Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 21383 Parcels 15-17 Geotechnical Investigation • ; �.�;- oon8 � 2 M/�TZIX _ • • • • • • • Geotechnical investigation for the Plant's Choice, • Proposed Industrial Building Project, APN(s): 909-310- • 015,-016, and -017, City of Temecula, County of • Riverside, California • • • • Project No. M1114-017 • • • • • Dated: September 30,2013 • • Prepared For: • • • • Mr. Larry R. Markham MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP • 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B • Temecula, California 92590 • • • • • • • M/ATMIX • • Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. 41769 Enterprise circle North,Suite 107,Temecula,California 92590 • Phone 951.200.4747 Fax 760.692.1411 w .matrix-geotech.com • • AA.& r SIX • September 30, 2013 Project No. M 1114-017 MDMG Project No. 1501 MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite B Temecula, California 92590 Attention: Mr. Larry R. Markham • Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for the Plant's Choice, Proposed Industrial Building • Project, Parcel Map 21383, APN(s): 909-310-015, -016, and -017, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Matrix Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. (MATRIX) is pleased to submit herewith our Geotechnical • Investigation Report for the Plant's Choice, proposed industrial building project, Parcel Map 21383, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 909-310-015, -016, and -017, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California. This report presents the results of our review of pertinent geologic and geotechnical reports; the results of our field mapping and reconnaissance, fault trenching, falling-head • percolation tests, laboratory testing, and presents our geologic and engineering judgment, opinions, • conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical design and feasibility aspects of the proposed industrial building(s) project. • Based on the results of the above efforts, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the • proposed industrial construction, provided the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into • the design of the project and implemented during site grading and construction. MATRIX should review and approve final rough grading plans and structural plans when those become available and revise our recommendations presented herein, if we deem it necessary. We are pleased that you retained Matrix to assist you on the preliminary design aspects of this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or should you require additional information, le of hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Ve rul s, Chris sef I Pr' al MATRIX OTEC ICAL CONSULTING M/ lrmlx ` Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. • 41769 Enterprise Clyde North,Suite 107,Temecula,California 92590 Phone 951.200.4747 Fax 760.692.1411 w .matrix-geotech.com • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services I 1.2 Location and Site Description 3 • 1.3 Previous Geological and Geotechnical Investigations 3 • 1.4 Proposed Development and Grading 4 1.5 Subsurface Investigation and Sampling Method 4 • 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 4 • 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting 4 2.2 Local Geologic Setting 6 2.3 Site Geology 6 2.3.1 Artificial Fill, by Others 6 • 2.3.2 Residual Soil 7 2.3.3 Quaternary Pauba Formation 7 2.4 Landslides 7 2.5 Groundwater 7 • 2.6 Surface Drainage 7 • 2.7 Seismicity 8 2.7.1 Faulting 8 2.7.1.1 Murrieta Creek Fault Zone 8 2.7.1.2 Elsinore Fault Zone 8 • 2.7.1.3 San Jacinto Fault Zone 10 2.7.1.4 San Andreas Fault Zone 10 2.7.2 Acrial Photograph Review and Lineament Analysis 10 2.7.2.1 Lineament L-1 10 . 2.7.2.2 Lineament L-2 11 2.7.3 Fault Trench FT-1 11 2.7.4 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 12 2.7.5 Shallow Ground Rupture and Offsite Fissure Investigations 12 • 2.7.6 Tsunami and Seiches 13 . 2.7.7 Lateral Spreading 13 2.8 Seismic Design Parameters 13 2.9 Slope Stability 14 • 2.10 Laboratory Testing 14 • 2.11 Percolation Test— Falling Head 14 2.1 1.1 Percolation Test Preparation 14 2.1 1.2 Percolation Testing and Results 14 • 3.0 CONCLUSIONS 15 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 16 4.1 Site Earthwork 16 • 4.1.1 Site Preparation 16 • 4.1.2 Overexcavalion and Recompaction 16 4.1.3 Import Soil for Grading 17 4.1.4 Shrinkage 17 a • 4.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction 18 4.1.6 Trench Backfill and Compaction 18 • 4.1.7 Temporary Stability of Trenches 18 • 4.1.8 Cal/OSHA Soil Classification 19 • 4.2 Foundation Selection 19 4.2.1 General 19 4.2.2 Conventional Foundations 19 • 4.2.3 Building Floor Slabs 21 • 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations 22 4.4 Structural Setbacks 23 4.5 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal 23 • 4.6 Concrete Flatwork and Improvements 24 • 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design 24 4.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control 26 4.9 Slope Landscaping and Maintenance (as necessary) 27 4.10 Future Plan Reviews,Construction Observation and Testing 27 • 5.0 LIMITATIONS 28 LIST OF TABLES. APPENDICES AND ILLUSTRATIONS • Tables Table I — Seismic Design Parameters (Page 13) Table 2 — Percolation Rates (Page 14) Table 3 — Bulking and Shrinkage (Page 17) • Table 4 —Conventional Foundation Design Parameters (Page 20) Table 5 — Lateral Earth Pressures (Page 22) Table 6 — Preliminary Pavement Design — Asphaltic Concrete (Page 25) Table 7 — Preliminary Pavement Design — Portland Cement Concrete (Page 26) f Figures & Plates • Figure 1 — Site Location Map (Page 2) • Figure 2 — Regional Geologic Map (Page 5) Figure 3 — Fault Location Map (Page 9) Plate I —Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text) • Plate 2 —Fault Trench (Rear of Text) • Plate 3 —Geologic Location Map (Rear of Text) Appendices • Appendix A — References (Rear of Text) • Appendix B — Field Exploration Logs and Percolation Testing (Rear of Text) Appendix C — Laboratory Test Procedures and Test Results (Rear of Text) Appendix D— Earthwork Specifications (Rear of Text) 1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of the work leading to the preparation of this geotechnical report study was to evaluate the pertinent geologic and geotechnical conditions on the site, and to determine the • rates percolation.for the site. Included in this report are preliminary geotechnical design criteria • for grading, foundation design and construction, and other relevant geotechnical considerations for use during the design and construction of the proposed industrial buildings. In addition, the �. report contains preliminary falling-head percolation design values. • Our scope of services consisted of: A review of existing geotechnical/geologic reports, geologic maps, and aerial photos pertinent to the site (Appendix A). Analysis and review of stereoscopic aerial photographs of the property (Appendix A). A subsurface field evaluation consisting of the excavation, sampling, and logging of • four (4) bores labeled B-I to B-4 to depths ranging from approximately 12 to 51%z • feet. In addition, two (2) percolation bores labeled P-I and P-2 were excavated to depths of 7 and 10 feet, respectively. Logs of the geotechnical bores are presented in Appendix B, with the approximate locations depicted on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The bores were excavated to evaluate the pertinent engineering and percolation • characteristics of the subsurface soil on the site.including classification of site soil, • determination of depth to groundwater (if present), and to obtain representative soil samples. . Excavation and detailed logging of one (1) exploratory fault trench. This exploratory • fault trench was excavated to locate potential active faulting within the Elsinore Fault Zone—Temecula Section (Murrieta Creek Fault). • Geologic site reconnaissance and mapping of surficial units. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration (Appendix C). • Engineering and geologic analyses of the data with respect to the design and • construction of the proposed industrial buildings. Preparation of General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix D). Preparation of this report presenting our review, conclusions and preliminary geotechnical design recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed industrial buildings. log All �XN .r � . .10 19 pars dr NOT • SCALE 1.2 Location and Site Description • The site is located southeast of the intersection of Fuller Drive at Winchester Road, in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The site is bounded on the north by Winchester Road, west by Fuller Drive, east by an existing Penske facility with a free-standing retaining wall, and south by O two graded parcels of vacant land. The general location and configuration of the site is shown • on the Site Location Map (Figure I). Based upon our document and project background review the general area of the site and its surrounding areas were previously graded as part of two previous Parcel Maps, 21382 and 21383. Those parcel maps contained Parcel Nos. 1 through 61 and I through 130, respectively, . within the Winchester at Diaz Road intersection to the west. A review of the previous reporting • (Appendix A) indicates that geotechnical bores were originally initiated on the site pertinent to this report in 1981 with subsequent studies performed consisting of additional bores, fault trenches, and test pits. Active faulting was identified through subsurface fault trenching offsite • to the east and was identified on the parcel maps as non-structural areas. Grading of the selected Parcels 15, 16, and 17 of this investigation has resulted in the following as-graded conditions: • • Fill material was derived from onsite soil and was used to elevate portions of parcel 17 • and all of Parcels 16 and 15 to the design pad grade. • Parcel 17 is a transition lot, which has both Artificial Fill, placed by others and . Quaternary Pauba Formation exposed at the surface. • • Based on our review, the fill material was placed during grading operations, which occurred in 1991 and 1992 under the observation, and testing of the previous geotechnical consultant, Schaefer Dixon Associates (SDA, see references). The general topography of the site is Flat with grade changing as the parcels step down in elevation to the east, generally following the contour of Winchester Road. The peak elevation of the site is approximately 1042 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and is located in the western • portion of the site. The lowest elevation is within the eastern site area, at an elevation of 1031 • (MSL). Relief across the site is minor and subtle, with the pronounced change in grade at the parcel lines being the greatest significance within the site with a I to 2 foot grade break. Approximately I I feet of elevation difference occurs from west to east. . 1.3 Previous Geological and Geotechnical Investigations Based on information provided to MATRIX, previous geotechnical reporting was performed on the project site, on the other parcel map identified herein, and adjacent to, by Leighton and • Associates (L&A), Schaefer Dixon Associates (SDA), and Kennedy. Kennedy performed a • geologic description of the site region in 1977. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc. (1987) • performed an investigation of the location and age of the Willard fault in the foothills immediately southeast of the subject site. Leighton and Associates prepared Geotechnical reports for the subject parcel maps identified herein in 1986 and 1987. In addition, Schaefer • Dixon Associates investigated fissures, which occurred in the late part of 1987, both offsite in • Southeastern Temecula and within Parcel Map 21383. In 1989, Schaefer Dixon Associates • Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 3 September 30, 2013 • performed a subsurface exploration within the subject Parcel Map 21383 and 21382 as part of a broader study of their 1987 ground surface fissure investigation. To the best knowledge of Matrix Geotechnical Consulting, building permits have not been obtained and/or construction • has not taken place since completion of the previous grading in 1992. 1.4 Proposed Development and Grading • It is our understanding that the proposed industrial development is to consist of 3 parcels with • three (3) associated concrete buildings. The remainder of the industrial development will include asphaltic concrete paving for parking lot areas, the creation of a level building pads on all three parcels, underground utilities, curbs, gutters, infiltration areas, and other appurtenances. The preliminary configuration of the proposed building pads is shown on the Geotechnical Map, • Plate I. 1.5 Subsurface Investigation and Sampling Method • The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of four (4) bores labeled B-I to B-4 to depths ranging from approximately 12 to 51% feet below currently existing site grades. All of the bores were logged during drilling by a member of our staff. • The bores were excavated with hollow-stem augers, advanced by a conventional truck-mounted . drilling rig. Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively • undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.42-inch diameter brass rings. In general, our sampling methods are as described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4-inch • inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers were driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30- inches. The blow counts obtained during driving were recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected and placed in sealed plastic containers to retain their original water ` content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were • then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the bores are indicated on the Geotechnical Map, included as Plate • 1 (Rear of Report). The bore logs, which illustrate the soil conditions encountered at the bore • locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The • Peninsular Ranges are characterized by steep, elongated valleys that trend west to northwest. • The mountainous regions are underlain by Pre-Cretaceous, metasedimentary and metavolcanic • rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California Batholith. The Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are comprised of non-marine and marine sediments consisting of sandstone, mudstones, conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units. A map of the regional geology is . presented on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 2. Project No. M 1114-017 Page 4 September 30, 2013 • LEGEND . •- o ,y le /' Qyf - Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits • - r . J /4,z O Qya Quaternary Young Channel Deposits , T Qyv - Quaternary Young Alluvial Valley Deposits �' ••• •• ; - 1 I $ O .' Qpfs - Quaternary Pauba Formation-Sandstone 0)i ; Member • - _ {• Qpff - Quaternary Pauba Formation- '• Y`l f• ' r� 0P Fanglomerate Member p� _ QTsw - Quaternary Pauba Formation-Sandstone ���� r, •�' ..`0�; `•A �O Unit �4 �,.• ,- _ \4� Tvsr - Tertiary Santa Rosa Basalt I' %, �.•`�--- .Mzu - Mesozic Melasedimentary Rocks, �., •,, �,.` �•♦ Undifferentiated '`,, .,�, •,• - Fault(Dotted where concealed,dashed `>\''.,�"�'', _ •�. where certainty is approximate 30m) - Geologic Contact .:.�• `�-'%, '%., O v ' prox. Site „n r� fs W019 = ` - use Oil, Ran U`:` i - + Califon�il�`;. Airport • USGS/California Geological Survey. Kennedy. M.P and Morton D.M.,Preliminary Geologic Map of the Murciela 7.5'Quadrangle,Riverside � ,�County. California,Version 1.0 ue1.Mw�"'�-11'�1L'!4��yultl�rf/uii�rrr��'✓��/! � � � Project Name MDMG - PLANTS CHOICE FIGURE 2 Project No. M1114-017 MA&AMIX REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP Geol./Eng. RSM/JPN Scale NOT TO SCALE Date SEPTEMBER 2013 2.2 Local Geologic Setting . The Plant's Choice project lies within the Temecula Valley, which is considered a broad • structural and topographic trough bounded by small to moderate size hills on the northeast and by steep and rugged slopes of the Elsinore Mountains on the southwest (Regional Geologic Map — Figure 2). The valley trough at the project area is approximately one mile wide, bounded by the Wildomar fault on the northeast and the Willard fault on the southwest. The main trace of the Willard fault zone reported by Kennedy (1977) crosses offsite to the western portions of parcel number 21382 and 21383. Several secondary fault traces trend northwest across the elevated portions of the original topography, subparallel to the main trace. • A series of photolineaments coincide with "some" of these fault traces. Northwestward-trending photolineaments were also observed along the valley Floor. One lineament coincides with portions of a fault at the slope break across the center of Parcel Map • 21383 approximately 322 feet to the west of Parcel 17 on the proposed Plant's Choice site. . Another strong photolineament on the alluvial fioodplain located approximately 277 feet to the • east of Parcel 15 coincides precisely with the 1987 ground fissure and was subsequently named as the Murrieta Creek Fault. Those photolineaments are labeled L-1 and L-2 for descriptive observation. The faults, photolineaments, previous work performed by Schaefer-Dixon • Associates and Leighton and Associates are depicted on the accompanying Geological • Reference Map, Plate 2. The site is presently covered by a thin veneer of compacted fill, placed during the Schaefer- Dixon Associates 1991-1992 earthwork and grading, and Quaternary Pauba Formation • sediments in the once hilly terrain, and by late Pleistocene to Holocene-age alluvial Floodplain and fan deposits on the valley Floor. Metamorphic basement rocks assigned to the Bedford Canyon Formation (Jurassic age Metasediments) are present at higher elevations, offsite to the west. 2.3 Site Geology. Based upon our understanding of the regional area and a review of the geotechnical bore logs, • the surficial earth materials on the site are comprised of artificial fills and Quaternary Pauba Formation. Pauba Formation exists throughout the.site and fill materials are present surfically to depths ranging from '/2 to 5 feet, in various areas throughout the site. A general description of the earth materials observed on the site is provided in the following paragraphs: 40 2.3.1 Artificial Fill, by Others (Afo): Artificial Fill, placed by others materials was mapped within the eastern portions of the • site on Parcels 15 and 16. Portions of Parcel 17 were filled to achieve design grade, the • balance of Parcel 17 is cut. The Artificial Fill material is approximately %2 to 5 feet on each parcel, notably thicker as the elevation changes from west to east.. The Artificial fill, placed by others consists of dark brown silty sand, clayey sand, or silt, dry to damp, and medium dense. Project No. M 11 14-017 Page 6 September 30, 2013 • • • 2.3.2 Residual Soil: • • The remains of an old residual soil zone were noted in Fault Trench FT-I. The old • residual soil zone occurs immediately beneath the Artificial Fill and in present in the • easterly half of the fault trench. The old residual soil was consisted of sand and silty sand, was dark brown to brown in color, dry to damp, and loose to medium in-place. • • 2.3.3 Quaternary. Pauba Formation (Qpfs): • Quaternary Pauba Formation was mapped at some locations directly from the surface. The upper unit of the Pauba Formation at this location consists of a brown weathered • siltstone, which is dense and damp. Below the siltstone unit is a weakly cemented silty • sandstone and sandstone which are generally light brown to brown, damp to moist, and medium dense to very dense. • • 2.4 Landslides • Our review of the pertinent geologic literature did not indicate the presence of landslides on or • directly adjacent to the site. The subject site is Flat and not located within an area mapped as being potentially affected by earthquake-induced landsliding: 2.5 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface investigation at a depth of 35 feet below • the ground surface within bore B-1. Presently, the elevation of the ground surface is • approximately 1035 (amsl), which corresponds to an approximate groundwater surface elevation of 1000 (amsl). Data provided by the State of California Department of Water Resources indicates a nearby groundwater well No. 07SO3W35P002S, located south by southeast of the • site, having a groundwater surface elevation of approximately 986 (amsl), or 45 feet below the • mean elevation of the site. A review of this data indicates that groundwater appears to have a direction of Flow away from the site. Based upon the medium dense to dense conditions of the • Pauba Formation, groundwater is not expected to be a constraint for the proposed construction. • • 2.6 Surface Drainage Existing surface drainage is not evident within the, site. The three (3) parcels were previously • graded to design elevations based upon Parcel Map 21383 and water was not observed to have • created erosional features within the site area or on the low-height slopes present at the parcel • lines between Parcels 15/16 and 16/17, respectively. In general, during a storm event, excessive water Flow may likely traverse the site in a west to east pattern, as elevations suggest. There are • not any existing drainage devices that exist on the site. • • • • • • Project No. M 11 14-017 Page 7 September 30, 2013 • a • 2.7 Seismicity. • 2.7.1 Faulting The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are not any known faults (active, potentially active, or inactive) onsite. The site is location in a • seismically active region of Southern California. The possibility of damage from ground a rupture is considered nil because active faults are not known to cross the site. Mann illustrates the faults in the Temecula region as a series of high angle, (greater than 70 degrees) en-echelon normal faults within both the Willard and Wildomar Fault Zones. • Horizontal movements are indicated as uncommon. Kennedy has identified the sediments • near the site as alluvium of Holocene (Recent) age. The following fault zones are considered to have potential impact to the proposed on-site structures during their lifetime. Additionally, a discussion of our photolineament analysis is included in Section • 2.7.2 of this report. 2.7.1.1 Murrieta Creek Fault Zone The site is located approximately less than 500 feet west of the Murrieta Creek • Fault. The Murrieta Creek Fault is located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies • Zone as designated by the State Division of Mines & Geology effective January 1, 1990. The Special Studies Zone, which is less than 500 feet west of the site (Fault Location Map — Figure 3), lies along the northern portion of the • trend of the Elsinore Fault Zone, a northwest-southeast striking zone extending • approximately 120 miles from near Corona, California into Mexico. The existence of the Murrieta Creek Fault was first observed in the summer of 1987 when a series of en-echelon, surficial, ground cracks were found in the Wolf Valley area of Rancho California, located approximately four miles • southeast of the site (Leighton & Associates, 1987)1. Subsequent ground cracking was discovered in the Temecula area, both southeast and northwest of the site. The firm of Schaefer Dixon Associates (1988) trenched across these cracks just to the east of the site and found associated, subsurface, Holocene • age faulting, now referred to as the Murrieta Creek Fault. 2.7.1.2 Elsinore Fault Zone The Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately %2 mile east-northeast of the • site. It has experienced strong earthquakes in historical times, (1856, 1894, and 1910), and exhibits late Quaternary movement, Mann, 1955. The State of California has designated several faults within this zone as sufficiently well defined and active to be placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The • Wildomar Fault is one of these so zoned and is located approximately ''A mile • east-northeast of the site. • t Me report information was obtained from the Soil Tech Inc.,June 7, 1990 Report • • • Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 8 September 30, 2013 LEGEND ., //`�.. t t' I!•• •���c_ Elsinore Fault Zonei(l`L ` A Murrieta Creek Fault Segment B Wildomar-Temecula Segment /% � ,-•�� �� t / � �� � I; ) / �I•' �/ /� It 4 �i : °'0.76 3aVh�'ts 05. - rain{.'/ `cl WPII \ �� L ��Mrgta l � '•. r .., c � Reservoir / •': - -=y4_l .� � ♦ b r ce4i Fel o -. '\ p0 r. p' 'i��- +b 11' ,,f..•` a •6- ,��d0•..Rf5R N01r aN Vry Sri /,` .•I,`II, jMW !� Fox. 41 .tiro--'. .r:fit ) i'• �� \'/ •. 10, 11 i gyp. ' State of California,Special Studies Zones,Muffieta Quadrangle,Revised Official Map, Dated January 1, 1990 •J J 1 ` Project Name MDMG-PLANTS CHOICE FIGURE 3 Project No. M1114-017 M IX FAULT ZONE MAP Geol./En . RSM/JPN Scale NOT TO SCALE Date SEPTEMBER 2013 2.7.1.3 San Jacinto Fault Zone The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately 20 miles northeast of the site and trends northwest-southeast. This is a major right lateral strike-slip fault which has displayed surface rupture and associated seismic ground t♦ shaking in 1899, 1918, 1923, 1934, 1937, 1942, and 1954. • 2.7.1.4 San Andreas Fault Zone The southern segment of the San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately • 35 miles northeast of the site and trends northwest to southeast across the • southern front of the San Bernardino Mountains. It is a major right lateral strike-slip fault, which exhibited major surface rupture in 1857 during the Fort Tejon earthquake and again in 1868 during the Dos Palmas Earthquake. • 2.7.2 Aerial Photograph Review and Lineament Analysis Stereo-pair aerial photographs were studied to identify photolineaments which trend across or towards the site. Lineaments are graphically depicted on the Geologic Location • Map, Plate 3 and labeled L-1 and L-2 for observational convenience. A discussion of the • photolineaments is described below and the stereo-pairs of photographs used for this study are listed in Appendix A. • 2.7.2.1 Lineament L-1 Photolineament L-1 extends onto the southeast portion of Parcel Map 21383, approximately 277 feet the eastern edge of Parcel No. 15, from the area of the • adjacent buildings along Rio Nedo Avenue. It is characterized as a very • distinct, dark line, slightly curvilinear to the north, which terminates abruptly • at a point some 1,150 feet into Parcel Map 21383. This strong photolineament observed on 1962 aerial photographs, coincides precisely with the 1987 ground fissure, and extends beyond the fissure approximately 700 feet to the • northwest. The lineament on the 1962 photographs appears to reflect a subtle • ground escarpment along its entire length; the ground surface east of the lineament appears to be a few feet lower than on the west. The photolineament terminates between the older trenches performed by SDA, • known as SDA-3 and SDA-4, of the SDA, 1989 report. Photolineament L-I • clearly reflects the trace of a historic ground fissure, which existed at least • since 1962, is located offsite, and probably earlier, along which the ground surface appears to be lower on the east. Project No: M 1 1 14-017 Page 10 September 30, 2013 2.7.2.2 Lineament L-2 • Photolineament L-2 trends northwesterward across the original gentle slope • saddles and slope breaks just above the valley Floor and is located approximately 322 feet from the western edge of Parcel 17. It is generally indistinct and forms a series of discontinuous vegetation tonal changes. In • general, L-2 is in alignment with offsite Lineaments that appear to coincide with minor intra-Pauba pre-Holocene faults. In addition, L-2 was intersected by L&A during their fault trench excavations FT-4 and FT-6 contained within their 1987 report. The evaluation of L-2 in these trenches provided evidence • that faulting did not exist. See Appendix B for previous reported trench logs • by L&A. 2.7.3 Fault Trench: FT-I • Fault trench FT-I was excavated along the southeastern portion of Parcel 15 with a trend • of S45'W to a distance of 100 feet. The trench was constructed in accordance with the Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for trench excavation in Class B soil. An existing masonry block wall is located along the Parcel line of 14/15, as • such, FT-I was adjusted approximately 9 feet off of the face of wall, so as to not . compromise or undercut a I H:I V plane of influence from the bottom of the block wall. • Logging of the north wall of trench FT-I 'was performed. Compacted fill material was observed within the upper 4%2 feet from the surface • overlying a thin layer of residual soil, likely remains from previously existing site grades • (Pre-1991). Pauba Formation Sandstone and Siltstone was encountered below the compacted fill and residual soil. The Pauba Formation was observed to be dense and well indurated within the eastern portion of FT-I. However, west of station 25+00, fine and coarse gravels mixed with blue Jurassic Metasediment Phyllite fragments were ' observed in continuous gravel beds. Erosional features were observed at Station 25+00. No observation of offset bedding, fissures, or evidence of faulting were observed within the subject fault trench. ' Additionally, we reviewed the Leighton & Associates (L&A), 1987 fault trench FT-4 located approximately 626 feet to the north and attempted to do the same for the Schaefer Dixon and Associates (SDA), 1989 fault trench FT-1 located to the south of the site. Matrix was unable to obtain the (SDA) fault trench log information, however the L&A • trench log data was made available to us. Upon review, the L&A fault trench FT-4 projects onto the site from the north onto Parcel 17 and the majority of Parcel 16. Evidence of Holocene-age active faults was not shown by L&A on their trench log. The L&A fault trench FT-4 is included in Appendix B. Project No. M 1114-017 Page I I September 30, 2013 2.7.4 Liquefaction & Seismically Induced Settlement • Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soil behaves • similarly to a Fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction • occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non- cohesive (granular) soil; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soil exhibits the highest • liquefaction potential. Dry cohesionless soil may experience dynamic compaction during an earthquake. In general, cohesive soil may not be susceptible to liquefaction. Groundwater was identified at a depth of 35 feet below existing site grade within the southeast comer of Parcel 15. Based upon the depth of over-burden, in-situ density, and relative hardness, the possibility of liquefaction manifesting itself at the site is considered • nil. Based upon a review of Seismic Hazard Zone Report 115 — Murrieta 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Table 1.2 identifies Quaternary units for their susceptibility to liquefaction. Pauba formation sandstone was identified to have a susceptibility (when saturated) to liquefaction that is "Not Likely". Pauba formation sandstone is present within the • proposed area of the building identified on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. If . groundwater is identified when at shallow depths (less than 35 feet) consultation with the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will be required. • Dynamic settlement of non-saturated fill and alluvium approximately I%2-inch is • anticipated, for proposed engineered fill and Pauba Formation. A differential settlement of approximately I inch in 30-feet for engineered fill and Pauba Formation is expected because of seismic shaking. • 2.7.5 Shallow Ground Rupture and Offsite Fissure Investigations Shallow ground rupture cannot be completely precluded on the project site. However, based on our geologic mapping, literature review, and aerial photo analysis it appears • that active faulting/potential shallow ground rupture is considered unlikely because of • the absence of faulting on the site. The previously defined fault system of the Murrieta Creek Fault is located offsite and no photo lineaments project onto the site. The potential for ground cracking because of shaking from distant seismic events is considered . unlikely, although it is a possibility at any site. Previous studies by Schaefer Dixon Associates performed in 1988 and 1989 for ground fissure investigations were conducted within Parcel Map 21383 near the site, but not upon the site Parcels 15, 16, and 17. SDA identified known fissures and suspected fault . traces within exploratory trenches and lines of Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) soundings, • aligned perpendicular to geo-structural trends. The trench logging and CPT correlations revealed that the ground-surface fissures extended upward from pre-existing faults. Trenches exposed zones of faults or disrupted alluvial strata and/or abrupt stratigraphic • discontinuities that were recognizable between the CPT soundings placed across the • trace. Similarly, trenches and CPT soundings in areas away from surface fissures generally encountered laterally continuous, near-horizontal strata without evidence of disruption. During the Schaefer Dixon Associates 1988 study, also offsite, ground- surface fissures were clearly related to recognizable subsurface geologic structures and • stratigraphic discontinuities within the near-surface alluvium. Thus, in 1990 CDMG created an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Zone for the area surrounding the subject investigated fissures. Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 12 September 30, 2013 2.7.6 Tsunami and Seiches • Based on the elevation of the proposed development of the site with respect to sea level • and its distance from large open bodies of water, the potential for seiche and/or tsunami waves is considered to be nil. • 2.7.7 Lateral Spreading Saturated soil that has experienced liquefaction may be subject to lateral spreading where located adjacent to free-faces, such as slopes, channels, and rivers. Murrieta Creek is • located approximately 2300 feet to the east of the site. Based on the USGS topographic • map, the general gradient of the ground surface in the area of the site is 0.70% down to • the east. In addition, the slope bank of the western flank of Murrieta Creek is approximately 15 feel in height. Matrix performed a screening process and calculations to determine if lateral spreading presents a significant hazard to the site. Based our • review, there is a significant factor of safety present within the upper 15 feet of the site • with respect to lateral spreading. Therefore, lateral spreading does not appear to present a causative hazard to the site and the effects of lateral spreading at the site are considered to be nil. 2.8 Seismic Design Parameters The design spectrum was developed based on the CBC, 2010. A site Coordinate of 33.5099° N, 1 17.1753* W was used to derive the seismic design parameters presented below in Table 1. TABLE 1 Seismic Design Parameters • Seismic Soil Parameters 2010 CBC Section 1613 • Site Class Definition Table 1613.5.2 D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter Ss (for 0.2 second) (Figure 1.99 1613.5 3 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Si (for 1.0 second) (Figure 0.75 1613.5(4)) • Site Coefficient Fa shortperiod) Table 1613.5.3 1 1.00 • Site Coefficient F, (I-secondperiod) Table 1613.5.2 2 1.50 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration 2.02 Parameter SMs shortperiod) (Eq. 16-37 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Spectral Response Acceleration 1.13 Parameter SMi I-secondperiod) (Eq. 16-38 • Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDs shortperiod) (Eq. 16-39 1.33 • Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDI (I-secondperiod) (Eq. 16-40 0.75 Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 13 September 30, 2013 2.9 Slope Stability • The site is generally Flat and we understand that significant slopes are not proposed to develop • the site for its intended use. Once final grading plans become available, MATRIX should review the final proposed grading and provide supplemental recommendations with regards to slopes, as necessary. • 2.10 Laboratory Testing The following tests.were performed on soil samples recovered from within the bores: maximum density and optimum water content (ASTM D1557), direct shear, consolidation, -200 Wash, • sieve analysis, Expansion Index, sulfate and chloride content, resistivity, and pH. The evaluated • data, a discussion of the tests performed, and a summary of the results are presented in Appendix • C. These results should be confirmed at the completion of site grading and performed by the engineering geologist/geotechnical engineer's onsite representative. 2.11 Percolation Test— Falling Head 2.11.1 Percolation Test Preparation • Two (2) falling-head percolation tests were preformed on the project site. The • percolation test bores were drilled to a depth of 7 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface using a hollow-stem auger drill rig. The test bores were prepared by placing 3- inch diameter perforated PVC pipe to the maximum depth of the test bore and by filling the annular space between the pipe and the sidewall with '/,-inch angular gravel. The . bore was pre-soaked overnight or if the site soil met the sandy soil criteria a minimum 2- hour presoak was conducted prior to testing. An observation of the pre-soaking indicated the falling head did seep away faster than half of the wetted depth in 25-minutes or less for two consecutive readings, hence a 2-hour presoak was conducted. The approximate • locations of the percolation test holes are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate I (rear • of text). 2.11.2 Percolation Testing and Results Testing was performed on the same day, August 22, 2012. The drop in water level was measured from a fixed initial reference point for each reading. Measurements were made with a precision of/.-inch and after each measurement the water level was refilled to the • original level within the test bore. The percolation rates for the testing performed ranged • from 2.25 to 6.0 sgfl/gal./day; see Table 2 Percolation Rates below. A gravel correction factor of 0.46 has been applied for the values in parentheses. These values can be utilized for preliminary design for the infiltration rate. The engineer should use the appropriate conversion factors and safety factors necessary for infiltration design. • Table 2 Percolation Rates • Parcel Number Depth (feet) Design Rate • S ft/GaVDa 15 7 6.0 2.75 17 10 2.25 1.03 Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 14 September 30, 2013 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical site reconnaissance, field and laboratory investigations, onsite • storm water treatment study and our understanding of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed industrial development and improvements are feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project design • process and implemented during construction. The following is a summary of the primary • geotechnical factors determined from our analysis of the site. Based on review of some of the pertinent geologic maps, aerial photos, and reports, the site • is underlain by Artificial Fill, placed by others and Quaternary Pauba Formation. The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake fault zone. Groundwater is not considered a constraint for the proposed industrial development • improvements. The potential for liquefaction is considered negligible. • 9 Active or potentially active faults were not identified, known to exist on, or project toward • the site. Known landslides do not occur on, or have the potential to impact the site. • 0 Laboratory test results of the near surface soil (fill and bedrock) indicate a very low expansion potential as evaluated by the Expansion Index (EI) test. The EI test consists of remolding a soil to an arbitrary density that bears little or no relationship to field density conditions. At best the EI is an index of probable soil behavior. The Index is not useful to . the engineer assigned the task of designing a foundation. Laboratory testing indicates that site soil has a negligible potential for soluble sulfate attack on Type II/V concrete. Laboratory test results of the near surface soil indicate that onsite soil has a moderate • corrosion potential to buried metals. • All Artificial Fill, previously placed by others and residual soil (observed within the fault trench FT-1 at a depth of 4'h-5 feet) are prone to potential settlement and should be • overexcavated to underlying competent Pauba Formation bedrock, within areas of proposed structures, fill or new as remedial improvements. Anticipated removal depths range from approximately 3 to 9 feet below the existing surface (See Geotechnical Map, Plate 1). • Transition areas located on Parcel 17, Artificial Fill and Pauba Formation, require ground improvement in proposed building and pavement areas. • The existing onsite soil appears, from a geotechnical perspective, to be suitable material for • use as fill, provided it is relatively free from rocks (larger than 3 inches in maximum • dimension), construction debris, and organic material. It is anticipated that the onsite soil may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty earth moving equipment. Project No. M 11 14-017 Page 15 September 30, 2013 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS • 4.1 Site Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation and remedial grading, followed by the installation of underground utilities, and foundations for the proposed industrial • structures. All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable • requirements of the County of Riverside and the Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included as part of Appendix D. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading of areas that may receive structural fill, structures or other improvements the areas should be cleared of surface obstructions, existing debris and stripped of • vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. . All debris from the demolition of any onsite facilities of any type should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the removal of buried tree roots, t♦ obstructions, structures or utilities, which extend below finished site grades should be • excavated to Pauba and replaced with a suitable compacted fill material. Areas to • receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum water content, and recompacted to 90 percent or more relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials • [ASTM] Test Method D1557). 4.1.2 Overexcavation and Recompaction The site is underlain by Artifical fill, placed by others, residual soil and Quaternary . Pauba Formation. At a minimum, pad areas shall be over-excavated 3 feet below the • bottom of footing or to underlying Pauba Formation. Transition parcels should have the cut portion over-excavated at equal depth for fill depths of 0 to 5 feet, 5 feet for fill depths exceeding 5 feet.and up to 10 feet, 10 feet for fill depths exceeding 10 and up to • 15 feet, and H/2 (where "H" is the proposed fill height) for fills greater than 15 feet. • Over—excavation in building areas should extend 5 feet or more beyond the proposed • structure. Although not anticipated, localized, deeper over-excavation should be anticipated where deemed necessary by the geotechnical consultant based on observation • during grading. Following the over-excavation, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled to locate any loose or soft zones. Proofrolling will involve making several passes (minimum of 3) with heavy rubber-tired equipment (or equivalent) over the area under consideration, and • observing the reaction of the subgrade under the wheels. Upon completion of • proofrolling, a field representative of MATRIX should perform probing and/or field density testing to-evaluate the extent of,loose or soft zones. All observed isolated loose or soft zones should be processed and compacted in-place. Upon completion of • proofrolling, the entire exposed subgrade should be scarified a minimum of 6 inches • deep and compacted in-place, achieving a minimum subgrade relative compaction of 90 • percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557. Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 16 September 30, 2013 If a large area of loose/soft bottom is encountered, we recommend that a layer of geotextile fabric be placed to stabilize the bottom before placing the primary structural • fill. Such additional subsurface treatment should be determined in the field by MATRIX • during foundation subgrade preparation activities. Upon completion of the required • overexcavation, backfill should be placed in accordance with recommendations presented later in this report. • The fault trench FT-I was excavated within the southeast comer of Parcel 15 to a depth • of approximately 9 feet. Upon completion of our logging, trench spoils were utilized to loosely backfill the trench. The backfilled soil within the trench should be removed during site grading and replaced with soil approved and compacted in accordance with Section 4.1.5 of this report. • Within any proposed roadway pavement areas 24 inches of the native soil below the design subgrade should be removed and recompacted, that is below the proposed structural section (total thickness of asphaltic concrete and aggregate base) of the • roadway. However, localized, deeper overexcavation should be anticipated where • deemed necessary by the geotechnical consultant based on observations during grading. 4.1.3 Import Soil for Grading • In the event import soil is needed to achieve final design grades, all import materials should be free of deleterious/oversize materials, have a very low expansion potential, negligible corrosion potential, and receive prior approval by Matrix Geotechnical Consulting 48 hours prior to commencement of delivery onsite. Laboratory testing of • import soil must consist of maximum density and optimum water content, Expansion • Index, sulfate, chloride, resistivity, pH, and sieve analysis. 4.1.4 Shrinkage and Bulking Volumetric changes in earth quantities occur when excavated onsite earth materials are replaced as properly compacted fill or when fill is imported on a volumetric basis. The following (Table 3) is an estimate of losses from removal of organics and shrinkage and • bulking factors for the various geologic units found on the site. These estimates are • based on in-place densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree • of relative compaction specified during grading. TABLE 3 • Bulking and Shrinkage GEOLOGIC UNIT SHRINKAGE/BULKING PERCENT Artificial Fill, by Others 10 to 15 shrinka e Quaternary Pauba Formation 0 to 5 (shrinkage) The above estimates of shrinkage are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution because those are not absolute values, rather preliminary estimates which may • vary with depth of overexcavation, stripping losses, field conditions at the time of • grading, etc. (Handling losses, and reduction in volume because of removal of oversized material, are not included in these estimates). Project No. M 1 114-017 Page 17 September 30, 2013 4.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction . Areas prepared to receive structural fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 • inches, brought to optimum-water content, and recompacted to 90 percent or more relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction • equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts generally not exceeding • 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Fill materials shall be free of cobbles and boulders, with not more than 25% of the material being greater than 3 inches in size. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. In general, oversized • material greater than 8 inches shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or • within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. Oversize material may be incorporated into design fills in accordance with our standard grading details (see Appendix D). 4.1.6 Trench Backfill and Compaction Onsite soil is generally considered to be suitable as trench backfill provided it is screened • of rocks and other material over 3 inches in diameter and free of organics. The trench • backfill soil should possess a well-distributed grain size of coarse and fine gravel as well as coarse, medium, and fine sands. It is expected that onsite soil will meet this specification. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness) by mechanical means to 90 percent or S more relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). 4.1.7 Temporary Stability. of Trenches • All excavations for the proposed development must be performed in accordance with • current OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) regulations and those of other regulatory agencies, as appropriate. • Based upon previous construction experience within the City of Temecula, working • within Pauba Formation, temporary vertical trenches or other cuts may be cut up to five feet. Those deeper than five feet shoud be slot-cut, shored, or cut to a I H:I V (horizontal, H: vertical, V) slope gradient. Surface water should be diverted away from exposed cuts, and not be allowed to pond on top of the cut slopes. Temporary cuts should not be left • open for an extended period of time. Recommendations and stability calculations can be • provided upon request for the use of cantilevered shoring, soldier piles, and underpinning. A foundation and/or shoring plan review must be completed by MATRIX prior to construction to confirm the location and suitability of potential shoring with • respect to new structures. Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 18 September 30, 2013 If trenches are shallow and the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, clean sand, having a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, should be used to • bed and shade the utilities. Sand backfill should be densified. The densification may be A accomplished by jetting or Flooding. However, a representative of MATRIX shall observe the sub-soil conditions within the trench to determine the soil drainage condition potential. The presence of silt or clay bearing sub-soil within a trench suggests the use of • a vibratory plate and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction of the trench backfill. • A representative from MATRIX should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project specifications. • 4.1.8 Cal/OSHA Soil Classification Based on the soil types encountered during our preliminary investigation, onsite soil can be generally classified as Type B. MATRIX does not limit the soil classification to one type as soil may locally change over short distances. Furthermore, this classification • should not preclude a Cal/OSHA "competent person" from determining soil type on a case-by-case basis. 4.2 Foundation Selection • 4.2.1 General Preliminary recommendations for conventional foundation design and construction are • presented herein. When the final structural loads for the proposed structures become • available, those should be provided to our office to verify the recommendations • presented herein. The information and recommendations presented in this section are minimums from a • geotechnical point of view and are not meant to supersede design by the project • structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design or those of a corrosion consultant. 4.2.2 Conventional Foundations Place continuous footings at a minimum depth of I8-inch for exterior and interior construction into certified. compacted fill. All continuous footings should have a • minimum width of 15 inches. Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 Ib/f12, for continuous and spread footings. This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot in depth and 150 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf, for dead load plus live load. Spread or isolated pad footings shall be a minimum width of 24 inches and be founded 18 inches deep into certified compacted fill. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in • evaluating the above bearing capacity values. The bearing capacities should be re- evaluated when loads and footing sizes are finalized. Project No. M 1114-017 Page 19 September 30, 2013 Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction along • the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be desifned for a coefficient of friction of • 0.35, and 'a passive earth pressure of 250 Ib/ft /ft. The passive earth pressure • incorporates a factor of safety of about 1.5. When combining passive and friction forces, passive resistance should be reduced by 1/3. • All footing trenches and bearing pads must be cut neat and level, and should be free of sloughed materials. See Table 4 for subgrade water conditioning for both continuous footing trenches and pads. • TABLE4 CONVENTIONAL CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS • Expansion Potential Very Low • Soil Cate o I Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Finish Grade Interior/Exterior 18 Footing Width 15 No. 4 Rebar • Footing Reinforcement Two(2)on Top • Two 2 on Bottom Slab Thickness 6 inches minimum • A water and vapor retarding system (Stego or equivalent) Under-Slab Requirements should be placed below the slab • on grade and water sensitive areas • as discussed in Section 4.2.3 At 10%above optimum water Foundation and Slab Subgrade Water Content content prior to placement of • concrete • Footing Embedment Next to Swales and Slopes If exterior footings are proposed adjacent to drainage swales are • proposed within five(5) feet horizontally of a swale,the footing • should be embedded 10"below the recommendations listed within Section 4.2.2 of this report to assure embedment below • the bottom of the swale is maintained. Footings adjacent to • slopes should be placed at least five(5) feet horizontally from the edge of the footing to the face of the slope. • 'For Expansion potential greater than Low Expansion, alternative design guidelines will be provided by the GeotechnicaI Engineer. • • • • • • Project No. M 1114-017 Page 20 September 30, 2013 4.2.3 Building Floor Slabs We recommend a minimum Floor slab thickness of 6 inches, reinforced with No. 3 bars • spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center, both ways. Support slab reinforcement on concrete chairs to provide proper placement of the reinforcing near mid-depth of the slab, or as otherwise specified by the project structural engineer. Concrete should be either • Type II/V having a minimum compressive strength of 4000 pounds per square inch (psi) • and a water to cement ratio of 0.45. Interior Floor slabs with water sensitive Floor coverings should be underlain by a 15-mil • thick water/vapor barrier(Stego or equivalent), to mitigate the upward migration of water • from the underlying subgrade soil. The water/vapor barrier product must meet the performance standards of an ASTM E 1745 Class A material and have a permeance rating less than 0.01 perms as described in ASTM E 96-95 and ASTM E 154-88, and be properly installed in accordance with ACI Publication 302. It is the responsibility of the • contractor to ensure that the water-vapor barrier system is placed in accordance with the project plans and the manufacturers and architectural specifications, and that the water /vapor retarder materials are free of tears and punctures prior to concrete placement. Additional water reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the • performance requirements of future interior Floor coverings. Lap the membrane twelve inches or more and tape the seams. Where water sensitive Floor coverings are not anticipated, the water/vapor barrier may be eliminated. Sand layer requirements are the purview of the structural engineer, and should be • provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction In general, two inches of sand above and below the water/vapor barrier can be used as a guide. The selection of sand above the barrier is not a soil engineering • issue and hence outside our purview. Ultimately, the design of the water retarder system • and recommendations for concrete placement and curing are the purview of the developer, architect, building designer or the engineer responsible for the design of the foundations and Floor slabs on grade. • Subgrade preparation below the concrete and sand shall consist of 4-inches of/,-inch • crushed aggregate rock or an equivalent material. The crushed aggregate base should be water conditioned to near optimum-water content and be proofrolled a minimum of 3 passes, each way, with a vibratory plate compactor. Prior to placing concrete, vapor barrier, and sand, the subgrade soil below all Floor slabs • should be pre-watered to achieve a water content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum water content. This water content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches into the subgrade soil. The water content of the Floor slab subgrade • soil should be verified by the geotechnical engineer within 24-hours prior to concrete placement. Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. iProject No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 21 September 30, 2013 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall Design Considerations • Retaining walls should be founded on fill compacted per these recommendations or in Pauba • Formation. Foundations may be designed in accordance within the recommendations presented in Section 4.2.2. It should be noted that the values for lateral bearing presented therein are based upon level conditions at the toe. Reduced values may be appropriate for walls adjacent to • descending slopes. In general, conventional walls may be designed to retain either native • materials or select granular backfill. MATRIX must test and approve retaining wall backfill materials. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining materials (SE> 30) within one-half (%:) the height of the wall, measured horizontally from the back of the wall, and • compacted to project specifications. The.upper twelve (12) inches of backfill should consist of • locally derived soil. Drainage systems should be provided to walls to relieve potential hydrostatic pressure. Specifications for the quality of backfill soil should be defined. It should be anticipated that suitable backfill material will have to be imported or selectively produced from onsite sources and should consist of granular, very low expansive materials. The following • lateral earth pressures are recommended for retaining walls. The recommended lateral pressures • for approved on-site soil (sand equivalency greater than 30 and non-expansive) for level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 5. • TABLE 5 • Lateral Earth Pressures Soil Type Design Parameter Imported Aggregate Onsite Soil/Pauba • Base Assumed Formation* • Internal Friction Angle 380 320 Unit Weight 130 lbs/ftJ 125 Ibs/ft Active Condition 40 Ibs/ft3 55 Ibs/ft' Level backfill) . Active Condition 55 Ibs/ft' 85 Ibs/ft3 • Equivalent Fluid 2H:1 V backfill Pressure At-Rest Condition 60 Ibs/ft3 75 Ibs/ft' Level backfill At-Rest Condition 75 Ibs/ft3 95 Ibs/ft' • 2H:1 V backfill • Rankine Earth Pressure Coefficients Level Ground Conditions • Ka 0.24 0.31 K 3.0 2.5 K 0.38 0.47 Passive Pressure 330 250 • 'Onsite backfill soil must be free from organics. • Equivalent Fluid pressures are calculated utilizing a soil unit weight of y = 130 pcf and y = 120 • pcf, for Imported Aggregate Base and Onsite Soil/Pauba Formation, respectively. Restrained • retaining walls should be designed for"at-rest' conditions, utilizing Ko. Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 22 September 30, 2013 • The design loads presented in the above table are to applied on the retaining wall in a horizontal fashion and as such, friction between wall and retained soil should not be • allowed in the retaining wall analyses. • Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall design to account for the influence of construction loads, temporary loads, and possible nearby structural footing • loads. • Unit weights of 120 pcf and 130 pcf may be used to model the dry and wet density of onsite compacted fill materials. • • Select backfill should be granular, structural quality backfill with an Expansion index of • 20 or less. The select backfill must extend at least one-half the wall height behind the • wall. The upper one-foot of backfill should be comprised of native onsite soil. • The wall design should include waterproofing (where appropriate) and back drains or • weep holes for relieving possible hydrostatic pressures. The back drain should be • comprised of a 4-ich perforated PVC pipe in a I foot by 1 foot, 1/.-inch gravel matrix, wrapped with a geo-fabric, Mirafi 140N (or equivalent). The back drain should be installed with a minimum gradient of.2 percent and should be outletted to an appropriate • location. For subterranean walls, this may include drainage by sump pumps. • Backfill should not be placed against concrete until minimum design concrete strength (specified by others) is achieved by compression testing of cylinders. • 4.4 Structural Setbacks Structural setbacks, in addition to those required per the CBC, are not required because of geologic or geotechnical conditions within the site. Footing setbacks from basement foundation • walls should be, designed to minimize the effects of loading within the active zone of the • subterranean walls. Where foundations are anticipated to be within the active zone for a potential subterranean wall, special design criteria for retaining wall active bearing pressures should be provided by MATRIX. The geotechnical and structural engineers must evaluate • surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures. 4.5 Corrosivity. to Concrete and Metal • The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (MACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration • of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment". The "environment" • from a geotechnical viewpoint is the prevailing foundation soil and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebars, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete possess high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. ACI 318R-05 Table 4.3.1 provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design based on different amount of soluble sulfate content. The • minimum amount ofchloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the • form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel • pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. • Project No. M 11 14-017 Page 23 September 30, 2013 Based on testing performed during this investigation within the project site, the onsite soil is classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 31811-05 • Table 4.3.1. It is also our opinion that onsite soil should be considered to possess a moderate • corrosion potential to buried metals because of its low resistivity. Despite. the minimum recommendation above, Matrix Geotechnical Consulting is not a • corrosion-engineering firm. We recommend that you consult with a competent corrosion • engineer and conduct additional testing to evaluate the actual corrosion potential of the site and • to provide recommendations to reduce the corrosion potential with respect to the proposed improvements. The recommendations of the corrosion engineer may supersede our findings and • recommendations. 4.6 Concrete Flatwork and Improvements In an effort to minimize shrinkage cracking, concrete Flatwork should be constructed of • uniformly cured, low-slump concrete and should contain sufficient control/contraction joints • (typically spaced at 8 to 10 feet, maximum). Additional provisions need to be incorporated into the design and construction of all • improvements exterior to the structures (walls, patios, walkways, planters, etc.). Design • considerations may need to include provisions for differential bearing materials (bedrock versus compacted fill), ascending/descending sloe conditions, bedrock structure, perched (irrigation) water, special surcharge loading conditions, potential expansive soil pressure, and differential • settlement heave. Exterior improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals using appropriate design methodologies that account for the onsite soil and geologic conditions. The above considerations should be used when designing, constructing, and evaluating long-term • performance of the exterior improvements on the parcels. The owner should be advised of their maintenance responsibilities as well as geotechnical issues that could affect design and construction of future owner improvements. The information • contained within this report should be considered for inclusion in owner packages (sale, transfer, • lease, etc.) in order to inform the potential owner or lease of issues relative to drainage, • expansive soil, landscaping, irrigation, corrosive soil, and slope maintenance. 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either the Portland Concrete Cement (PCA) or Caltrans design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However these designs also assume a routine • pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life. Structural pavement sections presented herein for pavements are based on assumed subgrade soil conditions at the completion of grading and a review of the soil samples recovered during our • subsurface exploration. However, it should be understood that the soil material exposed during • grading may differ from the materials sampled and tested during this investigation. Therefore, • preliminary pavement recommendations are subject to verification and possible revision based on any revised Traffic Indices (TI) as well as sampling and testing of subgrade soil present after Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 24 September 30, 2013 grading. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that the TI's are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determines that the expected . traffic volume will exceed the applicable traffic index, Matrix Geotechnical Consulting should • be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming six operational traffic days per week. • Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Da • 4.0 5 5.0 8 6.0 10 7.0 15 • With respect of the traffic volumes indicated above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor-trailer unit with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1,000 automobiles per day. We assumed an R-value of 30 for planning and design purposes and prepared the following preliminary asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections (Table 6) based on assumed .Traffic Indices (T.l.) of 5.0, 6.5, 7.0, and 7.5, and for Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement • sections (Table 7) for automobile parking and drive areas, light and moderate truck traffic. TABLE 6 Preliminary Pavement Design —Asphaltic Concrete Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections ASPHALT PAVEMENTS R=30 • Thickness (inches) Proposed Condition Private Enhanced Industrial Drive/Cul- Local Road Collector Road De Sac Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 Design R-value 30 30 30 30 • AC Thickness inches 3.5 3.5 4.0 5.0 • AB Thickness inches 6.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 . Notes: AC—Asphaltic Concrete AB—Aggregate Base The thicknesses of the provided section are considered minimum thicknesses. We utilized a design R-Value of 30 for these minimum recommendations. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its • service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance • and drainage of irrigation areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program will jeopardize the integrity of the pavement. Project No. M 1114-017 Page 25 September 30, 2013 TABLE 7 . Preliminary Pavement Design — Portland Cement Concrete . Recommended Minimum Pavement Sections PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Automobile Light Truck Moderate Truck • Parking and Drive Traffic Areas Traffic Areas • Areas • PCC 5 6 8.5 • AB 4 6 6 Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 95% minimum compaction) • The concrete should be a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square-inch (psi). Subgrade conditions assume a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic-inch (pci). Reinforcing within all pavements should be designed by the structural engineer. The maximum joint spacing within the entire PCC pavement is recommended to be equal to or less than 20 • times the pavement thickness. The structural engineer should determine the actual joint spacing • and reinforcing of the Portland cement concrete pavements. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction over a . subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557, • through the upper 12 inches. Aggregate base should meet the specifications of the latest edition • of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction' (Greenbook) or the specifications of Callrans Class 2 aggregate base. MATRIX should provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction. 4.8 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water must.not be • allowed to pond onsite or directly adjacent to or behind walls. Design fine grade elevations • should be maintained through the life of the structure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from structures and slopes. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage • away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent to a location identified for drainage and • further maintained by a suitable outlet or sump-pump (as necessary). Although not anticipated, any subterranean or basement walls should provide a backdrain along the perimeter of the wall foundation. The backdrain should be placed in accordance with Section 4.3 of this report. • Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be located adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, and/or area drains, are made. Over watering must be avoided. Project No. M 1114-017 Page 26 September 30, 2013 4.9 Slope Landscaping and Maintenance (as necessary) • Adequate slope and pad drainage facilities must be incorporated into the design of the finish • grading for the subject site. The overall stability of graded slopes should not be adversely affected provided all drainage provisions are properly constructed and maintained thereafter and provided all engineered slopes are landscaped with a deep rooted, drought tolerant and maintenance free plant species, as recommended by the project landscape architect and reviewed • by MATRIX. 4.10 Future Plan Reviews, Construction Observation and Testing Future plan reviews are necessary to verify that recommendations and conclusions provided by Matrix Geotechnical Consulting preliminary studies are incorporated into the plans. Modifications to the plan or additional subsurface exploration/laboratory testing may be required based upon our review; therefore our review should be performed before any related • construction is initiated. Such reviews should include, but are not limited to: Precise Grading Plans • Foundation and Structural Plans Retaining Wall and Shoring Plans • . Storm Drain/Sewer/Water/Dry Utility Plans Plans should be forwarded to the project geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist for • review and comments, as deemed necessary. The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. A representative of MATRIX should check the interpolated subsurface conditions in the field during construction. • The geotechnical consultant should also perform construction observation and testing during future grading, excavations, backfill of utility trenches, preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base, foundation or retaining wall construction or when an unusual soil • condition is encountered at the site. Grading plans, foundation plans, and final project drawings • should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Project No. M 1 1 14-017 Page 27 September 30, 2013 • 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by California licensed civil or geotechnical engineers and geologists practicing in this or • similar localities. Other warranties, expressed or implied are not made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The soil samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are considered to be representative of the entire • project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by future excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs,the responsible party(client or contractor performing work) must notify Matrix Geotechnical Consulting immediately of the changed conditions. These conditions must be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate • design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her . representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the • attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to determine that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements our recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider . any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. Matrix Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, • sequences, or procedures, or for safety or precautions programs in connection with the construction, for the • acts and omissions of the CONTRACTOR, or any other person performing any of the construction, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the construction in accordance the final design drawings and specifications. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be because of natural processes or the works of • man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation • or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or • partially by changes outside our control. This report should be reviewed and updated after a maximum • period of 2-years or if the project concept changes from that described herein. This report has not been prepared for use by any parties or projects other than those specifically named or described herein. This • report may not contain sufficient information foe other parties or other purposes. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this report, or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, • MATRIX GEOTECHNICAP CONSULTING • ONALD STEV Steve Maddox, RG 4814,CH John P. Nielsen, GE 641 MADDOX rA Associate Geologist 4 't Associate Engineer No.CHO298 g CEJ/RSM/JPN * ccEEppTIFIEpp • tJj YDHOGEOLOGISTQ 9 � • Distribution: Addressee, Mr. Larry a email Irnifa markhamdmg.com Addressee, 6 Hard Copies Project No. MI 114-017 Page 28 September 30, 2013 APPENDIX A REFERENCES • APPENDIX A References S Allen, C.R., and others, 1965, Relationship Between Seismicity and Geological Structure in the • Southern California Region: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 55, No. 4 Campbell K.W., 1997 "Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical • Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity and Pseudo-Absolute • Acceleration Response Spectra," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. I, pp. 154-179. 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, Prepared by California Division of Mines and Geology. City & County Soil Engineering and Testing, 1998, Update Report, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Industrial Building Lot #91, North of Winchester Road, City of Temecula, California, Job # C&C416PI.RPT, Dated June 10. 1998, Update Report, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Industrial Building, Lot #21, North of Winchester Road, City of Temecula, California, Job # C&C 422PI.RPT, Dated July 21. • County of Riverside, 2000, Transportation and Land Management Agency, Technical Guidelines for • Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports. County of Riverside, Geology Report No. 0627, Entitlement Maps, Sheet I through 22. • Dibblee, T.W., Jr., 1970 Regional Geologic Map of San Andreas & Related Faults in Eastern San • Gabriel Mountains, & Vicinity: USGS Open-File Map, Scale 1:125,000 EnGEN Corporation, 1998, Updated Geotechnical Study, Tract Numbers 21383, 24085, 28471, 28743, • 28657, and 25139, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1330- • UGS, Dated January 26. Ishihara, K. 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings 11'h International Conference On Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, Volume 2 • 1995, Effects of At-Depth Liquefaction on Embedded Foundations During Earthquakes, Proceedings of II'h Asian Regional Conference on Soil. Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Volume 2. Jenkins, Olaf P., 1972, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet; Scale 1:250,000. 1985, An Explanatory Text to accompany the 1:750,000 scale Fault and Geologic Maps of • California, California Division of Mines and Geology 1994, Fault Activity Map of California Jennings, Charles W., 1975, Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Wells: • CDMG, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 1. • Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Regency & Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California: CDMG Special Report 131. • Leighton and Associates, 1980, 1981, 1986 and 1987, Selected Geotechnical Trench Logs, Bore Logs, • and Fault Trench Logs. Mann, J.F., Jr., 1955, Geology of a Portion of the Elsinore Fault Zone, California: CDMG Special Report 43. Rathje, E. M., and Bray,J. D. (1999), "An Examination of Simplified Earthquake-Induced Displacement Procedures for earth Structures," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, V. 36, N. 1, February, p. 72-87. Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc., 1989, Response to County Geologic Review Sheet, Tentative Parcel Maps 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382, and 21383, Rancho California, California(APN: 909-120- 020, 022; G.R. 627), Project No. 9R4332C, Dated September 21. 1991, Geotechnical Mass Grading Report No. 1, Parcel Map No. 21383 (Core 1, Phase 1), Temecula, California, Project No. AT405B, Dated August 1. 1991, Compaction Testing of Utility Backfill, Calle Empleado, Diaz and Winchester Roads, Temecula, California, Project No. AT40513, Dated August 21. 1991, Compaction and Materials Testing Report for Calle Empleado, Diaz, and Winchester Roads, Core I, Phase 1 (P.M. 21383), Temecula, California, Project No. AT405B, Dated • September 6. 1992, Geotechnical Mass Grading Report No. 2, Parcel Map No. 21383 (Core 1, Phase 11), Temecula, California, Project No. AT40513, Dated January 7. Soil Tech, Inc., 1990, Preliminary Geotechnical & Liquefaction Investigation, APN: 909-252-013 & 014, City of Temecula, Project Number: T3505-PS, Dated June 7. Special Publication I I7A, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in • California. State of California, Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library, 2013, Groundwater Level by Basin, Regional-Scale Map Interface, http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/. USGS, 2012, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Palm Springs Sheet 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0 r ` State of California, Department of Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov USGS, 2005, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Santa Ana Sheet 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0 a . USGS, 2011, Seismic Hazard Curves, Response Parameters, and Design Parameters, Version 5.1.0, dated • February 10. Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for • Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental • Engineering, v. ,128, p. 1007-1017. Aerial Photograph Interpretation Table SOURCE FLIGHT FLIGHT FRAME(S) NOTES DATE Continental 5-23-1949 9F 133-134-135 N/A Continental 5-15-1967 2HH 2O2-203 N/A a Continental 2-15-1974 PC-C 15-17-18 N/A • Continental 8-10-1979 79163 18-20 N/A Continental 7-30-1986 86184 170-171 N/A Continental 10-7-1987 87238 3-4 N/A Continental 9-23-1988 C80-63A 14 SINGLE PRINT • Continental 2-8-1988 88045 4-5 N/A • Continental 1-13-1989 89019 8-9 N/A Continental 5-4-1990 90116 1-8 N/A Continental 2-20-1991 91033 6-7 N/A Continental 1-31-1992 92010 2 SINGLE PRINT • Continental 6-24-1993 C94-4 122-123 N/A • Continental 1-2-1995 C101-44 79-80 N/A Continental 10-15-1997 CI17-43 94-95 N/A Continental 7-9-1998 C120-7 1 87-88 N/A APPENDIX B MATRIX FIELD BORE LOGS & OTHER CONSULTANT BORE LOGS & FAULT TRENCH LOGS & OTHER CONSULTANT FAULT TRENCH LOGS Geotechnical Bore B-1 Date: 8-22-2013 Project Name: DIAMOND HEARTS RANCH, LLC Page 1 of 2 Project Number: M1114-017 Logged By: CEJ/RSM Drilling Company: 2R Drilling Type of Rig: CME-75/55 • Drive Weight (lbs): 140 lb Drop (in): 30 Hole Dia (in): 8 • Top of Hole Elevation (It): 1038 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map v Geologic • s v Symbo Type of Test g o o DESCRIPTION 0 Afo Artificial Fill, By Others • SM/ML Silty SAND to Sandy SILT, dark brown to brown, damp to moist, medium BULK dense .0-5' • • • 5 18 Ops Quaternary Pauba Formation 38 R-1 SM Silt SAND; light brown to brown, moist,very dense az rY 132.8 6.7 Y 9 • 10 n 8 R-2 114.0 9.9 SM • 18 Silty SAND; massive coarse grain, light brown, damp to moist, dense • -------- -- --- ------------------------------------ • • 15 g • 33 R-3 115.6 7.5 SP/SM Silty SAND to SAND; prominent grey mottles present, light grey to grey, • 34 moist, very dense. • -------- -- --- ------------------------------------ • 20 17 • 32 RA 101.7 19.7 ML SILT,grey to dark grey, damp to moist,very dense 36 • -------- -- --- ------------------------------------ • 25 8 • 33 R-5 120.0 12.3 SP/SM Silty SAND to SAND; light brown to brown, damp to moist, very dense, 50/5" medium to coarse grain, little fines • • -------- -- • • 30 27 104 3.5 SAND; re to light brown, dam to moist, very dense • 50/5" R-6 SW grey 9 P ry MA7RIX • -- - • • Geotechnical Bore B-1 Date: 8-22-2013 Project Name: DIAMOND HEARTS RANCH, LLC Page 2 of 2 Project Number: M1114-017 Logged By: CEJ/RSM . Drilling Company: 2R Drilling Type of Rig: CME-75155 . Drive Weight(lbs): 140 lb Drop (in): 30 Hole Dia (in): 8 • Top of Hole Elevation (ft): 1038 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map • a v Geoioa,c z° = o 1 USCS • n '� _a g Symbol e DESCRIPTION Type of Test r • o m � o 30 • 35 38 5015" 146.5 12.9 • R-� SW SAND;grey-brown to light grey,wet, very dense • -------- -- --- ------------------------------------ • 40 13 36 R s 141.6 18.2 SPIML SAND and Silt;grey,wet,very dense • 50/4' • -- ----- -- --- ------------------------------------ 4524 5014" R-9 114.2 17.8 Sp SAND; grey,wet, very dense • 50 3s • so/a•' R-10 120.0 13A SP SAND, grey to light grey, wet, very dense • Total Depth =51.1/2 feet • Groundwater at 35 feet • 55 60 _MAI IX_. Geotechnical Bore B-2 • Date: 8-22-2013 Project Name: DIAMOND HEARTS RANCH, LLC Page 1 of 1 Project Number: M1114-017 Logged By: CEJ/RSM Drilling Company: 2R Drilling Type of Rig: CME-75/55 • Drive Weight (lbs): 140 lb Drop (in): 30 Hole Dia (in): 8 • Top of Hole Elevation (ft): 1042 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map • v �o n `off /UScsCS • ; E Zx Symbol o m y o DESCRIPTION Type of Test 0 Afo Artificial Fill. by Others >> Silty SAND; brown, fine to very coarse, damp to moist, medium dense, 16 R-1 117.9 6.1 SM approximately 3 to 5%coarse gravel in sampler • 15 • 5 Ops Quaternary Pauba Formation n • 25 R-2 Silty SAND; light brown to brown, fine to very coarse, angular to sub- 25 108.1 10A SM rounded with minor Ferro mags, damp to moist, siltstone in bottom of shoe, • very dense • 10 • 12 . 20 R-3 115 13.5 ML Sill; brown to light green, damp to moist, very stiff to hard,fine muscovite 2s present • 15 9 • is s-a11 - 12.7 SM Silty SAND, brown to light green, moist medium dense, fine muscovite • Total Depth = 16-1/2 feet • No Groundwater Encountered 20 25 30 � MOTr21X • • Geotechnical Bore B-3 • Date: 8-22-2013 Project Name: DIAMOND HEARTS RANCH, LLC Page 1 of 1 Project Number: M1114-017 Logged By: CEJ/RSM • Drilling Company: 2R Drilling Type of Rig: CME-75155 • Drive Weight(lbs): 140 lb Drop(in): 30 Hole Dia (in): 8 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): 1044 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map • n Geologic `= i m ` /UScs S'Mb i • g m DESCRIPTION Type of Test 0 Af0 Artificial Fill. by Others • • Silty SAND; brown, fine to medium grained, damp to moist • • • 5 is sots R-i 125 6.2 QpS Quaternary Pauba Formation • SM Silty SAND: brown, damp to moist, very dense • • • • 10 ie 26 124 7 9 2 SM Silty SAND; brown,fine to very coarse grained, fragments of blue phylllite a z • 37 to 1-1/2"diameter, damp to moist,very dense • • -------- -- --- ------------------------------------ • 15 14 • 31 R-3 43 117,6 14.4 SM-ML Silty SAND to Sandy SILT; light brown, abundant muscovite, very dense • 43 Total Depth=16-1/2 feet • No Groundwater Encountered • • 20 • • • • • 25 • • • • • 30 • MOT.ZIX • • • • • Geotechnical Bore B-4 • Date: 8-22-2013 Project Name: DIAMOND HEARTS RANCH, LLC Page 1 of 1 Project Number: M1114-017 Logged By: CEJ/RSM • Drilling Company: 2R Drilling Type of Rig: CME-75/55 • Drive Weight(lbs): 140 lb Drop(in): 30 Hole Dia (in): 8 • Top of Hole Elevation (ft): 1046 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map • m Geologic E m z n ` iuscs • t U ^-' o symbol • g m o DESCRIPTION Type of Test 0 Afo Artificial Fill. by Others • • 2s 50l4" R-1 Qps Quaternary Pauba Formation • 125.8 8.9 SM Silty SAND; brown, fine to coarse grain, dry to damp, very dense • • 5 • • 13 • 21 R 2 115.4 8.0 SM Silty SAND; brown,fine to very coarse grain, angular to sub-rounded, with • fragments of blue phyllite to 1/2-inch diameter, damp to moist, very dense • 10 • • 12 • 25 R-3 115.5 10.4 SM Silty SAND,brown to light green,very fine to fine muscovite, damp to 40 moist, very dense • 15 12 • 16 S4 12 9 SM Silt SAND.white with caliche stain, fine to coarse, angular to sub-rounded • 21 - Y 9 Total Depth=16-1/2 feet • No Groundwater Encountered • • 20 • • • • • 25 • • • • • 30 • MATRIX • • • ' C.Lul 1:t.W.!LAL . , i..V. ,:als • DH-1 Sheet_of?- �tate 6-26-80 Drill note No. Job No. 680305-01, 03 • ro ect VTN - Diaz Road • Flight Auger Type of Rig willing Co. Mondo Pacific YP 30 in. Drive Weight '140 lbs Drop 8 • Hole Diameter a •�' levation Top of Hole 1023.0'±. Ref. or Datum Topo Map GEOTECIWICJ+I. DESCRIPTION p •+ i. s eo c oZ °o ew w .m. � DS •�'y u A S m o'i °1. .o. " o o. vi d v c? Logged by .+ + N v ~ ~ m S. o w � o o Sampled by DS w c u Nv SM SILTY SAND: Dark brown; damp, micaceous CL SILTY CLAY: Dark gray, slightly damp, micaceous 4 _ 26 CL CLAY: Dark brown, micaceous, medium firm 5 �I 2 - P7 Soft � 10 Dark brown slightly damp, micaceous GS 6 - 26 CL SILTY CLAY: Da 9 15 A/L medium firm Passing = 71 10 22 SM- 20 GS SC SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Dark brown, slightly damp, micaceous, medium dense 11 - 23 CL- - 25 A/L ML CLAYEY SILT: Dark gray, slightly damp, lnicaceous firm 1l_ 10 - 26 firm , 30 - - — L- SnnA (3/77) Leighton 8 Associates • L'LU'1LLw,;1LAL L,%iKI:IG LUG . 6-26-80 Drill hole No. DH-1 Job No, S)�cet of 2- • ate 680305-01, 03 • roject VTN - Diaz Road Plight Auger tilling Co. Mondo Pacific Type of Rig • ole Diameter 8" Drive Height 140 lbs Drop 30 in. levation Top of Hole 1023.013 Ref. or Datum TopO Ma • 0 „ s, y H^• GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION A c u Z„ .=x no 0 o a ua .1 " 0toaw y U DS ba dy Logged by a. c -zQ oc *°o Sampled by DS Ln 3 1 CLAYEY SILT• Dark grayo slightly damp. micaceous SAND: Gray. fine to medium grained 34 - 20 Sp- % Passing 4V200 7. , dense 3 GS SM - 34 - 20 dense 4 7 - 34 CL SILTY CLAY: Dark gray, occasional roots . 4 slightly micaceous Imedium firm 25 - 32 CL SILTY CLAY, Dark gray, -very firm 5 TOTAL DEPTH 50' t i WATER ENCOUNTERED AT 9.5' (GS) Indicates Grain Size Analysis (A/L-) Indicates Atterberg Limits 5nnn (2/77) Leighton KAssociales a f . TRENCH SDA A (RlO NEDO TRENCH NO.l) Eo-oYY • —r4ENCN T[ENO N42E `, NEWT AL. RIO ,VIEW TO NOETNWESr 4/O NEW EISSutE • � uOIrNSOv'J PIftO • 63 70 IS 00 as to 93 nu rC! IIO r/3 Im IES' I� 139 14`0 1N3 SIAT10N • NPfET o ! 10 IS EO L! !D 35 YO u3 30 35 GO . I r I r 1 • I 1 I I i I G� r:ufC tONt lnarocl[0) 1144096 At SUAPACf C. - O3I'1•��%4 ,.per 1N (li .l TS�a n -�. AMN MACE!/LLB / � • ; n ELn Q... ` ..�1.. ..n ".ec �1I �/O If(� .� l I pl fi r.-'If I �a - /N_- 4>„' b"Sf `O -.�J, I .. /__ _ • w - 0 t _ �'1 11 S'f .. ........................ 4-........ .. d. °' may. re• —:�• ,c rpnT olsurPr oNs • >___—� •� � I r . • O a-.f ..- .:•r*.n .•%,..s-rrm r....,q"y> .. Q �•:n:.':r..( w'ia. r_:[ �,....,.r .f. e. SDI - a I I-I e.x °r . r^\'I, ra4" Io R4N.or1 bArLC:^+.:. -:.Lr- ri✓ •- r.,.r.urfr.L,m ) r1IiwYYrr '/'.w.�nA/YL ILf:. - r1YvrSY •Yr'.w_ Lrufw :�• •tr • m :SYIY}(r '[a '.J,u,J(nw/w%rp-�r l ..n.r...: n.0 W�l4.u.Lp.u.. r .yy wl�IYV 4w-[ L.. I L/b� ` 'M0661A'L II NANO x[LO TAK ANO (M1.•...et.-._.r .e��.(..,e>.n.•.. u r I 6LL L. r [ fr All L r:.fs.<Y. i,.Ir'•• - .n L,drul[e•.[.iw.na (L1 ..wr :r:n...r..:.nf :nr+r e.xrmrr/Orx , b LCENEm LOGGED Qr N).!nv e... .r yr.yu(M..I/Il.nr4(.]aN.gV:MI'r Ca.r...Vrrr pfu.ee •.. e.r.a-.y wn'e ff r- 1/�'M,• _ •n. ^r.0.Ke+,_r.r., n..n - er 1..,,M., mAC.SWO.A.0 I.. -L,w:e.,i,w.L.r....: fw.•am. N,�,:r.L r,nY vn•.�.,vn.:.l.-./J •SEE f'ov,td E04 Uxn-AND m ean.:nc.vu. '•✓NwN: +w•P^•^•'Y. . -� •J sr•meL aeseeunow. rlssutw MAPPED c/a-ee. "+-Irl.'•""-'•^,RY./il.uY fJ[r/;'.� lr`r1:PJ,: rlVn ,„ _ _ • u.•l rr✓r.a .:.L._.. /c r .arr ur Nr rr•I P rm... r .. rn.f lrf,Mn['Lriu.^'40::r r r . .. _. •F ..:� a /' rl%.MV a-a•r M L wrL A 'yn_---.a r.R u. O 4e3'rLV2/_`am.A•cr•/y. 1rr:g1.' ,m,r.r � ';' 1.ry[. '-:' � �.y u w.41,a •s• . + • .. ° : I_. .�...r.re rnn,rr .ra� su.r. rranr'r. rr r.nr .a r,r - , -L' /rarer+....b:r .. .0 :L:.•_- RI,IAIwr p.wALwcuuA .N•ur•oy Lmr r ..0 f..rr r.0 ror: el. PIOURE •-1 • • • • • • • • a TRENCH SDA B • (R/O NE-DO TRENCH n10. Z) eoecv TRENCH TREND N7:/E —o e/o MEDO FSSUAW ' V/CUI TO NO.fTHWEST ,/LyiNSomS r/EcD • STAT,oA/ /N FEET UIEy/ rJ vo,l r✓ • 0 S +0 .! io AS 90 - JS u0 Yf 50 SS LO p5 O� 7f 1 r r 1 r I I 1 I 1 r,JruRCEp sy _I �•'.L.'...,e...;�,:r:�: r . -.:�.: n�rf., f f.!„ r Praf�JOY i ` \�'!��i `+^Ind_ i•t"' �-.� -.�'a�•'� —rz � Q ,r-..'s. .y. •.r .walGrslV/1f -19 y . Y .ilr..��: .. a '�::. ••~'M., � - . .. 'J ' 'N A terYKsw.• 5`AJ .�•�.; .• `. I _.6 •""5. �a�. `p --t may, (v La>.re uafNa'df0 OY AJRIr LK rV4G ,A4fGPWdcc Nreda .?•,fit , :L••��`;:��': �y`f� • oc Jlar• Sw.,o Wry 64,uec. !tn>a, AEW •tlwc INcl S,wre•MM __ �'- • LrI/Sr , G::.u'ur-C. L•Y TJ r/CG,o6 —�`%"-` L,o✓ s+er sW . • ® L:r.[/seu;L(Z•'-.,+lStLT: way L„i< e4ry ORo,uM(+o re+/•) F/Pill,MO('r F u! /J MLOnFi SIW,)y l-Y'Al L4c0 6eANEL,FOAOUS, p £4(L�i+u� ..,.r,.s„Ay�c ca'er Btaw-c.sxr ocnC b+orw(.er,.;4"s/.rJ 1 LGII_„ua".for ou:,+oOA 1 • ® (a w_r r Sway, r'/LC,4,_� -e,'oh•"Ua•,dPO+•./!R J>Y 3%/ 'a/J) [rIr_• :.<,, r,.,c Ie roAiJf Lwau,.»sals O.ou✓ tr.ul rraC r�QL.: -r N) 6a4OVAc LO./7Ac7 (J O.3 o J CL•,rC,GL,r nywrdrs rlro ro.urt aLor•'✓,r s�.u,ua• ,D S,[N 2�w.IO,RNa.o.`rJrw-/a),CQadl faulEN>lw r,p,.l OdfLRKC ,/J �, c(6 a4 co,mLr &S' w O'9 1I w eP >--I • r L:,G:/ S .'f frfa, Sa/. ma, r NLu,u1I rC Cl.l a CANO..'/Sr4?eSN AGYJL! [SON],SC.7 r CO �- - S, 1 . .IL• rN - J SwC•••Lh,;I m.vO,Ie,u 3Cr/p/:Ie.(:r .wJ..,• / NOTES: m eLow PO, 5 COGG/N 6 BY HAND HELD 7JP AND '9UAIEC LnL JI- 'w' rAd 6Lew.7aa ewPce PwuO,GwO eeMuG rWM i NANO [EVE w r «a/rcr. L.'r•ill+fr,/ C• • ® S�cr/_. INQ : u+a,.wl,orr...)* TQENCM L066EO • ME(") ce•-E. OC•/ V Fu,6 d/Sauc mcaso u,Ju ✓o.L.': BY P.O., A041.)JH. • F/SSURES MAPPED 4-8-86. Sd„ur SI�r:Od4ia' tlw'orw.,0 r4 a/aJ ' .'.1.u0 'iCm.Me•c r, .NL 5.'n..x'u + ,so,nE a!fu,uA] +,f`•'O•`.(anECLO,7Ma/ {l.[E NUNSE tt fGlL o4S 7ArEN AT F/ELQ .(/0/S7tiQE1 i • LGr'l•.,.:{/ MAJVS , 1P•)(6 Pcu15 • sr4,.•L//�- S74UC7u,PcI Qe•lLi �R"DENOTES eoeoRS GL�TE,PM/,t,LcL) .N 9Rn F,C i :d' NEdw Vfwnr.tE,D,Sco.aTiw/uout,t'AwI Iu//ccl.lOa-/••Ir /o .r.®'u•', IAL [/GNT t ,L•,c,O:EwU/LO rar•c .os•uipc F' : caw a..c•c I lw.nn E,>ELw/srCdu l[naEuC o rJNt, J6C 0,PrI4 5ZI-1 7v„a•,/c IICJiS i,/E !LM/.4lE i • gJ• uen•t LY.t/,rAc, D/SlcW7+N40raf,wdWur C•rwpr olJe rvu>AGr,7<6.uou,G • M%OW •G•' medic ve4nul.,eo.In-vowt ,,Q4fbu e,ro rE Jv>rAA%1�4 LI" N A- Vf4n[+c,founNuoua,IP+f4LY.tl',SA.,ufLCeU /ISfuPGI uP rD4s'W,aE, S,rr, url,r0 wxU SIIIV w rO wrrgq , [OC+(1Y Cu r[Y • Lyw., ✓ A /'a[.TPJ,C[, Pd4nw/J 4vemcc !SKr uP ro G✓•W+(M „•.(,a +F.x•eunI !rA•m ,.,m .+.+•r s.//4GNu w'd%'•I D" Ne•:i VGPnrwc, Ll'r,yIT,JUS'_, J/c IV.SA.,O AuOY SIL r-P,(<CV U Of-- VA n ,-w,Ce, T+IrILLu..Flw,a'E.I/.v r,u wO,uL OOL:w,oT a»E.Lu { AA56 Oi /7/EA,G A: ✓r+rlea.f fud~41LEt roAETIFet"mJeo WAM Poor MA,4f • •IPSrf+PEO PPiP••6 S,an/!LS , 'E- lad /}af:C,L>i xa.•c raulAcr„yN F,. ,zw l aYer • E/ixw'c cou,:•.r, ueN..••: w+esw FIGURE A-$ (R IO MCDOTRENCH S DA C Ab. 3) Sao aJ,of//CN r:CNp M55 E P V/F.W ;W !J^A'!NN/EST Vltr/a .Tug � AOq • Sr,ITioN • /N BEET oI 3 (o /5 zp is m 55 vo Is so ss Go vs To 'IG I I f I 1 I I I I r ' f I • • o /G/S n/RBC[: Pr A6R/CLR/i[c: JU ^-�— `IL•`� �- `.� _ _ -_... _-�ti"� - - O— .PENCE � . _—__ -. Jwvt Q Q LC/AJC• OLS A.Y°PED BY A4R/LU.-I 100 '/l' ej. GE CAv(PS OF �' ° y - / 'I ® ® e. >aq• • CL!/EY S4rQ Sh/OV JIL/,FCnI fl'>ACrp[CJ. Nb C, '1�- ,:. R- __ / nee 4.. ... •""i• (� 3AN[L'_.'•�L '.' /1'CA'r PA[W/(/OYR l%J� F :���, _ :..a_.., :• :��1�/ • tiR/YI,A.' r✓.!!✓ rvIfl�AI•//L',ICt✓A1CLI✓/17 Sf VL`S! G.QAVB(S,IGRB[Fi, � > f91 VLR✓ U!/RP 6PEv E+IOW♦�Z51!/e)/ JIF.M(N may• 8 �%� fiTJ/.iT,l T. >V.'!>•/C ./'�:✓(lS E[fJ_ T\ -A'0• . yl,✓pV_�(C[�.!/F>t C[.!✓✓: L:ARA: ::!/Y (!lfy/Ne(/OrA' vp)aoJJzeo, 'rl1L[:'�G 0 . TT♦''AATTS!•!�.S[•Cy JL Y T 'A•:N/Cl. v(/n/AL,/Ar(iWAe� (I/3/Wl/M/✓A✓: -l' .rs ArtY t/t, • �j $IUY G.PA✓ELS: r'LArur ,AC/fC//uy 3ylp l•r[CD QA�'-O./' OrK ten • .LffG -f,H637; FP/APCf, F/Nf »f•CG/'iM e.OAVCLS F•r r;: (..r[ l',CrrCvwirl ;/A/O. 4/b/ML' • I [p 7L7✓ yt�/g: d..uF a•'!Y (6./✓p/ '.h r..rort n/.oc a:..:./.a/e Crr,.Lc y, /°r♦a ♦r/A.' s✓..f.r //.C^.J 75 Bo 05 9I (0 9g r•e I • (� SA/Ip�' S/LT: OC nA• bR[v0 (SY'//[1• C•Cw4Wo M I f,fwl,A/AI(f, ////f 4ia:/•LL,•'i •••r N/L/V.11 I: rM l.r ,ANC, •B�♦/Ir•/ V(/Ir•AL,lrAp A.', AC/`N/'✓fNJ-.(JAIL"/ —O � A'ASLIV� rAllf.'•urN i.Ij/v.l'..I✓nul :L•rC /,Ir'f r,a! • I (� s.PAv(ccY tA♦14Y =LGC_CD_.t!lY-rp/p: pA,•r erw♦�-i:'•Yr :/>), !'I,.a r:_. ry •r.♦v e. ,',A//tr /� /J_mr,11 .._.. __ 6Rdr1O sua'/•Per____ . . _ -. ._ - .. • I ® F mep: Wb w Jo a ,rr Oleep/lrorR v/!), s /ni J, '.. v,: � r, n.A,-�07'.✓.t F, !A'f,I4 - //SC f•/ I// ! A url;♦' C :'I': ,e, /_qv A/OISfr O f'/f/4'. :// /♦//I[IIr� ;mom/nII RH.✓(F S&-c eH Mt • I IJA �AVO✓,jitl ✓/eurct s: Mer PAir r.ALYUN nm4p%//o rA!5A) A!♦.Acc - nunr 6.CY nl ;%'[MV/ I 2 •" 'Y ,,IodUy [` NC A: ✓r. u.AL.4•>r u./]/a e/O✓J.PrF/�S- v ._ ^, ©- _. _ . TY:/ ,>[, SrLunrS r--MP/s r, ✓/ry F✓C Sf✓u,s[.•�•'/rr e,Ar PIG ✓Aor.e. 'S✓, r..rr_, Afurw'••.cY L I I I I I e IOLIO t•KtAC[ ® C[AveY c.fly w/eAR✓!cr a.[uwv!•°v<v/J), Y _ /.,r!'Iir_ rL,(r j ° ' _R`s•�• o�Ke! Fir'p.A/O/:' f. o-f.n'1 i __. O,♦.revY-0e EY M .-. _. rf.rlF C'v/TM r!}-r •fl @ - /O�A,vf Bve.1A/snJY Ic[IGK • ® CcLirYCV $&r u/JA✓a: VCoY MAK ACfy &XIWAI*(IOri J//), S°N6 m:A.v`Y , ,p • per, • FAPAJ,/✓oIJr,^,Kcw,OV! B —� !:• / e4.I i1 '/.- ') [✓/M�,-Co S■ J _ ._ . n _ ,X R[4 Elo.✓N SICNSA>/p t..;e; •e N S:•LOGe/Ne BY NAAIO NfaO r.IiLr A✓O 04♦10[EvEL BY NON L /i1- /u,YAWAL rr A/•nE F Coco! nw Zojc -�� PL. I TN. , o♦I V-C-as. f 5 - C/I' Cr dlO./J SANDY t/L 1 McIJcf0 •-•�. Cb//IL/J_l (/u/1: LJH')/ SIA//[I,e -/S I ORfM IurL' —. • A/[•VSCLL Cb[cC5 TAA:CrV AT F/Lt.O l^L A26� 0.e[.o7aS L/fir PIYJIJN� Oacaes L•EreA'.M/AKJ AV NPnFIC/r1c [/6NT. . - -. SO.D/ VJ _ - FAeQF_ A FIGURE —3 - - CPT LINE B cl �r• Bb • .y o u , L I(4ff ` ' nn rce aew. E..a�+w CE+� 1e I1 \ V �4 O..r- env "..e• • .I I I �` I I I Sn. S/ O JAll 1 • a se.D .1 ae..E _ tt•1 4Ai 511 ePD ury sr1.T • Skuo ul GG-- ' .� _.v _ _ l vnn� • a.,,.. e...... 1 • s 11I Rn r'1 I r_.. • 1 1'-�C wo.Jca+c� - r,+na {Guw4 • ' • ,�. • • Schaefer DiaonAssociates I L -rb • P.H. 9n4332c oe-o,-ro • KATE ] • l - • • rexh r- <Nor/h We olio cL<r F,, .1 0"o o120 1 o+s/O Y 0.6o I. 1 r 1 1 d I' •� � c e w 0180 �11w 0190 1400 �Z 1,10 /110 2 V' I♦"F 1♦40 • 1 I I I 1 f 1'so �.. rc 1, .. � •. - ja .= �' — `+:r -\SI�1 ;,w�s/aa�,�_e o �� a_6 3 � cam, --�` 1 < 1 "_.._-zFCn�fiiu tr/ cn n%X�/909c 1 1 � 1 GEO/1*/C [.W/rS 1/71 r )7 T-4 Sr/ and Co/%u+'uin I E'.r. 5ra%aW nwnrrovs sib-a.n✓rd Yn 01,659, d /case, /moo^,z haddsh bows 15YX+/oJ e%yry send,, /'-c.3,q:-/r/, .64 cE, Arud7.d, cobs ac, chy 41' avr Ord..4ces, be"", ro¢ise, yrohr� 1 j kas .Gh ey, y`au¢//r and /vs a .yreY'44 4�/ „r/rrc ox/e�.b.a 6J. �reue/� de�as.ls CU/sf'J I Snlcrn�r,rd �L'n .andelbnt �903) Ond FPnq/n.nrroVC lOpn) L 1 © [[..��hf 9roY �- yroY �•SYQ NG/6 md4ro,/J+:c 9r-curTand cubs/ c%s/ /sub es9u/oi /O S•iP^Jun�rt�/ i,l o �e%! 1 I of bowel !75✓lP 5/2). CIO and s.%/ .Send ,m (OPA) . ® LJh/ 6'ewnis/,_fro/ (/OYQ L/7aJ /'-rne:�cd Jv�d six, mo:sivc, well ;mod✓,a f._d i(O/ps) 1 I - GEOLOGIQ- LOG, TRENCH T-4 LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES. INC.::_ . i i S7"A'A . Tench 7-4 con . (',V.rN7 Aallj i I+So �.a0 N72 � -� IIbC _ .. . - Is70 T - F 3 +I+Ro 1l Oo Iz+io 2+20 I - + + 8w o e —c - . mal�urd. Awn '0/eve05 P-je �I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1+40 2+.70 + See P ,'Aays �e . destP>!'ons of'Ch.1s / rf5.a 51 r a..:* .f .. 516� (,mil any/ v-4L�e ' I _ © $ror✓n (7•SVQ S/4� S,� .5?n�'s><one,masrtr, wt// .�di�a{ra/(L�os� . ^ GEOLOGIC; LOG, TRENCH T-4 •� "t&B&d3tr:-oz r s'r v •:rre-e . .. _ .... ap or. Gw ' I .- .•. .. - .. .. LEIGHTON and ASSOCVI7ES iNC._: • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • li'.1 NGS (.Vcrn Yk//) Tench T-9N�+r°a�n � 3410 1 I + 3420 s�90 3I40 + 1 !/go � . - - ;' 3no IFe L", Am Lvcwcus /myc - - - 3�80 Gid2 ^ Ca//Vv/(yrf I 410E Cyn 4,20 4450 o. .c. q IL C o Un.{5 (7-2nch 7 ,4 I zee pre✓:ouc 2 peJ.sc F'u. desr�{,ems Pe vn/f5 /-/yru S 11 /ll/unwn �/rh/� Q6,y,;cl. Gv..rn (rove 512) .Slily .ranr.J, drj/; �rou5, abundsr+f. r IL GEOLOGIC LOG, TRENCH T L 6 D2 GW.CLP LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES,1NC.. , Trc nch I o+to o+zo W'I O'so O SS S © Grnj. voe A ("/o YR5/2) -5,11•..bnd/ dry ,�orbc•S, w� n�omo��S•L. /OcE rr—nlfnls : cl dork L1rown.(7.5V2 9/9J a/as.!Y ,SOndt h/oe cy� diy/ Cdir:•iG $✓✓aa Gand�Syon _ (�j Ra./e bro� (/OYQo/3J Sq�c/hedo'rr/,Sa.rls/or_ . x+�d s./�5!One, �m�y 1 Gpc/did we// /nduryyia/, ...,:fh Jroy. //b:.ud<�rd�� .nc-amar/Oh/c rocE �r)me.a5 © L:,h/ Yc/%w'sh bro.Nrr C/oYR 614� F-m 3nndsdene, Mxs✓e, w<// :ndura>:c/, 1 • . 1 . 1L 1 1 . 1 I j GEOLOGIC,' LOG, TRENCH T-6 p_ ^ t&fto Z6-02 --s,'N+Y e—b-E-e7 1 LI - • /Oiaertc 6w,u7 —ar.6w LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES,INC.: i i APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS • i • • • i • APPENDIX C • Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory-testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soil. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure • and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. . Soil Classification: Soil were classified according the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2487 and D2488. The soil classifications (or group symbol) • are shown on the laboratory test data and test pit logs., • Expansion Index: the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C.. Standard No. 18 2 and/or ASTM D4829 • evaluated the expansion potential of selected samples. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately .the optimum water content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared I-inch-thick by 2.42-inch- diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water • until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: SAMPLE SAMPLE EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION LOCATION DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL* Lot 15, 0-5' Silty SAND 10 Non-Expansive Lot 16, 0-5 ' Silty SAND 15 Non-Expansive • Lot 17, 0-5' Silty SAND 8 Non-Expansive • City and County Rpt. • Parcel 21, PM 21383, Sandy SILT 14 Non-Expansive • 7-21, 1998** • Soil Tel hh ROpt.,FJune 7, Clayey Sandy SILT 34 Expansive Soil Tech Rpt., June 7, Sandy Clayey SILT 28 Expansive • 1990 • -Per ASTM D4829 ••Olrsite to the West of Parcel 17 • ^•Ofsile In the Bast 1 100 feet at the NW haerscelion of Alvarado at Agua Dulcc • Crain Size Distribution: selective samples were tested with ASTM D 1140. The portion retained on • the no. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM • D 422 or CTM 202. SAMPLE PERCENT PASSING • LOCATION and (%) • DEPTH • Bore B-1, 5-6% 20.2 • Bore B-I, 10-11'/Z 18.1 Bore B-1, 15-16'h 1 5.5 Bore B-I, 20-21 'h 49.9 • Bore B-I, 25-26'/2 12.7 • Bore B-I, 30-31'/2 3.4 • Bore B-1, 35-36'/2 4.2 • Bore B-I, 40-41'/2 9.0 • Bore B-1, 45-46'/2 1 1.4 • Bore B-I, 50-51'/2 10.3 Consolidation: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, remolded ring samples with ASTM D • 2435 (California Modified). Results of these tests are graphically presented on Plate C-l. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geotechnical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate • cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below: SAMPLE SAMPLE SULFATE SULFATE LOCATION DESCRIPTION CONTENT (ppm) EXPOSURE* Composite Sample Silty SAND 48 Negligible (Parcel 15, 16, 17) City and County Rpt. • Parcel 21, PM 21383, Sandy SILT 34 Negligible • 7-21, 1998** -Per ACI 318R-05 Table 4.3.1 • "Ofrsilclorhe West of Parccl 17 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed with CTM • 643. The results are presented in the table below: • SAMPLE SAMPLE MINIMUM • LOCATION DESCRIPTION pH RESISTIVITY(ohm-cm) Composite Sample Silty SAND 7.1 2,300 • (Parcel 15, 16, 17) • City and County Rpt. • Parcel 21, PM 21383, Sandy SILT 6.8 5,800 7-21, 1998* • •Ofrsite to the West of Parccl 17 • Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested with CTM 422. The results are presented below: SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DESCRIPTION CHLORIDE CONTENT (ppm) Composite Sample (Parcel 15, 16, Silty SAND 164 • 17) • City and County Rpt. Parcel 21, Sand SILT 120 + PM 21383, 7-21, 1998* y •Offsite to the West of Parccl 17 • • • Maximum Dry Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum water content of typical • materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: SAMPLE SAMPLE MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM WATER LOCATION DESCRIPTION DENSITY CONENT (%) b weight) �. Composite Sample (Parcel 15, 16, 17) Brown Silty SAND 128.2 9.4 SCS&T, Nov. 13, Brown Sandy SILT 129.5 8.0 • 1995* w/Gravel • SCS&T, Nov. 13, Brown Very Silty Fine 126.9 9.5 • 1995* SAND SCS&T, Nov. 13, Brown Silt Fine SAND 123.0 10.5 1995* Y Soil Tech Rpt., June 7, Brown Silt SAND 120.7 12.5 • 1990** y • Soil Tech Rpt., June 7, Grey Sandy Clayey 114.8 14.9 • 1990** SILT Soil Tech Rpt., June 7, Drk. Brown Clayey 120.7 12.7 1990** Sandy SILT Soil Tech Rpt., June 7, Brown Silt Fine SAND 123.1 11.0 1990** y • SDA Rpt., Jan. 7, Dark Brown Silty • 1992*** SAND w/Gravel 133.5 8.5 t♦ SDA Rpt., Jan. 7, Dark Brown Olive- • 1992*** Brown Silty SAND 131.4 8.1 w/Gravel SDA Rpt., Jan. 7, Dark Olive Grey Clayey 127.3 9.8 • 1992*** Silty SAND • SDA Rpt., Jan. 7, Dark Brown Clayey 124.5 12.5 • 1992*** Silty SAND . ENGEN, Parcels 10 and 11, PM 21383, 9- Sandy SILT 120.6 11.7 25-1998**** ENGEN, Parcels 10 • and 11, PM 21383, 9- Silty SAND 125.9 9.3 • 25-1998**** •Offsite: At the NW comer of Winchester Road and Diaz •"Offsite: Approximately 1100 feet to the cast;NE intersection of Avenida Alvarado and Agua Dulce • •"Onsite: SDA performed mass grading of the entire Parcel Map 21383 •***Offsite: Parcels located directly east of Parcel 15, at a distance of approximately 800 feet. Direct Shear: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples with • ASTM D 3080. Results of these tests are presented in the table below. SAMPLE SAMPLE FRICTION APPARENT FRICTION APPARENT LOCATION DESCRIPTION ANGLE COHESION ANGLE COHESION • (degrees)* (psf)* (degrees)** (psi)** Parcel 15*** Silty SAND(fill) 33 289 30 215 Parcel 17 Pauba Formation 34 336 32 255 City and County Rpt. Parcel 21, Dark Brown Sandy 36 300 35 200 • PM 21383, 7-21, CLAY w/rock • 1998 Soil Tech Rpt., Clayey Sandy SILT 34 209 - - June 7, 1990 • -Peak Values;"Ultimate Values;"'Remolded • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX D • • EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX D MATRIX GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING • EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present generally accepted standards and minimum earthwork requirements for the development of the project. These specifications shall be the guidelines for i earthwork except where specifically superseded in preliminary geology and soil reports, grading • plan review reports or by prevailing grading codes or ordinances of the controlling agency. 1.0 GENERAL • 1.1 The contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in • accordance with the project plans and specifications. 1.2 The project Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist of their representative shall provide • testing services, and Geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. 1.3 All clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project shall be accomplished by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer. • 1.4 It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the • satisfaction of the Soil Engineer and to place, spread, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the job specifications and as requested by the Soil Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered by the Soil Engineer to be unsuitable • for use in the construction of compacted fill 1.5 The Contractor shall have suitable and sufficient equipment in operation to handle the amount of fill being placed. When necessary, equipment will be shut down temporarily in • order to permit proper compaction of fills. 2.0 GENERAL • 2.1 Excessive vegetation and all deleterious material should be disposed of offsite as required • by the Soil Engineer. Existing fill, soil, alluvium or rock materials determined by the Soil Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed and wasted from the site. Where applicable, the Contractor may obtain the approval of the • Soil Engineer and the controlling authorities for the project to dispose of the above- described materials, or a portion thereof, in designated areas onsite. After removals as described above have been accomplished, earth materials deemed • unsuitable in their natural, in-place condition, shall be removed as recommended by the • Soil Engineer/Engineering Geologist. 2.2 After the removals as delineated in Item 2.0, 2.1 above, the exposed surfaces shall be disked or bladed by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer. The prepared • ground surfaces shall then be brought to the specified water content, mixed as required, • and compacted and tested as specified. In areas where it is necessary to obtain the • approval of the controlling agency, prior to placing fill, it will be the contractor's responsibility to notify the proper authorities. • 2.3 Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic. tanks, wells, pipelines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soil Engineer and/or the controlling agency for the project. • 3.0 COMPACTED FILLS 3.1 Any materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soil Engineer. Deleterious material not disposed of during clearing or demolition shall be removed from the fill as • directed by the Soil Engineer. 3.2 Rock or rock fragments less than eight inches in the largest dimension may be utilized in • the fill, provided they are not placed in contracted pockets and the distribution of the • rocks is approved by the Soil Engineer. 3.3 Rocks greater than eight inches in the largest dimension shall be taken offsite, or placed in • accordance with the recommendations of the Soil Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 3.4 All fills, including onsite and import materials to be used for fill, shall be tested in the laboratory by the Soil Engineer. Proposed import materials shall be approved prior to importation. 3.5 The fill materials shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that when compacted shall not exceed six inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed • during the spreading to obtain near uniform water content and a uniform blend of • materials. All compaction shall be achieved at optimum water content, or above, as determined by the applicable laboratory standard. No upper limit on the optimum water content is • necessary; however, the Contractor must achieve the necessary compaction and will be • alerted when the material is too wet and compaction cannot be attained. 3.6 Where the water content of the fill material is below the limit specified by the Soil • Engineer, water shall be added and the materials shall be blended until a uniform water • content, within specified limits, is achieved. Where the water content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soil Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by disked, blading or other satisfactory methods until the water content is within the limits specified. 3.7 Each fill layer shall be compacted to minimum project standards, in compliance with the testing methods specified by the controlled governmental agency and in accordance with recommendations for the Soil Engineer. • In the absence of specific recommendations by the Soil Engineer to the contrary, the • compaction standard shall be ASTM D 1557. 3.8 Where- a slope-receiving fill exceeds a ration of five-horizontal to one-vertical, the fill • shall be keyed and benched through all unsuitable topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, or creep • material, into sound bedrock or firm material, in accordance with the recommendations • and approval of the Soil Engineer. 3.9 Side hill fills shall have a minimum key width of 15 feet into bedrock of firm material, • unless otherwise specified in the soil report and approved by the Soil Engineer in the • field. 3.10 Drainage terraces and subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the • ordinances of the controlling governmental agency and/or with the recommendations of • the Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist. 3.11 The contractor shall be required to maintain the specified minimum relative compaction our to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills as directed by • the Soil Engineer and/or governing agency for the project. The may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure which produces the designated result. 3.12 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm material: and the transition shall be stripped of all soil or unsuitable materials prior to placing fill. The cut portion should be made and evaluated by the Engineering Geologist prior to • placed of fill above. 3.12 Pad areas in natural ground and cut shall be approved by the Soil Engineer. Finished . surfaces of these pads may require scarification and recompaction. 4.0 CUT SLOPES 4.1 The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes and shall be notified by the • Contractor when cut slopes are started. 4.2 If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologist • conditions are encountered, the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer shall investigate, • analyze and make recommendations to treat these problems. 4.3 Non-erodible interceptor swales shall be placed at the top of cut slopes that face the same • direction as the prevailing drainage. 4.4 Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than allowed by the ordinances or controlling governmental agencies. • • • 4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the • controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the Soil Engineer or Engineering Geologist. • 5.0 GRADING CONTROL • 5.1 Fill placement shall be observed by the Soil Engineer and/or his representative during the • progress of grading. • Field density tests shall be made by the Soil Engineer and/or his representative to evaluate • the compaction and water content compliance of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be • performed at intervals not to exceed two feet of fill height. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density determinations shall • be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface at a depth determined by the Soil Engineer or his representative. • • 5.2 Where tests indicate that the,density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the • required relative compaction, or improper water content is evident, the particular layer or • portion shall be reworked until the required density and/or water content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed over an area until the last placed lift of fill has • been test and found to meet the density and water content requirements and that lift • approved by the Soil Engineer. • 5.3 Where the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until • field observations and tests by the Soil Engineer indicate the water content and density of • the fill are within the limits previously specified. • 5.4 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good • drainage and prevent ponding of water. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to • control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded area until such time as permanent • drainage and erosion measures have been installed. • 5.5 Observation and testing by the Soil Engineer shall be conducted during the filling and • compacting operations in order that he will be able to state in his opinion all cut and filled • areas area graded in accordance within the approved specifications. • 5.6 After completion of grading and after the Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist have • finished their observations of the. work, final reports shall be submitted. No further excavation or filling shall be undertaken without prior notification of the Soil Engineer • and/or Engineering Geologist. • • 6.0 SLOPE • 6.1 All finished cut and fill slopes shall be planted and/or protected from erosion in • accordance with the project specification and/or recommended by a landscape architect. • • • • • • • • • • • 5' Typical Compacted Fill e if Recommended by Soils Engineer • Proposed Grade 15' Min. • • '. .. ••; ':, ' . ' 4' Typical 4" Perf.PVC Backdrain \\' 4" Solid PVC Outlet - :'':" 8' (30' Max.) Typical • ", N - 1 • I c , Competent Material • 5' MIN 'l:l(H:V)Back Cut or as • \ Designed by Soils Engineer Key Dimensions Per Soils Engineer \ • Greater of 2%Slope � • Qr V Tilt Back • Perf. PVC Pipe \ • Perforations Down • 12" Min. Overlap, • Secured Everty 6 Feet Sched.40 Solid PVC Outlet Pipe,(Backfilled and Compacted With Native Materials) • Outlets to be Placed Every 100' (Max.)O.C. \ • 5 Ft3/Ft. 3/4" - 1 1/2" Open Graded Rock • • Geofabric(Mirofi 140N • or Approved Equivalent) • • • • • TYPICAL BUTTRESS M/�T� 1 X DETAIL • • July 1,2012 • • 5' Typical Compacted Fill if Recommended by Soils Engineer • Proposed Grade 15' Min. 4 • 4" Perf.PVC Backdroin • 4" Solid PVC Outlet 8'--� (30' Max.) Typical 1 \ Competent Material 5' Min.:-...* 2:1(H:V)Back Cut or as • 1 \Designed by Soils Engineer • � 15' Min, � \ Key Dimensions Per Soils \ Engineer(Typically H/2 or 15' Min) Greater of 2% Slope \ or 1 foot Tilt Bacl Perf.PVC Pipe Perforations Down a12"Min.Overlap, • Secured Every b Feet \ ; • Sched.40 Solid PVC Outlet Pipe,(Backfilled � I and Compacted With Native Materials) Outlets to be Placed Every 100' (Max.)O.C. eFt./Ft. 3/4" - 1 1/2" Open Graded Rock Geofabric(Mirofi 140N or Approved Equivalent) + TYPICAL STABILIZATION M/�T.� X FILL DETAIL July I, 2012 • • • Natural Ground • Proposed Grade ` Compacted Fill / • -� • • '.,' .v. �' •.�tt Benches =::: -';;,; �:. :.<,: -;. • .,Y,..;:�: ;;,: Remove Unsuitable Materials Ye Notes: • 1)Continuous Runs in Excess of 500' \ 6" Min. Shall Use 8" Diameter Pipe. 1 • 2)Final 20' of Pipe at Outlet Shall be 12" Min. Overlap, \ ! x • Solid and Backfilled with Fine-grained Secured Every 6 Feet \ 6" Mi Material. 6" Collector Pipe (Sched.40,Perf.PVC) `. • 9 Ft'/Ft. 3/4" - 1 1/2"Crushed Rock • Geofabric(Mirafi 140N • or Approved Equivalent) • • Proposed Outlet Detail • Proposed Grade May be Deeper Dependent • upon Site Conditions • 10' Min. 6" Perforated PVC Schedule 40 • Z�" _:_____;__. 3/4" - 1 1/2"Crushed Rock • 20' Min. 5' Min. Geofabric(Mirafi 140N • �6" Solid PVC Pipe or Approved Equivalent) • • A&T, ' � CANYON SUBDRAINS • • July 1, 2012 • • • Cut Lot • (Exposing Unsuitable Soils at Design Grade) • • • Proposed Grade 1:1 Projection To • Remove Unsuitable Competent Material • Material • ,'' " :Compacted Fill .U•• 5• Min. AN • 1:1 Projection To Competent Material • Competent Material Overexcavate and Recompact Note 1: Removal Bottom Should be Graded Note 2: Where Design Cut Lots are • With Minimum 2%Fall Towards Street or Excavated Entirely Into Competent Other Suitable Area(as Determined by Material,Overexcavation May Still be Soils Engineer)to Avoid Ponding Below Required for Hard-Rock Conditions or for • Building Materials With Variable Expansion • Characteristics. Cut/Fill Transition Lot • • • Proposed Grade i • Or g�nQ\C • 1:1 Projection To Competent Material y' of • C • mod. COd geat0`k; �' a d R compact • T° ;here , • Cut at no Steeper than 2:1 (H:V) • Competent Material Below Building Footprint • *Deeper if Specified by Soils Engineer • • CUT AND TRANSITION • M,,&Ar;Z 'X LOT OV DETAIL VATION • • Juy 1. ..012 • • • • Fill Slope • Proposed ° • Grade • ",-,-'.Compacted Fill';; • Natural -� -` "-'"�. �✓' � Ground ":. •..... • 1:1 Projection To ,,. ; 'Moter\a\s l.._. • Competent Material :4 V�suitab\a :•.c'•:;i". ..i'Z at 4' Typical • fin\�.:.: •.:: •: 8' Typical • - — -":;. Competent Material • _ eater of 2%Slope or 1^ oot Tilt Back 2' Min. T— j- 15' Min. Key Width • • Fill-Over-Cut Slope • Compacted:: - ' ✓ : • Proposed Fill • Grade 7a r.. • O Natural V. ;.. >:: '.✓` We Ground _( . `itob\c • _ _ " a\77p!`� .s.•; 4' Typical Cut Face Competent h ateriol f : .,... 8' Typical 2' "':' r8oter:aF' ° Slo c' ' 1 Width Varies oat Tilt Back • 15' Min. Key Width • * Construct Cut Slope First • Cut-Over-Fill Slope • Natural Ground • Overbuild and Trim Back Cut Face • Proposed Grade �: :• :: /•;:; '�'; ��o Compacted Fill 1:1 Projection to • Competent Material Competent Material 2' Min. Greater of %Slope or 1 Foot Tilt Back • �- -I 15' Min. Key Width Note: Natural Slopes Steeper Than 5:1 (H:V) • Must Be Benched. • • �� '� KEYING AND BENCHING • July 1, 2012 • • • • • • • • Proposed Grade • Deeper in Areas of • Swimming Pools,Etc. AZ • • Slope Face • - ig'Mm • 1O Min. 10 Min. • �-- 15 Min yq '„ • 15"Nji T %-fir; Oversized • 4 Mm.! Boulder • Windrow with .'*" Oversize Materials " Compacted Windrow Parallel to Slope Face ;.`�^`?';;;::,^,.;..;;: Fill Jetted or Flooded Approved <•yo . • Granu or a era '•ii • �'ae • Excavated Trench or Dozer V-cut • •i. • Note: Oversize Rock is Larger • than 8" in Maximum Dimension. Section A-A • • • • • OVERSIZE ROCK &Ar;Z 'X DISPOSAL DETAIL July I, 2012 • ° W TREND., S 45 _ _ - -----a f _ GRAPHIC RE RESET TAT ON: NORTH WALL ffi JLVV7V1 _ III i -ryvi 0+40nil { f { rf 3 enc _. -_ - -- _ ..- � _.:;- _ -. �_ •ems_-.__ � �-�_ --- - - - - - --- -� :`Lw_•} '.c _ _ v v-• .y m ss?syy ,.. �_is-r__ -r--sr �"-:ras-rTy srcv_-£�Ti: -. �- ---.•l -A F� __f_ _ a{-sr _ - �- c^_?v_r___ �... ..�.�>,ry-- ;.:.'--$'_—�_r.--_—_ _v __ v-av:vzz^Y-- _a}___ :t_ '� -_ __._-__-____ 2' _ v_ _-- s___ _, .,.. ... .. y.»+ _ }E�.`..:T•: _ _y _� - - - _..... .rx.�._-_ - - - —�:.__ --- ...: --...- - 1 ..._'__-_'h----r—_z_:u?_$_F__ 'ss__ _- �______•_ a__._ �..:. _.: .,. _, :, isv __•__x_-_•_-�_rrcv:_r._avav�:i- - ��s - �••'""' -- `� _- -.__''' -•���r�,d„ca- yy- _ rc-_�,a.:.,>.�__, :. z_z._r,. _ _ _ --__ - _rr �'E`er t�� -rr-y _.. ,. -.. .J,�,f:e,.==s_�a�_-at-�_s,: :.:__• __ -�_.,c__.sv.: : _,-•�-u-� xfr-c,`._rrr? =',",,.terra-� � _ �.'t,`' '�'�'-—_ _— ____ _________—__- __��• t _ _ __ _�r 3x.._t_ __-_:_____ ___ _ .. ______—_..r_v _ _�________�_}s-}?}y=��__fir' =`:"'�:_-__:��a __c__ _ ._�ic+✓��mix �r_,: _ _ _ _ _r —_.- a:v _ _+._• _ _;_v__yacy?- _ - _�vr:_-m: i _(mil ._. V..,_.._ r. ______ ________T:_r_____t___.___-____•____r _�_-r_- - -S.'�_-_v:._-:_s.-_.T,-�}r f '_-x +yv�-3-v - _ Ni i -- ____ __r-z_,._y-^___-_.___z �-r: __r__--Y=-t' �-r. _---_—'�-_`____,.a'�_—_�___>,___r_-.._•.�-.. __._ _r__--x_;,== - —__-- ___1`.ss-_ ___�_ .,�..._. r:;::. ;r ,-_ y _e_i.-r y_ r ,�„�__ - __ - ____ �_- --{ •xyY -a-rr-yr __ __ — - r-- y - _`__i'�'{.'ate�'`y} =��_r � to eta-_: -��•,i.�,;Y- - _r �,,�.'- --=7�y:-.cr __ _r��,,� -- 1 i f LEGEND I I Earth Units I Topsoil: i f I i A - dQ, Artificial Fill, by Others: Silty SAND; light tan, fine to medium grained, dense, dry to �P B - Residual Soil- Silty SAND;dark brown,!very fine to fine, damp Quatern Pauba Formation Bedrock: i _._ ..... -SANDSTONE,browr�,-fine to very-coarse, dense,-damp to-nu4tOncreases--ith-depth} ; some flat fragments of blue phyllite to 3 in�hes diameter nd mostly aigular granitic clasts up to flinches in diameter, scattered sub-rounded fine to coarse ferro-magnetites. f i C-1 - Weathered Siltstone, brown, dense, and damp C-2 - Sandstone, fine grained zone with coarse Pauba (0), fine Silty SAND, tan, dense, damp 4 Steve Maddox John R Nielsen Name: DIAMOND HEARTS RANCH LLC Associate Geologist Associate Engineer Project No. M1114-017 MATRIX GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING FAULT TRENCH LOG: FT' Client: MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 41769 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, SUITE 107 Scale: 1"=5' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 APN: 909-310-015 -016 A -017 Date: September 2013 OFFICE: (951) 200-4747 FACSIMILE: (760) 692-1411 � � CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Sheet No. 2 Plate No. 1 2 OF 3 5 — t - Z S S --__ S S — S EX 8" VCP SEWER S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S nil y ection10 - Projecti PROTECT!N-PLACE 0 �A FT 4 EXISTING PROPOSED of LB�A FT-4 EXISTING 50 MPH SPEED LEGEND M w _ feet to NO PARKING RECIPROCAL 626 feet to "' the No h) EX 1 " PROPOSED EXISTING (the No h EX NO PARKING LIMIT SIGN ON EXISTING E0 EXISTING (Locations are Approximate) -�{ �---- w � ) PROPOSED - w SIGN CONCRET . INGRESS / EGRESS WATER VALV WATER SIGN STREET LIGHT POLE c� NO PARKING EXI ATER 3 — '" w w AV/AR EX ICV REAL ESTATE CONCRETE w�_ w w SIDEWALK N45°22'52"E 37.12' 3`� VALVE EX 1 " SIGN SIDEWALK SIGN DRI ___ 1 O 2 PVC WATER ENT Earth Units � , 17 3 w w 33 w w w 3 w w O E�( CUR & GITTER - w w w w o 3 ' 3 �o co COT STD I - - �' Af - Artificial Fill, by Others �. �o _ C TD - 'Q ►� ��ro ___ `o ___. ____. p fs - Quaternary Pauba Formation, Sandstone ; , 148.63' - Member (Circled where buried) co Cn 1032 148.63 I N 6 _ L LS LS ' ao 105.8 � �► N 109.6' 130.6' 1 y o N Qp fs ( N - 30' LS co 30 6 0 m I d' LS �-' LS N SLIDING M f? ' -- -- <-- OPEN �F, GATE LS Qpfs 3 _ z _ - B Z � _,.. - OPEN --> 3 ' 20 LS ADA' LS 10.1 ADA -, o Symbols W I 'o SLIDING - — - w m LS a, ACCESS ACCESS 70 GATE o ry 3 LS 9 LS LS 31.1 -Limits of Report W ' o co oo N GWco PROPOSED -°y M o) LS O _ o EMPLOYEES , O �� PATIO - Geologic Contact/ Cut Fill Transition Goo cC �. , I LS m �n / / m K rrl ® _ (Per Schaefer Dixon Associates Grading Report, 1991/1992) Q �� ro BIKE z 0 1.1 LS EX ADA LS RACK o PARKING SIGN ,� ' CO � = _ � �� IKE BIKE W 3 v n f-,,, 22.1 -Fault Trench, FT-1 x43— Q fs RACK L , = Q S P _ I I M 700 6 spc 6 spc 6 s � �o Ls o pC Fault Trenching by Others, FT-1 (SDA); FT-4 (L&A) ' ' w M LS o �` LS LS o ti LS EX 8" WIDE B (protected distance from the site included) 3 LLJ ' �cu Y rz 4` 1 �' ss'+'~ v w SPLIT-FIRE MAS O cr \ 0 z � 34.1' o ' O cZ� D. 10 5' O o w o LOCATION VARIES, - 3 ' � oo \ _ 5.5 � TO 0.06' ENC C) 5 CONC 15.1' w S M c _ 7.5 �------WALKS 7.5' ■ `"' o S ■ ' �< 5' LS T- -Geotechnical Bore Location ll 3 -4 5 L$ 9M 6 40•9� - ' M T.D. = 16.5' CC _ 15' 15' •9' ti 18' 12' 7.5 M NO GW i 13.1 C LS p� T.D. 165 18 0 18 LS PROPOSED 18' N GW o Z f ' O - _ 1 EXISTING " 1 � -OKOPOSED CONCi�. M �S f PAVEOMENT 6' Ss�f �0 PROPOSED o' e -Percolation Test Location ' STREET �AVEMENT ADA C 7 S C ADAco I LS ADA CONC ' LIGHT SpC ACCESS 5' „� � ACCESS I:, ACCESS 18 PAVEMENT 3 . . V QpfS o `�? LS ;�, LS Cn 4 spc LS p"' Qe -Indicates Removal Depth i �/ % co in feet 80 76.8' Q`�`L 'Q.�j o LS ,,�`L ��,� 1 \ Q� �' \ 84.5' 62.5 'o co 0 0 29.1' 29.1' 24' ma's o o > paG�C� L� � 77 o 0 29.1 FIARC I L� 15 W Af °D o Ri CIE , I G 0 18' EX LIGHT w 7 spc PH 83 ` C, CITY STD M o �"' - o POLE QpfS p �� o �", CITY STD p �� ��� � L N � o o � ���''TRASH�~- TRASH o 0 0 0 7 SpC ono S o� pM 1� (5711 5 ENCLOSURES p �] (�� $ ��� ENCLOSURES FM 16701� 25 • - • - z ► LS ir - • v s' ► ► .'• '- • -' R .v .v v �V v d- v• v °. Al v .• a ., p ,. s • ♦ •' ` v `. • •. .. • S' N �. p v v.f - - • ♦ r d v :• • .' • + • s ► ai. v ,. v. • v. ► v -.. .. 145.1'. '♦• : .. Q fs 148.6'• . : .. o . '° ► T . :.. -' p ,. R . 143.6 W J j ° ' -' v. •- • V. d .° �` • • •♦ - •' .. • ►. °. - ♦ .. ° n 'e - v $ ♦ .. .►. .• r e, •. • ' > " ^'/�)R ►• .♦ ►. v •v. .q v v -v. ' EXISTING -. . : e . ♦ e : .'. . EX AC • d v. ► ¢ .. • v - v ' •. - �. B • • -• VW v s•.. •. PAD #1 •• v , : •. > o ' v .s• .. ..• v -•.v ♦ -' �� ► ' ►• SCE VAULT 2 ' o ► • R ° ♦ ♦ • . ' v v e' • v > v W. •. TRUCK °.. .. v .:' .. " PAD # o �. = 12,484 SF . : e . ► • PAD # (8" Concrete/Reber) . s T.D' �� Af : 12 063 SF • •.. ;• v v. V ► 's v ♦ v ' K v pfSV o v v P 8" Concret Reber T.D.}}p7�� 1 - - . ty V. •- ♦ .. ) •► .. 1VlJ� , ' n - ' a •: -.. ►•• , - •.' • -,.• ► v' + ►+ ► ► • • •>. -► • • > ...e'v �♦ • . „ ' - ` o 0V '. T.D _:5' , v'ia . • ►. v • ,�.� (8 Concrete/Rehr, . YY V O+OO - -p •• a ►' • '• .s v ► V .v v .. v • 'v • •' • s '. i t • v' v. V. v v' ° v` - v.m .•v�' s V. .v • ►v '* '. a 7 • o l^./ _ e FT M s �'1'pfs. ♦ • • • ' • s vo s v yr ♦ v ♦ V. - v p ► s .� • ` ► • ..v yr •. v ♦ v ►. v • d v ° v •. - ` ` ` •► -, ,► ► ` } o _ :. v .► v .. .v v'• • v _ v'. ,' i. • _ s' ♦ e .s - .♦ •', v ,. .• ♦ • s• • -, ♦ .. •r •♦ s• ► - v . ' _v :v r .. Z - ►' v v•. • ►'• 'i ► •. '• v►: r. ► : • ► •. V v v• ► • - .v e' V s 'v ♦ v• ► P ;v• :v .� .. ` ►. v ►. - • � 033 LS '►v .. ` • ':Vry v. ♦ , .v. .v v :• "v aV .� v. •.►- V . . :r a ► ► v • -•. v . •. • ' . • ':.` • ►- .` ►. - ► ♦. .. V • '` ► v .9 v r `' °� v • • ► ,. ►. .v ►v v v `y v•v • v+. p ` v ►. .0 ; 'v ►'. - ► . c v '♦ 4. ♦ •, ► • -•O • .0 v' .. 'v V e. V,r .. V. v` v ► v' .• r •. y •_. e• • o ` -. > ► ► •. ►,- mini it iV .. v v .• .. s : • ►: CA 1032 LS LS � 167.01' 148.E ' EXISTING p p p N45022'47"E 464.27' FL p i OWN to Uth TRASH oo EXISTING o 0 �� ) o CONCRETE �OQ3 EXISTING �000 SWALETRAN FORMER IPAA R fl Steven Maddox John R Nielsen Name: PLANT'S CHOICE Associate Geologic Associate Engineer Proiect No. M1114-017 ac MATRIX GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Client: MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 41769 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, SUITE 107 GEOTECHNICAL MAP Scale: 1"-205 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 PLANT'S CHOICE Date: SEPTEMBER 2013 OFFICE: (951) 200-4747 FACSIMILE: (760) 692-1411 MARKHAM - CITY OF TEMECVLA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Sheet No. Plate No. 1 OF 3 Mo 175 z 47 I 1i - M 4 ISO 150 AP — "° �,,, ter• '°�' ,. � \� ' --_---- - � � + � ;, . . .. ONE r, a. -6 ,� C4 cc LEGEND �9Olt" - ' (Locations are Approximate) r It'` 4PPXIMAT• � A L � , O � 0 r ZONE , 17 B U N ARY + S �' Symbols 115 E 44 41 t 2 � L-01 ob 175 � Go Photolineament 5 ISO 0 - 4 L U tso 1 5 ISO Mb ' 42 - -CPT Line B SDA fn 0 E SD =1 ' -4 41 ( . 40 (10 C-4 3�j (0) ( en - a �,'�°° ( `" -Fault Trench, FT4, L&A in I U 3 � 35 .33 3 31 -Fault Trench, SDA-10 �'• \ P V M48- PM 2,383 w.� . .^II�a76 8,® 90"10-075 PARCEL 83 } t ; 6-25 PARCEL 89 PARCEL 82 I PM 21363 1 � 10` 3F LdR \ S PEA 21383 Pm 213N Pv 1,,art,e-_25 k � �t � �` 1yy. \. FM ( i Ph X ^fir - - C - 107 s S vw WINCHESTER ROAD 9.r �F :S S S S "�" S S S S — S _ S -: +( a. 1 'r ^M� w III rl5wilk Ip9lYlllf a �`•••• • _ rs:• ` r apw ua apl a esw po b uas� rrrr m. � o a— -�° r � '>.r•.,e✓r •'»a.tu�m�nrs„a�on.* w*,amm..,..mnwea..�..n _. _._.___._ ._-. _ - ---— ----- !�'�7 2 _ s r ......... t yapsPARCEL , X@ _ a p a 1. s s n r' f . MM*ii� (�'AR�1383 - mr- S D I I r 102. , �i, `'�`q ,._ ,rd�" PPA 2t 383 �• ,.. uA_ ~ tF 4 `r ,.."...^'... 1 P�,�F �'�i s r j `� x CPT DA-A t . 1, t a, LINE B f ■ranrrol ' � � '\ srr �+p�, "9Y a�erl a aar efaorprn 1 ' L-2 ` 1 r M'�J fq) �w.M'•121r 122p�/� MIIY S�IY �V \M}✓ ° f tt( o_ H \€na�� L t 1 ■f■si ■�11M1/�j) rJ�/`�{.j 125 119 P L 110 17 arS 1 ar �S n—� °v. �ar�Y PARML 15 c _ �j•..b. i5 R e PM 2130TM xs. f, � n u PM 16S75 -"�. PM9 lFp6 < PI115p1F15 ­ /��,j � �� ,.ti:'F:'lar. �`.��`-;.N'v s;.,E2isy�:,. :.x�i_,•�-`�?� 'r::.7= r�:,;i ar:;i:.:M iz' �.. ,.. ���y9{/ ,� �� II �w r -'y . 1 {'�'�� �t�`.�n_•r' .. :�� ` �i:� # fy Y .c's+:yA �.erp� L 1 � St 4 {i 17t3, .+C-CfrS 4�s 4 •'<% t rt�, ^. 7Yp— - " "..�" .�]n ' - •'IYaY xi ;s::'�+�•�7`' ,k+cysj 'r r•+.���`, iY,,, ,.a `;i. 5";- § `„ A.... " ;r .� a <:"'S^t.. Y� .:i.'`dw s '•t`y�='fi 1Yf �s * ;s. •,r, r t`:�:S,•r. r t'.a•t.!'t:.t,<� x.:"ar t �:.� l�c,y r r .`st+•'4.,::' 1�< _ $.... M. a ` x•.. �_;r�-Y 5,,4 J.-''+,,:cr.r^c,A gv? s..Y.;�"i�•tti'e55� ° y{ (�/✓Mp W%e,-2.(r' `s,.,:..�:s..' .i};, f ..:. Y r'L°..' t• ...t:r�y.�a�..'�r��`��r:?f.fir"',:: w .f `gYrf1 ,. K e®yam'".J� {6 f � .�.:" T^.. l.:�f� �'w+:r:.-jam. :s: �{,C��- ":1�t �eY� J-�^�v. }}} ���/�1w/� !}� ;/�9r'�7J (�ayyry�yAJr IGO `!na' ! .ft y�: •1' ti ��4"'3 R "'-'V:�,t.�t.... i� �:��. 1 • q/ i 4 ti '�T �. Iw 1 r 1 R tarp 4,0 t a� t� v,— IPA EL P� F� x~ APPR X. - � PAS r -�. • �ARC13L 2 Po � R i, rplRrwr.' 322 FEET zr PM2,382 - �t�Pl_L' ,� .• sr PRA,89147°� �r : 3w ✓r 4 i t it r S. � 4 . � � � M. B. 122 /42 - 43 )MMER IAL PARCEL : F r t A P ZONE � - ` ..`-:''"''"� Y�.,,.;.._....• �• 4{ �.,�..........................,......,„._..�.M....,�...,...R...w »...,.......:,..,..,...._._.......�.....a,...,.,.�..-....a_�,._..._....._..�,,.,,..,�__.....�,.�,..M,�.M.....,.,�....�,.._.,....,..._..,_...�.....,...�,.,:�.,�•"w ��,,�,..,......o•..._...m.,,,��.�...,..._......,.,�..........,.�.....,H:...w...»M,....,...,w,<.�.,a..........�....,..._,,......�,...�...,,.�...,,.....�:_....:"..,..,,...,..:—....�...,....,..w.,...,.,.,,..,".,.�...,,..,.............,�..,•......• ....,m,,..».....». PROXIMAT �fa� .�.,a..r9-Y' @�i .-.w..ww�....r.........o._.-..._.-ww."�......w.,.....--.w�.,a::.«...�"»Gov+..•��,.�...,....�........�..,.�..w....._........,.w...�"...•-....e.-....«................••.••.•..•...•....»..,.�,,.......... or........,...«,.-...•.w.«-."..•....................o•..e..«•.........w».....r�......"...«.........,.�._.•......•......»..,..,.,...«--•....»_.,......_...�....::��..,.. ..«.... ._�r.•• BOUNDARY min, 4 .. � «..mw 8 «...,...... .,,•,. �, � �....,....,.•Mm He•.,.w......„ �1�.7 r ,.....„.,...•.•.�M..M•. ,.�„,,.......,.-w..�.„.�.n A �' .....,...�.. ."....,..... .....n„A.:............+.n 1� , ...�•w.._..�µr,.. .. .�..«w.....,vMd. � ..,m.�...:.,..,»....... „y�l._.�,,....,,, _.«....._..�ar+� paroled Median . �F f A C NVE 4E 1`4 T `4vs r.M k l t' I s: M�b"'�� Jw a� Tr7 % 777 - 1 ( •n SDA-11 Steven Maddox John R Nielsen Name: PLANT'S CHOICE Associate Geologist Associate Engineer Pro ect No. M1114-017 MATRIX GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Client: MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 41769 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, SUITE 107 GEOLOGIC LOCATION MAP Scale: 1"=100' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 PLANT'S CHOICE Date: SEPTEMBER 2013 OFFICE: (951) 200-4747 FACSIMILE: (760) 692-1411 CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Sheet No. MARKHAM9 NESTE9 BROUDIN9 A STONE 1986 PM 21383 Plate No. 3 OF 3