Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 3552 Lot 9 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Hope Lutheran Church -71 y PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9, TR35.52 PARCEL.MAP BOOK 56/63-66 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA I ( I I V I I S �I I ii IN' C. GEOTEC tJICI L � I � � I I' I I PREPARED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NIIATERII�L$ HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH lC/O TEMECULA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE 1 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92592 1 / MAY 5, 2015 REVISED February 18, 2016 PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 t P GEOCON /////����� , f � I E 6 T, i N C. _ _ ���� GEOTE ,CHNCAI ENV . RONMENTAI ■ MATERIALS Project No. T2630-22-01 May 5, 2015 Revised Fehrnanr 18, 20/6 Hope Lutheran Church ' 32819 Temecula Parkway, Suite B Temecula,Califomia 92592 Attention: Mr. Neil Nevills . Subject: GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE INVESTIGATION & INFILTRATION TESTING HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOT 9,TR3552 PARCEL MAP BOOK W63-66 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Nevills: Per your authorization of Geocon Proposal IE-1372 dated February 27, 2015, and your authorization, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) herein submits the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation and percolation testing for the subject church development. This report includes revised pavement recommendations in response to comments from the City of Temecula. The accompanying report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. The study also includes an evaluation of the geologic units and geologic hazards. The recommendations of this study should be reviewed once final project plans are developed. Based on the results of this study, it is our opinion the site is considered suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Geocon is currently conducting a fault investigation for the site that will be submitted under separate cover. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, ySxONAL p�O GEOCON WEST, INC. o�� .ew USA A n/ =s OQ� Y� CERrIpEp -4 d G O No.2eg0 Z Li . Battia o FCA Chet E. Robinson C (j 2316 GE 2890 O DRL:CER:LAB:hd Distribution: Addressee Temecula Engineering Consultants, Alm. Stanley Heaton 41571 Coming Place,Suits 101 0 Murrieto,Cclifomio 92562J065 ■ Telephone 951.304.2300 ■..Fox 951.304.2392 � � TABLE OF CONTENTS lPURPOSE AND SCOPE...................................................................................................................... l 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ \ IBACKGROUND .......................................................................................................---------I 4. GEOLOGIC SETTING.........................................................................................................................2 lGEOLOGIC MATERIALS ..................................................................................................................3 ll (}enxruL..,,`,.----------------~—^----^—^~------.~~^^..~^ 3 iZ Previously Placed Artificial Fill ((}uf)........................................................................................ 3 5.3 Puuho Sandstone Formation ({)os)............................................................................................. 3 h. GROUNDWATER...............................................................................................................................4 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................................4 7.1 Faulting.......................................................................................................................................4 72 Seismic Design Parameters.........................................................................................................5 7.3 Liquefaction................................................................................................................................7 7.4 Expansive Soil............................................................................................................................ 7 7.5 Landslides................................................................................................................................... 7 7.6 Slope Stability............................................................................................................................. 7 7.7 Tsunamis and Snicbnx................................................................................................................. 8 8. SITE INFILTRATION..........................................................................................................................8 8.1 (}encruL.....,`,`—`,---.-------.—..----..—..—.------..—' 8 y. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. lo 9.1 GeneraL.................--,,.---------------------`—,—' l0 92 Soil Characteristics................................................................................................................... | | 9.3 Grading..................................................................................................................................... |Z 9.4 Earthwork Grading Factors....................................................................................................... l4 9.5 Settlement *f Proposed Fill ...................................................................................................... l4 9.6 Foundation and Concrete S|uh*{)nf3rodo............................................................................... \4 9.7 Mat Foundations....................................................................................................................... l0 9.8 Exterior Concrete F\Nwx`rk...................................................................................................... }7 9\9 Conventional Retaining Walls.................................................................................................. l8 | 9.10 Lateral Loading......................................................................................................................... lV 9.11 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations................................................................................Z0 9.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection..................................................................................... Z2 9.13 Foundation Plan Review........................................................................................................... Z3 { LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY 0FCONDITIONS LIST OF REFERENCES LIST(}PAERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS IT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figured, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geotechnical Map Figure 3, Riverside County Fault Hazard Map Figure 4, Slope Stability Analysis Figure 5, Wall/Column Footing:Detail Figure 6, Wall Drainage Detail APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS Figures A-1 through A-7, Logs of Test Pits Figures A-8 and A-13, Percolation Test Data APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Figure B-1, Laboratory Test Results Figure B-2,Grain Size Distribution Figure B-3, Direct Shear Test Results APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS, ENGEN, 1999 APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS I PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for a proposed church development on a 2.93 acre parcel located immediately southwest of Vallejo Avenue, northwest of the existing church and school building in Temecula, California (see Vicinirn Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of developing the property, The Conceptual Grading Plan prepared by Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. (2015) was provided as a reference for our investigation. The scope of our investigation included review of the previous project report by EnGen, sequential stereoscopic aerial photographs, geologic mapping, subsurface exploration, percolation testing, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and the preparation of this report. A summary of the information reviewed for this study is presented in the List q/Re%rences. Our field investigation included excavation of seven geotechnical test pits and six percolation test excavations. Appendix A presents a discussion of the field investigation and includes logs of the test pits and percolation test results. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are presented on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). We performed laboratory tests on soil samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to evaluate pertinent physical and chemical properties for engineering analysis. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B. References to elevations presented in this report are based on the elevations in the Conceptual Grading Plan. Geocon does not practice in-the field of land surveying and is not responsible for the accuracy of such topographic information. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is an irregularly shaped parcel consisting of 2.93 acres. It is bounded on the northeast by Vallejo Avenue; on the southwest by Interstate 15 (1-15); the northwest by single-family residences; and the southeast by existing Hope Lutheran Church. The legal Assessor's Parcel No. is 922-170-003. The site coordinates are 33.4824° N/-1 17.1398* W. We understand that the site will be developed as a church with a single structure to be located near the center of the site with parking lots west and south of the building. We have assumed that the structure will incorporate concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls or wood frame construction, and it will have shallow foundations and concrete slab-on-grade floors. The associated utility, parking arcs, and flatwork improvements will also be constructed. Bioswales are planned within the parking lot median west of the building and along the northwestern and southwestern borders of the site. GLgon Pmjmt No.T-630-22-01 - I - Revised Febman,IR.2016 Our review of the project grading plan indicates planned cuts and fills to be less than five feet. Site elevations range from approximately 1030 feet above mean seal level (MSL) along the eastern side of the site to approximately 1015 near the western comer of the property. The site is generally vacant and cleared of vegetation. Our aerial photograph review indicates that the site consisted of rolling hills prior to being graded. The alignment of Vallejo Avenue has been present since at least 1967. '3. .BACKGROUND The site has been previously graded. Based on the aerial photographs, it appears that site grading occurred at various times. The site appears to have been initially cleared and leveled between 1978 and 1996. It is our, understanding that the site was utilized as a borrow site for the construction of the Temecula Parkway on and off ramps at 1-15 prior to being graded under testing and observation of EnGEN in 1999. A review of the compaction testing report prepared by EnGEN Corporation, dated-February 10, 1999 indicates that up to approximately 7 feet of artificial fill was placed on the site in 1998/1999 under testing and observation of EnGEN. A copy of the report is included in Appendix C. The compaction report includes documentation of testing and observation on the subject site as well as the parking area for the existing church site to the south. The EnGEN report indicates that grading consisted of a cut/fill and import fill placement operation. Fill material was generated from the eastern portions of the site, and used to bring the western portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Import material was used to bring the central and southwestern portions of the site to finish grade elevation. The report indicates that removal of alluvium and slopewash was performed in the western portion of the site to depths ranging from I to 7 feet below original elevation (EnGEN, 1999). 4. GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located in the Temecula Valley within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded on the north by the Transverse Ranges (San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains) and on the east by the San Andreas fault. The Peninsular Ranges Province extends southward into Mexico and westward past the Channel Islands. Geologic units within the Peninsular Ranges consist of granitic and metamorphic bedrock highlands and deep and broad alluvial valleys. More specifically, the site lies just southwest of the boundary of two structural blocks, the Santa Ana Mountains block, and the Perris Block. These two structural blocks are separated by the Elsinore fault zone, which separates the Santa Ana Mountains Block to the west by the Perris Block to the east. The Temecula Valley is a topographic depression that is bounded on the east by the Wildomar branch of the Elsinore fault zone and on the west by the Willard branch of the Elsinore fault zone. The trough G,won Pnj�vi No.1_610-22-01 -Z - Rey iced Febawn,18.2016 formed as a result of extensional faulting during the Miocene Epoch (between 5 and 24 million years before present), as the North American - Pacific Plate boundary changed from one of subduction to transform. Subsequent faulting then changed from predominately extension to predominately strike-slip. (Harden 1998). Locally, as mapped by Tan & Kennedy (2000), the site is underlain by older (Pleistocene age) alluvial flood plain.deposits, described as mostly well consolidated, poorly sorted, and permeable. Mapping by Kennedy (1977) describes the materials in the vicinity of the project site as Pauba Sandstone/Siltstone formation. These materials are described as well-indurated, extensively cross-bedded, channeled and filled sandstone and silisione that contains occasional intervening cobble-and-boulder conglomerate _beds. 5. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 5.1 General During our field investigation, we encountered previously placed artificial fill''overlying Pauba formational bedrock. It is possible that older alluvium over'lied the Pauba-prior to removal as borrow material. The descriptions of the 'soil and geologic conditions are shown on the excavation logs located in Appendix A and described herein in order of increasing age.. 5.2 Previously Placed Artificial Fill (Oaf) Approximately 1 to 8 feet of previously placed artificial fill is present across the site. As encountered, this unit consisis of brown fine- to medium-grained silty sand with traces of gravel that is loose to dense, and dry to moist. Some organics and trace construction debris (PVC pipe) was observed within the fill. Portions of the artificial fill will require remedial grading to provide a uniform bearing surface for the planned church building. 5.3 Pauba Sandstone Formation (Qps) Quaternary-age (Pleistocene) sandstone is present across the site and underlays the artificial fill. In in-situ condition, the sandstone formational materials are typically light-brown to brown, well-indurated and contain beds of sandstone, silty sandstone, and clayey sandstone. Occasional gravel and cobble beds are present. As excavated, the Pauba formational materials are classified as silty sands (SM), sands (SP-SM) and clayey sands (SC). These materials were observed to be in a medium dense to very dense condition. GLwon Pmjmi No.T-630 2'--01 - 3 - Re,isrd Frhn,an,l8.2016 6. GROUNDWATER We did not encounter groundwater during our exploration to the depths up to 16.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Perched groundwater was encountered at a .depth of 38 feet, in July 1998 during a geolechnical investigation by EnGEN of the existing,church site. located south of and adjacent to the project site. Based upon data prepared by the Western Municipal Water District Cooperative Well Monitoring Program (2012), and-the USGS, several wells in the vicinity of the project have been monitored recently. State Well No. 08S02W 19A001 S, located approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast of the project site was monitored on April 3, 2015. At that time, the depth to groundwater was 41.44 feet. State Well No. 08S02W 13B001 S, located approximately 0.5 miles north-northwest,of the subject site was monitored on October I, 1967. At that time, the depth to groundwater was 27 feet below the existing ground surface. According to a map entitled "Map of San Jacinto and Temecula Basins California" (Waring. 1919), groundwater elevation contours in November 1915 indicated a depth to groundwater of approximately 20 feet in the vicinity of the subject site. Significant declines in groundwater in the Temecula Valley have occurred since that time. Based on historical groundwater data reviewed for this project and data indicating the regional decline in groundwater levels, it is our opinion that groundwater beneath the site is not likely to reach the historical high level of approximately 20 feet in the future. We have conservatively estimated a high groundwater level of 30 feet at the site. 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 7.1 Faulting The site, like the rest of southern California, is located within a seismically active region near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems are. estimated to produce up to approximately 55 millimeters of slip per year between the plates(Harden, 1998). There are at least 28 major late Quaternary active/potentially active faults that are within a 100-kilometer radius of the site (Blake, 2000). The nearest known active fault to the site is the Wildomar fault (Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone) located approximately 3000 feet to the northeast ,of the project site. The Temecula segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone is a right-lateral, strike-slip fault capable of producing an earthquake with an estimated maximum moment magnitude of Mw 6.8, and has an associated slip-rate of 5.0 t2.0 mm/year(Cao et al., 2003 and Petersen et al., 2008). Dawson et al. (2008), estimates the Temecula fault segment to have a preferred mean recurrence interval of 600±150 years. Gaxon Pmjmt No.T2630-224)1 -4- Re,ised Fr6mmn,18.2016 ti 4' The site is not located within a State of California "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone" for fault rupture hazard (CGS 2015), however the majority of the site lies within a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone as shown on Figure 3. No mapped lineations are depicted through the subject site on the Riverside County Fault Zone Map. This mapped County Fault Zone is associated with the Willard Fault, which is one of the central strands of the Elsinore Fault Zone System (Temecula Segment), which runs from the Los Angeles Basin to the north, into Mexico to the south. Examination of stereo pairs of aerial photographs was utilized to assess the local and regional geologic and geomorphic characteristics with respect to the site. Stereo pairs and one non-stereo vertical black-and-white aerial photographs from the years of 1948 to 2010 (see References), were examined. Older aerial photographs, which depict the site before modernization in an attempt to visualize the natural geomorphology, were reviewed. Based upon our photogeologic review, a weak but distinct lineation appears to traverse through the central portion of the site in a general west to east direction. This trend'is coincident with the trend of the fault zone that is mapped by the County of Riverside. No other photographic and/or geomorphic expressions generally rclating to "potential faulting were observed to traverse through the subject site. We are currently preparing a Fault Hazard Study Report for the site under separate cove that will.address the lineament. Our review of these references indicated that the CDMG and CGS Fault Activity Maps, dated 1994 and 2010, respectively, both indicate that zone of"Late Quaternary fault displacement (during past 700,000 years)` are mapped very close to, or on. the subject site. Zones'of"historical fault displacement` are included on these maps to the northwest and southeast of the site, which are thought to be related to regional groundwater subsidence, which caused ground cracking in the Temecula area in the 1980s triggered by groundwater withdraw]. These areas of historical fault displacement are not snapped through the subject site. Based on our photogeologic review and review of published geologic maps and reports pertinent to the mapped County of Riverside Fault Hazard Zone, it was determined that a subsurface exploratory trench was appropriate to address the potential for active faulting at the site. Geocon is currently performing a fault investigation for the site, and the results of that study will be presented under separate cover. 7.2 Seismic Design Parameters We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Amps, provided by the USGS. Table 7.2.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2013 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2012 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design. Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building structure and improvements should be designed using a Site Class D. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 7.2.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake(MCER). GLwon Pmyvt No.T-630-22-01 - 5 - Reeked Febman-18.11)16 TABLE 7.2.1 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2013 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 1613.3.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response 1.898g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Acceleration—Class B(short).Ss MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration—Class B(Isec). S1 0.777g Figure,1613.3.1(2) Site Coefficient. FA 1:0 Table 1613.3.3(1) ' Site Coefficient.FV 1.5 Table 1613.3.3(2).. Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response 1.898g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16.37) Acceleration(shop).Ssts Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response 1.165g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn I f 38) Acceleration(I sec). S>u 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration(short). Sos 1.265g Section 1613.3.4(Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design 0.777g Section 1613.3:4(Eqn 16-40) Spectral Response Acceleration(I sec), Sot Table 7.2.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the.mapped.maximum considered ' geometric mean(MCEc,). TABLE 7.2.2 2013 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference Mapped MCEo Peak Ground Acceleration, 0.784 Figure 22-7 PGA Site Coefficient. FPGA 1.0 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEc, Peak Ground Acceleration. PGA,Nt 0.784g Section I I.R.3 (Eqn 11.8-I) Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that.significant.structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. G,%von Pixrject No.12630-224t l -6- Re,ued Febman,18.2016 7.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are cohesion less/silt or clay with low plasticity, static groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than about 70 percent. If the four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid pore-water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. Seismically induced settlement may occur whether the potential for liquefaction exists or not. The current standard of practice, as.outlined in the "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117A. Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California" requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet below the lowest portion of the proposed structure. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium-grained, primarily sandy soil..In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a.sufficient level to induce liquefaction. Groundwater depths are anticipated to be on-the order of 35 feet below ground surface. However, the site is underlain by dense Pauba Sandstone formation. It is our opinion that due to the underlying formational sandstone materials, liquefaction is not a design consideration for the site. 7.4 Expansive Soil Based on the 'soil classifications and the laboratory test results in Appendix B, the,geologic units at the site are anticipated to possess a "very low" expansion potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) when placed at the finish grades beneath the proposed structure. If expansive soils are encountered, these materials can be selectively graded and placed in the deeper fill areas at least three feet below finished grade elevations in order to allow for the placement of the low expansion material at the finish pad grade. 7.5 Landslides There are no hillsides on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, the landslide hazard to the site is not a design consideration. 7.6 Slope Stability We understand that the proposed grading at the project site includes fill slopes along the western sides of the proposed development. The conceptual grading plans indicate that the slopes will be up to about 5 feet in height and will tie into the existing slope along Vallejo Avenue. The resulting slope will be on the order of 10 to 15 feet in height with an inclination of 2:1 (horizontalwertical) or less. Our analysis GLivon Pmjm1 M 2630-22-01 - 7 - Revised Febman,IS.2016 indicates that slopes graded as steep as 2:1 (h:v) with heights of up to IS feet will be stable (Figure 4). Slopes exceeding this height should be,individually evaluated by Geocon. 7.7 Tsunamis and Seiches A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. The first order driving force for locally generated tsunamis offshore southern California is expected to be tectonic deformation from large earthquakes (Legg, et al., 2002). The site is-located 23 miles from the nearest'coastline, therefore, the risk associated with tsunamis is not a design consideration. A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault- or landslide-induced ground displacement. The site is not located near to or downstream of a body of water. Therefore the potential of Seiches affecting the site or Flooding is not a design consideration. 8. SITE INFILTRATION 8.1 General Percolation testing was performed in accordance with Section 2.3 of Appendix A of the Riverside County Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook(Handbook). The percolation tests were run in accordance with the Shallow Percolation Test Method. This method requires two percolation tests and one deep (extending 10 feet below percolation test elevation)excavation per basin or area tested. Site geotechnical conditions as encountered in the excavations consist of approximately 2%2 to 8 feet of artificial fill overlying Pauba sandstone. No groundwater was observed within the deep excavations. The test pit and percolation test locations are depicted on the Georechnical Map, Figure 2. Test pit logs and percolation test data are presented in Appendix, and test results are provided in Table 8.1. A perforated PVC pipe was placed in each percolation test hole and approximately 2 inches of gravel was placed at the bottom of the PVC pipe. At least 12 inches of gravel was placed in the annular space between the PVC pipe and the boring to prevent caving at the depth of the percolation testing. Native soil backfill was placed outside of the pipe within the excavation. The test locations were pre-saturated with five gallons of water. The percolation testing began approximately 24 hours after the holes were pre-saturated. Percolation data sheets are presented in Appendix A of this report. Calculations to convert the.percolation test rate to infiltration test rate are based on the Porchet Method as outlined in Section 2.3 of the Handbook are presented in the table below. Please note that the Handbook requires a factor of safety of 3 be applied to the values below based on the test method used. GIYKon Project No.1?630-22-01 -8- Revised Febman,18.2016 5 Table 8.1 - Infiltration Test Rates Soil Type SM SM SM SM SM SM Change in head over time(in):AH 1.08 1.20 2.64 1.44 4.92 0.72 Time Interval (minutes):At 30 30 30 30 30 30 Radius of test hole(in):r 8 8 8 8 9 8 Average head (in): Havg 13.9 13.0 12.2 13.2 11.1 13.4 Tested Infiltration Rate (In/hr): It 0.48 0.57 1.30 0.67 2.84 0.33 The design engineer should consider several factors in the design of the infiltration system. Over the lifetime of the system, these rates will be affected'by adverse factors such as biological activity and silt build-up. Other factors that should be considered in the design include the nature of the influent, and long-term maintenance practices. Gaxnn ProjLvi No.TZ630-12401 - 9- Revised Frhmmn,/S.2016 J 9. CONCLUSIONS`AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Gene'ral 9.1A It is our opinion that soil or geologic conditions were not encountered during the investigation that would preclude the proposed development of the project provided the recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during construction. 9.1.2' Potential geologic hazards at the site'include seismic shaking, faulting, and'regional ground subsidence. A Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone is mapped across the site, and Geocon is performing a fault investigation report that will be submitted under separate cover. 9.1.3 The upper one to two feet of previously placed fill are considered unsuitable for the support of compacted fill or settlement-sensitive improvements based on the dry, loose condition observed during our exploration. Deeper areas of dry. loose fill may exist on the site. Remedial grading of the surficial soil will be required as discussed herein. The previously placed fill below a depth of two feet and the Pauba sandstone are considered suitable to support additional fill and the proposed structures and improvements. 9.1.4 The test pit excavations performed for this study were backfilled by pushing the soil into the excavation. No moisture conditioning or compactive effort were applied during the backfill process. As such, the test pit locations should be re-excavated during grading and replaced with compacted fill as recommended herein. 9.1.5 The site soils should generally be excavatable with conventional earth moving equipment in good working order. However, some of the site soils have little to no cohesion and are prone to caving. The contractor should take precautionary measures to mitigate caving when excavating into the granular materials. 9.1.6 We did not encounter groundwater during our subsurface exploration and we do not expect it to be a constraint to project development. Seepage and perched groundwater conditions may be encountered during the grading operations,especially during the rainy seasons. 9.1.7 In general, slopes should possess calculated factors of safety of at least 1.5 when graded at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), or flatter with maximum heights of 15 feet (see Figure 4). 9.1.8 Proper drainage should be maintained in order to preserve the engineering properties of the fill in the sheet-graded pads and slope areas. Recommendations for site drainage are provided herein. GM%on Projcei No,T-630 22-01 - 10- Reused hebraan,18.2016 97.2 Soil Characteristics 9.2.1 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be "non-expansive" (Expansion Index [EI] less than 20) as defined by 2013 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3.Table 9.2.1 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. TABLE 9.2.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index(EI) Expansion Classification 2010 CBC Expansion Classification 0-20 Very Low Non-Expansive .21 -50 Low 51 -90 Medium 91 - 130 High Expansive Greater Than 130 Very High - - 9.2.2 The existing fill and Pauba bedrock possess a `very low" expansion potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less). Additional testing for expansion potential should be performed once final grades are achieved. 9.2.3 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the.percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess a sulfate content of 0.063% equating to a SO or negligible sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2013 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. Table 9.2.3 presents a summary of concrete requirements set forth by 2013 CBC Section 1904.3 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. Gawnn Pmjtvi No.V-630-22-01' - 1 f - Rei.krd Frbmmn-18.2016 TABLE 9.2.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS Water-Soluble Maximum Minimum Sulfate Exposure Sulfate Ce lent Water to Compressive Exposure Class Percent Type Cement Ratio Strength(psi) by Weight by Weight Not Applicable SO 0.00-0.10. 2,500 Moderate SI 0.10-0.20 11 0.50 4,000 Severe S2 0.20-2.00 V 0.45 4,500 ' Very Severe S3 >2.00 V+pozzo or Sllagag _ 0.45 4.500 9.2.4 Laboratory testing indicates the site soils have a pil of 8.6, possess 393 parts per million chloride, and have a minimum resistivity of 3,100 ohm-cm. The site would not be classified as corrosive to metal improvements in accordance with the Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2012). 9.2.5 Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned. 9.3 Grading 9.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Spec{'/icafions contained in Appendix D and the City of Temecula Improvernenr Smndord Drawings. 9.3.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the city inspector, owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 9.3.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious material, debris and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. 9.3.4 Loose and/or dry previously placed fill within the improvement areas should be removed to expose competent fill or Pauba sandstone. We anticipate these removals will extend 2 feet below the existing ground surface in the structure, pavement, and walkways and could extend deeper in some areas. The overexcavation should extend to a depth of at least one foot below the planned building foundations in order to provide a uniform bearing surface Gwcon PmjTt No.P630-21-01 - 12 - Rewsed Febman-18.2016 S ♦. for the structure. In areas that will be cut to achieve finished grades, the upper I foot of soil should be removed and replaced with compacted (ill. The actual depth of removal should be evaluated by the engineering geologist during grading operations. The bottom of the excavations should be scarified to a depth of at least 1 foot, moisture conditioned as necessary, and properly compacted prior to placement of fill. 9.3. We should observe the removal bottoms to check the exposure of the existing fill or Pauba sandstone. Deeper excavations may be required if dry, loose, or soft materials are present at the base of the removals. Removal bottoms should expose competent fill or Pauba sandstone which is at least 90 percent of maximum density. 9.3.6 The fill placed within 5 feet of proposed foundations should possess a "low" expansion potential (EI of 50 or less), and be free of rock greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension. 9.3.7 The site should bebrought to finish grade elevations with fill compacted in layers. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. Fill, including backfill and scarified ground.surfaces, should be compacted. to•a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture . content as determined by ASTM International (ASTM) D 1557. Fill placed within 12 inches of finish subgrade elevations in pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill materials placed b6low optimum moisture content may require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. 9.3.8 Import fill (if necessary) should consist of granular materials with a 'low" expansion potential (EI of 50 or less) generally free of deleterious material and rock fragments larger than 6 inches and should be compacted as recommended herein. Geocon should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to evaluate its suitability as fill material. 9.3.9 Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 2 feet and cut back or be compacted by backrolling with a loaded sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet to maintain the moisture content of the fill. The slopes should be track-walked at the completion of each slope such that the fill is compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content to the face of the finished slope. Rock greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension should not be placed with three feet of the slope face. 9.3.10 Finished slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, the slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion. Gcocon I'mjttl No.P630-22-01 - 13 - Re,'isrd Febnmry 18.2016 9.4 Earthwork Grading Factors 9.4.1 Estimates of shrinkage factors are based on.empirical judgments comparing the material in its existing or natural state as encountered in the exploratory, excavations to a compacted state. Variations,in natural soil density and in compacted fill density rendershrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an,example, the contractor can compact the fill to a dry density of 90 percent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density: Thus, the contractor has an approximately 10 percent -range of control over the fill volume. Based on our experience,the shrinkage of the site,soil is anticipated to be approximately 0 to 10 percent in the existing fill and 0 to 5 percent in-the Pauba sandstone. [',lease note that this estimate is for preliminary quantity estimates only. Due to the variations in the actual shrinkage/buIking factors, a balance area should be provided to accommodate variations. 9.5 Settlement of Proposed Fill 9.5.1 The post-grading settlement (hydrocompression) could reach up to I inch. We expect the settlement will occur over 20 years depending on the influx of rain and irrigation water into the till and older alluvium. The settlement will likely be linear from the time the fill is placed to the end of the settlement period depending on the permeability of the fill soil. We do not expect the settlement will impact proposed utilities with gradients of 1 percent or greater. In addition, foundation recommendations are provided herein based on the maximum and differential fill thickness to account for,potential fill settlement: 9.6 Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade 9.6.1 The proposed church structure can be supported on shallow foundation systems hearing on properly compacted fill soils. Foundations for the structure may consist of either continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings. Conventionally reinforced continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet and should extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Footings should be dimensioned based on an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. This value may be increased,by 300 psf for each additional foot in depth and 200 psf for each additional foot of Width to a maximum value of 3,500.psf. The allowable,bearing pressure value is for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of al least four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the project structural engineer. Galion Proj�vt No.T-630-22-01 - 14- Revised rebnmry 18.2016 9.6.2 Figure 5 presents a wall/column footing dimension detail depicting lowest adjacent pad grade. 9.6.3. 'Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon prior to placing reinforcing steel or concrete to verify that the excavations are in compliance with recommendations and the soil conditions are as anticipated. 9.6.4 Building interior floor slabs not anticipated to be subjected to forklift loads should be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 24 inches on center, in both directions. The reinforcing bars should be placed on chairs at the slab mid-point. 9.6.5 The minimum reinforcement recommendations are based on soil characteristics only and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structuralconsiderations. 9.6.6 Slabs-on-grade at the ground surface that may receive moisture-sensitive Floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder, placed directly beneath the slab. The vapor retarder and acceptable permeance should be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the.guidelines presented in Section 9.3 of the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06) and should be installed in general conformance with ASTM- E 1643 (latest edition) and the manufacturer's recommendations. A minimum thickness of 15 mils extruded polyolefin plastic is recommended; vapor retarders which contain recycled content or woven materials are not recommended. The vapor„retarder should have a permeance of less than 0.01 perms demonstrated by testing before and"after mandatory conditioning is recommended. The vapor retarder should be installed in direct contact with the concrete slab with proper perimeter seal. If the California Green Building Code requirements apply to this project, the vapor retarder should be underlain by 4 inches of clean aggregate. It is important that the vapor retarder be puncture resistant since it will be in direct contact with angular gravel. As.an alternative to the clean aggregate suggested in the Green Building Code, it is our opinion that the concrete slab-on-grade may be underlain by a vapor retarder over 4-inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), since the.sand will serve a capillary break and will minimize the potential for punctures and damage to the vapor barrier 9.6.7 The foundation engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures that maybe utilized to assure proper curing of the slab to reduce the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation engineer present concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plans. Gallon PmjLvi No.T-630-22-01 - 15 - ReOsed Febrsmn,/S.2016 9.6.8 We estimate the total settlements uhder.the imposed allowable loads to be about 1 inch with differential settlements on the order of%: inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. 9.6.9 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would'be expected in such concrete placement. 9.6.10 The recommendations of this reportare intended to-reduce the potential for cracking of slabs - due to expansive soil (if present),'differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, walls, and slabs-on-grade. placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab comers occur. 9.6.11 Geocon should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 9.7 Mat Foundations 9.7.1 Alternatively, the church building may be supported on a reinforced concrete mat foundation system. It is recommended that the mat foundations derive support exclusively in newly placed engineered fill. 9.7.2 It is anticipated that the proposed equipment building foundation will impart an average pressure of less than 1,500 psf, with locally higher pressures up to 3,000 psf. The recommended maximum allowable bearing value is 3,000 pounds per square foot. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 9.7.3 It is recommended that a modulus of subgrade'reaction.of 175 pounds per cubic inch be utilized for the design of mat foundation. The modulus of subgrade reaction is based on the square-foot plate load method, and should be adjusted as needed to account for foundation size and location. The modulus should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when- used with larger foundations: GLwon Pwjea No.1?630 22-01 - 16- Revised FeAmmn,18.2016 K` = K L+ '] z ' R 23 Where:.KR=reduced Subgrade modulus K=unit Subgrade modulus B=foundation width in feet 9.7.4 The thickness of and reinforcement for the mat foundation should be designed by the project structural engineer. 9.7.5 Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations, slabs and by passive earth pressure. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces in fill. 9.7.6 Passive earth pressure for the sides of foundations and slabs may be computed,as an equivalent fluid having a density of 350 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one-third. 9.7.7 The maximum anticipated static settlement for a reinforced concrete equipment pad with a maximum allowable bearing value of 3,000 psf deriving support in newly placed engineered fill is estimated to be less than I inch and occur below the heaviest loaded structural element. Settlement of the foundation system is expected to occur on initial application of loading. Differential settlement is not expected io exceed ''/: inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. 9.8 Exterior Concrete Flatwork 9.8.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein assuming the Subgrade materials possess an Expansion Index of 50 or less. Subgrade soils should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. Slab panels should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and when in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with 6x6-W2.9/W29 (6x6-6/6) welded wire mesh or No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches center-to-center in both directions to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, concrete Flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading Gencon Pmjvnt No.T-630-22-01 - 17- Revised hebma,Y l3.2016 section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil-should.be verified prior to placing concrete. Base materials will not be required below concrete flatwork,improvements. 9.8.2 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project structural engineer. 9.8.3 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of exterior slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs-on-grade will still crack. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil .supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland i Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concreie Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 9:9 Conventional Retaining Walls ` 9.9.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), an active soil pressure of 60 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a I:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an EI of 90 or less. For those lots where backfill materials do not conform to the criteria herein, Geocon should be consulted for additional recommendations. 9.9.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001 H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall-in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 15H psf should be added to the active soil pressure for walls 10 feet high or less. 9.9.3 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project. If the project possesses a seismic design category of D, E, or F, the proposed retaining walls should be designed with "seismic lateral pressure added to the active pressure. The seismic load exerted on the wall should be a triangular distribution with a pressure of Gakon Propvt No.T2630-22-01 - 18- Re,'ised Februnn•18.2016 20H (where H is the height of the wall, in feet, resulting in pounds per square fool [pso) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. We used a site modified peak ground acceleration of 0.784g calculated from the 2013 California Building Code and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 033. 9.4.4 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backftlled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined by the structural engineer. 9.9.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and waterproofed. as required by the project architect. The soil immediately adjacent to the,backfilled retaining wall should. be composed of free draining material completely wrapped in Mirafi 140 (or equivalent) filter fabric for a lateral distance of l foot for the bottom two-thirds of the height of the retaining wall. The upper one-third should be backftlled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce water infiltration. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted backfill (El of 50 or less) with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 6 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than those described are expected or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon .should be contacted for' additional recommendations. 9.9.6 In general, wall foundations having a'minimum depth and width of I foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon should be consulted where such a condition is expected. 9.9.7 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 10 feet. In the event that walls higher than 10 feet or other types of walls are planned, Geocon should be consulted for additional recommendations. 9.10 Lateral Loading 9.10.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys poured neat against formational materials. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive Gaxon Proj vt No.T630--22-01 - 19- Revised Febman-18.2016 pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in.areas not protected by , floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 9.10.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design. 9.11 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations 9.11.1 The final pavement sections for roadways should be based on the R-Value of the subgrade soils encountered at final subgrade elevation. Streets should be constructed in accordance with the City of Temecula Improvement Standard Drawings. A sample of the site soils exhibited an R-value of 60 when tested'in accordance with ASTM D2488. We have used an R-value of 50 for on-site soils and an R-Value of 78 for aggregate base materials for the purposes of this preliminary analysis as Calirans limits the subgrade R-value to 50. Pavement structural sections should meet the minimum asphalt concrete and aggregate base thicknesses from the City of Temecula Standard No. 115. Pavement Design Requirements. Preliminary flexible pavement sections are presented in Table 9.11.1. TABLE 9.11.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Assumed Assumed Asphalt Crushed Location Traffic Subgrade Concrete Aggregate Index R-Value (inches) Base(inches) Parking lots servicing light-duty vehicles 5.0 50 4.0 6.0 . Local Street 6.0 50 4.0 6.0 Access roads for heavy truck vehicles 1 7.0 1 50 1 4.0 1 6.0 9.11.2 The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content beneath pavement sections. 9.11.3 The crushed aggregated base and asphalt concrete materials should conform to Section 200-2.2 and Section 203-6, respectively, of the Standard Specifications for Puhlic fVorks Construction (Greenbook) and the latest edition of the City of Temecula Improvement Standard Drawings. Base materials should be compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to a density of 95 percent of the laboratory Hveem density in accordancewith ASTM D 1561. GLwon Pwjcat No.12630-22-01 -20- Revived Febman,l8.2016 9.11.4 A rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section should be placed in driveway aprons and cross gutters. We calculated the rigid pavement section in general conformance with the procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R-08 Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the parameters presented in Table 9.11.4. TABLE 9.11.4 RIGID PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Design Value Modulus of subgrade reaction,k 175 pci Modulus of rupture for concrete.Ma 550 psi Traffic Category,TC C and D Average daily truck traffic.ADTT 100 and 700 9.11.5 Based on the criteria presented herein, the PCC pavement sections should have a minimum thickness as presented in Table 9.11.5. TABLE 9.11.5 RIGID PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ' Location Portland Cement Concrete(inches) Roadways(TC=C) 6.0, - Bus Stops(TC=D) 7.5 9.11.6 The PCC pavement should be placed over subgrade soil that is compacted to a dry density of at least 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This pavement section .is based on a minimum concrete compressive strength of approximately 3,500 psi (pounds per square inch). Base material will not be required beneath concrete improvements. 9.11.7 A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge, and taper back to the recommended slab thickness 4 feet behind the face of the slab (e.g., a 9-inch-thick slab would have an II-inch-thick edge). Reinforcing steel will not be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes with the possible exception of dowels at construction joints as discussed herein. GLYxon Pmjcm No.T_630-22-01 - 21 - Herised Gebmmn•18.2016 9.11.8 To control 'the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints (weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement slab. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 timcs the slab thickness with a maximum spacing of 15 feet, and should be sealed with an appropriate sealant to prevent the migration of water through the control joint to the subgrade materials. The depth of the crack-control joints should be determined by the referenced ACI report. 9.11.9 To provide load transfer between`adjacem pavement slab sections, a butt-type construction joint should be constructed. The butt-type joint should be thickened by at least 20 percent at the edge and taper back at least 4 feet from the face of the slab: As an alternative to the butt-type, construction joint, dowelling can be used between construction joints for pavements of 7 inches or thicker. As discussed in the referenced ACI guide, dowels should consist of smooth, I-inch-diameter reinforcing steel 14 inches long embedded a minimum of 6 inches into the slab on either side of the construction joint. Dowels should be located at the midpoint of the slab, spaced at 12 inches on center and lubricated to allow joint movement while still transferring loads. In addition, tie bars should be installed at the as recommended in Section 3.8.3 of the referenced ACI guide. The structural engineer should provide other alternative recommendations for load transfer. 9.11.10 The performance of pavements is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Pond ing of water on or adjacent to the pavement surfaces will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. Drainage from landscaped areas should be directed to controlled drainage structures. Landscape areas adjacent to the edge of asphalt pavements are,not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the underlying permeable aggregate base and cause distress. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, consideration should be given to incorporating measures that will significantly reduce the potential for subsurface water migration into the aggregate base such as extending the perimeter curb at least 6 inches below the level of the base materials. 9.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 9.12.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC Section 1804.3 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. Gcnenn Pwyvt No.T-630--22-01 -22 - Re,iced Februaq•18.2016 9.12.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 9.13 Foundation Plan Review 9.13.1 Geocon should review the structural foundation plans for the project prior to final submittal. Additional analyses may be required after review of the foundation plans. Gluon Pftjtvt No.-r630--22-01 - 23 - Rrrised Febman-1&2016 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS I. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental, recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was not part of the.scope of services provided by Geocon. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the date of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation-or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. 4. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation .services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If,another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of GeotechnicaI Engineer of Record. GLwon PmjLvt No.r?630--224)1 Revised Febman,18.2016 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Blake, T.F. 1989, EQSEARCH. A Computer Program for the Estimation q/'Peak Horizontal Acceleration fi-om Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalog, Version 3.00b (1989- 2000). 2. Boore, D. M. and G. M Atkinson, Ground-A4otion Prediction for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-Damped PSA at Spectra!Periods Between 0.01 and 10.0 S, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue 1, pages 99-138, February 2008. 3. Bryant, W.A. and Han, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazarel Zones in California", California Geological Survey Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007. 4. California Building Code, 2013. State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Based on 2012 International Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and California Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes. 5. California Geological Survey (C.G.S.), Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard ofSuditce Fault Rapture,Note No. 49, 4 pp., 2002. 6. California Geological Survey (CGS), Earthquake Shaking Potential for Calffiornia, from USGS/CGS Seismic Hazards Model, CSSC No. 03-02, 2003. 7. California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping-Ground Motion Page, 2003,CGS Website: www.conserv.ca.pov/cps/rehm/t)shamap. 8. California Geological Survey, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, Based on the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002 (revised April 2003). 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years; hiti):Hred irect.conservation.ca.pov/cgs/rehm/pshamap/pshama in.htin I 9. California Geologic Survey, Tsunami Inundation Map For Emergency Planning, State of California- Counh of San Diego, La Jolla Quadrangle, dated June 1, 2009. 10. California Department of Transportation (Calirans), Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 2.0, dated November, 2012. 11. Campbell, K. W. and Y. Bozorgnia, NGA Ground Motion Made! fin- the Geometric A4ean Horizontal Component of PGA. PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging fi-om 0.01 to 10 s. Preprint of version submitted for publication in the NGA Special Volume of Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, Issue I, pages 139-171, February 2008. 12. Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J.. The Reviser) 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazzard AlaPs, California Geological Sunev, June 2003. 13. CDMG, 1990, Algnist-Priolo Specie!Studies Zones Map of the Temecula Quadrangle. Reviser) Official Map. 14. City of remecula, 2015. /nipmvement Standard Drawings, accessed at hit p://www.c ityofleinecu la.org/Temecu Ia/Government/Pubi is W orks/Draw ings.htm Givxon Pmjacl No.T-630-22-01 Revised Februnn•18,2016 LIST OF REFERENCES (Continued) 15. Chiou, Brian S. J. and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Perak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special Edition for Earthquake Spectra. Spring 2008. 16. Dawson, T.E., Rockwell, T.K., Weldon 11, R.J., and Wills, C.J., Sununay of Geologic Data and Development oj'A Priori Rupture Models for the Elsinore, San Jacinto. and Garlock Faults; Appendix F: USGS Open File Report 2007-1437F CGS Special Report 203F, 26 pp., 2008. 17. Harden, D.R., California Geology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 479 pp., 1998. 18. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42 19. Jennings, C.W., Fault Activirn Map of California and Adjacent Areas, CDMG Map No. 6, 1994. 20. Kennedy, Michael P., Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside Comm, California, C.D.M.G. Special Report 131, 1977. 21. Public Works Standards, Inc.. 2012. "Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction 22. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2011, Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook dated September. 23. Riverside County Information Technology GIS Maps, 2015. 24. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for bnplenientation of DA4G Special Publication 117. Guidelines for Analyzing and Alitigating Liquefaction Ha=arils in California, March 1999. 25. Tan & Kennedy, 2000, CDMG Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverdale Counties, California. 26. Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc., 2015, Conceptual Grading Plan, Lot 9, TR3552. A48 56163-66. City of Temecula. Counh of Riverside. State of California, Sheets I through 4, dated April 17. 27. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Deaggregalion gfSeismic Hazard for PGA and 2 Periods of Spectral Acceleration, 2002, USGS Website: www.earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmai)s. 28. United States Geological Survey(U.S.G.S.),National Water b forma don Senate: Web hter face. Groundwater Levels for the Nation, (hap://nwis.waterdata.usgs.eov/nwis/ewlevels), 2015. 29. USGS computer program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, http://earthquake.uses.eov/desienmaps/us/appIication.phR, accessed November 5, 2014. 30. Waring, G.A., Ground Water in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins, California, USGS Water Supply Paper 429, 1919. 31. Western Municipal Water District Cooperative Well Measurement Program, Spring 2012. G,iKon Pmjml No.T630--22-01 Revised Februan-18.2016 LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 1, Riverside County Flood Control District, 1949, Photo No AXM-9F-141, dated May 23, 1949. 2. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1962; Photo Nos. 3404 and 3405, Scale I" = 1,600', dated January 30, 1962. 3. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1974, Photo Nos. 1038, 1039, and 1040, Scale I" = 2,000', dated June 20, 1974. 4. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1980, Photo Nos. 10-56 and 10-57, Scale I" = 2,000', dated May 4, 1980. 5. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1983. Photo Nos.,200 and 201. Scale I" = 1.600% dated November 27, 1983. 6. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1990, Photo Nos. 19-20 and 19-21, Scale I" = 1.600', dated April 10, 1990. 7, Riverside County Flood Control_ District, 1995, Photo Nos. 19-14, 19-15, and 19-16, Scale I.' = 1,600', dated February 3, 1995. 8. Riverside County Flood Control District, 2000, Photo Nos. 19-15, 19-16, .and 19-17, Scale I" = 1.600'. dated April 12, 2000. 9. Riverside County Flood Control District, 2005, Photo Nos. 19-17 and 19-18, Scale I" = 1.600% dated July 17, 2005. 10. Riverside County Flood Control District, 2010, Photo Nos. 19-17 and 19-I8, Scale 1" = 1,600'. dated March 16, 2010. Gcaeon Pnijttl No.P630--22-01 Reri.aed Februan,18.2016 vMa9•vmr lYa'InNnb • . � [trm_a:ux,I Vdiv WrV LwmIN�. � � � u'-� o'�- ImRCJn Vehy \s� � g q@ VIiIJ N-.xY Nc�(m Pp e fmvcLL.vuCLe llb�ry l�RE 4� 5 P � t SITE �. . � F90 a NeMo_ V�-. mrnnyy Uo.:N l 11wY 79 h:vrrrrn orrh 4 Pr 6c Ci p, rck REFERENCE:GOOGLE MAPS NOT TO SCALE OEIOICON ��� VICINITY MAP W E S T, I N C. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9,TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56163-66 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101 -MURRIETA,CA 92562 TEMECULA.CALIFORNIA PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304-2392 DAHICER FEBRUARY.2016 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG. 1 1 ' P2 _ _ ) I , TPS P1 ` 1 ram' r-� I r? , I ^a TPI I i I TP255 E7 i l I �n7 I I � � _� - 1' I 91 i W 97 92 90 99 GEOCON GEOTECHNICAL MAP w E IS T. 1 N C. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9,TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56163-66 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101-MURRIETA.CA 92562 PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304.2392 TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA DAH FEBRUARY,2016 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG.2 04 =�-p 0\ r 0 o SITE ,., 00 \ S �9 City Of 4)r\ \ Temecula / \ 0 �� boa 9r G �pM �Pd I P I Riverside County TLMA GIS REFERENCE:RIVERSDIE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM II � I �y I NOT TO SCALE IGEOCON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAULT HAZARD MAP W E S T, I N C. QP HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9,TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56163-66 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101 -MURRIETA,CA 92562 TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304-2392 CER FEBRUARY,2016 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG. 3 I ASSUMED CONDITIONS: SLOPE HEIGHT H = 15 feet SLOPE INCLINATION 2.0 : 1.0(Horizontal : Vertical) TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 0 = 30 degrees APPARENT COHESION C = 200 pounds per square foot NO SEEPAGE FORCES ANALYSIS: Xu = yII tan 0 EQUATION (3-3), REFERENCE 1 C FS = NcfC EQUATION (3-2), REFERENCE 1 X'4 = 5.6 CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-3) Ncf = 23 DETERMINED USING FIGURE 10, REFERENCE 2 FS = 2.3 FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-2) REFERENCES: 1......Janbu.N.,Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters,Harvard Soil Mechanics Series No.46,1954 2......Janbu,N., Discussion of J.M.Bell Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Sipes, Journal of Soil Mechanicx and Foundation Design.No.SM6.November 1967 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS GEOCON HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH w E s T. t N C. LOT 9, TR3552 4 571 CORNING CHNICL CONSULTANTS SUITE 101 MURRIETA. CA 92562-7065 PARCEL.MAP BOOK 56/63-66 PHONE 951-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CER FEBRUARY, 2016 1 PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 IFIG. 4 WALL FOOTING CONCRETE SLAB SAND cr. . . O .. '. . O PAD GRADE a .o.�. 0 NSDUEEN F Q .. Q E00TING' WIDTH COLUMN FOOTING CONCRETE SLAB ..0. .o. 75. 77 d. . .0. c .o.' :e .o.' .o -0.. .a. .o.. , . o . :e .o.• �.o. ,. ; .o.' , . o .o. , :•o .o.' , :o . .o.'O a o'.O ° p.A a o.0. n. SAND 0. .> '.d. '?. . .b. " 50 NSDUEENn0 O n0 O o . , . a go Oc O.'°O.o."O °O.o.10 nOo.0 aO.o.'O. aO . FODTwc wwrliy ......SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION NO SCALE GE'iOCON � WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DETAIL HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH W E S T, I N C. LOT 9, TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 41571 CORNING PLACE.SUITE 101. MURRIETA. CA 92562 PHONE(951)304.2300 FAX(951)304.2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CER FEBRUARY, 2016 1 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 I FIG. 5 GROUND SURFACE ) I� 2.0 1� CONCRETE BROWDITCH - 1,: B' RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE PANEL 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK PROPOSED FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE GRADE FOOTING 4'DIA. PERFORATED ABS OR ADS PIPE NOTES: 1.....WALL DRAINAGE PANELS SHOULD CONSISTS OF MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT 2......FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONSIST OF MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 3......VOLUME OF CRUSHED ROCK SHOULD BE AT LEAST 1. CUBIC FOOT PER FOOT OF PIPE 4......CONCRETE BROWDITCH RECOMMENDED FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS GREATER THAN 6 FEET NO SCALE WALL DRAINAGE DETAL GEOCON HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH W E S T, I N C. LOT 9, TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 41571 CORNING PLACE. SUITE 101.MURRIETA. CA 92562 PHONE(951)304-2300 FAX(951)304-2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CER FEBRUARY, 2016 1 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 I FIG. 6 APPENDIX A EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS Our subsurface exploration consisted of excavating seven test pits and six infiltration test holes.. We performed the field investigation on April 8, 2015. The percolation test holes were presaturated on April 9, 2015. Percolation testing was performed on April 10, 2015. The test pits were excavated to depths of up to 16.5 feet to provide exposures of the disturbed surface soil, fill, and Pauba bedrock. We performed in-situ moisture and density testing of the soils at selected depths with a nuclear moisture/density gauge. We collected representative bag samples of the soils in the test pits. The lest pits were loosely backfilled upon completion. These test pit areas should be re-excavated during grading and backfilled with compacted fill. The test pit locations are depicted on the Geotechnica(Alap, Figure 2. We visually examined, classified, and logged the -soil conditions encountered in the test pits in general conformance with ASTM International (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedure D2844). The logs of the test pits are presented on Figures A-1 through A-7 and included herein. The logs depict the various soil types encountered and indicate the depths at which samples were obtained. Percolation testing was performed in accordance with Section 2.3 of Appendix A of the Riverside County — Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook-(Handbook). The percolation tests were run in accordance with the Shallow Percolation Test Method. This method requires two percolation tests and one deep (extending 10 feet below percolation test elevation) excavation per basin. The percolation test data is presented on Figures A-8 through A-13. Ckwon Pwyvt No.T-630-22-01 A-1 Revised Fehmmn,13.20/6 PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 Y w TEST PIT TP-1 Z LL u DEPTH Q SOIL ~ Z N H SAMPLE � QS Q N Z LL Z F NO. 0 i CLASS ELEV.(MSL.)1024 DATE COMPLETED 4-8-2015 w y 0 m a rn F zi zi 0 (uses) w W m W 2 0 It EQUIPMENT BACKHOE BY.C.Robinson u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 SM Artificial Fill(Qaf) SM Silty SAND,loose,dry,medium brown with roots at the ground surface 2 Pauba Formation(Qps) I.# I Silty SANDSTONE,excavates as Silty SAND,very dense,damp, 107.8 5.4 P-I n 3 �(:I #'I medium brown,fine to medium sand,trace gravel 4 ., I. .I. 103.8 7.3 ..I # I 6 i { I. h.I. with gravel and cobbles ___ _________________________________ ___ ___ ___ Sp SANDSTONE,excavates as SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist, 8 - medium brown.medium to coarse sand tu PI g-) '(..[.':.: 10 Total depth: I I feet No groundwater encountered BacktillLd with loose soil on 4-8-2015 Figure A-1, T2630-22-01 APPENDIxA BORING LOGS TEMPLAIE.GPJ Log of Test Pit TP-1, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El"'SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ..,STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ....ORNE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) ® ...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ...CHUNK SAMPLE t ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATNE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECTNO. T2630-22-01 T TEST PIT TP-2 o w_ Z DEPTH QO 3 SOIL Q~ N r IN SAMPLE K H N W L) ,- Z p i cuss ELEV.(MSL.)1026 DATE COMPLETED 4-8-2015 W 3 0 r FEET J O= (USCS) Lu m O a 2 U EOUIPMENT BACKHOE BY:C. Robinson Q. 0 SM Artificial MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Artificial Fill(Qaq I. .I. SM Silt SAND,loose to medium dense,damp,medium brown.fine to medium sand,roots at surface 2 P2(a.2-4 )( _�.# Poubs Formation(Qps) 104.0 9.7 Silty SANDSTONE,excavates as Silty SAND,very dense,damp. medium brown.fine to medium sand 112.0 10.6 6 I { I i _________________________� __ ___ ___ __— P2(a'8-I( >(.':;.' , SP-SM SANDSTONE,excavates as SAND with silt,medium dense,dam light brown,fine to coarse sand 10 Total depth: 10 feet No groundwater encountered Backfilled with kxlse soil on 4-8-2015 Figure A-2, T2630.22-01 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS TEMPI ATE.GPJ Log of Test Pit TP-2, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS O 'SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I❑ ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST . ...DRIVE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) ®...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Il...CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE', THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 } ir TEST PIT TP-3 o W . DEPTH f7 Q SOIL Q 2 y^ W H SAMPLE O Q jq Z LL Z FEET No. p i cuss ELEV.(MSL.)1023 DATE COMPLETED 4-9-2015 w y O O a y zi zi O (usts) LU�m o v f 0 cr EQUIPMENT BACKHOE BY:C.Robinson a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 _ SM Artificial Fill(Qon Silty SAND,trace gravel.dense,damp,medium brown 2 TP3 rQi 2-4 X"i I -Moist,dark brown 119.5 10.2 i 4 1129 8.5 SM Pauba Formation(Qps) 6 I Silty SANDSTONE,excavates as Silty SAND,dense,moist,medium brown _. i ___ ___YY_____________ _____________ ___ ___ ___ SC Cla a SANDSTONE,excavates as Sla c SAND,medium dense,moist. g P3( . ;� gray,slight organic odor 11.1 SM-SM SANDSTONE,excavates as SAND with silt and gmvel.trace cobbles, 10 p3r,d l0-I , dense,moist.med brown 12 Total depth: 13 fcct No groundwater encountered Backtilled with loose soil on 4.8 2015 Figure A-3, T2630.22-01 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS TEMPLATE GPJ Log of Test Pit TP-3, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS D"'SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL i0...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...DRIVE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) ® ...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE &...CHUNK SAMPLE _ ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT'NO. T2630-22-01 Y TEST PIT TP-4 20,_ DEPTH Q � W� ~ SOIL Z I- 0 to-' IN SAMPLE J 3 N W u- r Z FEET NO. = i cuss ELEV.(MSL.)1023 DATE COMPLETED 4-8.2015 w to O o Ii rn t' F (USCS) Z W m K V E O O Wme O O 0 EQUIPMENT BACKHOE BY:C.Robinson a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 SM Artificial Fill(Qnq Silty SAND,trace gravel,loose.dry.medium brown,fine to medium sand 2 P4@,2 -Moist,medium dense � • � a 118.E 1 9.9 SM Paulin Formation(Qps) 6 Silty SANDSTONE,excavates as SiltySAND,dense,moist.medium -# I brown,fine to medium sand I1I ——— ——————— ——— — — — — -- - Sp-SM SANDSTONE,excavates as SAND with silt,medium dense,moist,light " brown:micaceous -- — — — --E ---- --- --- --- 10 — - SC Clayey——SA-NDSTO— — N ,exca--v—ates——as—Cl—ayey--SAND,--—me—d—iu—m—dense.-- P4 m 10-I R moist,gray,slight organic odor 8.9 l 12 14 P4a 14-1 l_�y -with gravel 16 --- ————————————————————————————————— ——— ——— ——— T Silty SANDSTONE,excavates as Silty SAND.medium dense,moist. brown Total depth: 16.5 feet No groundwater encountered Backrilled with loose soil on 4-8-2015 Figure A-4, T2630-22-01 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS TEMPIATE.GPJ Log of Test Pit TP-4, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...DRIVE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) ® ...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q...CHUNK SAMPLE _ ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 y TEST PIT TP-5 Z w W DEPTH Q SOIL 1- Q 2 LL 7~ SAMPLE 0 V! Z FEET NO, O Z cLJLss ELEV.(MSL.)1024 DATE COMPLETED 4-8.2015 w N p p a D 1- 0 (uses) Z w m ¢v f 0 J s EQUIPMENT BACKHOE BY:C.Robinson a o p p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 SM Artificial Fill(Qaf) I Silty SAND,loose,dry,light brown,roots at ground surface -Medium dense,moist,medium brown,fine m medium sand 2 I- SM Pauba Formation(Qps) Silty SANDSTONE,excavates as Silly SAND,dense,moist.gmy,fine to 4 i' I medium sand . - ——— ---yY-------------y y-------------- --- --- --- SC Cla a SANDSTONE.excevmes as Cla e SAND,mLdium dense. TP5 m5-6 X / moist.gray,fine to medium sand,slight org:mice odor 6 . �_. —__ ___Y_____________ _______________ ___ ___ ___ SM Silt SANDSTONE,excavates as Silty SAND,medium dense,moist. 8 -. --- medium brown. line to medium sand --- --- --- SI'-SM ________________________________- SANDSTONE,excavates as SAND with silt.dense,moist orangish bmwn,micaceous 10 12 14 Total depth: 14.5 lect No groundwater encounterLd Backfilled with loose soil on 4-8-2015 Figure A-5, T2630-22-01 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS TEMPLATE.GPJ Log of Test Pit TP-5, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 "'SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL in...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...DRIVE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) ® ...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE i� ...CHUNK SAMPLE i ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT'NO. T2630-22-01 Y W TEST PIT TP-6 DEPTH LD < SOIL � U) W n ZI1_ J-L IN SAMPLEN p Z CLASS ELEV.(MSL.)1019 DATE COMPLETED 4-8-2015 �u)3 o v_ y� FEET J 'O (USCS) W m Q a 2 U EQUIPMENT BACKHOE BY:C.Robinson a 0 SM Artificial MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Artificial Fill(Qaq Silty SAND,loose,dry,medium brown 2 -Medium dense,damp,trace gravel 4 I {.I SM Pauba Formation(Qps) 6I.# I Silty SANDSTONE.excavates as Silty SAND,with gravel.dense,moist, brown B I ] � - ——— ————————————————————————————————— ——— ——— --- 10 SC Clayey SANDSTONE,excavates as Clayey SAND,medium dense, moist.gray,slight organic odor F 12 Total depth: 13.5 feet No groundwater encountered Backfilled with loose soil on 4-8-2015 Figure A-6, T2630-22-01 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS TEMPLATE.GP! Log of Test Pit TP-6, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0p"'SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL i❑ ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...DRIVE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) lib...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 w TEST PIT TP-7 Z W_ w ' DEPTH ¢ spa I—z SAMPLE O Q Q y Z ILL D Z F NO. i CLASS ELEV.(MSL.)1025 DATE COMPLETED 4.8-2015 LU y p o a EET N p ascs) W W m o v f o EQUIPMENT BACKHOE BY:C.Robinson a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 fi'L-Gr Artificial Fill(QaQ SM Gravel with silt and sand,loose,d ,bluish gray ___________� 2 I. I Silty SAND,medium dense,moist,brown,micaceous 4 6 '.I #.I_ -Fine to medium sand I # I 6 SC Pnuba Formation(Qps) Clayey Sandstone,excavates as Clayey SAND,medium dense,damp. gray_— to medium s;tnd 10 --- --- --- --- I 'I' SM Silty SANDSTONE.excavates as Silty SAND with gravel.dense.moist, I. .I bmwn,fine to medium sand 12 --- --------------------------------- --- --- --- sF- m SANDSTONE,excavates as SAND with silt and gravel,imce cobbles. 14 dense,moist,orangish bmwn,medium to coarse sand Total depth: 15 feet No groundwater encounterd Backfillcd with loose soil on 4-9-2015 Figure A-7, T2630-22-01 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS TEMPLATE.GPJ Log of Test Pit TP-7, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ❑...SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 91...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0 ...DRNE SAMPLE(UNDISTURBED) ®...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Iij...CHUNK SAMPLE 7 ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. GEOCON Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: HOPE LUTHERAN Job No. T2630-22-01 Test Hole No. P-1 Soil Classification: SM Depth + Standpipe:14.20 feet Excavation Date: 4/8/2015 Sandy Soil Criteria Tested b : CER Presoak Date: 4/9/2015 Actual Percolation Tested by: CER Test Date: 4/10/2015 Water depth measured from standpipe Standpipe height: .70 feet Sandy Soil Criteria Test Time Total Initial Water Final Water 0 in Water Percolation Trial No. Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 0708 4524 39 39 3.03 3.19 0.16 20.31 2 08 24 11 50 3.19 3.21 0.02 45.83 08135 Soil Criteria Normal Reading Tim* Time Total Initial Water Final Water 0 in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 0915 30 30 3.03 3.14 0.11 22.7 0945 2 09 45 30 60 3.01 3.12 0.11 22.7 10 15 3 1015 30 90 3.01 3.12 0.11 22.7 1045 4 10 45 30 120 3.00 3.11 0.11 22.7 11.15 5 11 15 30 150 3.05 3.15 0.10 25.0 11 45 6 11 45 30 180 3.00 3.10 0.10 25.0 12 15 7 1215 30 210 2.98 3.09 0.11 22.7 1245 8 12 45 30 240 2.98 3.09 0.11 22.7 01115 9 01 15 30 270 2.96 3.07 0.11 22.7 01 45 10 01 45 30 300 3.00 3.10 0.10 25.0 02 15 11 0215 30 330 3.02 3.11 0.09 27.8 0245 12 02 45 30 360 3.00 3.09 0.09 27.8 03 15 Figure A-8 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: lHOPELUTHERAN Job No. T2630-22-01 Test Hole No. P-2 Soil Classification: SM Depth + Standpipe:14.2 feet Excavation Date: 4I8I2015 Sandy Soil Criteria Tested b : CER Presoak Date: 419I2015 Actual Percolation Tested by: CER Test Date: 4/10/2015 Water depth measured from standpipe Standpipe heighl: .88 feet Sandy Soil Criteria Test Time Total Initial Water Final Water A in Water Percolation Trial No. Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 07 5326 33 33 2.82 3.14 0.32 8.59 08 2 08 26 17 50 3.14 3.19 0.05 28.33 08143 Soil Criteria Normal Reading Timc Time Total Initial Water Final Water A in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 09 20 30 30 3.03 3.13 0.10 25.0 09 50 2 09 50 30 60 3.01 3.09 0.08 31.3 10 20 3 10 20 30 90 3.04 3.14 0.10 25.0 10 50 4 10 50 30 120 3.03 3.14 0.11 22.7 11 20 5 11 20 30 150 3.14 3.24 0.10 25.0 11 50 6 11 50 30 180 3.04 3.15 0.11 22.7 12 20 7 12 20 30 210 3.05 3.13 0.08 31.3 12 50 8 12 50 30 240 3.05 3.14 0.09 27.8 1320 9 1320 30 270 3.07 3.16 0.09 27.8 13 50 10 13 50 30 300 3.08 3.19 0.11 22.7 1420 11 14 20 30 330 3.09 3.19 0.10 25.0 1450 12 14 50 30 360 3.08 3.18 0.10 25.0 1520 Figure A-9 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: HOPE LUTHERAN Job No. T2630-22-01 Test Hole No. P-3 Soil Classification: SM Depth + Standpipe:15.2 feet Excavation Date: 4/8/2015 Sandy Soil Criteria Tested b : CER Presoak Date: 4/9/2015 Actual Percolation Tested by:ICER Test Date: 4/10/2015 Water depth measured from standpipe Standpipe height:11.71 feet Sandy Soil Criteria Test Time Total Initial Water Final Water A in Water Percolation Trial No. Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 0088 0230 28 28 4.00 4.36 0.36 6.48 2 08 30 22 50 4.36 4.47 0.11 16.67 08 52 Soil Criteria Normal Reading Timf Time Total Initial Water Final Water Ain Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 09 25 30 30 4.05 4.33 0.28 8.9 09 55 2 09 55 30 60 4.06 4.32 0.26 9.6 10 25 3 10 25 30 90 4.03 4.29 0.26 9.6 10 55 4 10 55 30 120 4.08 4.37 0.29 8.6 11 25 5 11 25 30 150 .3.99 4.26 0.27 9.3 11 55 6 11 55 30 180 4.06 4.29 0.23 10.9 12 25 7 12 25 30 210 4.02 4.27 0.25 10.0 12155 8 12 55 30 240 4.02 4.25 0.23 10.9 13 25 9 13 25 30 270 4.08 4.30 0.22 11.4 13 55 10 13 55 30 300 4.06 4.28 0.22 11.4 1425 11 14 25 30 330 4.04 4.27 0.23 10.9 1455 12 1455 30 360 4.08 4.30 0.22 11.4 15 25 Figure A-10 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: HOPE LUTHERAN Job No. T2630-22-01 Test Hole No. P-4 Soil Classification: SM Depth + Standpipe:15.2 feet Excavation Date: 418I2015 Sandy Soil Criteria Tested b : CER Presoak Date: 419I2015 Actual Percolation Tested by: CER Test Date: 4/10/2015 Water depth measured from standpipe Standpipe height:11.72 feet Sandy Soil Criteria Test Time Total Initial Water Final Water A in Water Percolation Trial No. Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 08 09 25 25 4.07 4.31 0.24 8.68 08342 2 08 54 25 50 4.31 4.4 0.09 23.15 Soil Criteria Normal Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water Ain Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (minlinch) 1 09 30 30 30 4.07 4.27 0.20 12.5 10 00 2 10 00 30 60 4.08 4.26 0.18 13.9 1030 3 10 30 30 90 4.04 4.22 0.18 13.9 11 00 4 11 00 30 120 3.98 4.20 0.22 11.4 11 30 5 11 30 30 150 4.08 4.26 0.18 13.9 12 00 6 12 00 30 180 4.10 4.25 0.15 16.7 12 30 7 12 30 30 210 4.09 4.24 0.15 16.7 1300 8 1300 30 240 4.05 4.20 0.15 16.7 13130 9 13 30 30 270 4.09 4.23 0.14 17.9 1400 10 14 00 30 300 4.10 4.22 0.12 20.8 14 30 11 14 30 30 330 4.11 4.23 0.12 20.8 1500 12 1500 30 360 4.06 4.18 0.12 20.8 15130 Figure A-11 Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: HOPE LUTHERAN Job No. T2630-22-01 Test Hole No. P-5 Soil Classification: SM Depth + Standpipe:14.2 feet Excavation Date: 4/8/2015 Sandy Soil Criteria Tested b : CER Presoak Date: 4/9/2015 Actual Percolation Tested by:ICER Test Date: 4/10/2015 Water depth measured from standpipe Standpipe height: .69 feet Sandy Soil Criteria Test Time Total Initial Water Final Water a in Water Percolation Trial No. Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 0815 25 25 3.07 3.52 0.45 4.63 08 40 2 08 40 25 50 3.06 3.46 0.43 5.21 09 05 Soil Criteria Normal Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water Ain Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 09 35 30 30 3.00 3.50 0.50 5.0 1005 2 10 05 30 60 2.99 3.45 0.46 5.4 10 35 3 10 35 30 90 3.01 3.47 0.46 5.4 11 05 4 11 05 30 120 2.97 3.46 0.49 5.1 11 35 5 11 35 30 150 3.03 3.48 0.45 5.6 1205 6 12 05 30 180 2.98 3.48 0.50 5.0 12 35 7 12 35 30 210 3.00 3.42 0.42 6.0 13105 8 1305 13 3-5-130 240 3.01 3.43 0.42 6.0 9 13 35 30 270 3.00 3.43 0.43 5.8 14 05 10 14 05 30 300 3.01 3.42 0.41 6.1 14 35 11 14 35 30 330 3.00 3.42 0.42 6.0 15105 12 15105 30 360 3.06 3.47 0.41 6.1 15135 Figure A-12 V Percolation Data Sheet Project Name: 1HOPELUTHERAN Job No. T2630-22-01 Test Hole No. P-6 Soil Classification: SM Depth + Standpipe:14.19 feet Excavation Date: 4/8/2015 Sandy Soil Criteria Tested b : CER Presoak Date: 4/9/2015 Actual Percolation Tested by: CER Test Date: 4/1 012 0 1 5 Water depth measured from standpipe Standpipe height: .44 feet Sandy Soil Criteria Test Time Total Initial Water Final Water A in Water Percolation Trial No. Time Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 08 08 1 45 20 25 25 2.86 2.99 0.13 16.03 2 08145 25 50 2.99 3.02 0.03 69.44 09110 Soil Criteria Normal Reading Time Time Total Initial Water Final Water 0 in Water Percolation No. Interval Elapsed Level Level Level Rate (min) Time(min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (min/inch) 1 0940 30 30 3.00 3.06 0.06 41.7 10 10 2 1010 30 60 2.98 3.05 0.07 35.7 1040 3 10 40 30 90 2.93 3.00 0.07 35.7 11 10 4 11 10 30 120 3.00 3.07 0.07 35.7 11 40 5 11 40 30 150 3.00 3.08 0.08 31.3 12 10 8 1210 30 180 2.99 3.07 0.08 31.3 1240 7 12 40 30 210 2.96 3.03 0.07 35.7 01 10 8 -2- 10 30 240 2.93 3.00 0.07 35.7 01 40 9 01 40 30 270 3.00 3.06 0.06 41.7 02 10 10 02 10 30 300 3.00 3.05 0.05 50.0 02 40 11 02 40 30 330 3.05 3.10 0.05 50.0 03 10 12 0310 30 360 3.04 3.10 0.06 41.7 03140 Figure A-13 APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of ASTM International (ASTM),.,Califomia test (CT) niethods,or other suggested procedures..Selected samples were tested for direct shear strength, expansion characteristics, inoist6re density relationships, corrosivity, R-value, and moisture content. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Figures Bl through 133. GLrvon Proyvt No.T-630 22-01 B-1 RPrised Februam l8.2016 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D1557 Maximum Optim y Moi um Sample No. Description Dry Density Content (pcf) (% dry wt.) TP-4 o 2-4' Silty SAND, trace gravel 133.2 7.9 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D4829 Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion Sample No. • Before Test(%) After Test(o/a) (p c Index TP-4 a 2-4' 7.8 13.9 117.1 0' SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ORGANIC CONTENT TESTS ASTM D2974 Sample No. Organic Content(%) TP-3 a 7.5-9- 1.9 TP-4 a 10-15- 48 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY R-VALUE TEST RESULTS ASTM D2844 Sample No. R-Value TP-3 @ 2-4' 60 SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS Chloride Content Sulfate Content Resistivity Sample No. (ppm) (%) pH (ohm centimeters) TP-3 n 2-4- 393 1 0.063 8.6 3.100 Resistivity and pH determined by Cal Trans Test 643. Chloride content determined by California Test 422. Water-soluble sulfate determined by California Test 417. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS GEOCON p HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH W E S T. I N C. <�) LOT 9. TR3552 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 41571 CORNING PLACE SUITE 101 MURRIETA,CA 92562-7065 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PHONE 951-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 CER FEBRUARY,2016 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG 131 100 1 If - 90 so 0 70 2 f/1 60 , z z 0 50 IL m 40 30 20 i 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 . 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE,mm SAMPLE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ID P-1 @ 3-3.5' SM -Silty SAND P--3 @ 3-3.5' SM -Silty SAND P-5 @ 3-3.5' SM -Silty SAND GEOCON GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION W E S T. I 'N C. (`(� HOPE LUT 9, TR3 CHURCH GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS LOT 9, TR3552 41571 CORNING PLACE SUITE-101 MURRIETA,CA 92562-7065 PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 PHONE 951-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CER - FEBRUARY, 2016 1 PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 , FIG B2 4500 4000 3500 3000 a L c 2500 m _ H A t 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Normal Pressure (psf) SAMPLE SOIL TYPE DRY DENSITY INITIAL FINAL C ID (PCF) MOISTURE N MOISTURE N (psf) (deg) 'TP1 @ 34' SM 120.0 7.5 16.0 400 30 -TP-4 24' SM 120.4 7.7 11.4 390 32 'sample remolded to approximately 90%of the maximum dry density DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS GEOCON ��� HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH W E S T. I N C. LOT 9, TR3552 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 41571 CORNING PLACE SUITE 101 MURRIETA.CA 92562-706 PHONE 951-304-2300 FAX 951-304-2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CER FEBRUARY, 2016 1 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG B3 APPENDIX C GEOTECHICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS BY ENGEN, CORPORATION FEBRUARY 10, 1999 FOR HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9 OF PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 Gemon"ccl No.T_630-22-01 C-1 Re,i.sed Februnn-/8.2016 1 omc Ia s�•zeroy TW •cmaeulmJt" EAGEN corporation '�ft ,�� , ENVIRONMENTAL 8t GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Lots 7, 8 and 10 of Tract 3552, Vallejo Avenue City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number: T1060-C February 10, 1999 Prepared for. Rancho Community Church 29141 Vallejo Avenue Temecula, California 92592 CORPeRIATE OFFICE 41601 Epterprise Circle North,Suite 1,Temecula,CA 92590•phone (909)676-3095• fax. 19091 676-3294 ORANGE COUNTY OFF1dE 2615 Orange Avenue. Santa Ana,CA 92707 •phone (714)546-4051 • tax 1714)546-4052 J 'YYE6 SITE: WWW.ENGENCORPCOM • E-MAIL: ENGENCORP@PE.NET Rancho Community Church Project Number.T1060•C TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION NUMBER AND TITLE PAGE 1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION.....................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................2 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................2 2.1 TIME OF GRADING ...................................................................................................2 3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................2 3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS ............................................................................................2 3.2 CUT/FILL TRANSITION..............................................................................................3 4.0 TESTING .................................................................................................................3 4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES...................................................................................3 4.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING...............................................................................3 4.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST....................................................3 4.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST.............................................................:.............................3 5.0 EARTH MATERIALS..................................................................................................4 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................4 6.1 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................4 7.0 CLOSURE................................................................................................................5 APPENDIX TEST RESULTS DRAWINGS .Sal6q:eehp ago cmmmtra Swim•6v�w ram'• T�0 E GEN Corporation �:K P .Q�. EW�x SO ASM=b ----- — ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING NETWORK February 10, 1999 Mr. Stan Heaton Rancho Community Church 29141 Vallejo Avenue Temecula, California 92592 (909) 676-1018 / FAX (909) 676-2294 Regarding: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND COMPACTION TEST RESULTS ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS Lots 7, 8 and 10 of Tract 3552, Vallejo Avenue City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California Project Number. T1060-C References: 1. EnGEN Corporation, Revised Pavement Section, Proposed Sanctuary and Classrooms, Rancho Community Church, Vallejo Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number. T1060-GS2, letter dated October 20, 1998. 2. EnGEN Corporation, GeotechnicaUGeological Engineering Study, Proposed Sanctuary and Classrooms, Rancho Community Church, Vallejo Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number. T1060•GS2, report dated August 10, 1998. 3. Temecula Engineering Consultants, Conceptual Grading Plan, Rancho Community Church, Portion of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Tract 3552, plans stamped May 15, 1998. 4. EnGEN Corporation, Alluvial Removal Study, Future Addition to Rancho Community Church, 29141 Vallejo Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Lot 9 of Tract 3552, Project Number. T1060-GS, dated July 9, 1996. 5. California Geo Tek, Inc., Grading and Compaction Control, PUP 652, 29141 Vallejo Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, report dated June 4, 1990. 6. Temecula Engineering Consultants, Rough Grading Plan, Potion of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 of Tract 3552, Rancho Community Church, sheets 1-2, plan undated. Dear Mr. Heaton: According to your request and signed authorization, EnGEN Corporation has performed field observations, sampling, and in-place density testing at the above referenced site. Submitted, herein, are the test results and the supporting field and laboratory data. 1.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PROJECT LOCATIQN �• }-the subject site consists of approximately 10 acres, located west of Vallejo Avenue near Palma Drive in�the City of Temecula, County of�Riverside, California. The site is bounded by I � COR"ATE OFFICE 41607,Enterprise Circle North,Suite 1,Temecula,CA 92590• phone (909)676-2095•fax. (909)676-3294 ORANGE COUNT v OFPISE 2615 Orange Avenue. Santa Ana,CA 92707 •phone (7141 546-4051 •fax (714)546-4052 WEB SITE: WWW.EN ENCORRCOM • E-MAIL: ENGENCORP@a PE.NET — — Rancho Community Church t Project Number.T106D-C February 1999 Page 2 Vallejo Avenue and Interstate 15 on the east and west, respectively, and existing church structures and graded pads on the south and north, respectively. . I 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is understood that the subject site is to be developed with an amphitheater, classroom ' structure and ball field area. Prior to grading operations, topography and surface conditions of the site were relatively flat to moderately sloping at a gradient of less than 10 percent. A natural stream bed bisects the site, extending from Vallejo Avenue to the Interstate 15 I Freeway. 2.0 SCOPE OF F WORK 2.1 TIME OF GRADING This report represents geotechnical observations and testing during the construction i - operations from July 7, 1998 through December 30, 1998. i i 3.0 CONTRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT The grading operations were performed by Clayton Engineering, Inc.. through the use of l several Cat 623 scrapers, one (1) blade, one (1) 824 Grubber tire dozer and one (1) water t i truck. 3.1 GRADING OPERATIONS Grading within the subject site consisted of a cut/fill and import fill placement operation. Grasses and weeds were removed prior to fill placement. Fill material was generated from the southeastern portions of the site, and used to bring the southwestern portions of the site I l to finish grade elevation. Import material was used to bring the central and western portions of the site to finish grade elevation. Removal of alluvium, slopewash, etc., was performed in the western portion of the site to depths ranging from 1 to 7 feet below original elevation. Over-excavated earth material was stockpiled and later used as fill. Fill slopes were constructed along the natural water course that bisects the site, resulting in a well defined f drainage channel. Bottoms were observed, probed and found to be into competent native material by a representative of this firth. Keying and benching into competent bedrock was I observed during the grading operations. The exposed bottoms were scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of 12 inches then compacted to 90 percent. Fill was placed in lens thicknesses of 4 to 6 inches, thoroughly moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Moisture I EnGEN Corporation Rancho Community Church Project Number. T1060-C February 1999 Page 3 l conditioning of the on-site soils was performed during-the compaction process,,through the . I use of a water truck. 'The pad area was generally graded to the elevations noted on the Grading Plan. However, the,actual pad location, dimensions, elevations, slope locations and inclinations, etc. were surveyed and staked by others and should be verified by the Project 1 Civil Engineer. 3.2, CUT/FILL TRANSITION j Over-excavation was not performed on the cut portion of the graded pads. Therefore, cut/fill transitions exist on the subject site. It is recommended that overexcavation be performed in the cut portion of cut/fill footprint areas once proposed structure locations are determined. Over-excavation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations given in the Referenced No. 2 report. 4.0 TESTING 4.1 FIELD TESTING PROCEDURES Field in-place density and moisture content testing were performed in general accordance i with ASTM-D-2922-81 (90) and ASTM-D-3017-88 procedures for determining in-place I density and moisture content, respectively, using nuclear gauge equipment. Relative compaction test results were within the 90 percent required for all material placed and compacted. Test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. Fill depths and test locations were determined from review of the referenced grading plans. 4.1.1 LABORATORY TESTING The following laboratory tests were performed as part of our services during the grading of the subject site. The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report. 4.1.2 MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST Maximum dry density - optimum moisture content relationship tests were conducted on samples of the materials used as fill. The tests were performed in general accordance with I ASTM D1557-91 procedures. The test results are presented in the Appendix (Summary of Optimum Moisture Content / Maximum Dry Density Relationship Test Results). 4.2 EXPANSION INDEX TEST iA soil sample was obtained for expansion potential testing from the building pad area upon completion of rough grading of the subject site. The expansion test procedure utilized was the Uniform Building Code Test Designation 18-2. The material tested consisted of silty EnGEN Corporation - Rancho Community Church Project Number. T1060-C February 1999 Page 4 r ' sand, to sandy silt, which has an Expansion Index of 0. This soil is classified as having a very low expansion potential. The results,are presented in the Summary of Expansion Index Results in the Appendix of this report. . I 5.0 EARTH MATERIALS The natural earth materials encountered on-site, generally consisted of brown to tan, silty sand to sandy silt. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i No conditions were encountered which would cause a change in the previously provided design and construction recommendations. As a result, design and construction should adhere to the recommendations provided by the Referenced No. 2"GeotechnicalIGeological Engineering Study. 6.1 GENERAL Based on the observations and tests performed during grading, the subject site in the areas noted has been completed in accordance with the Referenced No. 2 Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study project plans and the grading Code of the City of Temecula. The graded site in the are noted as graded is determined to be adequate for the intended use. Any subsequent grading for development of the. subject property should .be performed under engineering observation and testing performed by EnGEN Corporation..Subsequent grading includes, but is not limited to; any additional fill placement and excavation of temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes. In addition, EnGEN Corporation should observe all foundation j excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and/or reinforcing steel so as to verify and/or modify, if necessary, the conclusions and recommendations in this report. Observations of overexcavation cuts, fill placement, finish grading, utility or other trench backfill, pavement subgrade and base course, retaining wall backfill, slab presaturation, or other earth work completed for the development of subject site should be performed by EnGEN Corporation. If any of the observations and testing to verify site geotechnical conditions are not performed by EnGEN Corporation, liability,for the safety and performance of the development is limited to the actual portions of the project observed 1 and/or tested by EnGEN Corporation. EnGEN Corporation 1 Rancho Community Church Project Number.T101BO-C February 1999 r Page 5 7.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for use by the parties or project.named or described above. It may or may not contain sufficieni..information for other parties or purposes. The findings and recommendations expressed .in this report are based" on field and laboratory testing performed during, the rough grading operation and on generally accepted engineering - practices and principles. No..furfh& warranties are.implied or expressed beyond the direct t representations of this report. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these 'services. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, j EnGEN Corporation I u i Jason Olia a ene, GE 162 Field Operati s Manager Peotechnical Engineer E -30-01 JDG/OB:ch QRpfESSil Distribution: (4) Addresseern ��Q�a��p{lN Bggr�yFyc y o a FILE: EnGEN/Reporting/C/1`1060C Rancho Community Church Rough Grading No. 162 s *`r�cFOlFCNN��QN,�P OP C{1L\E�Q� I EoGFN Corporation �) . • Rancho Community Church Project Number. T1060-C Appendix Page 1 APPENOM :l TEST RESULTS ; I . I i I I . 1 EuGEN Corporation Rancho Community Church Project Number. T1060-C, Appendix Page 2 FIELD TEST RESULTS n (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE,DENSITY TEST RESULTS) (NUCLEAR,GAUGE.TEST METHOD) i Test Depth Soil Max. Moisture Dry Relative Required i Test Date Elev. Density ` Content .Density Compaction Compaction No. (1998) Test Locations, (FT) Type (P.CF) "M (PCF) N N ' f 1 7-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 1 126.8 6.9 124.6 98.3 90 2 7-9 See Site'Plan -101,3.0 1 126.8 9.2 , ' 117.6 92.7 90 3 7-9 See Site Plan 1009.0 1 126.8 15.2' 117.8 93.0 90 4 7-9 See Site Plan 1002.0 1 126.8 16.2 115.0 90.7 90 5 7-9 See Site Plan 1009.0 1 126.8 10.6 123.3 97.3 90 6 7-9 See'Site Plan 1003.0 1 126.8 8.3 120.7 95.2 90 7 7-9 See Site Plan 1014.0 1 126.8 6.4 115.2 90.7 90 8 7-9 See Site Plan 1012.0 1 126.8 9.0 114.6 90.4 90 9 7-10 See Site Plan 1017.0 1 126.8 11.5 117.2 92.5 90 10 7-10 See Site Plan 1015.0 1 126.8 10.2 117.9 93.0 90 11 7-10 See Site Plan 1012.0 1 1M.8 11.7 119.4 94.2 90 12 7-13 See Site Plan 1015.5 1 126.8 8.5 117.4 92.6 90 13 7-13 See Site Plan 101'6.5 1 126:8 7.0 117.4 92.6 90 14 7-13 See Site Plan 1005.0 1 126.8 10.2 112.1 88.4 90 1 15 7-15 Retest of#14 1005.0 1 126.8 97 121.4 95.8 90 16 7-15 See Site Plan 1000.0 1 126.8 13.0 117.5 92.7 90 17 7-15 See Site Plan 1002.0 1 126.8 8.3 119.9 94.6 90 18 7-15 See Site Plan 1004.0 1 126.8 7.1 119.1 93.9 90 19 7-15 See Site Plan 1004.0 1 126.8 7.8 119.3 94.1 90 1 20 7-15 See Site Plan 1006.0 1 126.8 8.5 120.6 95.1 90 21 7-15 See Site Plan 1006.0 1 126.8 7.9 119.4 94.2 90 22 7-15 See Site Plan 1008.0 1 126.8 8.3 120.2 94.8 90 .23 7-15 See Site Plan 1008.0 1 126.8 8.9 120.1 94.7 90 24 7-16 See Site Plan 1010.0 1 126.8 9.2 121.2 95.6 90 25 7-16 See Site Plan 1010.0 1 126.8 10.2 115.6 91.2 90 26 7-16 See Site Plan 1012.0 1 126.8 10.2 117.3 92.5 90 27- 7-16 See Site Plan 1012.0 1 126.8 8.9 120.4 95.0 90 28 7-17 See Site Plan 1014.0 3 129.0 8.7 120.3 93.3 90 29 7-17 See Site Plan 1014.0 3 129.0 6.0 110.2 85.4 90 30 7-20 Retest of#29 1014.0 3 129.0 11.3 116.6 90.4 90 31 7-20 See Site Plan 1014.0 3 129.0 8.3 120.4 93.3 90 32 7-20 See Site Plan 1014.0 3 129.0 9.7 123.4 95.7 90 EnGEN Corporation Rancho Community Church Project Number. T1060-C •� Appendix Page 3 FIELD TEST RESULTS(CONTINUED) (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS) (NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD) ( es Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required Test es Date Test Locations Bev. Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction (1,998) (FT) (PCF) N (PCF) M M 33, 7-21 See Site Plan 1016.0 4 118.4 13.3 110.5 93.3 90 34 7-21 See Site Plan 1002.0 1 126.8 16.2 115.0 90.7 90 35 7-22 See Site Plan 1016.0 1 126.8 12.8 114.7 90.4 90 36 7-22 See Site Plan 1016.0 1 126.8 13.3 115.5 91.1 90 37 7-22 See Site Plan 1018.0 1 126.8 8:8 .116.1 91.5 90 38 7-22 See Site Plan 1018.0 1 126.8 7.8 115.0 90.7 90 39 11-24 See Site Plan 1018.5 2 127..9 13.4 115.4 90.2 90 40 11-24 See Site Plan 1020.0 2 127.9 8.2: 116.1 90.8 90 41 11-24 See Site Plan 1017.0 2 127.9 9.3 116.5 91.1 90 i 42 11-24 See Site Plan 1016.0 2 127.9 8.5 121.6 95.1 90 1 43 12-7 See Site Plan 1005.0 6 126.5 9.1 118.8 93.9 90 • 44 12-7 See Site Plan 1005.0 6 126.5 9.5 118.4 93.6 90 45 12-7 See Site Plan 1007.0 6 126.6 8.4 119.9 94.8 90 46 12-7 See Site Plan 1007.0 6 126.5 10.0 121.3 95.9 90 47 12-7 See Site Plan 1009.0 6 126.6 6.8 199.4 94.4 90 48 12-7 See Site Plan 1009.0 6 126.5 9.5 118.9 94.0 90 , 49 12-7 See Site Plan 1011.0 6 126.5 10.1 1:19.2 94.2 90 50 12-7 See Site Plan 1611:0 6 126.5 9.7 119:6 94.5 90 51 12-7 See Site Plan 1013.0 6 126.5 9.1 118.5 93.7 90 52 12-8 See Site Plan 1005.0 6 126.5 9.4 114.3 90.4 90 i 53 12-8 See,Site Plan 1005.0 6 126.5 10.9 117.7 93.1 90 54 12-8 See Site Plan 1005.0 6 126.5 10.1 116.1 91.8 90 55 12=8 See Site Plan 1007.0 6 126.5 10.8 114.1 90.2 90 56 12-8 See Site Plan 1007.0 6 126.5 9.5 115.0 90.9 90 57 12-8 See Site Plan 1009.0 6 126.5 10.0 114.7 90.8 90 58 12-8 See Site Plan 1009.0 4 118.4 9.1 109.0 92.1 90 59 12-9 See Site Plan 1009.0 6 126.5 12.1 114.5 90.5 90 60 12-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 126.5 12.5 118.0 93.3 90 61 12-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 126.5 11.5 114.2 90.3 90 162 12-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 126.5 11.7 114.6 90.6 90 163 12-9 See Site Plan 1008.0 6 126.5 8.5 120.2 95.0 90 EnGEN Coipontion Rancho Community Chyrch Project Number.T1060-C 1 Appendix Page 4 ' i FIELD TEST RESULTS(CONTINUED) (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS) (NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD) Test Test Depth_ Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required No. �19 8) Test Locations Elev. Type Density Content DPCF� Compaction Compaction 64 12-9 See Site Plan . 100,8:0 6 126:5 7.5- 115.9 91.6 90 65 12-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 126:5. 8.3 113:9 90.0 90 66 12-9 See Site Plan 1008.0 6 126.5 7.2 115.6 91.4 . 90 67 12-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 126.5 10.2 117.2 92.6 90 68 12-9 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 12&5 8.9 116.3 •91.9 90 69 12-9 See Site Plan 1012.0 6 126.5 9.8 116.8 92.3 90 70 12-9 See Site Plan 1012.0 6 126.5 10.0 115.9 91.6 90 71 12-17 See Site Plan 1015.0 6 126.5 11.4 120.8 95.5 90 72, 12-17 See Site Plan 1015.0 6 126.5 10.8 120.1 94.9 90 ! 73 12-17 See Site Plan 1016.0 6 126.5 10.1 118.6 93.8 90 74 12-17 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 -126.5 11.8 121.3 95.9 90 75 12-17 See Site Plan 1010.0 6 126.5 10.1 120.3 . 95.1 90 l76 12-17 See Site Plan 1012.5 6 126.5 7.7 114.7 90.7 90 77 12-17 See Site Plan 1012:5 6 126.5 8.1 115.5 91.3 90 78 12-22 See Site Plan 1019.0 6 126.5 10.4 117.4 92.8 90 79 12-22 See Site Plan 1018.0 6 126.5 11.0 114.0 90.1 90 80 12-22 See Site Plan 1017.0 6 126.5 12.0 113.9 90.0 90 81 12-22 See Site Plan 1018.0 6 126.5 11.5 115.1 91.0 90 82 12-22 See Site Plan 1018.0 6 126.5 12.1 116.2 91.9 90 83 12-22 See Site Plan 1018.0 6 126:5 11.8 114.9 90.8 90 84 12-23 See Site Plan 1020.0 6 126.5 10.9 118.8 93.9 90 85 12-23 See Site Plan 1019.0 6 126.5 9.8 117.2 92.6 90 86, 12-23 See Site Plan 1019.0 6 126.5 10.4 115.9 91.6 90 87 12-23 See Site-:Plan 1021.0 6 126-.5 10.5 114.8 90.8 90 88 12-23 See Site Plan 1021:0 6 126.5 9.3 114.2 90.3 90 89 12-23 See Site Plan 1021:0 6 126.5 9.6 115.3 91.1 90 90 12-28 See Site Plan 1018.0 6 126.5 9.8 115.5 91.3 90 91 12-28 -See Site Plan 1021.0 6 126.5 10.3 116.8. _92.3 90 92 12-28 See Site Plan 1020.0 6 126.5 10.4 116.4 • ' 92.0 90 93 1-29 See Site Plan F.G. 6 126.5 7.5' 119.2 94.3 90 94 1-29 See Site Plan F.G. 6 126.5 9.0 119.9 94.8 90 95 1-29 See Site Plan F.G. 6 126.5 9.5 122.1 96.5 90 EnGEN Corporation :. Rancho Community Church Project Number.T1060-C ,.� Appendix Page 5 FIELD TEST RESULTS(CONTINUED) (SUMMARY OF FIELD IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST RESULTS) (NUCLEAR GAUGE TEST METHOD) 1 Test Test Depth Soil Max Moisture Dry Relative Required Date Elev. Density Content Density Compaction Compaction No. (1998- Test Locations (FT) (PCF)(PCF) N (PCF) N M 1999) 96 1-29 See Site Plan F.G. 6 126.5 10.4 118.9 94.0 90 ' 97 1-29 See Site Plan F.G. 6 126.5 10.2 123.2 97.4 90 98 1-29 See Site Plan F.G. 6 126.5 9.1 116.8 92.4 90 I i i I I I I FnGFSI Corporation 1 1 Rancho Community Church Project Number. T1060-C Appendix Page 6� I , SUMMARY OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT/ MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS ASTM.D155T-91 ' i Optimum Soil Maximum Moisture Soil Description Dry Density Content Type (USCS Symbol) , (PCF) (%) i 1 ' Silty'Sand, Brown (SM) 126.8 8.4 2 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 127.9 9.5 3 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 129.0 8.6 4 Silty Sand, Tan (SM) 118.4 10.5 ! 5 Sandy Silt, Brown (SM) 114.1 12.5 6 Silty Sand, Brown (SM) 126.5 9.4 I I SUMMARY OF EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS I i Moisture Moisture Condition Soil Depth Dry Density Condition Before After Test(%) Expansion Type (FT) (PCF) Test(%) Index 1 1.5 118.5 7.4 13.3 0 I l EnGEN Corporation Rancho Community Church .r Project Number. T1060-C ,1 Appendix Page 7 DRAWINGS i : I i . I I l I i I I i EuGEN Corporation SHEET No* I FOR PHASE WENT No. 3 FOR pgASj 4 - SLOPE T4.0 JQI i ' r w � PHASE HASE 46 ° oix ��� .. �e�' ,, APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9 OF PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. T2630=22-01 Gokon Pwjw No.T_630-22-01 D-I Revi.sa•d Febmarr 18.2016 RECOMMENDED,GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL. 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Ge_otechnical Report for the projecl'prepared by Geocon. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinaflerin the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the "commencement of grading,.a geotecltnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of'the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or adverse weather result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer,to,the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to.the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. GI mv.07/2015 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist, of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials.can be classified as soil fills,soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil rills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ''/, inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock rills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in .Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock rills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than '/< inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3 Materials used for till, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter30, Articles 9 GI rev.07/2015 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, stale or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as'defined by applicable laws and regulations. . 3.4 The outer 15, feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil,fill,materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided.that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps,.rools, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1%: inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. 4.2 Asphalt pavement material removed 'during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. GI rev.0712015 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is sleeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Original Ground 2 t. Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Consultant Slope Such That ' Sloughing Or Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies See Note 7 See Note 2 No Scale DETAILNOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal,or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve lhe.proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications. GI rev.07/2015 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or.coil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3: 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture 1 in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general; the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined byASTM D 1557. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the.coil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least'90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill_io the maximum 'laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. - GI rev.07/2015 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7 Properly compacted .roil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or,similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2„shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill; but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or, rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum, dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also he placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. GI rev.07/2015 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feel from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recoimtitendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping.at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate scaling of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compaclive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 63.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of ther compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection GI rc%,.07I2015 variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of"passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a ?-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 Rock fill placement should-be continuously observed 'during placement by the Consultant. 7. SUBDRAINS 7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes. GI rcr.07/2015 TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL NATURN.oRHaatP � '� A COLUMN couuvnal rtt�Iwa BEDROCK raM DUAL BELOW WM FOIAL'AOF PiE ATOUDEr ®MIL fO:NONPt#QMTFO. CON.PI]VO m _ SL Q PPE A a� �'^ iH7ltC URAVEOOTOFOM ORAOEOM(O l0. ALEIED 6Y IBMRF NORf9NAlFlO) FILTER FAifAiC NOTES: t.._SMCH MANSTER SCHEDULE SO PVC POWDRATED PIPE FOR F1 I ON E)MESS OF IWEET W DEPTH OR A PIPE LENGTH OF LONGER THAN S00 FEET. 2__.6O CH OVM¢IEA,SCHEDULE b PVC PERFORATED PIPE FOR FOLK LESS TH W 1 ODFEFTT 01 DEPTH OR A PIPE LENGTH SNORTER THAN SM FEET. NO SCALE 7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter(or lager) pipes. GI rcv.07/2015 TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL 'L SEE rq,E. fi iTAt r rRRM ND1E0 Rd tm ORL FORMATIONAL ,L LIATERdL ' s MN. IZ MPL DETAIL N07ES:. I-MMVATESA07Jlr ATI;INXIIMTM(UM—OTWOM=XOIED} . L8IE OFHTASRJn'fIIL TOESiEET MOPORWTg7NAL WTETLMi,BIflPINOAIO10WM 61L NTOEDPE. S-lTABUNRlMECOWDSMOFPROPEFILYCOIN Ic,®OA M"IOR. 4-XMDLY WAMTOEAPPR MWPFtEFAMMT®OOVEYORAMPAPBHOWE WNOMMOREWNNFNn SPA=APPR=MATELYEO FEETCENTER M CENTEAAND A FEETWOE CLOSER IACM MAYBE REOIRRED F GEEPAGEOE� L-MTEt MATFANLTO E ER4CL d'EDOI AM=WMROCN EC]L®NAPPROYm FLTM FAMIC(MRAR UM4M 6_.WJFCIOR FM TOE W MNMtMOWETER.FEEORATEATIC4NALIED PM OCEOLEAOOR IOIIN UE T.AWBCPWTCORANAT,PMfDRMMMTONiROM®CLgIM. NO SCALE 7.3 The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scale grading plans. 7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric. Rock fill drains should he constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. Glrcv.07/2015 7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/ perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the pipe. TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL FRONT VIEW r rr. x rea NO BfiuE SIDE VIEW rar mNoais ..,..... wrnwvu _..r.„' 7 rn�.mn umemur vse wiva,urm sumun roe ' �C reurlm) M eaue 7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure. GI rcv.07/2015 TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL FRONT VIEW - ir es— ND IIGIE SIDE VIEW z waive <•• . �L TaoaTe NrAowN� f T f ar NOTE:WEAOWALLS O OO AT TOE OF FU SLOPE NO SCALE OR KM CDWROLLm OLMALE ONAVUee 7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built' map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains. GI rcv.0712015 8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 8.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative, to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within.that interval. In addition, a.minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 8.2 The. Consultant should perform -a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rack fill to provide a basis for expressing an.opinibn whetlier the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 8.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 8.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the. monitoring program, shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Densin of Soil la-Place Br the Sand-Cone A4elhod. GI rev.07/2015 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Denim of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depdt). 8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557,, Moisture-Density Relations of Sods and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hanauer and 18-lnch Drop. 8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion hides Test. 9. PROTECTION OF WORK 9.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent pending of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional rill or structures. 9.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. 10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 10.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the,proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 10.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist. indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes io the Specifications. GI rev.07/2015 1 1 FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD 1 INVESTIGATION 1 1 HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9, TR3552 PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 ' TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 1 1 GEOCON W E S T, I N C. 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PREPARED FOR ' MATERIALS HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH C/O TEMECULA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 29141 VALLEJO AVENUE TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92592 1 1 1 MAY 12, 2015 PROJECT NO. T2630-22-01 ' GEOCON W E S T, I N C. ' G E O T E C H N I CALE ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATERIALS Project No.T2630-22-01 May 12, 2015 Hope Lutheran Church 32819 Temecula Parkway, Suite B Temecula,California 92592 ' Attention: Mr. Neil Nevills Subject: FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD INVESTIGATION ' HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOT 9,TR3552 PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Nevills: ' In accordance with your verbal notice to proceed with the scope of services outlined in our Work Order Authorization dated April 22, 2015, Geocon West, Inc. (Geocon) has performed a subsurface fault hazard study of the 2.93 acre parcel located immediately southwest of Vallejo Avenue, northwest of the existing church and school building in Temecula, California. The accompanying report presents the findings of our fault hazard study, and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the potential for active faulting at the site. This report has been revised to included design parameters in accordance with 2013 California Building Code (CBC). If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON WEST,INC. �b\Otw ( , 1 Lisa A. Battiato 7 � CEG 2316 O (I PDF) Addressee (1 PDF) Temecula Engineering Consultants, Ann. Stanley Heaton 41571 Corning Place, Suite 101 ■ Murrieta,California 92562-7065 ■ Telephone 951.304.2300 ■ Fax 951.304.2392 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE...................................................................................................................... 1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................ I 3. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................2 4. GEOLOGIC SETTING.........................................................................................................................2 5. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS...................................................................................................................3 6. FAULT ACTIVITY CRITERIA.....................m.....................................................................................5 7. LINEAMENT ANALYSES..................................................................................................................6 8. FIELD INVESTIGATION....................................................................................................................6 9. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.................................................................................................................7 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... ........................................9 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS LIST OF REFERENCES MAPS,TABLES,AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Geologic Map Figure 3, Riverside County Fault Hamrd Map Figures 4 through 6,Trench Logs FAULT RUPTURE HAZARD INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of our subsurface fault hazard study for a proposed church development on a 2.93-acre parcel located immediately southwest of Vallejo Avenue, northwest of the existing church and school building in Temecula,California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the study was to evaluate the presence and age of faulting with respect to the site and, based on the conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development. The Conceptual Grayling Plan prepared by Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc. (2015) was provided as a reference for our investigation and was utilized as our base map. The scope of our investigation included review of the previous geotechnical report by EnGEN, ' sequential stereoscopic aerial photographs, geologic mapping, site-specific exploration, field review with Riverside County Geologist, and the preparation of this report. A summary of the information reviewed for this study is presented in the List,of References. ' Our field investigation included excavation of 225 lineal feet of fault trench (T-1) and 25 feet of embankment excavation (T-2). The fault trench logs are presented on Figures 4 through 6. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are presented on the Geologic Map (Figure 2). ' References to elevations presented in this report are based on the elevations in the Conceptual.Grading Plan. Geocon does not practice in the field of land surveying and is not responsible for the accuracy of such topographic information. ' 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is an irregularly shaped parcel consisting of 2.93 acres. It is bounded on the northeast by Vallejo Avenue; on the southwest by Interstate 15 (1-15); the northwest by single-family residences; and the southeast by existing Hope Lutheran Church. The legal Assessor's Parcel No. is 922-170-003. The site coordinates are 33.4824° N/-1 17.1398' W. ' We understand that the site will be developed as a church with a single structure to be located near the center of the property with parking lots west and south of the building. The associated utility, parking area, and flatwork improvements will also be constructed. Bioswales are planned within the parking lot median west of the building and along the northwestern and southwestern borders of the site. ' Geocon Project No.T-630-22-01 - I - May 12.2015 Our review of the project grading plan indicates planned cuts and fills to be less than 5 feet. Site ' elevations range.from approximately 1030 feet above mean seal level (MSL) along the eastern side of the site to approximately 1015 feet MSL near the western comer of the property. The site is generally ' vacant and cleared of vegetation. Our aerial photograph.review indicates that the site consisted of rolling hills prior to being graded. The alignment of Vallejo Avenue has been present since at least 1967.. 3. BACKGROUND The site has been previously graded. Based on the aerial photographs, it appears that site grading ' occurred at various times. The site appears to have been initially cleared and leveled between 1978 and 1996. It is our understanding that the site was utilized as a borrow site for the construction of the Temecula Parkway on and off ramps at 1-15 prior to being graded under testing and observation of ' EnGEN in 1999. A review of the compaction testing report prepared by EnGEN Corporation, dated February 10, 1999 ' indicates that up to approximately 7 feet of artificial fill was placed on the site in 1998/1999 under , testing and observation of EnGEN. The EnGEN report indicates that grading consisted of a cut/fill and import fill placement operation. Fill material was generated from the eastern portions of the site,and used to bring the western portions of the site to finish grade elevation. ' 4. GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located in the Temecula Valley within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges are bounded on the north by the.Transverse Ranges (Santa Monica, San Gabriel, and San Bernardino Mountains) and on the east by the San Andreas fault. The ' Peninsular Ranges Province extends southward into Mexico and westward past the Channel Islands. Geologic units within the Peninsular Ranges consist of granitic and metamorphic bedrock highlands , and deep and broad alluvial valleys. More specifically, the site lies just southwest of the boundary of two structural blocks, the Santa.Ana , Mountains block, and the Perris Block. These two structural blocks are separated by the Elsinore fault zone, which separates the Santa Ana Mountains Block to the west by the Perris Block to the east. The Temecula Valley is a topographic depression that is bounded on the east by the Wildomar , branch of the Elsinore fault zone and on the west by the Willard branch of the Elsinore fault zone. ' The trough formed as a result of extensional faulting during the Miocene Epoch .(between 5 and 24 million years before present), as the North American - Pacific Plate boundary changed from one of subduction to transform. Subsequent faulting then changed from predominately extension to ' predominately strike-slip. (Harden 1998). Geocon I miject No.T2630-22-01 .2. May 12.2015 ' The site is underlain by older (Pleistocene age) alluvial flood plain deposits described as mostly well consolidated, poorly sorted, and permeable (Tan & Kennedy, 2000). Mapping by Kennedy (1977) describes the materials in the vicinity of the project site as Pauba Sandstone/Siltstone formation. These materials are described as well-indurated, extensively cross-bedded, channeled and filled sandstone and siltstone that locally contains intervening cobble-and-boulder conglomerate beds. The site is not located within a State of California "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone' for fault rupture hazard (CGS 2015), However the majority of the site lies within a Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone (FHZ) as shown on Figure 3. No mapped lineations are depicted through the subject site on the Riverside County FHZ Map. The County FHZ that is mapped within the site appears to connect Coutny FHZ located northwest and southeast of the site. ' 5. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 5.1 General ' Our trenches encountered previously placed artificial fill, younger alluvium, and older alluvium overlying Pauba formation bedrock. It is possible that older alluvium over lied the Pauba formation in ' the eastern portion of the property prior to removal as borrow material. The soil and geologic units encountered in the trenches are shown on the trench logs and described herein in the order encountered ' from east to west. 5.2 Unit (1) - Pauba Sandstone Formation (Ops) ' Pleistocene age sandstone consisting of siltstone with trace clay was observed within the eastern portion of the trench from ST 0+00 to 85+00. The unit is hard, dry, light olive brown (2.5Y5/3), extremely well indurated, with slightly mottled coloring and some desiccation cracking. The unit is locally massive. 5.3 Unit (2) - Pauba Sandstone Formation (Ops) Pleistocene age silty sandstone overlies Unit 1 in the eastern portion of the trench exposure (northeast of ST 60+00). Unit 2 is dry, hard, olive (5Y 5/3), with iron oxide staining (7.5YR 6/8), medium to coarse, extremely well indurated, and locally massive. ' 5.4 Unit (3)-Top Soil Unit 3 consists of silty sand which is dry, loose, brown (10YR 4/3), fine to coarse, with horizontal parting surfaces. Unit 3 is present in upper 12 to 2 inches of trench from ST 0+00 to 29+00. 1 Geocon Pmjmi No.T-630-22-01 .3. May 12.2015 1 5.5 Unit(4)- Paleosol ' Unit 4 consists of silty sand with clay. It is dry, very dense, strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) very blocky with , columnar soil structure, significant secondary clay development on ped faces. The age of this unit is interpreted to be Pleistocene-age based on the well-developed soil structure, significant secondary clay ' development,and 7.5YR color. 5.6 Unit (5) -Older Alluvium Unit 5 consists of silty sand which is.dry,.dense,dark yellow brown.(IOYR 4/4) to brown (7.5YR 4/4), locally massive; medium to coarse with trace gravel. It is very well indurated (similar to Pauba Unit 2) ' with some.secondary clay development around clasts. Unit 5 is present above the Pleistocene age paleosol from ST 63+00 until .it pinches out in a zone of channeling at ST 143+50. This. unit is interpreted to be Pleistocene age based on induration and secondary clay development around clasts. 5.7 Unit (6) - Pauba Sandstone Formation ' Unit 6 consists of Pleistocene age silty sandstone which is dry, dense, dark yellow brown (10YR 4/4) ' to strong brown (7.5YR 5/6), medium to coarse; with trace gravel, oxidation rinds and some secondary clay development around clasts, and well indurated. Unit 6 is present from ST 95+00 until it is eroded , out at ST 190+00. 5.8 Unit (7) - Alluvium ' Unit 7 consists of silty sand, which is dry, medium dense, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2), well indurated; with trace secondary clay development around clasts. Unit 7 is present above Pauba formation from ST ' 183+00 to end of Trench I at 225+00. It appears to be older than Holocene based on induration and clay development around clasts. 5.9 Unit(8) - Pauba Sandstone Formation , Unit 8 is a Pleistocene age clayey conglomerate that consists of clayey coarse sand with abundant ' gravel, cobbles, and some boulders. This unit is moist, dense, dark yellow brown (10YR 5/4) to strong brown(7.5YR 4/6), and moderately indurated. Granite and siltstone cobbles are typically 3 to 4 inches in diameter, and trace boulders are up to 12 inches in diameter. Unit 8 is present from ST 175+00 to , end of Trench I at 225+00. 5.10 Unit (9) Alluvium ' Unit 9 consists of interlayered silt, sand, and silty sand which are moist, medium dense, and yellow brown (10 YR 5/4). Beds are 1/ inch to I inch thick, generally horizontal, with localized cross bedding. ' The upper portion of this unit is slightly blocky with slight ped development. This unit appears to be early Holocene age and overlies the Pauba Sandstone (Unit 6), older alluvium (Unit 5), and channel ' infill (Unit 11) from ST 125+00 to end of Trench I at 225+00. 1 Geocon Project No,V-630-22-01 -4. May 12.2015 ' 1 5.11 Unit (10) Artificial Fill ' Artificial fill was observed from ST 28+00 to the end of the Trench I at ST 225+00 to a maximum depth of eight feet. The fill soils consist of layers of silty sand, sands, and gravels with some trace asphalt, PVC, and a rag. The fill is generally dry to moist and medium dense. 5.12 Unit (11) Channel Fill Channel fill was observed from ST 1 16+00 to 143+06. These deposits consist of silty sand which is moist and medium dense,dark brown (10YR 3/3), fine to medium, with trace I" gravel and silt rip up clasts. ' 6. FAULT ACTIVITY CRITERIA ' The criteria used in our .investigation to evaluate fault activity are the same criteria used by the California Geological Survey (CGS) that defines an active fault one that has had surface displacement ' within Holocene time (about the last 11.000 years). These criteria for defining an active fault are based on standards developed by the CGS (Bryant and Hart, 2007) for the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program. Faults that have not moved in the last 11,000 years are not considered active. 1 In general, the activity rating of a fault is determined by establishing the age of the youngest materials displaced by the fault. If datable material is present, an absolute age can sometimes be established; if no datable material exists, then only a relative age can he assigned to movement on the fault. For faults that have evidence of movement in the last 11,000 years, to be included in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone, these faults must demonstrate evidence of being"sufficiently active and well-defined". As indicted in CGS Special Publication 42: • A fault is deemed "sufficiently active" if there is evidence of Holocene surface displacement along one or more of its segments or branches. Holocene surface displacement may be directly observable or inferred and does not need to be present everywhere along a fault to qualify a fault for zoning. • A fault is considered "well-defined" if its trace is clearly detectable by a trained ' geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. The fault may be identified by direct observation or by indirect methods. The critical consideration is ' that the fault or some part of it can be located in the field with sufficient precision and confidence to indicate that the required site-specific investigations would meet with some success. Geocon Project No.71630.22-01 .5. May 12.2015 1 7. LINEAMENT ANALYSES ' We performed an aerial photograph review to evaluate the location of mapped and unmapped fault ' traces that may be present at the site. Faults that cannot be observed in the field can often be identified by linear topographic expression or,tonal lineaments observed on aerial photographs. Aerial photographs obtained from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ' were reviewed.The photographs covered the years 1949 through 2010 and were at scales ranging from I inch equals 1,600 feet to I inch equals 2,000 feet (see References). - Lineaments observed on the aerial photographs were classified according'to their development as strong, , moderate or weak. A strong lineament'is a well-defined feature, which can be continuously traced several hundred feet to a few thousand feet. A moderate lineament is less well defined, somewhat discontinuous ' and can be traced for only a few hundred feet. A weak lineament is discontinuous, poorly defined, and can be traced for a few hundred feet or less. Based upon our photograph review, a weak lineation appears to traverse through the central portion of ' the site in a northwestern direction in the 1962 photographs. The lineation cannot be traced north west of , the site. However, it can be traced to the southeast to Highway 79 South (Temecula Parkway). This trend is coincident with the trend of the fault zone mapped by the County of Riverside..The lineament was not observed on the other photos reviewed for this study. No other photographic and/or geomorphic ' expressions relating to faulting were observed to traverse through the subject site. Furthermore, our review of the CDMG (1994) and CGS (2010) Fault Activity Maps both indicate that zone of"Late Quaternary fault displacement (during past 700,000 years)" are mapped very close to or on the subject site. Zones of"historical fault displacement"are included on these maps to the northwest and southeast of the site, which are thought to be related to regional subsidence within the alluviated valley caused ground cracking in the Temecula area in the 1980s triggered by groundwater withdrawal. , These areas of historical fault displacement are not mapped through the subject site. S. FIELD INVESTIGATION ' A fault rupture hazard investigation was performed to determine the presence, location, and relative age of faults that may be present within the county-designated fault hazard zone at the site. ' Our investigation was performed in general accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act of 1972, with the California Geological Survey (CGS) Guidelines for Evaluaring the Hazard of Surface Fault ' Rupture (Note 49) and with Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (CGS Special Publication 117A, 2008). Our field investigation was performed April 28 through May 8, 2015, and consisted of excavation of two fault trenches totaling 250 lineal feet. Trench T-1 was excavated from the eastern margin of the County , Geocon Project No.T2670-22-01 .6. May 12,2015 ' ' Fault Hazard Zone (FHZ) southwestward 225 feet to 50 feet beyond the proposed building footprint 9see Figure 2). Trench T-2 was excavated approximately 50 feet southeast of the fault zone observed in T-1 1 for a length of 25 feet. The trenches were excavated approximately perpendicular to the County FHZ and the lineament noted in the 1962 photographs. The depth of the trenches ranged from 5 to 13.5 feet deep. ' Where necessary, the trenches were benched at an effective slope ratio of I:1 (horizontal:vertical) to provide safe working conditions. The purpose of the exploratory trenches was to look for evidence of fault rupture and to determine the age of faulting by evaluating if the faults extended through the bedrock units and into the overlying younger soils. Features such as through going fractures/ground cracks, faults, soft or disturbed zones, or abrupt changes in geologic units were examined and traced out to determine if they extended into overlying soils or extended into the bottom of the trench. We also evaluated if observed fractures were localized or through-going features by cleaning the opposite trench wall. Where features were not present on the opposite trench wall, were underlain by continuous unbroken formation below the feature, or which were overlaid my unbroken older alluvial soils the features were classified as fractures. The trench walls were scraped clean of smeared soils and a level line was strung to accurately depict the trench geometry. Soil and rock conditions encountered in the trench excavations were visually observed, classified and logged at a scale of I inch equals,5 feet in general accordance with California Geologic Survey (CGS)criteria by a Certified Engineering Geologist from our firm. The soil color was classified in accordance with the 2000 Munsel Soil Color Chart. Logs of the trenches are discussed above. Locations of the trenches are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.Trenches were backfrlled with little compactive ' effort and should be re-excavated during grading and replaced with compacted fill. 9. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 9.1 Fault Trench T-1 ' We excavated T-1 perpendicular to the Riverside County FHZ from the northeastern margin of the zone (at ST 0+00) to 50 feet beyond the building footprint (at ST 225+00). Our CEG met with the County Geologist, Mr. Dave Jones,at the trench on May 6, 2015 to review the subsurface exposure and ' discuss our findings. T-1 was 225 feet long was excavated to depths of 5 to 12.5 feet at a trend of N50E. The eastern portion of trench I had approximately five feet of older alluvium removed during previous earthwork operations to reach the cut grade elevation from which our trench was excavated. The southeastern wall ' was geologically logged for this study. Notes regarding our observation on the opposite wall are included on the trench logs. The trench exposed Pauba formation bedrock overlaid by older and younger alluvium which were, in turn, overlaid by artificial fill. A fault was observed at ST 58+00 to 61+50 within Pauba Units I and 2; coincident with the lineament observed in the 1962 aerial photos.. Apparent offset is 0.55 feet up on west within the bottom of the trench and .6 feet up on the east in the Gcocon Project No.P-670 21-01 .7- May 12.2015 upper portion of the trench indicating strike slip movement. The fault trends N57W and dips 63NE. ' The %2" to I" wide fracture was filled with soil and lined with carbonate. The fault was continuous through the Pauba formation but could not be-traced.through an overlying..Pleisocene age paleosol ' (Unit 4). The paleosol was more distinct and continuous on the opposite wall.where.the fault could be traced to the bottom of but not through the paleosol. At ST 62+50 a carbonate-lined fracture (trend N60W) was observed within Units I and 2 (three subparallel fractures were observed-on the opposite wall). The fractures extended through the Pauba ' formation.but did not extend into the overlying Pleistocene age.paleosol (Unit 4). A third feature was observed at ST 81+50 where a soil-lined fracture 1/8" wide was observed within the Pauba formation ' but did not extend through the overlying Pleistocene age paleosol (Unit 4). A fracture was also noted at ST 111+50. The fracture did not offset the contact between the Pauba formation (Unit 6) and-the older alluvium(Unit 5).The fracture was observed on the opposite wall trendinad trendsg N60W. ' The fractures discussed herein were all found to be continuous on the opposite trench wall, however, , they did not offset the geologic units and are likely due to seismic shaking during regional earthquake events. The fault appears to have affected only the Pauba bedrock and is much older than Holocene based on the continuous overlying paleosol. , 9.2 Fault Trench T-2 , T-2 was excavated along a slope approximately 50 feet southeast of Trench I in line with the projection of the fault observed between ST 58+00 and 61+50. The upper five feet was excavated , into the slope with a trench deepening the exposure to 13.5 feet. The excavation exposed artificial fill (Unit 10) overlying a Pleistocene age paleosol (Unit 4) and Pauba formation bedrock (Units I , and 2). Three fractures (trending N52W, N65E, and N50E) were observed within Unit I. However, they did not propagate through the unit into the overlying units (Unit 2 and Unit 4). No faulting was observed within the Trench T-2 excavation. The lack of fault exposure could be due to a variation in , the observed trend of the fault in Trench T-I or the possibility that the fault observed in Trench I is discontinuous and localized. ' 9.3 Additional Exposures , We also observed a cut slope located approximately 600 feet southeast of the property along the projected fault trace (N57W). The cut slope exposed several feet of silty sandstone of the Pauba , formation which was found to be continuous and unbroken. Gradational variations were observed but no faulting was observed in the exposure. Geocon Pmjec9 No.T-630-22-01 .8. May 12.2015 ' 10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' Based on the result of our investigation, it is our opinion that geologic conditions are not present at the site that would preclude the proposed development of the project. The following summarizes our conclusions: • Faulting is present at the site as observed in the exposure in Trench I between ST 58+00 and 61+50. • Based on the unfaulted Pleistocene age paleosol (Unit 4), the faulting is not interpreted to be active per the State definition (Bryant and Han, 2007) and does not pose a fault rupture hazard at the site. • Based on the Pleistocene age of the observed fault, a building setback zone is not ' recommended. Although the observed Pleistocene age fault is not considered active and does not pose a rupture hazard to the site, sympathetic rupture is known to have occurred on inactive faults during seismic events. Therefore, we recommend that the building be founded on a mat foundation that does not anchor the foundation into the ground and provides a slip surface between the building and the ground to reduce potential damage in the event of sympathetic movement along the fault during a regional event. The trench was excavated along the southern portion of the site in an area where landscape, natwork, and paving is planned. The trench and slope were backfilled with little compactive effort and may settle in the future.The client should consider this during site earthwork and have the grading contractor remediate the condition accordingly. 1 Geocon Project No.12630.22-01 -9- May 12,2015 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ' I. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the geologic conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. if any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or ' if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon West, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon West, Inc. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 1 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions ' of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied ' upon after a period of three years. 1 r Geocon Project No.T2630-22-01 May 12,2015 r LIST OF REFERENCES I. Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California ' Geological Survey Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007. 2. California Building Code, 2013, State of California, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Based on 2012 International Building Code: International Conference of Building Officials and California Building Standards Commission, 3 Volumes. 3. California Geological Survey (C.G.S.), Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture, Note No. 49, 4 pp., 2002. 4. California Geological Survey (CGS), Earthquake Shaking Potential for California, from USGS/CGS Seismic Hazards Model, CSSC No. 03-02, 2003. 5. California Geological Survey (CGS), Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping-Ground Motion Page, 2003, CGS Website: www.conserv.ca.pov/cgs/rehm/pshaman. 6. CDMG, 1990,Alquist-Priolo.Special Studies Zones Map ofthe Temecula Quadrangle, Revised ' Official Map. 7. Dawson, T.E.,.Rockwell, T.K., Weldon II, R.J., and Wills, C.J., Summary of Geologic Data and Development of A Priori Rupture Models for the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and Garlock Faults; Appendix F: USGS Open File Report 2007-1437F CGS Special Report 203F, 26 pp., 2008. 8. Geocon West, Inc., 2015, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Hope Lutheran Church, Lot 9, TR 3552, Parcel Map Book 56163-66, Temecula, California, .Project T2630-22-01 dated ' May 5. 9. Harden, D.R., California Geology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 479 pp., 1998. 10. Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42 11. Jennings, C.W., Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, CDMG Map No. 6, 1994. 12. Kennedy, Michael P., Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, C.D.M.G. Special.Report 131, 1977. ' 13. Riverside County Information Technology GIS Maps, 2015. 14. Shlemon, R.J. and Hakakian, M., undated, Fissures Produced Both by Groundwater Rise and Groundwater Fall: A Geologic Paradox in the Temecula-Murrieta Area, Southwestern Riverside County, California. 15. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999. 16. Tan & Kennedy, 2000, CDMG Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, Sort Diego Geocon Project No.T2630-22-01 May 12,2015 and Riverside Counties, California. 17. Temecula Engineering Consultants, Inc., 2015, Conceptual Grading Plan, Lot 9, TR3552, MB 56163-66, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, Sheets 1 through 4, dated April 17. 18. USGS computer program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, http://eatlhguake.usas.gov/designmaps/us/application.php, accessed November 5, 2014. 19. Waring, G.A., Ground Water in the San Jacinto and Temecula Basins, California, USGS Water Supply Paper 429, 1919. 20. Western Municipal Water District Cooperative Well Measurement Program, Spring 2012. LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Riverside County Flood Control District, 1949, Photo No AXM-9F-141, dated May 23, 1949. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1962, Photo Nos. 3404 and 3405, Scale 1" = 1,600', dated January 30, 1962. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1974, Photo Nos. 1038, 1039, and 1040, Scale 1" = 2,000', dated June 20, 1974. iRiverside County Flood Control District, 1980, Photo Nos. 10-56 and 10-57, Scale I" = 2,000', dated May 4, 1980. ' Riverside County Flood Control District, 1983, Photo Nos. 200 and 201, Scale 1" = 1,600', dated November 27, 1983. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1990, Photo Nos. 19-20 and 19-21, Scale I" = 1,600', dated April 10, 1990. Riverside County Flood Control District, 1995, Photo Nos. 19-14, 19-15, and 19-16, Scale I" = 1,600', dated February 3, 1995. ' Riverside County Flood Control District, 2000, Photo Nos. 19-15, 19-16, and 19-17, Scale I" = 1,600', dated April 12, 2000. ' Riverside County Flood Control District, 2005, Photo Nos. 19-17 and 19-18, Scale 1" = 1,600', dated July 17, 2005. Riverside County Flood Control District, 2010, Photo Nos. 19-17 and 19-18, Scale 1" = 1,600', dated March 16, 2010. Gcocon Projcct No.T2630-22-01 May 12,2015 dT 4 J" Q,a p9 °em YNI.q!Vi[,I A(tlrlrtRllu R� M z rm .'Su elMcWe..' V W,reM V. VdM' ry,W.a 5 Rd MgM,d,b ^4a Tm 'V.9Y , �9n scnod i sAdb ro a '$ 3, ke Ville auao O W°Gs a na 4 RS. P.k rd d i a . rel,�«uia v°am�iwmy P.�R Ae i Temecula �, q '$ � wrnowR rutsl 41 _ a IV y ° � yiNn+Ru L4 AJ f n � oyo of 9 SITE cmmunnYclurtn- le '1+,Z�'v' In.NAUIB 19 QV HWY i9 EY r C� 1creek mT,u>v° a,P GooglC cwl>rolew sew^" .d4 REFERENCE,GOOGLE MAPS I NOT TO SCALE GE O C ON �� - _ _ VICINITY MAP W E S T, I N C. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9,TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101-MURRIETA,CA 92562 TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304-2392 DAH/CER T— MAY,2015 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG. 1 L— — 1 I - C so 51 46 62 �t ♦ I I r/ // !! e i a ; 1ti 46 / 53 7 / 4T 54 \ 1146 / y ss I a 1 is!I 1 / l 1 ! 1 — 57 1 ` 0 3 / 11 ! ( r so l `lll rl u1 J I III�I_Illllg ` ,` , EASTERN LIMIT IVERSIDE , COUNTY FAULT HAZARD ZONE m5 Al , 1 eo 9III�IIII 40 1 61 ! ! 1 11 1 59 I 50 FEET BEYONPRINT/l 17/,dn 3e I r Jr a I n 6 74 r , / �" , 76 LOCATION OF LINEAMENT y III�I II k4 t / 1 34 / I AND FAULT f I 33 >a �GIII_ I J 11 2 mn 32 / ! 66 66 eb e7 da ` I ow) I 7%1 r n 7e 76 eo e1 62 > � 72 II T 1 o' 91 go so Too � ee of " ue bs I e0 °' � �� J — — — — — — — 1 if I I kol, 1 GEOCON LEGEND 1 / I---� .......APPROX.LOCATION OF ' T-2 FAULT TRENCH — — _ .......APPROX.LOCATION OF LINEAMENT AND FAULT GEOCON "z GEOLOGIC MAP EASTERN LIMIT OF RIVERSIDE W E B T. I N C. R) HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH COUNTY FAULT ZONE , , LOT 9,TR3552 O 50 100, ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56163-66 . .......50 FEET BEYOND BUILDING FOOTPRINT 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101-MURRIETA,CA 92562 ' PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304-2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA DAH/CER MAY,2015 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG.2 1 1 o o S E ty ar Temecu 3 4 a NOC M O Riverelde County TLMA GIS REFERENCE:RIVERSDIE COUNTY LAND INFORMATION SYSTEM 1 � NOT TO SCALE GEOCON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAULT HAZARD MAP W E S T, I N C. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH LOT 9,TR3552 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63-66 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101-MURRIETA,CA 92562 TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304-2392 CER MAY,2015 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG.3 � _ i rrl} �� jfTl . h' �t ._f�� l fit- Y'1," _i ' ~- iF + � ' �i-: II . . j ,__ _ Tr�nch1�- I { ;-•-_ 1r , `t i� F.- `! __}� -+ I�i .� , 4 1- I_ 1 - I I -4' era r , T I 1 , I I I - 7 i ' t. i. l L tYi r� 1� 1I' r�0; 1 _ �'!0#_D07 i 13o'E� j j }7� �I 1 T1� 1 fPJ I-. I (TI L; +' 1 1- T I; • ' l � �i I „ l�l_ 1_ iPi �- � I-r a.._`_i -i rt•I I 1— Y f._.._ _ r J__��r r r�• I ' r I 1 T. TJ � �- � ItL� 1 1)�I }I;r_I '�-Iry1--'�T 1 T-I-r -I�+ TT _i I�`�i�tT�r•--1--+'-�-a I T•` 1 1 1 I I 1.I LI.I.-]�L 1.. � • .T� � .1.t , , ._ � T _ - ,I � _ I +�J•T 1 1-( _ I r�J� I I 1 i7 l I I�}'�'}-'F I Ij 1:_•_ i2.' L _I••I-.'Trt' f 1-.- +-; 1 +'�:' J-,J-,i- T r -T.: r }i 1 •� , J''-l-i- f•�rl I • J 1- :1-1 i I 1 1 1 -' -• - ^-1 ` -t i-i-j�--� H ---a '-r t ;-I ' t I' ' _T T-I'--•I--I1 , I I1 I I I 2 1t I I 'Y_ 1( }Tf r-F, *1 Tt} -1 �"f't' 'f�_.s.✓- Y l y' +15--- iT TY? T�4-�"_f -F� .L L-. _Ir�'A J f J.}}i 1-tI �a Y 1 1 rirltl +-�1- I II r T' r I�y1 111 L I 1 I` IT l I �l 1If' I 7. 1 r-{ , 1 �_1_Y , I. �- 1 I 1��I I�- L Ifs I _ 1. f .i a J . I , T �- ---�Q. 0� y T�� �0+OD - f'Pp "wQ/i i�t00 ' 90IOb t I ' i i foot-go r - t�_I `-*t 1 i t 1 TTTT`�-�'' _�1 1 _ 1 -_ _i- T-C'�'f Tr-' '--I ! ' i `Y.- r ' J 1��..1-.T�T r^L J r �' t! T1 1 T_ ' ' rt i { t-.:11L�� Tr —fT�_iT ' L�i: I ' 1� r �l+ ' }. -`r �� . ._ 1t�' � 11 a71—ITi }a ;_"I � -r-i 1 1 I I f4111 f _} `_-� r' it I. I ~t ' I$O.{{�_T? ' 1 fi �L-rt-4-t— � +`7 T arp -1_�f 1ty_T jilt- ITI T 1- Lt l •'I- - _ - I -F -'1-t .. _'I_. f If l-�-rt I� t _ I i' - 1 .�Lt I- . I 1. i I )�.�. _I , +- '—t --r l - l -i:� i. l• Fl 1 1 -7 ; T` $T I�fI .�. 71 �J t •t - �Jt_ 6 F 1. 1 r ,� - I 1 -� N 53.. .I 1 "- i - I I j I - ti . ( a ) r NfpD:Ul _ 111 r� FF17", r I + r `�IIF .^.T F.1 - 1 f.iN57w ' ' I t 1 ' 17 , SIIMI IOl►'' QL-(NYICe. _1 i r r + -, L 3:N -, `�-Fhr}ee pa. .,�I�. .op-i +� } J /^- I.. 1 r t W ' I , 11 t {{ •� I 1 - � �-rllaIOWtn!-. Wq�� �111ne4 {AWI � Yb A�G 1" 1 i_ Jt LevtD�F Y2Q PJVe!�I�fIr1�C _ r 1r . , l'. , t-' �-. •�- t bro n Sm 1 L_{ 1 k' t Does o_� 90 i-in poi �UI/ir1��CcihbOYla�G aIl � } --- ' - I �.11 �T...- I_ 1 _ 11 J -1 - t L + pu2rltesja f l I 'I , , ` 1- i I T 1 I + : 1 tLi Imo. I r T I I"�iI T�TTT�- Y-I i -� �_-_ 't `-I'i 11 �_✓-`-'I i-i • 1_' r ( I L I f I � "r i-i i T I I l_,. 1 '1 1 I._t 1 SCALE V=5' GEOCON FAULT TRENCH LOGS w E s T. i N Co HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS LOT 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101-MURRIETA,CA 92562 PARCEL MAPP BOOK OOK 56163-66 1 SEE REPORT FOR DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)304-2392 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CERILAB MAY,2015 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG.4 1 I I ! I 1 ! , , 1 1 • 1 I— 'I I , 1 T --•--' , • ,' r - - liI I � i T �. F, r ,�� • � lI .. 11 1 •� I ��;_ T_ rF lr r• • , 1 ! � I , it i ! J Ill , lo0'roc_ UO+oo� _ . :�saroo' 190t� 'Iyo-ro0; I {15ot-oo `. ' � IIII • ' ! � ° ' ills � i � • ` � I _�_.. ,• 1 ! , i I � i 14 - . ! ! 1 ! � � �._� 1_I � , , . I 1 . 1 { 1 "! , r`T' ! 1 T li + , II L 1 r J I Ill-T! 1 - IIII � , t � iI 7I� II ` l 111 ifIli 11I1111 Tr 11 i . .. ♦ , i , 4 I� , I ! 1 � � III iJ ' 1 I 11 � � 1. . 1 �.i 1 1 T- T 1_ - + i-r•: -I ` 1 r • f - , ! I 1 1 ` , ) •It i- l � l { � ' � l . iJ I1 � { � 1I� 111 • rr 1 I } ;_ _IF rr J f4 iT �{ 1J`. 11 I • I {`I t7.f + -+ 1- .L LITI L41 11 f r ! { r I • • r I . I I , 7 IIAI I I - `r T � I� ,� lCIULY1n��. tl-��� � 1 ! � I � + ` 1 I r ' ( v _ _ .l{ 1 1 r ^f } ".b , r `I .: .!©!s: i �,.t 1 * t i y rI. L ' ,• ,. iJ ,_I " � 1 LLf e •�-•..' f.H •. ••� •��• o •C•ro r . '.� . :T.� �, i • .. /: , 1!TLI T>_ rt �iac�wt Glilazil l A' z s d n orpp.vlaU I c e allil. dl b 0.pQCarS to GIAGYI CNav1n! r` Y r i IZ b _ T- i i 5oto0 I40+oo- IN+oo mum - +_ iT T ; +- j._L_ ... a'. SLVC✓Q� 'COYI�7rlCcOk$ T W7 k4 6o�a.(/3ecQ G�ssb[s1o(i . . . }- T pp 1 .g�gni �e S fJ! , k ..G/a y:dw A SCALE V=5' GEOCON FAULT TRENCH LOGS W E B T, I N C. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS LOT 9,TR3552 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUITE 101-MURRIETA,CA 92562 PARCEL MAP BOOK 56/63.66 PHONECE (951)RMB 2300 FAX (951)304 2392 MAY,2015 TEM PROJECT, CALIFORNIA --22.07 FIG.5 SEE REPORT FOR DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS I 1 1 rub I �. : 11 � . I 111 . I r ' 1 - Ij 1 _( I -•1 { t 4I- "a � III ; T1. 1 'h h i �Ilr ; ir o . 1 0 •o. '� '.4� o'Q.•.•�pe�0 4 v. � { I _ } I r 4. 1. 1 1 04 fo r ao ?o,�ao r>,nl b L4 i 1 1 {.. larkure-; 1 I N52w u CAvlhbit�li V'ALL♦-LIYQ ho o N105�-23d6 ISe,( , hD 11st - N50.E . t SCALE 1"=5' GEOCON FAULT TRENCH LOGS w E S T. I N C. HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS LOT 41571 CORNING PLACE-SUF E 101-MURRIETA,CA 92562 PARCEL MAPP BOOK OOK 56/63-66 ' SEE REPORT FOR DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS PHONE (951)304-2300 - FAX (951)3M-2392 TEMECULA,CALIFORNIA CERIIAB MAY,2015 PROJECT NO.T2630-22-01 FIG.6 I