buildings to direct surface water away from foundations and
slabs. The surface water should be directed toward suitable drainage facilities. Ponding
of surface water should not be allowed adjacent to structures or on pavements. In
unpaved areas, a minNmum positive gradient of 2.0 percent away from the structures for
a minimum distance of 5.0-feet and a minimum of 1.0 percent pad drainage off the
property in a nonerosive manner should be provided.
9.9 Planter Recommendations: Planters around the perimeter of the structures should be
designed to ensure that adequate drainage is maintained and minimal irrigation water is
allowed to percolate into the soils underlying the buildings. The planters should drain
directly onto surrounding paved areas or into a properly designed subdrain.
9.10 Temporarv Construction Cut Recommendations: Temporary construction cuts for
rough graciing, foundations, utility trench excavations, etc., in excess of 5.0-feet in depth
and to a maximum depth of 10-feet should be properly shored or cut back to the
following inclinations:
Earth Material Inclination
Compacted Fill 1 ��
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 23
All excavations should be initially observed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and/or
his representative to verify the recommendations presented or to make any additional
recommendations necessary to maintain stability and safety.
10.0 PLAN REVIEW
Subsequent to formulation of final plans and specifications but prior to construction,
grading and foundation plans for the proposed development should be reviewed by Soil
Tech, Inc. to verify campatibility with site geotechnical conditions and conformance with
the recommendations contained in this report.
11.0 PRE-BID CONFERENCE
It is recommended that a pre-bid conference be held with the owner or an authorized
representative, the Project Civil Engineer, the Project Geotechnical Consultant and the
proposed contractors present. This conference will provide continuity in the bidding
process and clarify questions about the grading and construction requirements of the
project.
12.0 PRE-GRADING CONFERENCE
Prior to the start of grading, a conference should be held with representatives of the
owner, developer, contractor, Project Civil Engineer and the Project Geotechnical
Consultant present. �"he purpose of this meeting should be to clarify questions relating
to the intent of the grading recommendations and to verify that the project specifications
comply with the recommendations of this geotechnical engineering report.
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 24
13.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Rough grading of the property should be performed under engineering observation and
testing performed by Soil Tech, Inc. Rough grading includes, but is not limited to,
overexcavation cuts, fill placement, and excavation of temporary cut slopes. In addition,
Soil Tech, Inc. should observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made
prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel to verify and/or modify, if
necessary the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of
overexcavation cuts,fill placement,finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement
subgrade and base course, slab presaturation, or other earthwork completed for the
subject development should be performed by Soil Tech, Inc., if required by the local
building authority or owner / developer. If any of the observations and testing to verify
site geotechnical conditions are not performed by Soil Tech, Inc., liability for the safety
and performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project
observed and/or tested by Soil Tech, Inc.
14.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project named or described
above. It may or may not contain sufficient information for other parties or purposes.
Although every effort has been made to vbtain information regarding the geotechnical
environment of the site, limitations exist with respect to the knowledge of unknown
regional or localized off-site conditions which may have a direct impact at the site.
Should conditions be observed or information become available during construction
which are not reflected in this report, Soil Tech, Inc. should be notified so that
supplemental recommendations can be provided. This study was conducted in general
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Perk
Project No. T4086-GS
January 1996
Page 25
accordance with the standards of the industry and accepted engineering principles and
practices. No further warranties are implied or expressed beyond the direct
representations of this report.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our services. If you should have any questions
regarding this report, please contact this office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
SOIL TECH, INC.
� -�
�.___..
' �,,_--� , � ,�
. � � ,
j �-/ �
.-� � �� � _
�,,,�,_. - .�..,.-,�----
Michae K. Mason "�Osbjo Brat� GE 162
Vice President / Project Manager Pro' ct Geotechnical Engineer
Exp. 09-30-97
MKM:a6/df �Q�,,�FESS/ON�
ti pNeq T � �
Distribution: (4) Addressee ,��� ��� � �� �
, � � �� ;
�ILE: F:�WPDOCS\REPORTS\GS\T4086GS..FPT J � Nca. 162
°;* �, P„ ;�
��1� �CW�\GQ`�s''``,
�,.,O� ��L�F�
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
APPENDIX
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T40S6-GS
TECHNICAL REFERENCES
1. Leighton and Associates, inc., February 3, 1987, Compaction Report of Rough Grading Between
Winchester Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek, East of Ynez Road, Adjacent to Parcel Map No.
21361, Rancho California, Riverside Counry, California, Project No. 6860619-04.
2, Leighton and Associates, Inc., May 1, 1988, Preliminary Geotechnica!Evaluation of Liquefaciion
Pofential, Lots 1 through 18, Winchester Meadows, Tentative Tract Map No. 23335, lVortheast
corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, Rancho Californfa, Riverside Counly, Califomia, Project No.
11880600-01.
3. Leighton and Associates, Inc., June 10, 1988, Preliminary C�eotechnical lnvestigation, Lots 1
through 5, Winchester Meadows, Teniative Parcel Map No. 23335, Northeast corner of Winchester
and Ynez Roads, Rancho California, Riversrde Counry, California, Project No. 11880600-01.
4. Leighton and Associates, Inc., June 30, 1988, Response fo the review comments from the
P/anning Department of Rancho California, Riversrde Counry, California, Project No. 11880600-01.
5. RANPAC Soils, Inc., August 21, 1989, PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATlON, Sania
Gertrudis and Tucolate Creek Alignments, Rancho Ca/ifornia, California, Work Order No. 900-52.
6. Alien, C. R., et. al., 19fi5, Relationship between Seismicity & Geologic Structure in the Southern
California Region: BSSA, Vol. 55, No. 4.
7. Jennings, Charles W., 1985,An Explanatory Text To Accompany The 1:750,000 Scale Fault And
Geologic Maps Of California, CDMG, Bulletin 201, p 197.
8. Mann, J. F., Jr., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California, CDMG Special
Report 43.
9. Ploessel, Michael R. & Slosson, James E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from
Earthquakes: Important Design Criteria, CDMG, California Geology, Vol. 17, No. 9, pp 195-199.
10. Seed, H. B. & Idriss, t. M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
SOIL TECH, INC.
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARIES
(Borings B-1 and B-2)
SOIL TECH, INC.
Legend:
Symbol: Description: Symhol: Description:
� Brown. slightly moist Tan, dry. F-M SAND
F-M grained silty SANO � with trace silts .
possible fill .
� Moist, brown, silty fine �/s Ring Sample
SAND w/some clay . �5/e
Water measured at Rig refusal
- time indicated � end of boring
-
Notes:
1 . Exploratory boring:s were performed on December 5, 1995 using a hollow
stem auger, B" in diameter operated by Scotts Drill Service .
2 . 8oring locations were estimated from existing features and the
elevations extrapolated from "Conceptual �rading Plan " prepared by
RBF 5 Assoc, undated .
3 . These logs are subject to the limitations, conclusions, snd
recommendations in this report .
4 . The earth material as shown on the Exploratory Boring Loy Summary
represents the conditions in the actual test excavation locatior
and other variations may �ccur on the site . Lines of demarcatior
on the lag represent the approximate boundary between the earth
material types, bui� the transit9on may be gradual .
5 . Results of tests conducted on sarnples recovered are repor•ted
on the logs .
Abbreviations ���sed are:
In-Situ Mois� . - in-situ rnoisture content (%) , ASTM D2216-90
In-Situ Dens . - in-situ density (psf) , ASTM D2937-83 (90)
% Collap . - amount of collapse when water added to sample
in consolidation test when loaded @ 1600 psf, %
Project No . T4086-�S
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARY
Boring Number: B-1 Project: DOCTORS MEDICAL PARK Date: 12-5—g5
Project Number: T408B—GS Ground Surface Elevation: 1058
Starting Time: N/A Hours Logged By: TB Location: TEMECULA
Ground Water Depth: N/A Equipment: HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Contractor: SCOTTS DRILL SERICE Sample No (s) : N/A
Total depth Gf Hole: 26 Auger 5ize: 8 "
ELEVATION SOIL SYMBOLS InSitu InSltu Optim. Max. %
SAMPLER SYMBOLS USCS Description Remarks
DEPTH GROUN� WATEF OEPTH Moist Dens. Moist. Oens. Collap.
1060
0 g y
SM FrMwngrainedhsilty�SAND
possible fill.
2g�6 4.6 117.1
1055 22/6
27/6
5 15/6 B.5 112.9 1.63
22/6
25/6
I
12/6 �
1050 16/6 SP 'ian, dry, F—M SAND
18/6 With trace silts. �
I �
10 so/s ', �f4t RB�cD
so/e �I 2.6 ,$A P�E
13/6
' 1
1045 � � �' � �
I I
15 !
11/66 i 2.7 103.8
24/6
i
1040 � i
!
� I (
I
t �
20 17/6 2 J 101.1 ; I
24/6
I. . . 26/6
i
� I
1035 i
� I
g
25 �. �, �
4�6 SM� Moist, brown, silty fine �
]8%6 ML SAND w/some clay. �
End
of !
horing I
No Groundater
No Caving
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARY
Boring Number: B-2 Project: DOCTORS MEDICAL PARK Date: 12-5-95
Project Number: T4086-GS Ground Surface Elevation: 1058
Starting Time: N/A Hours Logged By: TB Location: TEMECULA
Ground Water Depth: N/A Equipment: HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Contractor: SCOTTS DRILL SERICE Sample No (s) : N/A
Total deptn Of Hole: 31 Auger Size: 8"
ELEVATION SOIL SYMBOLS ZnSitu In51tu Optim. Max. %
SAMPLER SYMBOLS USLS Des�ription Remarks
�EPTH GROUND WATEF OEPTH Moist Dens. Moist. ❑ens. Collap.
1060
I
0
SM Brown, sli9htly molst
F-M grained silty SANO
possible fill.
1055 38%6 7.6 115.6 7.6 133.0
37/5
5 90/6 12.1 109.1 O.BC
13/6
17/6
11/6 8.3 113.8 0.18
105D 16%6
10 10/6
SP Tan dry, F-M SAND 4.1 iS0.0
25/6 with trace si]ts.
35/6
1045
15 ��6 I 10.7 104.5
11/6 �
15/E
I I
�. . . i �
1040 � I
� I
,�
� i
20 � �2/6 � 1.7 104.5 � �
�
92/6 + ; �
I ' ( ;
1035 , II
I
� � i i
25 6�6 SM% Mois£, brown, eilty fine i4.3 i17.4
25%6 M� SAND w/some clay.
i ,
i
1030 �
Boring �
Continues
No Groundwater
No Caving
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES
EXPLORATORY BORING LOG SUMMARY
Boring Number: 8-2 Project: DOCTORS MEDICAL PARK Date: 12-5-g5
Project Number: T4086-GS Ground Surface Elevation: 1058
Starting Time: N/A Hours Logged By: TB Location: TEMECULA
Ground Water Depth: N/A Equipment: HOLLOW STEM AUGEA
Contractor: SCOTTS DRILL SERICE Sample No (s) : N/A
Total depth Of Hole: 31 Auger Size: B"
ELEVATION SOIL SYMBOLS InSitu InS�tu Optim. Max. X
SAMPLEA SYMBOLS USCS Description Remarks
�EPTH GRO�NO WATER OEPTH Moist Dens. Moist. Dens. Collap.
103D
30 36%6 ofd 13.2 118.3
50/6 boring
i
�
I
i
( I
I
I �
I
� I
�( I
i I
f
i4
I I
f
No Groundwater
No Caving
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
(Consolidation Test Report)
(Proctor Test Report)
(Direct Shear Test Report)
(UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Report)
SOIL TECH, INC.
�����LIU�TI �� TE�T �E���T
1 .5 � —'
�
1 . 0 i i i
0. � �
I
� �
0. 0 � ,
� � � I � i � ( !
a ' � , � ! � � i ' ' 's
I i � ; ! I ;
� -0. � � � � � � k �
4 � ' I
� i
.� � j i � i i � �
-Q -1 . 0 — Water Added � I
•... I ' ,
1
o I l � � i I � � M �
� � � � � i � i ` �
�
� -1 . 5 � � 1 i ; E E
.+., � I ( I � ! � � � �
� i � I i !
�
n -2. 0 ! 1 � I � I � i �
' � i �
� I
, ! t l �
� -2.5 I ` � i i i
� � � I ;
4 � � I I i i i � i � � i ' �
-3. 0 -- � � � � i � �
C � ; i ; � II ; 11 ; i
, � ;
-3. 5 ' � I I � � i I
0. 1 0. 2 0. 4 1. 2 4 10 2k� 40 I
I
Ap p 1 i e d Pr essuw� - k sf �
U,^_.CS t�at . Dr�
LL PI SR . G. �'
Classification Maist . Densit�
SM 8. 5 � 1 1�. 9 � 2. 7 0. 49'35 �
t �
TEST RESULTB MATERIAL DESGRIPTIOh� ��
SILTY SAMD �
�
��11aP�e Percen�kas� = 1 .b3 ?: Cd 1 . b {�sf a.PP 1 i�ed �
�
Pro,ject Na. : T468b-GS Rema.rks: i
i
Pr�o,i e�t: DR'S MED I CAL PAFcF4 �
,
Loc at i on: B 1 @S'
i
D��te' 12-5-9'S
�
CONSOLIDATION TEST REPOiRT �
.
��I L TE�H L����:�T�r�T�� u �:y. r;�. �
�����LIU�TI�� TE�T �E��RT
3 .e ;
1
e. s I
E
e. 0 ' � ,
� � i i , �
� -0.5 � � i i � ; t
� � � I � � { I � �
�' -i . 0 �� I � I � i �
i �
� i Wat�r_ r�d de d � � �
r� -1 .� I � I 1 I � '
� l I f � I I I i � � ! ' �
� � i i i i ' � 1 I ( � �
� —2. e� � ( � , ; i � I � i
i � � I � � ;
L � I � i
LJ �2.� � -� � I i I � �
i � f l i 1 I � � � i i i
� i � ` � � � ,
a
� . �
; ( � I I � I ! 1
-�.e j � � � ( i ! � '
i I I i � I � � I �
� II f
� I
I ! �
� i ( � � I � ; I � ;
-3. 5 I I � ! � � ! I ' ! � ` ' � ` �
i i � i ' � ' ' i j 1'�' r�
� 1
� � f I : ' � i I � i ( � ` 6 �
-4. 0 — , �
0. 1 +9. 2 0. 4 1 2 4 10 2'0 40
AP P 1 i e d Pr p�-sur►� - k sf j
U��S t�ldt . Dr y � �
�� FI �P - G.
Classificatian Moist . D�ensity
SM �. b � 115. 6 , � 2. 7 0. 4585
TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESGRIPTION
SILTY �AND
Go11aPs�e ��r�enta9�' = 1 . b� 'r: @ 1.b ks-f a�pF 2 i�d
Pro.aect Nc,. : T408b-CS Remarks:
Pr a,i ec t: D�CTQRS MED I GAL PAF2K
Location: $ORIN6 #2 @2. �'
Dat�' 12-�-95
CaMSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
��IL TE�H L���F��T�l�IE� F�9. r�o.
�����LIU�TI�� TE�T �EP��T
s. s
�--�— ,
�. � ! � I �
i � ' � ' ' I
�. � � � f � � � � �
� i � I � � ' I
� � � � � � � j �
I � � � � 1 F
-�. �. I , � ;
� � �
� ; ( ' � � � ; ? I � � I �
� -e, s " ' ! � i � i � I I F
� � ; ; � � � �
--+ f i I i i � � + II, f i
z' —1 . � � � � ' � � � � � �
•� � � � � � �
� � (
-� i i � j I � ( I i ' ' �
C . ; � � � � I I i I
-i �5 i f ' ' � � � j I
`> i � � �
' I
L � � i Water t�dd�d ! �
� ! I i � ; I t � ; ' �
U -2. 0 , I
L i ��
� I � � i I i I , i f i i �
�
� � � ' � � � ! � I
-�. � ' � � � i � � � � � ! ; I ; !
� � ' ! I � I � yi ' �
I ; � � ; �� � � � I , �
-�. $ , � I i , 1 '
� f i ' ! � � j � i ( i i
� � I I �
� � i i � � i � j
-3. � �---- ! 1 ; i
0. 1 �. 2 Q. 4 1 2 �4 I0 20 �Q
�RP 1 ied Pressur-e - ksf
USCti ! F�at , i Dr� � i
Classificat ian Moist . I Der�sity , LL pI � ;P . �. � � ,
SM + 1�. 1 �: 1��. 1 '�
� I 2. 7 + 0. 544�
�
TE�T RESULTS � MATEi�IAL DESCRIPTIQN
SILTY SpND
Cal lap5� R�rC�r��age = Q. �� �: C 1 . 6 k:sf a.�P 1 i�r�
7
Rroject hla. : T4088-GS Remarks; ±
�
Pr a j ec t: DR'S MED I CAL PAF�K
Location: B2 @ 5'
Da�t e: 12-?-9'S
C4MSOLIDATION TEST REPORT
��I L TE�H L���f��T��I E�
Fig- M�.
�����LIU�TI�� TE�T �E���T
e. �
e. � I �
( i
�. a � ; � � � �
� � � � � � fl i �
� -e. � � � I i i � � i � I I � � I
; � �
3 ' , � ; I i
Q -�. � � � i � i j � � i ' i I
� ' I I
� i i � � � � � ' I � � �
� -0. 9 � ' , � � � � ;
� I � 1 � � I
° I 4 I I , ( � , � �
� -i . � (-- i i i � � � � I � � �
c I ( ! � , � � � ' r �
� 1 I I I ( � f �
� -1 . 5 �— Water Added � i � f � �
i i
� ! I 1 � j � i
� I � i ' � i � 4 ( � ' �
-1 . 8 i � � � i i ;
I i � � � �
i i ! � � �
� ! � ' � � � ( � � � � i I
-2. 1 � i i j ! v ` � � i ' ' ' I i
� ; ; �
I ! � � ' � � I �
f ; ' ' � ' i I i I � I ' ! 1
-2. 4 ' � i � , � I
Q. 2 0. � �. 4 1 2 4 10 20 40 �
�ip p 1 i e d Pr e���.r e - k�f �
�
USC� haat . �r y LL I F�I �p . G. pG �
Classificationl Moist . Densitc� _!
� `� �
SM $. 3 1 f i 13. 8 � f 2. ? 0. 4808 �
i
TE�T RES�LTS � MATEFiIAL DESCRIPTION
S I LTY SF�ND
Gol lapse percentdge = 0. 10 �: @ 1. b k�sf app� 1 i�d
Project hio. : T40$b-GS
Remarks:
Pra,i�ct: DR'S MEDIGAL PARK
Location: B2 @ �. 5'
Date: 12-b-S5
GOhISOLIDATION TEST REPORT
��I L TE�H L�i$�t��IT�F�I E� Fi9. N4.
� PROCTOR TEST REPORT
134
133 I -
�
�
�
"- 1�2
U (
a
I I �
�+ � I
+, I -�
.�
N I
� 1�1 I � �
� �
�- � I - ——i--'
� I I I
s�o � I
� ZAV for
� �
� I Sp .G . =
2.70
� I �
129 I I I
5 . 5 5 . 5 7 .5 8 . 5 C3 .5 '10 .5 11 . 5
Water c�ntent, %
"Modified" Proc�or. ASTM 0 1557, Method A
Elev/ Class;fication Nat . Sp . G. LL pI % > % <
Depth USCS AASHTO Mois� . No .4 No . 200
SM 13 . 2 % 2. 7Q
�EST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Optimum moisture = 7 . 6 % SILTY SAND, BROWN
Maximum dry density = 133 . 0 pcf
Project No .: T4086—GS Remarks:
Project: DR'S MEDICAL PARK SAMPLE #1
Location: B2 @ 0-5 ' COLLECTED EY TB
12-5-55
Date: 12-8-95
PROCrOR TES7 REPORT
SOIL TECH LABORATORIES Figure No .
J�G C7 � . . r--T- .. ' . ' . .
REBULTS j : ? ; � �,� ,
� _ �,.. ,�
---I ; � � l �
�1a Psf a I , _ .: � � . , �, "- . ; . �_. . . ' . i
� �$, ��eg 4@. 3 � � � ��� , �. � � � �
� r , � , � ; , � �
a Tt�N 4� �. 85 : ' �."� f i
240� - I
.. , . �; ;
� ' : i ,. , I _ j I I
, , ,
,
. ;
� I .. i ' ' � � , ' �
� � . ,
� , � . . : i _ i . : � . _ : .. , . ._. . _ .:. : .. ..: ... . _ _. . .. . . ._ � . �
� , � � � i j�-.�_ I. j. i �
s., , , , . , -�
r�F � ',�,/r i i , :_ � , . i
a �_ � � ; , '
. , , . .
t'�r� 1'?t�� � � ; ,— � � — --- �--� ' :� �--� � ? �
; � ' - � i i i � � I i i
� � . � ... ; : ' �
; _ . _ , _. , , , _. ._�i _ , . ,.
I ' ,
j :i : . : `------�— : ;. . ,�. - - --- :. i �
; :
� � ' � . . f. . .� � ` � ` i
� I • ' � .. , i i . . I �
� _ —J !
i� 1�t�E 1'4�H ��.s�� 48�3� 6t�G�A ?�►�►� �
t�aor•m�l :�tr^�-•.a. �s.�
5��+�0 , ---T--- -r--;i ���MF'LE f�0�. -- - 1 ----i--- � --
� . i . � ,W�3EF� COt�TEhIT, i: ?.f �, r a.� --
� . : . . , �
; . . : i: � '
50�� � i i ;? i pNTURAT I Ot�Y a f.p c� i l�: l 1 1�: i 1 1'�. S
i ; � ; I i ,.�"'� j��'Q I D R,€�T I� 0. 384 0. �84 �. 3�4
_ ; I �c �.
U i. . � ' � . � � �DIt�METEF�� in �. `� '� �#� �. 4?
o� 4�9� �-j-- 1 � : ; � �HE I GHT a i n 2 . �G� 1 . ►��+ 1 . @Q
.. �. . . :. i _. i ; , � —_ ,
�n � , , . :. ; ( �4ar=�T�R t=:OhITENT, �t 2�_.. �+ ��. � �.�_ �
u�, �_� � , � I►- DRY DEFa�ITY', Rcf 11?. � 115. 5 I1'�. 5
� ���9
� � � � j w ��r�TU�st�TIdhl, ;� 1?�. ;� 1 r5. 1 18�. �
i ,.--- i }-- �4�OID �ATIQ �. 3s�4 s�. 3S4 �. 384
s. �� . � � � � I �- �IiI�METER, ir� '?. �#'� '�. �� '�.42
L 2��0 ! � --�---,-i 1 �= i HE I GHT� i n 1 . 00 1 . �3� _1 . 00 __
�' � -��T� . ! �NORMfi�L STRESS, P�f 19��0 2�0� 30�0
, --`
1��� i` { ` � � ' . I
�rr�_...........-}----.... � h1�i;. �HEAR, psf �4i f,�•�' '�S?2
�
, ; ;
_ _ . _ _.
� �. _ �__� i'�,TF;H Z ha ��fi�TE, :�m i n. 2. ��� i. 414.jk.i ;. F�rnv�
� �. 1 �+. 2 �+. ��' �= 4�
Horiz . Defor�m. , ir-� ULT. ',HEARa �s-fi ��:1 1��4u �514
i
SAMF`LE DAT�i iiGLIENT: ----- -- _
a+=+t�IF'LE T'��'E: F�Eh1CiLD �� '
DESC�?I FT I�Fa: �I LTY SAt�aU ',F'F�OJECT: DQGTURS P1ED I CAL PARf� ;�
�� j
LL= PL= P'I= i �AMF'LE LnCAT I QN: B2 @ 5'
SP'E�C I F I C GRA41I T`r'= 2. �5 i �
REtViARlcS: �AMFLE# 1 i FP.OJ. h��. : T40�815-GS I��iTE: 1�-$-'�S '�
II DIRECT SHEAR TE�T 'i,€
�� :�� I L TE�:H L���uF�t�TuF�I E� `
i (
UBC Laboratory Expansion Test Results 12/19/95
JOB NO . : T4086-GS
JOB NAME : DR' S MEDICAL PARK
LOCATION: BORING #Z @ 0-S'
SAMPLE SOURCE :
SAMPLE BY : TB
LAB TECH : JW
REMARKS : SAMPLE #"1
SAMPLE DESC: SILTY SAND
WET COMPACTED WT. 615 . 4 DIAL TIME
RING WT. 188 . Ei -- - -- - --- -------- --- -------
NET WET WT. 426 . F3 READING #1 . 200 0930
WET DENSITY 128 . 9
WET SOIL + TARE 125 . F3 READING #2 . 226 1045
DRY SOIL + TARE 118 . 0
TARE 0 . C) R_EAD I NG #3 . 2 2 7 0 7 2 0
INTITAI., MOISTURE% 6 . 6
INTITIAL DRY DENS 120 . 9 READING #4 . 200 N/T
o SATURATION 45 . �
FINAL W'I' . 460 . 1 READING #5 . 200 N/T
DRY WT. 398 . 6
LOSS 51 . 6
NET DRY WT. 398 . 6
FINAL DENSITY 120 . 4
SATURATED MOISTUR 15 . 5 Expansion Index 27
Doctors' Medical Park
Project No. T4086-GS
DRAWINGS
(Geotechnical Study Site Plan)
SOIL TECH, INC.