Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Tract Map 23992 Soils Report Parcel 4 and 5 Rancho Highlands
9272 Jeronimo Road, Suite 104, Irvine CA 92618 (949) 297-3856 LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting August 30, 2021 Project No. 174002-02 Ms. Kim Berry Red Tail Acquisitions, LLC 2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 400 Irvine, California 92612 Subject: Geotechnical Review of the Precise Grading Plan, Rancho Highlands, Tract No. 23992 Lots 4 & 5, City of Temecula California References: LGC Valley, Inc., 2019, Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Rancho Highlands, East of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads, Temecula, California, Project Number 174002-02, dated February 27, 2017, revised December 2, 2019 LGC Valley, Inc., 2021, Updated Geotechnical Report Conclusion, Rancho Highlands, Tract No. 23992 Lots 4 & 5, City of Temecula, California Project Number 174002-02, dated August 27, 2021 Proactive Engineering Consultants West, 2021, Precise Grading Plan, Rancho Highlands, Tract 23992, Lots 4 & 5, City of Temecula, California, 21 Sheets, dated August 30, 2021 LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has reviewed the latest precise grading plans (referenced above) prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. for the proposed multi-family residential development of Rancho Highlands, Tract No. 23992 Lots 4 and 5 in the City of Temecula, California. Based on our review, it is our professional opinion that the recommendations included in the referenced geotechnical update report and conclusion letter (LGC, 2019 and 2021) have been properly incorporated in the project precise grading plans. Therefore, LGC finds the plans are acceptable from a geotechnical point of view provided the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical documents are implemented during construction. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. The undersigned can be reached at (949) 297- 3856. Sincerely, LGC Valley, Inc. Adam C. Rich, PE 85642 Randall K. Wagner, CEG 1612 Project Engineer Senior Project Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) (1) Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Attention: Mr. Gilbert Almendarez (via e-mail) CLEARED BY CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS tricia.ortega 02/15/2023 02/15/2023 02/15/20 12/06/2021 9272 Jeronimo Road, Suite 104, Irvine CA 92618 (949) 297-3856 LGC Valley, Inc. Geotechnical Consulting August 27, 2021 Project No. 174002-02 Ms. Kim Berry Red Tail Acquisitions, LLC 2082 Michelson Drive, Suite 400 Irvine, California 92612 Subject: Updated Geotechnical Report Conclusion, Rancho Highlands, Tract No. 23992 Lots 4 & 5, City of Temecula California Reference: LGC Valley, Inc., 2019, Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Rancho Highlands, East of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads, Temecula, California, Project Number 174002-02, dated February 27, 2017, revised December 2, 2019 In accordance with the request of representatives of Red Tail Acquisitions, LLC, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has evaluated the referenced project geotechnical report and finds that, from a geotechnical standpoint; the findings and conclusions are current and still applicable to the latest site plans. Furthermore, it is our professional opinion that the proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations included in the referenced report and this letter are incorporated into the project plans, specifications, and followed during site grading and construction. It should be noted that the referenced project geotechnical report (LGC, 2019) was issued prior to the adoption of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). Accordingly, the site seismic characteristics for the project were reevaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC. Representative site coordinates for the project site of Latitude 33.502034º N and Longitude -117.144808º W were utilized in our analysis. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1 and should be incorporated into the project foundation plans, as necessary. Table 1 Updated Seismic Design Parameters Selected Parameters from 2019 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads Seismic Design Values Site Class (per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7) D Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SS) 1.643g Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (S1) 0.613g Site Coefficient Fa [per CBC Table 1613.2.3(1)] 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv [per CBC Table 1613.2.3(2)] 1.7 Project No. 174002-02 Page 2 August 27, 2021 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMS) [Note: SMS = FaSS] 1.643g Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SM1) [Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.042g Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDS) [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.095g Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SD1) [Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.695g Seismic Design Category (per CBC Section 1613.2.5) D If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. The undersigned can be reached at (949) 297-3856. Sincerely, LGC Valley, Inc. Adam C. Rich, PE 85642 Randall K. Wagner, CEG 1612 Project Engineer Senior Project Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, RANCHO HIGHLANDS, NORTHEAST OF YNEZ AND TIERRA VISTA ROADS, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Dated: February 27, 2017 Revised: December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Prepared For: Red Tail Acquisitions, LLC 2082 Michelson Drive, 3rd Floor Irvine, California 92612 Project No. 174002-02 Page i December 2, 2019 February 27, 2017 Project No. 174002-02 (revised December 2, 2019) Ms. Kim Berry Red Tail Acquisitions, LLC 2082 Michelson Drive, 3rd Floor Irvine, California 92612 Subject: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Rancho Highlands, East of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads, Temecula, California In accordance with your request, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has performed a revised updated preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed development of Lots 4, 5 and a portion of Parcel 1 of Tentative Tract No. 23992, east of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads in the City of Temecula, California. The purpose of this revised updated geotechnical report was to evaluate the existing on-site geotechnical conditions based on existing geotechnical conditions and additional field investigation of the site in November 2019 relative to the proposed multi-family residential development of the site as shown on the precise grading plan prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc., dated November 27, 2019. In addition, this report has been prepared to provide geotechnical recommendations applicable to the proposed grading and site construction operations for the project. Our current study included updating our previously issued preliminary geotechnical report based on the latest design of the project (PEC West, 2019a). The previous geotechnical study that was performed in 2017 and updated in May 2018, included: 1) a review of the previous geotechnical and fault studies of the site, adjacent or nearby sites; and pertinent geotechnical, geologic, faulting, and seismic reports and maps relative to the property; 2) prior site reconnaissance, geologic mapping, and field exploration; 3) laboratory testing of representative on-site soil samples; 4) geotechnical analysis of the collected data; and 5) preparation of our findings, conclusions, opinions, and recommendations relative to future grading and development of the site. Based on the results of our this revised update preliminary geotechnical investigation, it is our professional opinion that the proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and followed during site grading and construction. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LGC VALLEY, INC. Adam C. Rich, PE 85642 Randall K. Wagner, CEG 1612 Project Engineer Senior Project Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) Project No. 174002-02 Page ii December 2, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services .................................................................................1 1.2 Site and Project Description ......................................................................................4 1.3 Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing ......................................................4 1.4 Previous Site and Nearby Geotechnical Investigations ............................................5 1.4.1 Previous On-Site Geotechnical Studies .........................................................5 1.4.2 Previous Fault Studies ..................................................................................6 1.4.3 Previous On-Site Percolation Study ..............................................................8 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS.................................................................................10 2.1 Regional Geology ...................................................................................................10 2.2 Site-Specific Geology .............................................................................................10 2.2.1 Artificial Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Afu) .........................................10 2.2.2 Topsoil (Unmapped) ...................................................................................11 2.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Colluvium (Qcol) ............................................................11 2.2.4 Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qya) ...................11 2.2.5 Early Pleistocene-Aged Pauba Formation Sandstone Facies (Qps)............11 2.3 Geologic Structure ..................................................................................................12 2.4 Landslides ...............................................................................................................12 2.5 Groundwater and Surface Water .............................................................................12 2.6 Surface Water and Flooding ..................................................................................13 2.7 Faulting ..................................................................................................................13 2.7.1 Regional Faulting ......................................................................................13 2.7.2 Site-Specific Faulting .................................................................................14 2.8 Seismicity and Related Effects ..............................................................................16 2.8.1 Seismic Design Criteria .............................................................................16 2.8.2 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture ....................................................18 2.8.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement .......................................................18 2.8.4 Seismic Slope Displacement and Lateral Spread ........................................18 2.8.5 Tsunamis and Seiches ................................................................................19 2.9 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................19 2.10 Expansion Potential ................................................................................................20 2.11 Soluble Sulfate and Corrosivity of the On-Site Soils ..............................................20 2.12 Excavation Characteristics ......................................................................................20 2.13 Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking ..........................................................................21 3.0 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................22 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................25 4.1 Site Earthwork ........................................................................................................25 4.1.1 Site Preparation ..........................................................................................25 Project No. 174002-02 Page iii December 2, 2019 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction ........................................................................25 4.1.3 Removals of Saturated Soils.......................................................................26 4.1.4 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions ..................................................................27 4.1.5 Shrinkage/Bulking ......................................................................................27 4.1.6 Temporary Excavation Stability ................................................................27 4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................28 4.1.8 Trench Backfill and Compaction ................................................................28 4.1.9 Cut and Fill Slopes .....................................................................................28 4.1.10 Fill Slope Keys ...........................................................................................29 4.1.11 Canyon Subdrains ......................................................................................30 4.2 Foundation Selection ..............................................................................................30 4.2.1 General Foundation Selection ....................................................................30 4.2.2 Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................31 4.2.3 Conventional Foundation ...........................................................................31 4.2.4 Post-Tension Foundation ............................................................................32 4.2.5 Mat Foundations ........................................................................................33 4.2.6 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................33 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls ..........................................................34 4.4 Segmental Retaining Wall Recommendations .......................................................35 4.5 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations .............................................................37 4.6 Swimming Pool and Spa Design ............................................................................38 4.7 Freestanding (Top-of-Slope) Walls .........................................................................38 4.8 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal ..........................................................................39 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork ...........................................................................39 4.10 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control .....................................................40 4.11 Construction Observation and Testing ....................................................................41 5.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................42 Project No. 174002-02 Page iv December 2, 2019 LIST OF TABLES, ILLUSTRATIONS, AND APPENDICES Tables Table 1 - Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Testing (page 9) Table 2 - California Building Code Site Seismic Characteristics (page 17) Table 3 - Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking Estimates (page 21) Table 4 - Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post -Tension Slab Design (page 32) Table 5 - Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls (page 34) Table 6 - Design Soil Strength Parameters for Segmental Retaining Walls (page 35) Table 7 - Preliminary Pavement Design Sections (page 37) Table 8 - Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork (page 40) Figures and Plates Figure 1 - Site Location Map (page 3) Figure 2 - Regional Geologic Map (rear of text) Figure 3 - Regional Fault Location Map (rear of text) Figure 4 - Fault Location Map (rear of text) Figure 5 - Retaining Wall Detail, Sand Backfill (rear of text) Figure 6 - Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction (rear of text) Figure 7 - Geotechnical Parameters for Top of Slope Walls (rear of text) Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map (in pocket) Plate 2 - Geotechnical Cross-Sections A-A’, B-B’ and C-C’ (in pocket) Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring, Trench, and Test Pit Logs (Current Study) Appendix C - Previous Geotechnical Boring, Test-Pit, and Fault Trench Logs, Percolation Data, and CPT Soundings (by Others) Appendix D - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (Current Study) Appendix E - Previous Laboratory Test Results (by Others) Appendix F - Seismic Parameters and Liquefaction Analysis Appendix G - Slope Stability Analysis Appendix H - Riverside County Conditions of Approval Letters Appendix I - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Project No. 174002-02 Page 1 December 2, 2019 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of this revised updated preliminary geotechnical investigation was to identify and evaluate the existing geologic and geotechnical conditions at the subject site (Figure 1) and to provide preliminary geotechnical design criteria relative to the proposed multi-family development of the site as shown on the precise grading plan prepared by Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc., dated November 27, 2019 (PEC West, 2019a). Recommendations for site grading, construction, preliminary foundation design for the proposed residential structures, retaining walls, and other relevant aspects of the proposed development are included herein to address the identified site geotechnical conditions. Our scope of services for preparation of this document included: Review of the latest site precise grading plans (PEC West, 2019a), revision of the applicable portions of the previous report based on the current design of the project, and preparation of a revised Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and Geotechnical Cross-Sections A-A’, B-B’ and C-C’ (Plate 2). Review of the available previous geotechnical documents of the site by Converse Consultants, Petra, and Geocon; available geotechnical and fault studies of adjacent and nearby sites; and pertinent geologic, faulting, and seismic reports and maps relative to the property and general vicinity (Appendix A). A site reconnaissance and geologic mapping of the site. A subsurface investigation consisting of the excavation, sampling, and logging of five small- diameter hollow-stem borings, three trenches to evaluate the existing geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed cut slope on the east side of the site, and nine test pits to determine the depth to competent formational material in the western portion of the site.. The locations of the borings, labeled LGC-B-1 through LGC-B-5; the trenches, labeled LGC-T-1 through LGC-T-3; and the test pits, labeled LGC-TP-1 through LGC-TP-9 are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The logs of the borings, trenches, and test pits are presented in Appendix B. The excavations were sampled and logged under the supervision of a licensed engineering geologist from our firm. The excavations were performed to evaluate the general characteristics of the subsurface conditions of the site including the classification of site soils and the determination of the depth to competent soil. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during our investigation (Appendix D). Review of the test pit, fault trench, boring/percolation logs, CPT sounding results, and laboratory testing results from the preliminary geotechnical studies previously performed on the site and/or adjacent sites. The applicable test pit, fault trench, and boring/percolation logs; and the CPT sounding results are presented in Appendix C while the appropriate laboratory test results are presented in Appendix E. Determine seismic design parameters and perform liquefaction analysis (Appendix F) and perform slope stability analysis of the proposed cut and fill slopes (Appendix G). Project No. 174002-02 Page 2 December 2, 2019 Geotechnical analyses and evaluation of the data obtained during this study including Riverside County Conditions of Approval letters (Appendix H), fault hazards, liquefaction potential, seismicity, and compressible soils. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, opinions, and recommendations including the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Appendix I) with respect to the evaluated geotechnical conditions at the site and the proposed development. So º Figure 1Site Location MapRancho HighlandsTemecula, California Project Name Project Number Date Red Tail Rancho Highlands 174002-02 December 2, 2019 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 UV79 UV79 ^Site WinchesterRoad Ranch o C a lif o r n i a R o a d Pauba R o a d YnezR o a d T e m e c u l a P a r k w a y Miles01 Eng./Geo. ACR/RKW Project No. 174002-02 Page 4 December 2, 2019 1.2 Site and Project Description The subject site is located east of the intersection of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads (and south of Rancho California Road) in the City of Temecula, California (Figure 1). The irregular-shaped site is approximately 12.4 acres in size and consists of three parcels; Lots 4 and 5 and the remaining portion of Parcel 1 of Rancho Highlands, Tentative Tract No. 23992. The site is bounded by the Temecula Duck Pond Park and Pat & Oscar’s Restaurant on the west and northwest, the Church of Christ and the Temecula Garden Apartments on the north, open space /undeveloped property on the east and southeast, and Ynez Road and residential developments on the southwest. Elevations of the site range from approximately 1048 feet on the west side of the site (at the northeast corner of Ynez and Tiera Vista Roads) to 1140 feet at the east cor ner of the site. In general, the site is located on the south/southwest flank of an east-west trending ridgeline with a small tributary canyon running parallel to Ynez Road in a northwest-southwest direction. Two small drainages are present on the eastern portion of the site. The majority of the site is currently undeveloped. Existing site improvements include a short extension of Tierra Vista Road on the east side of Ynez Road and a row of telephone poles along the northeast property boundary. Existing vegetation on the site ranges from weeds and grasses to a thin to moderate growth of chaparral mainly on the steeper hillsides and in the on-site drainages. Based on the site precise grading plans prepared by PEC West Inc., the proposed development currently consists of the construction of 15 multi-story multi-residential buildings, clubhouse, swimming pool complex, driveways, parking areas, manufactured slopes, underground utilities, landscaping, etc. Review of the site plan also indicates that proposed cut slopes of up to approximately 25 to 30 feet and fill slopes up to approximately 30 feet are planned. We also understand the site development will also include the widening of a portion of Ynez Road on the west site of the site (PEC West, 2019). Estimated design earthwork quantities have not been determined; however, the majority of the site appears to be cut with fills proposed along the west and south side of the project site. 1.3 Subsurface Investigation and Laboratory Testing Our initial subsurface investigation was performed on February 10, 2017 and consisted of the excavation, sampling, and logging of five small diameter hollow-stem borings (designated LGC-B-1 through LGC-B-5) excavated to depths ranging from approximately 11 to 31 feet. An additional subsurface investigation was performed on November 25 and 25, 2019 and consisted of the excavation and logging of three trenches to evaluate the existing geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed cut slope on the east side of the site and nine test pits to determine the depth to competent formational material in the western portion of the site. The borings, trenches, and test pits were extended into competent formational material or until practical refusal was obtained. The logs of the borings, trenches, and test pits are presented in Appendix B while the approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). During the subsurface investigation, representative bulk samples and relatively undisturbed samples were collected from the borings for laboratory testing, where possible, and samples were forwarded to EGLAB, Inc. (EGL) and to LGC Valley, Inc. for classification testing. Laboratory testing was Project No. 174002-02 Page 5 December 2, 2019 performed on representative soil samples and included moisture/density determinations, grain size distribution (i.e. sieve analysis and hydrometer), Atterberg limits, collapse potential, consolidation, expansion index, remolded direct shear, maximum density and optimum moisture content, and corrosion testing. A summary of the test procedures and laboratory test results are presented in Appendix D. 1.4 Previous Site and Nearby Geotechnical Investigations Based on our review of available PDF copies of Riverside County Geologic Reports obtained from the Riverside County Planning Department (Appendix A); a number of different geotechnical and fault reports have been prepared for the site, others parcels within the Rancho Highlands development, and for surrounding sites. The findings and conclusions of the applicable geotechnical and fault reports are discussed in the following sections. 1.4.1 Previous On-Site Geotechnical Studies Converse Consultants performed separate liquefaction and fault studies in 1988 that included the excavation of four small-diameter borings, eight CTP soundings, five fault trenches totaling approximately 1350 linear feet (Appendix C), and laboratory in-place moisture and density and grain size analyses (Appendix E). Geotechnical recommendations relative to the grading and development of the property was not provided. The results of the fault study are discussed in Section 1.4.2 of this report. The liquefaction study found that the saturated alluvial soils in the general vicinity of the Temecula Duck Pond was susceptible to liquefaction and recommended a 30-foot setback from the lake and placement of a compacted fill mat to minimize future liquefaction of areas underlain by saturated alluvial soils (Converse, 1988). In 2003, Petra performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the subject site that included a review of previous fault studies applicable to the site (discussed in Section 1.4.2 of this report), excavation of 13 test-pits across the site, and laboratory testing. At the time of their report, no site grading or development plans were available. During the subsurface investigation no ground water was encountered and they concluded that the liquefaction potential of the site was low. Laboratory testing included in-place moisture and density, maximum dry density, expansion potential, corrosion testing, and remolded direct shear tests. In 2005 and 2007, Geocon performed an update geotechnical investigation of the site that reviewed the previous geotechnical studies pertinent to the site, provided a fault location opinion letter (Geocon, 2005) and performed a planning stage percolation study (discussed in Section 1.4.3 of this report). The fault opinion letter indicated that based on their review “it is our opinion that no active faulting exists within or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, no structural setbacks due to active faulting are deemed warranted.” The County of Riverside reviewed the fault opinion letter and the update geotechnical report and provided a conditions of approval letter, dated September 6, 2007 that agreed with Geocon’s assessment and accepted their findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning on-site faulting for planning purposes (Riverside County, 2007). The applicable boring, test-pit, percolation test, and fault trench logs and CPT soundings of the previous site geotechnical studies are provided in Appendix C while the locations of the Project No. 174002-02 Page 6 December 2, 2019 applicable excavations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The laboratory test results from the previous studies are provided in Appendix E. 1.4.2 Previous Fault Studies A literature review of geotechnical reports for the site and surrounding sites was performed at the Riverside County Planning Department by Petra in 2003. One of their objectives was to review the applicable fault studies of the site and adjacent properties since prior geologic mapping indicated that the Wildomar Fault (part of the Elsinore Fault Zone) was mapped through the site but later determined to be not active within the boundaries of the subject site. Petra’s (2003) review found the following: • Kenneth Osborne and Associates (1977): Kenneth Osborne and Associates performed a geotechnical investigation of a 25-acre parcel located southeast of the intersection of Ynez Road and Pauba Road in 1980. Three fault trenches were excavated perpendicular to Kennedy's (1977) postulated fault location. The fault was encountered within two of their trenches which showed the fault projecting parallel and just east of Ynez Road. • Leighton and Associates. Inc. (1978-1980): Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed a geotechnical and fault location investigation for a parcel located northeast of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. The investigation was originally performed in 1978; however, Leighton issued a revised report in 1980 based on a Riverside County review sheet. Five magnetic traverses were performed in the southwest corner of the site and three fault trenches were excavated. The fault was encountered within the third fault trench which was in-line with the fault located south of Rancho California Road by Pioneer Consultants in 1980. • Pioneer Consultants (1980): Pioneer Consultants performed a geotechnical evaluation of a portion of the Wildomar fault zone on three discontinuous parcels in 1980. Their Site B was located south and west of the subject site. They noted that the fault exhibited a moderate geomorphic expression east of Ynez Road. Fault Project No. 174002-02 Page 7 December 2, 2019 trenching was performed south of the subject site and east of Ynez Road where faulting was identified within the Pauba Formation but with no displacement in the overlying ·soils. Neither the fault nor the setback zone encroached onto the subject site. • Leighton (1982): Leighton performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of 30 acres located southeast of the subject site in 1982. Four magnetometer surveys were performed based on the findings of Pioneer Consultants in 1980. Two fault trenches were excavated perpendicular to the magnetic anomalies. The trenches were 6 to 7 feet deep and extended 2 feet into bedrock. Leighton interpreted several sudden depressions in bedrock/soil contact which aligned with a magnetic anomaly as the fault. Soil- and caliche-filled cracks were also observed which offset bedrock in the second trench. Leighton did not observe any offset of the overlying surficial soils; however a 50-foot setback zone was recommended. • Robert Dowlen (1987): Mr. Robert Dowlen performed a fault investigation for Ketchum Engineering in 1987. The site was located northeast of the intersection of Ynez and Rancho California Roads. Leighton's Trench T-3 (1980) was re- excavated and it was determined that.no faulting was present within the trench. He observed faulting within stream channels which did not offset overlying Pauba Formation bedrock and was, therefore determined to be pre-Holocene. The only active faulting he encountered was east of Ynez Road in the vicinity of North Plaza Drive. • Converse Consultants·Inland·Empire (1988): Converse Consultants Inland Empire (Converse) performed a fault investigation in 1988 for an approximately 60-acre parcel which included the subject site south and east of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road. Four fault trenches were excavated across photo- lineaments. Faults encountered during this investigation were determined to be pre- Holocene in age and did not recommend any-building setbacks. A restricted-use zone was recommended along Ynez Road north of the subject site due to deep alluvium and shallow-groundwater conditions which prohibited exploration. In Project No. 174002-02 Page 8 December 2, 2019 response to Riverside County review comments in late 1988, Converse prepared· an addendum report. This report included a fifth fault trench which was extended to the right-of-way of Ynez Road. Results of this additional trenching concluded no active faulting displacing Pauba Formation bedrock, alluvium or colluvial deposits (pages 3-5). The County of Riverside reviewed the fault investigation report by Converse Consultants and provided a fault approval letter, dated December 9, 1988 that indicated that “the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent with the present “state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and the associated Riverside County Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of this report is hereby given.” (Riverside County, 1988). A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix H. Additional fault studies subsequent to 2003 included the following: Leighton (1994 and 2013): Leighton performed a fault study of the Hope Lutheran Church (later the Temecula Valley Church of Christ) property located directly north of the subject site. The western quarter of the property is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. One approximately 130-foot long fault trench was excavated by Leighton in 1994. Geologic mapping did not encounter any evidence of faulting. Geocon (2005 to 2007): Geocon performed an update geotechnical investigation and provided a fault location opinion letter that indicated “it is our opinion that no active faulting exists within or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, no structural setbacks due to active faulting are deemed warranted.” (Geocon, 2005). The County of Riverside reviewed the fault opinion letter and the update geotechnical report and provided a conditions of approval letter, dated September 6, 2007 that agreed with Geocon’s assessment and accepted their findings, conclusions, and recommendations concerning on-site faulting for planning purposes (Riverside County, 2007). 1.4.3 Previous Percolation On-Site Study As part of the update geotechnical report by Geocon in 2007, a percolation study was performed to evaluate the potential for on -site retention basin systems. This plann ing stage percolation study was performed “in general conformance with Waste Disposal for Individual Homes, Commercial and Industrial, County of Riverside Health Services Agency, Department of Environmental Health” (Geocon, 2007). A total of five percolation test holes were excavated to a depth of approximately five to six feet below the proposed finish pad grades using an 8-inch-diameter, hollow-stem drill rig. Due to ungraded condition of the site, the percolation test holes were excavated to depths of ap proximately 15 feet to 32 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the percolation tests (i.e. Borings GC-B-1 through GC-B-5) are presented on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). After the percolation test holes were excavated, two inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of each hole and then a 2-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe surrounded by gravel was placed in the hole to mitigate caving. The test holes were then pre-soaked for 24 hours Project No. 174002-02 Page 9 December 2, 2019 prior to the actual percolation testing. The percolation rates were measured in time increments of either 10 or 30 minutes over a minimum 4 to 5 hour period. The test results indicated the percolation rates ranged from approximately 3 to 23.5 inches per minute. The percolation testing is summarized in Table 1 while the actual field percolation test sheets are included in Appendix C. Based on Section 2.3 of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices (Riv erside County, 2011), the “Porchet Method” can be used to convert the field determined percolation rates into infiltration rates. Using the “Porchet Method”, the infiltration rates of the five percolation test performed by Geocon in 2007 range from 0.96 to 7.75 inches per hour. The “Porchet Method” calculations and the resulting infiltration rates are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Testing Percolation Test No. and Boring No. Hole Diameter (inches) Total Depth (feet) Final Time Interval (min) Final Time Interval Percolation Rate* (min/inch) Infiltration Rate** (inches/hour) Initial Water Height (inches) Final Water Height (inches) Water Drop (inches) 1 (Boring G-B-1) 8 31.5 30 70.8 55.2 15.6 23.5 0.96 2 (Boring G-B-2) 8 16.1 30 70.8 52.8 18.0 17.2 1.13 3 (Boring G-B-3) 8 15.1 30 63.6 43.2 20.4 18.4 1.47 4 (Boring G-B-4) 8 23.0 10 8.6 49.2 32.4 3.4 5.77 5 (Boring G-B-5) 8 17.0 10 81.6 40.8 40.8 3.0 7.75 *as determined by Geocon (Geocon, 2007) **Infiltration Rate Calculations 1 (Boring G-B-1) = = =0.96 inches/hour 2 (Boring G-B-2) = = =1.13 inches/hour 3 (Boring G-B-3) = = =1.47 inches/hour 4 (Boring G-B-4) = = =5.77 inches/hour 5 (Boring G-B-5) = = =7.75 inches/hour Project No. 174002-02 Page 10 December 2, 2019 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology The site is located on the western side of the Perris block, a roughly rectangular area of relatively low-lying relief, in the central portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. At depth, the Perris block consists of metasedimentary rocks intruded by assorted plutons of the Cretaceous -aged Peninsular Ranges batholith. The block is bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains and the Elsinore fault zone on the west; the Cucamonga fault zone in the San Bernardino Valley and the San Jose Hills fault in the Pomona Valley on the north; the San Jacinto fault zone on the east; and the San Felipe fault zone and the Aguanga and Anza sedimentary basins on the south. The site is located within the Elsinore fault zone in the Temecula Valley and is located south of the Paloma Valley Ring Complex, which consists of a series of ring dikes composed of quartz monzonite, granodiorite, tonalite, and granitic pegmitites that were intruded into older gabbro, biotite schist, and other undifferentiated metasedimentary rocks. Over time, a number of erosional and depositional surfaces have occurred resulting in varying thicknesses of Quaternary sediments including the Pauba Formation. Recent weathering and erosional processes have produced the surficial topsoil, colluvium, and young alluvial deposits, while human influences have created the undocumented artificial fill soils that mantle portions of the site. The regional geology of the general vicinity of the site is presented as Figure 2. 2.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our subsurface investigation, geologic mapping, and review of available geologic maps and publications (Appendix A), the subject site is composed of surficial units consisting of undocumented artificial fill (Afu); undifferentiated topsoil/colluvium (unmapped); Quaternary-aged colluvium (Qcol); and Quaternary-aged young alluvial deposits (Qya); that are underlain by the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qps). The approximate limits of the mapped units are indicated on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). A brief discussion of each of the geologic units is provided below. 2.2.1 Artificial Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Afu) The undocumented fill on-site is related to the grading of the short extension of Tierra Vista Road on the east side of Ynez Road. Based on the prior geotechnical investigation of the site by Petra (Petra, 2003), artificial fill is assumed to be present beneath the access road off Ynez Road and is anticipated to be locally derived (likely during the grading of the Temecula Duck Pond Park) and to consist mainly of silty sand. Due to the limited extent of the undocumented fill and location within the street right-of-way, no excavations were made during the current or prior geotechnical investigations of the site. Due to the potential compressible nature of the undocumented fill, these soils should be evaluated by the project geotechnical consultant and/or completely removed to competent material in areas of proposed development. The soil may be reused as fill provided it is free of debris and oversized material and placed in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. Project No. 174002-02 Page 11 December 2, 2019 2.2.2 Topsoil (Unmapped) The ridgelines in the northern and southeastern portions of the site are generally mantled by undifferentiated topsoil/colluvium, composed of soil formed in place. The topsoil/colluvium consists primarily of light to medium brown to reddish brown, silty fine to medium sands and was generally encountered to depths of approximately less than 1 to 3 feet. Due to the compressible nature of the topsoil, these soils should not be used in their present state for the support of structural fills or settlement-sensitive structures but may be re-used as fill. 2.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Colluvium (Qcol) As encountered during our field investigations and based on our review of the previous site investigations, potentially compressible deposits of colluvium mantle the middle and lower portions of the on-site slopes. In general, the colluvium consists of medium brown to gray yellow-brown, loose to medium dense, silty to clayey very fine to medium sands. This unit is estimated to be 3 to 12 feet thick, has a low expansion potential, and is considered potentially compressible in the present state. Areas where the colluvial soils are less than approximately 2 to 3 feet thick are not shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 2.2.4 Quaternary-Aged Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qya) Potentially compressible deposits of alluvium were encountered or are anticipated in the two small drainages and the tributary drainage along the west side of the site. As observed, these deposits primarily consist of medium to dark brown and gray to red-orange brown, silty to clayey very fine to medium sands that are low to highly expansive, porous, and contain scattered organics. The alluvium is considered potentially compressible in the present state. In general, the alluvium is estimated to be a minimum of 9 to 10 feet thick with significantly deeper accumulations present in the lower portion of the site (i.e. southeast of the intersection of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads). The alluvium encountered in this portion of the site is up to approximately 40 feet in depth (as encountered in Boring C-B-1). Based on our review and analysis, removals of the deeper accumulations of the potentially compressible alluvial soils upper approximately 7 to 16 feet in thickness are anticipated above the groundwater within the lower portion of the alluvium. 2.2.5 Early Pleistocene-Aged Pauba Formation, Sandstone Facies (Qps) The Early Pleistocene-Aged Pauba Formation, Sandstone Facies, as encountered during our field investigation, consists primarily of massively-bedded yellow gray-brown to light gray red- brown slightly silty to silty very fine to coarse sands with some interbedded clays. The soils were observed to be damp to wet, medium dense to very dense, friable, with some calcium carbonate blebs and scattered small sub-angular gravels. The upper 1 to 3 feet of the Pauba Formation was found to be weathered with decreasing porosity with depth. Project No. 174002-02 Page 12 December 2, 2019 2.3 Geologic Structure The overall structure of the formational material in the general vicinity of the site is trending east-west to slightly northwest-southeast dipping 2 to 10 degrees to the north (Kennedy, 2003). Two discontinuous bedding attitudes were obtained from Trenches LGC-T-1 and LGC-T-2 that generally trended N5°W to N60°W dipping 10 to 12 degrees to the southwest. Based on our professional experience, bedding within the Pauba Formation is massive to thickly-bedded. Jointing on-site is anticipated to be variable, but predominantly trends northwest-southeast (generally subparallel to the Elsinore Fault Zone), with dips moderately to steeply dipping (dips on the order of 45 to 89 degrees). 2.4 Landslides Based on our geologic mapping of the site; and review of the geotechnical reports of the site, general vicinity, and geologic literature (Appendix A), no evidence of landsliding or other slope instability conditions were observed on-site or noted in the literature. Consequently, the potential for the existence of landslides is considered insignificant. 2.5 Groundwater Based on our review of the State of California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) website, the site lies within the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin which is part of the larger California South Coast Hydrogeologic Region (CDWR, 2003). As indicated in the 2003 update of California Bulletin 118 (CDWR, 2003), groundwater in the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin is mainly located within the alluvial soils present in the area (that may be up to 2,500 feet in thickness), and to a lesser extent, in the fractured basement rocks. The overall groundwater movement in the area of the site is towards the southeast. Our review of the CDWR groundwater level data of nearby wells indicates that little to no current data of groundwater elevations exists in the general vicinity of the site. Data from 1967 (of the closest well in the database located along Rancho California Road approximately 800 feet east of Ynez and approximately 400 feet north of the site) indicated that the groundwater elevation in 1967 was on the order of 45 feet below the ground surface. During our current subsurface investigation, a perched groundwater condition was encountered within the lower portion of the alluvial soils in Boring LGC-B-3 at a depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The prior geotechnical investigation of the site by Converse in 1988 encountered ground water in the alluvial soils to the northwest of the site adjacent to the Temecula Duck Pond at depths ranging from approximately 12 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater seepage within the Pauba Formation was also observed in the western end of Fault Trench C-FT-4 at a depth of 20 feet (Converse, 1988a and 1988c). Groundwater was not encountered during the site geotechnical investigations by Petra (2003) or by Geocon (2007). While there is a perched groundwater condition in the lower portion of the alluvial soils along the western portion of the site, groundwater is not expected to be a significant impact to the proposed development (provided the recommendations of this report are implemented during the design, grading, and construction of the proposed site improvements). Project No. 174002-02 Page 13 December 2, 2019 2.6 Surface Water and Flooding Based the topography of the site, surface water is anticipated to flow from the higher elevations of the site towards the west and then northwest along the tributary drainage on the west side of the site. Surface water runoff relative to project design is the purview of the project civil engineer and should be directed away from planned structures and the top of slopes. Our review of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Public Flood Hazard Determination Interactive Map (RCFCWCD, 2017) indicates that the site is not located within any flood zone. The nearest flood zone is located approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest (on the west side of Interstate 15). 2.7 Faulting 2.7.1 Regional Faulting The southern California region has long been recognized as being seismically active. The seismic activity results from a number of active faults that cross the region, all of which are related to the San Andreas transform system, a broad zone of right lateral faults that extend from Baja California to Cape Mendocino. The numerous faults in Southern California include Holocene-active and pre-Holocene faults. The definitions of fault activity terms used here are based on those developed for the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 that was recently updated in January 2018 (CDCDMG, 2018). Holocene-active faults are faults that have had surface displacement within Holocene time (i.e. the last 11,700 years before the present [BP]). Faults are considered pre -Holocene if the past movement is older than 11,700 years BP. A third category, age -undetermined faults are faults where the recency of faulting has not been determined (i.e. “a fault can be considered age-undetermined if the fault in question has simply not been studied in order to determine its recency of movement [CDCDMG, 2018]). Regional active faults that occur within the southern California area include the on -shore and off-shore Rose Canyon-Newport Inglewood fault zone to the southwest, the Elsinore fault zone within a portion of the site, and the San Jacinto and San Andreas faults to the northeast. The location of the site to the regional active faults is presented on Figure 3 - Regional Fault Location Map. The closest known active fault to the site is the Wildomar fault (part of the Elsinore Fault Zone, Temecula Section) and is located just to the west of Ynez Road (i.e. approximately 150 to 200 feet west of the site). The Elsinore Fault Zone has a total length of 190 miles (306 kilometers) and is made up of a number of faults and segments including the Whittier and Chino Faults at the north end to the Laguna Salada Fault in Baja California at the south end. The Elsinore Fault Zone, Temecula Section is approximately 38.5 miles (62 kilometers) long and has an estimated slip rate of 0.5 to 1.0 millimeters per year (USGS, 2011). In the Temecula area, the Elsinore Fault Zone is Project No. 174002-02 Page 14 December 2, 2019 made up of the active Wildomar, Murrieta Creek, and Wolf Valley Faults; and the potentially-active Willard Fault. Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the southern California region include soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Other secondary seismic effects include shallow ground rupture, seiches and tsunamis. In general, these secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and the causative fault and the on-site geology. 2.7.2 Site-Specific Faulting Based on our review of the State of California Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Special Studies/Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the Murrieta Quadrangle (CDCDMG, 1990), the majority of the site is located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard (formerly Special Studies Zones). As indicated on the Murrieta Quadrangle A-P Earthquake Fault/Special Studies Zone Map, earthquake fault zones are shown surrounding the active Wildomar, Murrieta Creek, and Wolf Valley Faults in the general vicinity of the site. The Wildomar Fault is located on the east side of the Elsinore Fault Zone while the potentially- active Willard Fault is located along the west side of the zone along the base of the Santa Ana Mountains (Figure 4). Fault Evaluation Report FER-76 and the two supplements to FER-76 (CDCDMG, 1978, 1979, and 1979a) concluded that the Wildomar Fault, which has been mapped crossing the subject site, was “significantly-active and well-defined” to warrant zoning under the A-P Act. The fault studies discussed in Section 1.4 of this report included the excavation of numerous fault trenches across a number of fault traces, lineaments, and other indications of potential faulting and/or were simply excavated across properties within the A-P Zone to show that active faulting was not present on the property. With respect to the subject site, Converse Consultants Inc. performed a fault study in 1988 that conclusively showed that, while strands of the Wildomar Fault were present on the site, none of the fault strands extended completely through the Pauba Formation or into the overlying young alluvial soils, colluvium, or topsoil (Converse, 1988a). As a result, Converse Consultants and subsequent geotechnical consultants concluded that the fault strands crossing the site were not active and therefore, structural setbacks or other considerations concerning active faulting were not necessary. The review of Converse’s fault study and response to review comments (Converse, 1988a and 1988c) by the County of Riverside Planning Department agreed with the report findings and approved the report (Riverside County Planning Department, 1988). Based on our fault evaluation and review of the previous fault studies (Appendix A), there were six significant fault traces crossing the site. The fault traces are discussed below and the approximate locations shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Fault 1: Fault 1 is the trace of the Wildomar Fault as mapped on the A-P Earthquake Fault Zone/Special Studies Zone Map. Project No. 174002-02 Page 15 December 2, 2019 Faults 2 and 3: These two fault traces are based on Kennedy’s (1977) regional study of the Elsinore Fault Zone. Fault 4: A fault strand of the Wildomar Fault was mapped by Leighton and Associates, Inc. in a property to the south and a zone approximately 50 feet wide was projected through the subject site. This fault zone roughly corresponds to Fault 5 and is likely the same feature. The Fault zone of Fault 4 is not shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Fault 5: Pioneer Consultants performed a fault study of the Wildomar Fault on three properties south of the subject site in 1980. Faulting was encountered in their fault trenches; however, the faults were only observed within the Pauba Formation with no displacement of the overlying soils (Petra, 2003). Fault 6: Fault 6 is a fault strand mapped by Leighton and Associates Inc. in 1982 within a property to the south of the subject site that projects into the site. In addition to the review of the fault traces, a photo-lineament study was performed by Converse Consultants in 1988. The study used aerial photographs taken in 1962 and 1964 that predate construction of Rancho California and Ynez Roads and the surrounding developments (Converse, 1988a). A total of six lineaments were identified and designated Lineaments A through F. The lineaments are discussed below and the approximate locations shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Lineament A: Lineament A is expressed as a weak tonal contrast and closely coincides with Fault 1 mapped by Kennedy (1977). Lineament B: Lineament B consists of a linear ridge and generally coincides with the fault traces of Faults 1 and 5. Lineament C: Like Lineament A, this lineament is expressed as a weak tonal contract; however, the southern end of this lineament is located within the Temecula Pond and consequently is not shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Lineaments D and E: Both of these lineaments trend more northerly than the other lineaments identified crossing the site and are expressed as linear break in slopes. Lineament F: This lineament is easily identified on the aerial photographs and consists of northwest-southeast trending drainage that closely parallels the known active strand of the Wildomar Fault on the west side of Ynez Road. Our review of the previous geotechnical/fault study of the site by Converse in 1988 indicates that no active faults are known to occur beneath the site. Accordingly, it appears that there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting beneath the site. The active strand of the Wildomar fault is located on the west side of Ynez Road south of Tierra Vista Road and is shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Based on our review of the Preliminary Summary of Fault-Related Geotechnical Conditions Report by Leighton and Associates (Leighton, 2004) for the Rancho Highlands II project Project No. 174002-02 Page 16 December 2, 2019 located southwest of the intersection of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads, we have shown the same fault setback zone on the project Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). As indicated on the map, the setback extends approximately 15 to 45 feet into subject property along the west side of the property and is at least 90 feet from the nearest proposed habitable structure on the site. Based on the results of the fault studies to date in the general vicinity of the site, it appears that the active strand of the Wildomar Fault steps over in a northeast-southwest direction from the active strand on the west side of Ynez Road (and south of Tierra Vista Road) to the active strand on the eastside of Ynez Road (north of Rancho California Road). Consequently, the step- over is likely in the location of the Temecula Duck Pond. 2.8 Seismicity and Related Effects The main seismic parameters to be considered when discussing the potential for earthquake -induced damage are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations. We have performed site-specific analysis based on these seismic parameters for the site and the on-site geologic conditions. The results of our analysis are discussed in te rms of the potential seismic events that could be produced by the maximum probable earthquakes. A maximum probable earthquake is the maximum earthquake likely to occur given the known tectonic framework. 2.8.1 Seismic Design Criteria The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 2. Project No. 174002-02 Page 17 December 2, 2019 Table 2 California Building Code Site Seismic Characteristics Selected Parameters from 2016 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads Seismic Design Values Site Class per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 D Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SS)* 2.003g Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (S1)* 0.826g Site Coefficient Fa per Table 1613.3.3(1) 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv per Table 1613.3.3(2) 1.5 Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMS) for Site Class D [Note: SMS = FaSS] 2.003g Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SM1) for Site Class D [Note: SM1 = FvS1] 1.239g Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDS) for Site Class D [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS] 1.336g Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SD1) for Site Class D [Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1] 0.826g Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec Spectral Response Period, CRS (per ASCE 7) 0.884 Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec Spectral Response Period, CR1 (per ASCE 7) 0.864 * From USGS, 2013 Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 California Building Code (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum consider ed earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for geotechnical evaluations. The PGA M for the site is equal to 0.839g (USGS, 2013). A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 7.16 at a distance of approximately a few hundred feet from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2008a). Project No. 174002-02 Page 18 December 2, 2019 2.8.2 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the ground surface by the passage of seismic surface waves. Effects of this nature are not likely to be significant where the thickness of soft sediments do not vary appreciably under structures. Although there are several nearby active and potentially active faults, the native soils are dense and no active faults are known or interpreted to cross the site. Based on this data, it is our opinion that the potential for lurching or shallow rupture at the site is low. 2.8.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high -intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non -cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Liquefaction is typified by a buildup of pore-water pressure in the affected soi l layer to a point where a total loss of shear strength occurs, causing the soil to behave as a liquid. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Based on the anticipated relative density of on-site soils; removal of the existing alluvium and replacement with compacted fill soils within the limits of the planned site grading; and the depth to the static groundwater in the area of the proposed development; it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction impacting the majority of the site is low, and seismically induced settlements are considered to be negligible. However, the encountered alluvium in the southwestern corner of the site (at Boring LGC-B-3) was found to be potentially liquefiable between 16 to 17.5 and 20 to 22.5 feet below the existing ground surface with subsequent total seismically induced settlements of 0.5 inches and differential settlements of 0.25 inches in 30 feet for the southwestern corner of the site. The results of the liquefaction analysis are included in Appendix F. During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soil. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Based on in -situ densities, and soil types, dry sand settlement and induced surface manifestations are not considered an issue at the site. 2.8.4 Seismic Slope Displacement and Lateral Spread Seismic slope displacement evaluates the potential displacement of a slope or elevated land mass during the shaking of an earthquake. Lateral spreading involves the lateral displacement of large surface blocks atop liquefiable soil due to liquefaction of subsurface layers. Lateral spread generally develops on gentle slopes that move toward a free face such as a stream or channel. The evaluation of lateral spreading represents the stability of the slope after earthquake. Project No. 174002-02 Page 19 December 2, 2019 Taking into consideration that the recommended remedial grading in the area of planned fill slopes on the lower portion of the site will remove the potentially compressible (and liquefiable) soil and lack of a static groundwater elevation (based on our geotechnical investigation of the site the ground water encountered on the site appears to be a perched ground water elevation); the potential for lateral spreading under a major seismic event is considered low. 2.8.5 Tsunamis and Seiches Due to the elevation of the proposed development at the site with respect to sea level and its distance from large open bodies of water, the potential of seiches and/or tsunami is considered to be very low. 2.9 Slope Stability Based on the latest site grading plans (PEC West, 2019a), three Geotechnical Cross-Sections (A-A, B-B’ and C-C’) were developed for site review and determination of the global stability of th e proposed cut and fill slopes currently planned for the project were performed. The cross-sections are presented on Plate 2, while the approximate locations of the cross-sections utilized in our global slope stability analysis are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and incorporated into the slope stability analysis presented as Appendix G. Generally, slope stability analyses were conducted using the computer program Slope W. The Bishop’s Method was used to analyze rotational failure modes. A coeffic ient of horizontal acceleration of 0.318g (FS of 1.0) was used to evaluate pseudostatic stability. Shear strength parameters utilized for our analyses were based on laboratory shear results obtained from the subject site as well as an investigation for th e Rancho Highlands II site, located directly west of the site on the other side of Ynez Road (Leighton, 2005a) that is underlain by the same formational material. The attached Appendix G includes more detailed information with regard to shear strength parameters, as well as the methodology and assumptions used in the slope stability analyses. Results of the global slope stability analyses for the planned slopes indicate adequate factors of safety greater than 1.5 and 1.0, for rotational modes of failure, under static and pseudostatic loading conditions, respectively. The results of our global slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix G. It is anticipated that the majority of the planned cut slopes will be comprised of sandy soils of the Pauba Formation that will not require stabilization measures to mitigate potential surficial instability (provided adverse geologic conditions are not present). However, geologic mapping of Trench LGC- T-3 in the east corner of the site indicates that a relatively thick layer of colluvium (on the order of approximately 6 to 7 feet) is present in the upper portion of the proposed cut slope as indicated on Cross-Section C-C’ (Plate 2). This cut slope with the relatively thick layer of colluvium may be prone to surficial instability; and therefore, we recommend that the portion of the cut slope where thick colluvial soils are present be replaced with a stability/replacement fill as recommended in Section 4.1.9 of this report. Project No. 174002-02 Page 20 December 2, 2019 Where adverse geologic conditions (such as out-of-slope bedding, very friable layers, seepage zones, etc.) are present in cut slopes comprised of the Pauba Formation , stabilization measures such as the placement of a stability fill will be required. Any design cut slopes should be evaluated during grading by an LGC geologist to verify that no adverse geology or other geotechnical condition affects slope stability. Design fill slop es are considered to be generally stable as designed (assuming that the existing alluvium and colluvium beneath the fill slopes is removed to competent material and replaced with compacted fill). Based on our geotechnical analysis of the site geotechnical conditions, the on-site cohesionless soil (i.e. soils having little to no fine grained silts or clays) may be not surficially stable if placed as fill along proposed slope faces. Consequently, we recommend that the outer 5 feet of the slope faces consist of more clayey on-site soils to prevent surficial instabilit y issues. 2.10 Expansion Potential Expansion potential testing of representative samples of the on -site soils indicates those soils have a very low to low expansion potential (Appendix D and E). Although some of the alluvial soils and the clay beds within the Pauba Format ion likely have a medium to high expansion potential, the majority of the soils on the site have a very low to low expansion potential. To minimize expansive soil issues we recommend that the clayey alluvial and formational soils be placed at least 5 feet below the proposed finish grade elevation of the proposed building pads. The as-graded soil conditions of the proposed building pads should be verified with confirmatory observation, sampling, and testing after site grading is completed and prior to the construction of the residential structures. 2.11 Soluble Sulfate and Corrosivity of the On-Site Soils Laboratory testing of representative on-site soils indicated the on-site soils tested had soluble sulfate contents that were less than 0.1 percent (Appendix D). Therefore, the on-site soils are considered to contain a negligible amount of soluble sulfates in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. The as- graded sulfate content of the finish grade soils on the building pads should be verified upon completion of grading. Corrosion suite (pH, resistivity, and chloride content) tests were also performed on two representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface investigation. The corrosion tests resulted in a minimum resistivity of 1,800 to 27,000 ohm-centimeters, a pH of 6.08 to 7.61, and a chloride content of 135 to 190 ppm (Appendix D). The corrosion test results of the preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site by Petra (Petra, 2003), indicated a minimum resistivity of 4,500 ohm- centimeters, a pH of 6.91 to 6.99, soluble sulfate contents that were less than 0.01 percent, and a chloride content of 150 to 170 ppm (Appendix E). 2.12 Excavation Characteristics The site is underlain by surficial units consisting of silty to clayey sands formational bedrock that consists of silty fine to coarse sand. It is anticipated that the on-site materials can be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment and that difficult excavation and/or blasting is not Project No. 174002-02 Page 21 December 2, 2019 anticipated. 2.13 Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking The volume change of excavated on-site materials upon recompaction as fill is expected to vary with materials and location. Typically, the surficial soils and bedrock materials vary significantly in natural and compacted density, and therefore, accurate earthwork shrinkage/bulking estimate cannot be determined. However, the following factors (based on the results of our subsurface investigation and previous investigations of the site, laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis and professional experience on nearby sites) are provided in Table 3 as guideline estimates. If possible, we suggest an area where site grades can be adjusted be provided as a balance area. Table 3 Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking Estimates Geologic Unit Estimated Shrinkage/Bulking Artificial Undocumented Fill 0 to 10 percent shrinkage Topsoil/Colluvium 5 to 10 percent shrinkage Alluvium 10 to 15 percent shrinkage Pauba Formation (weathered upper 1 to 3 feet) 0 to 5 percent shrinkage Pauba Formation 0 to 5 percent bulking Project No. 174002-02 Page 22 December 2, 2019 3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, evaluation, and review, it is our professional opinion that the proposed site development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and followed during site grading and construction. Our geotechnical conclusions are as follows: Based on our recent subsurface exploration and review of the on-site geotechnical studies and regional geologic maps pertinent to the project, the site is composed of surficial units consisting of undocumented artificial fill (Afu); undifferentiated topsoil/colluvium (unmapped); Quaternary-aged colluvium (Qcol); and Quaternary-aged young alluvial deposits (Qya); that are underlain by the sandstone facies of the Pauba Formation (Qps). The existing undocumented fill soils, topsoil/colluvium, upper 7 to 16 feet of alluvial soils, and the highly weathered portion of the formational material are considered potentially compressible/collapsible and therefore, are unsuitable in their present state and will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed development or future fill. Based on the current site grading plan (PEC West, 2019a), Buildings 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, both the clubhouse buildings and the pool will likely have cut-fill transition conditions depending upon the depth of the actual remedial removals (i.e. removal of the colluvium, alluvium, and weathered formational material. In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of cut/fill transitions, we recommend the entire cut portion of the building pads and pool be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill to mitigate the transition condition beneath the proposed structures. The depth of the overexcavation should be a minimum of five feet below final design grades. The existing on-site soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill provided they are relatively free of rocks (larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension), organic material and debris. The on-site formational soils are anticipated to be massive to thickly-bedded. There are no known landslides or other slope instability issues impacting the site. A perched groundwater condition was encountered within the lower portion of the alluvial soils in Boring LGC-B-3 at a depth of approximately 15 feet below the existing ground surface. While there is a perched groundwater condition in the lower portion of the alluvial soils along the western portion of the site, groundwater is not expected to be a significant impact to the proposed development. Based the topography of the site, surface water is anticipated to flow from the higher elevations of the site towards the west and then northwest along the tributary drainage on the west side of the site. Our review of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) Public Flood Hazard Determination Interactive Map indicates that the site is not located within any flood zone. Project No. 174002-02 Page 23 December 2, 2019 Based on our review of the State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies/Earthquake Fault Zone Map of the Murrieta Quadrangle, the majority of the site is located within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on our review of the previous geotechnical/fault study of the site by Converse in 1988, no active faults are known to occur beneath the site. All of the faults encountered during the fault study in 1988 terminated within the Pauba Formation and are considered pre-Holocene in age (or potentially active). The closest known active fault is the Wildomar Fault of the Elsinore Fault Zone located immediately west of Ynez Road. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. Other secondary seismic effects are not considered significant for the proposed development. Based on the anticipated relative density of on-site soils; removal of the existing alluvium and replacement with compacted fill soils within the limits of the planned site grading; and the depth to the static groundwater in the area of the proposed development; it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction impacting the majority of the site is low, and seismically induced settlements are considered to be negligible. However, the encountered young alluvium in the southwestern corner of the site (at Boring LGC-B-3) was found to be potentially liquefiable between 16 to 17.5 and 20 to 22.5 feet below the existing ground surface with subsequent total seismically induced settlements of 0.5 inches and differential settlements of 0.25 inches in 30 feet for the southwestern corner of the site. Due to the elevation of the proposed development at the site with respect to sea level and its distance from large open bodies of water, the potential of seiches and/or tsunami is considered to be nil. It is anticipated that the majority of the planned cut slopes will be comprised of sandy soils of the Pauba Formation that will not require stabilization measures to mitigate potential surficial instability (provided adverse geologic conditions are not present). However, geologic mapping of Trench LGC -T-3 in the east corner of the site indicates that a relatively thick layer of colluvium (on the order of approximately 6 to 7 feet) is present in the upper portion of the proposed cut slope as indicated on Cross -Section C-C’ (Plate 2). This cut slope with the relatively thick layer of colluvium may be prone to surficial instability; and therefore, we recommend that the portion of the cut sl ope where thick colluvial soils are present be replaced with a stability/replacement fill as recommended in Section 4.1.9 of this report. The expansion potential of the on-site soil tested ranged from very low to low (Appendix D and E). The Pauba Formation and sandy surficial units are anticipated to be in the very low to low expansion range while the clayey alluvial soils and clay beds in the Pauba Formation are anticipated to have a medium to high expansion potential. Expansion testing should be performed at the completion of grading to aid with the design of foundation, slab and other structural elements. Based on limited laboratory testing and our professional experience, the on-site soils should possess a negligible soluble sulfate content and are considered moderately corrosive. The anticipated site excavation and the proposed construction will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Project No. 174002-02 Page 24 December 2, 2019 The percolation study of the site by Geocon in 2007 indicated the percolation rates of the soils tested ranged from approximately 3 to 23.5 inches per minute. Using the “Porchet Method”, the infiltration rates of the five percolation test performed by Geocon range from 0.96 to 7.75 inches per hour. In general, when recompacted as fill soils, the surficial units (including undocumented fill soils, topsoil, alluvium, and highly weathered formational material, etc.) are anticipated to shrink and the formational materials are anticipated to bulk. The multi-family residential structures may be designed to be supported by conventional, post-tension, or mat foundation systems. Project No. 174002-02 Page 25 December 2, 2019 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Site Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation and remedial grading followed by construction of the proposed slab-on-grade type foundations and associated improvements. We recommend that earthwork on-site be performed in accordance with the recommendations herein, the City of Temecula and County of Riverside grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix I. In case of conflict, the recommendations in the following sections shall supersede those included as part of Appendix I. 4.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading of the area to receive structural fill or the engineered structure, the ground surface should be cleared of obstructions, debris, potentially compressible material (such as undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and highly weathered formational materials) and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions or utilities, which extend below finished site grades, should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557). 4.1.2 Removal and Recompaction As discussed in Section 2.2, the upper portion of the site is underlain by potentially compressible/collapsible or unsuitable soils (i.e. artificial undocumented fills, topsoil/colluvium, young alluvial soils and weathered formational material) which may settle under the addition of water, under the surcharge of fill, and/or foundation loads. Compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be excavated to competent material (as determined by the geotechnical consultant) and replaced with compacted fill soils. From a geotechnical perspective, soil that is removed may be placed as fill provided the material is relatively free from rocks (greater than 8-inches in maximum dimension), organic material and construction debris; is moisture-conditioned or dried (as needed) to obtain above-optimum moisture content; and then recompacted prior to additional fill placement or construction. The actual depth and extent of the required removals should be determined during grading operations by the geotechnical consultant; however, based on the current site design, the estimated remedial removal depths from the existing ground surface within the planned fill areas and below the proposed design grades in the shallow cut areas are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). These anticipated removal depths should range from approximately 2 to 16 feet in depth. The recommend removals of the on-site soils are discussed below: Project No. 174002-02 Page 26 December 2, 2019 1) Existing Undocumented Fill Artificial undocumented fill associated with the prior grading of the extension of Tierra Vista Road east of Ynez Road is considered unsuitable, and if encountered during future development, should be removed to competent material. Once removed, these soils can be utilized as fill materials provided they are moisture conditioned and free of deleterious material. It should also be noted that unsuitable alluvial soils are present beneath the undocumented fill. 2) Topsoil and Colluvium Areas to receive fill which are on slopes flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) and where normal benching would not completely remove the topsoil and colluvium should be stripped to suitable formational material prior to fill placement. Topsoil and colluvium is expected to be generally 1 to 12 feet thick. 3) Alluvial Soils Geologic observations indicated that the alluvial soils present in the western portion of the site and within the two drainages in the middle of the site are potentially compressible in the upper 7 to 16 feet and should be removed to competent alluvium or formational soils within the limits of the proposed grading. This may require that grading be performed beyond the proposed grading limits; as remedial removals beneath the proposed toe-of- slope need to extend down and away from the toe-of-slope at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection. In addition, if retaining walls are proposed along the downhill side of the project, remedial removals of the alluvium will also need to be performed so that potentially compressible soils are not located below or within the 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection down and away from the proposed retaining wall. 4) Weathered Pauba Formation Based on our limited subsurface investigation and review of the prior borings, trenches (including fault trenches), and CPT soundings, the upper 1 to 2 feet of the Pauba Formations was found to be potentially compressible and should be removed to competent formational material. 4.1.3 Removals of Saturated Soils During our subsurface investigation, a perched groundwater condition was encountered within the lower portion of the alluvial soils in Boring LGC-B-3 at a depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Where perched groundwater is encountered in the young alluvial or colluvium soils, geotechnical analysis of the depth of the saturated soil should be performed. Depending upon the depth of the saturated soil, the soil should be completely removed to competent formational material (if it is less than 3 to 5 feet in thickness), or it should be removed to within 1 to 3 feet of the ground water and replaced with compacted fill. The extent of the left-in-place saturated alluvial or colluvial soils should be determined during site grading; and if these saturated soils are within a 1:1 projection down and away from the Project No. 174002-02 Page 27 December 2, 2019 proposed residential structures, evaluation of the left-in-place saturated soils should be performed prior to construction of the proposed structures. 4.1.4 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of cut/fill transitions, we recommend the entire cut portion of the transition building pads be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill to mitigate the transition condition beneath the proposed structure. For transitions less steep than a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), the overexcavation of the cut portion of the building pad should be a minimum of 5 feet below the planned finish grade elevation of the pad. For cut/fill transitions steeper t han a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) the transition should be laid -back so it has a maximum 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination. All overexcavations should extend across the entire lot or laterally at least 10 feet beyond the proposed building perimeter or footprint. Based on the current site grading plan (PEC West, 2019a), Buildings 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, both the clubhouse buildings and the pool will likely have cut -fill transition conditions depending upon the depth of the actual remedial removals (i.e. removal of the colluvium, alluvium, and weathered formational material. In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of cut/fill transitions, we recommend the entire cut portion of the building pads and pool be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill to mitigate the transition condition beneath the proposed structures. The depth of the overexcavation should be a minimum of five feet below final design grades. 4.1.5 Shrinkage/Bulking Based on the encountered site soils, shrinkage of the undocumented fills, topsoil , colluvium, and alluvium; and bulking or shrinkage of the formational material are anticipated at the site. The preliminary estimated shrinkage and bulking factors are presented in Table 3. The value ranges are preliminary rough estimates which will vary with depth of removal, stripping losses, field conditions at the time of grading, etc. In addition, handling losses are not included in the estimates. If possible, we suggest an area where site grades can be adjusted be provided as a balance area. 4.1.6 Temporary Excavation Stability In general, all excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications, and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. Excavations should be laid back or shored in accordance with OSHA requirements before personnel or equipment are allowed to enter. Soil conditions should be mapped and frequently checked by a representative of LGC to verify conditions are as anticipated. The contractor shall be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical engineer should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Temporary excavations maybe cut vertically up to five feet. Excavations over five feet should be slot-cut, shored, or cut no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope gradient. Surface Project No. 174002-02 Page 28 December 2, 2019 water should be diverted away from the exposed cut, and not be allowed to pond on top of the excavations. Temporary cuts should not be left open for an extended period of time. 4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction From a geotechnical perspective, the on-site soils are suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are screened of rocks greater than 8-inches in maximum dimension, organic material, and construction debris. Areas prepared to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6-inches, brought to at least optimum-moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts generally not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. If possible, import soils should contain no materials over 3- to 6-inches in maximum dimension and have a very low expansion potential. 4.1.8 Trench Backfill and Compaction The on-site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are screened of rocks and other material over 3- to 6-inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (generally not exceeding 8-inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM Test Method D1557). If trenches are shallow and the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities; clean sand, having sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater, should be used to bed and shade the utilities. Sand backfill should be densified. The densification may be accomplished by jetting or flooding and then tamping to ensure adequate compaction. A representative from LGC should observe, probe, and test the backfill to verify compliance with the project specifications. 4.1.9 Cut and Fill Slopes Our review of the preliminary site development plan indicates that cut and fill slopes at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter with approximate maximum heights of up to 25 to 30 feet and 30 feet, respectively are proposed on-site It is anticipated that the majority of the planned cut slopes will be comprised of sandy soils of the Pauba Formation that will not require stabilization measures to mitigate potential surficial instability (provided adverse geologic conditions are not present). However, geologic mapping of Trench LGC-T-3 in the east corner of the site indicates that a relatively thick layer of colluvium (on the order of ap proximately 6 to 7 feet) is present in the upper portion of the proposed cut slope as indicated on Cross-Section C-C’ (Plate 2). This cut slope with the relatively thick layer of colluvium may be prone to surficial instability; and Project No. 174002-02 Page 29 December 2, 2019 therefore, we recommend that the portion of the cut slope where thick colluvial soils are present be replaced with a stability/replacement fill. The stability/replacement fill should have a minimum horizontal width of 15 feet from the backcut to the slope face. We also recommend that the stability/replacement fill key be excavated a minimum of 15 feet wide with a minimum depth of at least 5 feet below the toe-of- slope. The key bottom should be tilted a minimum of 2 percent into-the-slope. Benching of the back-cut as the fill is placed, as well as, overbuilding the slope and trimming it back may be required. The recommended stability fill key location is shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). We also recommend that a subdrain be installed along the back bottom edge of the key and at minimum 30-foot vertical intervals if the replacement fill is greater than 30 feet in height. The outlet locations of the subdrains should be determined in the field during site grading. The subdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe surrounded by 3 cubic feet (per linear foot) of crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). The subdrain should have a minimum fall of 1-percent toward the outlet. If remedial removals are limited due to property boundary issues, the stability/replacement fill may be constructed by overbuilding the slope face so that the key is a minimum of approximately 15 feet wide and cutting it back to the design cut slope grade. A typical fill-over- cut slope replacement fill is provided as Figure I-4 in Appendix I. All design cut slopes should be evaluated during grading by an LGC geologist to verify that no adverse geology or other geotechnical condition affects slope stability. Design fill slopes are considered to be generally stable as designed (assuming that the existing alluvium and colluvium beneath the fill slopes is removed to competent material and replaced with compacted fill). Fill slopes should consist of compacted soil or a uniform mixture of soil. Based on our geotechnical analysis of the site geotechnical conditions, the on-site cohesionless soil (i.e. soils having little to no fine grained silts or clays) may be not surficially stable if placed as fill along proposed slope faces. Consequently, we recommend that the outer 5 feet of the slope faces consist of more clayey on -site soils to prevent surficial instability issues. Where fill slopes are proposed over natural ground, the slopes should be properly keyed and benched in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix I. The slopes should be provided with appropriate benches and drainage devices as recommended by the project civil engineer. In addition, they should be landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to reduce the potential for erosion. Brow ditches should be constructed at the top of cut slopes. Lot drainage should be directed such that runoff on slope faces in minimized. Inadvertent oversteepening of cut and fill slopes should be avoided during fine grading and building construction. If seepage is encountered in slopes, special drainage features may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 4.1.10 Fill Slope Keys Project No. 174002-02 Page 30 December 2, 2019 Prior to the placement of fill slopes that will be placed above natural and/or cut areas on the site; a fill slope key should be constructed. The fill slope key should be excavated at least 2 feet into competent soil along the toe-of-slope and constructed approximately 15 feet wide with the key bottom angled a minimum of 2 percent into-the-slope. 4.1.11 Canyon Subdrains In order to help reduce the potential for ground water accumulation in the proposed fill areas, we recommend subdrains be installed in the bottoms of canyons fill areas prior to fill placement. Based on our review of the proposed precise grading plan (PEC West, 2019a), we recommend that two canyon subdrains be placed on the site as indicated on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The canyon subdrains should consist of a 6-inch diameter PVC pipe surrounded by a minimum of 9-cubic feet (per linear foot) of 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in a filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Where the subdrain is placed on fill in order to outlet the subdrain, the subdrain should consist of solid PVC pipe. The subdrain should have a minimum fall of at least 1 percent while the upper end of the canyon subdrain should be located at least 10 to 15 feet below proposed finish grade elevation. Details for subdrain construction are provided in the attached General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Appendix I). The actual need and/or location of canyon subdrains should be based on the evaluation of the configuration of the canyon bottoms by the geotechnical consultant after the removal of compressible soils have been completed. A representative of the project civil engineer should survey the installed subdrains for alignment and grade. Sufficient time should be allowed for the surveys prior to commencement of fill placement operations over the subdrain. The subdrain outlets should be installed to discharge water into positive drainage devices (e.g. storm drain boxes, natural canyon bottoms, etc.). 4.2 Foundation Selection 4.2.1 General Foundation Selection Recommendations for preliminary foundation design and construction are presented herein. Based on the results of representative expansion potential laboratory testing of the representative on-site soils, the proposed structures should be designed for a very low to low or medium expansion potential (i.e. a 0 to 90 Expansion Index). The following conventional, post-tension, and mat slab foundation recommendations are provided. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in the structural design nor impede those recommendations by a corrosion consultant. Should conflict arise, modifications to the foundation design provided herein can be provided. Project No. 174002-02 Page 31 December 2, 2019 4.2.2 Bearing Capacity Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 lb/ft2 (gross), for continuous footings a minimum of 12-inches wide and 12-inches deep, and spread footings 24-inches wide and 12-inches deep, into certified compacted fill. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 300 psf for each additional foot in depth and 150 psf for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. Lateral forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and a passive earth pressure of 250 lb/ft2/ft. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of greater than 1.5. All footing excavations should be cut square and level as much as possible, and should be free of sloughed materials including sand, rocks and gravel, and trash debris. Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened for the assumed very low to low or medium expansion potential (to be confirmed at the completion of grading). These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5:1[horizontal to vertical]) conditions only. Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. The above vertical bearing may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. 4.2.3 Conventional Foundation A conventional foundation may be used to support proposed structure underlain by very low expansive soils (i.e. an Expansion Index less than 21). A preliminary effective plasticity index of 15 for the near finish grade very low expansive soils may be used in the foundation design. Continuous footings should have minimum widths of 12-inches. Individual column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Footings for the proposed three story structure should have minimum depths (below lowe st adjacent finish grade) of 24-inches and 18- inches for exterior and interior footings, respectively for lots having an assumed very low expansion potential (0 to 20 Expansion Index). The subgrade should be moisture-conditioned and proof-rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm, relatively unyielding surface, especially if the surface has been loosened by the passage of construction traffic. Subgrade soils should be pre-saturated to the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12- inches for a very low expansion potential. Expansion index testing should be performed at the end of grading for confirmation. The minimum thickness of the floor slabs should be at least 4.5 inches, and joints should be provided per usual practice. Project No. 174002-02 Page 32 December 2, 2019 4.2.4 Post-Tension Foundation Based on our review, the site may be considered suitable for the support of the proposed structure using a post-tensioned slab-on-grade foundation system for the anticipated very low to low and medium expansion potential. The following section summaries our recommendations for the foundation system. Table 4 contains the geotechnical recommendations for the construction of a PT slab -on-grade foundation. The structural engineer should design the foundation system based on these parameters including the foundation settlement as indicated in the following section to the allowable deflection criteria determined by the structural engineer/architect. Table 4 Preliminary Geotechnical Parameters for Post -Tensioned Foundation Design Parameter Value Expansion Classification (Assumed to be confirmed at the completion of grading): Very Low to Low, and Medium Expansion Thornthwaite Moisture Index (from Figure 3.3): -20 Constant Soil Suction (from Figure 3.4): PF 3.6 Center Lift Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: Center lift, ym: Very Low to Low 9.0 feet 0.35 inches Medium 9.0 feet 0.5 inches Edge Lift Edge moisture variation distance (from Figure 3.6), em: Edge lift, ym: Very Low to Low 5.2 feet 0.65 inches Medium 5.0 feet 1.1 inches Expansion Potential: Very Low to Low (0-50) Medium (51-90) Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mix in Contact with Site Soils in Accordance with American Concrete Institute Standard 318, Section 4.3: Negligible Exposure Corrosivity of Earth Materials to Ferrous Metals: Moderately Corrosive Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming presaturation as indicated below): 100 pci (very low to low) 85 pci (medium) Additional Recommendations: 1. Presaturate slab subgrade to at least optimum-moisture content, or to 1.2 times optimum moisture to minimum depths of 12, and 18 inches below ground surface, respectively for very low to low, and medium expansion potentials, respectively. 2. Install a 15-mil moisture/vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete (unless superseded by the Structural/Post-tension engineer*) with minimum 1 inches of sand below the moisture/vapor barrier. 3. Minimum perimeter foundation embedment below finish grade for moisture cut off should be 12, and 18 inches, respectively for very low to low, and medium expansion potentials, respectively. 4. Minimum slab thickness should be 5 inches. * The above sand and moisture/vapor barrier recommendations are traditionally included with Project No. 174002-02 Page 33 December 2, 2019 geotechnical foundation recommendations although they are generally not a major factor influencing the geotechnical performance of the foundation. The sand and moisture/vapor barrier requirements are the purview of the foundation engineer/corrosion engineer (in accordance with ACI Publication 302 “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction”) and the homebuilder to ensure that the concrete cures more evenly than it would otherwise, is protected from corrosive environments, and moisture penetration of through the floor is acceptable to future homeowners. Therefore, the recommendations provided herein may be superseded by the requirements of the previously mentioned parties. As indicated above, the underslab vapor/moisture retarder (i.e. an equivalent capillary break method) may consist of a minimum 15-mil vapor barrier in conformance with ASTM E 1745 Class A material, placed in general conformance with ASTM E1643, underlain by a minimum 1-inch of sand, as needed. The sand layer requirements above the vapor barrier are the purview of the foundation engineer/structural engineer, and should be provided in accordance with ACI Publication 302 “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction”. These recommendations must be confirmed (and/or altered) by the foundation engineer, based upon the performance expectations of the foundation. Ultimately, the design of the moisture retarder system and recommendations for concrete placement and concrete mix design, which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling are the purview of the foundation engineer, in consideration of the project requirements provided by the architect and developer. The underslab vapor/moisture retarder described above is considered a suitable alternative in accordance with the Capillary Break Section 4.505.2.1 of the CALGreen code. 4.2.5 Mat Foundations Mat foundations can be used for support of proposed residential buildings. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be used for the design of the mat at the surface under the slab area. The allowable bearing value is for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces. A coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction, k, of 85 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used to evaluate the pressure distribution beneath the mat foundation. The magnitude of total and differential settlements o f the mat foundation will be a function of the structural design and stiffness of the mat. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Minimum perimeter footing embedment provided in the previous sections maybe reduced for the mat slab design. Coordination with the structural engineer will be required in order to ensure structural loads are adequately distributed throughout the mat foundation to avoid localized stress concentrations resulting in potential settlement. The foundation plan should be reviewed by LGC to confirm preliminary estimated total and differential static settlements. 4.2.6 Foundation Settlement Based on our current understanding of the project, the results of our site investigation and the recommended remedial grading with shallow foundations embedded into compacted fills, we estimate the post-construction static settlement of the site to be less than 1-inch with a Project No. 174002-02 Page 34 December 2, 2019 differential settlement of approximately of 0.5-inches in 30 feet. Post-construction settlement should also include seismically induced settlements, where alluvium is left in place in the southwest corner of the site. The differential seismically induced settlement of 0.25 inches is 30 feet should be considered in the design for this area. 4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls The following lateral earth pressures may be used for the design of any future site retaining walls. Due to the expansive nature of some of the on-site clayey alluvium and formational materials, we recommend site retaining walls be backfilled with either the very low expansive bedrock sandy soils (with minus 3 inch rock) or approved select soils. Approved select soils should consist of clean, granular soils (less than 15 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of very low expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on UBC. 18-2). The recommended lateral pressures for approved select soils for level or sloping backfill are presented in Table 5. Table 5 Lateral Earth Pressures for Retaining Walls Conditions Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards Seismic Earth Pressure (pcf) * Approved Select Material Approved Select Material Active 35 50 15 At Rest 51 80 -- * For walls with greater than 6-feet in backfill height, the above seismic earth pressure should be added to the static pressures given in the table above. The seismic earth pressure should be considered as an inverted triangular distribution with the resultant acting at 0.6H in relation to the base of the retaining wall footing (where H is the retained height). The aforementioned incremental seismic load was determined in general accordance with the standard of practice in the industry (using the Mononobe- Okabe method for active and Woods method for at-rest) for determining earth pressures as a result of seismic events. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with approved select soils is provided in Table 5. The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechnical and structural engineers. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated Project No. 174002-02 Page 35 December 2, 2019 on Figure 5. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water, which contains soluble salts, migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in psf/ft of depth or pcf. These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil. For sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Refer to Sections 4.2.2 for passive resistance and allowable soil bearing, respectively. 4.4 Segmental Retaining Wall Recommendations Segmental retaining walls that may be constructed on the site are anticipated to have up to a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill above the walls. The zone of influence for geogrid -reinforced walls is defined by a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the heel of the bottom geogrid to the finished ground surface overlying the wall. The following geotechnical parameters presented in Table 6 may be utilized by the wall engineer in design of the on-site segmental walls. Design of segmental retaining walls should be per the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) guidelines (or equivalent guidelines). Table 6 Design Soil Strength Parameters for Segmental Retaining Walls Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (Degrees) Unit Weight (pcf) Infill (Reinforced) Soil 0 30 125 Retained (Backfill) Soil 50 30 125 Foundation Soil 50 30 125 The design acceleration of 0.56g (or 2/3 PGAm), should be used for the proposed design. Once the wall designer designs the wall considering external, internal, and local wall stability, LGC will then check the global slope stability. Where global slope stability is the controlling fac tor, additional geogrid will be added to the design and/or the geogrid will be lengthened, as needed. Thus, the final design is expected to satisfy both the “conventional method” of modular wall design as well as global slope stability. All excavations should be made in accordance with Cal OSHA, as a general guideline. The backfill soils (having an expansion index less than 30 per UBC. 18-I-B) should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after back-cut excavation. Prolonged exposure of back- Project No. 174002-02 Page 36 December 2, 2019 cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. The subject walls may be backfilled using the on-site native soils. For closed face walls we recommend a minimum 1-foot-wide drainage gallery be constructed immediately behind the face of the wall using Class II Permeable material and augmented with a perforated 4 -inch PVC pipe, or per the wall manufactures specifications. This drainage layer and drain is not a requirement for open faced walls. The remainder of the wall may be backfilled using the on-site native soils. The subject segmental retaining walls should be constructed founded onto competent soils (i.e. compacted fills or competent native soils), or per manufactures specifications. For preliminary purposes the allowable bearing capacities to be used in the wall design is 1,500 pounds per square foot. From a geotechnical perspective, the on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are screened of rocks greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension, organic materials and construction debris. Fill soils should be brought to at least optimum-moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts generally not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under full-time observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all fill materials, include on-site and import materials. Prior to placement of the geogrid, the surface of the compacted fill shall be prepared such that it has a maximum variation of 6 vertical inches over a distance of 15 feet. Each geogrid layer shall be pulled taut and secured in-place prior to placing backfill material on the geogrid. The geogrid layers shall be continuous and no splice and/or connection system will be accepted. T he contractor shall not operate tracked construction equipment directly upon the geogrid reinforcement, but shall use rubber tired equipment. All passes with tracked equipment for the purposes of obtaining compaction shall be done in straight lines and sh all minimize the turning movements of the equipment to reduce the potential for displacing and/or damaging the geogrids. The manufacturer shall provide to the owner quality control testing for the each lot of blocks which are shipped to the site. The cont ractor shall install the block per the manufacturers recommended procedures. All excavations should be made in accordance with Cal OSHA, as a general guideline. All excavations should be made at 1:1 inclinations or flatter. Once excavation has been init iated, the segmental retaining wall should be constructed as soon as possible after back -cut excavation. Prolonged exposure of back-cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to backfill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. We recommend the contractors proposed plan of operations be reviewed by this office prior to initiation of work and closely monitored by representatives of this office during excavation and construction. A backdrain should be installed at the heel of the wall back -cut consisting of a 4 inch PVC pipe Project No. 174002-02 Page 37 December 2, 2019 surrounded by ¾” crushed rock and wrapped in a filter fabric and outletted through the wall face or to another suitable outlet. If water seepage is encountered along the wall back -cut, a continuous chimney drain consisting of a one foot layer Caltrans Class II permeable material shall be placed at the heel along the back-cut behind the geogrid, as necessary. The chimney drains should be outletted through the backdrain at the heel of the cut. The outlet pipes should be constructed at the low points of the subdrains and have a minimum 2 percent fall to the outlet lo cation. Additional subdrains may be needed if seepage and/or areas of potential seepage are encountered during grading operations. Positive drainage of surface water away from the base and top of the proposed segmental retaining walls are important. A concrete V-ditch shall be constructed behind the top of each of the proposed the wall to prevent surface water from the infiltrating the backfill soil. The V -ditch shall be design and placed by the project civil engineer in accordance the local codes. The zone of influence for geogrid-reinforced modular block walls is defined by a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the heel of the bottom geogrid to the finished ground surface overlying the wall. Any building or vehicle loads within this zone should be considered in the wall design. 4.5 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations Based on an assumed R-value of 20, we recommend the following preliminary minimum street sections for Traffic Indices of 5, 6, and 7 for the on-site driveways and parking areas and a Traffic Index of 10 for Ynez Road (as indicated in Table 7). These recommendations should be confirmed with R-value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading. Final street sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the projected Traffic Index. In addition, additional sections can be provided based on other traffic indices. Table 7 Preliminary Pavement Design Sections Assumed Traffic Index 5 6 7 10 R-Value Subgrade 20 20 20 20 AC Thickness 3.0 inches 3.5 inches 4.0 inches 6.0 inches Base Thickness 8.0 inches 10.0 inches 12.0 inches 19.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) may be designed using a minimum of 8-inches of Portland cement concrete over 8-inches of compacted aggregate base. The modulus of rupture of the concrete should be a minimum of 500 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days. Contraction joints should be placed at maximum 10-foot spacing. Where the outer edge of a concrete pavement connects to an asphalt pavement, the concrete slab should be thickened by 50 percent at a taper not to exceed a slope of 1 in 10. Aggregate base should conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications Project No. 174002-02 Page 38 December 2, 2019 for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”). Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction over subgrade compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM- D1557. For vehicular concrete pavers, if concrete pavers are designed for vehicular traffic and are underlain by 1-inch of sand. Based on ASCE 58-10 for interlocking pavers, considering a Traffic Index (TI) of 6.0 and an R-value of 20 for the subgrade soils, we recommend the following minimum base section underlying the proposed pavers. The proposed pavers and sand should be underlain by a minimum 12- inches of crushed aggregate base. The aggregate base material should conform to the specifications for Crushed Aggregate Base (Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction) and be placed and compacted in maximum 6-inch thick lifts. The base material should be compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The subgrade should achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent through the upper 12 inches. Base and subgrade materials should be moisture-conditioned to a relatively uniform moisture content near optimum moisture. 4.6 Swimming Pool and Spa Design Proposed pool, spa, pool decking and associated improvements should be constructed in accordance with the attached Figure 6, Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction. Pool excavations should occur in engineered fill or in formational material. Concrete in contact with on- site soils should be designed in accordance with the negligible category per ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1. The proposed pool, spa should be designed for a minimum lateral equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for very low to low expansion potential and 85 pcf for medium expansion potentials. Due to inherent differences in supporting capacity of fill and cut ground, it is undesirable to have structures partially supported on soils having different geotechnical characteristics or materials having different engineering characteristics. If a cut/fill transition condition exists, the cut portion of the transition should be excavated and converted to compacted fill, or the pool/spa can be designed with additional reinforcement, and/or a thicker shell in order to cope with potential differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential. Excavation and subsequent fill placement for pool, and spa including the placement of drains, outlets, water-proofing, etc. should be performed under the observation and testing of a geotechnical consultant. Observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during pool excavation to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with the design ass umptions. 4.7 Freestanding (Top-of-Slope) Walls Freestanding wall footings should be founded a minimum of 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, we recommend inclusion of construction joints at 10- to 20-foot intervals. Due to the potential creep of soils, where free standing walls are constructed close to top -of-slope, some tilt of the wall should be anticipated. To reduce the amount of tilt, a co mbination of grade beam and caisson foundations may be used to support the wall. The system should consist of Project No. 174002-02 Page 39 December 2, 2019 minimum 12-inch diameter caissons placed at 8 feet maximum on centers, and each 8 feet long and connected together at top with 12-inch by 12-inch grade beam. The geotechnical design parameters for the caisson are shown on the attached Figure 7. 4.8 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defi nes corrosion as “a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment.” From a geotechnical viewpoint, the “environment” is the prevailing foundation soils and the “substances” are the reinforced concrete foundations or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within close vicinity of the foundation soil. In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates and/or pH values of less than 5.5. ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 provides specific guidelines for the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000 ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel, either in the form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is 500 ppm per California Test 532. Based on on-site soil testing, the on-site soils are classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 (ACI, 2008). As a preliminary recommendation due to the results of sulfate content testing, concrete in contact with on-site soils should be designed in accordance with ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 for the negligible category. It is also our opinion that the on-site soils should be preliminarily considered moderately corrosive to buried metals. The client and/or other members of the design team shoul d consider this potential as they determine necessary. LGC is not a corrosion consultant and does not provide recommendations related to corrosion. 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork (such as sidewalks, walkways, etc.) have a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil -moisture fluctuations because these slabs are typically much thinner than foundation slabs and are not reinforced with the same dyna mics as foundation elements. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete should be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 8. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress. Project No. 174002-02 Page 40 December 2, 2019 Table 8 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork Private Sidewalks Private Driveways Patio/Entryways Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Minimum Thickness (in inches) 4 5 5 City/Agency Standard Presaturation Wet down subgrade soils prior to placement Presoak to 12 inches Presoak to 12 inches City/Agency Standard Reinforcement -- No. 3 at 24 inches on centers No. 3 at 24 inches on centers City/Agency Standard Thickened Edge -- 8” x 8” -- City/Agency Standard Crack Control Saw cut or deep tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness Saw cut or deep tool joint to a minimum of 1/3 the concrete thickness City/Agency Standard Maximum Joint Spacing 5 feet 10 feet or quarter cut whichever is closer 6 feet City/Agency Standard Aggregate Base -- 2 2 City/Agency Standard 4.10 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the building at a gradient of at least 2-percent for a distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1-percent. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Project No. 174002-02 Page 41 December 2, 2019 Planters with open bottoms adjacent to buildings should be avoided. Planters should not be designed adjacent to buildings unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins, liners, and/or area drains, are made. Overwatering must be avoided. 4.11 Construction Observation and Testing The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC. Geotechnical observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during site excavations, subgrade for slab/foundation, backfill of utility trenches, preparation of any subgrade and placement of aggregate base, or when any unusual soil conditions are encountered at the site. Grading plans, foundation plans, and final project drawings should be reviewed by this office prior to construction. Project No. 174002-02 Page 42 December 2, 2019 5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements th e recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the c onditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result fro m legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Qps Qps Kgb Trmp Qyv Qya Qps Mzu Qvoa Qya Kr Trmu Kpvg Kgb Kt Qyv QTws Kpvt Qpf Kgd Qyf Tvsr Khg Trmp Qw Qoa Tta Qa Qls Tvh Qls? Qyls Qvof AA º Figure 2Regional Geology MapRancho HighlandsTemecula, California Project Name Project Number Eng./Geo.Date Red Tail Rancho Highlands 174002-02 December 2, 2019 0 1 2Miles ^Site ACR/RKW , US ElsinoreFaultZone ElsinoreFaultZone MurriettaHotSpringsFault SanJacintoFa ult Zo ne SanJacintoFaultZone S an A n dre asFau l t Zone ^Site Figure 3Regional Fault Location Map 0 4 8Miles Newport-InglewoodRose C a n y o n F a u l t Z o n e Rancho HighlandsTemecula, Califor Project Name Project Number Eng./Geo.Date Red Tail Rancho Highlands 174002-02 ACR/RKW º Legend Approximate Location of Historic-Aged Faults Approximate Location of Holocene-Aged Faults Approximate Location of Quaternary-Aged Faults December 2, 2019 , US ( Site Figure 4Fault Location Map 0 1 2Miles Rancho HighlandsTemecula, Califor Project Name Project Number Eng./Geo.Date Red Tail Rancho Highlands 174002-02 ACR/RKW December 2, 2019 º M urrietta CreekFault WildomarFa u lt Willa rd Fault Wildomar F ault Murrietta Hot SpringsFault W o lf Valle y Fault LegendApproximate Location of Historic-Aged Faults Approximate Location of Holocene-Aged FaultsApproximate Location of Quaternary-Aged Faults Approximate Location of Alquist-Priolo Zone EE llssiinn oorree FFaauullttZZoonnee §¨¦15 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 UV79 UV79 UV79 WildomarFault WillardFault FENCE WA L L H E I G H T , H EXTENT OF FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL, MINIMUM HEEL WIDTH OR H/2 WHICH EVER IS GREATER BACKCUT PER OSHA 1' MINIMUM WATER PROOFING PER CIVIL ENGINEER FOOTING/WALL DESIGN PER CIVIL ENGINEER MINIMUM 1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAR FOOT BURRITO TYPE SUBDRAIN, CONSISTING OF 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT NATIVE BACKFILL COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION PER ASTM1557-D FREE DRAINING SAND BACKFILL SE 30 OR GREATER 4 INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE TO FLOW TO DRAINAGE DEVICE FRed Tail Rancho HighlandsProject Name ACR/RKW December 2, 2019 Not-to-Scale Eng. / Geol. Date Scale Project No.174002-02Figure 5: Retaining Wall Detail, Sand Backfill Concrete deck, minimum of 5 inches thick with #3 bar 18 inch on center each way with construction joints 1.5 inches deep (minimum) with maximum spacing of 5 feet. Flexible sealant between pool coping and concrete decking 10 mil visqueen moisture barrier Clean sand backfill (4" minimum) Pool shell to be designed for any added load of adjacent structures. Pressure relief valve For pools adjacent to descending slopes, the pool shell should be designed assuming total loss of soil support for the portion of the pool located within the assumed "creep zone". For design purposes, the creep zone should be considered to extend a distance "A" from the top of slope (see schedule "A" above). The creep zone should be considered as parallel to the slope face. Concrete flatwork adjacent to the pool should be a minimum of 5 inches thick reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 18-inches on center each way with a perimeter cut-off footing per the above schedule. Construction joints or weakened plane joints should be provided in all flatwork to a minimum depth of 1.5 inches at frequent internals (5 feet or less). The concrete slab should be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand underlain inturn by a 10-mil Visqueen barrier. Presoaking of the subgrade prior to placing the Visqueen barrier should be performed in accordance with the recommendations included in the project geotechnical report. The presoaking should saturate the subgrade to a minimum depth of 12 inches. The subgrade below the Visqueen barrier should be inclined so that any moisture that seeps through cracks in the concrete due to irrigation, rain, or pool splash will be directed away from the pool. A perforated pipe wrapped in approved filter fabric should be installed to transport the collected moisture away from the pool area. The drain pipe is not considered necessary for soils of low to medium expansion potential. The contractor must ensure that the Visqueen is properly lapped, sealed and not punctured during construction. All pool design should be performed by a qualified designer, using the equivalent fluid pressures shown in the schedule. A geotechnical consultant should be contacted to review the final design which is based on the recommendations of this detail. This is not a design document and has been provided for INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY unless stamped and signed by LGC and pertaining to a specific pool. To reduce the potential of lifting and cracking of the pool decking, landscape planters should not be located in islands within the decking unless they are lined with a waterproof membrane and provided with a subdrainage system to prevent moisture variations below the decking. The pool shell should be designed to account for any additional loading due to improvements (building, raised planters, etc.) Raised planters should not be located at the top of slopes unless specially designed by the geotechnical consultant. The recommendations above will not eliminate all movement of the pool and associated improvements, however they should reduce the degree of movement, and promote cracking along construction joints, not flatwork. Expansion Index Depth of moisture cut-off footing distance "B" Slope creep zone distance "A" low-very low medium high very high 8 inches 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches 7 feet 10 feet 15 feet 20 feet SCHEDULE slope creep zone Perimeter Drain (perforated pipe wrapped in approved filter fabric and outletted). Version 12/07/2001 1 1 1 2 Portion of pad most susceptible to slope creep. See Schedule "A". Se e S c h e d u l e "' B " Pool Shell Lateral Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) 60 85 105 125 Figure 6: Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction Red Tail Rancho Highlands Project No. Eng. / Geol. Scale Date Project Name 174002-02 ACR/RKW December 2, 2019 Not-to-Scale ALLOWABLE VERTICAL LOADS Allowable Bearing Pressures: 1,500 lbs/sq. ft at a Depth of 12 inches Below Creep Zone Allowable Increase: 250 lbs/sq. ft per foot of increased depth to a Maximum of 2,500 lbs/sq. ft (Neglecting the Creep Zone or Max Top 5 Feet) Allowable Skin Friction: 450 lbs/sq. ft per foot of Depth (Neglecting the Top 5 Feet) Perimeter Wall or Other Improvements 4-15' 2-7.5' Pier d ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Creep Z o n e DRILLED PIER ALLOWABLE LATERAL LOADS Fa=(35x5 /2) x L = 438L, Where L=Caisson Spacing Pp=150 psf/ft Fp=(450+150d)/ 2 x (d-5) x (3xD) Where D=Caisson Diameter and d=Depth Below Ground 2 Ignore Passive Pressure in the Creep Zone or Maxium 5' 150x5 150xd Fp Fa Pa=35 psf/ft Project Name Red Tail Rancho Highlands ACR/RKW Not-to-Scale December 2, 2019 Eng. / Geol. Date Scale Project No.174002-02Figure 7: Geotechnical Parameters For Top of Slope Walls Project No. 174002-02 Page A-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX A References American Concrete Institute, 1985, Manual of Concrete Practice, Parts 1 and 2. American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2011, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-11, 471 pages, dated January 2011. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, 2013. Bergmann, M.C., and Rockwell, T.K., 1989, The Murrieta Creek Fault, a New Branch of the Elsinore Fault, Rancho California area, Riverside County, California, in Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America, v. 21, n. 5, p. 57. CBSC, 2016, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 and 2 of 2 (based on the 2012 International Building Code). California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDCDMG), 1978, Fault Evaluation Report FER-76, Elsinore Fault Zone, south Riverside County Segment, dated November 16, 1978. CDCDMG, 1979, Supplement No. 1 to Fault Evaluation Report FER-76, 2 pages, dated March 23, 1979. CDCDMG, 1979a, Supplement No. 2 to Fault Evaluation Report FER-76, 2 pages, dated April 18, 1979. CDCDMG, 1990, Revised Official Map of Special Studies Zones, Murrieta Quadrangle, Scale 1:24,000, dated January 1, 1990. CDCDMG, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 117, 74 p. CDCDMG, 2000, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 118, 12 p. CDCDMG, 2000a, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region: California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003, Scale 1:24,000. Project No. 174002-02 Page A-2 December 2, 2019 References (continued) CDCDMG, 2004, Recommended Criteria for Delineating Seismic Hazard Zones in California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 118, 12 p. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey (CDCCGS), 2007, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Murrieta 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Riverside County, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 115, 66 p. CDCCGS, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, dated March 13, 1997 revised September 11, 2008, Special Publication SP 117A. CDCCGS, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones; A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, 93 p., dated January 2018. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), 2003, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Update 2003, http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/update2003/index.cfm , accessed February 2017. CDWR, 2007, Groundwater Level Data, Water Data Library, http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/, accessed February 2007. CDWR, 2017, Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map Application, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/gicima/#bookmark_GroundwaterElevation, accessed February 2017. CDWR, 2017a, California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program Website, http://water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/index.cfm, accessed February 2017. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2017, Geotracker Web Site at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed February 2017. Campbell, K.W., 2000, "ERRATUM, Empirical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 353-355 (referred to in EQFAULT as Campbell and Bozorgnia, 1997 Rev). Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., 2006, Geologic Fault Hazard Investigation, County Geologic Report No. 1391, Tierra Vista Condominiums, Lot 2, Tract 13423, Tierra Vista Road, Temecula, CA, Project No. 40-1871, dated January 18, 2006. Project No. 174002-02 Page A-3 December 2, 2019 References (continued) Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., 2006a, Response to Review Comments First Review-· David Jones-County of Riverside Dated February 3, 2006, Project No. 40-1871, dated May 7, 2006. Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc., 2006b, Second Response to Review Comments Third Review by Consulting Engineering Geologist Dated: May 19, 2006, Project No. 40 -1871, dated August 24, 2006. Converse Consultants Inland Empire, 1988, Liquefaction Investigation, County Assessor's Parcel No. 923-590-005-05, ·Portion of “C-12 Information Center Site”, Parcel 1 of Record of Survey, 48, Page 72, Rancho California, California, Project No. 88-81-110-02, dated September 22, 1988. Converse Consultants Inland Empire, 1988a, Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract 23992, County Assessor’s Parcel No. 923-590-005-05, Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 48, Page 72, “C-12” Information Center Site, Rancho California, California, Project No. 88-81-110-01, dated October 6, 1988. Converse Consultants Inland Empire, 1988b, Supplemental Comments, Liquefaction Evaluation, C - 12 Information Center Site, APN 923-590-005, County Geologic Report No. 563L, Rancho California, California, Project No. 881-81-110-02, dated November 11, 1988. Converse Consultants Inland Empire, 1988c, Response – Riverside County Planning Department Review Letter dated November 8, 1988, Tentative Tract 23992, APN 923 -590-005, County Geologic Report No. 563, Rancho California, California, Project No. 881 -81-110-01, dated December 2, 1988. Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2008, Geologic Map of the Murrieta 15 -Minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF- 417, Scale 1:62,500. Geocon, 2005, Fault Location Opinion Letter, Rancho Highlands (Lots 4 & 5), Ynez Road near Tierra Vista Road, Temecula, California, Project No. T2316-12-01, dated November 16, 2005. Geocon, 2006, Response to Riverside County Building and Safety DRC Review Comments dated February 14, 2006 and Consultant of Record Letter by Geocon Inland Empire, Inc., dated February 24, 2006, Rancho Highlands (Lots 4 & 5), Ynez Road near Tierra Vista Road, Temecula, California, Project No T2316-12-01, dated February 24, 2006. Geocon, 2007, Update Geotechnical Report, Tentative Tract No. 34431, Rancho Highlands III, Temecula, California, Project No. T2316-12-02, dated July 25, 2007. Google Maps at http://www.googlemaps.com, accessed February 2017. Project No. 174002-02 Page A-4 December 2, 2019 References (continued) Ishihara, K., 1985, “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes”. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. A.A. Bakema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., Gutierrez, C., Bryant, W., Saucedo, G., and Wills, C., 2010, Geologic Map of California: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map 2, Scale 1:750,000. Johnson, S.E., Schmidt, K.L., and Tate, M.C., 2002, Ring Complexes in the Peninsular Ranges Batholith, Mexico and the USA: Magma Plumbing Systems in the Middle and Upper Crust, Lithos Volume 61, pages 187-208. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting along the Elsinore Fault Zone in southern Riverside County, California: California Division of Mines, Special Report 131, 12 p., Map Scale 1:24,000. Kennedy, M.P., and Morton, D.M., 2003, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle, Riverside County, California. On line version: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of03-189. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ by 60’ Quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, Scale 1:100,000 Kupferman, S., 2007, Faulting/Geologic/Seismic Report Review, County Geologic Report No. 1878, Tentative Tract Map No. 34431, City of Temecula Case No. PA05-0398, 2 pages, dated August 23, 2007. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1994, Geotechnical Investigation and Evaluation of Faulting within the Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone for the Proposed New Worship Center for Hope Lutheran Church, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 11940385-01, dated August 24, 1994. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2004, Preliminary Summary of Fault-Related Geotechnical Conditions, Rancho Highlands, Tentative Tract 23992, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 111442-001, dated December 21, 2004. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2005, Summary of Geotechnical Conditions, Rancho Highlands II, Tentative Tract 23992, Lots 1, 2, and 3, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 111442-001, dated January 25, 2005. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2005a, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Highlands II, Tract 23992, Lots 1, 2 and 3, City of Temecula, California, Project No. 111442-003, dated May 16, 2005. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2005b, Supplemental Evaluation of Faulting, Maravilla Project Site, Tract 23992, City of Temecula, California, Project No. 111442-003, dated December 8, 2005. Project No. 174002-02 Page A-5 December 2, 2019 References (continued) Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2013, Geologic Hazard Update Report Proposed Building 6 Improvement, Temecula Valley Iglesia Ni Cristo 29385 Rancho California Road, Temecula, California, Project No. 10181-001, dated February 28, 2013. Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2018 Geotechnical Peer Review, Proposed Rancho Highlands Development (PA18-0635), northeast of Ynez and Tierra Vista Roads, Temecula, California, Project No. 11760.009, 2 pages, dated May 31, 2018. Morton, D.M., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, southern California, Version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-172. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-172/. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1984, Corrosion Basics: An Introduction, 353 pages. National Research Council, 1985, Liquefaction of Soils during Earthquakes: National Research Council Special Publication, Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 240 p. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2001, Interim Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, California Highlands II, Parcel Map 23992, Southwest of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 510-99, dated March 12, 2001. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2002, Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading, Rancho California Highlands II, Parcel Map 23992, Southwest of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 510-99, dated March 15, 2002. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2003, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho Highlands Lots 4, 5 and Remainder within Tract 23992, Located Northeast of the Intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 334-03, dated September 30, 2003. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2004, Recommended Revision of Fault Hazard and Structural Setback Zone, Rancho Highlands 11, Lot 3 Tract Map 23992, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 333-03, dated March 10, 2004. Petra Geotechnical, Inc., 2004a, Revised Recommended Revision of Fault Hazard and Structural Setback Zone, Tract Map 23992, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, Project No. 333-03, dated June 23, 2004. Post-Tensioning Institute, 2006, Design of Post Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground, Third Addition, Addendum 1 dated May 2007, and Addendum 2 dated May 2008, with Errata February 4, 2010. Pradel, D., 1998, “Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124 , No. 4, April 1998. Project No. 174002-02 Page A-6 December 2, 2019 References (continued) Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. (PEC West), 2019, Street Improvement plan, Rancho Highlands, Ynez Road Sta. 101+88.84 to 109+16.08, city of Temecula, 5 Sheets, dated November 22, 2019. Proactive Engineering Consultants West, Inc. (PEC West), 2019a, Precise Grading Plan, Rancho Highlands, 21 Sheets, dated November 27, 2019. Riverside County, 2017, Riverside County Parcel Report, Selected Parcels 944-330-004, 944-330- 005, and 944-330-007, 6 pages, dated February 22, 2017. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 162 pages, dated September 2011. RCFCWCD, 2017, RCFCWCD Public Flood Hazard Determination Interactive GIS Map at http://rcflood.org/FloodDetermination/FloodDetermination_V09.aspx , accessed February 2017. Riverside County Planning Department, 1988, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Project No. 88- 81-110-01, Tentative Tract Map 23992, APN: 923-590-005, County Geologic Report No. 563F, Rancho California Area, 2 pages, dated December 9, 1988. Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2007, Conditions of Approval, County Geologic Report No. 1878, City of Temecula Case No. PA05-0398, 2 pages, dated September 6, 2007. SB&O, Inc., 2007, Rancho Highlands (Geological Fault Lines), Tentative Tract Map No. 34431, Rancho Highlands, City of Temecula, PR05-0016, 3 sheets, dated May 8, 2007. Sadigh, K., Chang, C.-Y., Egan, J.A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R.R. (1997), "Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes Based on California Strong Motion Data," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 180-189. Shlemon, R.J., and Davis, P., 1992, Ground Fissures in the Temecula area, Riverside County, California: Pipkin, B.W., and Proctor, R.J., editors, Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, AEG Special Publication 4, pp. 275-288. Shlemon, R.J., and Hakakian, M., 1992, Fissures produced both by groundwater rise and groundwater fall: a geological paradox in the Temecula-Murrieta area, southwestern Riverside County, California: Stout, M.L., editor, Proceedings from the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists, pp. 143-150. Project No. 174002-02 Page A-7 December 2, 2019 References (continued) Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, dated March 1999. Testing Engineers – San Diego, Inc., 2003, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Gospel Recording Villas, Lot 2, Tract No. 13423, Temecula, California, Project No. 2003-0859, dated January 13, 2003. Tokimatsu, Kohji, and Seed, H.B., “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, “2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters” retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/hf_search_main .cfm, accessed February 2017. USGS, 2008a, “2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta),” retrieved from: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/, accessed February 2017. USGS, 2011, Earthquake Hazards Program Quaternary Faults, United States Interactive Fault Database at http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/map.php, accessed February 2017. USGS, 2013, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, retrieved from: http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/batch.php#csv, accessed February 2017. Project No. 174002-02 Page B-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX B Geotechnical Boring, Trench, and Test Pit Logs (Current Study) Symbol Laboratory Test SA Sieve Analysis H Hydrometer Analysis SHA Sieve & Hydrometer Analysis -200 Percent Passing #200 Sieve AL Atterberg Limits MAX Maximum Density DS Undisturbed Direct Shear RDS Remolded Direct Shear TRI Triaxial Shear EI Expansion Index P Permeability CN Consolidation COL Collapse UC Unconfined Compression S Sulfate Content pHR pH & Resistivity COR Corrosion Suite (pH, Resistivity, Chloride, Sulfate) RV R-Value Laboratory Test Symbols Key to Boring Logs CLAY SILT SAND ASPHALT CONCRETE APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER LEVEL GRAVEL/COBBLES 174002-02 Figure B - 1 December 2, 2019 Date: 02/08/2017 Page: 1 of 1 Project Name: Fairfield Rancho Highlands Project Number: 174002-01 Drilling Company: Baja Excavations Type of Rig: Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Elevation of Top of Hole: +/- 1073 ft (mean sea level) Hole Location: See Map LOCATION N 33.502455, W -117.145857 Logged By: BJC Sampled By: RKW C A @ 0'-2' 38 48 36 42 Geotechnical Boring Log LGC-B-1 Drop: 30"Hole Dia: 8" E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) D e p t h ( f t ) G r a p h i c L o g S a m p l e N u m b e r B l o w C o u n t ( f t ) D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) T y p e o f T e s t U S C S S y m b o l 1073 0 SC 1063 10 1068 5 2 3 4 Qcol Qps SM SM 1 SC/SM 1053 20 1058 15 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING INC. LAWSON & ASSOCIATES 1043 30 1048 25 111.8 16.8 7.8 8.7 6.8 AL, RDS, COR, EI, MAX SW 116.1 109.6 111.0 SM Quaternary Colluvium (Qcol) @ 0' clayey fine to very fine SAND; medium brown, moist, medium dense; few small rootlets @ 2.5' silty fine to medium SAND with minor clay; medium brown, moist, medium dense; friable @ 3.5' silty very fine to medium SAND; gray yellow- brown, very moist, medium dense; occasional coarse grains and small gravel; some calcium carbonate blebs = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED Total Depth = 11 Feet No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled With Native Soil 2/10/2017 Quaternary Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 5' silty fine SAND; yellow-brown, moist, dense; friable @ 6' slightly silty fine to medium SAND with scattered coarse grains; medium yellow-brown, moist, dense; occasional small gravels; some calcium carbonate blebs @ 6.5' slightly silty fine to coarse with some very coarse SAND; medium brown, moist, medium dense; scattered sub-angular gravels 1/2" in diameter @ 8.5' slightly silty fine to medium with some coarse SAND; gray yellow-brown, moist, medium dense; calcium carbonate blebs; increasing density with depth @ 11' silty very fine to fine SAND; gray orange- brown, moist, medium dense; micaceous; some oxidation; few scattered coarse grains 174002-02 Figure B - 2 December 2, 2019 Date: 02/08/2017 Page: 1 of 1 Project Name: Fairfield Rancho Highlands Project Number: 174002-01 Drilling Company: Baja Excavations Type of Rig: Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Elevation of Top of Hole: +/- 1070 ft (mean sea level) Hole Location: See Map LOCATION N 33.501826, W -117.145656 Logged By: BJC Sampled By: RKW Geotechnical Boring Log LGC-B-2 Drop: 30"Hole Dia: 8" E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) D e p t h ( f t ) G r a p h i c L o g S a m p l e N u m b e r B l o w C o u n t ( f t ) D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) U S C S S y m b o l T y p e o f T e s t 1070 0 SMA @ 0'-2' Qcol 1 11.0 1065 5 2 16 21 35 18 1055 15 5 Qps 3 1060 10 4 20 1045 25 1040 30 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING INC. SW SP/SW SW LAWSON & ASSOCIATES SM B @ 11'-13' 26 4.4103.4 104.1 6.2 1050 COL COL 120.0 8.8 122.6 106.8 4.7 Quaternary Young Alluvium (Qya) @ 0' silty fine SAND; dark brown, moist, loose to very loose; porous; abundant small rootlets @ 3.5' silty fine SAND; medium brown, moist, medium dense; scattered small gravels @ 4' silty fine SAND with minor clay; medium brown, moist, loose to medium dense; scattered small gravels @ 6' silty fine SAND; medium brown, moist, medium dense; friable; calcium carbonate blebs in pores = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED Total Depth = 16 Feet No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled With Native Soil 2/10/2017 Weathered Quaternary Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 7' silty fine SAND; medium brown, moist, medium dense; friable; increasing density with depth Quaternary Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 8.5' silty SAND with scattered coarse grains; medium yellow-brown, damp, medium dense; friable @ 11' silty fine SAND; gray yellow-brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense; friable; few scattered sub-angular gravels 1/4" in diameter @ 13' becomes fine to coarse grained @ 16' becomes medium dense 174002-02 Figure B - 3 December 2, 2019 Date: 02/08/2017 Page: 1 of 2 Project Name: Fairfield Rancho Highlands Project Number: 174002-01 Drilling Company: Baja Excavations Type of Rig: Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Elevation of Top of Hole: +/- 1072 ft (mean sea level) Hole Location: See Map LOCATION N 33.500631, W -117.144851 Logged By: BJC Sampled By: RKW 113.5 17.2 116.5 16.5 CN SA SA SA SA, H, AL SA, H, AL SA, H, AL SA 119.3 10.3 96.4 27.0 92.4 30.8 119.8 14.8 109.2 15.1 101.7 20.1 104.6 21.8 SM-SC 117.7 9.8 106.2 20.0 SM SM-SC SM-SP CL/SM SW/CH SM SM 1042 30 50 for 5'11 9 1047 25 10 34 35 1052 20 8 7 19 21 5 1057 15 6 26 34 1062 10 4 36 A @ 7.5'-12' 10 12 Qps 3 25 1067 5 2 Qcol 1 1072 0 T y p e o f T e s t M o i s t u r e ( % ) U S C S S y m b o l SM Geotechnical Boring Log LGC-B-3 Drop: 30" Hole Dia: 8" E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) D e p t h ( f t ) G r a p h i c L o g S a m p l e N u m b e r B l o w C o u n t ( f t ) D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Quaternary Young Alluvium (Qya) @ 0' silty fine SAND; medium brown, moist, very loose; abundant small rootlets @3.5' silty slightly clayey fine SAND with some minor 1/4" diameter gravels; medium brown, moist, loose; few small rootlets; slightly micaceous @ 5' silty clayey fine SAND; medium brown, moist, loose; slightly micaceous; few sub-angular gravels up to 2" in diameter @ 7.5' clayey very fine to fine SAND; medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense; micaceous; weathered clasts and sub-rounded gravels 1-2" in diameter @ 11' silty fine SAND; gray brown, moist, medium dense; micaceous @ 12.5' silty clayey fine to very fine SAND; medium brown, very moist, dense; micaceous; few scattered sub-rounded very coarse sand @ 15' silty fine to medium SAND; medium orange- brown, saturated, medium dense; minor clay; micaceous @ 17.5' interbedded black organic-rich silty CLAY, gray-brown silty to clayey fine SAND, and red- brown slightly silty medium SAND; saturated, stiff/medium dense; clay bed approximately 8" thick @ 20' silty very fine SAND; medium gray-brown, saturated, loose to medium dense to very stiff; slight oxidation of sand grains Quaternary Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 22.5' silty very fine SAND; medium gray-brown, saturated, medium dense to very stiff;oxidation of sand grains @ 24' silty very fine to fine SAND; medium gray- brown, moist to very moist, medium dense; increasing density with depth = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED 174002-02 Figure B - 4 December 2, 2019 Date: 02/08/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Project Name: Fairfield Rancho Highlands Project Number: 174002-01 Drilling Company: Baja Excavations Type of Rig: Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Elevation of Top of Hole: +/- 1072 ft (mean sea level) Hole Location: See Map LOCATION N 33.500631, W -117.144851 Logged By: BJC Sampled By: RKW Geotechnical Boring Log LGC-B-3 Drop: 30"Hole Dia: 8" E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) D e p t h ( f t ) G r a p h i c L o g S a m p l e N u m b e r B l o w C o u n t ( f t ) D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) U S C S S y m b o l T y p e o f T e s t 1042 30 1037 35 1032 40 1027 45 1022 50 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING INC. 1017 55 1012 60 LAWSON & ASSOCIATES = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED Total Depth = 31 Feet Perched Groundwater Encountered @ 15 Feet Backfilled With Native Soil 2/10/2017 Quaternary Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 26' silty very fine to fine SAND; medium gray- brown, moist to very moist, medium dense @ 29.5' interbedded slightly silty fine to coarse SAND and CLAY; medium gray-brown to red- brown, wet, very dense; micaceous sands, some oxidation on sand grains; some calcium carbonate blebs within clay bed = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED 174002-02 Figure B - 5 December 2, 2019 Date: 02/08/2017 Page: 1 of 1 Project Name: Fairfield Rancho Highlands Project Number: 174002-01 Drilling Company: Baja Excavations Type of Rig: Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Elevation of Top of Hole: +/- 1063 ft (mean sea level) Hole Location: See Map LOCATION N 33.501091, W -117.145503 Logged By: BJC Sampled By: RKW AL, COR, EI 9.9 1063 0 SM Geotechnical Boring Log LGC-B-4 Drop: 30"Hole Dia: 8" E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) D e p t h ( f t ) G r a p h i c L o g S a m p l e N u m b e r B l o w C o u n t ( f t ) D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) U S C S S y m b o l T y p e o f T e s t A @ 0'-2' Qcol 1 2 11 112.3 1058 5 2 3 1053 10 4 27 30 1048 15 5 B @ 12'-15' 1033 30 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING INC. SW LAWSON & ASSOCIATES 41 113.1 6.8 8.6108.8 1043 20 1038 25 COL CN 114.4 9.1 107.6 2.2 SP SW Quaternary Young Alluvium (Qya) @ 0' silty fine to medium SAND; medium red- brown, moist, very loose; abundant scattered rootlets @ 3.5' silty fine to medium SAND; medium red- brown, very moist, very loose; some small rootlets; some scattered coarse grains @ 6' silty fine to medium with some coarse SAND; medium brown, moist, loose; few sub-rounded small gravels = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED Total Depth = 16 Feet Minor Seepage Encountered @ 11 Feet Backfilled With Native Soil 2/10/2017 Weathered Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 8' slightly silty fine SAND; light yellow gray- brown, slightly moist, medium dense; few sub- rounded gravels 1-2" in diameter; some coarse sands; friable; increasing density with depth Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 9' silty very fine to coarse SAND; medium gray- brown, wet, medium dense; friable; some calcium carbonate blebs in pores; few fine sub-rounded gravels; minor seepage within a more permeable layer @16' slightly silty very fine to coarse SAND; medium yellow gray-brown, very moist, medium dense; some calcium carbonate blebs; friable 174002-02 Figure B - 6 December 2, 2019 Date: 02/08/2017 Page: 1 of 1 Project Name: Fairfield Rancho Highlands Project Number: 174002-01 Drilling Company: Baja Excavations Type of Rig: Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight: 140 lbs. Elevation of Top of Hole: +/- 1061 ft (mean sea level) Hole Location: See Map LOCATION N 33.501442, W -117.145718 Logged By: BJC Sampled By: RKW Geotechnical Boring Log LGC-B-5 Drop: 30"Hole Dia: 8" E l e v a t i o n ( f t ) D e p t h ( f t ) G r a p h i c L o g S a m p l e N u m b e r B l o w C o u n t ( f t ) D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) U S C S S y m b o l T y p e o f T e s t 1061 0 SM Qcol 1 15 13 10.9 1056 5 2 3 1051 10 4 1046 15 1041 20 5 1036 25 1031 30 27 4.1 4.4 8.4 49 51 COL116.6 9.6 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING INC. SP SP/SW LAWSON & ASSOCIATES SP Quaternary Young Alluvium (Qya) @ 0' silty fine to medium SAND; medium red- brown, moist, very loose; abundant scattered rootlets @ 3.5' silty fine to medium SAND; medium brown, moist, loose; some minor clay @ 6' slightly silty fine to very fine SAND; gray- brown, damp, loose; calcium carbonate blebs in pores; friable = Ring sample = SPT sample BULK = Bulk sample LGC VALLEY, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED Total Depth = 15.5 Feet No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled With Native Soil 2/10/2017 Weathered Pauba Sandstone (Qps) @ 8.5' silty fine SAND; gray yellow-brown, damp, medium dense; few sub-angular coarse grains Pauba Sandstone (Qys) @ 10' silty very fine to fine SAND; light gray red- brown, damp, medium dense to dense; friable; porous @15.5 silty fine to coarse SAND; light gray-brown, moist, medium dense; calcium carbonate blebs; friable 174002-02 Figure B - 7 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX B Geotechnical Test Pit Logs Test Pit Number and Location Depth and Description LGC-TP-1 South West Side of Site Elevation 1069 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine SAND; dark brown, moist, loose; abundant organics @1’ Silty fine to medium SAND; medium brown to medium orange brown, damp, medium dense; scattered coarse sand; upper 3’ slightly porous; few roots @7.5’ Slightly clayey fine to medium SAND, scattered coarse sand; medium olive brown, very moist, medium dense @9’ scattered subrounded cobbles up to 3 to 4 inches Quaternary Pauba Formation, Weathered: @10’ very silty fine SAND to fine medium sandy SILT; medium olive green, moist, medium dense/slightly stiff; very micaceous Quaternary Pauba Formation: @12’ very silty fine SAND; medium olive green, moist, dense; scattered discontinuous silty fine to medium sand layers @14.5’ Groundwater Encountered Total Depth = 15 Feet Groundwater Encountered at 14.5 Feet Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 LGC-TP-2 West Side of Site Elevation 1060 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand; medium orange brown, damp, loose to medium dense @3.5’ silty fine to coarse SAND; medium reddish gray brown, damp to slightly moist, medium dense; scattered fine gravels Quaternary Pauba Formation: @7’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand; medium gray brown, moist to very moist, medium dense to dense @12’ becomes wet Total Depth = 12.5 Feet No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 174002-02 Figure B - 8 December 2, 2019 Geotechnical Test Pit Logs (continued) Test Pit Number and Location Depth and Description LGC-TP-3 North West Side of Site Elevation 1055 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine SAND; medium gray brown, damp, medium dense; porous; scattered roots @1.5’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand; medium gray brown, damp to slightly moist, medium dense to dense @3’ becomes slightly cemented @7.5’ fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand; light orange brown, very moist, medium dense; micaceous Quaternary Pauba Formation: @9.5’ silty fine to coarse SAND; light orange brown to light olive brown, moist, dense; micaceous Total Depth = 13 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 LGC-TP-4 East Side of Ynez Road Sta No. 107+20 Elevation 1072 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine SAND, minor coarse sand; dark red brown to dark gray brown, moist, loose to medium dense; scattered roots; moderately porous @1’ becomes medium gray brown, slightly moist; scattered roots; moderately porous; few fine gravels @4’ becomes slightly cemented with scattered coarse sand; few fine gravels @4.5’ silty fine to coarse SAND; medium gray brown, damp, dense Quaternary Pauba Formation: @6’ silty fine to coarse SAND, minor clay; slightly moist, dense; iron-oxide stained blebs and manganese oxide along parting surfaces; micaceous Total Depth = 10.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 174002-02 Figure B - 9 December 2, 2019 Geotechnical Test Pit Logs (continued) Test Pit Number and Location Depth and Description LGC-TP-5 East Side of Ynez Road Sta No. 106+50 Elevation 1067 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine SAND; dark gray brown, moist, loose; abundant roots; porous @0.5’ becomes slightly moist @2’silty fine SAND; medium gray brown, slightly moist, medium dense; very porous @4’ becomes medium orange brown, medium dense to dense Quaternary Pauba Formation, Weathered: @8’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor clay; medium olive brown, moist, dense; moderately weathered Quaternary Pauba Formation: @10.5’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand; light yellow brown, moist, dense; slightly friable Total Depth = 12 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 LGC-TP-6 East Side of Ynez Road Sta No. 105+90 Elevation 1066 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine SAND; dark gray brown, moist, loose; abundant roots, porous @1’ silty fine SAND; medium gray brown, damp, medium dense; slightly to moderately porous; scattered roots @5’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand and fine gravel; light to medium orange brown, slightly moist, medium dense; slightly cemented; slightly porous; scattered roots @8’ becomes moist @11’silty fine SAND, minor clay; medium olive brown, moist, medium dense; slightly micaceous Quaternary Pauba Formation: @12.5’ silty fine to medium SAND; medium olive brown, moist, dense; slightly micaceous Total Depth = 14 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 174002-02 Figure B - 10 December 2, 2019 Geotechnical Test Pit Logs (continued) Test Pit Number and Location Depth and Description LGC-TP-7 East Side of Ynez Road Sta No. 104+65 Elevation 1063 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ silty fine SAND; dark gray brown, moist, loose; abundant roots; porous @1’ becomes medium gray brown, slightly moist, scattered roots; moderately porous; few fine gravels @3’ silty fine SAND, minor medium to coarse sand; medium orange brown, damp, medium dense; slightly porous; scattered rootlets; few subrounded fine gravel @5’ becomes slightly moist @7’ increase in medium to coarse sand; moist, medium dense @9’ silty fine to medium SAND; medium orange brown, moist, medium dense to dense Quaternary Pauba Formation, Weathered: @12.5’ silty fine SAND, minor clay; medium orange brown and olive green, moist, medium dense to dense; moderately weathered @13’ contains scattered iron oxide stained zones Quaternary Pauba Formation: @14’ slightly silty fine SAND; light olive gray, moist to very moist, dense; friable Total Depth = 16 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 LGC-TP-8 East Side of Ynez Road Sta No. 103+80 Elevation 1055 feet Quaternary Young Alluvium: @0’ interbedded medium orange brown silty fine SAND and pale yellow brown silty fine to coarse SAND; slightly moist, loose; finely stratified, somewhat irregular but near horizontal @3.5’ silty fine to medium SAND; pale gray brown mottled light gray brown, damp, medium dense @5’ very friable; moderate caving @7’ becomes moist; minor caving @11’ silty fine to medium SAND, minor coarse sand; medium gray brown, very moist to wet, loose to medium dense; massive; moderately fractured; slightly friable @14’ silty fine to medium SAND with discontinuous beds of silty fine to coarse SAND with fine gravel; medium gray brown, very moist to wet, medium dense to dense Total Depth = 16 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 Moderately Caving from 5 to 9 feet 174002-02 Figure B - 11 December 2, 2019 Geotechnical Test Pit Logs (continued) Test Pit Number and Location Depth and Description LGC-TP-9 East Side of Ynez Road Sta No. 102+20 Elevation 1052 feet Artificial Fill, Undocumented: @0’ silty fine SAND and silty fine to coarse SAND; medium gray brown, dark brown, and light gray brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense; 4 to 6 inch thick layers @2.5’ silty fine SAND, minor medium coarse sand; dark gray brown, moist, medium dense; homogeneous; few gravels Quaternary Young Alluvium: @5.5’ silty fine SAND, minor medium to coarse sand; medium orange brown, moist, loose to medium dense; slightly porous; few fine gravels Total Depth = 12 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled with Native Soil on November 26, 2019 174002-02 Figure B - 12 December 2, 2019 2a 3c 1115.5 1120.5 1125.5 1130.5 1110.5 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 1105.5 1110.5 1115.5 1120.5 1125.5 Red Tail Rancho HighlandsProject Name ACR/RKW 1" = 5' Eng. / Geol. Date Scale Project No.174002-02 Trench Profile LGC-T-1 Rancho Highlands Development Temecula, California N20E N20E 1115.5 1120.5 1125.5 1130.5 1110.5 1105.5 1110.5 1115.5 1120.5 1125.5 December 2, 2019 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c Colluvium / Topsoil Silty fine SAND, medium yellow brown, damp, medium dense Silty fine SAND with trace of clay; medium yellow brown, damp, dense; few coarse sand grains and fine gravel Silty fine SAND w/scattered medium to coarse sand; medium yellow brown, dense; few sub-rounded coarse gravel Silty fine to medium SAND; medium gray brown, damp to dry, dense; pockets of fine to coarse sand; scattered 1” - 4” sand rip-up clasts Silty fine to coarse SAND; medium grayish brown to medium yellow brown, damp to dry, medium dense; scattered gravels and fine cobbles Paleosol Silty fine to medium sand; medium reddish brown, minor clay and coarse sand, few fine gravels, slightly porous Late Pleistocene Pauba Formation Silty fine SAND; light yellow brown, damp, dense to very dense, scattered iron oxide staining Silty fine to medium SAND; light yellow gray, damp to dry, dense; massive Silty fine to coarse SAND; light yellow brown, damp to dry, dense; massive Silty fine to coarse SAND; light orange brown, damp to moist; dense; scattered fine gravels Fine to coarse SAND; light yellow brown, damp to dry, dense; scattered fine gravels and cobbles; small silty sand channels (2” - 4” thick); minor oxide staining Silty fine to medium SAND; light yellow brown, slightly moist to moist, dense; friable; minor coarse sand and few fine gravels 3d 3e 3f 2e Legend 2a 2c 2a 2a 2b 2c 3a 3a 2d 3b 3b 3b3c 1 1 Discontinuous Bedding Attitude: N57 W 10 SW 3c 3b Figure B - 13 174002-02 Figure B - 13 December 2, 2019 1113 1118 1123 1128 1108 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 1113 1118 1122 1128 1108 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 1108 1113 1128 1118 1123 1108 Red Tail Rancho HighlandsProject Name ACR/RKW 1" = 5' Eng. / Geol. Date Scale Project No.174002-02 Trench Profile LGC-T-2 Rancho Highlands Development Temecula, California 1113 1128 1118 1123 N70W N70W December 2, 2019 2a 2a 2d 2d 3a 3d 3d 3d 3d 1 Fracture Attitude: N47 W 70 NE 2 Discontinuous Bedding Attitude: N7 W 12 SW 1 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c Colluvium / Topsoil Silty fine SAND, medium yellow brown, damp, medium dense Silty fine SAND with trace of clay; medium yellow brown, damp, dense; few coarse sand grains and fine gravel Silty fine SAND w/scattered medium to coarse sand; medium yellow brown, dense; few sub-rounded coarse gravel Silty fine to medium SAND; medium gray brown, damp to dry, dense; pockets of fine to coarse sand; scattered 1” - 4” sand rip-up clasts Silty fine to coarse SAND; medium grayish brown to medium yellow brown, damp to dry, medium dense; scattered gravels and fine cobbles Paleosol Silty fine to medium sand; medium reddish brown, minor clay and coarse sand, few fine gravels, slightly porous Late Pleistocene Pauba Formation Silty fine SAND; light yellow brown, damp, dense to very dense, scattered iron oxide staining Silty fine to medium SAND; light yellow gray, damp to dry, dense; massive Silty fine to coarse SAND; light yellow brown, damp to dry, dense; massive Silty fine to coarse SAND; light orange brown, damp to moist; dense; scattered fine gravels Fine to coarse SAND; light yellow brown, damp to dry, dense; scattered fine gravels and cobbles; small silty sand channels (2” - 4” thick); minor oxide staining Silty fine to medium SAND; light yellow brown, slightly moist to moist, dense; friable; minor coarse sand and few fine gravels 3d 3e 3f 2e Legend 2 2b 2a Figure B - 14 174002-02 Figure B - 14 December 2, 2019 Paleosol Paleosol 1124 1129 1134 1139 1119 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 1109 1114 1119 1124 1129 Red Tail Rancho HighlandsProject Name ACR/RKW 1" = 5' Eng. / Geol. Date Scale Project No.174002-02 Trench Profile LGC-T-3 Rancho Highlands Development Temecula, California N70W N70W December 2, 2019 1124 1129 1134 1139 1119 0+90 1109 1114 1119 1124 1129 3e 3e 3e 3e 2e 2e 2e 2e 2a Test PitP-TP-7 3f 2a 2b 2c 2d 3a 3b 3c Colluvium / Topsoil Silty fine SAND, medium yellow brown, damp, medium dense Silty fine SAND with trace of clay; medium yellow brown, damp, dense; few coarse sand grains and fine gravel Silty fine SAND w/scattered medium to coarse sand; medium yellow brown, dense; few sub-rounded coarse gravel Silty fine to medium SAND; medium gray brown, damp to dry, dense; pockets of fine to coarse sand; scattered 1” - 4” sand rip-up clasts Silty fine to coarse SAND; medium grayish brown to medium yellow brown, damp to dry, medium dense; scattered gravels and fine cobbles Paleosol Silty fine to medium sand; medium reddish brown, minor clay and coarse sand, few fine gravels, slightly porous Late Pleistocene Pauba Formation Silty fine SAND; light yellow brown, damp, dense to very dense, scattered iron oxide staining Silty fine to medium SAND; light yellow gray, damp to dry, dense; massive Silty fine to coarse SAND; light yellow brown, damp to dry, dense; massive Silty fine to coarse SAND; light orange brown, damp to moist; dense; scattered fine gravels Fine to coarse SAND; light yellow brown, damp to dry, dense; scattered fine gravels and cobbles; small silty sand channels (2” - 4” thick); minor oxide stain- ing Silty fine to medium SAND; light yellow brown, slightly moist to moist, dense; friable; minor coarse sand and few fine gravels 3d 3e 3f 2e Legend 3e 3a 2a Figure B - 15 174002-02 Figure B - 15 December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Page C-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX C Previous Geotechnical Boring, Test-Pit, and Fault Trench Logs, Percolation Data, and CPT Soundings (by Others) PROJECT NO. T2316-12-02 - - - - - ----------- DEPTH IN FEET 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SAMPLE NO. Bl-I Bl -2 >-(!) 0 ...J 0 I t- :J a:: i 0 z :::i 0 a:: (!) SOIL CLASS (USCS) SM BORING B 1 ELEV. (MSL.) 1124' DATE COMPLETED 05-24-2007 EQUIPMENT CME 55 8" DIA METER MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moist, olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND BY: CAUJT --- - - - - - - - - w~ a::~ :::i I- t-z (./)w -t-0 Z :2 0 (.) -Moist, brown, silty, line-to medium-grained sand; trace clay -16 -,_ --,_ -18 -- -- -20 -- --- -22 -,_ -- -24 -Bl-3 ---- ----26 -.;. ·.•; - --.... -·. :. : :' -28 - .... -- Bl-4 . ·> ~ ..... ~ ·:' :" : · .. : : Figure A-1 , T2316-12·02.GPJ Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 2 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTVRBED OR BAG SAMPLE IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE •••. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES. GEOCON 174002-02 Figure C- 1 December 2, 2019 PROJ ECT NO. T2316-12-0 2 0:: BORING B 1 >-w I-DEPTH <!> < 0 3: son. IN SAMPLE ....J 0 Cl CLASS ELEV. (MSL) 1124' DATE COMPLETED 05-24-2007 NO. z FEET J: I-:::i (USCS) ::::; 0 0:: EQUIPM ENT CME 55 8" DIAMETER <!> MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -30 ~ :. : : . : -Becomes sli ghtl y silty -": ·::.::.: BORING TERM INA TED AT 31 FEET Figure A-1 , Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNS UCCESSFUL ~ •.. DISTUR BED OR BAG SAMPLE I) ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ..• CHU NK SAMPLE Zw~ ~ w ~ Qut en ~ a::-~z -Z IL. :::i I-o:: <en we.) I-z 1-~3: enW Cl • -1-w -o >-e:. z~_l oz ~o::!!!. 0:: :E O BY: CAUJT 0 u T2316-12 -02.GPJ ••.• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAG E NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIO NS SHOW N HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORIN G OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT TH E DATE IN DICATED. IT IS NOT WAR RAN TED TO BE REP RESE NTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHE R LOCATIONS AN D TIMES. GEOCON 174002-02 Figure C- 2 December 2, 2019 PROJECT NO. T2316-12-02 a:: BORJNG B 2 >-w ... DEPTH (!) <( SAMPLE 0 3: SOI. IN _, 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 1088' DATE COMPLETED 05-24-2007 FEET NO. :c: z ... ::J (USCS) :::i 0 a:: EQUIPMENT CME 55 8" DIAMETER (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -0 ./·, ~/. SC Moist. brown, Clayey. fine to coarse SAND: tr.ice gravel .?/ . --. •/ -2 -f// ;,-// --82-1 //. // ... 4 -/. '/ ~//. ... -{// ... 6 -;// ·/ ... -(// °{// -8 -/f; --/.,/ --:// ... 10 -(';; /. ~/: ... -.?/' . •/ ... 12 -(// ;,-// ... -//: -14 -82-2 v:// v./}. .... -~/" ... 16 -v// -// BORING TERMINATED AT 17 FEET Figure A-2, Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMP\.ING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Zw~ !; we;' Qot en---:-a::~ ~z-zu. ;:,t-rd~ en wcj ._z t-en'.?: 0 · enW w-o >-~ -t-z en_, oz W Wa:i a:: :::!EO BY: CAUJT a. er:~ 0 u .... ----- - .... ... - - - - - - - T231S.12-02.GPJ .... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDIS1'JRBED) ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE; THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES. GEOCON 174002-02 Figure C- 3 December 2, 2019 PROJECT NO. T2316-12-02 r:z: BORING B 3 Z w-~ UJ ~ >-w Qu~ Cl I-en"":" ex:-DEPTH 0 <( SOIL 1-Z LL. i= ~ SAMPLE :: ~~en zu.. IN ....J wt) 0 0 CLASS Iii (/) :: (/) UJ NO. 2 ELEV. (MSL.) 1087' DATE COMPLETED 05-24-2007 c . -I-FEET I -o >e,. I-::> (USCS) z (/) ....J oz :::; 0 WW CO a: :: 0 r:z: EQUIPMENT CME 55 8" DIAMETER BY: CAUJT o..r:z:-c u (!> MATERIAL DESCRIPTION t-0 .. 1. 'l SM Damp, light b rown, Silty, fine to medium SAND t--l 1 ·1 .... >-2 -:.I t-1· .... >--.. 1. l .... B3-1 l1 ., .... 4 - :.I t-1 · - t--..... .. 1. l t-6 -1 1·1 ..... ..... -:.I t-1· .... -8 -:I. l - ,_ -l 1 ·1 t- >-10 -:., t-1· t- --:I. l .... 1 1·1 >-12 -:.I f-1 · t- >--t-.. 1. l ..... -83-2 t-14 l 1 ·1 :.I Lt· -Becomes moist, brown, s ilty, fine to coarse sand; trace c lay ..... - Figure A-3, Log of Boring B 3 , Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS D .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~ .•. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE BORING TERM INATED AT 15.8 FEET I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE t- T23Hl-12·02.GPJ •••• DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) .J. .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WAR RANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES. GEOCON 174002-02 Figure C- 4 December 2, 2019 PROJECT NO. T2316-12-02 - DEPTH IN FEET SAMPLE NO. a: w ~ z => 0 a: ~ SOIL CLASS (USCS) BORING B 4 ELEV. (MSL.} 1112' DATE COMPLETED 05-24-2007 EQUIPMENT CME 55 8" DIAMETE R MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Zw~ f; w~ Qu ti: en---,. a:~ ~~c;; ZLL :::>,.... a:,....~ W(.) ,.... z enW tii SQ 0 Cl . -,.... z en _, >-e:. oz w w al a: :2 0 a. a:~ Cl (.) BY: CAUJT 0 ·-: SP Damp, light brown, fine to coarse SAND; trace gravel and silt -: ; -2 -: : : ·. ; : : --; ·. : : : -4 -; B4-I : : ; --: : ; ·. : -6 -: : ; --: : : : ·. : : : -8 -; ·. : " ... -; ·. ; .. : : 10 .• : : : : : ·. : -: : : ; I-12 -.. : : ·-.• : : : I--.. .. -Becomes moist I-14 -: ·-,. : : : : I--.. : : : ... 1 6 -: : : : ... -.. : ; : : ... 1 8 -: : ; ... -: ; : : : : : ... 20 -: ; : : ... -: -22 -: " ; - Figure A-4, Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL !!l'i ,., DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE BORING 'FERMINA TED AT 23 FEET IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ..• CHUNK SAMPLE ... - - - - - - - - - - t- t- I- .... T23 16-12-02.G PJ •..• DRIVE SAMPLE (UND ISTURBED) ~ ... WATER TAB LE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON AP PLIES ONLY AT THE SPEC IFI C BORIN G OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO AT THE DATE INDICA TEO. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIM ES. GEOCON 174002-02 Figure C- 5 December 2, 2019 PROJECT NO. T2316-12-02 0:: BORINGS 5 Z w~ ~ w*' >-w I-Q l)t DEPTH Cl <( SOIL Cii-:-ci::~ SAMPLE 0 ~ ~~en z "-:::i I- IN _, 1-Z 0 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 1101' DATE COMPLETED 05-24-2007 ci:: I-~ UJ c;i en w FEET NO. :c z tu!!? 0 0· -1- I-:::i (USCS) z en _, >-e:. Oz :::; 0 W W ID 0:: :::EO ci:: EQUIPMENT CME 55 8" DIAMETER BY: CAUJT a. 0: ~ 0 l) (!) MATERIAL DESCRIPT ION -0 J'l SM Damp, light brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND: trace gravel t--l 1·1 t- t-2 -:.l f-1· t- t--.. 1. l t- t-4 -85-1 l 1. ·1 t- t--:.l j .. [• t- .. 1. ·l t-6 -l 1 ·1 t- t--:.I t-1· t- -8 -:I. ·l -Loses siltyness ---l.i ·1 - -10 -:.I i-t· - --.. 1. ·l -l 1 ·1 -12 -:.I t-1· - --- 85-2 :J. l -14 -.,J.:.i. ":".:: " r------~-------------------------------------~------ SP Moist, brown, fine to med ium SAND; trace gravel -. : . :·:, . --. ·. . ·: . -16 --~-~· _:_ : :·· ·.; . .:. ; .. -; . : .. ·. - BORING TERMINATED AT 17 FEET Figure A-5, Log of Boring 8 5, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOL S 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .:J ... CHUNK SAMPLE - - T 2316-12-02.GPJ •... D RIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTIJRBED) ~ ... WATER TABL E OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT T HE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED T O BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES. GEOCON 174002-02 Figure C- 6 December 2, 2019 TP-1 0.0 -9.0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) @5.0 feet Silty SAND (SM): light brown, dry upper 1 to 2 feet to 3.4 11 slightly moist, loose to medium dense; fine to medium, porous, rootlets 9.0 -11.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (QJJs) ·' SANDSTONE: reddish brown, slightly moist, -~ ~-moderately hard; highly weathered upper 1 to 2 feet, ). ·-"I moderately weathered l?.elow TOTAL DEPTH= 11.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED _r, TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-2 0.0 -12.0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) @ 1.0 foot Silty SAND (SM): light brown to reddish brown, dry 3.4 96.9 upper 2 feet to slightly moist below, loose upper 2 feet to medium dense below; fine to coarse, porous throughout, rootlets in the upper 2 feet, with coarse gravel 12.0 -14.0 OUATERNARYPAUBA FORMATION (Ons) SANDSTONE: reddish brown to olive brown, slightly moist, moderately hard; highly weathered upper 2 feet, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 14.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED ,j 174002-02 Figure C- 7 December 2, 2019 '14.0 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) Silty SAND (SM): light grey to.reddish brown, dry .. ,,.r· upper 2 3 feet, slightly moist to moist below, loose upper 2 to 3 feet, medium dense below; fine to coarse @ 4;0 feet: becomes moist to very moist 14.o -16.0· Clayey SAND (SC): olive brown, moist to very moist; fine to medium 16.0 -18.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qns) SANDSTONE: reddish brown to olive brown, slightly moist, moderately hard; weathered in the upper 2 feet, massive TOT AL DEPTH = 18.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED ·' TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-4 0.0 -7.0 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Ocol) _,;.,· Silty SAND (SM): light brown, dry to slightly moist, loose upper 1 to 2 feet, medium dense below; fine to coarse, porous 7.0-17.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qns) SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE: light yellow brown to grey, slightly moist to moist, moderately hard; moderately weathered, thickly bedded, clay gouge/highly polished TOTAL DEPTH= 17.0 feet SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED@ 16.0 feet TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-5 0.0 -2.0 TOPSOIL Silty SA.Nb (SM): light brown, dry, loose; fine to medium, rootlets 2.0 -7.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qns) SANDSTONE: reddish brown, slightly moist, moderately hard to hard; moderately weathered, massive, well-cemented TOT AL DEPTH= 7 .0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED ~: 174002-02 Figure C- 8 December 2, 2019 TP-6 0.0..; 12.0 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Qcol) @3.0 Silty SAND (SM): light brown to reddish brown, dry to 5.0 110.5 · slightly moist, loose to medium dense; fine to coarse, porous 12.0 -16.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) SANDSTONE: reddish brown, slightly moist to moist, soft to moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 16.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-7 0.0 -8.0 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Qcol) @2.0 feet Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, dry to slightly moist, 3.5 91.8 loose upper 2 to 3 feet, medium dense below; fine to coarse, porous 8.0 12.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) SANDSTONE: light yellow, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 12.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-8 0.0 -12.0 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Ocol) @ 3.0 feet Silty SAND (SM): light brown to yellow brown, dry to 3.1 97.0 slightly moist, loose upper 2 feet, medium dense below; fine to coarse, porous, with gravel 12.0 -14.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION {Op~) SANDSTONE: light yellowish brown, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 14.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED 174002-02 Figure C- 9 December 2, 2019 .J Silty SAND (SM): light brown to yellowish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose upper 2 to 3 feet, medium dense below; fine to coarse, slightly porous, with grave. 8.0 "." 12.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) SANDSTONE: light yellow, slightly moist, soft to moderately har~; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 12.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-10 0.0 -8.0 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Qcol) Silty SAND (SM): light brown to reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense; fme to. coarse, porous, with gravel 8.0 -12.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) · · TP-11 . 0.0 -3.0 SANDSTONE: light yellow, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 12.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Qcol) Silty SAND (SM): light brown to reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense; fine to coarse, . porous, with gravel 3.0 -6.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) ·SANDSTONE: light yellow, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 6.0 feet · NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED 174002-02 Figure C- 10 December 2, 2019 Silty SAND (SM): light brown to reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense; fine to coarse, porous, with gravel 3.0 -6.0 QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) SANDSTONE: light yellow, slightly moist, soft to moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 6.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED . TEST PIT BACKFILLED TP-13 0.0-3.0 QUATERNARY COLLUVIUM (Qcol) 3.0 -7.0 Silty SAND (SM): dark brown, dry to slightly moist, loose to medium dense; fine to coarse, porous, calcium- carbonate staining QUATERNARY PAUBA FORMATION (Qps) SANl)STONE: light yellow, slightly moist, moderately hard; highly to moderately weathered, massive TOTAL DEPTH= 7.0 feet NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT BACKFILLED @ 3.0 -4.0 feet 5.0 108.3 174002-02 Figure C- 11 December 2, 2019 ,.. ,.. ..... • Q 0 z :I a:: 0 II. .... • .. ._ .... -... ..... ... • • ... • • '•' ~· ..... ~ • • .~ ...... -~.:· .... -..... "! ..... :. ";'l -....... :. .... SUMMARY ATCORlllE0:6-6-88 THISSUMMAAYAPP!.IESB~~~~,::C:;.,.:OFT><ISBORINGANOATTHETIME ~~~·~~O~~~ OFORILLING.SUBSURFACECONOITIONSMAYOIFFERATOTHERLOCATIONSANOMAY A'>~ 0-? ~ (~:I-1,, EPTH CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA PRESENTED IS A . 'f/,t'~ ;i.. lt,,~r5' ·t:ii~ ~""~ • IN ""e, O" SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAL. CONOITIONS ENCOUNTERED. ~'.% ~ .~ . A'~A 4 .. #"' ~q; 'l:"~J.. Q-s-J~ '?'' >- FEET e,'r' e,-14. ELEVATION: 1045 1 o~--,----~.;;;;,;.;.;.;.;..;;;.;.-..;---~--..,..------.,.-----------------------~--~,._--~--~----~ -SM dense loose light -brown -- 5 ----- 10 ----- --· 20- - - 25- 30- -- 35-- - 40--- - 45-----so----- 55--- - 1 SC. SM SC SP slightly moist moist wet medium dense very dense brown light ~arav light brown light gray SILTY SAND fine sand,trace clay fine to medium sand,trace of clay CLAYEY SAND fine sand moderately clayey. ; ,. --..... -·- SILTY SAND fine to medium rn sand small amount of silt. r CLAYEY SAND fine sand moderately clayey 1 r SAND poorly graded fl ne to me di urn sand 31' predominantly medium sand ~ROCK-PAUBA FORMAT!- End of Boring at 43' Groundwater Encountered at 17' Coving back to 25' 5 11 14 8.5 9.9 115 21 12 15.1 118 12 18 61 73 41 60 ____ .._ __ __. ______ _,_ ______ .._ ____ _. ________________________ -'-____ ._ __ ..... ____ ._ __ _, LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION AREA C-12 Rancho California, California for: Rancho California Development Company @ Converse Consultants Inland Empire Project No. 88-81-110-02 Drawing No. A-1 174002-02 Figure C- 12 December 2, 2019 SUMMARY ATEDAILLED:6-6-88 BORINGN0.2 ~~~~(~· THIS SUMMARY APP\.IES ONL y AT THE l..OCATION OF THIS BORING ANO AT THE TIME 0~ -%-<( a-? OF OAll.l.ING. SU8SUAFACE CONOITIONS MAY OIFFER AT OTHER l.OCA TIONS ANO MAY -<'> ~ a-?<:> 1.,, <. "J-• CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DAT A PRESENTED IS A . ~_£1-. "J-.lt..O<P ~f:-i~1-. t;_:...,..1-~ «,I::> o" SIMPLIFICATION OF ACTUAi.. CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. ~~o "{();~ . -<'U).)\ G.,_ .§" ~q; 103 6' .J: >-0-s-J("' ~ J- . t:.l' ef-ELEVATION: -C' moist stiff black 1 2 " A·mhaft oa ---it : L.· to FI LL-SANDY CLAY /sandy -SC very CLAYEY SAND fine sand 5 -1 1 moist ,, moderate Iv clavev -.....,_~_...,~~~-+~~~-+-~~~-+-.&-.-...:.;::=.;;:;..:..=~~..:.:..::;..i...;~~~~---J SM moist SILTY SAND 15.2 --- 10-~-- 2 -SP I -SM -- SM - 20- - - 25- - 30- -- 35::-- - 40 ----- 45 ----- wet medium dense black gray dense dark gray light gray very _ dense : fine to medium sand SAND-poorly graded fine to medium sand, slightl' silty . ' trace of day. SILTY SAND , ... fine to medium sand slightly silty predominantly fine sand slightly silty moderately silty fine to medium sand slightly silty 4.7 6.8 114 9.9 108 10 T2 7 8 1.5" :12 21 40 40 50 so --SP SAND -poorly graded ,_...,. ____ _., ______ ...., ______ ... ______ _..,. predominantly medium sand,...._----+----+-----+-•7•1.._ ... - End of Boring at 51 ~· SS-Groundwater Encountered at12' - ~ -2 50_.. ________________________ .__ ____ __..._ ________________________ ..... ____ .._ __ ~ ____ _._ __ __, "O • :> 0 Q. o..· < .... .... .... .. Q 0 z ~ a: 0 ~ LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION AREA C-12 Rancho California, California for: Rancho California Development Company @ Converse Consultants Inland EmJ>ire Project No • 88-81-110-02 Drawing No. A-2 174002-02 Figure C- 13 December 2, 2019 I CONE PENETROC:V.lETER TEST DATA : SOUNDING CPr-1 LOCATION : RANCHO CALIFORNIA • PRQJECT : CONVERSE c~12 INSTRUMENT : Fl5CKE087 I t POOJECT No: 88-230-5602 ELECTRONICS: Tl . l TEST DATE : 06-09-1988 OPERATOR • GB/DH l Assumed Depth to t:~ter (Feet)= 17 Soil Total Unit Weight (pcf) = 120 ·-----~~~--~~~~~~~~~--~~--~----------------------~ . NOlllfALIZED FRlCTIOH BQUIV BQUIV BQUIV iQUIV Sttl: Sui: DEPTH OONi iATIO SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPE RRLAtIVR Fil CT ION Hl HP (C-T)/Hc Fili! (ft) (tsf) (I) DBNSrTY AHGLK (ksf) (hf) ---·---· ------------·------·-------------------------------------......,_ ___ ----···-1.0 64.3 0.59 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35.:.40 10-15 15-10 to 68.9 G.48 SAHD TO srLTY SANO 30-40 35-48 10-15 10-15 3.0 6&.i 0.54 SAllD ro StLTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-tO (.0 56.T 0.98 SAND TO SILTY SAND 40-50 35-40 15-tO 15-tO 5.0 41.0 Q.89 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10·15 15-tO 6.0 44.0 U9 SAHD TO SILTY SANO 30-(0 35-40 5-10 10-15 to 50.8 0.8( SIJID TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35~40 IMS lS.;.10 -~~ ...:..,.'. :;, ... ~ ·i"~ ... • •• ,,_ ••. 8.0 44.5 1.03 SILTY SAND-SANDY S[LT 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-20 u 56.t 0.94 SAND ro SlLTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-ZO 10.0 H.l 1.06 SILTY SAND-SANDY S[LT 30-40 35-40 10-15 15·?0 11.0 u.o 0.71 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 3HO 5-10 10-15 n.o 68.0 0.81 SAND TO SILTY SANO 40-50 35-40 15~20 t0-15 13.0 au 0.93 SAND TO SlLTY SAND 40-50 35-40 zo-zs t0--Z5 u.o ?9.4 Z.91 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 80-90 31-35 40-60 60-80 15.0 95.5 1.10 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 35-40 t5-40 15-40 16.0 ltT .o 0.88 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 10-60 11.0 161.6 0.14 SAND TO SILTY SANO 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 18.0 !OU t.Z9 SILTY SANO-SANDY SILT 10-80 35-40 60-80 60-80 19.0 104.8 z.68 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 80-90 35-40 60-80 60-80 to.o 89.6 1.83 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 60-70 35-40 40-60 40-60 Zl.O n.s (.51 lSANDY CLAY-SlLTY CLAY 40-60 40-60 3.H 3.U u.o 54.5 l.10 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 90-100 ?Ml 40-60 40-00 %3.0 13.7 5.19 SILTY CLAY TO CLAY 10-15 Z0-15 1.19 1.54 tt.O 23.6 1.10 lSANDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY ?5-40 15•40 1.63 1.63 15.0 49.5 6.17 lSAHDt CLAY-SILTY CLAY 60-80 60-80 3,55 3.55 ?6.0 180.6 Z.18 SILTY SAND~SANDY S[LT 90-100 40-4% >100 HOO 11.0 120.2 1.04 SAND 'l'O SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 40-60 za.o m.1 1.31 SAHD TO SILTY SANO 70-80 40-U >100 HOO 29.0 ZOS.l 1.81 SAND TO SILTY SANO 80-90 40-4Z >100 )101} 30.0 126.9 1.39 SI.HD 'l'O SILTY SAND T0-80 40-U HOO HOO 31.0 67 .1 1.75 SILTY SAND-SANDY S[LT 50-60 35-40 %5-40 15-40 3t.O 81.5 4.53 lSANDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY 80-100 an-100 6.35 6.35 33.0 Z10.3 1.17 SAND TO SILTY SAND 70-80 4%-45 HOO >100 34.0 154.1 1.96 SILTY SAND-SANDY srLT 80-90 40-(% 80-100 HOO 35.0 m.l 1.11 SAND 'l'O SILTY SAND 70-80 U-45 HOO >100 36.0 m.1 0.46 SANDY GRAVEL TO SANO 60-70 4Z-t5 80-100 60-80 ' -[HDICATRS OVRRCONSOLIDATRD OR CBKBHTBD HATKR[AL S The Earth Technology Corporation 174002-02 Figure C- 14 December 2, 2019 FRICTION RESISTANCE TSFCKG/CH2) CONE RESISTANCE TSFlKG/CHZJ 6 ' 2 Cl ~ o. lC 0 HO 2( 0 .. 2! 0 ~(0 srn 0 0 .. f ' 5 ' 0 J 2 9 1 _J c__ ~ <: t--.. 15 s ~ 8 "'Q ..... ::i: 7 -:z: :i: 8 rt1 -f rt1 ::D 9 CJ) 10 11 12 13 15 ~20 "'Q ..... ::i: ~25 .,, ,,.. ,,.. .... 30 95 .tO . . . '--.. . . u '- ;--- ~ <:_ ? -~~ ~ __,,. - -~ s ~ ::::r- _::/ -~ - ..,_ .... 50 . . ..... . "' . . G PROJECT NUMBfA: 88-230-5602 INSTRUMENT NUMBER: Fl5CKE087 DATE : 06-09-1988 i--__ ? ::::=- . .. . p -'- ~ :-----._ -.__ ' . . . '. ' . .. . .. b m Th# Earth Technologg -Corporation -4( - . 0 SOIL COLUHN 400 ( FRICTION RATIO {j!) . : ~ E . ~ \ ~ \ t ,,----~ L c. ..._ .,_ ~ ~ f- <:::::::: ~ i' < ----~ ..._ ..---.c-- c:::---- . . E . ... I . .. . I-.. 1 . . . I- l I- -4 ~ . -". I- -.,, . '--.. . .. I- .. I- .. . o a 1 s 2 0 9 s ao rt1 .,, .... ::i: 5~ a 0 5 ..,, rt1 rt1 .... 5 -· z 8 :I: rt1 .... m 9 ::D CJ) 10 11 12 13 :o 15 a CONE fENETDOMETEH TEST PROBE: CPT-1 174002-02 Figure C- 15 December 2, 2019 t CONE PENE*TROrw1E'I'ER TEST DATA I I SOONDING CPr-2 LOCATION : RANCHO CALIFOmrr.A i ~ No; ~~s8212 R.C. DEVE l TEST DATE : 06-09-1988 ! Asstnned Depth to Water (Feet)= 15 I INSTRUMENT : F15CKE087 ELECTRONICS: Tl OPERATOR : GB/DH Soil Total Unit Weight (J'.X)f) = 120 I I ·-------------·--~----------------------~------------------~ HORKALIZED FRICTION EQUIV EQUIV BQUIV EQUIV Sul: Su2: DBPTH roNB RATIO SOlL BHHAVIOR TYPB RBLATIVB FRICTION Nl Nl 1 (C-T)/Nc MA. (ft) (tsf} (~) DENSITY ANG LR (ksf) . (ksf} ------------------------------~---·------------- __ _..._ ____ --------------------·----------·---1.0 20?.0 G.82 SAID TO SILTY SAND 60-70 40-U 60-80 60-80 z.o 158.8 0.49 SAii TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 Z5-40 3.0 15.t O.Z3 SAii TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 10-15 4.0 33.5 0.64 SMID TO SILTY SAND 20-30 31-35 5-10 10-15 5.0 28.0 0.12 SILTY SIJID-SOOY SILT 20-30 31-35 5-10 5-10 6.0 21.3 o.89 ~ SILTY SMIHAHDY S[Lf -··20-30 -ll~35 J-5 .s~10 7.0 21.8 0.79 Sii.Ti SAllD-SAHDY SILT 20-30 31-35 1-5 5-10 -8.0 50.4 o. 79 SAi) TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-20 9.0 47 .2 0.89 SAID ro SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-ZO 10.0 5U 0.61 SAi> TO SILTY SAND 30-tO 35-40 10-15 10-15 11.0 10.0 0. 73 SAHD TO SILTY SAKO 30-tO 35-40 15-ZO 15-ZO u.o 58.4 0.18 SAB TO SILTY SAND 30-(0 35-40 10-15 15-ZO 13.0 (4,( 0.49 SAID TO SILTY SAND 20-30 35-40 5-10 10-15 u.o Z9.3 0.84 SILTY SAii-SANDY SILT Z0-30 31-35 5-10 10-15 15.0 Z0.8 0.80 SILTY SDID-SAHDY SILT Z0-30 31-35 1-5 5-10 16.0 40.0 0.85 SUI TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 5-10 10-15 11.0 85.3 0.84 SAii TO SILTY SAND 40-50 35-40 Z0-25 20-Z5 18.0 70.4 1.18 SILTY. S!HD-SAHDY SILT 50-60 35-40 25-40 25-40 19.0 84.1 1.43 SAID ro SILTY SAND 50•60 35-40 ZS-40 25-40 ?O.O 87.6 o. 71 SAID TO SILTY SAKO 40-50 40-41 Z0-25 20-?5 u.o 53.t 0.96 SAID TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-ZO 22.0 155.0 0.66 SAKD TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 40-60 '3.0 m.o 0.68 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 60-70 42-45 60-80 60-80 u.o 167.4 1.38 SUI TO SILTY SAND . 60-70 40-42 60-80 80-100 25.0 m.6 2.99 tSILft SIBD-cLAYRY SAND 80-100 >100 26.0 162.3 1.27 SAID to SILTY SAND 6MO 40-41 60-80 60-80 21 .o 111.4 2.9Z tSILTY SAHD-cLAYEY SAND 90-100 35-40 80-100 80-100 28.0 160.4 0.61 SAID TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 40-60 29.0 141.6 1.07 SAit TO SILTY SAKD 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 30.0 196 .4 1.31 SAii TO SILTY SAKO T0-80 40-42 80-100 80-100 31.0 151. 7 0.83 SAii TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 u.o 187 .6 1.14 SAii to SILTY SAND 60-70 40-42 80-100 80-100 33.0 61.4 6.25 tSDIY CLAY-SILTY CLAY 80-100 80-100 4.69 4.69 34.0 83.5 4.17 wm SOD-SANDY CLAY 80-100 so~100 35.0 188.4 1.2i Sil TO SILTY SAHD 60-10 40-42 80-100 80-100 36.0 169.8 1.63 sm TO SILTY SAND 70-80 40-42 80-100 80-100 37.0 218.6 0.64 Slll TO SlLTY SAND 60-70 42-45 60-80 60-80 38.0 199.1 0.81 SAtl TO SILTY SAND 6o-70 40-U 60-80 60-80 39.0 208.8 0.55 Sil TO SILTY SAKD 50-60 U-45 so~ao 60-80 40.D 186.1 0.80 SAD ro SlLTY SAHD 60-10 40-U 60-80 60-80 41.0 m.o 0.60 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 60-70 U-45 60-80 60-80 42.0 m.8 0.61 SAID TO SILTY SAND 6o-70 42-45 80-100 60-80 u.o m.4 o. 75 SAID TO SILTY SAND 60-10 4M5 80-100 80-100 44.0 186.1 1.13 SAii TO SILTY SAND 60-10 40-U 80-100 80-100 45.0 107.Z 1.03 SAID ro SlLTY SAND 6MO 40-4Z 80-100 80-100 46.0 190.2 0.81 SMID TO SILTY SAND 60-fO 40-42 60-80 60-80 n.o m.1 l. 70 SAim to SILTY SAND 10-80 35-40 60-80 60-80 48.0 84.4 3.04 SAIDI SILT-CLAYBY SILT 96-100 31-35 40-60 60-80 49.0 205.7 l.19 SAJI TO SILTY SAKD 70-80 40-U 80-100 80-100 t -IHDICATES OVERCONSOLIDATKD OR CEHRHTID llATKIUAL S The Earth Technology Corporation 174002-02 Figure C- 16 December 2, 2019 FRICTION RESISTANCE TSFCKG/CH 1 J 0 0 6 " 2 c __ .. ~ o_ . 1C 0 . . '\ ~ . L---[7 . ' -r . J c; . I . ~ D I / 1 z '---r? . . . 2 15 5 9 10 s. L< ~ ___s- CONE RESISTANCE TSFCKG/CH 2 J 1! 0 2l o __ . 2~ o L---C> - c:,... -~ 3LO J~ ~ . ~ ;5; c-I .. ~ l..-.? . £. ,.,,,,.... -.... 10 ~ 12::::_ ~ 95 11 12 ·~ ~ ~ . .a::: ::::> . -~ ~~ . """" -. ~ b:io.- •S 15 so . . . . . . '.' . G PROJECT: CONVERSE C-12 R.C. DEVE PROJECT NUMBER: 88-230-5602 INSTRUMENT NUMBER: Fl5CKE087 DATE: 06-09-1988 ~ -~ -~ ..... -D ~ l'> j --~ :::::::.- I------I~ s.:: ---::::s:= - ' ... -. . '. ... "T ' • s 57 Th~ Earth Technology -Corporation 3~ 0 .. ~( . . SOI.L COLUHN 0 400 FRICTION RATIO CZ) 0 5 15 20~ "'O .... :s: 5~ -rt rra rra ...... Q :s CON~ P~NETRaMETER TEST PjA(jBE: CPT-2 a 1 2 9 ' 5 8~ .,, .... 7 ;;r:. -· z 8 :I: rra .... l'T1 9 :::D (J) 10 11 12 13 u 15 174002-02 Figure C- 17 December 2, 2019 I CONE PENE'TROJYIETER TEST DATA l SOUNDING : CPI'-3 LOCATION : RANCHO CALIFORNIA • PROJECT : OONVERSE C-12 R.C. DEVE INSTRUMENT : Fl5CKE087 ! PROJECT No: 88-230-5602 ELECTRDNICS: Tl • TEST DATE : 06-09-1988 OPERATOR : GB/DH f • I I Assumed Depth to Water (Feet)= 12 Soil Total Unit Weight (PJf) = 120 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~· NOBMALWD FRICTION BQUIV EQUIV EQU[V EQUIV Sul: SuZ: DEPTH OONK RATIO SOIL BEHAVIOR TYPB RBLAHVB FRICTION Nl Hl' (C-T)/Nc FsU. (rt) (tar) (i} DKHSITY AHGLK (ksf) (ksf) --------· ·---------·-----------------------------------------------------·--------·---------1.0 49.0 3.08 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 70-80 Z7-31 Z5-40 40-60 z.o m.l 4.50 tCLAYKY SAHD-SAHDY CLAY HOO HOO 3.0 m.s 2.87 tSILTY SAND-CLAYEY SAHD 90-100 35-40 80-100 80-100 4.0 Z7 .5 3.61 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 70-80 15-20 ZS-40 5.0 14.8 1.53 SitTY !AHO-SANDY SILT 50-60 35-40 Z5-40 25-40 .. :.~ .... ---·· ,_ ·-:-·· ".::' ·---6';0----------·103·j-~~-. ·· -t;n--·~·soo ro'imTl SAND -ao~go-u:.u · ------·-1100·--------,.aoo·------~ -; ;;-. ~ -~ : ·, 7.0 231.4 0.65 SAND TO SILTY SAND 60-10 U-45 80-100 80-100 8.0 104.1 0.14 SAND TO SILTY SANO 40-50 40-42 25-40 25-40 9.0 46.0 0.58 SAND fO SILTY SANO 30-40 35-40 5-10 10-15 10.0 42.6 0.10 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 5-10 10-15 11.0 31.4 0.88 SILTY SAHD-SANDY SILT 30-40 31-35 5-10 10-15 12.0 (8.8 0.73 SAND fO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-ZO 13.0 55.3 o. 78 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-20 14.0 34.1 1.13 SILTY SAHD-SAHDY SILT 30-40 31-35 5-10 15-20 15.0 36. 7 0.84 SILTY SAHD-SAHDY SILT 30-40 31-35 5-10 10-15 16.0 43.6 1.03 SILTY SAHD-SANDY SILT 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-20 11.0 6"5 0.58 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-20 18.0 18.0 1.52 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 50.,.60 35-40 Z5-40 25-40 19.0 69.4 1.13 SAHD fO SILTY SAND 40-50 35-40 Z0-25 Z0-25 20.0 48.8 1.14 SILTY SAHD-SANDY SILT 40-50 35-40 10-15 15-%0 !1.0 10.4 1.09 SAHi> TO SILTY·SAHD 40-50 35-40 to-25 Z0-25 zu 118.5 0.53 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 40-50 40-U ZHO 25-40 23.0 91.1 0.34 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 40-42 Z0-25 15-ZO 24.0 83.9 0.8( SAllD TO SILTY SAHD 40-50 35-40 20-25 Zo-15 25.0 113.4 1.16 SAND ro SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 40-60 16.0 77.6 Z.35 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 70-80 31-35 40·60 40-60 21.0 51.3 3.45 SANDI SILT-CLAYEY SILT 80-90 21-31 25-40 40-60 !8.0 88.Z 2.34 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 10-80 35 .. 40 40-60 40-60 29.0 71.2 3.52 lCLAYif SAND-SANDY CLAY 90-100 27-31 40-60 60-80 30.0 92.1 2.50 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 70-80 35-40 40-60 60-80 31.0 161.9 1.69 SAND 1'0 SILTY SAND 70-80 40-42 80-100 80-100 32.0 116.5 1.23 SAMD TO SILTY SAHD 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 33.0 202.3 0.61 SAND TO SILTY SAND 60-70 U-45 60-80 60-80 34.0 120.8 2.51 SILTY SAHD·SANDY SILT 80-90 35-40 60-80 80-100 35.0 160.6 2.34 SILTY SAHD-SAHDY SILT 90-100 35-40 >100 >100 36.0 161.3 1.32 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 60-70 40-41 60-80 60-80 37.0 111.3 t.18 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 10-80 35-40 60-80 60-80 38.0 153.0 l.58 SAND ro Sim SAND 70-80 40-42 60-80 80-100 39.0 m.4 1.39 SAHD TO SILTY SAND 70-80 40-42 HOO >100 40.0 %65.8 I.OZ SAND TO SlLTY SAND f 0-80 4%-45 >100 HOO 41.0 m.3 o.az SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 u.o 33.4 S.10 tSAHDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY 25-40 40-60 t.62 2.62 43.0 101.5 Z.09 SILTY SAHD-SANDY SILT 10-80 35-40 40-&0 40-60 44.0 203.6 1.42 SAND TO SILTY SAND 70-80 40-41 HOO >100 45.0 m.a U8 lSAHDY CLA.Y-SILTY CLAY HOO >100 10.U 10.H 46.0 m.1 1.43 SAND TO SILTY SAHD 80-90 42-45 >100 HOO 41.0 186.6 2.91 tSILTY SAHD-CLA YRY SAND >100 >100 48.0 135.9 3.36 tCLAYIY SAND-SANDY CLAY HOO >100 49.0 194.4 2.00 lSILTY SAND-CLAYEY SAND >100 >100 i • INDICATRS OVERCONSOLIDATKD OR CRKKNTRD HATKRIAL 174002-02 Figure C- 18 December 2, 2019 FRICTION RESISTANCE TSF<KG/CH 2 l 0 0 2 s 10 5 ·c t'l'l 8 ~20 "'O "'O 6 " 2 c . . . . l . . ~ '-- -=:: . t::=> !-) -< < i....---. ~ . . j ~ ~ . ( r . ~ " < . s 15 o_ .. ~' 0 . ~- I? CONE RESISTANCE TSFCKG/CH 1 l t~ o_ 2C 0 . 2i o ... ~< o_ - ~~ ~ - -I -I ::J: 7 ::c ~ '---. ~ -:z: :x 8 rn -I ~ 9 CJ) 10 11 12 19 15 i2s '"Tl rn rn -I so 95 . . . . . . r ~ -i.. . . . . ~ < .~ c~ I---' c!__ -~ z_ f:?-~ .~ ~ -...___ --J ""'i:: ~ so . . . . . .. T --. -T • 6 PROJECT: CONVERSE C-12 R.C. DEVE PROJECT NUMBER: 88-230-5602 INSTRUMENT NUMBER: Fl5CKE087 DATE: 06-09-1988 ·-c::;;;' ~ - ~ I -- --i-.. -.;;;; c:::::::::: s:--. . . . T • --. .-... T r" The Earth Technologg -Corporation 3rn_ . ~1 SOIL CO.LUHN 0 400 FRICTION RATIO (4) J ~'.r a s 10 15 20~ "'O -I ::c 5;;;; '"Tl ,,, ,,, -I a 5 -10 •S 0 a CONE PENETHDMETEH TEST PR(jBE: CPT-3 0 1 2 3 • 5 6~ "'O -I 7 ::c -· z 8 :x ,,, -f ,,, 9 :D CJ) 10 11 12 1S u 15 174002-02 Figure C- 19 December 2, 2019 • CONE PENETROlYIETER TEST DATA I f SOUNDING CPr-4 LCCATION : RANCHO CALIFORNIA I PROJECT : OJNVERSE C-12 R.C. DEVE INSTRUMENT : Fl5CKE087 I PROJECT No: 88-230-5602 ELEcrRON!CS: Tl TEST DATE : 06-09-1988 OPERATOR : GB/DH Assumed Depth to Water (Feet)= 15 Soil Total Unit Weight (pcf) = 120 NORKALIZRO FRICTION BQUIV BQUIV BQUIV BQUIV Sul: Su2: DEPTH CONK RATlO SOLL BEHAVIOR TYPB RELATIVE Fil CT ION Hl Nl' (C-f}/Nc FstA (ft) (tsf) (S) DENSITY ANG LB (ksf} (ksf} --------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------l.O u.o 1.58 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 40-50 31-35 15-tO 10-25 z.o 20.3 0.01 SILTY SAND-SANOY S£LT 0-10 31-35 1-5 5-10 3.0 4.9 o.u SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT Z1-31 1-5 1-5 4.0 9.0 o.oo S£LTY SAND-SANDY SILT 21-31 1-5 1-5 5.0 100.S 0.93 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 25-40 25-40 6.0 54 .4. 1.01 SAND TO SILTY SANO 30-.40 3s~n 10~15 15"!20 ------·-· ·-·--·---t.O 58.? 0.14 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 10-15 15-20 8.0 47 .9 0.68 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 · 35-U 10-15 10-15 9.0 21.1 1.09 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 20-30 31-35 1-5 10-15 10.0 46.l 1.29 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 40-50 35-40 10-15 15-ZO 11.0 1.i Z.48 SILTY CLAY TO CLAY 20-30 1-5 5-10 0.1? 0.30 lt.O 11.1 1.82 SANDY SILT-CI.J.YEY SILT 20-30 27-31 1-5 10-15 13.0 12.8 2.79 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 40-50 1-5 10-15 1(.0 73.2 ?.07 SILTY SAND-SA){DY SILT 60-10 35-40 25-40 40-60 15.0 13.6 t60 CLAYEY SILT-SILTY CLAY 5-10 15-W 1.61 1.19 16.0 31.l 2.80 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 60-70 21-31 15-20 15~0 17 .o 26.4 5.60 lSANDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY 25-40 15-40 1.66 1.66 18.0 10.8 5.&l SILTY CLAY TO CLAY 5-10 15-20 1.29 1.20 19.G 39.4 4.86 SSANDY CLAY-SILTY CI.J.Y 2HO 40-60 2.57 z.57 10.0 15.0 0.52 SAND TO SILTY SAND 30-40 35-40 15-to 15-20 21.0 20.2 3.12 CLAYRY SILT-SILTY CI.J.Y 10-15 10-25 1.61 1.55 zi.o 38.0 3.32 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 70-80 27-31 20-25 25-40 Z3.0 m.o 0.39 SAHDY GRAVEL TO SAlID 50-60 U-45 60-80 40-60 u.o 121.8 0.91 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 25.0 131.0 0.11 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 26.0 140.9 0.60 SAND ro SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U 40-60 25-40 u.o 115.3 0.96 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-42 25-40 40-60 28.0 151.0 0.91 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 (0~2 40-60 40-60 • 29.0 133.5 t31 SAND ro SILTY SAND 60-70 40-U 40-60 40-60 30.0 103.6 0.81 SAND TO SILTY SAND (0-50 40-U 25-40 25-40 31.0 21.1 6.66 lSANDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY %5-40 25-40 1.55 1.55 32.0 116.0 6.88 SAHi> TO SILTY SAND 50-60 40-U ZS-40 %5-40 33.0 ll8.7 1.05 SAND ro SILTY SAND 50-60 40-42 40-60 40-60 3(.0 198.4 0.51 SAND TO SILTY SAND 50-60 42-45 60-80 40-60 35.0 226.9 0.51 SANDY GRAVEL TO SAND 60-70 U-45 60-80 60-80 36.0 m.o 0.49 SANDY GRAVEL TO SAND 60-70 42.45 60-80 60-80 37 .o Z15.3 0.40 SANDY GRAVEL TO SAlID 50-60 U-45 60-80 40-60 38.0 131.6 0.45 SAHDY GRA VBL TO SAND 60-70 U-45 60-80 60-80 39.0 61;0 t.19 SCLAYRY SAND-SANDY CLAY 60-80 60-80 40.0 U0.8 1.15 SILTY SAND-SANDY SILT 70-80 35-40 60-80 60-80 u.o 29.8 6.12 lSAHDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY ZHO 40-60 Z.31 Z.37 4%.0 57.3 3.43 SANDY SILT-CLAYEY SILT 80-90 %7-31 40-60 40-60 43.0 37 .3 t.38 CLmr SILT-SILTY CLAY %5-40 40-60 6.H UG 4(.0 107.9 4.30 scum SAND-SANDY CLAY HOO HOO 45.0 194.4 Ul SILTY SAHD·SANDY SILT 90-100 40-41 HOO HOO 46.0 %03.9 1.14 SAND TO SILTY SAND 70-80 40-U 8G-100 80-100 47 .o 41.4 5.15 lSAHDY CLAY-SILTY CLAY 40-60 40-60 3.54 3.54 48.0 37.3 4.0& CLAYBY SILT-SILTY CLAY 15-40 %5-40 6.41 4.13 49.0 lZ7 .1 tu S1LTY SAND-S>JlDY SILT 80-90 35-40 60-80 80-100 l -INDICATES OVERCONSOLIDATRD OR CEMEMTKD MATERIAL ~ The Earth Technology Coroora ti on 174002-02 Figure C- 20 December 2, 2019 0 0 5 2 9 10 15 5 ~ 6 0 ,., rr120 "'Q "'V -i ..... :c 7 :c -z :x 8 ITI ..... ~ 9 (J) 10 11 12 1S 15 ~25 '"Jl f'11 f'11 -i 30 SS tO 45 50 . . . . . . . ' . . . . . - . . . FRICTION RESISTANCE TSFlKG/CH 2 J 6 " 2 I .... ! 0 uo . . . « r <" -} ~~ ,J s_ ~ -~ ~ .s -~ ----:- l .,~ ...,-.-~ :;::> 7 5 --=:-- ~ ==--~ =====-~ ----~ --. '--.._,_ r ....__ r-__ ' ' ' '. 6 PROJECT: CONVERSE C-12 R.C. DEVE PROJECT NUMBER: 88-230-5602 INSTRUMENT NUMBER: Fl5CKE087 DATE: 06-09-1988 CCJNE RESISTANCE TSFCKG/CHIJ po 2IO 2!0 . . --~ ~ ,.;::;> D ___$. ,;;::==::::. --r--..._ 310 . . ~ _::> . " .. . . . . . . I t Thi Earth Technology -Corporation 3! o. ~I SCJIL COLUHN 0 I FR I CTI CJN RRTI CJ on : . I ~ ~ -........ ' ? -~ r-... :-c:::...,,_ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t - ·-- c-- -~ - f -0 .. " 5 .. .. .. 1 0 .. .. .. . 1 s --.. .. ..... .. .. . . . -.., . . .. ~ "" .. .. .. a . --...J . . • s .. .. . . . . . ' . .. 0 a CON~ PENETftGHETER TEST P:ACJ BE : CPT-4 0 l 2 s 8 :x ITI ..... ,..,, 9 :D CJ) 0 11 12 13 15 174002-02 Figure C- 21 December 2, 2019 ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------, ! ' CON E PENET ROMET ER TEST DATA SOUNDING CPT-8 PROJECT : CCIE-RCDC-Cl2-A?TS PROJECT No: 88 -81-110-02 TEST DATE : 11-10-1988 Assumed Deoth to Water IFe e tl = !7 NIF.l"/:UZB FRICTi!JN DEPTH CIJf-RATID SOil 2&\ViGR m-£ !ft) rtsf) m --- 1.0 162.2 Q.b.5 ~"fil rn SIL Ti S:.Nu 2.0 108.5 1.33 s;.ND 7D SIL rt ~+.J{LJ 3.0 Vi,; 1.61 Si+ID TO SILTY 5;1.'.D 4.Q 145.0 1.a-s SILTY SMl~~~-ijDY SlLT C' ,-. 179. 7 2.31 SILTY SAftD-~fiNDY S!i...T J.v 6.C m.; 2.44 ISILH S.~CLFYEY S:,k'D 7,1) 3:-4. 4 2.bo tSILfi Sf11D-a..AYEY ~;-~ S.v 32~.ft 3.49 •SI Lrr ~·!HLl'!::Y ~'D 9.0 ioB.·1 4.71 JCL4YE'i' ~J;'.D -S~ND'i CLAY I" r·, ... .,.C: I ~ .. '.._r,' ,. ~-.j,./J f(L;YEY 2.!~;o-s;,;;1w C1....~'( l ! '1) 253 l " 3.~ •S JLTY Si<;:D -..."Lii 'iti ;;1ci 12.C1 127.5 3.93 JQ.~V:t •3AND-s;..:w·r CL~'{ r~.o 211. [ 2 • .;s fS !L f( Sri'ID-a..Affi ·3,:;..i:, 14.0 37.5 • •r o.v ... , •Srl.,]Y ;))Y -S!LTY CL.~Y iS.O 11916 4.25 +CLAYfi 5A'-J.l-S~NDY C"d f ib.1) 158 .~ 3.19 •Sllfi 2~.Nrr:L.Am· ~-IID 17.0 233.5 2.28 IS!Lf{ Ski']}-:J..AYEY SA'ID 18.0 230. i 1. 78 ~'.D TO SI UY Sf:!ffi 19.0 211.5 3.04 •SILTY ~YE'! 5;fl.lf! 20.0 273.9 2.0:i t~ TO SILTY~ 21 .0 279.l) 2.24 tSILTf ~'iFf s;;r.m 22.0 245.7 2.40 •SILTY SAHIH'1.JYFf S;.M> 23.0 222.2 2.10 SILTY ~~y SILT 24 .0 259.9 2.09 ~TO SiLTY ~ 25.0 195.3 2.17 SILiY ~Sl'l\DV SilT 20.0 223.l 2.19 ISILTV ~C!.Nit'f ·;;JiO 27 .0 231.2 2.04 SMll TiJ SIL TY SfH> 28.0 159.3 2.13 SILTY s:i6i-SA/o'.DY SILT 29.0 185.4 1.bl :m> TU SILTY Sl1ND 30.0 194.5 1.29 ~ TD SILT< Sf..11.D 31.0 183.9 1.10 5'fil TD SI Lff SAND 32.0 21)6,b 0.82 SflID TO SILTY ~ND 33.0 196.9 0.96 sril.ll TO SILTY St\IID 34.0 173.1 1.11 SAHi> TO SlLr< ~ $ T 1'l e £a r t l't T ,; ,: h n o ! a q y C o r p ·. r ; t i o r: LOCATION : RANCHO CALIFONIA: INSTRUMENT : F15CKE088 ELECTRON! CS: T 1 OPERATOR EC /GB Soil Total Unit Weight (pi::f) = 120 mm rnJI\I m .... J!V EQIJIY Sul= S.0 REL~Tl'wf FRlCi!ON Nl rw !C-T>iflc Fs~ !BQITY A.fil (ksfl n:sfl ~61) 4''.H2 4(',-~) 4('f-6i) ~}-60 33-40 41'r6'1 41'.:-60 BtHO 4(H2 }lc<J }iOO 71)-80 35-40 60-SO 00-1~) 90-100 ~-40 }100 )!!).) >100 }!00 >W! >100 )100 W:-0 )100 }W) W-0 }1(-0 )ll)l) >li)) >1C-O >lfiO }!~) )iOO 41)-6-0 4<HO 2.27 " "7 L.:.. >H~:; )jry.) }!(;;) )100 }100 }1(~) 80-91:• 4H2 )101) )1()) }lt)) )10() }100 )100 }100 )100 )100 >100 90-100 40-42 >100 )100 }100 }100 90-100 40-42 )100 )11)) 90-!00 40-42 )100 }100 90-100 40-42 >100 )100 00-W 35-4Q )100 >100 lo-BO 41H2 ~HOO }100 ]HJ 40-42 8'HOO aHOO f:li-70 41H2 b0-00 81.>-100 b0-70 42-45 BIHOO blHO ffr-70 4'>--42 9HOO BIHOO b0-70 4<'H2 b0-80 60-00 174002-02 Figure C- 22 December 2, 2019 ( / ,t.1._,1 (' ~ 0u\C ~.t$1rle rife.. APPEN DIX 8.2 FALL ING HEAD PERC DATA SH EET -FIE LD COPY SEEPAGE PIT S Projcct: ____ f_2."t--7 c:j., fi/J/c-,_,,,4 _______ Jou 110 .: -rz-;,tt.· -lz. ·-P ;J._ Te-.l llolc Ho. : ___ _:M i3 I TeSLcd Uy: __ ~_<:;L'J:I.oJle:_?_-C~ /->J.... .~; .:; ,:r Dep t h o f Ho l e f.s Ori 1 l e d :~·---,Ue f o rc lest: ,f\f te r Tt?s t : Reading 11 nte line Jlo. I nlt•rva 1 {Min) I .1;_/_k_ ~ --·--- ~) -9-1---I~ °3Q LO . ..,o ;J . To ta l Oe p t k o f Hol e (Ft) :;1 .. s- I -- \If r Initial Fin~ I 6 In Wolle r Hater HHcr Comme nts Leve 1 Leve l Le ve l (Ft ) l ft ) (F t) Z/J,3 .-/cb~ \~----- tf.J_ -- t-----+---+---t-----+-----+---+----+--~·--- a-2 174002-02 Figure C- 23 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX B.2 FALLING HEAD PERC DATA SHEET · FIELD COPY SEEPAGE PITS Proj<!c t: ____ 1ZA-'V{cf1a !/t1fikviJs Jo!J 110.: -r"Z31b -/Z-02. Tc st 1101 c Ho. :_"""_-_-(5 ___ 2-__ ___,/~-T-es-l<!d ~~-:-61YJ"T om : __ ~_b_>/?r Dc 11th of llolc As Or i l ied: /°IL.7 .-I ,Ueforc lest: ___ ,l\fler TP.s t: __ Reatlin g TI nie Tine Tota l I nl ti al FlnJ 1 6. In llo . lnlc~rval Depth 0 f w~ le r l~<'ltc r UHer C otTO'l>e n t s {M i n) , Hole l<!v~ I Leve l Le ve I (Ft) (Ft} I r t} (Ft) t 1d!J. (~ /b./ .,, '1 1'2-~ /v, -··---------'2,f} "'1/'1 ·-._z._ . -Zf1 1f2.M . A_ "'" lfl·I M !!!4\ ----- 3 -'/-;Jt-l. Io --//J .? . f.2..--3 -----. ~~i=i) "'" ·--· ·-..,--._.. -··--·-·-·-...._ ____ ,__ ._..,,. -~--~ ~ ··'\~ '30 "' ---~)---- S' ~ ~o 10.~ ~ L---" ---- ''/0~ (a I ~ 50 ~.-\C ~~ g_J ' ---- (ifTI>151 -, 4~ _3Q_ l 0·5 12-.1----- l1i.:1e:. ... ~ tD.5-!!o i 0··~ p_., \ ---- IZ..: """' , q \~ 30 \D-~ ~ -------- I yp; - l D W-5--:9 I '(), ( J1..:t ----1 ~ ·, 1 - ---------------·--· -------------- a-2 174002-02 Figure C- 24 December 2, 2019 f I APPC::l\OIX 8.1 FALL ING HEAD PERC DATA SH EET -FIE LD COPY SEEPAGE PITS ·o ~ // ; I 1 Projccl: ___ .15:!.::..<'1-<>tl.:J f't/4/((ai..re-1~ ________ JoL llo.: 12."3i b-iZ.-CTl.. Test llolc lfo. : ____ .b.3 Tes led Uy: __ e_~fIJ..oJte :_:!/z;-/47 '1 Ocnth of Hole As Dri ll ed: /5",;;r' ,Uefore lest: ,Afte r Tr?st : Rea1JI 11Q TI nie T!nc Tot a l I n 1t1 ~1 F1ri~l C. In llo. l nt1~rval Oe ptk o f Waler i'~ le r Ha le r Ccmnerit s (Min) Hol e level Level Leve I (Ft) (Ft) (ft) (Ft) I $.K ?' 1 5,1() f,.3 11:$_ -----··----:.:...a --. _ :_1L_ ~ 5_9: _ --. ([.~ 11~ ------·- --~ 9 .. a-$ "$9 4/t? fkk ; -,___ --·----, {'tT'fi ). ._ -. -·-·---:t jv.45 _·?~ 'f_ .~ II y ----1i~ G ~!~~v 30 ci -~ l.12_ ---- £.., ~ 3 0 <--t . 8 .LL5_ ----~n-m 1 l!.:.:L'.:l 36 l~ 9.G\ 11 --c; ---- fj a.:...a.. 3c.., '1 ·~ (l2_ ' ---- ~ 0f l2!;;:L 3..Q_ q ,~ il4 ---- l7h ~ ID L?.Q. \V ~st /I !'.-; -----Tr.ff'. ------------------·---------------------- 8-2 174002-02 Figure C- 25 December 2, 2019 & r,t I lfl Reatli119 llo. -··--l - TI nie t<PPENOI X 6. l FALLING HEAD PERC DATA SHEET · FIELD COPY SEEPAGE PITS Jlac I nl(~ rva 1 (Min) :~;r:~ Depth o f Hole (Ft) I nl ti 11 l \.fo le r Level (Ft) 3 1l{b o. I°' Huter Leve I (fl) --·· ··---·--~·-' t---:1--t-:rr:;'-7i--+----t--::-:--,--i!--7-I ~2-:-../;:r-;<+·,=-2'::--·-r-Q-i--~~t+'-IE~~-'1""1.~ diJe. .\o ~ ·2-l.tt0 0 _. ~-~'l ll '\)J\!~ i a-2 174002-02 Figure C- 26 December 2, 2019 l I I I I APPEHOIX 8 .2 FALLlHG HEAD PERC DAT A SHEE T -FI ELD CO PY SEEPAGE PITS ProJcct: ____ ZAN~ H~H-LAl'l ~ ____ JoL flo.: ·--£z,3tlc -/Z~2- Tes l Hole uo . : ___ ---13..t 5 leslcd Uy : __ <~-~---0.ite :J/2<;" i!?1::_ Dcplh of ll olc As Ori l le d:---4· tf.0 F 1 ,Ucfore l e5t: ___ ,After fost : __ 41IJ i"f\ ~ Reading l ln-e I Inc Tot a ·If .... Initial rlnal 6 In llo. I nl<~rva 1 Depth o f Wa Ler l'a ler Huter C0<m>e nts (Min) Hol e Leve 1 Leve 1 Level (Ft) (Ft) tr t l (Fl) -··--' - \HS-I <-3Q ~ i11S 1hl__ ~ 41 1 v;.,'\~.ev ~ .(~' -·---- _:_2.:__ ~~ {p:-· -·-~._t_ l l.7-µ --~billy~ - -3 r>-~ 1J2Jl. i i/~ 15,b ~ I ----_,._ __ ~ t;:;e.: M . y ~ -\:24r ~ -----A ... n ~-\ ...... . s-A ,•.-, \t-Jrl f!J ... ~' ~ / .j'\ .. ·- ~(' ''-: --(3:tt'i!: 0 ~ ~ I~' n a ~ ---- '1-~~ /'7.1 /0.'lO ~ ----~ A <f> 4w-,,, 10 .&d lv.O 11.£ ~ ---- ~ = lV /(:,,:...1 i0-1-133 ---- i'3. l9 10 ~ .1 JD lu ,;;, tf-). 2 Y:S,.O ------mrt l H --------------- J·Z.... -------------- 8-2 174002-02 Figure C- 27 December 2, 2019 EAST 0 5 10 15 20 0+00 10 < 0+10 I J~ ii TRENCH PROFILE NO. 1 SOUTHEAST WALL ---S57°W - PERVASIVE C8C0:3 COATING 0+20 0+30 ATTITUDES WITHIN PAUSA FORMATION © N65•W. 35•s ® NSS"W. ao•s @ N48"W. 36°S @ N65"W. 32°S @ N70°E, 1 S"N > t 0+50 WEAK STONEUNE .COARSE SAND LENSEs NOT DISPLACED BY SAND FILLED FRACTURES 1a•w. srs WEAK STONELINE 15 ~ c,...,..,-..:......-1 / ~~22~1.~~>i~~~~~~:::::;:i:::~:-v''i-'"T?'4--,..~.L.... () ~ 20 ~ t"'--__..;.,,,..;J;,.,;_.J ao•w. 83°S 53oW. as•s so-w. ea•s SO"W, 90° 1+00 1+10 1+20 . 1+30 CaC03 COATING ALONG FAACTURES I I 1+40 COARSE GRAINED LENS COURSE SAND LENS NOT DISPLACED BY SAND FILLED FRACTURES 1+50 1+60 0+70 1+70 I @' \ I I ·1 0+80 MEDIUM GRAINED SAND LENS ATI1TUOES ON SANO FlLLEO FRACTURES COARSE GRAINED LENSES HBO COARSE GRAVELLY SAND LENS o+90 NSO"W, 63"$ 11 l. N75"W. !JO"s:=!} j N&O"W. es•s . NSO<'W. 12"5--·· 1+90 IC ~ 1f ~ l ~ /A~ITUDES ON INTRA-PAUBA JOINTING & FRA.CTUR+ CD 85"W. 83-s 1 @ 75-W, SO"N f'i @ 700W, 70"N '' ~ ~~~•s (STRONG! r ~ { f; LOGGED 10 < ~ ::i 15 J: () !"-< ::.? 20 20 25 30 35 2+00 D.S. SIMON CD HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM LEGEND TRENCH 1 @ DARK GRAYISH BROWN (10YR 614) SILT {ML) WITH SOME VERY FINE SAND, POROUS WITH SCATTERED FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL • @ HOLOCENE COllUVIUM @ DARK YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/3) SANDY SILT (ML) WITH ROOTS ANO SCATTERED GRAVEL @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 7/3) SILTY FINE SANO (SM), WITH SCATTERED GRAVEL, POORLY COlllSOLIDAtED @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 7/4) SILTY FINE SAND TO FINE SANDY SILT (SM/ML) WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL @ LATE PLEISTOCENE BEDROCK -PAUBA FORMATION POORLY INTERBEDDEO, LENTICULAR SANDSTONE @ Y!::LLOWISH BROWN (10YR 5/4) SANDSTONE. COARSE TO MEDIUM GRAINED WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL, MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED @ YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 514) SILTY SANDSTONE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED WITH SCATTERED GRAVEL SIZE CLASTS, MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED @ PALE BROWN (10YR 6/3) SANDSTONE, VERY COARSE GRAINED WITH LENSES OF MEDIUM AND COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE @ CLAYEY SILTSTONE, THINLY LAMINATED @ LIGHT GRAY (10YR 7/2) SANDSTONE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED. MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 713) SANDSTONE. MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAlNED ~ LIGHT BROWNISH GRAY (10YR 612) TO LIGHT GRAY (10YR 7/2) SANDSTONE, COARSE GRAINED @ LIGHT BROWNISH GRAV (10YR 6/2) TO LIGHT GRAY (10YR 712) SILTY CLAYSTONE, WITH POLISHED, UNDULATING SURFACES @ WHITE (10YR 812) TO LIGHT GRAY (10VR 712) SANDSTONE FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED, WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL AND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, POORLY CONSOLIDATED SANDSTONE LENSES @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 7/3) SANDSTONE, MEDIUM GRAINED @ YELLOW BROWN (10YR 5/4) GRAVELLY SANDSTONE. COARSE GRAINED ~WEAK TO MODERATELY DEVELOPED ARGILLIC HORIZON (BURIED PALEOSOL) WITH PRISMATIC TO ~COLUMNAR STRUCTURE. HORIZON SUPERIMPOSED UPON UNDERLYING UNITS. TEXTURE OF HORIZON VARIES WITH UNDERLYING UNIT. COLOR VARIES FROM 10YR 312 AT EAST EN.D TO 7.5YR 414@ STA 1+15 TO 1 OYA 514 @ WEST END. NOTE: COLOR DESIGNATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS P 975, EDITION) TRENCH PROFILE .NO. i fl\UlT INVESTIGATION ·•c"'t2" lnformad~n· Center Site foJ'.: Rancho California Development Co .. Converse Consultants Inland Empire Scllle t 10 =io'' 10/06/88 KSM Project No. 88-:81-1 l ()-01 ~0-rm-w~ln-g~N~o-.~~~--<lll 2 174002-02 Figure C- 28 December 2, 2019 i"' ·~ 30 i 35 40 45 i ;!; 50 ~· ~ 55 60 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 1 (CONTINUED)· SOUTHEAST WALL PERVASIVE CaCQs-COATING co w z ::i I 0 i ATTITUDES OF INTRA~PAUBA FORMATION JOINTING @ WW. 70°N 2+00 () UJ I z ::i ::i::: () ~ ~ 3+00 (f) NS, 70-W [STRONG) ® ew. ao•N (STRONG) . I 2+10 3+10 2+20 3+20 . I 2+30 2+40 I jROJECTEO ZONE OF FAULTING FROM TRENCH 2 COARSE GRAINED GRAVELLY SAND LENS SANO FILLED FACTURES. SEDROCI< UNITS NOT DISPLACED 3+30 3+40 SOIL DEVELOPMENT EXTENDS INTO FRACTURES C8CO:l COATING LENS OF COARSE GRAVEL W/AfllGULAR GRANITIC ------. CLASTS UP TO 3 1111. DIA INTENSELY FRACTURED ZONES 2+50 ATTITUDES OF SAND-FILLED FRACTURES ® 30°W. 90" @ 50"W, ss•s 3+50 @ 3+60 2+70 COARSE GRAINED WIFINE GRAVELS I I 2+80 VERY FINI' GRAINED SANO LENS APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION ~OF TRENCH WITH FAULT TRACE ·,. DOCUMENTED IN KENNEDY, 1977. @ ATTITUDES OF SAND FILLED @ FRACTURES @ fll35"W. 58"S @ 25oW. 62"S @) 10"E, 83°N @ 12°W, ss•s @ 22"W, 60°S ~VERY FlNE GRAINED SANO LENS 3+70 3+80 3+90 () w z ::i ::c: () ~ ~ 3 .. 00 0 '<!' w ('.) zz ::i 3: <( J: a: ~o <( w ~w (/') 4+00 LOGGEC> BY: D. B. SIMON 30 35 40 45 50 45 50 55 60 65 SEE LEGEND, DRAWING 2 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 1 (CONTINU~D) FAULT INVESTIGATION ·c-121111 lnform2.tion Center Site Date 10/06/88 for: Rancho California Development Co. KSM HAS Converse Consultants Inland Empire Approved by DBS 3 174002-02 Figure C- 29 December 2, 2019 50 55 i 60 ~ !!I 65 < i 70 75 0 w z :1· ::i :x: (,) !;:( :::! 4+00 4+10 INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULT ORIENTATION: N45°W, 68°5 SEE: ENLARGEMENT OF TYP.ICAL INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULT FAULT TRACE CORRESPONDS TO FAULT TRACES DOCUMENTED IN LEIGHTON, 1978 a AND PIONEER, 1980 5+00 5+10 4+20 5+20 TRENCH PRORLE NO. 1 (CONTINUED) SOUTHEAST WALL COARSE GRAINED GRAVELLY SAND I.ENS DISPLACED AT FAULT APPROX. 0.6' q;LAYEY SANDSTONE ltENS (1 OYR 513) ' ' ' 4+30 4+40 5+40 4+50 5+50 I . 4+60 4+70 4+80 4+90 w 1-"'----ll w C'. ·"'.:"_ f-, -,_,---L--11 z -' ::i 5+00 PROJECTED ZONE OF FAULTING FROM TRENCH 3 5+60 5+70 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH TRACE OF WILDOMAA FAULTS AS SHOWN ON AP $PECIAL STUDIES ZONE MAP WEST 65 70 75 80 0.2' THICK COARSE SAND BEDS. HEAVILY COATED WITH F62()3 ENLARGEMENT OF TYPICAL INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULT SCALE 1"=4' LOGGED v:ns. SIMON 60 65 70 75 80 SEE LEGEND. ORA WING 2 0.2' THICK COARSE SAND BEDS. HEAVILY COATED WITH F92()3 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 1 (CONTINUED) FAULT INVESTIGATION ·c-12• lnformatirin Cent~r Site· for: Rancho CaUforni~ Development Co .. Converse Consultants Inland Empire Seel& 1":10' 10/06188 KSM Chsckildlly HAS 88-81-110-01 4· 174002-02 Figure C- 30 December 2, 2019 EAST 0 5 20 25 EAST 0 5 10 15 THINLY L.A~ATEO VERY FINE GRAINED SANDY SILTSTONE LENS ()+()() PERVASIVE GaC03 COATING TRENCH PROFl.E NO. 2 SOUTHEAST WALL -S54°W·--- PERVASIVE caeo:i COATING SANDY SILTSTONE LENS 0+10 0+10 ;j"" /ti,'j I .s @@ 1 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 ()+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 ZONE OF INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULTS ATTITUDES OF INTRA-PAUM FORMATION FAULTS (j) Jllro9W. W'S @ N5•-10"W. llll"S I 0+20 0+30 ZONE OF INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULTS ZOl'lE OF FAULTS CLOSELY CORRESPONDS 0 APPROXIMATE TRACE OF WILOOIMR FAULT AS SHOWN ON AP SPECIAL STUDIES ZONE MAP 0+40 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 3 SOUTffEA~T WALL -S57°W·--- SANO IN-Fii-LiNG 0+50 0+70 @ li®'W, 75°S @ N11l"I!, 75"S.' @ N10"W, SO"S (i) N12"W, SO°S @ N20"W, 50"-es•s @ Nww. aoo~ ' ' 0+80 0+90 ATTITUDES OF INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULTS G) N<IO"W, 90" @ N30•. as•s ® N40"W. 80°-90"$ @ N25°W, 75°$ @ N35°-40<W. 1s•-es•s @ N35°w. so• c.o ir-0~1~t;_5 -r; /I r /"/ /- W; ll~K-evr n_uf ~ ~~ .{'>/f: 1+00 1+05 1+05 LOGGED ,ev: D. 8. SIMON WE~T 10 15 20 25 WEST 5 10 15 20 ® HOLOCENE ALLUVIUM LEGEND TRENCH 2 @ DARK YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 316) SANDY SILT (Ml) WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL AND ROOTS; POORLY CONSOLIDATED @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 713) SILTY FINE SAND (SM). WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL. POOR TO MODERATLEY CONSOLIDATED, POROUS @ LATE PLEISTOCENE BEDROCK -PAUBA FORMATION POORLY INTERBEDDED, LENTICULAR SANDSTONE @ VERY DARK GRAYISH BROWN (10YR 312) TO DARK BROWN (10YR 3/3) SILTY FINE SANDSTONE @ BROWN TO DARK BROWN (7.5YR 4/4) SANDSTONE, COARSE GRAINED @ DARK BROWN (10YR 3/3) SANDSTONE, FINE GRAINED WITH SCATTERED COARSE GRAINED GRANULES @ LIGHT YELLOW BROWN (2.5YR 614) SILTY CLAYSTONE LENS, THINLY LAMINATED, UNDULATORY @ WHITE {10YR 8/2) SANDSTONE; MEDIUM GRAINED @ LIGHT GRAY (10YR 712) SANDSTONE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED WITH MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE LENSES @ BROWNISH YELLOW (10YR 6/6) TO YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 5161 SANDSTONE. COARSE TO MEDIUM GRAINED @ WHITE (10YR 812) MEDIUM GRAINED SANDSTONE LENS, POORLY CONSOLIDATED E 1 WEAK TO MODERATE.LY DEVELOPED ARGILLIC HORIZON (BURIED PALEOSOL), WITH PRISMATIC TO 9 J'i' COLUMNAR STRUCTURE. HORIZON SUPERIMPOSED UPON UNDERLYING UNITS. TEXTURE OF HORIZON VARIES WITH UNDERLYING UNIT. COLOR VARIABLE: 10YR 312, 10YR 313, 10YR 413. ® HOLOCENE COLLUVIUM LEGEND TRENCH 3 @ DARK YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 3/6) SANDY SILT (Ml) WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL ANO ROOTS: POORLY CONSOLIDATED @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 713} SILTY FINE SAND (SM), WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL. POORLY TO MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED, POROUS @ LATE PLEISTOCENE BEDROCK -PAUIBA FORMATION POORLY INTERBEODED, LENTICULAR SANDSTONE @ BROWN (lOYR 513) SANDSTONE, MEDIUM GRAINED WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL, WELL CONSOLIDATED ' @ YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 5i4) SANDSTONE, COARSE GRAINED, WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL AND PEBBLY GRAVEL LENSES @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 713) SANDSTONE, FINE GRAINED, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED WITH MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE AND THINLY LAMINATED SANDY SILTSTONE LENSES @ PALE BROWN (10YR 613) MEDIUM TO COARSE GRAINED PEBBLY SANDSTONE @ LIGHT GRAY (10YR 712) FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SANDSTONE WITH SCATTERED GRAVELS @ BROWNISH YELLOW {1 OYA 616) COARSE GRAINED GRAVELLY SANDSTONE NOTE: ·COLOR DESIGNATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS (1975, EDITION) TRENCH PROFILES NOS. 2 & 3 •FAULT INVESTIGATION "C· 12" lnformcttiQn C~nter Site . ' "" for: Rancho California Development Co. Converse Consultants Inland Empire HAS 174002-02 Figure C- 31 December 2, 2019 EAST 0 I-w w IL. ! 5 W· ..J < 0 @) 10 0+00 0 <{ ~ w ' z ' ' ·' ' :J ' f: 5 w J: ~ ~ ~ ;<>·.· •• 10 ~ .1+00 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 4 ---s 45°w--- ' 0 ... 10 0+20 0+30 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH PROJECTED EXTENSION OF FAULT OBSERVED IN TRENCH 1 ., ~.@. ,. ' ' ' ' ' : I \":'.":i::t • ~ _: _i:_ i ' I ' ,. .. ·:,·. 2a 0+40 0+50 '-..:...:.· ... @ ---,,-----.:::::> / 1+10 1+20 1+30 1+40 1+50 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH FAULT ZONE DOCUMENTED IN LEIGHTON, 1978a 0 ... 60 1+60 ·' I I I t .. . I I I. I.· i · .. <11:7 ~:~~·~<:1?~WlJ>: ~ 0+70 0+80 0+90 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH TRACES OF WILDOMAR FAULT AS DOCUMENTED BY KENNEDY, 19n AND PIONEER, 1980 1+70 1+80 1+90 ~ 1+00 2+00 0 5 10 5 10 15 20 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH PROJECTED EXTENSION OF FAULTS OBSERVED IN TRENCH 2 LOGGED ev: D. 8. SIMON (]) HOLOCENE AlLUVHJM LEGEND TRENCH 4 @ WHITE (1 OYA 812) FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SAND ISP), CROSS-BEDDED @ YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 514) SILTY FINE SAND (SM) WITH SCATTERED FlNE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND UNDULATORY LAMINA OF YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 514) FINE SANDY SILT {Ml) ® HOLOCENE COllUVIUM @ DARK YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 3/6) SANDY SILT (ML) WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL AND ROOTS; POORLY CONSOLIDATED @ VERY PALE BROWN (10YR 7/3) SILTY FINE SAND (SM), WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL. POOR TO MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED, POROUS @ GRAYISH BROWN (10YR 5/2) SILTY SANO (SM) WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVEL, SLIGHTLY TO MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED @LATE PLEISTOCENE BEDROCK -PAUBA FORMATION POORLY INTERBEDDED, LENTICULAR SANDSTONE @ LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 6/4) TO YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 5/4) VERY COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE WITH SCATTERED FINE TO COARSE GRAVELS. ANO GRAVELLY SAND LENSES @ LIGHT GRAY (10YR 712) SANDSTONE, FINE GRAINED. MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED @ LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN (2.5Y 6/4) SANDSTONE. MEDIUM GRAINED, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED @ LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN (10YR 614) SANDSTONE. COARSE GRAINED WITH SCATTERED FINE GRAVELS, MODERATELY CONSOLIDATED @ DARK GRAYISH BROWN (2.5Y 412) CLAYEY SILTSTONE WITH OCCASIONAL CLAYSTONE LENSES, MASSIVE TO POORLY BEDDED. MICACEOUS, MODERATELY TO WELL CONSOLIDATED @ DARK GRAYISH BROWN (10YR 412) CLAYSTONE, HIGHLY SHEARED ~ WEAK TO MODERATELY DEVELOPED ARGILUC HORIZON (BURIED PALEOSOL), WITH PRISMATIC TO =COLUMNAR STRUCTURE. HORIZON SUPERIMPOSED UPON UNDERLYING UNITS. TEXTURE OF HORIZON VARIES WITH UNDERLYING UNIT. COLOR VARIES FROM 10YR 4/3 TO 7.5YR 4/3. NOTE: COLOR DESIGNATIONS IN ACCORDANCE .WITH MUNSELL SOIL COLOR CHARTS (1975, EDITION) TRENCH PROFILE N0 .. 4 FAULT INVESTIGATIQN "C-12" Information Ce,..ter Site, for: Rancho California Development Co. KSM Converse Consultants Inland ·Empire 174002-02 Figure C- 32 December 2, 2019 5 10 25 30 30 35 40 ' ti It! ~ 45 ~ 50 55 so co (.) APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH PROJECTED EXTENSION OF FAULTS OBSERVED IN TRENCH 2 2+10 2+20 STRONG JOINTING 2a N10°E. es•s FeiQ3 COATING -!---- WHITE (10YR 8i1) TO LIGHT GRAY (10YR 7.1) MED. sAND LENS I I I 3+00 3+10 3-1:20 H20 SEEP 2+30 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 4 (CONTINUED} STRONG JOINTING N2"VV. 7'J9W CaC~ COATING APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH FAULT TRACE AS DOCUMENTED BY LEIGHTON, 1982a 2+40 2+50 2+60 2+70 2+80 APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION OF TRENCH WITH PROJECTED ZONE OF FAULT TRACES FROM TRENCH 3 1, 2+90 3+00 WEST 35 Mn02 COATING; ____ _,,.-------.,..-.,..-.,.-~---,.----:-:---- ·-· 3+40 INTRA-PAUBA FORMATION FAULT ORIENTATION: N25°W, 70°SW FAULT TRACE CLOSELY CORRESPONDS TO CONCEALED FAULT TRACE DOCUMENTED IN KENNEDY, 1977 3+50 I 3+60 3+70 3+80 40 45 -50 55 -60 3+90 4+00 4+05 LOGGED BY: D. B. SIMON SEE LEGEND, ORA WING 6 TRENCH PROFILE NO. 4 (CONTINUED) FAULT INVESTIGATION. "C· 12" Information Center Site for: Rancho .California Development Co. · . · Drawing No. KSM 7 HAS Converse Consultants Inland Empire DBS 174002-02 Figure C- 33 December 2, 2019 W-i!; ':t o..-.-~· ... i ® .. ,. 0 "! 96 l 0 + 05 l 1 +00 ,-+~05 I I 1 1-10 r Wttri€ Eto:v"R 'Ii. . .il:j80.SS.SSM··' ~-· ~-,J~~LBS~ll. _._ .. ~-; ' . .. .... t+ 15 .. r, --' ., e ~ -.-~••-~-- ;>~0~AYJSHJ.\8_.QWN_ (10YR ~12_j:SJLT_. YANE SANIJ(SM) WITA SCA...-.;-,R~· nrai:; "'n>MVElS, POROUS~ MEDIUM 'DENSE • I • c;;. i;;;u. BROWN C10YJR S~) SILTY · · . . : . . · .. · · • · . . . ·cy,.,,, u.ao.en n• If..;;.·.; ;a..,..L_ A!~· .• ~ c_ ~)"".VE. f.l!i __ FJNE_ .· _GRAJNED_. . . • filGA ·_ORGANIC . COJ"ffEll."tT vvnu,..n vVJWUL.;•""'" . ...my .~_..!1 . .dc.1~r. • ..,.,.,. .... ~. . · . . , . •v. 1"\n f"\ nQn"J.;c;;.UTVT i .• - . , . -, , •.,' ,. ' j." ~ ! I• •\' •. " . ' ~ ( ~ _,;_ --" k • . , -~ ... : :, ": ~ .,;~ 0+35 l j +35 I . .. 0 + 45 l ~ +i45 : . • I ' . + 50 J ' : ,1 " ' e+ 55 I ;.>· 1 + 55 I 0+60 I 1+60 l 0+65 I 1+65 I •· .. ~ $' :• ;: •• 1 e+ 10 I 1 + 70 I 0+80 I : .·· _: .. ~< :',: •. _:;;·_, : <@· · .. . · .· .· .. ·.··. 2& . . ; . -~ .· . . . . ' ' . ,.. --. ,._ .~ ;4 1 +,75 I .. it +so l 1 +85 i &+90 I 1-1-··oo . I -WEST 8 174002-02 Figure C- 34 December 2, 2019 -"' c ~ ' > ,..... "' ...... .... .... ._, - - Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: GEOLOGIC AITITIJDES .·; .,. -· . ! .•. )' I •. - - - - - - - - - - - Lutheran Church Logged By: ~~~~~~~~- KAB 11940385--01 Elev at ion: TRENCH NO. ~~~~~~~~~ Backhoe Location: Temecula DATE: 6/15/94 DESCRIPTION: SW WALL GEOLOGIC UNIT A. Topsoil: Dark brown, slightly damp, med. dense, porous silly fine to pebbly sand, with rootlets common throughout B. c. D. E. Oualemary Pauba Fonnation (Qps):Brown, sligblly damp, med. dense to dense. gihy clayey fine to pebbly sand, massive, few scattered granitic gravel clasts present, slightly porous Ligbl grey, slighlly damp, med. dense to dense, sandy sill to sill wilh 2 distinct dark grey clay laminations approx. 2 ~ lhick continuous and discreLe with no apparent vertical displacement visible along entire trench length Buried Soil {PaJeo:;ol): Dark brown, slightly damp, med. dense, slighlly porous, sandy silt with pebble sized clasts, common rootcasts and rootlets visible throughout Light brown, slightly damp, med. deme, weakly cemented, pebbly silty clayey sand, massive Qps -- --ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c: (/) n (/) - SURFACE SL:::..O:;.;cP..::E.;..: --.--T""R""E"'N""D"'": --.-"-N"-55'-'E=-----..-----; ' '· "\ ... ' -... \ .. . • ~ ~ . I .,. . . , .~1~·~:' -- • '\ ~ I It> ~ 8 0 'Tl -l t-H i;; :::::y:::J £ a 174002-02 Figure C- 35 December 2, 2019 • ' ' • • J ,... .. .... ~ rt g "" c:' "' 0 ----------Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Hope Lutheran Church Logged By: KAB II 940385 ·O I Elevation: Backhoe Location: Temecula DATE: 6/15/94 DESCRIPTION: Cl. Silts and sandy sill coarsens and thickens to the NE from 65' lo interbcdded ailts, silty sands, and med. to coarse sand pockets and .slringen {Fluvial) Unit Cl still conlaina discrete pair of 2" thick dark grey day laruinafiona, at 75• another din:inctivc 2'" thick clay laminalion appears and is parallel to the other 2, probable channel ovctbank aequencc of sills and clays alternating. --- ----- ENGINEERING PROPERTIES TRENCH NO. c: "' x ~o "' 0 'O "' "' ~.e ~ .... n :::i "" "' ..., "' n ~ '-' rt '-' ..... GEOLOGIC .. c:: rt "' ... '< SW WALL UNIT . "' e.1._~~~~1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-=:::-:-:::-:::-:=!-~~==~~_J...~~'--~-'-~I ~ GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SW Wall SCALE: l" = SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: .. "' . ) . . . - .. . ' _-=,. :::.-- '' ", ,• .-·.~: '' ..... . .-' ' -' ' _,_; ,, . _1 •\ ·~ '~ •• I.. w •) • •• I . ' . @')..' . -' .. ' ' --_,_ ~ --· '-· : , ... _, :•' § - 174002-02 Figure C- 36 December 2, 2019 - -- - ---- - --- - - - -- - - "' 0 -' > ~ "" ...... ..... ..... ~ .... "' .... '§. rt g ..,, i::' "' 0 n .... ., rt "' "' Project Name: Hope Lutheran Church Logged By: KAB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 11940385-01 Elevation: TRENCH NO. I c: en 3: ~o Equipment: Backhoe Location: Temecu1a ., 0 '1j "' en ~~ ~ .... n ::i ... "' ...., "' n -~rt ~ .... GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC "' "' rt ATTITIJDES DATE: 6115194 DESCRIPTION: SW WALL en '1 '< UNIT "' See sheels l & 2 for description of unils . GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SW Wall SCALE: l" = 5" SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: N55E . ' .~ ... \ ........ \·.··-·. ,.·0· --J'. ·, ·. 0 -••• ' .- -i· I • • • -• \ • • • A . ,. 0 • ' ..... I . • 1 .. l • t""' .. .")l_·l .·.·•.I. ~-) ... ·. \ .·.·8 -. -,, ...... \ • \. ·•1 ~. •'-t.~ .\ • \ l-++-+-+-++-+-i-t-+-+:--1;f-t--1-:: -+. --l:-t-+: -+:--1f-1--+:: -P';;::~,.,+"','&::;4.8:\j/+··-"*• ••.. · .· . . •. !i :: • 1111• 1:~ i '\ . ··--·-' ~ . -. ~ -: C\ . . . : -; . . . .-~ -· ~ ,.. :i:: ----_ ·--. ... cl&v-:....i~---._--· -:-·._-. -. -~· ---_·;-_,~ z ,_,.. .. 0 "'-.: ' .: . . . -----. ...:.· . -·--· . -' . ..: .. -- ""'--:_ --·-~ ..... _ · --· ---~ . .:: ~ ,...._ -,. -.... ""'--.clay -,, - - - - ' ' . ' ' • . . . ' . • ' ... ... ... ... . - . - ' ·.-•c •• .. :. '. :· •;.,:-. ; .. :.:. :<> ':' :: '< .. : ·'.>;.:.::: ,·:-: ,:; --- .. - - 174002-02 Figure C- 37 December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Page D-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX D Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (Current Study) The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and the results are presented on the following pages. LGC has reviewed the laboratory test data, procedures and results with respect to the subject site, concurs with, and accepts responsibility as geotechnical engineer of record for their work (laboratory testing). Soil Classification: Soils were classified according the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2487 and D2488. This system uses relies on the Atterberg limits and grain size distribution of a soil. The soil classifications (or group symbol) are shown on the laboratory test data and excavation logs. Atterberg Limits: The liquid and plastic limits (“Atterberg limits”) were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318 for engineering classification of fine-grained material and presented on the following table: Sample Location Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index (%) B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ 29 14 15 B-3 #7 @ 17.5’ 43 22 21 B-3 #8 @ 20’ Non-Plastic B-3 #9 @ 22.5’ 22 19 3 B-4 #A @ 0-2’ Non-Plastic Project No. 174002-02 Page D-2 December 2, 2019 Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (continued) Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with CTM 422. The results are presented below: Sample Location Sample Description Chloride Content (ppm) Potential Degree of Chloride Attack* B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ Medium brown clayey fine to very SAND 190 Negligible B-4 #A @ 0-2’ Medium red brown silty fine to medium SAND 135 Negligible * Extrapolation from California Test Method 532, Method for Estimating the Time to Corrosion of Reinforced Concrete Substructures and previous experience. Grain Size Distribution: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve. The portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D422 (CTM 202). Where an appreciable amount of fines were encountered (greater than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) a hydrometer analysis was done to determine the distribution of soil particles passing the No. 200 sieve. The sieve and hydrometer curves are presented on the attached figures at the end of this appendix. The percent passing the #200 sieve is presented on the following table: Sample Location Sample Description Percent Passing #200 Sieve B-3 #4 @ 10’ Medium brown clayey very fine to fine SAND 30 B-3 #5 @ 12.5’ Gray brown silty to clayey fine SAND 48 B-3 #6 @ 15’ Medium orange brown fine to medium SAND 14 B-3 #7 @ 17.5’ Black silty CLAY 66 B-3 #8 @ 20’ Medium gray brown silty very fine SAND 39 B-3 #9 @ 22.5’ Medium gray brown silty very fine SAND 38 B-3 #10 @ 25’ Medium gray brown silty very fine to fine SAND 33 Project No. 174002-02 Page D-3 December 2, 2019 Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (continued) Consolidation: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples (per Modified ASTM Test Method D2435). Samples (2.42 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The samples were allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented on the attached figures at the end of this appendix Hydro-Consolidation Tests: Hydro-consolidation tests (collapse) were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples (per ASTM D4546). Samples were placed in a consolidometer and a load approximately equal to the in-situ overburden pressure was applied. Water was then added to the sample and the percent hydro-consolidation under the applied load was measured. The percent for the load was calculated as the ratio of the amount of vertical deformation to the original sample height. The percent hydroconsolidation is presented below: Sample Location Sample Description Percent Hydroconsolidation* B-2 #2 @ 5’ Medium brown silty fine SAND (Qya) 0.15 B-2 #3 @ 7.5’ Medium brown silty fine SAND (Qya) 0.91 B-4 #2 @ 5’ Medium red-brown silty fine to medium SAND (Qya) 0.07 B-5 #2 @ 5’ Medium red-brown silty fine to medium SAND (Qya) 0.14 * Note: Positive values of hydro-consolidation represent collapse of the soil structure, while negative values represent heave (or swelling) or the soil structure. Direct Shear (Remolded or Undisturbed): Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inch per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test results are presented on the following table and/or on the attached figures at the end of this appendix. Sample Location Sample Description Friction Angle (degrees) Apparent Cohesion (psf) B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ Medium brown clayey fine to very SAND 30 48 Project No. 174002-02 Page D-4 December 2, 2019 Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (continued) Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, UBC Standard No. 18-I-B and/or ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ Medium brown clayey fine to very SAND 33 Low B-4 #A @ 0-2’ Medium red brown silty fine to medium SAND 0 Very Low Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples. Maximum Dry Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ Medium brown clayey fine to very SAND 131.5 8.5 Project No. 174002-02 Page D-5 December 2, 2019 Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (continued) Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. As results of soil’s resistivity decreases corrosivity increases. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) Potential Degree of Corrosivity* B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ Medium brown clayey fine to very SAND 7.61 1,800 Moderately Corrosive B-4 #A @ 0-2’ Medium red brown silty fine to medium SAND 6.08 27,000 Negligible * National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1984, Corrosion Basics. Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Sulfate Content (% by weight) Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack* B-1 #A @ 0-2.5’ Medium brown clayey fine to very SAND 0.001 Negligible B-4 #A @ 0-2’ Medium red brown silty fine to medium SAND 0.001 Negligible * Per ACI 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 (ACI, 2008). 174002-02 Figure D - 1 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 2 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 3 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 4 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 5 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 6 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 7 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 8 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 9 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 10 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 11 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 12 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 13 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 14 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure D - 15 December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Page E-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX E Previous Laboratory Test Results (by Others) 174002-02 Figure E - 1 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure E - 2 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure E - 3 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure E - 4 December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Page F-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX F Seismic Parameters and Liquefaction Analysis 174002-02 Figure F - 1 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 2 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 3 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 4 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 5 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 6 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 7 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 8 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 9 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 10 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 11 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 12 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 13 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 14 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 15 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 16 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 17 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure F - 18 December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Page G-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX G Slope Stability Analysis 1.0 Approach Slope stability analyses were conducted using the computer program Slope W. The Bishop Method was utilized to evaluate rotational failure modes for the analyzed sections. A coefficient of horizontal acceleration of 0.318g (FS of 1.0) was used to evaluate the pseudostatic stability analyses. After a review of the latest grading plans and based on existing geotechnical investigation, four cross-sections (A-A’, B-B’, and C-C’) were considered representative and most critical with regards slope stability analysis. The minimum Factor of safety (FS) for the analyses was considered to be 1.5 for the global stability/static conditions while a FS of 1.0 was utilized for pseudostatic conditions. The desired FS was met for all the analyzed sections in both static and pseudostatic conditions. 2.0 Design Shear Strength The shear strength parameters used in slope st ability calculations are based on laboratory testing of on-site materials and nearby sites and are summarized in Table B-1 while a summary of slope stability calculations for each cross-section are presented in Table B-2. Computer printouts of each analysis are attached to this appendix. Table B-1 Design Shear Strength Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses Material Cohesion (lb/ft2) Angle of Internal Friction (Degrees) Saturated Bulk Density (lb/ft3) Pauba Formation (Qps) 400 36 120 Fill (ultimate) 50 30 128 Fill (peak) 150 30 128 Project No. 174002-02 Page G-2 December 2, 2019 Table B-2 Summary of Slope Stability Analyses Cross- Section Condition Factor of Safety Remarks A-A’ Global Stability, Static 1.50 Modified Bishop Method A-A’ Global Stability, Pseudostatic 1.06 Modified Bishop Method B-B’ Global Stability, Static 2.88 Modified Bishop Method B-B’ Global Stability, Pseudostatic 1.61 Modified Bishop Method C-C’ Global Stability, Static 1.69 Modified Bishop Method C-C’ Global Stability, Pseudostatic 1.12 Modified Bishop Method Qps Fill 1.50 El e v a t i o n 1,000 1,040 1,080 1,120 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 1,000 1,040 1,080 1,120 174002-02 ACR/RKW Dec. 2019 Project No: Eng./Geo.: Date: LGC Valley, Inc 2420 Grand Avenue, Vista, CA 92081 Phone 760-599-7000, Fax 760-599-7007 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Rancho Highlands Section A-A SSA.gsz 12/03/2019 08:58:35 AM Rancho Highlands Temecula, CA Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Name: Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° 1 - Rotational Static Global Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 A A' 174002-02 Figure G - 1 December 2, 2019 1 - Rotational Static Global Report generated using GeoStudio 2019 R2. Copyright © 1991-2019 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Title: Slope Stability Analyses Cross-section Revision Number: 501 Date: 12/03/2019 Time: 08:58:35 AM Tool Version: 10.1.0.18696 File Name: Rancho Highlands Section A-A SSA.gsz Directory: C:\Users\ARich\Desktop\Rancho Highlands\ Last Solved Date: 12/03/2019 Last Solved Time: 08:58:50 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings 1 - Rotational Static Global Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Bishop Settings PWP Conditions from: (none) Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.2 Materials Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf 174002-02 Figure G - 2 December 2, 2019 Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (179.03929, 1,046.0712) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (210.2982, 1,054.2499) ft Left-Zone Increment: 100 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (237.41812, 1,067.7096) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (302.36582, 1,077.5546) ft Right-Zone Increment: 100 Radius Increments: 15 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.12373, 1,042.8372) ft Right Coordinate: (527.00517, 999.928) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Geometry Name: Default Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X Y Point 1 0.23 ft 1,049.0301 ft Point 2 89.27143 ft 1,052.2794 ft Point 3 109.97264 ft 1,049.659 ft Point 4 126.14923 ft 1,046.0712 ft Point 5 175.22289 ft 1,046.0712 ft Point 6 190.04795 ft 1,046.0712 ft Point 7 201.45907 ft 1,049.863 ft Point 8 256.05553 ft 1,076.9594 ft Point 9 374.71958 ft 1,078.4846 ft Point 10 375.3767 ft 1,079.258 ft Point 11 398.2436 ft 1,079.6057 ft Point 12 462.39855 ft 1,080.3841 ft Point 13 462.39855 ft 1,081.367 ft Point 14 468.75215 ft 1,083.5609 ft Point 15 526.98418 ft 1,085.2937 ft Point 16 527.00517 ft 999.928 ft Point 17 0.12373 ft 999.928 ft Point 18 0.12373 ft 1,042.8372 ft Point 19 384.96565 ft 1,074.5368 ft Point 20 370.49882 ft 1,069.2899 ft Point 21 355.21312 ft 1,064.9226 ft Point 22 346.58963 ft 1,062.5772 ft Point 23 335.77237 ft 1,060.4289 ft Point 24 329.12531 ft 1,058.9883 ft Point 25 314.21366 ft 1,056.9158 ft 174002-02 Figure G - 3 December 2, 2019 Point 26 304.30626 ft 1,055.5005 ft Point 27 298.87235 ft 1,054.6917 ft Point 28 295.2329 ft 1,053.2511 ft Point 29 289.26824 ft 1,050.9469 ft Point 30 279.9759 ft 1,048.078 ft Point 31 274.93789 ft 1,047.1853 ft Point 32 250.70013 ft 1,045.1634 ft Point 33 230.84321 ft 1,044.5968 ft Point 34 226.35005 ft 1,044.2107 ft Point 35 222.19038 ft 1,042.947 ft Point 36 218.52214 ft 1,041.42 ft Point 37 215.4331 ft 1,038.8751 ft Point 38 210.43095 ft 1,035.4526 ft Point 39 204.69165 ft 1,033.048 ft Point 40 194.14327 ft 1,032.0154 ft Point 41 180.1753 ft 1,032.0154 ft Point 42 173.05237 ft 1,032.3811 ft Point 43 163.82502 ft 1,033.2762 ft Point 44 151.1914 ft 1,036.1103 ft Point 45 146.45618 ft 1,037.5763 ft Point 46 139.43562 ft 1,041.2972 ft Point 47 134.24042 ft 1,045.1058 ft Point 48 133.25754 ft 1,046.0712 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Qps 1,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,4,3,2 30,446 ft² Region 2 Fill 11,10,9,8,7,6,5,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40,39,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19 4,553.9 ft² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 160420 of 163216 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 102,373 Factor of Safety: 1.50 Volume: 293.12823 ft³ Weight: 37,520.414 lbf Resisting Moment: 2,183,806.8 lbf·ft Activating Moment: 1,458,568.6 lbf·ft Slip Rank: 1 of 163,216 slip surfaces Exit: (199.27115, 1,049.136) ft Entry: (258.741, 1,076.9939) ft Radius: 92.064018 ft Center: (192.52073, 1,140.9522) ft Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Frictional Strength Cohesive Strength Suction Strength Base Material Slice 1 200.36511 ft 1,049.2295 ft 0 psf 31.024768 psf 17.912158 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 2 202.43401 ft 1,049.4287 ft 0 psf 110.05316 psf 63.539222 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 3 204.38388 ft 1,049.661 ft 0 psf 198.65725 psf 114.69482 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 4 206.33375 ft 1,049.9356 ft 0 psf 280.81371 psf 162.12787 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 5 208.28363 ft 1,050.253 ft 0 psf 356.59605 psf 205.88083 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 6 210.2335 ft 1,050.6136 ft 0 psf 426.06679 psf 245.98977 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 7 212.18337 ft 1,051.0179 ft 0 psf 489.27787 psf 282.48471 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 8 214.13325 ft 1,051.4666 ft 0 psf 546.27103 psf 315.38972 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 9 216.08312 ft 1,051.9602 ft 0 psf 597.07801 psf 344.72315 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 10 218.033 ft 1,052.4995 ft 0 psf 641.7208 psf 370.49768 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 11 219.98287 ft 1,053.0854 ft 0 psf 680.21173 psf 392.72043 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill 174002-02 Figure G - 4 December 2, 2019 Slice 12 221.93274 ft 1,053.7188 ft 0 psf 712.55353 psf 411.39297 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 13 223.88262 ft 1,054.4008 ft 0 psf 738.73929 psf 426.51133 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 14 225.83249 ft 1,055.1325 ft 0 psf 758.75245 psf 438.06593 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 15 227.78236 ft 1,055.9152 ft 0 psf 772.56658 psf 446.04153 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 16 229.73224 ft 1,056.7503 ft 0 psf 780.14523 psf 450.41706 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 17 231.68211 ft 1,057.6395 ft 0 psf 781.44159 psf 451.16551 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 18 233.63198 ft 1,058.5843 ft 0 psf 776.39818 psf 448.2537 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 19 235.58186 ft 1,059.5869 ft 0 psf 764.9464 psf 441.64201 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 20 237.53173 ft 1,060.6494 ft 0 psf 747.00605 psf 431.28414 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 21 239.4816 ft 1,061.7741 ft 0 psf 722.48471 psf 417.12674 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 22 241.43148 ft 1,062.9637 ft 0 psf 691.2771 psf 399.10902 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 23 243.38135 ft 1,064.2214 ft 0 psf 653.26438 psf 377.16237 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 24 245.33123 ft 1,065.5505 ft 0 psf 608.31331 psf 351.20985 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 25 247.2811 ft 1,066.9548 ft 0 psf 556.2754 psf 321.16575 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 26 249.23097 ft 1,068.4387 ft 0 psf 496.98614 psf 286.93508 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 27 251.18085 ft 1,070.0073 ft 0 psf 430.26411 psf 248.4131 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 28 253.13072 ft 1,071.6663 ft 0 psf 355.91044 psf 205.48499 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 29 255.08059 ft 1,073.4223 ft 0 psf 273.70844 psf 158.02564 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 30 257.39827 ft 1,075.6597 ft 0 psf 102.61047 psf 59.242183 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill 174002-02 Figure G - 5 December 2, 2019 Qps Fill Seismic 1.06 El e v a t i o n 1,000 1,040 1,080 1,120 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 1,000 1,040 1,080 1,120 174002-02 ACR/RKW Dec. 2019 Project No: Eng./Geo.: Date: LGC Valley, Inc 2420 Grand Avenue, Vista, CA 92081 Phone 760-599-7000, Fax 760-599-7007 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Rancho Highlands Section A-A SSA.gsz 12/03/2019 08:58:35 AM Rancho Highlands Temecula, CA Name: Fill Seismic Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 150 psf Phi': 30 ° Name: Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.318 A A' 174002-02 Figure G - 6 December 2, 2019 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Report generated using GeoStudio 2019 R2. Copyright © 1991-2019 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Title: Slope Stability Analyses Cross-section Revision Number: 501 Date: 12/03/2019 Time: 08:58:35 AM Tool Version: 10.1.0.18696 File Name: Rancho Highlands Section A-A SSA.gsz Directory: C:\Users\ARich\Desktop\Rancho Highlands\ Last Solved Date: 12/03/2019 Last Solved Time: 08:58:50 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: 1 - Rotational Static Global Method: Bishop Settings PWP Conditions from: (none) Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Critical Slip Surfaces from Other Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.2 Materials Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Fill Seismic Model: Mohr-Coulomb 174002-02 Figure G - 7 December 2, 2019 Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 150 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.12373, 1,042.8372) ft Right Coordinate: (527.00517, 999.928) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.318 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Geometry Name: Default Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X Y Point 1 0.23 ft 1,049.0301 ft Point 2 89.27143 ft 1,052.2794 ft Point 3 109.97264 ft 1,049.659 ft Point 4 126.14923 ft 1,046.0712 ft Point 5 175.22289 ft 1,046.0712 ft Point 6 190.04795 ft 1,046.0712 ft Point 7 201.45907 ft 1,049.863 ft Point 8 256.05553 ft 1,076.9594 ft Point 9 374.71958 ft 1,078.4846 ft Point 10 375.3767 ft 1,079.258 ft Point 11 398.2436 ft 1,079.6057 ft Point 12 462.39855 ft 1,080.3841 ft Point 13 462.39855 ft 1,081.367 ft Point 14 468.75215 ft 1,083.5609 ft Point 15 526.98418 ft 1,085.2937 ft Point 16 527.00517 ft 999.928 ft Point 17 0.12373 ft 999.928 ft Point 18 0.12373 ft 1,042.8372 ft Point 19 384.96565 ft 1,074.5368 ft Point 20 370.49882 ft 1,069.2899 ft Point 21 355.21312 ft 1,064.9226 ft Point 22 346.58963 ft 1,062.5772 ft Point 23 335.77237 ft 1,060.4289 ft Point 24 329.12531 ft 1,058.9883 ft Point 25 314.21366 ft 1,056.9158 ft Point 26 304.30626 ft 1,055.5005 ft Point 27 298.87235 ft 1,054.6917 ft Point 28 295.2329 ft 1,053.2511 ft Point 29 289.26824 ft 1,050.9469 ft Point 30 279.9759 ft 1,048.078 ft Point 31 274.93789 ft 1,047.1853 ft Point 32 250.70013 ft 1,045.1634 ft Point 33 230.84321 ft 1,044.5968 ft Point 34 226.35005 ft 1,044.2107 ft Point 35 222.19038 ft 1,042.947 ft Point 36 218.52214 ft 1,041.42 ft 174002-02 Figure G - 8 December 2, 2019 Point 37 215.4331 ft 1,038.8751 ft Point 38 210.43095 ft 1,035.4526 ft Point 39 204.69165 ft 1,033.048 ft Point 40 194.14327 ft 1,032.0154 ft Point 41 180.1753 ft 1,032.0154 ft Point 42 173.05237 ft 1,032.3811 ft Point 43 163.82502 ft 1,033.2762 ft Point 44 151.1914 ft 1,036.1103 ft Point 45 146.45618 ft 1,037.5763 ft Point 46 139.43562 ft 1,041.2972 ft Point 47 134.24042 ft 1,045.1058 ft Point 48 133.25754 ft 1,046.0712 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Qps 1,18,17,16,15,14,13,12,11,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,4,3,2 30,446 ft² Region 2 Fill Seismic 11,10,9,8,7,6,5,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40,39,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19 4,553.9 ft² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 1 of 1 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 1 Factor of Safety: 1.06 Volume: 293.12823 ft³ Weight: 38,106.67 lbf Resisting Moment: 2,590,694.3 lbf·ft Activating Moment: 2,440,653.8 lbf·ft Slip Rank: 1 of 1 slip surfaces Exit: (199.27115, 1,049.136) ft Entry: (258.741, 1,076.9939) ft Radius: 92.064018 ft Center: (192.52073, 1,140.9522) ft Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Frictional Strength Cohesive Strength Suction Strength Base Material Slice 1 200.36511 ft 1,049.2295 ft 0 psf 23.050587 psf 13.308263 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 2 202.43401 ft 1,049.4287 ft 0 psf 99.962126 psf 57.71316 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 3 204.38388 ft 1,049.661 ft 0 psf 186.12017 psf 107.45653 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 4 206.33375 ft 1,049.9356 ft 0 psf 265.38799 psf 153.22183 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 5 208.28363 ft 1,050.253 ft 0 psf 337.89742 psf 195.08517 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 6 210.2335 ft 1,050.6136 ft 0 psf 403.76615 psf 233.1145 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 7 212.18337 ft 1,051.0179 ft 0 psf 463.09868 psf 267.37015 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 8 214.13325 ft 1,051.4666 ft 0 psf 515.987 psf 297.90523 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 9 216.08312 ft 1,051.9602 ft 0 psf 562.5113 psf 324.76605 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 10 218.033 ft 1,052.4995 ft 0 psf 602.74051 psf 347.9924 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 11 219.98287 ft 1,053.0854 ft 0 psf 636.73277 psf 367.61784 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 12 221.93274 ft 1,053.7188 ft 0 psf 664.5358 psf 383.66992 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 13 223.88262 ft 1,054.4008 ft 0 psf 686.18725 psf 396.17039 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 14 225.83249 ft 1,055.1325 ft 0 psf 701.71493 psf 405.1353 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 15 227.78236 ft 1,055.9152 ft 0 psf 711.137 psf 410.57514 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 16 229.73224 ft 1,056.7503 ft 0 psf 714.46213 psf 412.4949 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 17 231.68211 ft 1,057.6395 ft 0 psf 711.68955 psf 410.89415 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 18 233.63198 ft 1,058.5843 ft 0 psf 702.80908 psf 405.76701 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 19 235.58186 ft 1,059.5869 ft 0 psf 687.80118 psf 397.1022 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 20 237.53173 ft 1,060.6494 ft 0 psf 666.63684 psf 384.88296 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 21 239.4816 ft 1,061.7741 ft 0 psf 639.27757 psf 369.08708 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 22 241.43148 ft 1,062.9637 ft 0 psf 605.67533 psf 349.68682 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic 174002-02 Figure G - 9 December 2, 2019 Slice 23 243.38135 ft 1,064.2214 ft 0 psf 565.77246 psf 326.64888 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 24 245.33123 ft 1,065.5505 ft 0 psf 519.50169 psf 299.93444 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 25 247.2811 ft 1,066.9548 ft 0 psf 466.78624 psf 269.49916 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 26 249.23097 ft 1,068.4387 ft 0 psf 407.54007 psf 235.29337 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 27 251.18085 ft 1,070.0073 ft 0 psf 341.66843 psf 197.26236 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 28 253.13072 ft 1,071.6663 ft 0 psf 269.0688 psf 155.34694 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 29 255.08059 ft 1,073.4223 ft 0 psf 189.63265 psf 109.48446 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 30 257.39827 ft 1,075.6597 ft 0 psf 28.554979 psf 16.486225 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic 174002-02 Figure G - 10 December 2, 2019 Qps Fill Fill 2.88 El e v a t i o n 980 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 980 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 174002-02 ACR/RKW Dec. 2019 Project No: Eng./Geo.: Date: LGC Valley, Inc 2420 Grand Avenue, Vista, CA 92081 Phone 760-599-7000, Fax 760-599-7007 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Rancho Highlands Section B-B SSA.gsz 12/03/2019 10:57:31 AM Rancho Highlands Temecula, CA Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Name: Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° 1 - Rotational Static Global Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 B B' 174002-02 Figure G - 11 December 2, 2019 1 - Rotational Static Global Report generated using GeoStudio 2019 R2. Copyright © 1991-2019 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Title: Slope Stability Analyses Cross-section Revision Number: 484 Date: 12/03/2019 Time: 10:57:31 AM Tool Version: 10.1.0.18696 File Name: Rancho Highlands Section B-B SSA.gsz Directory: C:\Users\ARich\Desktop\Rancho Highlands\ Last Solved Date: 12/03/2019 Last Solved Time: 10:57:46 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings 1 - Rotational Static Global Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Bishop Settings PWP Conditions from: (none) Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.2 174002-02 Figure G - 12 December 2, 2019 Materials Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (234.98946, 1,105.5682) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (304.063, 1,123.328) ft Left-Zone Increment: 100 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (309.32555, 1,125.989) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (385.71085, 1,137.1118) ft Right-Zone Increment: 100 Radius Increments: 15 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.30928, 1,086.3516) ft Right Coordinate: (440.14083, 1,110.269) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Geometry Name: Default Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft 174002-02 Figure G - 13 December 2, 2019 Points X Y Point 1 440.14083 ft 1,110.269 ft Point 2 440.14083 ft 980.6389 ft Point 3 0.36668 ft 980.6389 ft Point 4 0.36668 ft 1,083.0954 ft Point 5 52.87964 ft 1,083.0954 ft Point 6 66.49993 ft 1,084.327 ft Point 7 78.36455 ft 1,085.7099 ft Point 8 100.16488 ft 1,090.0773 ft Point 9 110.64651 ft 1,088.6215 ft Point 10 120.94616 ft 1,088.6215 ft Point 11 132.08289 ft 1,089.8225 ft Point 12 143.54717 ft 1,092.6249 ft Point 13 148.49683 ft 1,094.4082 ft Point 14 157.70464 ft 1,094.4082 ft Point 15 174.62374 ft 1,096.8787 ft Point 16 209.00348 ft 1,103.6918 ft Point 17 220.5661 ft 1,105.5682 ft Point 18 268.94051 ft 1,105.5682 ft Point 19 322.34783 ft 1,132.4824 ft Point 20 333.96977 ft 1,135.1971 ft Point 21 346.74395 ft 1,138.1059 ft Point 22 362.8182 ft 1,141.1388 ft Point 23 367.64048 ft 1,141.8667 ft Point 24 370.91599 ft 1,141.8667 ft Point 25 383.22947 ft 1,138.1969 ft Point 26 399.35427 ft 1,131.1455 ft Point 27 414.34175 ft 1,124.0435 ft Point 28 425.5634 ft 1,118.6601 ft Point 29 316.34044 ft 1,129.5361 ft Point 30 322.35076 ft 1,129.4684 ft Point 31 201.35155 ft 1,105.5682 ft Point 32 196.29968 ft 1,103.0546 ft Point 33 123.93242 ft 1,103.0546 ft Point 34 102.43549 ft 1,094.4182 ft Point 35 99.63429 ft 1,093.4072 ft Point 36 70.29541 ft 1,086.9202 ft Point 37 68.84742 ft 1,086.4832 ft Point 38 6.48152 ft 1,087.0536 ft Point 39 0.30928 ft 1,086.3516 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Qps 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,29,30,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28 55,427 ft² Region 2 Fill 29,19,30 9.0575 ft² Region 3 Fill 17,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,186 ft² 174002-02 Figure G - 14 December 2, 2019 Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 159834 of 163216 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 74,952 Factor of Safety: 2.88 Volume: 699.76583 ft³ Weight: 84,044.324 lbf Resisting Moment: 6,111,171.4 lbf·ft Activating Moment: 2,119,954.8 lbf·ft Slip Rank: 1 of 163,216 slip surfaces Exit: (268.71131, 1,105.5682) ft Entry: (337.65775, 1,136.0369) ft Radius: 67.323671 ft Center: (280.63571, 1,171.8274) ft Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Frictional Strength Cohesive Strength Suction Strength Base Material Slice 1 268.82591 ft 1,105.5478 ft 0 psf 28.236018 psf 20.514668 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 2 270.06908 ft 1,105.348 ft 0 psf 121.61932 psf 88.36161 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 3 272.32622 ft 1,105.0282 ft 0 psf 296.58631 psf 215.48256 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 4 274.58336 ft 1,104.7859 ft 0 psf 459.05941 psf 333.52619 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 5 276.8405 ft 1,104.6203 ft 0 psf 609.48238 psf 442.81487 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 6 279.09764 ft 1,104.5308 ft 0 psf 748.22758 psf 543.61916 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 7 281.35478 ft 1,104.5171 ft 0 psf 875.60418 psf 636.16368 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 8 283.61192 ft 1,104.5791 ft 0 psf 991.86464 psf 720.63184 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 9 285.86906 ft 1,104.717 ft 0 psf 1,097.2096 psf 797.16947 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 10 288.1262 ft 1,104.9314 ft 0 psf 1,191.792 psf 865.88754 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 11 290.38334 ft 1,105.2229 ft 0 psf 1,275.7191 psf 926.86419 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 12 292.64047 ft 1,105.5926 ft 0 psf 1,349.0553 psf 980.14608 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 13 294.89761 ft 1,106.0419 ft 0 psf 1,411.8225 psf 1,025.7491 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 14 297.15475 ft 1,106.5722 ft 0 psf 1,464.0002 psf 1,063.6584 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 15 299.41189 ft 1,107.1857 ft 0 psf 1,505.5251 psf 1,093.828 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps 174002-02 Figure G - 15 December 2, 2019 Slice 16 301.66903 ft 1,107.8848 ft 0 psf 1,536.2897 psf 1,116.1798 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 17 303.92617 ft 1,108.6722 ft 0 psf 1,556.1394 psf 1,130.6015 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 18 306.18331 ft 1,109.5514 ft 0 psf 1,564.8694 psf 1,136.9442 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 19 308.44045 ft 1,110.5262 ft 0 psf 1,562.2194 psf 1,135.0188 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 20 310.69759 ft 1,111.6014 ft 0 psf 1,547.8678 psf 1,124.5918 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 21 312.95473 ft 1,112.7825 ft 0 psf 1,521.4231 psf 1,105.3786 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 22 315.21187 ft 1,114.0759 ft 0 psf 1,482.4132 psf 1,077.0363 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 23 317.34167 ft 1,115.4029 ft 0 psf 1,435.829 psf 1,043.1908 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 24 319.34413 ft 1,116.7581 ft 0 psf 1,382.4729 psf 1,004.4254 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 25 321.3466 ft 1,118.2222 ft 0 psf 1,317.6398 psf 957.32138 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 26 323.5112 ft 1,119.944 ft 0 psf 1,179.708 psf 857.10806 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 27 325.83646 ft 1,121.9585 ft 0 psf 1,007.5455 psf 732.02468 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 28 328.16026 ft 1,124.1703 ft 0 psf 818.91396 psf 594.97582 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 29 330.48407 ft 1,126.6099 ft 0 psf 612.24851 psf 444.82458 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 30 332.80787 ft 1,129.3167 ft 0 psf 385.75981 psf 280.27091 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 31 334.89177 ft 1,131.9987 ft 0 psf 165.21208 psf 120.03361 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 32 336.73576 ft 1,134.6458 ft 0 psf -47.890095 psf -34.794191 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps 174002-02 Figure G - 16 December 2, 2019 Qps Fill Fill 1.61 El e v a t i o n 980 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 980 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 174002-02 ACR/RKW Dec. 2019 Project No: Eng./Geo.: Date: LGC Valley, Inc 2420 Grand Avenue, Vista, CA 92081 Phone 760-599-7000, Fax 760-599-7007 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Rancho Highlands Section B-B SSA.gsz 12/03/2019 10:57:31 AM Rancho Highlands Temecula, CA Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Name: Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.318 B B' 174002-02 Figure G - 17 December 2, 2019 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Report generated using GeoStudio 2019 R2. Copyright © 1991-2019 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Title: Slope Stability Analyses Cross-section Revision Number: 484 Date: 12/03/2019 Time: 10:57:31 AM Tool Version: 10.1.0.18696 File Name: Rancho Highlands Section B-B SSA.gsz Directory: C:\Users\ARich\Desktop\Rancho Highlands\ Last Solved Date: 12/03/2019 Last Solved Time: 10:57:46 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: 1 - Rotational Static Global Method: Bishop Settings PWP Conditions from: (none) Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Critical Slip Surfaces from Other Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.2 174002-02 Figure G - 18 December 2, 2019 Materials Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.30928, 1,086.3516) ft Right Coordinate: (440.14083, 1,110.269) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.318 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Geometry Name: Default Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X Y Point 1 440.14083 ft 1,110.269 ft Point 2 440.14083 ft 980.6389 ft Point 3 0.36668 ft 980.6389 ft Point 4 0.36668 ft 1,083.0954 ft Point 5 52.87964 ft 1,083.0954 ft Point 6 66.49993 ft 1,084.327 ft Point 7 78.36455 ft 1,085.7099 ft Point 8 100.16488 ft 1,090.0773 ft Point 9 110.64651 ft 1,088.6215 ft Point 10 120.94616 ft 1,088.6215 ft 174002-02 Figure G - 19 December 2, 2019 Point 11 132.08289 ft 1,089.8225 ft Point 12 143.54717 ft 1,092.6249 ft Point 13 148.49683 ft 1,094.4082 ft Point 14 157.70464 ft 1,094.4082 ft Point 15 174.62374 ft 1,096.8787 ft Point 16 209.00348 ft 1,103.6918 ft Point 17 220.5661 ft 1,105.5682 ft Point 18 268.94051 ft 1,105.5682 ft Point 19 322.34783 ft 1,132.4824 ft Point 20 333.96977 ft 1,135.1971 ft Point 21 346.74395 ft 1,138.1059 ft Point 22 362.8182 ft 1,141.1388 ft Point 23 367.64048 ft 1,141.8667 ft Point 24 370.91599 ft 1,141.8667 ft Point 25 383.22947 ft 1,138.1969 ft Point 26 399.35427 ft 1,131.1455 ft Point 27 414.34175 ft 1,124.0435 ft Point 28 425.5634 ft 1,118.6601 ft Point 29 316.34044 ft 1,129.5361 ft Point 30 322.35076 ft 1,129.4684 ft Point 31 201.35155 ft 1,105.5682 ft Point 32 196.29968 ft 1,103.0546 ft Point 33 123.93242 ft 1,103.0546 ft Point 34 102.43549 ft 1,094.4182 ft Point 35 99.63429 ft 1,093.4072 ft Point 36 70.29541 ft 1,086.9202 ft Point 37 68.84742 ft 1,086.4832 ft Point 38 6.48152 ft 1,087.0536 ft Point 39 0.30928 ft 1,086.3516 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Qps 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,29,30,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28 55,427 ft² Region 2 Fill 29,19,30 9.0575 ft² Region 3 Fill 17,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,186 ft² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 1 of 1 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 1 Factor of Safety: 1.61 Volume: 699.76583 ft³ Weight: 84,044.324 lbf Resisting Moment: 5,732,888.1 lbf·ft Activating Moment: 3,561,858.9 lbf·ft 174002-02 Figure G - 20 December 2, 2019 Slip Rank: 1 of 1 slip surfaces Exit: (268.71131, 1,105.5682) ft Entry: (337.65775, 1,136.0369) ft Radius: 67.323671 ft Center: (280.63571, 1,171.8274) ft Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Frictional Strength Cohesive Strength Suction Strength Base Material Slice 1 268.82591 ft 1,105.5478 ft 0 psf 47.434312 psf 34.463045 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 2 270.06908 ft 1,105.348 ft 0 psf 141.33504 psf 102.68592 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 3 272.32622 ft 1,105.0282 ft 0 psf 315.73339 psf 229.39373 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 4 274.58336 ft 1,104.7859 ft 0 psf 475.37217 psf 345.3781 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 5 276.8405 ft 1,104.6203 ft 0 psf 621.03518 psf 451.20847 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 6 279.09764 ft 1,104.5308 ft 0 psf 753.38752 psf 547.36807 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 7 281.35478 ft 1,104.5171 ft 0 psf 872.9931 psf 634.26662 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 8 283.61192 ft 1,104.5791 ft 0 psf 980.3285 psf 712.25035 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 9 285.86906 ft 1,104.717 ft 0 psf 1,075.7939 psf 781.61003 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 10 288.1262 ft 1,104.9314 ft 0 psf 1,159.7219 psf 842.58725 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 11 290.38334 ft 1,105.2229 ft 0 psf 1,232.384 psf 895.37942 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 12 292.64047 ft 1,105.5926 ft 0 psf 1,293.9966 psf 940.14359 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 13 294.89761 ft 1,106.0419 ft 0 psf 1,344.7243 psf 976.99941 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 14 297.15475 ft 1,106.5722 ft 0 psf 1,384.6831 psf 1,006.0312 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 15 299.41189 ft 1,107.1857 ft 0 psf 1,413.9424 psf 1,027.2893 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 16 301.66903 ft 1,107.8848 ft 0 psf 1,432.5255 psf 1,040.7907 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 17 303.92617 ft 1,108.6722 ft 0 psf 1,440.4102 psf 1,046.5193 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 18 306.18331 ft 1,109.5514 ft 0 psf 1,437.5272 psf 1,044.4246 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 19 308.44045 ft 1,110.5262 ft 0 psf 1,423.7585 psf 1,034.4211 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 20 310.69759 ft 1,111.6014 ft 0 psf 1,398.9345 psf 1,016.3854 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 21 312.95473 ft 1,112.7825 ft 0 psf 1,362.829 psf 990.15322 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 315.21187 1,114.0759 0 955.51531 174002-02 Figure G - 21 December 2, 2019 22 ft ft psf 1,315.154 psf psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 23 317.34167 ft 1,115.4029 ft 0 psf 1,261.3037 psf 916.39075 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 24 319.34413 ft 1,116.7581 ft 0 psf 1,202.0918 psf 873.37084 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 25 321.3466 ft 1,118.2222 ft 0 psf 1,132.6877 psf 822.94577 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 26 323.5112 ft 1,119.944 ft 0 psf 997.22075 psf 724.52328 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 27 325.83646 ft 1,121.9585 ft 0 psf 831.70884 psf 604.27184 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 28 328.16026 ft 1,124.1703 ft 0 psf 653.46642 psf 474.77115 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 29 330.48407 ft 1,126.6099 ft 0 psf 461.65629 psf 335.41293 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 30 332.80787 ft 1,129.3167 ft 0 psf 255.45312 psf 185.59755 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 31 334.89177 ft 1,131.9987 ft 0 psf 58.644399 psf 42.60765 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 32 336.73576 ft 1,134.6458 ft 0 psf -127.64896 psf -92.7424 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps 174002-02 Figure G - 22 December 2, 2019 Fill Qps 1.69 El e v a t i o n 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 1,180 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 1,180 174002-02 ACR/RKW Dec. 2019 Project No: Eng./Geo.: Date: LGC Valley, Inc 2420 Grand Avenue, Vista, CA 92081 Phone 760-599-7000, Fax 760-599-7007 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Rancho Highlands Section C-C SSA.gsz 12/03/2019 10:37:39 AM Rancho Highlands Temecula, CA Name: Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Name: Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° 1 - Rotational Static Global Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 CC' 174002-02 Figure G - 23 December 2, 2019 1 - Rotational Static Global Report generated using GeoStudio 2019 R2. Copyright © 1991-2019 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Title: Slope Stability Analyses Cross-section Revision Number: 495 Date: 12/03/2019 Time: 10:37:39 AM Tool Version: 10.1.0.18696 File Name: Rancho Highlands Section C-C SSA.gsz Directory: C:\Users\ARich\Desktop\Rancho Highlands\ Last Solved Date: 12/03/2019 Last Solved Time: 10:37:50 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings 1 - Rotational Static Global Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Bishop Settings PWP Conditions from: (none) Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.2 174002-02 Figure G - 24 December 2, 2019 Materials Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Fill Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 128 pcf Cohesion': 50 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Type: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (107.37749, 1,105.6106) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (132.82791, 1,105.3978) ft Left-Zone Increment: 100 Right Type: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (153.34271, 1,117.0331) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (225.92186, 1,134.6585) ft Right-Zone Increment: 100 Radius Increments: 15 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.10476, 1,106.5074) ft Right Coordinate: (230.08185, 1,134.6585) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Geometry Name: Default Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft 174002-02 Figure G - 25 December 2, 2019 Points X Y Point 1 0.10476 ft 1,106.5074 ft Point 2 0.10476 ft 1,020.3714 ft Point 3 230.08185 ft 1,019.1605 ft Point 4 230.08185 ft 1,134.6585 ft Point 5 208.49407 ft 1,134.6585 ft Point 6 200.10877 ft 1,134.6585 ft Point 7 186.27302 ft 1,130.1878 ft Point 8 181.31924 ft 1,129.3146 ft Point 9 134.33995 ft 1,108.691 ft Point 10 134.33995 ft 1,105.3852 ft Point 11 181.30107 ft 1,124.2887 ft Point 12 149.45383 ft 1,105.612 ft Point 13 134.33672 ft 1,100.4532 ft Point 14 149.49186 ft 1,100.4162 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Fill 8,9,10,13,14,12,11 409.66 ft² Region 2 Qps 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,14,13,10 21,368 ft² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 111729 of 163216 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 162,167 Factor of Safety: 1.69 Volume: 269.35739 ft³ Weight: 34,477.629 lbf Resisting Moment: 1,173,918 lbf·ft Activating Moment: 695,987.16 lbf·ft Slip Rank: 1 of 163,216 slip surfaces Exit: (132.82791, 1,105.3978) ft Entry: (177.67892, 1,127.7165) ft Radius: 52.501398 ft Center: (134.69742, 1,157.8659) ft Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Frictional Strength Cohesive Strength Suction Strength Base Material Slice 1 133.58393 ft 1,105.3818 ft 0 psf 5.8805608 psf 4.2724775 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 2 135.08717 ft 1,105.3713 ft 0 psf 465.60667 psf 268.81813 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 136.58162 1,105.4037 0 539.60019 psf 311.53832 50 psf 0 psf Fill 174002-02 Figure G - 26 December 2, 2019 3 ft ft psf psf Slice 4 138.07607 ft 1,105.4787 ft 0 psf 606.91461 psf 350.40231 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 5 139.57051 ft 1,105.5966 ft 0 psf 667.68169 psf 385.4862 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 6 141.06496 ft 1,105.7576 ft 0 psf 722.01128 psf 416.8534 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 7 142.55941 ft 1,105.962 ft 0 psf 769.99274 psf 444.55552 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 8 144.05386 ft 1,106.2106 ft 0 psf 811.69613 psf 468.63298 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 9 145.5483 ft 1,106.5038 ft 0 psf 847.17299 psf 489.11555 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 10 147.04275 ft 1,106.8424 ft 0 psf 876.45699 psf 506.02268 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 11 148.5372 ft 1,107.2274 ft 0 psf 899.56429 psf 519.36368 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 12 150.03164 ft 1,107.6599 ft 0 psf 916.49364 psf 529.13785 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 13 151.52609 ft 1,108.141 ft 0 psf 927.2263 psf 535.33435 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 14 153.02054 ft 1,108.6722 ft 0 psf 931.72569 psf 537.93208 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 15 154.51499 ft 1,109.2551 ft 0 psf 929.93682 psf 536.89927 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 16 156.00943 ft 1,109.8917 ft 0 psf 921.78545 psf 532.19308 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 17 157.50388 ft 1,110.5841 ft 0 psf 907.17697 psf 523.75887 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 18 158.99833 ft 1,111.3347 ft 0 psf 885.99493 psf 511.52941 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 19 160.49277 ft 1,112.1466 ft 0 psf 858.09925 psf 495.42384 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 20 161.98722 ft 1,113.0229 ft 0 psf 823.32403 psf 475.34635 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 21 163.48167 ft 1,113.9676 ft 0 psf 781.47482 psf 451.1847 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 22 164.97612 ft 1,114.9852 ft 0 psf 732.3254 psf 422.80827 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 23 166.47056 ft 1,116.081 ft 0 psf 675.61401 psf 390.06593 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 24 167.96501 ft 1,117.2614 ft 0 psf 611.03881 psf 352.78342 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 25 169.45946 ft 1,118.534 ft 0 psf 538.25287 psf 310.76044 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 26 170.9539 ft 1,119.9081 ft 0 psf 456.85854 psf 263.7674 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 27 172.44835 ft 1,121.3953 ft 0 psf 366.4021 psf 211.54235 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 28 173.9428 ft 1,123.0101 ft 0 psf 266.36968 psf 153.78861 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill Slice 175.43725 1,124.7712 0 156.18803 psf 90.175199 50 psf 0 psf Fill 174002-02 Figure G - 27 December 2, 2019 29 ft ft psf psf Slice 30 176.93169 ft 1,126.7038 ft 0 psf 35.238095 psf 20.344723 psf 50 psf 0 psf Fill 174002-02 Figure G - 28 December 2, 2019 Fill Seismic Qps 1.12 El e v a t i o n 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 1,180 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 1,020 1,060 1,100 1,140 1,180 174002-02 ACR/RKW Dec. 2019 Project No: Eng./Geo.: Date: LGC Valley, Inc 2420 Grand Avenue, Vista, CA 92081 Phone 760-599-7000, Fax 760-599-7007 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING Rancho Highlands Section C-C SSA.gsz 12/03/2019 10:37:39 AM Rancho Highlands Temecula, CA Name: Fill Seismic Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 150 psf Phi': 30 ° Name: Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.318 CC' 174002-02 Figure G - 29 December 2, 2019 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Report generated using GeoStudio 2019 R2. Copyright © 1991-2019 GEOSLOPE International Ltd. File Information File Version: 10.01 Title: Slope Stability Analyses Cross-section Revision Number: 495 Date: 12/03/2019 Time: 10:37:39 AM Tool Version: 10.1.0.18696 File Name: Rancho Highlands Section C-C SSA.gsz Directory: C:\Users\ARich\Desktop\Rancho Highlands\ Last Solved Date: 12/03/2019 Last Solved Time: 10:37:51 AM Project Settings Unit System: U.S. Customary Units Analysis Settings 1 - Rotational Pseudostatic Global Kind: SLOPE/W Parent: 1 - Rotational Static Global Method: Bishop Settings PWP Conditions from: (none) Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf Slip Surface Direction of movement: Right to Left Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Critical Slip Surfaces from Other Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Option: (none) Distribution F of S Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Geometry Settings Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Number of Slices: 30 Factor of Safety Convergence Settings Maximum Number of Iterations: 100 Tolerable difference in F of S: 0.2 174002-02 Figure G - 30 December 2, 2019 Materials Qps Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion': 400 psf Phi': 36 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Fill Seismic Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion': 150 psf Phi': 30 ° Phi-B: 0 ° Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.10476, 1,106.5074) ft Right Coordinate: (230.08185, 1,134.6585) ft Seismic Coefficients Horz Seismic Coef.: 0.318 Vert Seismic Coef.: 0 Geometry Name: Default Geometry Settings View: 2D Element Thickness: 1 ft Points X Y Point 1 0.10476 ft 1,106.5074 ft Point 2 0.10476 ft 1,020.3714 ft Point 3 230.08185 ft 1,019.1605 ft Point 4 230.08185 ft 1,134.6585 ft Point 5 208.49407 ft 1,134.6585 ft Point 6 200.10877 ft 1,134.6585 ft Point 7 186.27302 ft 1,130.1878 ft Point 8 181.31924 ft 1,129.3146 ft Point 9 134.33995 ft 1,108.691 ft Point 10 134.33995 ft 1,105.3852 ft 174002-02 Figure G - 31 December 2, 2019 Point 11 181.30107 ft 1,124.2887 ft Point 12 149.45383 ft 1,105.612 ft Point 13 134.33672 ft 1,100.4532 ft Point 14 149.49186 ft 1,100.4162 ft Regions Material Points Area Region 1 Fill Seismic 8,9,10,13,14,12,11 409.66 ft² Region 2 Qps 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,14,13,10 21,368 ft² Slip Results Slip Surfaces Analysed: 1 of 1 converged Current Slip Surface Slip Surface: 1 Factor of Safety: 1.12 Volume: 269.35739 ft³ Weight: 35,016.314 lbf Resisting Moment: 1,335,707.2 lbf·ft Activating Moment: 1,192,296.3 lbf·ft Slip Rank: 1 of 1 slip surfaces Exit: (132.82791, 1,105.3978) ft Entry: (177.67892, 1,127.7165) ft Radius: 52.501398 ft Center: (134.69742, 1,157.8659) ft Slip Slices X Y PWP Base Normal Stress Frictional Strength Cohesive Strength Suction Strength Base Material Slice 1 133.58393 ft 1,105.3818 ft 0 psf 8.2989968 psf 6.0295741 psf 400 psf 0 psf Qps Slice 2 135.08717 ft 1,105.3713 ft 0 psf 471.60709 psf 272.28248 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 3 136.58162 ft 1,105.4037 ft 0 psf 541.52153 psf 312.6476 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 4 138.07607 ft 1,105.4787 ft 0 psf 604.17519 psf 348.82071 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 5 139.57051 ft 1,105.5966 ft 0 psf 659.79283 psf 380.93157 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 6 141.06496 ft 1,105.7576 ft 0 psf 708.56903 psf 409.09252 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 7 142.55941 ft 1,105.962 ft 0 psf 750.67106 psf 433.40014 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 8 144.05386 ft 1,106.2106 ft 0 psf 786.24133 psf 453.93664 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 9 145.5483 ft 1,106.5038 ft 0 psf 815.39931 psf 470.77101 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic 174002-02 Figure G - 32 December 2, 2019 Slice 10 147.04275 ft 1,106.8424 ft 0 psf 838.24315 psf 483.95991 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 11 148.5372 ft 1,107.2274 ft 0 psf 854.85087 psf 493.54838 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 12 150.03164 ft 1,107.6599 ft 0 psf 865.2814 psf 499.57045 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 13 151.52609 ft 1,108.141 ft 0 psf 869.57521 psf 502.04948 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 14 153.02054 ft 1,108.6722 ft 0 psf 867.75482 psf 500.99848 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 15 154.51499 ft 1,109.2551 ft 0 psf 859.82499 psf 496.42019 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 16 156.00943 ft 1,109.8917 ft 0 psf 845.77277 psf 488.30714 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 17 157.50388 ft 1,110.5841 ft 0 psf 825.56722 psf 476.64146 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 18 158.99833 ft 1,111.3347 ft 0 psf 799.15905 psf 461.39469 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 19 160.49277 ft 1,112.1466 ft 0 psf 766.47997 psf 442.52742 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 20 161.98722 ft 1,113.0229 ft 0 psf 727.44184 psf 419.98874 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 21 163.48167 ft 1,113.9676 ft 0 psf 681.93563 psf 393.71572 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 22 164.97612 ft 1,114.9852 ft 0 psf 629.83023 psf 363.63265 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 23 166.47056 ft 1,116.081 ft 0 psf 570.9712 psf 329.65038 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 24 167.96501 ft 1,117.2614 ft 0 psf 505.17946 psf 291.6655 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 25 169.45946 ft 1,118.534 ft 0 psf 432.25043 psf 249.5599 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 26 170.9539 ft 1,119.9081 ft 0 psf 351.954 psf 203.20073 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 27 172.44835 ft 1,121.3953 ft 0 psf 264.03644 psf 152.44151 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 28 173.9428 ft 1,123.0101 ft 0 psf 168.22657 psf 97.125655 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 29 175.43725 ft 1,124.7712 ft 0 psf 64.250466 psf 37.095024 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic Slice 30 176.93169 ft 1,126.7038 ft 0 psf -48.135169 psf -27.790853 psf 150 psf 0 psf Fill Seismic 174002-02 Figure G - 33 December 2, 2019 Project No. 174002-02 Page H-1 December 2, 2019 APPENDIX H Riverside County Conditions of Approval Letters ._----------~iVc~)ii>i: count'! ._ ________ ilL£lnninG i>ci»A~i:mcni: Converse Consultants Inland Empire 118 West Airport Drive San Bernardino, California 92408 Attention Mr. Howard A. Spellman Mr. David B. Simon December 9, 1988 SUBJECT: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Project No. 88-81-110-01 Gentlemen: Tentative Tract Map 23992 APN: 923-590-005 County Geologic Report No. 563 F Rancho California Area We have reviewed your report entitled 11 Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract 23992, County Assessor's Parcel No. 923-590-005-05, Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 48, Page 72, C-12 Infonnation Center Site, Rancho California, CA 11 , dated October 6, 1988, and your response to County review dated December 2, 1988. ,•. Your report detennined that: "' --.1 , ... 1. No active faults or extensions of ~ctiy~r· f.ault,s are known to pass through the property. 2. The closest Holocene trace of the Wildomar fault lies immediately to the west of the site as shown on Drawing No. 1 of your report. 3. All faults observed within the property terminate within the late-Pleistocene age Pauba formation and are pre-Holocene in age. 4. Expected maximum horizontal ground accelerations are 0.29g once on the average every 100 years and 0.24g once on the average every 50 years. 5. Magnitude 6.0 to 6.5 earthquakes occurring along the active Wildomar branch of the Elsinore fault system (located about 110 feet west of the site) are considered representative of the range of maximum events likely to cause damage during the useful life of proposed construction. 6. The liquefaction potential at the site was evaluated during a separate, concurrent liquefaction investigation for the property. 7. The geographic location of the site precludes the likelihood of damage due to earthquake induced flooding and tsunamis. 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (619) 342-8277 174002-02 Figure H - 1 December 2, 2019 Converse Consultants Inland Empire - 2 - December 9, 1988 8. The potential for seismically induced landsliding is low. 9. The potential for flooding from seiches within the man-made lake is considered low. Your report recommended that: 1. Restricted use areas relative to faulting are not reconunended for this property. 2. A soil and foundation engineering investigation should be conducted prior to finalization of the development plans. 3. An engineering geologist should observe all cuts constructed during grading. 4. During site grading and development the soils used for backfill of all exploratory trenches located within proposed building areas should be removed and the soils replaced as compacted engineered fill. It is our opinion that the report was prepared in a competent manner consistent with the present "state-of-the-art" and satisfies the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and the associated Riverside County Ordinance No. 547. Final approval of this report is hereby given. We recommend that the following note be placed on the final map prior to its recordation: 11 County Geologic Report No. 563 F was prepared for this property on October 6, 1988 by Converse Consultants, and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department.Specific items of interest are pre-Holocene faults and uncompacted· trench backfill." The recommendations made in your report shall be adhered to in the design and construction of this project. SAK:al Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMEN/ Roger s. S~ter -Planning Dir~~or I I -~ h- Steven A. Kupfennan Engineering GeologiS;t CEG-1205 / c.c. Rancho California Development Co. -Csaba F. Ko CDMG -Earl Hart Building & Safety -Nonn Lostbom (2) Planning Team 1, Greg Neal 174002-02 Figure H - 2 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure H - 3 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure H - 4 December 2, 2019 LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 1 of 6 APPENDIX I General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading 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 report(s). 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(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. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 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 project plans and LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 2 of 6 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 “equipment” 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 personnel will be available for observation and testing. . 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. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction. 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 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. 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. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 3 of 6 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 from oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free from 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. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 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/Acceptance 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 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 from 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. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 4 of 6 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 Layers: 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. 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: 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 D1557-91). 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 D1557-91). 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 sheeps-foot 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 D1557-91. 4.5 Compaction Testing: 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 field 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). LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 5 of 6 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: 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. 4.7 Compaction 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, and the Standard Details. 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 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. LGC Valley, Inc. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Page 6 of 6 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done 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 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 7.4 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. 7.5 Lift 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. 174002-02 Figure I - 1 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure I - 2 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure I - 3 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure I - 4 December 2, 2019 174002-02 Figure I - 5 December 2, 2019 EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP L-FT-1 Qcol Remove and recompact Fault Trench backfill not removed by future grading C-FT-1 TD = 6' Qcol 0-3' Qps 3-6' P-TP-13 TD = 7' Qcol 0-3' Qps 3-7' LGC-B-1 TD = 11' Qcol 0-5' Qps 5-11' C-CPT-4# TD = 50' Qya +50' Qcol C-B-2 C-CPT-3 TD = 50' # C-FT-5 C-FT-3 Qya +51.5' @ 12' (1024' msl) GC-B-2 TD = 17' P-TP-8 P-TP-10 TD = 12' Qcol 0-8' Qps 8-12' TD = 14' Qcol 0-12' Qps 12-14' GC-B-4 TD = 23' Qps Qya # C-CPT-2 Qya +50' TD = 50' Qya 0-41' Qps 41-43' # C-CPT-1 TD = 38' Afu LGC-B-5 P-TP-3 Qya TD = 15.5' Qya 0-10' Qps 10-15.5' Qps C-CPT-8# TD = 34' TD = 11' LGC-B-4 Qya 0-9' Qps 9-11' TD = 16' Qya 0-8' Qps 8-16' P-TP-1 Qcol GC-B-5 TD = 17' C-FT-4 P-TP-9 TD = 12' Qcol 0-8' Qps 8-12' LGC-B-2 TD = 16' Qya 0-7' Qps 7-16' Qcol P-TP-6 TD = 16' Qcol 0-12' QPS 12-16' GC-B-3 TD = 16' Qcol 0-3' Qps 3-6' P-TP-11 TD = 6' ? C-FT-2 Qcol P-TP-7 TD = 12' Qcol 0-8' Qps 8-12' Qps GC-B-1 TD = 31' Qcol 0-7' Qps 7-17' P-TP-4 TD = 17' P-TP-2 LGC-B-3 TD = 31' Qya 0-22.5' Qps 22.5-31' Remove and recompact Fault Trench backfill not removed by future grading ? ? Li n e a m e n t D ? Line a m e n t B Fault 2 Linea m e n t A Fault 2 Fault 1 Fault 1 Fault 3 ? ? Wildomar Fault (Active Strand ) ? Fault 5 Fault 5 Fault 5 Fault 6 F ? ? a ? ? Lineament F ult 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Li n e a m e n t E E a s t e r n L i m i t o f A l q u i s t - P r i o l o E a r t h q u a k e F a u l t Z o n e E a s t e r n L i m i t o f A l q u i s t - P r i o l o E a r t h q u a k e F a u l t Z o n e TD = 18' TD = 51.5' @ 15' Qya 0-16' Qps 16-18' @ 17' (1028' msl) P-TP-12 Lineament F Ynez Road 10 8 10 16 10 85 5 5 5 8? 8? 5 5 ? ? ? ? ????? Afu 8 10 5 10 A' A LGC-TP-1 B' B ? Qya 0-12' Qps 12-14' C-FT-4 Fault Setback Zone TD = 14' P-TP-5 TD = 7' Qps 2-7' 4 C-B-1 TD = 43' Qya 38' C' C LGC-T-3 LGC-T-1 10 10 < < < < < < < < < Qya Qya LGC-T-2 TD=15' TD=14' TD=6.5' N7W 12° N47W 70° N57W 10° TD = 15' Qya 0-12' Qps 12-15' @ 14.5' LGC-TP-4 TD = 10.5' Qya 0-6' Qps 6-10.5' LGC-TP-5 TD = 12' Qya 0-10.5' Qps 10.5-12' LGC-TP-6 TD = 14' Qya 0-2.5' Qps 2.5-14' LGC-TP-2 TD = 12.5' Qya 0-7' Qps 7-12.5' LGC-TP-7 TD = 16' Qya 0-14' Qps 14-16' LGC-TP-8 TD = 16' Qya 0-16' Qps 12-15' LGC-TP-3 TD = 13' Qya 0-9.5' Qps 9.5-13' Fault Setback Zone LGC-TP-9 TD = 12' Afu 0-5.5' Qya 5.5-12' 15 Recommended Stability Fill 15' wide 5' deep Building 2 Building 3 Building 1 Building 15 Building 14 Building 13 Building 12 Building 10 Building 11 Building 9 Building 8 Building 7 Building 6 Building 5 Building 4 PLATE 1 SCALE ENG. / GEOL. DATE PROJECT NAME Red Tail Rancho Highlands PROJECT NO.174002-02 1" = 40' ACR/RKW TEL. (760) 599-7000 FAX (760) 599-7007 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F-2, Vista, California LGC Valley, Inc. Lots 4, 5, and a Portion of Parcel 1 Rancho Highlands Temecula, California Geotechnical Map Artificial Fill, Undocumented TD = 15.5' Qya 0-10' Qps 10-15.5' LGC-B-5 Afu Qya Qcol Qps ? Quaternary-Aged (Holocene) Young Aluvium Quaternary-Aged (Holocene) Colluvium Quaternary-Aged (Late Pleistocene) Pauba Formation, Sandstone Facies TD = 17' GC-B-5 Qya + 51.5' GW @ 12' (1024' msl) C-B-2 TD = 34' C-CPT-8 TD = 7' Qcol 0-3' Qps 3-7' P-TP-13 C-FT-5 L-FT-1 Approximate Small Diameter Boring Location by LGC Valley, current study, with depths of geologic units indicated (5 total) Approximate Small Diameter Boring/Percolation Test Pit Location by Geocon, 2017 (5 total) Approximate Small Diameter Boring Location by Converse, 1988, with depth of geologic units and groundwater indicated (2 total) Approximate CPT by Converse, 1988a (5 total) Approximate Test Pit Location by Petra, 2003, with depths of geologic units indicated (13 total) Approximate Fault Trench Location by Converse, 1988, with fault traces indicated (5 total) Approximate Fault Trench Location by Leighton, 1994 (1 total) Approximate Geologic Contact, queried where uncertain Mapped Fault Trace by Converse, 1998 Mapped Linements by Converse, 1988 (Linements A, B, D, E, and F) Legend Geologic Units Geologic Symbols 16 Recommended Approximate Removal Depth Below Existing Ground Surface LGC-TP-9 Approximate Test Pit Location by LGC, current study (9 total) C'C Approximate Location of Geotechnical Cross-Section LGC-T-3 Approximate Trench Location by LGC, current study (3 total) Approximate Location of Recommended Canyon Subdrain December 2, 2019 TD = 12' Afu 0-5.5' Qya 5.5-12' °70 °12 N7W N47W Approximate Bedding Attitude Approximate Fracture Attitude Recommended Stability Fill Key A'A SCALE 1" = 40' N 84 E 1000 1040 1080 1120 1000 1040 1080 1120 TD = 34.0' C- C P T - 8 TD = 15.5' LG C - B - 5 Pr o j e c t e d 6 5 ' S o u t h TD = 16.0' LG C - B - 4 Pr o j e c t e d 6 4 ' N o r t h Fa u l t 1 TD = 17.0' C- C P T - 5 C- F T - 4 Qps Qps Qps Qya Afo Ynez Road Qya Qcol Qps Li n e m e n t F Fa u l t 3 Fa u l t 5 Fa u l t 2 Proposed Building Proposed Building B'B SCALE 1" = 40' N 25 E 1020 1060 1100 1140 1020 1060 1100 1140 ? ???? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? Qps Qps Qps Qcol Proposed Grade Existing Topography Existing Topography Proposed Grade Proposed Building Ea s t e r n L i m i t s o f AP F a u l t Z o n e ? C'C SCALE 1" = 40' N 71 W 1060 1100 1140 1180 1060 1100 1140 1180 ? Qps Qcol ? Qps P- T P - 7 Proposed Grade Existing Topography Cr o s s - S e c t i o n B - B ' Cr o s s - S e c t i o n C - C ' Fault Trench LGC-FT-1 (projected 25-30' East) PLFault Trench LGC-FT-3 (projected 5' North) PL Recommended Stability Fill P- T P - 8 Pr o j e c t e d 2 0 ' N o r t h See Plate 1 for Cross Section Locations PLATE 2 SCALE ENG. / GEOL. DATE PROJECT NAME Red Tail Rancho Highlands PROJECT NO.174002-02 1" = 40' ACR/RKW TEL. (760) 599-7000 FAX (760) 599-7007 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F-2, Vista, California LGC Valley, Inc. Lots 4, 5, and a Portion of Parcel 1 Rancho Highlands Temecula, California Geotechnical Cross Sections A-A', B-B', and C-C' December 2, 2019