The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 36336 Parcel 7 Geotechnical Reports Audi 7, z GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND PERCOLATION TESTING REPORT PROPOSED AUDI DEALERSHIP TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for HORINE GROUP 2190 Carmel Valley Road, Suite F Del Mar, California 92014 Project No. 10831 .001 October 30, 2014 4 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY October 30, 2014 Project No. 10831.001 Horine Group 2190 Carmel Valley Road, Suite F Del Mar, California 92014 Attention: Kathryn Conniff Subject: Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report Proposed Audi Dealership Parcel 7 of Parcel Map 36330 Temecula, California In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical exploration for the subject site located generally south west of the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive (south of existing Mercedes Benz Dealership) in the City of Temecula, California (see Figure 1). This report summarizes our geotechnical findings and provides our preliminary recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements. Based on the results of our exploration, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during design and construction phases of development. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. �pOF kpE0 0 0�f%T F 00 Nw2941 4�OCEIMFFM ENGNIEFOG Slmonl. Saiid � Robert F. Riha GE 2641 (Exp. 09/30/15) CEG 1921 (Exp. 02/29/16) Principal Engineer Senior Principal Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee (plus one PDF copy on CD) Geolechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Site Description ................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Description ..............................................................................................2 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............... 3 2.1 Field Exploration..................................................................................................3 2.2 Laboratory Testing ..............................................................................................3 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ................................4 3.1 Regional Geology................................................................................................4 3.2 Site Specific Geology..........................................................................................4 3.2.1 Earth Materials ...................................................................................................4 3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water........................................................................5 3.4 Regional Faulting and Fault Activity....................................................................5 3.5 Ground Shaking and Seismic Coefficients Per 2013 CBC.................................5 3.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards...............................................................................6 3.6.1 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and/or Dry Settlement).................................6 3.6.2 Ground Rupture..................................................................................................6 3.6.3 Rock Falls...........................................................................................................6 3.6.4 Seiches, Tsunamis, Inundation Due to Large Water Storage Facilities .............7 3.6.5 Slope Stability and Landslides............................................................................7 3.6.6 Subsidence.........................................................................................................7 3.7 Preliminary Percolation/Infiltration Rates............................................................7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 8 4.1 General................................................................................................................8 4.2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................8 4.2.1 Remedial Grading ..............................................................................................8 4.2.2 Structural Fills.....................................................................................................9 4.2.3 Slope Construction...........................................................................................10 4.2.4 Import Soils.......................................................................................................10 4.2.5 Utility Trenches.................................................................................................11 4.2.6 Temporary Slope Stability ................................................................................12 4.2.7 Shrinkage .........................................................................................................12 4.2.8 Drainage...........................................................................................................12 4.3 Foundation Design............................................................................................ 12 4.3.1 Design Parameters- Spread/Continuous Shallow Footings............................12 4.3.2 Design Parameters- Light Poles.....................................................................13 4.3.3 Interior Slab Design..........................................................................................14 4.3.4 Settlement Estimates........................................................................................14 4.4 Footing Setback ................................................................................................ 15 Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 w 4.5 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................. 15 4.6 Sulfate Attack .................................................................................................... 16 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design........................................................................... 16 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ............................ 18 6.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 20 Accompanying Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices List of Tables TABLE 1. 2013 CBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS PER USGS GENERAL PROCEDURE .......... 6 TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF PERCOLATION/INFILTRATION TESTING...................................... 7 TABLE 3. RETAINING WALL DESIGN EARTH PRESSURES (STATIC, DRAINED)...............15 TABLE 4. ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS.........................................................................17 Figures and Plates (end of text) Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Geotechnical and Boring Location Plan Figure 3— Fault Hazard Map Appendices Appendix A— Logs of Geotechnical Borings Appendix B —Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix D —ASFE - Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report - ii - Leighton Geotechnical Expbration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This geotechnical exploration is for the proposed Audi dealership located in the City of Temecula, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). Our scope of services for this exploration included the following: • Review of available site-specific geologic information and provided site plan. • A site reconnaissance and excavation of 4 exploratory borings. Approximate locations of these borings are depicted on Figure 2. The logs of borings are presented in Appendix A. • Geotechnical laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected during this exploration. Test results are presented in Appendix B. • Percolation testing at two locations adjacent to the existing water quality basin that parallels Interstate 15, which is proposed to remain. • Geotechnical engineering analyses performed or as directed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) and reviewed by a California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG). • Preparation of this report which presents our geotechnical conclusions and recommendations regarding the grading and design of the proposed structures. This report is not intended to be used as an environmental assessment (Phase I or other), or foundation/grading plan review. 1.2 Site Description As depicted on Figure 1, the site of the proposed Audi dealership is generally located west of the future extension of Temecula Center Drive, east of Interstate 15, and immediately south of the Mercedes Dealership, in the City of Temecula, California. The site is an approximately 6.2-acre parcel of land that was previously "sheet graded" and contains two water quality basins. The northern water quality basin was constructed during the recent development of the adjacent Mercedes Dealership, The southwestern water quality basin was constructed during the previous overall site grading in 2003, under the geotechnical observation and testing services of Leighton (Leighton, 2004). Previous site grading involved the removal of existing alluvium and weathered Pauba Formation, and the placement 4110, - 1 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 of compacted artificial fill to the current site elevations. These fill soils have a maximum depth of approximately thirty-eight feet to create the existing sheet graded pad. Site vegetation is very sparse and consists of annual weeds and grasses. 1.3 Project Description We understand that the proposed development will consist of the construction of a main building divided into three distinct "volumes" consisting of a showroom, service reception, and service workshop, surrounded by parking lots. It is also our understanding that the existing water quality basin along the western portion of the property will remain; however, it may be reconfigured. The northern basin is to be filled and storm drain pipe re-routed. The proposed one-story buildings are expected to consist of masonry block or concrete tilt-up wall panels and metal roofing with typical structural loads. Site grading is expected to be minimal (cut/fill <10 feet) plus remedial grading, where applicable. Cut or fill slopes are expected to be constructed at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclinations. - 2- Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Field Exploration Our field exploration consisted of the excavation of four (4) borings within the site. Two additional borings were excavated to a depth of 4 feet below ground surface to be used as percolation tests. During exploration, in-situ undisturbed (Cal Ring) and disturbed/bulk samples were collected from the borings for further laboratory testing and evaluation. Approximate locations of these exploratory borings are depicted on the Geotechnical and Boring Location Plan (Figure 2). Sampling was conducted by a staff geologist from our firm. After logging and sampling, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during excavation. The exploration logs from this exploration investigation are included in Appendix A. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and geotechnical design parameters. The laboratory testing program included expansion index, in-situ moisture and density, R-value, sieve analysis and corrosion suite. The results of our laboratory testing from this exploration are presented in Appendix B. -3 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS 3.1 Regional Geology The site is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This province is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that trend northwestward. More specifically, the site is located within the southwestern portion of the relatively stable Perris Block, adjacent to the Elsinore Trough (Kennedy, 1977). The Perris Block, approximately 20 miles by 50 miles in extent, is bounded by the San Jacinto Fault Zone to the northwest, the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest, the Cucamonga Fault Zone to the northwest, and the Temecula Basin to the southeast. The Perris Block has had a complex tectonic history, apparently undergoing relative vertical land-movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones. Thin sedimentary and volcanic materials locally mantle crystalline bedrock. Prior to grading (Leighton, 2004), alluvial fan deposits filled the lower valley areas. 3.2 Site Specific Geology 3.2.1 Earth Materials Our field exploration, observations, and review of the pertinent literature indicate that the site is underlain by a compacted fill and Pleistocene-age coarse-grained formation (locally known as Pauba Formation). A maximum depth of thirty-eight feet of artificial fill (Leighton, 2004) exists across the site. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age. A more detailed description of each unit is provided on the logs of borings in Appendix A. • Artificial Fill: Artificial fill soils were locally observed across the site and generally expected to extend from 0 to thirty-eight feet below ground surface (BGS). As encountered in our borings, artificial fill soils appear to be silty sand (SM) to clayey sand (SC) derived from onsite sources. Based on the results of our laboratory testing during site grading and this investigation, these materials are expected to possess very low to low expansion potential (EIa50). Some highly expansive soils are known to exist within the deeper fill layers underlying the site. • Pauba Formation: The bedrock materials (Pauba Formation) were only encountered in boring B-4 located within the northern water quality basin - 4 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 and is expected to underlie all fill soils at depth. These materials generally consist of medium-dense to very dense, silty sands (SM) with interbedded silt with sand (MIL), and clayey sand (SC). Based on the results of our laboratory testing, these materials appear to generally possess low expansion potential (21<EI<50). However, some interbedded silt and clay layers may possess medium to high expansion potential (51<EI<121). 3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation, during the preliminary investigation, nor during the rough grading of the subject site (Leighton, 2003 and 2004). However, it should be noted that local perched water conditions may occur in the future, and may fluctuate seasonally, depending on rainfall conditions. Surface water was not observed during this study; however surface water should be expected during inclement weather within the onsite water quality basins. 3.4 Regional Faulting and Fault Activity The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located 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 fault systems such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Elsinore Fault Zones. Based on published geologic hazard maps, this subject site is not located within a currently designated Alquist- Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest AP Earthquake Fault Zone is approximately 1900 feet west of the site. 3.5 Ground Shaking and Seismic Coefficients per 2013 CBC Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. The site-specific seismic coefficients provided in this section are based on an interactive tool/program currently available on USGS website. Based on ASCE 7-10 as the Design Code Reference Document and site Class D, the seismic coefficients for this site are as listed in the following table: - 5 0 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 Table 1. 2013 CBC Seismic Coefficients per USGS General Procedure Categorization/CoefficientCBC Design Value (g)Longitude(-117.17008) Site Latitude(33.53529) Site Class Definition D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, S. 1.96 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.80 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.00 Long Period Site Coefficient at is Period, F, 1.50 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMs 1.96 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, SMI 1.20 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Sos 1,31 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SDI 0.80 g- Gravity acceleration The results of the analysis also indicate that the adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM)for this site is 0.80g. 3.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards Ground shaking can induce "secondary" seismic hazards such as liquefaction, dynamic densification, and ground rupture, as discussed in the following subsections: 3.6.1 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and/or Dry Settlement) A northwestern portion of the site contains a Riverside County Liquefaction Hazard zone. However, due to the previous remedial grading and removal of alluvium (Leighton, 2004), lack of shallow groundwater, and relatively dense underlying materials (Pauba formation), the potential for liquefaction/dynamic-induced settlement is considered very low. If occurred, this settlement is expected to be generally global and over a large area. As such, the differential settlement is expected to be less than 0.5-inch in a 40- foot horizontal distance within this site. 3.6.2 Ground Rupture Since this site is not located within a mapped Alquist Priolo Fault Hazard Zone, the possibility of ground surface-fault-rupture is very low at this site. 3.6.3 Rock Falls The potential for rock fall due to either erosion or seismic ground shaking is considered non-existent in this area. - 6 49 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 3.6.4 Seiches, Tsunamis, Inundation Due to Large Water Storage Facilities Due to the great distance to large bodies of water, the possibility of seiches and tsunamis impacting the site is considered remote. 3.6.5 Slope Stability and Landslides The existing westerly facing fill slope is considered grossly stable. Due to the relatively modest relief across the site and anticipated graded slope heights, the risk of deep-seated slope failure on this site or adjacent sites is considered very low. The site is not considered susceptible to seismically induced landslides. 3.6.6 Subsidence In accordance with County of Riverside Geologic Hazard Maps, the northwestern portion of the site is located within an active subsidence area. However, due to the previous grading (Leighton 2004), we consider the potential for differential subsidence and ground fissuring on this site to be very low. 3.7 Preliminary Percolation/Infiltration Rates Percolation testing was performed to obtain preliminary percolation/infiltration rates for design of retention basins. The tests were performed in general accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control guidelines for BMP's (County, 2011). Results reported below are the most conservative readings in minutes per inch drop. The infiltration rates were estimated using the Prochet Method. Table 2. Summary of Percolation/infiltration Testing Test Test Location -. Description P-1 See Figure 2 4.0 25 0.195 Lt. Brown Silty Sand/Fill P-2 See Figure 2 4.0 25 0.185 Lt. Brown Silty Sand/Fill - 7- Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General The proposed site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. 4.2 Earthwork Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix C of this report. In case of conflict, the following recommendations should supersede those in Appendix C. The contract between the Owner and the earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly and in accordance with recommendations presented in this report, including the guide specifications in Appendix C, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all-structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface debris and subsurface pipelines and obstructions. Voids created by removal of below grade material should be backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Heavy vegetation, roots and debris should be disposed of offsite. 4.2.1 Remedial Grading Due to the dry and irregular nature of the existing ground surface, the following should be followed during site preparation. Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all-structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) for the proposed building should be cleared of surface and subsurface pipelines and obstructions. Vegetation, roots and debris should be disposed of offsite. Voids created by removal of buried material should be backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Area specific remedial grading recommendations are provided as follows: • Basins: Prior to placing fill, the existing ground surface should be cleared of all vegetation and loose soils (upper 12 inches) until existing dense compacted fill and/or Pauba Formation is exposed throughout the bottom. The cleared ground surface should be thoroughly scarified; moisture - 8 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30, 2014 conditioned to minimum optimum moisture content and compacted to minimum 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. Additional fill placement should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 8 inches; moisture conditioned to optimum moisture and compacted to minimum 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557. During fill placement and compaction, the adjacent compacted fill should be benched during compaction efforts. • Building: In building footprint area and horizontally a minimum of 3 feet beyond the outermost foundation elements, the upper twelve inches of soils, or twelve inches below bottom of footings and/or slab-on-grade, whichever is deeper, should be removed and recompacted. After completion of the recommended removal and prior to placing additional fill, the approved bottom of removal should be scarified a minimum of 6 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Localized areas of deeper removals are possible, depending on the actual conditions encountered during construction and depth of footings. • Flatwork/Pavement: In fill areas of proposed concrete flatwork or pavement, a minimum remedial removal and recompaction of the upper 6 inches should be performed. In cut areas (>6 inches), the subgrade should only be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to required compaction. Localized areas of deeper removals may be needed depending on the actual conditions encountered during construction. Subgrade should be tested to verify expansion potential (EI). If El is greater than 51, over-excavation (OX) of 12 inches should be performed. The OX areas should be backfilled with non-expansive soils (EI<21). 4.2.2 Structural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for reuse as compacted fill, provided they are free of organic materials, expansive soils, debris, and oversize materials (greater than 8 inches in greatest dimension). Topsoil and vegetation layers, root zones, and similar surface materials should be striped and stockpiled or removed from the site. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557) and at or above the optimum moisture content. Fills placed on slopes (i.e. basin backfill) steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical) should be benched into dense soils (see Appendix C for benching detail). - 9 - Leighton ti Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 Benching should be of sufficient depth to remove all loose material. A minimum bench height of 2 feet into approved material should be maintained at all times Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the City of Temecula Grading Ordinance and recommendations of Appendix C, under the full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical engineer. Fill materials with expansion index greater than 21 should not be used in upper 3 feet of subgrade soils below building pads. If cobbles and boulders larger than 6-inches in largest diameter are encountered or produced during grading, these oversized cobbles and boulders should be reduced to less than 6 inches or placed in structural fill as outlined in Appendix C. 4.2.3 Slope Construction Fill slope keyways will be necessary at the toe of all fill slopes placed beyond the areas of existing fill and at fill-over-cut contacts. Keyway schematics, including dimensions and subdrain recommendations, are provided in Appendix C. All keyways should be excavated into dense artificial fill or Pauba formation as determined by the geotechnical engineer. The cut portions of all slope and keyway excavations should be geologically mapped and approved by a geologist prior to fill placement. Compacted fill or cut slopes up to 20 feet in height at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) are considered grossly stable for static and pseudostatic conditions. Higher or steeper slopes should be subject to further review and evaluation. The outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a weighted sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed. The slope face should then be track-walked by dozers of appropriate weight to achieve the final slope configuration and compaction of slope face. Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to rainfall and irrigation. Landscaping and slope maintenance should be conducted as soon as possible in order to increase long-term surficial stability. Berms and or v-ditch drainage devises should be provided at the top of all slopes. Drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized. 4.2.4 Import Soils Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by us prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have very low - 10 4 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 expansion potential (E<21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements. 4.2.5 Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, ("Greenbook"), 2012 Edition. Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means only. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils are screened of rocks over 1'/z inches in diameter and organic matter. If imported sand is used as backfill, the upper 3 feet in building and pavement areas should be compacted to 95 percent. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches adjacent moisture sensitive subgrades and foundation soils, we recommend that a cut-off "plug" of impermeable material be placed in these trenches at the perimeter of buildings, and at pavement edges adjacent to irrigated landscaped areas. A "plug" can consist of a 5-foot long section of clayey soils with more than 35- percent passing the No. 200 sieve, or a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of one sack of Portland-cement plus one sack of bentonite per cubic-yard of sand. CLSM should generally conform to requirements of the "Greenbook". This is intended to reduce the likelihood of water permeating trenches from landscaped areas, then seeping along permeable trench backfill into the building and pavement subgrades, resulting in wetting of moisture sensitive subgrade earth materials under buildings and pavements. Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders (latest Edition). The contractor should be responsible for providing a "competent person" as defined in Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils could make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not properly implemented. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. Leighton Consulting, Inc. does not consult in the area of safety engineering. - 11 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 r. 4.2.6 Temporary Slope Stabilitv Existing site soils and or graded artificial fill should be considered as OSHA soil Type C. Therefore, unshored temporary cut slopes should be no steeper than 1'/2:1 (horizontal:vertical), for a height no-greater-than 20 feet (California Construction Safety Orders, Subchapter 4, Section 1541.1, Table B-1). During construction, exposed earth material conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor should be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination between the competent person and geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. 4.2.7 Shrinkage The volume change of excavated onsite soils upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, and location and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust grades slightly to accommodate some variation. Based on our geotechnical laboratory test results, we expect recompaction shrinkage (when recompacted to an average 92 percent of ASTM D 1557) of 5- to 10-percent by volume for the existing fill or Pauba formation materials. 4.2.8 Drainage All drainage should be directed away from structures, slopes and pavements by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of any proposed pad should be provided to avoid wetting of foundation soils. Irrigation adjacent to buildings should be avoided when possible. As an option, sealed-bottom planter boxes and/or drought resistant vegetation should be used within 5-feet of buildings. 4.3 Foundation Design Shallow spread or continuous wall footings bearing on a newly placed properly compacted fill are anticipated for the proposed structures. 4.3.1 Design Parameters — Spread/Continuous Shallow Footings Footings should be embedded at least 12-inches below lowest adjacent grade for the proposed structure. Footing embedment should be measured from lowest adjacent finished grade, considered as the top of interior slabs- on-grade or the finished exterior grade, excluding landscape topsoil, whichever is lower. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches or vaults should be embedded below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) plane - 12 WV - Leighton Geolechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 projected upward and outward from the bottom edge of the trench or vault, up towards the footing. • Bearing Capacity: For footings founded on properly compacted fill soil, an allowable vertical bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds-per-square-foot (psf) should be used. . The bearing pressure value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of embedment or each additional foot of width to a maximum vertical bearing value of 3,000 psf. These bearing values may be increased by one-third when considering short- term seismic or wind loads. All continuous perimeter or interior footings should be reinforced with at least one No. 5 bar placed both top and bottom. • Lateral loads: Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting subgrade. A maximum allowable frictional resistance of 0.35 may be used for design. In addition, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against foundations poured neat against properly compacted granular fill. We recommend that an allowable passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds-per-cubic-foot (pcf) be used in design. These friction and passive values have already been reduced by a factor-of-safety of 1.5. 4.3.2 Design Parameters — Light Poles For light poles or any other similar structure founded on 24- or 30-inch drilled piers extending to a minimum of 5 feet below proposed finish grade, the following geotechnical parameters should be considered for design: • An allowable end bearing pressure of 3,000 psf may be used if the pier is embedded a minimum of 5 feet into compacted fill or competent Pauba formation bedrock. An increase of 250 psf may be applied for every foot of depth thereafter, to a maximum pressure of 4,000 psf. A one-third increase in allowable pressure may be used for short duration loads as wind or seismic. • Uplift resistance should be limited to the weight of the pier plus 800 psf of skin friction for the portion of pier below 3 feet. Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by the passive earth pressure against the sides of the pier. The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 4,500 psf. The above allowable pressures are based on soil characteristics only. The structural engineer should check the allowable pressures permitted by the selected caisson size and materials. - 13 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 4.3.3 Interior Slab Design Slab-on-grade floors utilized with conventional foundations should be designed with a minimum thickness as indicated by the project structural engineer consistent with a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds- per-square-inch per inch (pci) and reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. A moisture retarder should be installed underneath all slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. The vapor retarder should be sealed at all penetrations and laps and properly installed in accordance with the recommendations of the architect, concrete subcontractor, and the manufacturer' recommendations. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. A slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab It is been a standard of care to place a 10-mil Visqueen moisture retarder (or equivalent) underneath all moisture sensitive slabs. This moisture retarder is typically covered by a 2-inch layer of sand (SE of 30 or greater) to reduce curling. Visqueen sheets should overlap at least 6-inches. If storage of moisture sensitive records (files) or floor coverings (e.g. vinyl tile, etc.) are to be used, additional moisture mitigation measures may be employed within or beneath concrete slab-on-grade floors. Moisture retarders do not completely eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs or from the unbonded water in the concrete. To further reduce moisture vapor emissions that may result in delamination and other tile damage, we recommend that moisture retarder specialist be consulted. 4.3.4 Settlement Estimates For settlement estimates, we assumed that column loads will be no larger than 90 kips, with bearing wall loads not exceeding 4.5 kips per foot of wall. If greater column or wall loads are required, we should re-evaluate our foundation recommendation, and re-calculate settlement estimates. Buildings located on properly compacted fill soils as required per Section 4.2 should be designed in anticipation of 1 inch of total settlement and 1/2- inch of differential settlement within a 40 foot horizontal run. - 14 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 4.4 Footing Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet and need not be greater than 20 feet for this project. Note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. 4.5 Retaining Walls Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils can be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures: Table 3. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) LoadingDensityConditions Sloped Backfill Active 37 55 At-Rest 55 75 Passive' 300 150 (2:1, sloping down) This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 3,500 psf at depth. Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils 410, - 15 4 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 that are free draining (see Appendix C for typical drainage). In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design. All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non- expansive (El < 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer. 4.6 Sulfate Attack The result of our laboratory testing on a representative sample showing a negligible exposure to sulfate attack is included in Appendix B. Further testing should be performed at the completion of site grading to confirm soluble-sulfate content in onsite subgrade soils. 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design The preliminary pavement design provided below is based on the locally accepted Caltrans Highway Design Manual and an R-value of 14 based on our laboratory testing. For planning and estimating purposes, the pavement sections are calculated based on assumed Traffic Indexes (TI) indicated in Table below and reflect design criteria of 20 years life span. - 16 - Leighton Geolechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 Table 4. Asphalt Pavement Sections General Traffic Traffic Index Hot Mix Asphalt Aggregate Base* . . Automobile Parking 4.5 4 4.5 Stalls Light Duty Automobile 5.0 4 6 Drive Lane/Parking Heavy Duty Drive & 6.5 4 12 Truck Access Location of applicable Traffic Index (TI) should be designated by the project civil engineer. Actual R-value of the subgrade soils should be verified after completion of site grading to finalize the pavement design. Where applicable, we recommend that a minimum of 6 inches of PCC pavement be used, in high impact load areas or if to be subjected to truck traffic. The PCC pavement should be placed on a minimum 6-inch aggregate base. The PCC pavement may be placed directly on a compacted subgrade with an R-Value of 40 or higher. The PCC pavement should have a minimum of 28-day flexural strength of 650 psi. Design and placement of concrete materials should follow applicable ACI and City standards. The upper 8 inches of pavement area subgrade soils should be moisture- conditioned to near optimum moisture content, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D 1557. If applicable, aggregate base should conform to Greenbook or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration of the subgrade load bearing capacity may result. Moisture control measures such as deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials may be used to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered when pavement is planned adjacent to either open (unfinished) or irrigated landscaped areas. - 17 49 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton Consulting, Inc. be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) prior to bid. Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided: • After completion of site demolition and clearing, • During over-excavation of compressible soil, • During compaction of all fill materials, • After excavation of all footings and prior to placement of concrete, • During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and • When any unusual conditions are encountered. Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis may be required based on final development plans, for reasons such as significant changes in proposed structure locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project. - 18 - Leiahton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,Califomia October 30, 2014 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, soil excavations, samples and tests. Such information is, by necessity, incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that we (Leighton Consulting, Inc.) will provide geotechnical observation and testing during construction as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. Please refer to Appendix D, ASFE's Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report, prepared by the Associated Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE) presenting additional information and limitations regarding geotechnical engineering studies and reports. This report was prepared for the sole use of Client and their design team, for application to design of the proposed maintenance building, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Any unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton Consulting, Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton Consulting, Inc. - 19 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 REFERENCES Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Settlement for Dynamic and Transient Loads, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers Press. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10 Publication. Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Interim Revision 2007. California Building Code, 2013, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2of2. California Department of Water Resources, 2014, Water Data Library, viewed October 13, 2014, www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003. By Tianquing Cao, William A. Bryant, Badie Rowshandel, David Branum and Christopher J. Wills. California Geological Survey, (CGS), 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, Compiled by Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, Open File Report 06-1217. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", Special Report 131. Leighton and Associates, 2003, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Review of 100-Scale Mass Grading Plan, Tentative Tract No. 29639 — Phase 2, Harveston, Temecula, California, Project No. 110231-017, dated January 17, 2003. Leighton and Associates, 2004, As-graded Report of Mass Grading for Tract 29639-2, Neighborhoods 29 and 30 Service Commercial, Harveston, City of Temecula, California, Project No. 110231-023, dated June 30, 2004. Public Works Standard, Inc., 2012, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: 2012 Edition, BNI Building News, Anaheim, California. 411* - 20 - Leighton Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 Riverside County, 2003, County of Riverside General Plan, Riverside County Integrated Project Website. Riverside County, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development- BMP, prepared by RCFC&WCD Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, dated August. USGS, 2014, A Web Based Computer Program Published by USGS to calculate Seismic Hazard Curves and Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-10 seismic procedures. - 21 - Leighton =\Irdr. era`�iL St e€ r:°'. �r v e� :>`M +"�,� •� I jg c`•S"M�`` f s`� �f ' } �f' .7 d�••r+. i de r.�sonnp rsa � a 2.1 S � arsM'�r. • �,r•+ rr� •,�/' .�. . Y f O c�' Monj.• n D� w e ar"ne 8 4' � ,J'`ay'^•..ai ! f :U4fw�.j;j°1. li y �,7F�`•'� �'.e J •C i''�' .gyYAnU11Rn. <arwno•,.pr c+�".�R ' •v"br f'3`s+ d �!I[_s7•.mrs,w c♦'�el•s.ri 'ear, ._� • �1 �yF �t. �� M/a:. � y�� / •`"\�� 'e B�:m�^ �� ti� SCE 1 7 1 ,i �'•PT. 1 IY. C... uT • .. .. r iF1 fg 'ti'es� �' V , '' yS'•' • e•• 21� �v 3 Marn 2 1 esl - �1 - a*.v. ♦ s !c°ys Ie�• in'WN Y1 �'n♦ r ��• -04 .� R ' � �� a t11. se..�+0'ums�e p/� fT`�•� � - ¢. �"c'ersF, yd'� • � a'q ,• � sue. '. v,Ar �,e.• .!af \s. ,� °'fJ� a „r.i `\,'. ♦� / \ _ \ � r -� . �a ,y: / 5 � �!h a �e�rtiYrA,R •• �� ♦ ,;1 /� 't i f , r.• •k. mac. f�1„C`o7- �� • • R �� , ,• •'� 'S�♦� \ i �,•� F.�,f•^ •Y / 5. U�� '' a .SY•\ •, IL • �,. �', •,�;,a�/'� `� , • - r + •esi •o •s s�o � ,S ♦� Zra � Y.:'� Y . U.ol ail ' J 1 ^'1 . -NINE IN11 SITE LOCATION MAP Proposed Audi Dealership Legend i \ B-4 Approximate Location of Boring \\ (This Study) ^ LOT 4 `.\ HS-104/ LOT 5 � Approximate Location of Boring \ (Leighton ,2003) / \ P-2 Apprximate Location of Percolation \ \ ACCESS EASEMENT Test— Approximate Geologic Contact \ PER TPM 36336 _ _ Approximate Location of 6"Subdrain LOT LINE 6 with Elevation 1058 Artificial Fill, documented Afu Af (Leighton,2014) AN Artificial Fill, undocumented n 70 60 , M 239 41 Qp Pauba Formation(circled where 1065 buried) LOT B n 4' \ / MERCEDES DRAINAGE EXISTING NERCEDES DEALERSHIP I 1 / EASEMENT Q P / LOT LINE LOT LINE w \"'� / QP I ! Af W LO'f % LOT 8 N 00 14, PROPOSED AUDI RSHIP 0 6.24 ACRES R0,1; QP 0 4.51 ACRES NET 1064 Ln ro _ � • _ B-3 P-2 --\-- _ Af B 2 APPROXIMATE WATER WALITY� \ -_ 6 BASIN LOCATION - 0.5 APKES± (LOCATION, SIZE, AND �CONF[GURATION _ P 1 TO BE VERIFIED DU I'I�1G FINAL DESIGN) . N27 '49 1o2" HS-104 1058 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER W 235• 70 , � LO LINE/ N29e58 '20"W 396, 53 'T CALTRANS R/W TOP OF ACCESS RIGHTS SLOPE RELINQUISHED INTERSTATE 15 0 t00 200 Fast Project: 10831.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR Figure 2 Scale:1 "= 100' Date:October 2014 GEOTECHNICAL PLAN Reference.Constraints Map.Lot]by RSF Consuping Proposed Audi Dealership tlatea WZ2014,redsea 30101M14 Temecula, California Author: (mmurphy) Mep SeveU eaP WreMng\10031\OO1 V.IepaV 0031 W1 P,2 GP P01C-1.10—dontOg012014302:22PM Geotechnical Exploration and Percolation Testing Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealership,Temecula,California October 30,2014 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS/ FIELD EXPLORATION Encountered earth materials were logged and sampled in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488). During drilling, bulk and relatively undisturbed ring-lined split-barrel driven earth material samples were obtained from our borings for"geotechnical laboratory testing and classification. Drive-samples were driven with a 140-pound auto-hammer falling 30- inches. Samples were transported to our in-house Temecula laboratory for geotechnical testing. After logging and sampling, our borings were backfilled with spoils generated during drilling. The attached subsurface exploration logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the locations indicated and at the particular date designated on these logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these logged locations. Passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. In addition, any stratification lines on these logs represent an approximate boundary between sampling intervals and soil types; and transitions may be gradual. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 Project No. 10831.001 Date Drilled 10-6-14 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Logged By Avi Schwartz Drilling Co. Martini Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Down Hole -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1094' Location See Figure 2 Sampled By Avi Schwartz q d m et „� SOIL DESCRIPTION b O C Oa O Z W= e1 q10 q co`u N VC> Tbis Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ,~ mLL OLL PJ mfO G a O o C -y time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O Li t5 R q " O o� and may change with time. The description is a simplification o/the o. y go gradual V U) actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. D B1 SM CS SILTY SAND,light brown,dry R2 9 115 11 @2'SILTY SAND,medium dense,reddish yellow to brown, 14 slightly moist,fine sand,few coarse sand 25 1080 5 R3 a 121 10 @5'SILTY SAND,medium dense,reddish yellow to brown, B5 13 moist,fine Sand,with trace clay and few coarse sand 2s R4 7 @T SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown, moist,fine to 13 medium sand,with iron oxide staining 20 1085 --- --- -- -- -- -- ---------- - - -- -- - - - -- -- Sc 10 Re S 113 14 @10'CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, reddish yellow to brown, 12 moist,fine to medium sand,few coarse sand 13 1080 15 R7 7 120 12 @15'SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown,moist,very fine 13 sand,with trace clay 30 1075� 20 RI 14 SMIML SANDY SILT to SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown, 25 moist,very fine sand 30 Total Depth 21.5' 1070 No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backflled with Spoils 10/6/14 25 1065 SAMPLFTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: - - B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AL C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS EI EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CHI CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH / S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE `This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document."' Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Project No. 10831.001 Date Drilled 10-6-14 Project _Temecula Audi Dealership Logged By Avi Schwartz Drilling Co. _Martini _ _ _ _ Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Down Hole -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1093' Location See Figure 2 Sampled By Avi Schwartz a ci d e „.. SOIL DESCRIPTION O Z Y O Z yL N wfd m 06C « a c c a`u N e V This SoilDescriptron applies only to a location o/the exploration at the >LL 1a �J 0 a « �y time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations `o IL t9 < a m toit 0 O O� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a y d p V M— actual conddions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 0 B1 SM SILTY SAND,light brown,dry R2 14 120 10 @2'SILTY SAND,medium dense,brown,slightly moist,fine to 1080 17 medium sand,with few coarse sand 19 5 R3 5 115 10 @5'SILTY SAND,loose,reddish brown, moist,fine sand,with 85 7 trace clay and few coarse sand 12 R4 7 110 14 SC CLAYEY SAND, stiff, reddish yellow to brown,moist,One sand, 1085 9 with coarse sand common 15 10 RB 6 CLAYEY SAND, stiff, reddish yellow to brown, moist,fine sand 9 12 1080 Total Depth 11.5' No Groundwater or CavingEncountered Backfilled with Spoils 10/ /14 15 1075 20 1070 1 25 10651 SAM IPLETYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT CONSOLIDATION G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDAIDA TION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.``` Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Project No. 10831.001 Date Drilled 10-8-14 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Logged By Avi Schwartz Drilling Co. Martini _ Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -Down Hole -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1092' Location See Figure 2 Sampled By Avi Schwartz o „., SOIL DESCRIPTION t u Z cot w corn m p,$ 0 3 0 m� «c 10tj This Sal Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the w QmLL �J CL O� p a O Vy time,of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o yr =c EE m r �O o� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the m y d p V yi actual conditions encountered. Transitions between sal types may be a gradual B Bt SM AIRTIFICIAL FILL HI, Rl' SILTY SAND,light brown,dry 1090 R2 13 114 7 @2'SILTY SAND,medium dense, light brown to brown,slightly to moist,fine sand,with few coarse sand 22 5 R3 14 lie 9 @5'SILTY SAND,stiff, reddish yellow to brown,moist,with few B5 18 coarse sand 25 __ __ __ __ ________________________ ___ _ R4 5 CL SANDY CLAY,stiff,brown,moist,with few coarse sand 10 17 10 --- --- -- -- -- -- ----------------------- ----- Ro 5 117 14 SM SILTY SAND,stiff,brown,moist,very fine sand 11 14 10801 1S R7 o SANDY SILT to SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown, 15 moist,very fine sand,with trace coarse sand 23 1075 Total Depth 17.5' 20 No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled with Spoils 10/6/14 1070 25 11105 SAMPL-PTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS C CORE SAMPLE AL LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT CONSOLIDATION G GRAB SAMPLE LN CONSOLIDAIDA TION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE "This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document."' Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Project No. 10831.001 Date Drilled 10-6-14 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Logged By AV!Schwartz Drilling Co. Martini Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auaer-1401b -Down Hole -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1086' Location See Flaure 2 Sampled By Avi Schwartz o m x SOIL DESCRIPTION `o_ ! C o z �o c a P ay m Z. Y m a « 0 O 0 of p c .20 This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the w OLL LL �6 G O. _Vj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may ddfer at other locations 0 IY Q E mm � a p p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the 8 on 0 p U N� actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 0 81 SM PAUBA FORMATION fool I 10e SILTY SAND,loose,light brown,dry ___ ___ __ __ __ __ ________ __ _ _ __ __ __________ _ _ R2 10 108 S Sc CLAYEY SAND,dense,olive brown,mast 27 30 5 R3 5 173 10 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive l0 fight brown,moist,very 1080 BS 13 fine sand 19 R4 13 112 7 @T SILTY SAND,dense,olive to light brown,moist,fine sand, 23 with mica flakes 49 to— RS 17 @10'SILTY SAND,very dense,olive to light brown,moist,fine 1075 32 sand,with few coarse sand Total Depth 11.5" No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled with Spoils 10/6/14 u 1070 20 1086 25 1000 SAMPANT'SS: TYPE OF TESTS: . B BULK SAMPLE -200 k FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS �}P. C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH / S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE "'This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document."' Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-1 Project No. 10831.001 Date Drilled 10-6-14 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Logged By Avi Schwartz Drilling Co. Martini Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Down Hole -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1093' Location See Figure 2 Sampled By Avi Schwartz c d �,,.• a.. SOIL DESCRIPTION O .0 Y o 2 Om w Fm- "y �y age ar o S y Mac �t j This Soil Description applies only to a location o/the exploration at the J O. p CL « E time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other bcations o W C9 to m O O� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a y Il p V W" actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soli types may be F gradual. 0 sm AwnRaAL FILL tm SILTY SAND,light brown,dry 1090 R7 12 SILTY SAND,medium dense,light brown,slightly moist,fine SA 18 sand,with few coarse sand 31 Total Depth 4' No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled with Spoils 1016114 1085 10 1080 15 1075 20 1070 25 1065 SAMPL TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: e BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS / C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ` S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRUUOAL RV R VALUE ""This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document."' Page 1 of 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-2 Project No. 10831.001 Date Drilled 10-6-14 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Logged By Avi Schwartz Drilling Co. Martini Hole Diameter 8" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Down Hole -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1092' Location See Figure 2 Sampled By AV' Schwartz p d m sae SOIL DESCRIPTION p t Z w FW I ff � o ;C mj~ This Soil Description applies only to a bcation o/the exploretlon at the LL ooa �J tt C O— p CL a.•. time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations WO a q m m t'• p� and may change with time. The descnption is a simplification of the y a p V H� actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. ►' 0 SM AFMF1CIAL FILL Ill --- SILTY SAND, light brown,dry 1080 R1 17 SILTY SAND,medium dense,light brown to brown,slightly SA 23 moist,fine sand 5 Total Depth 4' 1085 No Groundwater or Caving Encountered Backfilled with Spoils 1016/14 10 1080 15 1075 20 1070 25 1065 SAMPLETYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: - B BULK SAMPLE .200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS / C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERSERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT . G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH F / S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE "`This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.'" Page 1 or 1 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG HS-104 Dote 12-4-02 Sheet 1 of 2 Project 110231-017- Harveston Phase II Logged/Sampled By GH Drilling Co. Cal Pac _ Type of Rig B-61 Hole Diameter 8 Drive Weight _ 140 IDS Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 1070' Location See Map SOIL DESCRIPTION .. M o o 6p 7 e c Q 0 p� V The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at o mU. C� �J m m OO _W the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other W Vr < W 2` 20 oo locations and may change with time. The description Is a Q. t M (L I] V simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 1070 1065 s 1 39 131 8 CL Ca)5':Medium brown,dry,stiff,sandy,medium plasticity CLAY Sample 2 @8' 1060 10 3 IS (a_) 10':Firm to stiff,low plasticity 10551 IS 4 20 112 11 CN 1050 20 @ 29:Soft to firm 5 7 Ga 23 le 6 ]045 25 QUATERNARYP 7 41 98 23 ML 25"Top of sample-Oray,moist,firm,so y SQ..T;Bottom of sample-Olive,moist,fine,clayey,sandy SILT 1040' 30 -- - - - - -- - - -SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRfR ECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS -2110 %FINES PASSING R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX CO COLLAPSE T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE PP POCKET PENETROMETER UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH "'This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not he used as a stand-alone document'" Page 1 of 2 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG HS-104 Date 12-4-02 Sheet 2 of 2 Project 110231-017- Harveston Phase II _ _ _ _ _ _ Logged/Sampled By GH Drilling Co. _ Cal Pac _ Type of Rig B-61 Hole Diameter 8 Drive Weigh 140 Ibs Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 1070' Location See Maw e d d r• „- SOIL DESCRIPTION H yO c t p1 ,e0 = rn� C tOefO H W1 O 7 m ; c 0 +'� C> The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at p E m w O C Vy the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other W t9 a W t` 20 Oa locations and may change with time. The description Is a a rA IL O V y` simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. 1040 30 @ 30':Olive gray 8 19 ML 1035 35 Total Depth 31.5' No GourKhvater Encountered BackfiOed with Native 12-24-03 1030 40 1025 45 1020 50 1015 55 1010 60 - — - - - - — — - - - - SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS •200 /FINES PASSING R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AL ATTERBERG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX CO COLLAPSE T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R VALUE PP POCKET PENETROMETER UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH *V "'This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document"' Page 2 of 2 Test Hole Number: P•1 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Date Excavated: 1016/2014 Project Number 10831.001 Tested by: AWS Date Tested 10/7/2014 Soil Unit: AF Depth of Test Hole In. 48 USCS Soil Type: SM Diameter In. 8 Sunny 75 Initial Water Depth Final Water Depth Change In Water Level InfiltrationlPercolallon Rate Time Al(min) (inches) (Inches) (Inches) Incherlhouf Mnuta/Inch 7:12:00 30.00 27.60 32.40 4.80 0.960 6.250 7:42:00 7:42:00 30.00 27.60 31.80 4.20 0.733 7.143 8:12:00 8:12:00 30.00 26.40 30.00 3.60 0.585 8.333 8:42:00 8:42:00 30.00 27.60 30.00 2.40 0.401 12.500 9:12:00 9:12:00 30.00 27.60 30.00 2.40 0.401 12.500 9:42:00 9:42:00 30.00 27.60 29.40 1.80 0.296 16.667 10:12:00 10:12:00 30.00 27.60 29.40 1.80 0.296 16.667 10:42:00 10:42:00 30.00 27.60 28.80 1.20 0.195 25.000 11:12:00 11:12:00 30.00 27.60 28.80 1.20 0.195 25.000 11:42:00 11:42:00 30.00 27.60 28.80 1.20 0.195 25.000 12:12:00 12:12:00 30.00 27.60 28.80 1.20 0.195 25.000 12:42:00 1.200 1.000 0.800 Infiltration Rate (In./hr) 0'600 0.400 0.200 0.000 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Time(min) Based on Prochet Method Percolation Pro/ect Number: 10831.001 Test Data Pro!ect Name: Temecula Audi Dealership P- 1 Date: Oct-14 Leighton Test Hole Number: P-2 Project Temecula Audi Dealership Date Excavated: 10/6/2014 Project Number 10831.001 Tested by: AWS Date Tasted 10/7/2014 Sall Unit: AF De th o1 Teat Hole In. 48 USCS So1I T SM Diameter In., 8 Sunny 75 Initial Water Depth Final Water Depth Change In Water Level InfllUation/Percoletlon Rate Time At(min) (inches) (Inches) (Inches) Inchoolhour* Mnublanch 7:17:00 30.00 26.40 30.00 3.60 0.661 8.333 7:47:00 7:47:00 30.00 26.40 29.40 3.00 0.481 10.000 8:17:00 8:17:00 30.00 26.40 28.80 2.40 0.379 12.500 8:47:00 8:47:00 30.00 26.40 28.20 1.80 0.281 16.667 9:17:00 9: 7:00 9:47:00 30.00 26.40 27.96 1.56 0.242 19.231 9:47:00 30.00 26.40 27.60 1.20 0.185 25.000 10:17:00 10:17:00 30.00 26.40 27.60 1.20 0.185 25.000 10:47:00 10:47:00 30.00 26.40 27.60 1.20 0.185 25.000 11:17:00 11:17:00 30.00 26.40 27.60 1.20 0.185 25.000 11:47:00 11:47:00 30.00 26.40 27.60 1.20 0.185 25.000 12:17:00 12:17:00 30.00 26.40 27.60 1.20 0.185 25.000 12:47:00 0.700 0.600 0.500 Infiltration Bate 0.400 (In./hr) 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 -------m� 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 Time(min) Based on Prochet Method Percolation Protect Number: 10831.001 Test Data Project Name: Temecula Audi Dealership P-2 Date: Oct-14 Leighton • Gmtecanlcw PipIoratbn and Percolation Tmllrq Report 10831.001 Proposed Audl Dealeml 1p.Temecula,Calporr" October 30,2014 • APPENDIX B RESULTS OF GEOTECNNICAL LABORATORY TESTING GRAVEL SAND FINES COARSE FlNE COARSE MEDIUM FlNE .SILTI QAV U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER 3.0' 11/2' 3/4' 3/8' A4 a8 alb a30 a50 a100 0200 100 90 80 70 BO - -- --- . ---l . - - - -..-- - - -- - - - . - -. --- - - -- — - - 50 — ---- m = 40 lZ W30 u W a 20 — 10 . -------- --- - -� . --- --- ------- '-- - - - - - - - - - . -- --�. - - 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE•SIZE(mm) Project Name: Horine Group Audi Geo Exploration Exploration No.: P1 Sample No.: 1 Project No.: 10831,001 Depth(feet): 2,5 Soil Type PARTICLE - SIZE Soil Identification: Sllty Sand(SM). brown. Leighton DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 GR:SA:FI: (%) 0 : 63 : 37 Llct_l9 5.w:ai,.ipa GUV--EL SAND FINES ' COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE I SILT CLAY U.S.STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S.STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER 3.0' 11/2- 3/4- 3/8' 04 as 016 030 050 #100 0200 100 80 --- 80 70 60 - -- - -- - - l - - --- - - l . BD Z 40 ti 30 w 01 n 20 10 - 0 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE•SIZE(mm) Project Name: tforine Group Audi Geo Exploration Exploration No.: P_3 Sample No.: 1 Project No.: 10831.001 Depth(feet): 3;5 Soil Type: SM PARTICLE - SIZE Soil Identlflcatlon: Silty Sand fSMI. brown. Leighton DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 GR:SA:FI: (4/0) 1 72 : 27 _lq 5i�n:M12.n Pa EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS Leighton ASTM D 4829 Project Name: Horine Group Audi Geo Exploration Tested By: FLM Date: 1020/14 Project No.: 1083.001 Checked By:JHW Date: 1024/14 Boring No.: B-3 Depth(R.)0-5.0 Sample No.: #1 Location: •• Sample Description: Silty,Clayey Sand(SCSM),light brown. Dry Wt.of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 1327.4 Wt.of Container No. (gm.) 81.1 Dry Wt.of Soil (gm.) 1246.3 Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 4.1 Percent Passing H 4 99.7 MOLDED SPECIMEN I Before Test After Test Specimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01 Specimen Height (In.) 1.0000 1.0297 Wt.Comp.Soil+Mold(gm.) 617.4 648.6 Wt.of Mold (gam 199.3 199.3 Specific Gravity Assumed 2.70 2.70 Container No. 8 8 Wet Wt:of Soil+Cont.(gm.) 381.1 648.6 Dry WL of Soil+Cont.(gm.) 357.6 385.3 Wt.of Container (gam 81.1 199.3 Moisture Content(°h) 8.5 16.6 Wet Density(pcf) 126.1 135.4 Dry Density(pc�f 116.2 116.1 Vold Ratio 0.450 0.493 Total Porosity 0.311 0.330 Pore Volume (cc) 64.3 70.4 ,Degree of Saturation % S mess 51.0 90.8 SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate c 0.0002 In./h. Date Time Pressure me Dial Readings (psi)re Elapsed Time (min.) I (in.) 1020/14 11:41 1.0 0 0.5000 1020/14 11:51 1.0 10 0.4998 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10121/14 9:40 1.0 1309 0.5297 1021114 10:40 1.0 1369 0.5297 Expansion Index(El mass) = ((Final Rdg-Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 29.9 Expansion Index(Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero 10)If Initial Height Is than Rnel Height) 30 • EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS Leighton ASTM D 4829 Project Name: Horine Group Audi Goo Exploration Tested By: FLM Date: 10/20/14 Project No.: 10831.001 Checked By: JHW Date: 10/24/14 Boring No.: 84 Depth(ft.)0-5.0 Sample No.: #1 Location: - Sample Description: Silty Sand with Trace Gravel(SM),brown. Dry Wt.of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 1351.8 WL of Container No. (gm.) 144.3 Dry Wt.of Soil (gm.) 1207.5 Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 4.7 Percent Passing#4 99.6 MOLDED SPECIMEN I Before Test After Test Specimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01 Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0291 Wt Comp.Soil+Mold(gm.) 602.6 639.6 Wt.of Mold gm. 188.5 188.5 Specific Gravity{Assumed 2.70 2.70 Container No. 7 7 Wet Wt.of Soil+Cont.(gam 444.3 639.6 Dry W 1.of Soil+ConL(gam 420.8 381.6 Wt.of Container {gm. 144.3 188.5 Moisture Content % 8.5 18.2 Wet Density(pcf) 124.9 135.9 Dry Densi 115.1 114.9 Vold Ratio 0.465 0.507 Total Porosity 0.317 0.337 Pore Volume (oc) 65.7 71.7 D ree of Saturation % S meast 49.4 1 97.0 SPECIMEN INUNDATION In distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate<0.0002 in./h. Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings (psi) (min.) (in.) 10/20/14 - - 11:77 1.0 0 0.5000 10/20/14 11:27 1.0 10 0.4999 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen 10/21/14 9:40 1.0 1333 0.5291 10/21/14 10:40 1.0 1393 0.5291 Expansion Index(El meas) = ((Final Rdg-Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 I 29.2 Expansion Index(Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)It In1tiel Height is>than Final Height 29 wr.ram , Project Name: Horine Group Audl Goo E)pipratitrn Date: 10/26114 Sample N=ber 91 Sample Location, Sample Description: Silty,Clavey Send(SC-SM).Mtn .•..,, TEST SPECUEN aaa . -- ®tea . ®®� UNCORRECTED26=16 12 CORRECTED26 16 1 DESIGN CALCULATION DATAaaa CCGDCGG.EEG.DC::. .. .. : a■■C7■ii7Ce■■■C■■■■C:■".,I' e:■.■■e■■eCm 7 ..........................Y........... L:::Qe:::7e::oeG::e7e:::7e::::::::ee:e:7i ..■YYi.■tl■■....YYW YO.■■■■.YW D•D"•'7C'•-'CDDL•D:D•DLGC{SD-D ...YYWY......YtlW Ytl......vW OWu.::::u::::uuu:vw:o.rAm:o ■ ■■ vv v■ ■■ .■ ■ ■ ..o ..e:e•�:e a eee.:e..:Le....e...1011.7e..QQe.e.Le.... ........................ e:s:se:::ses::ee:::se:e:se:es:es:sse:■:s .: :: ':::: '::: Eec 6EE----- ------.•i�::?E•�E:E:::E ... ..... ....__ ----:.:D:D:�:D:D ..ewe..�e..e..7.ae..Ye........7e.... vO.....Y�.m...�'I.YN:•...•tl••• ...Y WYY......YYW YY......YW _ •.Y•Y_...\..•.Y•.. ..■tl■Y..Y■....... YY.■■■■.YY■ DGDCC:L:C:DiO.:.:C:7L:D:Di."..LDLD � • . v. v. Y • • .o. . r.....Y.Y............. ■e�:QQ::QQQQ■QQ■■■:7Q7Q:ee7■.Q.■■.QL000.'I e o 0 0 o e..��:7e:■.■C:.:7C:C77D..7■...7C7..■ ------------ C...QC...7C...CC.Q.76..QC...Q..Q.76..: .oY.vo Y.Yv.aYW YY.o.YYW ' .YVYW Y.Y.vYYW YY.ov.YW �E:3E►:a1Et�iE�EEE2�3E:E�3E:�3E:E� :Q:�Q:.QQe:000Q:::QC:::Q�QQQQQQ:QQQ�Q :::'IL:.:::::.�:H..........m.Y.O .. ................ ......�::e:D Q7Q:7�e�,QeQ:e7�e:7e:Q:7e7e:oQ7e:7 o ..Y m o s m o e :::o■■�io:■.i::eao.�a wee::::::ow v.vum Y.v.\YYW YvvouvW o.vvmvv.v.�wW YvvoovW CQC�6':�Q:CQQCCQ�C..'V L:C:7C:::7QQ:� CQQ:7L■::7Q::::e:Q�QQ:�csee::sQe:�: QQ:�C::;7�7:7Q:QC7Q::7O::7000QO�C:7 LCC�QL��LCQLQQQ��Q��QCQQ:QLe: u.vomvovvvvW vvvoov■v r • TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT * Leighton CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS Project Name: Horine Group/Audi Geo Exploration Tested By : GEB Date: 10/09/14 Project No. : 10831.001 Data Input By: 3HW Date: 10/15/14 Boring No. B-1 Sample No. 1 Sample Depth ft 0-5 Soil Identification: SM, light olive brown Wet Weight of Soil +Container(g) 200.23 Dry Weight of Sol] + Container(9) 192.05 Weight of Container(9) 57.47 Moisture Content(%) 6.08 Weight of Soaked Sol] 100.24 SULFATE CONTENT DOT California Test 417 Part II Beaker No. I Crucible No. 25 Furnace Temperature("C) 850 Time In/Time Out 13:45/14:30 Duration of Combustion(min) 45 Wt.of Crucible+ Residue(9) 20.9311 Wt.of Crucible(g) 20.9277 Wt.of Residue(g) (A) 0.0034 PPM of Sulfate ()x 41150 139.91 PPM of Sulfate Dry Weight Basis 149 CHLORIDE CONTENT DOT California Test 422 m]of Extract For Titration (B 15 ml of A91403 Soln. Used in Titration(C) 0.5 PPM of Chloride(C-0.2) * 100*30 LB 60 PPM of Chloride D Wt.Basis 64 H TEST DOT California Test 532 643 _ Value I 7.74 Temperature I I- Tern nature "C 22.52.5 4W SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST Leighton DOT CA TEST 532 / 643 Project Name: Horine Group/Audi Geo Exploration Tested By: GEB Date: 10/13/14 Project No. : 10831.001 Data Input By: 3HW Date: 10/15/14 Boring No.: B-1 Depth(R.) : 0-5 Sample No. : 1 Soil Identification:' SM, light olive brown *California Test 643 requires salt spedmens to cunalst ordy of portions of samples passing through the No.a US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore.this teat method may not be reproseatative for coarser materials. Water Adjusted Resistance Soil Moisture Content(�_(M 6.08 Specimen Added(ml) Conte t Reading Resistivity Wet Wt.of Soil + Cont. (9) 200.23 (Wa) (MC (ohm) (ohm-an) Dry.Wt.of Sol]+Cont. (9) 192.05 1 20 22.40 2700 2700 Wt.of Container 2 30 30.56 2600 2600 Container No. 3 40 38.72 2500 2500 Initial Sol]Wt. (g)_(Wt) 130.00 4 50 46.88 2600 2600 Box Constant 1.000 5 MC= 1+Md 100 x a +1 1 x100 Min. Resistivity Moisture Content Sulfate Contort Chloride Content Soil PH . (ohm-an) M (pprn) (ppm) pH Temp.(^c) DOT CA Test 532/643 DOT CA Test 417 part 11 DOT G Test 422 DOT CA Test 532/643 - 2500 I 38.7 149 I 64 7.74 22.5 2750 2700 -21 2650 u ' L2600 0 r 2550 u 1 2500 c U) --- 2450 — ----- -----+ :# - - - — -- -- — —E — — 2400 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Moisture Content(%) GeoteUnlcal E)iomtlon and Parcde0m Testing Repon 10831.001 Proposed Audi Dealomhlp,Temecula,CaUornle October 30,2014 APPENDIX C EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX C GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paqe 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 Intent 1 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2 2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 2.2 Processing 3 2.3 Overexcavation 3 2.4 Benching 3 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3 3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4 3.1 General 4 3.2 Oversize 4 3.3 Import 4 4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4 4.1 Fill Layers 4 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5 4.3 Compaction of Fill 5 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5 4.5 Compaction Testing 5 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5 4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6 5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6 6.0 EXCAVATION 6 7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6 7.1 Safety 7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7 7.3 Lift Thickness 7 7.4 Observation and Testing 7 Standard Details A- Keying and Benching Rear of Text B -Oversize Rock Disposal Rear of Text E -Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills Rear of Text Retaining Wall Rear of Text LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications, 1.0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical repori(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant.of Record (Geotechniral Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical rcport(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,and recommendations prior to,the commencement of the grading. Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation,mapping, and compaction testing. During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. if the, observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the-observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed,bottoms of all "remedial removal"areas, all key bottoms,and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill,and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with .the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size,adverse weather,etc.,are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner,governing agencies,and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than I percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. -2- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such,the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,and shall not be allowed. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat,and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of IS feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. 2.5 Evaluation/Acceotance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant -3- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas,keys,and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is,required for grading,proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Lavers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. - - LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ' 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditionine Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or.by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method DI557. 4.5 Compaction Testine Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on Geld conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction(such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testine Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition,as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met. -5- " LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ' 4.7 Comnaction Test Locations The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. 5.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys. 6.0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made,evaluated,and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.0 Trench Backfills 7.1 Safigry The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and CaVOSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. -6- ` LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 7.2 Bedding and Backfill All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to I foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness Li❑ thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method. 7.4 Observation and Testing The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. -7- i •FLL aAPE • _ PR0.ECiED PLANE 1:1 _____-------- -- (HORIZONTAL VERTICAL) -_-"---_-------'` -_- - _---ar_-? - -- MA)OMUM FROM TOE ------�-_-_-'�=---" -- OF SLOPE TO --- -_-3r--+-=- - - APPROVED GROUND _ :=_ - '_c - - REMOVE EXISTING _r__rrs-_' ----' UNSUITABLE GROUND SURFACE _ ___--____ BEN MATERIAL BENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) 2 FEET MIN.J LOWEST -_ KEY BENCH DEPTH (KEY) FLL-OVER-CUi aAPE 9 P - --r_ EXISTING GROUND SURFACE __---= BENCH BENCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) -ter- MINT i LO REMOVE 2 FEET BENCH UNSUITABLE MIN. KEY (I" MATERIAL DEPTH CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS EASTING��f/ T FACE SHALL BE GROUND CONSTRUCTED PRIOR CUTL GAPE SURFACE F_ -T" TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD AND TRIM BACK . REMOVE DESIGN SOPUNSUITABLE I TO I MMAANMU�E MATERIAL MIFROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND -- ------- EN --EBMCH HEIGHT (4 FEET TYPICAL) S FELT MIN BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES 2 FEET MIN. LOWEST ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN &1. KEY BENCH MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET DEPTH (KEY) AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING KEYING AND BENCHING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS A Leighton FDWH GRADE — — — — — — — — — — — — — • "r--7:---7-a*WACrEDFLL:-7-7-7-7-7-71-' - - - - - - - - PWL- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SLOPE FACE - - --_ -_ 7 - - - - - - - - Q -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7-7-7-7-7-7�- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — OVEMM — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---e- - - - - - - - - - - - - - JETTED OR FLOODED APPROVED SOIL • Owmam Mtk tl kw am 6 b,bqpg dman"L Ift , • Do ra bwy ro*Rift 10 reel of — — — — — — &ftwaft • WhbvwcfkwWrackshdbe — penatR to the m s' , Rope fbm PROFILE ALONG WINDROW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.A=- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .7- - - - - - - - - --:--7-7- - - ---- - - - - - - - - - -7- - - - -7- Moir - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -7-'_7 7 - - - - - - - - - �-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - A' . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ETr MrW OR APPROVED SOIL GENM EARTHWORK AND GRADING OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL SPECMMONS STANDAIM DETAILS B Leighton • CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OV9tucAVATION R9BNE i LPS DARE i GUAM A, i s -COMPACTED PB1- - >. ♦MBl �i - - - - —y - - - - - !- - - - - - - - _ \\ DY9IDCAVATE - �•G - - \7TPWAL AI�N�iACf BENCH MG -�- IAPWEAIVEIM OMR=OR INTE UX APRIOY® - BY TIEOEIF39CCAL a/BLTANT SIDE HILL FILL FOR OJT PAD MARNK GROM i i R6TIUL MWEAREA OVFU3MVATE / / / PUUM®QJT PAD AND REIDI6ACT / (REPLAMKEXTRW ..... . . . . .. . . . ............ OYER&IImEM � � L � _ _�_ _ OR UPSWABLE - - C MATERIAL _ - - f PAD OVRE)VAVATmR AND RBOOMPP M _ SMALL BE PE UaA1®ff SPEIDED TPA BY THE CfCf339=ALCONSELTAIPT BIIAD= l—- 93 STANM%W DETAL FOR 9MRAVS WUEN REWIDW BY OEDfEOBO<N aVaLTANT MBL rpm p OEDM U W ATP�e®R=OR MATEIOAL APPROVED Of TIE OEOTEOIOCAL mERLTAW TEIERALEARi MMANDGRADING TRANSITION LOT FILLS SPECMMOrs w I AND SIDE HILL FILLS STANDARD DETAILS E Leighton + r SUBDRAIN OMONS AND BACIMLL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF 590 Y waR w110P61 FAC W�EII 2MME MAMME DPAIx11� COPE 918E OR LEAL OR ZEAL 1Y 1Y f1AT1YE Myra = • < F�lel FA®R. f•' 1l IQIlD{M (Sff GF!®hALrhaIS) (O WM4) UM2 PBOVAM 1tf� W�IIDIE ,r.•. (�5wreiax g jpM VAVHM (CIO YiiM®PlfalOtA9¢(SZ�IOIE 5) ! . :AL �e101 DlAlklal LMOR PSIIILR IWAn IEPEL OR sun (MER 11) 9OPE lop Close 2 FaR•r Panneable ltah+ml Qadetlon Per Caloans SpeW�len s3itoo Pa MM Pesetas 1• 100 3w 9D-1W 3/r a61D0 Nu 4 25.40 "L 9 7&33 as 30 5.15 Ile 50 0.7 ND.2DD 0.3 G04ERAL NOTES: •Wateprocftrnp could be proNdd when rnnohbxe rshberm p dbm thaugh the wag b hade56abb. •Water prooftrg d the walb Is rot under pavlew d erne gedtedml d eobwas •N belts stoAd have a gredlet of 1 permit ninbsan *Cutlet purtlon of the subcbahh could have a+h1 h dlerhetar sDM pipe dlWoW hdD a sultoM 0lSpmd area dalOmd by the pr0)att e1Q1w The mbdralnplpe should be bbfbr.nahem m(rddln➢) •OUe ab kabh baMl aptbre are wb)ea to the nevkw by the weoteduhlml englrheer and hthod'dl®tbn of de0p pararnmas !Iota: 1)Send dhadd have a amid equivalent d 30 a wrests and maybe 'i III d by water)enp. 2)1 d.R.per fL d 1/4-tD 1 1/2-bd+ds gravel wrapped In NDv yank 3)Ppe type coaled be ASTM D3527 Mybnitr0a M t *m Styrene(ABS)SDR35 or ASTM D1785 PdrAnyl Chloride ptasbc(PM,Schedule 40,Armm A2WD PVC.or approved egdvalet. Ppe dhouW be Ista9ed hMth pehlbralbls dwn.Terlbre0as afhohdd be Na Inch„d arneter placed at the ends of a 120-0egree arc In two rows at 3-L on mite(daggerem 4)FRer hbrtc dodd be MMM 149 C or approved egtMalet 5)Weeplota daM be 34ndh mtrlmhon dlmnelm ed provided at 104act nwdmum i nten ab. V ewe is permttedr waptdes dhadd be betted 12 hhdha above fInbtned grade. If eWasure Is not pemn110ed such as for a wag adjacent to a ddewaWao%a ppe Oder the ddewa0r tD be dbcwwad Da W the sob yam or agdvalnt shaded be l: ovtld.Por a bmanert-M a via a proper shlbdrab oudd system dnWd be provided. 6) Itao lnw wag plans;hdhould be m%*wed and apPovad by the pedtedahlml engineer. 7) Waft aver dt fee In hunt are subject to a qm dal review by the geasudad®1 ergbem and mDdrewbs to the above reghltarerts. RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL -410 FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF s50 LeighiDtl Figure L r, Geotegpdcal btobratbn and PercolaWn Teetlnp Report 10831.001 Proposed Audi DealemWp,Temecula,Celporrda October 30.207a ' APPENDIX D ASFE-IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Impoplant lolopmationAbout Youp Geolechnical Engineering Report 6P.otedlolCaI Swvl a Ara Pa4arM far • elevation,configuration,IacAkn.orientation.or weigh of Um Spaelft PaWM,PaMoaw and PPa1aft proposed stnam. Geo@dnkal engineers structure their services to mod the specific reeds of • composition or the design team,or their dWft A geolednical engineering so*candled for a cMI egl- • project mesbip. weer may not fulfill One met of a construction contractor or even vote civil eillneet Bemuse each gedetlniral engineering so*Is unique,each As a general rule,a4ays Mmn yar AedaJrnbl ergkau of poje t gedednlal engineering report Is unique,prepared sokly for One Blend.No Ganges—even minor ore,-and request an assessment of their irk. one euept you should rely on yaw gwbdmldengieerf norlwfhel Goarlrwalerpknew corm aaV mw7sVIMIoraW*IlorA fhsloontddrgviuh the gedecimial engineer who prepared It And roMe tlala=beam Mekrepacido nor con'idlerdahelgxntrdsofMich —M even you—should apply line report for any pi apoled leyw rawfircbmed except One one originally conempfated. fOo6tlms I:m OMP Reed f6a F1111 RBPMq A gtotecMfal engineering report Is based on co ndil ons the oersted at Seiiars problems have occurred beam Rase relykg on a geDtaoinnical One time the study was performed.Oo not i*on a goorwhakar erprmv- e ithemI g report did not read it all Do not rely on an executive summary, ing mpodwhose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of Do not read selected ekmM only. time:by manmade even such as construction on or adXM to the site; or by natural events,such as floods,mdhgakes,of praundvahet flu tua- A GWtMtMbW RMWt 18 BUM an borm AAveys contact the geciedadal engineer before applying the repod A UMM Set of Pr"AMIM f>I tM to determine if t is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or Geolec!6kal engineers consider a number of unique,pro*t-spWk lao aaysis could prevent major probldre. tors when establishing to scope of a shady.Typical tactom Include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk maregement prelerdres;the general NM ffodkW AM PPafD881111111al nature of Ue structure invoked,Its sbe,and configuration;the location at opbdm the structure on Ue slug and other planned or odstkg sb brprovamYs, Site oploratien iddwifin subsutace conditions only at those points where such as access roads.parkhp lots,and underground utilities.Unless the subsurface test are conducted a samples are taken.Geownnial dgi- gederhnial engineer who conducted Ne shady spedimily indicates out- nears review field and laboratory data and gem apply thdr pdessional awtse,do not rely on a oeoladhnical engineering report that vas: Judgment to tender an opinion about sufrmrbm conditions ttraupeut the • not lxt aced for you, site.Actual subaxtace conditions may difld--somdlrtas slgnhThamy— • not prepared for your projecL from Hasa Indicated In your report Retaining the geohshnial oVkw • not prepared for the specific site eMlored,or who developed your repot to provide coratrudion observation is the • completed before brpalanl project danger were made. most effective method of rraragl g 0e Out associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical dates Ual an erode the reliability of an eDdsfing geotnehnical engineering report lmk&Ouse pal aped: A RapaPle ftCMMBWBUM AM Nbt Ffa d • the function of Qe proposed sbhlhre,as when it's staged from a Do riot overly on the construction rammendafione khnded in your parting garage to an office building,or from a ligla fnd ZW plan report. Apse rew eaaadaliamame rid timt bemuse geo0dhnial engl- to a tehige ated wudheae, nears develop then prVhdpaly born judgment and opinion.Gedalnial engineers an fhaltza than recommendations only by observing anal subsurface conditions revealed during oalstndion.no geamoWdal have led to disappointments,dams,and dlsp ft To help reduce tco risk agmeerwfm dawoW ywrrcood rammf aswvm wpaa bOy or of such outcomes,gmfedrdal mng1reers Mmmly Include a emery of IiaDJlRylaffmr�art�remTvrmda:onsllNrafarplrmerdoesndfedam acpbWorypravisionslnlhel cop rts.Smelimalabeled'Ihblore' aons"Ian obwofan marry of Use provisions Wale wfee wwol Npl engInumv responsi- Wlltks begin and arid,to help others recognize their own respormbilitles A 6laoteeOfdeal Repent b Sf eat to and risks.Re M%apmvW=dmr Ask Questions.Your gmfeonkal etatl® a glree should respond hdy and hanldy. Odle design trap manbes'm islet rpreta w of geotadnYal mpkeeing reports has ra, i n zesty proltens.laws Dal risk by havingn gm-ye �CauMoomeGlBl CimeePro Are Not OotlBl'ed leeniral mAmear Conte with appropriate rmnbers of the desgrh tmm aft The equlpnmt,tefticlues,and personnel used to perform a gewwlron- sndnu7Ng Ue repot!Also retain you gmtelrkW aWw to Wom pads.- mw2l study difler significantly horn those used to pedarm a gedaduriml rent elmhe is at the design teen's plans and specifications.Cardadors can study.For dal mama a gmlahnkel ag'weairlg meat does not u ally also wnww a geemcmlal engineering report.Reduce dal risk by relate any gewervirowertal findings,concision&or recemrrledalons; havkp you gwftMkal engineer patMA In prebid and prtomsbW ion eg..about the fikelilmd of encountering udeground storage lade or cordererm,and byprovfdfrg construction ohsesaiors. mqulatedcadaninants.INranfclpo�eMrovrnedalproblaatshavelai to ravaD s prolva 6lfurat If you have rid yet abhNerl your own geden- fb Not Redmw Um fagi 1 1r'a fop Idronnimtal Intomwlon ask your geowmlial consul ant fa risk men- Geotetudal engineers prepare fire)boring and testing logs Gazed upon agemem guidance.Do not rely on an eflArnnerMaportjormarad la their interpretation of field logs and laboratory dal&To premt errors or 6nmhmrm rise. anissions,the logs included in a geatedmial engineering report should new be redrawn for Wusion in architectural or pia design driwi gs. Otrb6k Prote8dW A3*W=To MW WM Mold Ony plcoorghfc or elemnk;reproduction is acceptable,bd reagrdeo Diverse wafer s can be applied during building design,construction, W1 separdtirg logs Irons fie report CM8kV"risk operation and mainWarre to prevent significant amouts d mold hom growing on Indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be GM CMUWwa a COMPIM Repent fd devised for the eVras purpose d mold preve d on.kdegrafed into a cort- PIItdM prehenefve plan.and executed with dipped ovarslght by a professlonal Sore owners and design protessioreLa mistakmly believe they can make rnold prevention canw nt.Because)usl a wrell amount of vda or contractors bable to wMicipated subsnahm conditions by IWOU what molshae cm lead to Ile ci velopme i of sewe mold infesUlons,a nurn- they prmdde to bid p epal on,To help prevent msUy problem,ghe eon- ber of mold prevention strategies foes on looping building surfaces dry bailors the complete oml MW erglreerklg report,kgpretaoe U with a While grwOaV,water infitiralron,and War Issues my have been clearly written letter of tansmldal In Uat M aMse contractors Dd de addressed as pad of De gmtedokal aglreering study whose findings report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are moneyed In this report,the geotedmial engineer in crarge at this repod's accuracy is limited;enawage Nan to confer wrdl the pmla ical prop is cot a meld MwCon owadtanl;none of Me serrlem per, engineer who prepared the repori(a rnedesl fee may be required)of to Formed fo wnueg/on rein the pmbelmkal aegfnearf&* mrdld addUonal study to ndaln the specific types c itdomntim#4 wvme det/gnad or wnduged fwflre propose of mold pmrw- reed at peeler.A prebid confava an also be rd eft Be sure ea voc• Nan.Raper Implemeebdon of the rorammeadadma wnreyed tars hasp aftal svreto perlam additional study.Only den mist you In 10 report will not of flYalf be wNdwl to preeant resold be In a position to give covadas the best rdomation asailable to you, hom gmeng to w an me etreWma leisured. while requltkg Nees to at keg shoe some of the Nanchl respanslblllia pRwwttvvvmr, skmnkg fromonanticipaed conditions. for Aft OM ApMEN Read RDIPONOM ProYbbm CNN Mernbership In ASFHh[Bm PEwa m FNm+egoses gelahnkal Some diems,design professiorels,and conuados do not recognize gal engineers to a wide array of risk rnanapamnl Wolques Nat mn be of geuWmkal engineering is la less sad Ow agar enginesing disc- genuine befit for everyee Involved Ah a ccomtruclon projea Confer plifie cola lack c unkstardfng has ailed uaeaistic equations Nor with you AgEgn W gmWokal aghca for more ftn alron ASFE To®ear PebRr Ow Faux 8811 CdesYgb RoafSune G10a,SIIW Spring,MD 2M10 lelepfore:30IFA-2733 Fasrntls3DIFM2017 ema0:Mo@aftorg .wwa faorg cbargrwM tyASM be ftkaO n wa&m o.w cw1W of Uw wwa AX ban*w b pax b/M eras NYbmv4 b mirbwmAk4 taw WNAMW arrP�rrAn Oe+w4rbn fmryvYC OAF w ofnwatrreewCkq awdha hew rib abnwhwIIb rAe,tml ad'afe the oP'®rtQdo Obi WA4E ad wd'k. prtpmrt elskaY�ry n>mv w book enlace.Wy mdnkm ol.l$iFeed uw lice ewueawa� Awes m e/maw of a Mwseewal ngrawkq heroes Aywnw rk�4 k�itwl w aAwwmy ww m uro w4 mMOaa•w+oer kwp a ASff eimwr mpb mmec+0 wNWw wYlOwwk�al ryaNbb7J� IIGDGa ISM