Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 36862 Gateway Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS,INC. 12 , Anaheim, Ca 92807 • (714)632-3190 • Fax(714)632-3191 LIb-t� L. L-0, eP -MIq AVE, SI r✓ •Q 1 ' PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN, PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ' NW CORNER OF TEMECULA PARKWAY& LA PAZ STREET TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 ' October 17, 2014 ' Job No. 14-726P 1 ' Prepared For: ' SIRWIN ENTERPRISES, INC. 100 BARITONE IRVINE, CA 92620 1 ' GEO ENVIRON GEOTECHNICAL& ENVIRONMENTAL ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. 4071 E. La Palma Ave. Ste B. Anaheim, Ca 92807 ' 714-632-3190 ' 714-632-3191 (Fax) Job No. 14-726P October 17, 2014 Tony Dehbozorgi 1,. Sirwin Enterprises, Inc. 100 Baritone ' Irvine, Ca 92620 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical &Geologic Investigation for Foundation Design, Proposed.Commercial Development, NW Corner of Temecula Parkway & La ' Paz Road, Temecula, Riverside County, California 1 Gentlemen: ' In accordance with your request and authorization,we have performed a preliminary geotechnical tengineering investigation for the subject project. The accompanying,report presents the preliminary results of our field exploration work,laboratory tests,our geotechnical experience previously performed ' in the vicinity of the project site, as well as engineering analysis. The subsurface and foundation conditions are discussed and preliminary recommendations for the geotechnical engineering aspects of ' the project are presented. Final development plans were not available for the preparation of this report. This report should be considered preliminary until final plans and construction details are available for ' our-review and may be subject to change. 1 1 1 ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 2 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 1 ' This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions concerning our findings, please call at your convenience. 1 Respectfully submitted, Geo Env' on Eng. Consultants, Inc. j-�s�/, RgSTEIVx�e!'�r W 4M32 s ' Jabed Mas Esmail Rastegari President/ s ociate Engineer Principal, RCE 43332 JM/ER/gm ' Attachments: Appendix `A' - Drawings Appendix `B' - Boring Logs Appendix `C' - Laboratory Test Results Appendix `D' - Liquefaction Analysis Appendix `E' - Engineering Geology Report 1 ' GEO ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 3 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 :1 ' SCOPE The scope of this study was designed to.determine and evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions of the subject site and to present preliminary recommendations for the foundation systems and grading requirements as they relate to the planned development The scope included the following geotechnical functions: ' Review of available literature pertaining to the site and vicinity. ' • Evaluation of natural and manmade surface features at the site and contiguous areas. • Drilling and logging of exploratory trench pits and borings. ' Securing of bulk and undisturbed samples of earth materials from the borings for laboratory testing. • Laboratory testing of selected samples. • Geotechnical engineering analysis of data obtained during the study. • Preparation of this report and the accompanying illustrations to present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the planned construction. The scope of work did not include any environmental assessment of the property or opinions relating to possible soil or subsurface contamination by hazardous or toxic substances. 1 SITE LOCATION. DESCRIPTION. &VICINITY The subject property upon which the soil exploration has been performed is located at N.W. ' corner of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street,less than a quarter mile east of 15 Freeway,Temecula, Riverside County, California. The rectangular shaped site is approximately 10 acres sft in size and relatively flat. The site is bounded at the north west by steep cut slope approximately 5 to 30 feet height. The site is currently vacant. Surrounding the property are commercial properties. ,' GEO ENVIRON ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 4 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Preliminary details of the proposed construction and the reference drawing were provided by the project architect and the owner. ' Commercial buildings, comprised of retail store, gasoline service station, fast food store, and office buildings are presently planned within the subject site. We anticipate the structures will be one to two stories in.heights, wood or reinforced masonry construction Loads on the foundations are unknown but are expected to be between 2 and 3 kips per linear foot. Column loads are expected to ' be between 50 and 100 kips. ' Appurtenant construction will include asphalt concrete and concrete pavement,and landscaping. No grading plans were to provided,to this firm for our use during this study. However, minor cut and fill grading are,anticipated within the proposed construction areas. Should details involved in final design vary from those outlined above,this firm should be notified for review and possible revision of our recommendations. ' FIELD STUDY Afield study consisting of site observations and,subsurface exploration was conducted on October ' 13,2014. Nine(9)backhoe test pits and two(2)hollow-stem auger(8 inches diameters)borings were excavated to perform this geotechnical and geologic investigations. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 50 feet. The soils encountered in the exploratory borings were logged by our field personnel. The boring logs are included in Appendix 'B'. The.approximate location of the borings. ' are are shown on the plot plan in Appendix'A'. Disturbed and undisturbed samples of the soils encountered were obtained at frequent intervals ' in the borings. Undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler with successive drops of a 140-pound weight having a free fall of 30 inches. The blow count for each one foot of ' penetration is shown on-the boring logs.. Undisturbed soils were retained in brass rings with a 1-inch height and 2.413-inch in side diameter. The ring samples were retained in close fitting moisture proof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. ' The exploratory borings used for subsurface exploration were backfilled with reasonable effort to restore the area to their original condition prior to leaving the site. 1 ' GEO ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula,Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 5 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2614 LABORATORY TESTS ' The results of laboratory tests performed on disturbed, undisturbed,and remolded soil samples are presented in appendix `C'. Following is a listing and brief explanation of the laboratory tests which were ' performed as part of this study. The remaining soil samples are stored in our laboratory for future reference. Unless notified to the contrary, all samples will be disposed of 30 days after this report. Classification The field classification of the soils were verified in the laboratory in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the boring logs. 1 ' Field Moistures and Densities The field moisture content was determined for each of the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples. ' The dry density was also determined for each of the undisturbed samples. The dry density is determined in pounds per cubic foot and the field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry weight ' of the soil. Both results are shown on boring logs. ' Consolidation Tests Settlement predictions of the soil's behavior under load were made on the basis of the consolidation tests which are performed in general accordance with ASTM D-2435 procedures. The Consolidation apparatus is designed to receive a one inch high ring. ' Expansion Characteristics Laboratory expansion tests were performed on a near surface soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D-4829 procedures. Direct Shear Test Direct Shear test was performed in the Direct Shear Test Machine which is of the strain control ' type in general with ASTM D-3080 procedure. Each sample was sheared under varying pressures normal to the face of the specimen to determine the shear strength (cohesion and angle of internal friction). ' Samples were tested in a submerged condition. The result is plotted on the "Direct Shear Test Graph." ' GEO ENVIRON ENO.. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 6 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 Grain Size Distribution ' Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D422-63. Atterberg's Limits Test Atterberg's Limits Test was performed in general accordance with ASTM-4318 procedure. The liquid limit was determined in the laboratory with the help of thestandard.liquid limit apparatus. Plastic I limit was determined by forming ball with about 10 gram of plastic soil mass and rolled between fingers. The moisture content for both tests were determined and plasticity index was calculated. ' GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS Earth Materials ' The site is underlain surficial top soil consist of older alluvium and terrace deposit up to 6 feet in depths, consist of sandy and clayey silt. The top soil overlies bedrock consist of silt and sand stone ' of Pauba Formation Detailed description of the earth materials encountered are presented on the log borings in Appendix `A'. The soil strata as the trench and boring logs represents the soil conditions in ' the actual boring locations other variations may occur between the borings. Lines of demarcation represent the approximate boundary between the soil types, but the transition may be gradual. 1 Groundwater tGroundwater was not encountered in the exploratory boring during our subsurface exploration. ' However, historic groundwater may have been present between 10 to 15 feet below existing surface. SEISMICITY ' The frequency of earthquake and intensity of seismic ground shaking to be expected at the site depends upon which fault produces the earthquake, the earthquake magnitude and the distance to the ' epicenter. Nearby active fault lines include Willard, Wildomar these have associated postulated,maximum probable earthquake magnitudes of 7.1 In turn, the probabilistic ground motion acceleration range upwards to± 0.77g. The related California Building Code factors include the type d, Fault the near ' source zone at .56 kilometer toward the south and a soil profile type of alluvium or Sd. 1 ' GEO ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 7 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 Based on the California Building.Code acceptance of some structural damage without collapse, ' the subject development may be designed in accordance with the seismic formulas and requirements presented in the current version of the California Building Code. It is the responsibility of the project structural engineer to utilize the critical seismic factors to be used for building design and to implement the applicable sections of the code. ' LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction involves a sudden loss in strength of a saturated,cohesion less soil which is caused by shock or strain, and results in temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass. If the liquefying layer is near enough to the ground surface,the effects can be much like that of quicksand on any structure 1 located on it. The surface effects of liquefaction,which may result in damage to structures in the vicinity, typically take the form of sand boils, ground fissures, or differential ground settlement. ' The current standard ofpmctice,as outlined in the California Building Code,requires liquefaction analysis to a depth of 50 feet,although the noticeable effects of liquefaction typically occur in areas where the groundwater is, much shallower, usually much less than 30 feet from the surface. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below water table are composed of poorly consolidated,fine to medium grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the necessary soil conditions, the ground 1 acceleration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to initiate liquefaction. The design ground acceleration typically utilized in liquefaction analysis is the acceleration which has a 10 percent ' probability of being exceeded in a 50 -year structural life. In an effort to verify this, two (2) boring were drilled to maximum depths of 50 feet. ' Review of the encountered subsurface conditions generally indicates that the site is underlain with terrace deposits or older alluviums to a depths of 7 feet, consists of clayey silt, moist, and stiff. Then bedrock ' consists of silt and sand stone to 50 feet, the maximum depth explored. Groundwater was not encountered during this investigation. However, historic groundwater of 10 feet was considered in this ' analysis. Based on the subsurface soils(clay and sand stone),and relatively high SPT blow counts, the site, in general, is not designated as susceptible to liquefaction. The liquefaction analysis is ' presented in Appendix `D'. ' GEO ENVIRON ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy 8 La Paz Street, Temecula Page:8 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 ' CONCLUSIONS 1) The plan construction and development of the site is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering point of view provided the engineering recommendations of this report are followed. ' 2)The surface and the subsurface soil on the site will be adequate for the support of the structure and any fill soils proposed for the site. , 3)The proposed structure, grading,and development of the site will not cause adverse safety hazards or instability to the adjacent properties or their structures. 4) conversely, the adjacent properties or their structures will not cause adverse safety hazards or instability to the planned development. 5) Laboratory expansion test indicate that the soils on the site have low expansion potential. 6) The site, in general, is not susceptible to liquefaction. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Rough Grading Recommendation The following recommendations may need to be modified and/ or supplemented during rough grading as field conditions necessitate. All earthwork and grading shall be,performed in accordance with ' the recommendations presented herein,and in accordance with all applicable requirements of the Grading Code of the City of Temecula or County of Riverside, California. ' Prior to general grading operations,the existing structures on the site shall be demolished and the debris hauled off the site. All vegetation, top soil and debris in the building and pavement areas and ' areas to receive fill shall be stripped from the site. Vegetation and debris shall be exported from the site. Topsoil shall be stripped and stockpiled for use on finish grades in landscape areas or exported from the site. ' The proposed building areas shall be overexacavated to a depth of15.0 feet below the proposed finished grade, or 3 feet below the proposed footing bottoms, whichever is greater and replaced as a certified compacted fill. The limits of overexcavation for building areas shall extend at least 5.0 feet beyond the proposed building limits or to the property line whichever is less. In the proposed parking/driveway and canopy areas,the existing near surface soils need only be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 1.0 foot below existing site grades or proposed subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. GEO ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 9 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 The competencyof the exposed overexcavation bottoms must be determined by the soil engineer or his representative at the time they are exposed and prior to scarification or placement of fill. All overexcavation bottoms and any areas to receive fill shall be scarified a minimum of inches, ' watered or aerated as necessary to achieve optimum moisture content,and properly compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density prior to filling. .� For the purpose of estimating earthwork quantities, a shrinkage factor of 10-15 % may be assumed for the existing near surface on-site soil to be used as fill and compacted to 90% of maximum dry density for clayey soils. Subsidence due to grading is estimated to be 0 .1 feet. Any soil to be placed as fill,whether natural or import,shall be approved by the soil engineer or ' his representative prior to their placement. The fill material shall be free from vegetation, organic material or debris. Import soil shall be no more expansive than the existing near surface soils on the site. Suitable fill soil shall be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 6 inches in thickness after compaction and uniformly watered or aerated to obtain optimum moisture content.Each layer shall be spread evenly ' and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to ensure uniformity of the soil and optimum moisture in each layer. After each lift has been placed, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90% of maximum dry density. The soil engineer or his representative shall observe the placement of fill and should take ' sufficient tests to verify the moisture content and the uniformity and degree of compaction obtained.In- place density testing should be performed in accordance with ASTM acceptable to the local building ' authority. The optimum moisture content and the maximum dry density for compacted soils shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557 procedures. Due to the possibility of imported fill soil in the building areas and/ or variable soil strata that ' may be exposed in the building pad, typical soil samples should be obtained at completion of rough grading for laboratory testing to confirm the expansion characteristics of the graded site. ' FOUNDATION DFSIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Conventional Footine Recommendations ' All continuous footings should have a minimum embedment of 24 inches below lowest adjacent final grade, based upon the heights of the buildings. Interior footings may be founded 18 inches below lowest adjacent final grade, ' GEO ENVIRON ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 10 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 1 Continuous footing should be reinforced with at least two (2) # 5 rebars at the top and at the ' bottom of the footing in order to minimize the effects of any minor variations in the engineering characteristics in the supporting soils. tAll pad footings should be a minimum of_24 inches square by 24 inches in depth. The project civil/ or structural engineer shall determine actual footing widths, depths and reinforcements necessary to resist design vertical, horizontal and uplift forces. 1. Allowable Soil Bearing Capacities I Based on the field, and laboratory test data, an allowable soil bearing value of 2000 psf is ' recommended for the design of footings. A 1/3 increase in the above bearing value may be used when ' considering short term loading from wind or seismic sources. ' Settlement Using the recommended bearing value and the maximum assumed wall and column loads, the ' total settlement is estimated to be 0.5 inch. The differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of 0.25 inch, between similarly loading footing of the same size, over a minimum horizontal distance ' of 30 feet. Lateral Bearing Pressure ' Additional soil design parameters that may be pertinent to the design and development based on undisturbed natural soil or properly compacted fill are as follows: ' Allowable lateral soil pressures (Equivalent Fluid Pressure) Passive case: 300 psf/ft of depth to maximum 3000 psf. ' Allowable Coefficient of Friction between concrete and soil: .30 The above values are allowable design values and have factors of safety of 2.0 and 1.5 Iincorporated into them for the lateral soil pressure and coefficient of friction,respectively. If both values are used, then the passive resistance should be reduced by one third. I I Seismic Desien The followings are the seismic design.parameters, in accordance with the CBC 2007. I Site Longitude:-117.13566 Site Latitude: 33.47831 IGEO ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises; NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 11 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 Site Class: D ' Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration-Short Period: (0.2 see)-Ss: 1.985 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration-Short Period: (1 sec)-Sl: 0.745 ' Short Period Site Coefficient-Fa: 1.0 T` ' Long Period Site Coefficient- Fv: 1.5 i ' Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration-Short Period: (0.2 sec)-Sms: 1.985 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration-Short Period: ' (I sec)-Sml: 1.118 Design Spectral Response Acceleration-Short Period: ' (0.2 sec)-Sds: 1.323 Design Spectral Response Acceleration-Short Period: 1 (I sec)-Shc: 0.745 ' FLOOR SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS Concrete slabs should be constructed in accordance with the following section. ' Floor slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Floor slabs should be reinforced with # 3 rebars at 18- inches on centers. Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum 6 mil polyvinyl chloride membrane,vapor ' retarder with a minimum overlap of 12 inches mall directions. This membrane should be sandwiched between two, two-inch layers of sand. ' The concrete section and/or reinforcing should be increased as necessary for excessive design floor loads or anticipated concentrated loads. In areas where moisture sensitive floor covering are ' anticipated over the slab, The concrete section and/or reinforcing should be increased as necessary for excessive design floor slabs or anticipated concentrated loads. The slab subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least 5 percent over optimum moisture content condition to a depth of 12 inches immediately prior to placement of the moisture barrier or 1 pouring concrete. GED ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 12 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 ' CEMENT TYPE Low exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with on site soil and ' native material. Therefore, no special cement will be required for concrete in contact with these materials tRETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining walls if planned should be designed to resist the active pressures summarized in the ' following table. The active pressure is normally calculated from the lowermost portion of the footing to the highest ground surface at the back of the wall, including necessary factors for sloping ground. The ' active and passive pressures indicated in the table are equivalent fluid densities. Walls that are not free to rotate or that are braced at the top should use active pressures that are 50%greater than those indicated ' in the table. Retaining wall design for passive resistance should neglect the top foot of earth in front of ' the wall. Retaining Wall Design Parameter ' Equivalent Fluid Pressures Slope of adjacent Active Pressure backfill with Active Pressure backfill with ' ground onsite clayey soil. gravel or low expansive soil. Level 42 30 pcf 2:1 63 45 pcf ' Seismic loading should be considered where needed. ' The pressures shown on above table are for retaining walls backfilled with non-cohesive granular materials available on the site, and provided with drainage devices such as weep holes or ' subdrains to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures beyond the design values. Also, it is strongly ' recommended that all backfill material be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, as this is the density from which the pressure are calculated. This recommendation cannot be ' overemphasized. ' GEO ENVIRON ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 13 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION CUTS Temporary construction cuts for retaining walls, foundations, utility trenches, etc., in excess of 5 feet in depth or near the existing structures will have to be properly shored or cut back into an inclination not steeper than 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical). Vertical cuts near the existing structures should be properly shored using soldier pile and lagging system. Where more restrictive, the safety requirements for excavations contained in the State Construction Safety Orders enforced by the State Division of Industrial Safety(CAL-OSHA)and/or the ' safety codes of the local agency having jurisdiction over the project shall apply. All excavations shall be initially observed by the geotechnical engineer or his representative to verify the recommendations ' presented or to make any additional recommendations necessary to.maintain stability. TRENCH BACKFILL ' Trench excavations for utility lines which extend under building and paved areas are within the zone ' of influence of adjacent foundations shall be properly backfilled and compacted in accordance with the following recommendations. The pipe should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil (minimum Sand Equivalent Value of 30) to a depth of at least 1 foot over the pipe. This backfill should.be uniformly 1 watered and compacted to a firm condition. The remainder of the backfill should be on-site soil or very low to low expansive import soil, which should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in ' thickness,watered or aerated to optimum moisture content,and mechanically compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 procedures. Water jetting of the backfill is not ' allowed. ' PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS For preliminary design purposes,the typical soil anticipated in the subgrade will consist of silty sand 1 Based on this soil type ( clayey silt), a R value of 30 was considered for preliminary design of the pavement section. The actual R-Value of the subgrade soil should be tested and verified at the time of ' construction. The following are our preliminary recommendations for the structural pavement section calculated in general accordance with Caltrans procedures and based on the R-Value and the Traffic Index (TI). GEC ENVIRON ENO. CONSULTANTS, INC. ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 14 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections on Native Soils Site Area Traffic R-value AC Pavement Section t Index Automobile Parking 4.5 30 3" A.C. over 4" Class 11 Base ' Vehicle Drive Area 5.5 30 3" A.C. over 6" Class II Base ' Heavy Truck Area 6.5 3 4" A.C. over 6" Class 11 Base 0 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Sections ' Site Area Traffic Concrete Pavement Section Index ' Automobile Parking 4.5 5" PCC over 4" Class II Base Vehicle Drive Area 5.5 6" PCC over 4" Class It Base Heavy Truck Area 6.5 7" PCC over 4" Class II Base The concrete pavement should have saw cuts or expansion joints every 10 feet or less. The minimum reinforcing should consist with No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers, both ways. The concrete should have a 28-day concrete strength of at least 2,500 psi. To reduce the potential of unsightly • cracking concrete pavement for sidewalk and hardscape should be at least 4 inches thick and provided ' with saw cuts or expansion joints every 6 feet or less. Subgrade soils shall be overexcavated, scarified and compacted to at least 90% + of laboratory ' maximum dry density as recommended in the previous section of rough grading. Base course shall be compacted to at least 95% +of laboratory maximum dry. 1 ' PLAN REVIEW ' Subsequeritto formulationof final development plans and specifications but prior to construction, grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Geo Environ to verify compatibility with site geotechnical conditions and conformance with recommendations contained herein. ' GEO ENVIRON ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. - , Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 15 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS All rough grading of the property shall be performed under engineering observation of Geo I•. Environ. Geo Environ shall observe all foundation excavations. Observations should be made prior to installation of concrete forms and reinforcing steel in order to verify or modify, if necessary,conclusions and recommendations in this report. ' CLOSURE & LIMITATIONS The findings,conclusions,and recommendations presented reflect our best estimate of subsurface ' conditions based on the data obtained from a.limited subsurface exploration performed during the field study. The conclusions and recommendations are based on generally accepted geoteclinical engineering principles and practices. No further warranties are implied nor made. Due to the possible variability of soil and subsurface conditions within the site, conditions may ' be encountered during grading and development that may differ from those presented herein. Should any ' variation or unusual condition become apparent during grading and development, this office should be contacted to evaluate these conditions prior to continuation of work and necessary revisions to the recommendations. This office should be notified if changes of ownership occur or if the final plans for the site development indicate structures areas,type of structures,or structural loading conditions differing from those presented in this report. ' If the site is not developed or grading does not begin within 12 months following the date of this report, further studies may be required to ensure that the surface or subsurface conditions have not ' changed.. Any charges for necessary review or updates will be at the prevailing rate at time the review ' work is performed. GEO ENVIRON ENG. CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 . L1 ' APPENDIX A ORAWINGS 1 1 1 1 GEO ENVIRON 1 1 'Ins e ,��% S C n s � W� � �u 1 - , e @ Y 4 YY 4� .f _ ♦ (Y 1 Y`' Rn If A mm YA �i 4i T MECULA; ' n y� 1 / � i InIY iI t \ / 30 29 36 a J •� a* 31 32 N ' SCALE: V=112 MILE 1 GEO ENVIRON FIG. 1 I NWC TEM Ecu LA PKWY & LA PAZ SITE LOCATION PLAN TEMECULA, CA PROD. 1 4-726P ' ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ' LEGEND Af Surficial fill of silts Qo Older alluvium of cly silts Qt Terrace deposit of red f-c sandstones Qp Bedrock of It gr brn siltstones & f-m sandstones Af/Qt � �f ' Joint sets 2. ' f ♦♦♦♦ _il ' ' _ \ J Ld ,s ' a 80 err"-0J I PP J i -mo yj r" 87 • _ r 3 _ - a+p f� 1' � I ✓ 1 i 1 U I -I T- !• j i i W CL -_� -.ter' ._. - •_ --_ __ _ -wed_-__-_---_-- _. .-•-_,.---- ---- ---- _ -- �j 'Plan pegclient.. \ oo' ?. x ;TE 'ECUL A Y GEOLOGIC MAP ' GPO 5=tjv1R0N ' 114 SWeprirn Service Inc. ,eexar GEMECXNICAL a EMISONMENIAL EN&CONSULTANTS,INC. 4071 E. La Palma Ave., Ste B Anaheim, CA 92607 1 1 1 APPENDIX R ' BORING LOGE 1 1 1 GEO ENV/RON GEO ENVIROIN PROJECT NO. 13-726P BORING LOG B-1 s DATE: 10/13/14 CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprises, Inc. PROJECT ADDRESS:.NWC Temecula Parkway & La Paz St, Temecula DRILLING COMPANY: Duxbury Drilling LOGGED BY: J.M./RE DRILLING METHOD/ SAMPLING METHOD: H.S.A.! 140 lb 30" Drop, Automatic Trip Hammer I• Depth Samp Blows jMois ens IISCS, ymb EARTH MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (ft) per 12' .5 22 14.2 ML- Native: L.brown, Clayey Silt, Moist, mod. stiff iCL .0 42 14.8 Lt. tan, Sand Stone, damp, hard 10.0 46 15..5 Clay stone, damp, hard 15.0 52 14.9 Clay stone 0.0 LE 49 14.2 Sand Stone 5.0 48 16.3 0.0 5 19.2 I 5.0 54 16.3 0.0 61 14.9 I 5.0 59 17.2 0.0 I 63 17.8 Clay stone MNN 5.0 END OF BORING @ 50'. NO GROUNDWATER 1 IStd. Penetration Test IIIIIIIII California Ring Bulk Sample GEO ENVIRON PROJECT NO. 13-726P BORING LOG B-2 DATE: 10/13/14 CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprises, Inc. PROJECT ADDRESS: NWC Temecula Parkway & La Paz St, Temecula DRILLING COMPANY: Duxbury Drilling LOGGED BY: J.M./RE ' DRILLING METHOD/ SAMPLING METHOD: H.S.A./ 140 lb 30" Drop, Automatic Trip Hammer Depth Samp Blows JIVIols ens IISCS ymb EARTH MATERIAL DESCRIPTION lhJ per 12" ' .5 ' 62 12.9 Lt. brown Sand Stone, damp, hard .0 58 15.3 Lt. tan, Sand Stone, damp, hard 10.0 1 LE' 56 16.8 Clay stone, damp, hard 15.0 ' 62 15.2 Clay stone 0.0 59 16.3 Clay Stone ' 5.0 68 16.3 0.0 3 18.6 ' 5.0 64 17.5 Sand Stone 0.0 73 17.0 5.0 69 16.6 ' 0.0 ' 111 63 15.2 Clay stone 5.0 END OF BORING @ 50'. NO GROUNDWATER ' Std. Penetration Test IIIIIIIII California Ring Bulk Sample 1 ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 1 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/18'/9' Elevation: — De th ' Description Geologic Unit '1 0-.5 Loose dry It bm f sdy silt w/debris & rootlets Fill ' .5-6.5 Med stiff damp brn-dk bm cly silt w/ thin layers Older alluvium f sdy silt &slight porous texture 1 6.5-8 Mad dense damp It bm f sdy silt ' 8-9 Dense damp It bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 ' "The.. Gculu-ic Outfit" 1 GEOLOGIC LOG - TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 2 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: T/17711' total Elevation:Depth ' Description Geologic Unit- Slope Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f-c sdy silt wl rootlets Slope wash .5-6 Dense damp It gr brn f sdy siltstone Bedrock Level Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c sandstone w/occ Terrace deposit gravel & irregular contact w/dip to S & tight joint ' w/ dip of 87S 4-5 Dense damp It gr brn f sdy siltstone Bedrock- ' Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' "The Gcolugic Outfit" 1 ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 3 ' 'Y Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/1879' Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit 1 0-1. Loose dry gr bm f sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill ' 1-6 Med stiff damp dk bm cly silt w/ slight porous Older alluvium texture 6-7 Dense damp It bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock ' 7-9 Dense moist It bm f-c sandstone Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 ' "Thc Geologic Outfit" 1 tGEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 4 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/1679' Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit" 1 0-.5 Loose dry bm f-m sdy silt w/debris & rootlets Fill t .5-7 Med stiff damp dk brn cly silt w/slight porous Older alluvium texture ' 7-9 Med dense moist brn f-c sandstone w/gravel Bedrock Backfilled 1 ' 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 :1 1 ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 5 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/12'77' Elevation: — Depth ' Descri tion Geologic Unit 1 0-.5 Loose dry gr brn f sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill ' .5-2 Med dense damp gr brn f sdy silt w/rootlets Older alluvium 24.5 Med stiff damp dk brn cly silt w/,slight porous texture 4.5-5 Med dense damp It bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock 5-7 Dense damp bm f-m sandstone Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 tGEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No:: 6 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/12'/8'total Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit" ' Slope Side 0-.5 Loose dry gr brn f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c cly sandstone Terrace deposit ' Level Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry gr bm f-c sdy silt w/rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp red brn.cly f-c sandstone Terrace deposit ' Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 "The Geologic Oulfil" GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 7 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/14'/8'total Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geolo is Unit' Slope Side 0-.5 Loose dry gr brim f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash .5-4 Dense damp red bm cly f-c sandstone w/ Terrace deposit ' scattered gravel Level Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c sandstone w/ Terrace deposit scattered gravel Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 tGEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 8 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/12'/B' total Elevation: — _ De th ' Description Geologic Unit ' Slope Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry gr brn f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash .5-4 Dense damp gr brn cemented f-m sandstone Bedrock w/gravel Level Side 0-.5 Loose dry gr bm f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp gr brn f sdy siltstone Bedrock 1 Backfilled 1 1 1 1 "The Geologic Ouf il" 1 GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 9 .j Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 37874' Elevation: — De th ' Description Geologic Unit :1 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill ' .5-2 Dense damp red bm cly f-c sandstone Terrace deposit ' 2-2.5 Dense damp gr bm f sdy"siltstone Bedrock 2.5 4 Dense damp It brn f-m sandstone ' Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 1 "The Geologic Orrtfrl" 1 1 1 1 :1 ' APPENDIX C ' LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 GEO ENV/RON t 1 tSirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 1 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 1 ' EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS (ASTM D-2435) 0-21 Very Low ' 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91.130 High 131+ Very High ' Sample Soil Type Expansion Expansion Index Classification B-1 @ 5.0' Clayey Silt 52 Medium 1 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM 1557) 1 Sample Soil Classification Max. Density (pcl) Opt. Mois.(%) B-1 @ 0-5' Clayey, Sandy Silt 124.5 12.5 ATTERBERG'S LIMITS TEST 1 Sample Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Soil Class. ' B-1 @ 5.0' 42 20 22 Clayey Silt 1 1 ' Sirwin Enterprises, NWC of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Street, Temecula Page: 1 Job No: 14-726P October 17, 2014 t MOISTURE-DENSITY CALCULATION tSample Location Depth Moisture (%) Dry Density (PCF) (feet) TP-1 2.0 10.2 105.2 ' TP-1 7.5 13.3 102.4 TP-3 5.0 14.2 101.4 TP-3 5.0 7.6 104.5 TP-4 7.5 12.3 103.2 ' TP-4 2.0 12.2 104.1 ' TP-5 2.5 10.9 102.5 TP-5 5.0 12.6 104.8 ' TP-9 2.5 12.4 102.6 TP-9 5.0 13.2 104.8 1 1 1 1 ' Geo Environ Eng. Consultants, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATE: 10/15/14 ' JOB NO: 14-726P CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprise, Inc. JOB ADDRESS: NW Corner of Temecula Pkwy & La Paz, Temecula ' SAMPLE ID:T1-2.0' SOIL CLASS: Clayey Silt DRY DENS: 105.2 =' MOIS. CONTENT: 10.2 SOIL TYPE: Native STRAIN RATE: 0.004 in/min SHEAR STRENGTH: Ultimate .' ANGLE OF FRICTION : 26 deg. COHESION (pso : 300 psf 1 4000 1 3000 1 SHEAR STRESS ' ( 2000 pso ' 1000 1 ' 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 ' NORMAL BEARING PRESSURE (psf) GEE] ENVIRON DIRECT SHEAR TEST ' DATE: 10/15/14 JOB NO: 14-726P ' CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprise, Inc. JOB ADDRESS: NW Corner of Temecula Pkwy& La Paz, Temecula SAMPLE ID: T9-5.0' SOIL CLASS: Clayey Silt DRY DENS: 102.6 MOIS. CONTENT: 12.4 SOIL TYPE: Native STRAIN RATE: 0.004 in/min SHEAR STRENGTH: Ultimate ANGLE OF FRICTION : 34 deg. COHESION (ps4 : 500 psf 1 4000 1 1 3000 1 SHEAR STRESS ' ( 2000 pso 1 ' 1000 1 0 ' 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 ' NORMAL BEARING PRESSURE(psf) GEO ENVIR011% CONSOLIDATION CURVE: ASTM D-2435 PROJECT NO: 14-726P ' CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprises JOB ADDRESS: NEC Temecula Pkwy & La Paz, Temecula SAMPLE ID: T-9 @ 5.0' ' SOIL CLASS: ML-CL TECH: S.I. �t DATE: 10/15/14 1 . Sample at: o Field Moisture • Saturated Condition ' 4 3 -2 _I ' 0 1 ' 2 3 4 5 Consolloallon- °h or 7 Sample Thickness 8 1 9 10 ' 11 12 ' 13 14 ' 15 ' 16 17 111 19 ' 20 100 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 10000 20000 ' Pressure (psf) GEO ENVIR❑ ' CONSOLIDATION CURVE: ASTM D-2435 PROJECT NO: 14-726P CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprises JOB ADDRESS: NEC Temecula Pkwy & La Paz, Temecula SAMPLE ID: T-3 @ 5.0' ' SOIL CLASS: ML-CL TECH: S.I. DATE: 18/11/14 1 Sample at: o Field Moisture • Saturated Condition ' -4 -3 ' 2 0 I ' 2 3 4 5 ' Consolldallon- %or 7 ' Sample ml, k ess 8 9 10 ' II 12 13 14 15 16 ' 17 ' I 19 ' 20 100 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 10000 20000 ' Pressure (psf) GEO ENVIR❑ CONSOLIDATION CURVE: ASTM D-2435 PROJECT NO: 14-726P CLIENT: Sirwin Enterprises JOB ADDRESS: NEC Temecula Pkwy & La Paz, Temecula ;y SAMPLE ID: T-1 @ 5.0' SOIL CLASS: ML-CL TECH: S.I. DATE: 10/11/14 1 .Sample at: o Field Moisture • Saturated Condition ' -4 -3 2 ' 0 2 3 4 ST _ 5 Consollclatlorr %of 7 Sample Thickness 8 9 10 ' 11 12 13 14 ' 15 16 17 ' 18 19 20 ' 100 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 10000 20000 ' Pressure (psi GEO ENVIRL7 1 1 ' APPENDIX D LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS i 1 ' I i 1 I fGEO ENVIRON I I i ' i GENERAL INPUT DATA FOR THE SITE LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT EVALUATIONS GEO ENVIRON Geotechnical Engineering Consultants PROJECT: NWC Temecula pkway& La Paz St, Temecula Anaheim,Ca Sedrak Ekimyan Job No.: 14-726P Calcutated By.: JM Date: 1 0/1 71201 4 Checked By: ER jDate Location (Boring No B-1 Surcharge 0.00 ksf Ref. Earthquake Magnitude 7.5 Type of Sampler(SPTIOther) Various Approx. Distance From Site (optional) Ground Surface Elevation 1000 ift. MSL assumed? Site Earthquake Magnitude 7,1 Existing Ground Water Depth 60 ft.(Minimum 0.11L below GL) Peak Ground Accel(M=7.5) �0.67.«CalnLated by program(=K101M11),or entered by user. PGA(for site M = 7.1 ) 0.77 g Historic High Ground Water Depth 10 ft.(Minimum 0.1 ft. below GL) Magnitude Scaling Factors(MSF) 1.0 ( M=7.5) 1.15 <<<Calculated by program. (M- 7.1 ) Agonry-Required Foctor of Safety(FS)to classify layers as'liquerwblphin.1.0) (enter 1 it no special agency-required FS,or enter your selection)»» 1.1 u WwWw PROGRAM "EQLIQUE&SETTLE2"® April 2005 Copyright by Edward Castellanos, MSCE, PE,GE- Applied Geotech 4372 Marlton Street,San Diego, CA.92107 Phone(619)225-2233; FAX 8 Phone(310)370-7746 Cellular.(858)220-3000;(310)713-9005 For Order Form please send e-mail to:applgeo@aol.com OR edcastellan@hotmall.com 'All rights reserved"""""Unauthorized copying and use prohibited'""'"• SEISMIC SETTLEMENT EVALUATION IECT: NWC Tir w ula pkway La Pa amcu a 14.726P C4 m Ju D•u: IU17=14 C1rUW 9r Ell D•ar iU Location B-i " ^5W v EO.VOLSb.F•mr Fn Sawn �•m Bauwa- 6� B•Ur•1•rlml lrywlmmtl as-. Vuor41 Eaur. Cydc 7aean0 mml YIa1 s•nYllrm arrw 1e ei.r upm Enuw MJn M�)r Sv.6eb F•Cvm • a am ae r• O.rr v.s- v.�. vr� ��. veuwlc emnna. •ram �� e.1 n 5a 040.+1a1 M•7.6 SW* a+ra nl+mrl •...v •.w• •�PJ T 6mbm 6 6 TOLIa1 Mr PN •IM •1f • 7.1 = •CAI • IMIV• _ 0.00 2.50 1.3 2.50 150.OD 37 r. ,l 0.425 Nm L'q. 0.12595 22476 667 0.055 9.78E-05 1.65E-02 0009 0.006 0,016 0.000 0.000 0.000 Cola 2.50 6,00 43 3.50 510.00 63 80.0 0425 Nm Lq. 013065 13M3 1467 0220 150E-01 2.63E-02 0.007 0.008 0.012 0.OD5 O.OD5 4.005 0013 6.00 11.00 05 5.00 1035.OD 58 750 0425 Nm L'q, 0.13749 9986 2038 0.442 2.17E-01 4.20E@ 0.012 0.011 0.022 0013 0018 0018 am n.OD 16.00 13.5 SOD 144B.w 74 SOO 0475 Nm Lq. 0.00 000 0018 0.01a 0.000 16M 21.00 185 5.00 1769W 60 74.0 0.550 Nm Lq 0.00 0.00 0018 0018 0W0 21.OD 26.OD 23S 5.OD 2082.Go 52 65.0 0.575 Nm Llp, 000 0.00 0018 ante 0000 26.00 31.00 28.5 5.03 241OW 53 66.0 0600 Nm lip. 000 0.OD 0.018 0.013 0.® 31.00 ww 30.5 500 2735AO 47 590 0.600 Nm L"q- 0.00 000 0,018 0015 OOW MOD 41.W 36S 5.00 308410 49 61.0 O.8D0 Nm Lip_ 0.00 000 0.015 0010 0000 Al oD 46W 43.5 5OD 338960 43 55.0 0575 Nm L'q, 0,00 000 0.018 cola 0000 46.OD 51.OD 48.5 5,OD 3717,60 43 56.0 0.550 Nm Lip. MOD 0.00 0.010 cola 0000 51.00 aWA aWA 9WA aWA aWA aWA aWA 9WA 9WA 9WA '9WA aWA aWA aWA aWA EWA aWA aWA aWA IWA 9WA 0= MA LIOUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION GEO ENVIRON Gent l lE Cm,,LM a PROJECT: MWC Tan uW P "y A La Pu St,T..ecula An 6..Ca Se0rek El myan Job No.: 14.726p Cavmue Oro_ `m r®,. Clxu>e BF Fa DEW Bx.Iw eomxur b - e •.oLrAac Po xoi rovcx ma cFu Cen4plfon buo kr Location 61 Oda1eY' e : -" �.OS .••0lFwt[OO MOr f9l)0I T10 CE11 Mp tely YYR EeW W " " 4 Svl Mmrtxr q u NF cyd CYOC Ytl.>PaL rrm Ma MVF4u1 FMVN Frog,% i MM Elavn4n GronE L4 (N USCS lj.' 5".. beau Canam `^ Type xmmrlmpp Rao E^xW nep - (N,)d ga4i4Mro Ra4i4uiro R4Y4urm R4O�m bMap.• F4o>ol IN (a MSLI T, Baaan Srm (kd) (4R (k$n w"'sin'a mlbYllm Cm4aaon FMt.>. Ob a6U Aaup LW Imr C4asn 114m Rob W M•M•73 FKIW(fa) 73 SNN P®.lima Cn) (bb.-Ta U= For XA u Im SM M•7.5 73 OF >0 1 1.25 998.8 0.0 2.5 ML 0.120 0,150 0.150 1.70 23.1 SPT 1.000 0.75 1.25 37 60 60 Fax P..4 >0.6 >0.8 EWA 0,999 0.065 xx,tp 2 425 me 2.5 6.0 ML 0,120 0.510 0.510 1.51 "A SPT 1.000 075 1.25 63 40 40 0 >06 10.6 NWA 0.992 0,220 r4m b. 3 8,50 991.5 6.0 11.0 ML 0126 1.(W 1.035 128 48.3 SPT 1.00D 0.75 1.25 58 40 40 n >0.6 >0.6 AWA 0.982 0."2 xn U4. 4 13.50 986-5 11.0 16.0 ML 0,126 1.685 1."7 1.08 54.6 SPT 1.006 1 1.25 74 30 30 4p >05 >0,6 >4.5 0,972 0.7014 xm Llq. 5 1850 981.5 160 21.0 ML 0.128 2.300 1-770 0.94 51.45 SPT 1.000 1 1.25 60 30 30 74 >0.6 >0.6 >4.5 0.960 0.961 xm Lp. 6 2350 976.5 21.0 26.0 ML 0.126 2.935 2.093 0.82 50.4 SPT 1.000 1 1.7.5 52 30 30 0 >0,6 >0.8 >4.5 0.946 1.209 N-, 7 2B.W 9715 26.0 31.0 ML 0126 3,565 2A11 0.74 .57.75 SPT 1.000 1 125 53 30 30 a >0.6 >0.6 >4,5 0.927 1.436 -IA 8 3350 968.5 31,0 36.0 ML 0.129 4.203 2.736 0.67 56.7 'SPT LOW 1 125 47� 30 30 ea >0.6 >0.6 >4.5 0.900 I.M xx,Ll� 9 30.50 961.5 36.0 41.0 ML 0,127 4.543 3,054 061 64.05 SPT t000 1 125 49 30 30 M >0.6 >0,6 >4.5 0.863 1,819 xm114. 10 43.50 9W.5 41.0 46,0 ML 0.128 5.480 3.390 0.56 61.95 SPT 1.000 1 125 43 30 30 m >0.6 >0-6 >4.5 0.818 1.950 x„U4. 11 48.50 951.5 46.0 51.0 ML 0.128 6120 3.718 052 66.15 SPT 1.000 .1 1.25 43 45 45 s >0.6 >0.6 >4.5 0,767 2,043 xm L)4. COMPUTER PROGRAM: 'EOLIquo&Seffle2"0 Location.......... B-1 surcharge 0.00 ksf ++•^+n matt•-•^=^•rmtc°°e ms�.ne ° Eletatlon(MSL)(ft) 1000 •••"""Y0i••�'•1O•°^OinOOO•'�10••' b c tl Blow Count Fines Content( Layem%) Stress or Resistance ksf Cuulative S bottomttom),),i of ( ) Layers(from bo inch o a •o m m im ID ID ID °m °, vs io ° e ° s • • 1° e •J L I ♦ — s m I—+ii is is n — ID a A I ID — a a a • m I a a m — m m 1 m • L m L m m n a CL a p m O e p m p e m m m m m e m m n a n n m n m m m m m m IT TITLI m e m e ws ® m m —N1(80)q(equivalentbClean sands) —Fine Content(%) Induced Strew(FS=1) — �••'°vL o•msiai1b ei'm`'• p -------Induced Strew(FS= 1.1 ) —awn+cemm.rntrrtanv.t • N-SPT(w/hammerltampltu cenection) _—GW Surface(Historic High)p Resanre ta to Liquefaction Total Settlement —GW Surface(Historic High) (FxLsGng) V —GW Stmace GW Surface(Historic High) Pnor to Removal After Rm eoval —GW Surface(Edsting) • Lab Test Results —GW Surface(Usting) 0.02 011y'n 0.01 itches Removal 8 Recornp.Depth(it)= 5 PROJECT: NWC Temecua pk"y A La Paz St.Temeculi Weighted Ground Aril.(M=7.5)a 0.67 g Liquefaction Potential and Seismic Settlements Based on Boring Data Anaheim,Ca - - SiteMagnituee. 7.1 GEO ENVIRON Job No.: 14726P Sedrak Eklmyan Geotechnical Engineering Consultants Date: 10-17-2014 Figure No. ??? 1 1� 1 ' APPENDIX E ENGINEERING GEOLOGY REPORT 1 1 1 ' GEO ENV/RON 1 1 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 RAY A. RASTMAN ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST r ' 2461 EAST ORANGETNORPE AVENUE, SUITE 214 FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92831 (714) 879-2378 ' October 17, 2014 ' Geo Environ Inc. 4071 E. La Palma Avenue, Su. 8 { Anaheim, CA. 92807 ' Subject: Interim Phase of Engineering Geologic Exploration Proposed Commercial Development ' —Ten Acre Site Northeasterly of Temecula Parkway and La Paz Street Temecula, CA. Project No. 3940 Gentlemen: At your request, we have conducted an interim phase of engineering geologic explora- tion in order to identify pertinent geologic factors with respect to a proposed commercial development. The main factors, in turn, included evaluation of the geologic setting with particular interest directed towards the stratigraphy, structural features and seismicity at the site. The development plan is conceptual and the discussions and recommendations pro- ' vided herein must be considered as general. We understand, however, that proposed construction will include a retail setting with department stores, shops, restaurants and a service station; the related foundations may typically consist of continuous footing, grade beam and/or drilled pile type systems. Also, we understand that related grading may typically consist of nominal cut/fill with associated retaining walls and slopes at 2:1 that range from — 5 to 25 feet in height. ' A concise preface to geology of the area is provided in a California Department of Water Resources Bulletin from 1956—to paraphrase, the most obvious feature of the Santa Margarita River watershed is the predominate northwest trending Elsinore Fault pattern which is manifested by the Murrieta and Temecula Valleys ... Geologic formations in- clude metamorphic and igneous basement rocks and overlaying sedimentary deposits of Tertiary to,Recent ages ... And faulting has been continuous from Pleistocene time. tSCOPE OF WORK ' The geologic work was based upon conceptual planning information and same was con- ducted in accordance with generally accepted practice for the particular circumstances. More specifically, typical factors include: ' ✓ Review of selected geologic maps. ✓ Field geologic examination of the site. ✓ Perusal of aerial photographs. ' ✓ Subsurface geologic exploration by nine lest pits. 1 2 ✓ And, visual evaluation of the units encountered with respect to proposed con- ' struction. '$ SITE CONDITIONS ' The overall site occupies — 10 acres of partially graded land situated within the Temec- ula Valley. It is bounded on the northwest by Temecula Parkway, on the southeast by La Paz Street, on the northeast by Vallejo Avenue, on the north by a Church and School ' Site, and otherwise in general by residential development. Regrettably, the detailed his- tory of the grading work remains unknown as of this writing. Topography of the site is formed by two main aspects: namely, an open expanse of rela- tively level land and moderately steep cut slopes of— 5 to 30 feet in height at the north- .. - erly portion thereof. Scattered weeds and several scrub bushes at the cut slope area. ' comprise the vegetal cover. Also, of course, see the accompanying base maps for an overview of the site and topog- raphic conditions. ' GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geologic province of interest is formed by the moderately rugged Peninsular Range, which extends southeasterly from the distance San Gabriel Mountains into Baja Califor- nia. The major geologic formations in the area include alluvial deposits at the valley Floors, and sedimentary bedrock and terrace deposits in the foothill terrain; major fault lines include the nearby Elsinore systems. ' Geology at the site is inclusive of four basic units: namely, sedimentary bedrock, terrace deposit, older alluvium and fill. Also, of course, see the accompanying geologic maps, section lines and logs for an overview. ' ✓ The underlying bedrock is assigned to the Pauba Formation. It is exposed in the noted cut slopes and it typically consists of dense, It gray brown, massive-poorly bedded siltstones with interbeds of f-c sandstones and occasional conglomerate; the associated ' strata where present at the site have gentle dips of only a few degrees. ✓ The terrace deposit is also present as remnant wedges of moderate significant at ' the noted cut slopes where same varies from — 5 to 15 feet in thickness. It typically con- sists of dense, red to reddish brown, massive, clayey f-c sandstones with occasional gravel and cobbles. Features of note include the red color, the clayey matrix and the lo- cal presence of a near vertical joint pattern. ✓ The older alluvium is present as a cover of— 2 to 12 feet in thickness at the open ' expanse area. It typically consists of medium stiff, dk brown to brown, massive, clayey and f-m sandy silts with a slight porous texture. ✓ The fill is also present at the open expanse area as a surficial disked layer. It ' typically consists of loose, gray brown, f-m sandy silts with minor debris and rootlets. As noted earlier, the most significant structural feature is the northwesterly trending Elsi- nore Fault Zone. The said zone, in turn, contains several branches of which the named "The Geologic Outfit" 1 1 3 ' Willard and Wildomar are of primary interest in this case at— 2000 and — 3000 feet to- wards the west and east respectively. ' Finally, we may note that groundwater seepage was not encountered during the field exploration work. SEISMIC CONDITIONS Of interest herein is the definition of an active fault as one that has been involved in ground rupture during the last — 11,000 years or Holocene time in geologic terms. ` In turn, relatively nearby active faults of significance to the site include: ,i . Fault Zone Approximation Location Earthquake Magnitude* ' Willard 0.4 miles W 7.1•• Wildomar 0.6 " E 7.1•• ' Julian 12 " SE 7.2 Glen Ivy 13 " NW 6.8 San Jacinto 22 " NE 7.2. ' (•) Maximum probable moment magnitude, CDMG 2008. (••) As branches of broader Elsinore zone. ' Geologists from the California Geological and U.S. Geological Survey offices have con- sidered the Temecula area in an extensive array of geologic research. Said research has included, in particular, detailed field geologic mapping and close perusal of aerial ' photographs in order to ascertain the related features with respect to the location of pre- sent day active fault lines.Results of interest in this case involve the nearby Willard and Wildomar branch faults as noted earlier, but the referenced research does not indicate ' the presence of an active fault within the site proper. We may consider two primary maps with respect to the Willard branch—i.e., the early ' California Division of Mines and Geology fault map of 1977 and the more recent interac- tive fault map by the U.S. Geological Survey of 2014. The Willard branch is essentially identical on both maps except for a straight line inferred projection beneath the alluvial deposits of Murrieta Creek by the 1977 map whereas the 2014 map shows a slight bend ' towards the west. We have taken the liberty in this case of a slight adjustment on the area geologic map from 1977 in order to match the U.S. Geological Survey map. ' Also, of course, see the accompanying fault and earthquake epicenter maps for an over- view. ' CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS Some constraints to development are, of course, posed by the presence of significant ' older alluvium and probable transition zones related to hard beds within the bedrock. Even so, a commercial development is considered to be feasible from an engineering geologic standpoint. More specifically, typical factors include: "Tire Gcolobic Orr{fit" I 4 ,; ✓ Geologic Stability—The site topography and dense—massive or gentle dip char- acteristics of the terrace deposit and bedrock strata are favorable for gross stability. The ' fill and older alluvium where present, however, are typically subject to settlements and sloughing, and these features, of course, require consideration and mitigation measures. ✓ Seismicity— Nearby active fault lines include the Willard and Wildomar branches of the Elsinore zone and same have associated postulated, maximum probable earth- quake magnitudes of 7.1. In turn, the probabilistic ground motion accelerations may range upwards to — 0.77g as per a 2 percent in 50 years criterion. i ✓ Site Grading —The site grading is anticipated to be amenable to the use of con- ventional earth moving equipment with moderate to extremely heavy ripping. Also, the bulk of excavated materials are anticipated to be suitable for use in compacted fills. Naturally, stripping of unsuitable soils and fills to expose underlying competent soils and/or bedrock will be required prior to placement of newly compacted fill. ✓ Proposed Cut and Fill Slopes—Typically, cut slopes are encompassed by three factors: namely, 1)those less than 4 feet in height are generally stable; 2)those that are ' at 2:1 with favorable soil conditions and/or bedrock with into slope bedding,jointing or faulting are anticipated to be stable to heights on the order of 40 feet; and 3) those that expose unfavorable soil conditions and/or out of slope bedding, jointing or faulting are anticipated to require buttress fills or retaining walls. In turn, fill slopes of compacted soils at 2:1 are typically stable to heights on the order of 40 feet. Cut slopes of significance expose the units of siltstones and sandstones and are antici- pated to be grossly stable at 2:1 to heights of— 30 feet; however, same are and will be subject to surficial erosion. ' ✓ Expansive Soils— Portions of the geologic units are anticipated to be expansive and precautions may be required relative thereto. ✓ Foundation Criteria —Two basic considerations must be fulfilled with respect to the engineering'geologic aspects of the foundation criteria: namely, 1) the foundations must be safe against shear failure of the soils or rock, and 2) the post-construction set- tlement must be within permissive limits. Compacted fills and/or building and wall foundations are anticipated to have adequate ' support provided by the terrace deposit and bedrock strata subject, of course, to the ear- lier discussions. Naturally, we recommend that all fills and building/wall foundations be established in competent terrace deposit, bedrock strata or newly compacted fill as the ' case may be. As may be surmised, the existing fill and older alluvium are considered to be marginal with respect to the support of additional fill or building/wall loads. Also, the foundations should be established such as to have minimal setbacks per the applicable ' building code from any adjacent descending slope face and/or a 1:1 projection from the base of any adjacent slope or excavation. Lastly, the footing excavations and detailed work areas may require extremely heavy ripping and jackhammer work due to zones of hard bedrock and/or boulders. ✓ Engineering Geologic Inspection —We recommend that our geologist review the finalized grading and construction plans in order to verify our findings. Further, we rec- ommend that site inspections be made by our geologist during grading and construction "The Geologic Outfit" I 5 ' in order to verify the geologic conditions encountered and, of course, additional recom- mendations may be required if conditions other than anticipated are found. SELECTED REFERENCES ' California Department of Water Resources - Santa Margarita River Investigation, 1956. h" California Division of Mines and Geol Geologic ma of the Elsinore Fault in south- ern Riverside County, 1977; Fault hazy d zone map for he Temecula Quadrangle, 1990; ' Geologic map of the Temecula Quadrangle, 2000; Fault evaluation reports for the Te- mecula and Murrieta Quadrangles, 2002; and Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for California, 2008. California Geological Survey- Seismic hazard zone report for the Murrieta Quadrangle, ' 2007; and Fault activity map of California, 2010. Continental Aerial -Series of stereo pair photographs from 1949 to 1998. ' U.S. Geological Survey-Map of surface faulting potential in Evaluating Earthquake , Hazards in the Los Angeles region, 1985; Late Quaternary fault map of the Los Angeles region, 1989; Fault parameters for the Temecula area, web page, 2014; Interactive fault ' map for the Temecula area, web page, 2014; and Ground acceleration data, web page, 2014. ' REMARKS Several of the aforementioned items, of course, also fall under the purview of your office ' as the soils engineer and same may require further evaluation; these items include the site grading, slope stability, expansive soils, retaining walls, shoring and foundation de- sign criteria. ' The conclusions and recommendations express our best evaluation of the project re- quirements as based upon the planning information provided and-information obtained at the geologic exposures and exploratory pit locations. The client must recognize, how- ever, that evaluation of subsurface deposits is subject to the influence of undisclosed and unforeseen variations in conditions that may occur and the client has a related re- sponsibility to bring to our attention any unusual condition that may be encountered. tWe trust that this interim a veering geologic exploration report will meet with your needs at this time. ' Sin ' Ray A. Eastr aC n-e1�4 "The Geologic Orvffr" ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 1 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 371879' Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit' 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f sdy silt w/debris & rootlets Fill ' .5-6.5 Med stiff damp brn-dk bm cly silt w/thin layers Older alluvium f sdy silt& slight porous texture 6.5-8 Mad dense damp It brn f sdy silt ' 8-9 Dense damp It bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 "The Geulo-ic Outfit" I ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 2 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3717711' total Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit' ' Slope Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash .5-6 Dense damp It gr brn f sdy siltstone Bedrock Level Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry It brn f-c sdy silt w/rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c sandstone w/occ Terrace deposit gravel & irregular contact w/dip to S & tight joint w/ dip of 87S 4-5 Dense damp It gr brn f sdy siltstone Bedrock ' Backfilled "The Geologic Oulfir" I ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 3 ' Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 371879' Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit 1 � 0-1 Loose dry gr brn f sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill ' 1-6 Med stiff damp dk brn cly silt w/ slight porous Older alluvium texture 6-7 Dense damp It bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock 7-9 Dense moist It bm f-c sandstone Backfilled i 1 . I I I I IThe Gcolobic Ouffil 1 ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT 1 Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 4 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/16'/9' Elevation: — Depth ' Description Geologic Unit" 1 0-.5 Loose dry bm f-m sdy silt w/ debris & rootlets Fill ' .5-7 Med stiff damp dk brn cly silt w/slight porous Older alluvium texture ' 7-9 Med dense moist bm f-c sandstone w/gravel Bedrock Backfilled 1 � 1 .1 1 1 1 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 1 ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 5 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/12'f7' Elevation: — De th ' Description Geologic Unit' 0-.5 Loose dry gr bm f sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill ' .5-2 Med dense damp gr bm f sdy silt w/rootlets Older alluvium ' 2-4.5 Med stiff damp dk bm cly silt w/'slight porous texture 4.5-5 Med dense damp It bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock ' 5-7 Dense damp bm f-m sandstone Backfilled 1 1 1 t "The Geologic Oulfil" 1 1' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 6 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/12'/8'total Elevation: — _ Depth ' Description Geologic Unit ' Slope Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry gr bm f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash '.5-4 Dense damp red bm cly f-c cly sandstone Terrace deposit ' Level Side 0-.5 Loose dry gr brn f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c sandstone Terrace deposit ' Backfilled ,1 1 1, 1 1 1 � 1 "Tire Geologic Outfit" 1 5 GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 7 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/14'/8' total Elevation: — De th ' Description Geologic Unit ' Slope Side I ' 0-.5 Loose dry gr brh f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c sandstone w/ Terrace deposit ' scattered gravel Level Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry It bm f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp red brn cly f-c sandstone w/ Terrace deposit ' scattered gravel Backfilled 1 "The Gcolobic Orufrl" 1 GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT ' Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.:8 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: 3'/12'/8' total Elevation: — _ De th ' Description Geologic Unit Slope Side i 0-.5 Loose dry gr bm f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Slope wash ' .5-4 Dense damp gr bm cemented f-m sandstone Bedrock t w/gravel Level Side ' 0-.5 Loose dry gr bm f-c sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill .5-4 Dense damp gr bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock ' Backfilled 1 1 1 1 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 1 ' GEOLOGIC LOG -TEST PIT Project No.: 3940 Date: 10/14/14 Pit No.: 9 Equipment: Backhoe Dimensions: T/874' Elevation: — i Depth ' Description Geologic Unit 1 0-.5 Loose dry It bm f sdy silt w/ rootlets Fill t .5-2 Dense damp red bm cly f-c sandstone Terrace deposit 2-2.5 Dense damp gr bm f sdy siltstone Bedrock ' 2.5-4 Dense damp It bm f-m sandstone ' Backfilled 1 .1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 1 1 Wildomar fault - .Ca,•- •. -Stil..l ._ it_ _H_�. ._;_ - , ..s •,^� __ H ✓,-.-.,.: �. ..wgfr:'1Aa'-MAD }:o'•nyr 43 M.h- 7 �zR .. Q -`k� .�- � _- �•mil'�^"i`-- ,�!i/O .J �t ` Syr/; j � �/ f•- � SITU, _ram �7� - � � ,{� „ •�` yph:hp pro �, :•, � 13 1 Willard fault 1 ap5 CDMG QpF Pauba Formation 1 Qpe, eandato"c part; Qpf, fangtamcrate part. 1 1 1 AREA GEOLOGIC MAP 1 in -- 2000 ft 1 . 1 "The Geologic Outfit" 1 1 Generalized Geologic Units 7a_.,,�:,.. ;:����"" .�>i^::':'''Y'"�"'� � Ouolamor sedimenlar rocks ,p :y�•.;',;:;-"� .: r 1:�:.'•:C't� Y Y yi Geloceoua aedimeN ory rocks a: q •Qry.:... Mesozoichonciacon-Knorvllle ® Ter glary sealmenla ry rocks ' �"0'f.' "• - ^ '' r{,1,4;�. Oualamor end Tartlor volcanic Y Y MMaea1G-PuleoraiC malOmarpaiG ."'�' rocks of CASCADE RANGE and y,Y:�ya•; F,r �: I;};y: .:.�C:j:i::.":.:: MDDOG PLATEAU on0 qra nllic roch3 '.,iR(i�,, •I. ;_�F: �;N.i'^�: ?i Proeambrian la Recant rock ' •. + + Gumplea of me BASIN and RANGE and MOJAVE DESERT . r.. i rk' i ems'•' �t!1fF :'ry. :.f Geomorphic nil ou province boundary G logic o aorY V t 'Y{, a0••" — Fault r • THAN` a�E -� "ra.r,• �``--•••• E••. •• af.. . i SITE CDMG 1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP 1 In 100 ml 1 ' "The Geologic Outfit" 1 1 , i' j1 0 M 6 O 0 . M 7 r' ?992 19150 t1 1954 0 0W1954 ' 01932 1� O ' 1868 1906 O ' O 38 1989 �1872 0 ® 0 1857 .0 00 . ' 1927 19521812 0 O 1812 1992 0 SITE O CDMG 1 EPICENTER MAP 1In -- 100 ml 1 ' "The Geologic Oust" 1 ' Ifel •a., y . to ,LUIS OBISPO , °+Kc.s,lrxn\ IC R /t N ��.%.1 .191eIsIt♦•cue 1 :—� •4•�r• 19]I 1J . • a•a...,e. a r Hae I \�� a ,r a 3 1we I •� � I L•• ; t1r+•.1.s1 r . 5'A N—T B I IJaa —__ A R B R_A _ __—. __— ___ 1 11 IfN �•`na •� I If 1fy�e)r I I ♦r•/ • er r ua, I i ' ' •..e ...af .T UI R A J, A ..,.. i1.+f L°i;t I1 11 ryr;C_L 0x G [ 1 t S 4 Y 1 un n+...ao ,..✓i a Mai le)) 4•p+ I..... .., ...rex�.)N_. Los 19t0• / L _ •�• 1 pl'' ••P'•.�. ' +•/. • ,..••c..r�lf' ..••. fYr AYGE� S mvUf1DC •� ,� ..•r.r.�. l `bOr I r.y Is IO R A G E i AEG `. `� ,�../..•.,a Ve;.,. M1?i ( r 'o �•�/ Tom\ 191D SITE ' EXPLANATION' ACTIVE FAULTS EARTHQUAKE LOCATIONS Total Iergla of fault We that deal) Holocene deposits Yrl a teal has had Senm1C aCI"i1) e segmem wdh am tote Cull during an historic W eon hqu0)t, or •ilh 05bemiC layl creep FAULT MAP l In --- 30 mi 1 ' `The Geologic Outfit"