Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Parcel Map 21382 Parcel 54 Soils Report Moutain View
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION MS MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK AVENIDA ALVARADO, TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for MS MOUNTAIN VIEW, LLC c/o Silagi Development & Management, Inc. 101 Hodencamp Rd., Suite 200 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Project No. Project No. 12582.001 December 20, 2019 CLEARED BY CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS tricia.ortega 02/16/2023 02/16/2023 02/16/20 05/06/2022 December 20, 2019 Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View, LLC c/o Silagi Development & Management, Inc. 101 Hodencamp Rd., Suite 200 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Attention: Mr. Moshie Silagi and/or Mr. and/or Mario Calvillo Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration MS Mountain View Park (21 Commercial Parcels/Lots) Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) is pleased to present this geotechnical exploration report for the subject site. This report provides a summary of our findings and recommendations for continued site development. Based on our evaluation, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during design and construction phases of development. The opportunity to be of continued service on this project is greatly appreciated. Please call the undersigned if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641 Principal Engineer Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 Sr. Principal Geologist Distribution: (1)Addressee (plus pdf via email) Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Location and Description .......................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Development ................................................................................... 2 1.4 Summary of Previous Work ............................................................................. 2 1.5 Field Exploration ............................................................................................. 3 1.6 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................... 3 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ................................................... 4 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting ............................................................................... 4 2.2 Site Geologic Units .......................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Stockpiled Soils (Afs) ......................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Artificial Fill (Af) .................................................................................. 4 2.2.3 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) ................................................................. 5 2.2.4 Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf) ................................................................ 5 2.2.5 Pauba Formation (Qps) ..................................................................... 5 2.3 Surface Water and Groundwater ..................................................................... 5 2.4 Ground Shaking .............................................................................................. 5 2.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards ........................................................................... 6 2.5.1 Ground Rupture ................................................................................. 6 2.5.2 Landsliding ......................................................................................... 7 2.5.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ............................................... 7 2.6 Slope Stability ................................................................................................. 7 2.7 Percolation/Infiltration Test Results ................................................................. 8 3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS ....................................................... 9 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 10 4.1 General ......................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Earthwork ...................................................................................................... 10 4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading .......................................... 10 4.2.2 Cut/Fill Transition Pads .................................................................... 12 4.2.3 Temporary Excavations ................................................................... 12 4.2.4 Structural Fills .................................................................................. 13 4.2.5 Import Soils ...................................................................................... 13 4.2.6 Utility Trenches ................................................................................ 14 4.2.7 Drainage .......................................................................................... 14 4.2.8 Slope Design and Construction ....................................................... 14 4.2.9 Shrinkage ......................................................................................... 15 4.2.10 Oversize Rock Placement ................................................................ 15 4.3 Foundation Design ........................................................................................ 15 4.3.1 General ............................................................................................ 15 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - ii - 4.3.2 Allowable Bearing Pressures ........................................................... 15 4.3.3 Vapor Retarder ................................................................................ 16 4.4 Settlement Considerations ............................................................................ 16 4.5 Footing Setback ............................................................................................ 16 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................ 17 4.7 Site Drainage and Erosion Control ................................................................ 18 4.8 Soil Corrosivity /Sulfate Content .................................................................... 18 4.9 Pavement Design .......................................................................................... 18 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ................................................................................. 20 6.0 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 21 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 22 Accompanying Figures, Tables and Appendices Figures/ Plates – at end of text Figure 1 – Site Location Map End of Text Figure 2 – Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 - Regional Fault Map Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map End of Text Tables Table 1. 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients ................................................... 6 Table 2. Summary of Strength Parameters .................................................................... 7 Table 3. Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Test Results .............................................. 8 Table 4. Summary of Remedial Grading Recommendations ....................................... 11 Table 5. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) ............................... 17 Table 6. Preliminary Pavement Design ........................................................................ 19 Appendices Appendix A – Borings Logs (This and previous explorations) Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results (This and previous explorations) Appendix C – Seismic and Slope Stability Analyses Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E – GBA, Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 1 - 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this geotechnical exploration is to describe current site conditions and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development. Our scope of work generally included the following: Background review of existing in-house data and site-specific geotechnical and geologic reports covering the site area, including the provided 2001 geotechnical investigation report by EnGEN Consultants, Inc. Coordination with Underground Service Alert to have existing utilities located and marked prior to our subsurface investigation. Excavating, sampling and logging of approximately of 16 hollow stem auger borings to evaluate the subsurface conditions to depths varying between 20 and 40 feet below the existing ground surface. A backhoe was used to create access roads to portions of the site not currently accessible by the drill rig. Field percolation/infiltration testing at 5 locations within the site to depths ranging from 5 to 8 feet below existing ground surface. Fault investigation performed within Parcels/Lots 12 and 20 to further evaluate the projected Willard Fault. The results of this investigation is included under a separate cover (Leighton, 2019). Laboratory testing of selected representative soil samples including moisture- density, hydro-collapse, maximum dry density (proctor), expansion index, direct shear, sieve analysis and soluble sulfate testing. Engineering analysis to provide preliminary recommendations for continuation of site grading and development, preliminary foundation design (shallow foundations), site-grading guidelines including anticipated remedial removal depths. Preparation of this illustrated geotechnical design report summarizing our findings and conclusions with regard to the proposed site development including 2019 seismic design coefficients. This report is not intended to be used as an environmental assessment (Phase I or other), or foundation/grading plan review. 1.2 Site Location and Description This site is located at the western terminus of Avenida Alvarado, in the City of Temecula, California (see Figure 1). The site is an approximately 45-acre previously graded pads with unpaved interior streets. Portions of the site were Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 2 - apparently graded in the early 1990’s. Current site plans refer to 21 Parcels/Buildings (see Plate 1). The majority of these parcels are already graded cut/fill lots accessed by a main roadway (future extension of Avenida Alvarado). Rio Nedo Road and Via Industria located in the northwestern portion of the site are completed paved roadways. The upper pads (Parcel 21 and Building 17) are partially graded. Site vegetation consist of scattered small trees, bushes and seasonal weeds. Moderate to severe erosion gullies are noted throughout the site due apparently to the absence of maintained erosion control and drainage structures. We understand that a main storm drain line as well as erosion control basin/berms have been installed in Avenida Alvarado and Via Industria as part of current BMP’s. 1.3 Proposed Development Based on our review of provided Master Site Plan/Scheme 01 (RGA, undated) and discussions with you, we understand that the site will be developed to host 20 typical concrete tilt-up structures/warehouses, onsite water quality basin, and other site improvements including pavement and main driveways from Avenida Alverado and Via Industria. Site rough grade elevations have not been established but will generally consist of creating finish pads, especially for Building 17 that will likely require 1.5:1 cut slopes on the order of 50- to 60-foot high. 1.4 Summary of Previous Work Based on our past experience in this area and review of in-house and publically available reports (see References), the following is a summary of the major geologic findings/ investigations associated with this site: In August 1987, Leighton performed an “Engineering Geologic Investigation of Faulting and Anticipated Alluvial Removals” for this project site and the property extending to the north. The investigation identified the projected Willard Fault (see Figure 2) to be inactive based on available geologic and soils evidence at that time. In July 1987, Schaefer Dixon Associates completed an Engineering Geologic Investigation of the Willard Fault covering the property to the immediate south of this project site. Findings from that investigation identified the fault segment exposed on this site continuing to the south within that study area, and identified it as inactive based on soils and geologic relationships as exposed in a series of trenches. In July 1993, Schaefer Dixon Associates completed a Geotechnical Investigation of Faulting and Seismicity for the Temecula Valley Regional Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 3 - Water Reclamation Facility within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the east of the site. Subsurface exploration conducted for that study documented the absence of active faulting where the A-P Zone crosses this project site near Building Lot/Parcel 1. In March 2001, EnGEN Corporation completed a geotechnical/geological study of some of the graded lots and recommended removal of “all existing undocumented fill, incompetent alluvium and/or unsuitable, loose, or disturbed near-surface soil.” Competent fill is defined as having a relative compaction of 90 percent or higher and competent alluvium as having a relative compaction of 85 percent or higher. The report provided specific removal depths for some lots and “all existing pads should be scarified 12-inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and recompacted to minimum 90 percent relative compaction.” The report also requires a 5-foot removal is if grading exposes the Willard Fault. It should be noted that the prescribed site conditions in this report do not fully reflect the existing site conditions. 1.5 Field Exploration In addition to our site reconnaissance visit, we performed a subsurface exploration including the excavation of sixteen (16) hollow stem auger borings to explore native soils as well as the undocumented fill placed during past site grading. Five percolation/infiltration tests were conducted in representative areas of the site and were tested in general accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation district’s handbook for Design of Low Impact Development Best Management Practices. Approximate locations of our borings and previous borings (EnGen, 2001), and percolation/infiltration tests are depicted on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The exploratory borings were excavated by a truck-mounted, CME 75 drill rig using 8-inch hollow-stem flight augers. During the drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. Sampling of the borings was conducted by a staff geologist from our office. The collected samples were transported to our laboratory for testing. Borings were backfilled with excavated soils/cuttings. The logs of borings are presented in Appendix A 1.6 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples to provide a basis for development of geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. Selected samples were tested to determine the following parameters: insitu moisture and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, direct shear, collapse potential, soluble sulfate and chloride content, pH and resistivity. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix A. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 4 - 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS 2.1 Regional Geologic Setting The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This province is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the region has created the geomorphology present today. Specifically, the property located along the southern portion of a fault controlled down dropped graben, known as the Elsinore Trough. The Elsinore Trough is bounded on the northeast by the Wildomar Fault and on the southwest by the Willard Fault. The Murrieta Creek-Temecula segment of the active Elsinore Fault Zone encroaches into the property eastern boundary (see Figure 2). 2.2 Site Geologic Units Based on our field observations and review of pertinent literature (see references), the primary earth materials consist of artificial fill, colluvium/alluvium and Pauba Formation. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age. 2.2.1 Stockpiled Soils (Afs) Stockpiled soils were generally encountered on the surface of Lots 14 and 16. These soils appear to be locally derived end-dump stockpiles and extend to a depth of approximately 8 feet. As encountered in LB-6, the stockpile materials generally consist of silty sand materials (SM) with variable amounts of gravel. 2.2.2 Artificial Fill (Af) Artificial fill soils were encountered throughout various portions of the site as part of the previous site grading. The fill soils vary in thickness from a few inches to up to 25 feet (LB-12). As encountered, the artificial fill soils consist of silty and clayey sand (SC/SM) with varying amounts of gravel. Documentation of this fill was not available at the time of this report. However, this artificial fill appears to be generally engineered fill and possess adequate relative compaction. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 5 - 2.2.3 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) Alluvial soils were encountered in LB-3 to a depth of approximately 10 feet below the existing ground surface and below the artificial fill in LB-2 at depth of 15 to 20 feet. As-encountered, the alluvium is generally loose in LB-3 and consists of sandy silt (ML) with varying amounts of organics. The alluvium in LB-2 is generally medium stiff and consist of sandy clay (CL). 2.2.4 Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf) Pauba Fanglomerate was encountered on the western portion of the site, either exposed at the surface or beneath the artificial fill soils/alluvium. As encountered in our borings, this unit generally consists of dense to very dense silty and clayey sands (SC/SM) with varying amounts of gravel/cobbles and local sandy clay layers (CL). This material will be exposed in any east facing cut slopes located on the western property margin. These materials are considered dense to very dense and possess low expansion potential (EI<51). Clay layers may possess medium to high expansion potential. 2.2.5 Pauba Formation (Qps) Pauba Formation was encountered in the central and eastern portions of the site. The unit is medium dense to very dense in-place and generally consists of silty and clayey sands (SC/SM) with poorly to well-graded sands (SP/SW) and local sandy silt and clay layers (CL/ML). Some of the silty and clayey soils/layers may possess high to very high expansion potential (EI>91). 2.3 Surface Water and Groundwater No surface water was observed during our site reconnaissance. Local perched water may be encountered at depth in layers with contrasting permeability. 2.4 Ground Shaking Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. A review of the site borings and our analysis of shear wave velocity based on average N-value of soils (generally >30 in the upper 100 feet) indicate an average Vs30 of 530 m/s which reflects a site Class C. Further, a regional study performed Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 6 - for CGS (GeoVision, 2016) determined that shear (S) wave velocity of the upper 30 m underlain by similar Pauba formation materials in this locality indicate a Vs30 of 547 (m/s) with an estimated error of 55 m/s (Class C Site). The results of this study confirms our calculated Vs30 of 530 m/s. The site-specific seismic coefficients based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) are provided in following table: Table 1. 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients CBC Categorization/Coefficient Value (g) Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.17567 Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.50559 Site Class Definition C Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.89 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.77 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.0 Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.3 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.89 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 1.00 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.26 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 0.67 * g- Gravity acceleration The results of this analysis also indicate that the adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for this site is 0.77g. The code-based seismic analysis report is included in Appendix C. 2.5 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include ground rupture, landsliding, and liquefaction and/or dynamic settlement. These hazards are discussed in the following sections. 2.5.1 Ground Rupture In accordance with our recent fault hazard report (Leighton, 2019), no active faulting exists within this site and no structural setbacks are warranted for any of the proposed buildings. More specifically, recent and past investigations/ trenching revealed no evidence of active faulting within Lots 12 and 20 due to the projected Willard Fault and within the eastern portion of Lot 1 due to encroachment of the AP Fault Hazard Zone (see Figure 3). Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 7 - 2.5.2 Landsliding Ground shaking during earthquakes can result in landsliding on natural slopes. No evidence of existing landslides was observed during our field mapping or during the previous field investigations of the subject site. Landsliding is not considered a hazard for this site. 2.5.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Due to the dense nature of the underlying soils materials and lack of shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered very low. Dynamic dry settlement is not considered a geologic hazard at this site due to the dense fill and underlying Pauba formation. The seismic differential settlement is expected to be less than 0.5 inch in a 30-foot horizontal distance within this site. 2.6 Slope Stability Based on provided site plans, conventional cut and fill grading will be utilized to construct the graded pads and roadways associated with this project. All slopes are designed at a maximum slope angle of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. However, cut slope along the western edge of the site (Building 17) is proposed to be at 1.5:1 gradient to maximum height of 60 feet. As such, our slope stability analyses were only performed for this slope, which is considered to represent worst case scenario from a slope stability perspective. All other proposed 2:1 fil or cut slopes are considered stable under short- and long-term conditions. Our slope stability analysis was performed using SLIDE 6.0 software (see Appendix C). Both static and pseudo-static analyses were performed soil parameters based on results of laboratory direct shear testing and published data for similar soil types. A summary of soil parameters used in our analyses is presented in Table below: Table 2. Summary of Strength Parameters Soil Description Shear Strength Moist Unit Weight (pcf) Friction (Degrees) Cohesion (psf) Pauba Fanglomerate 34 850 130 The results of our analyses indicate that the proposed cut slope will be grossly stable and have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1 for static and pseudo-static conditions, respectively. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 8 - 2.7 Percolation/Infiltration Test Results Five percolation tests were performed within selected areas of the site to provide a general characterization of infiltration rates of onsite materials. The percolation tests were performed in accordance with procedures of Section 2.3 of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Design Handbook (RCFC, 2011). Results presented below are the most conservative reading in minutes per inch drop. The infiltration rates were estimated using the Porchet Method. No factor of Safety was applied to these values. Table 3. Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Test Results Test Hole # / Bld # Depth BGS (ft) Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Soil Description P-1 / Bld 15 5 <0.01 Silty/Clayey SAND / Artificial Fill P-2 / Bld 19 6 0.20 Clayey SAND (SM) / Pauba Fangl P-3 / Bld 11/12 6 0.60 Silty SAND / Pauba Sands P-4 / Parcel 2 8 1.10 Silty SAND / Artificial Fill P-5 / Parcel 2 5 <0.01 Silty SAND / Artificial Fill Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 9 - 3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this geotechnical exploration, the major geotechnical opportunities and/or constraints that may affect site development are as follows: The onsite soils/stockpile materials are generally suitable for re-use as fill materials in structural pad areas provided they are relatively free of organic material and/or any deleterious materials and oversize materials/rock (>12-inch in diameter). Remedial grading will be required on some of the lots to confirm suitability of foundation soils, as discussed further in Section 4. Although portions of the site are located within County and AP Hazard Fault Zones, no active faulting exists within this site and no structural setbacks are warranted for any of the proposed buildings based on a recent fault hazard report (Leighton, 2019). Based on our laboratory testing results, the onsite earth materials are expected to generally possess a low expansion potential (EI<51). However, some silt/clay layer and clayey sand materials within the Pauba Formation may exhibit high expansion potential (EI>91). If encountered during grading, these materials should not be placed within upper 5 feet of finish grade. Conventional spread and/or continuous wall footings are considered suitable foundation system for the proposed buildings. Based on our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that the onsite earth materials can be excavated with heavy-duty conventional grading and excavation equipment in good working condition. Based on laboratory results and field observations, onsite earth materials are expected to possess a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete. Additional testing should be performed during site grading to verify these observations. Unprotected pads and slope faces will be susceptible to erosion or surficial sloughing if not properly protected against erosion. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 10 - 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General Based on the results of this exploration, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical viewpoint. Geotechnical recommendations presented in the following sections are intended to provide sufficient geotechnical information to develop the project plans in accordance with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC). The following recommendations may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the structural engineer and the local reviewing agency. The recommendations presented below are based upon the results of laboratory analyses and observed geotechnical engineering properties of the soils and their anticipated response both during and after construction. The recommendations are also predicated upon proper field observation and testing during construction. The project geotechnical engineer should be notified of suspected variances in field conditions to evaluate the effect upon the recommendations presented herein. The geotechnical consultant should review the grading plan, foundation plan / structural loads as they become available to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and recommend additional investigations or reviews, if warranted. 4.2 Earthwork Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix D. These recommendations are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. Additional specific recommendations may be warranted based on proposed site grading and prevailing soils condition encountered during construction. The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly in accordance with the project specifications. 4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, heavy vegetation, and any exiting stockpiles. Roots and Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 11 - debris should be disposed of offsite. The near surface soils (including topsoil, stockpile soils and alluvium) are potentially compressible in their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. As such, these materials should be removed in all settlement- sensitive areas including building pads/foundations and access roads. Exiting fill and Pauba formation are generally considered suitable for foundation support provided are field verified by the geotechnical consultant during grading. For planning and preliminary design purposes, the following remedial grading requirements for should be anticipated: Table 4. Summary of Remedial Grading Recommendations Parcel / Bld # Remove & Compact (R&R) Anticipated Soil Subgrade Conditions Parcel / Bld 1 2 feet BGS Dense fill / shallow Pauba Parcel 2 / Basin NA Fill Parcel / Bld 3 2 feet BGS or bottom of footings Dense fill Parcel / Bld 4 2 feet BGS Dense fill Parcel / Bld 5 2-3 feet BGS Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 6 2 feet BGS Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 7 2 feet BGS Dense fill Parcel / Bld 8 2 feet BGS Dense fill Parcel / Bld 9 2 feet BGS Dense fill Parcel / Bld 10 2-3 feet BGS Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 11 2 feet BGS Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 12 2 feet BGS and backfill fault trenches Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 13 2-3 feet BGS Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 14 Remove stockpile fill ~7’, then 2-3 feet BGS Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 15 2 feet BGS Dense fill Parcel / Bld 16 Remove stockpile fill ~2’, then 2 feet BGS Dense fill Parcel / Bld 17 Remove alluvium ~10’, cut to grade then remove fill ~2 feet Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 18 2-3 feet BGS Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 19 2-3 feet BGS Transition Dense Fill/Dense Pauba Sands Parcel / Bld 20 2 feet BGS and backfill fault trenches Dense Pauba Sands Although evaluation of the existing storm drain trench backfill in Avenue Alvarado and Via Industria was beyond the scope of this study, for planning purposes, it should be anticipated to remove and compact the upper 2 to 3 feet of existing trench backfill. Remaining trench backfill should be further Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 12 - evaluated at that time. Acceptability of all removal and removal bottoms should be reviewed by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and documented in an as-graded geotechnical report. The removal limit should be established by a 1:1 projection from the edge of fill soils supporting settlement-sensitive structures downward and outward to competent material identified by the geotechnical consultant. Removals will also include benching into competent material as the fills rise. 4.2.2 Cut/Fill Transition Pads In order to mitigate the impact of underlying cut/fill transition conditions, we recommend over-excavation of the cut portion of transition pad. Over- excavation should extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grades and minimum of 3 feet beyond foundation elements. Overexcavation bottoms should be sloped as needed to prevent the accumulation of subsurface water. The exposed bottom should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.2.3 Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations, including utility trenches, foundation excavations, and other excavations should be performed in accordance with project plans, specifications and all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. The contractor is responsible for all temporary slopes and trenches excavated at the site and the design of any required temporary shoring. Shoring, bracing and benching should be performed by the contractor in accordance with the California Construction Safety Orders, current edition: http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb4a6.html During construction, exposed earth material conditions should be regularly evaluated to verify that conditions are as anticipated. The contractor is responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination between the competent person and geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Existing alluvial soils encountered are classified as OSHA soil Type C. Therefore, unshored temporary cut slopes should be no steeper than 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical), for a height no-greater-than (≤) 20 feet (California Construction Safety Orders, Appendix B to Section 1541.1, Table B-1). These recommended temporary cut slopes assume a level ground surface for a distance equal to one-and-a-half (x1.5) the depth of excavation. For steeper temporary slopes, deeper excavations, and/or where slopes terrain exists within close proximity to excavation (<1.5xdepth), appropriate shoring methods or flatter slopes may be required to protect the workers in the excavation and Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 13 - adjacent improvements. Such methods should be implemented by the contractor and approved by the geotechnical consultant. No surcharge loads should be permitted within a horizontal distance equal to the height of cut or 5 feet, whichever is greater from the top of the slope, unless the cut is shored appropriately. Excavations that extend below an imaginary plane inclined at 45 degrees below the edge of any adjacent existing site foundation should be properly shored to maintain support of the adjacent structures. 4.2.4 Structural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill provided they are free of debris and organic matter. Fills placed within 10 feet of finish pad grades or slope faces should contain no rocks over 12 inches in maximum dimension. Some silty/clayey layers within Puaba formation may possess medium to very high expansion. If encountered during pad preparation, these materials should be over-excavated to at least 3 feet below finish grade and placed in non-structural areas or buried at least 5 feet in deep fill areas. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D 1557) and above optimum moisture content. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill slope keyways will be necessary at the toe of all fill slopes and at fill- over-cut contacts. Keyway schematics, including dimensions and subdrain recommendations, are provided in Appendix D. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 should be benched into dense soils. Benching should be of sufficient depth to remove all loose material. A minimum bench height of 3 feet into approved material should be maintained at all times. 4.2.5 Import Soils Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, although not anticipated, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less than 2 percent), have a very low expansion potential (with Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 14 - an Expansion Index less than 21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements. 4.2.6 Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2018 Edition. Bedding sand should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater. Past testing (Appendix B) indicates the sandy Pauba material for this purpose is locally available onsite with selective grading and stockpiling for later use. Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means only. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils are screened of rocks over 1½ inches in diameter and organic matter. 4.2.7 Drainage All drainage should be directed away from buildings, slopes and pavements by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage of any building pad should be provided to avoid wetting of foundation soils. 4.2.8 Slope Design and Construction Based on our review of the concept grading plan, it is our understanding that all fill and cut slopes will be designed and constructed at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with benches at maximum 30 foot intervals (except cut slope for Building 17- proposed at 1.5:1 gradient). These slopes are considered grossly stable for static and pseudostatic conditions. Cut slopes should be observed by an engineering geologist during grading to verify exposed conditions and recommend remedial measures, if needed. The outer portion of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back to the finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5 feet (maximum) by a weighted sheepsfoot roller as the fill is placed. The slope face should then be track-walked by dozers of appropriate weight to achieve the final slope configuration and compaction to the slope face. Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to rainfall and irrigation. Slope maintenance should be conducted as soon as possible in order to increase long-term surficial stability. Berms or drainage swales (brow ditches) should be provided at the top of fill and cut slopes. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 15 - Drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is avoided. 4.2.9 Shrinkage The volume change of stockpile soils upon recompaction is expected to vary. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust grades to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar soils, we expect recompaction shrinkage (when recompacted to a minimum 93 percent of ASTM D1557) of 10- to 25-percent by volume for the stockpile materials and 5- to 10-percnet for existing fill or formational materials requiring removal and recompaction. A subsidence value of 0.1 feet may be considered for planning purposes for compression of surface material due to scarification and recompaction. 4.2.10 Oversize Rock Placement The California Building Code and County of Riverside require that no oversize rock (>12-inches) be placed within 10 feet of the surface of a structural fill and/or building pad. The grading plan should be carefully reviewed during grading to verify that oversized rocks are buried below a 10-foot fill cap or placed in the non-structural areas. 4.3 Foundation Design 4.3.1 General The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab- on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein. Based on our testing, low expansive soils (0<EI<51) should be anticipated at foundation levels. 4.3.2 Allowable Bearing Pressures The following bearing pressures may be used for design of foundations: Allowable vertical bearing pressure: 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot) for a minimum 12 inches embedment into compacted fill and a minimum footing width of 12 inches. The bearing pressure value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of embedment or each additional foot of width to a maximum vertical bearing value of 3,000 psf. This value can be increased by one-third for transient or temporary loads (e.g., seismic, wind). Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 16 - Lateral bearing pressure: 3,000 psf/foot per foot of depth and embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf. Sliding Coefficient: A sliding coefficient of 0.35 may be used for soil to structural concrete interface. 4.3.3 Vapor Retarder It has been a standard of care to install a moisture retarder underneath all slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not totally eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/ firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. This person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. The slab subgrade soils should be well wetted prior to placing concrete. 4.4 Settlement Considerations Compressibility of properly placed compacted fills is anticipated to be relatively low. We recommend that the planned buildings be designed in anticipation of up to 1 inch of total settlement with ½-inch of differential settlement across a lateral distance of 30 feet. 4.5 Footing Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet and need not be greater than 15 feet. Soils within the structural setback area may possess poor lateral stability. Improvements such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, or pavements constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 17 - support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils should be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures: Table 5. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) Loading Conditions Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf) Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Active 35 50 At-Rest 50 80 Passive* 300 150 (2:1, sloping down) * This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 3,000 psf at depth. If sloping down (2:1) grades exist in front of walls, then they should be designed using passive values reduced to ½ of level backfill passive resistance values. Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 18 - All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non- expansive (EI ≤ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28- day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer. 4.7 Site Drainage and Erosion Control All drainage should be directed away from structures (buildings, retaining walls etc.) by means of approved permanent or temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage should be provided to avoid siltation of any temporary catch basins. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures or pavements. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient away from the structures for a distance of at least 5 feet. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion and runoff during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the local grading ordinances. 4.8 Soil Corrosivity /Sulfate Content The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for representative onsite soil samples. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate is less than 0.20 percent by weight, which is considered to present negligible to moderate exposure to buried concrete. As such, Type II cement or equivalent may be used. 4.9 Pavement Design In order to provide the following preliminary recommendations, we have assumed an R-value of 22 for preliminary design purposes. These recommendations are intended for planning purposes only and should not supersede minimum City requirements. For the final pavement design, appropriate traffic indices should be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic-engineering consultant and representative samples of actual subgrade materials should be tested for R-value. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 19 - Table 6. Preliminary Pavement Design Traffic Index AC Pavement Section Thickness Asphaltic-Concrete (AC) Thickness (inches) Aggregate Base (AB) Thickness (inches) 4.0 to 4.5 3.0 5.5 5.0 to 5.5 4.0 6.5 6.0 to 6.5 4.0 10.0 The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches should be properly compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be moisture- conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Proof-rolling subgrade to identify localized areas of yielding subgrade (if any) should be performed prior to placement of aggregate base and under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to City requirements, the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition, or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic concrete should be placed on compacted aggregate base and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory standards ASTM D1561 and D2726. The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be needed. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 20 - 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate plan and construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) prior to bid. Additional geotechnical explorations and/or analyses may be required based on final development plans. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project. In addition, reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided: After completion of site clearing, During preparation and overexcavation of surface soils as described herein, During compaction of all fill materials, After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete, During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and When any unusual conditions are encountered. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 21 - 6.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared for MS Mountain View, LLC, based on their needs, directions, and requirements at the time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except MS Mountain View, LLC, with whom Leighton contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party’s risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton. The recommendations in this geotechnical report should be reviewed in light of changes to the current site design. The conclusions and recommendations in this review and the referenced reports are based in part upon data that was obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological subsurface conditions can and do occur. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this review and previous reports can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to review foundation plans and observe the subsurface conditions during construction. The client is referred to Appendix C regarding important information provided by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) on geotechnical engineering studies and reports and their applicability. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 22 - REFERENCES Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2019 An Interactive Computer Program to Calculate Seismic Hazard Curves and Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16: https://hazards.atcouncil.org#/ ASCE, 2016, ASCE Standard 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by Structural Engineering Institute. California Building Code, 2019, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2. GEOVision, 2016, Final Report, Surface Wave Measurements, California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program Stations, Riverside County, California, prepared for State of California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Strong Motion Instrument Program, dated September 15, 2016. EnGen, 2001, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Commercial/ Industrial Building Pads, Lots, 3-14, 16-23, 35 and 45-57, Tract 21382, Temecula, California, dated March 28. Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 Interim Revision. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131. Leighton, 1988, Revised Geotechnical Fault Investigation for a Phase II Fissure and Subsidence Investigation and Phase III Geotechnical Investigation for Parcel Map No. 21507, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, Project No. 11860325-02, dated November 17, 1988. Leighton, 1989a, Geotechnical Investigation of Faulting and Fissuring at the Pascoe Property, 520-Acre Site, Rancho California, Riverside County California, Project No. 11881096-01, dated March 20, 1989. Leighton, 2019, Fault Hazard Evaluation, MS Mountain View Park, Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California, Project No. 12582.001, dated December 17, 2019. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 - 23 - Public Works Standard, Inc., 2018, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Anaheim, California Rockwell, Thomas, Bergman, Mark and Kenney, Miles, 2000, Holocene Slip Rate of the Elsinore Fault in Temecula Valley, Riverside County, California, in The San Diego Association of Geologist Spring 2000 Filed Trip Guidebook, 16 pages. Riverside County, 2019, Map My County, Website: https:\\gis.countyofriverside.us. Riverside County, 2011, Low Impact Development BMP Design Handbook, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Rev. 9/2011 Schafer Dixon Associates, Inc., 1993, Geotechnical Investigation of Faulting and Seismicity Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility, Temecula, California, Project No30-016F, dated July 7, 1993. Schafer Dixon Associates, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Investigation, A portion of Business Park III, Phase 2, Parcels 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Rancho California, California, Project No80-182, dated September 2, 1988. Schafer Dixon Associates, Inc., 1987, Engineering Geologic Investigation of the Willard Fault Northwest of Business Park Drive, Rancho California, California, Project No70-238, dated July 20, 1987. USGS, 2019, A Compilation of VS30 Values in the United States: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/vs30/us/ ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 1 Scale: Leighton Base Map: Bing Maps 2019 Thematic Information: Leighton 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12582.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12582\001\Maps\12582-001_F01_SLM_2019-12-11.mxd on 12/17/2019 2:10:40 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy) Date: December 2019 SITE LOCATION MAP MS Mountain View ParkAvenida Alvarado, Temecula, California Approximate Site Boundary Qya Qya Qps Trmu Qya Qya Qyv Qyv Qps Qpf Qpf Qps Qps Qpf ³ 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Figure 2 Scale: Leighton 1 " = 1,000 ' Project: 12582.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB Date: December 2019 REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP MS Mountain View Park Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California Approximate Site Boundary Legend !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! !Qya - Young axial-channel deposits Qyv - Young alluvial-valley deposits Qpf - Pauba Formation Qps - Pauba Formation Trmu - Rocks of Menifee Valley, undifferentiated Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12582\001\Maps\12582-001_F04_RGM_2019-12-17.mxd on 12/17/2019 2:43:48 PM Reference: USGS, 2006 Geologic map of the San Bermardino and Santa Ana 30'x60 quadrangle, California Version 1,0 Open File Report 2006-1217. Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy) Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2019 Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12582\001\Maps\12582-001_F02_RFM_2019-12-11.mxd on 12/17/2019 2:11:30 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy) Approximate Site Boundary Figure 3 ³ 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Project: 12582.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB 1 " = 1,000 'Scale:Date: December 2019 MS Mountain View ParkAvenida Alvarado, Temecula, California REGIONAL FAULT MAP Legend Fault (Alquist-Priolo) Fault (Riverside County) Fault Zone (Alquist Priolo) Fault Zone (Riverside County) !(# !(# !(# !(# !(#!(# !(#!(# !(# !(# !(# !(# !(# !(# !(# !(# &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &< &( &( &( &( &(!(# ?? B-1 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13B-14 B-15 B-16 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 LB-1 LB-10 LB-11 LB-12 LB-13 LB-14 LB-15 LB-16 LB-2 LB-3 LB-4 LB-5 LB-6 LB-7 LB-8 LB-9 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 B-18 Afs Qps Af Qps Qps Qps Qps Af AfAfAfAf Qps Qal Qpf AfQpf Af Afs Qpf Af Af Af Qal Qal Qpf Af Af ³ 0 100 200 Feet Plate 1 Leighton GEOTECHNICAL MAP MS Mountain View Park Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12582\001\Maps\12582-001_P01_GM_2019-12-17.mxd on 12/19/2019 4:17:21 PM Project: 12582.001 Author: (mmurphy) Scale:1 " = 100 feet Date: December 2019 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB Base Map: Sheet A1-01, Master Site Plan by RGA. Legend &< Approximate Location of Boring (Leighton, This Study) &( Approximate Location of Percolation Test (Leighton, This Study) !(#Approximate Location of Boring (Engen, 2001) Approximate Site Boundary Approximate Geologic Contact Geologic Units Artificial Fill - Stockpile Soils Artificial Fill Quaternary Alluvium Pauba Formation fanglomerate Pauba Formation LB-16 P-5 B-18 Qps Qpf Qal Af Afs Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDIX A-1 Borings Logs (This Study) 44 50/3" 21 40 50/4" 15 21 50 18 26 50 22 37 50 118 124 SM SM SC R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 10 12 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with angular gravel to 4" Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, light olive gray, moist, fine grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, light olive gray, moist, fine grained sand, iron oxide staining SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, very fine to fine grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, light brown, moist, fine grained sand CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, very fine to fine grained sand, iron oxide staining Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 7 18 33 20 34 27 13 23 27 7 6 5 15 23 36 23 30 50/5" 120 107 SM CL CL SC CL B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 6 18 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with gravel to 2" SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with angular gravel to 2" no recovery GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND, hard, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with angular gravel to 2", sample disturbed , limited recovery Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SANDY Lean CLAY with GRAVEL, medium stiff, dark gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel, organics Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf); CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark reddish brown and dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with gravel to 2", roots, iron oxide staining GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND, hard, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 1" Drilled to 26.42' Sampled to 26.42' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings MD, RV, CR Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 4 5 4 4 4 30 33 50 50/3" 58 107 SM SC SC B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 54 16 Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, organics SILTY SAND, loose, dark gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand, abundant organics SILTY SAND, loose, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand, cobble @ 8' Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf); CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with gravel to 2" CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 15.25' Sampled to 15.25' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings MD, SA Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 28 50/1" 42 50/3" 43 50/3" 50/5" 50 115 120 SC SM SC R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 5 10 Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf); CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with abundant gravel to 4" CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with abundant gravel to 2", limited recovery SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with abundant gravel to 1.5" SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with abundant gravel to 2" as above CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel DS Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 2 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 50/4"SMR-6 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 30.33' Sampled to 30.33' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 2 of 2 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 18 23 25 13 21 28 14 21 41 5 9 15 19 28 32 15 26 32 117 121 111 SM SC SM SC ML R-1 B-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 14 11 7 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, moist, fine grained sand, organics Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf); CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SANDY SILT, hard, olive gray, moist, very fine to fine grained sand Drilled to 26.5' Sampled to 26.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings EI, CR CO DS Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 13 10 12 15 23 28 15 24 26 18 30 40 24 33 33 102 122 127 SM SM SC SM SC B-1 R-1 R-1 R-3 R-4 R-5 4 5 9 Artificial Fill (Stockpile); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with abundant gravel and cobble to 6" SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with abundant gravel to 3" SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown and dark reddish brown, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown to dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, iron oxide staining Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 50/3" 17 19 21 39 50 50/5" 122 SM SC SM R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 9 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 3", large clast in sampler, cobble @ 2' CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 1" Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with angular gravel to 1.5" Drilled to 15.42' Sampled to 15.42' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 8 24 38 11 15 11 18 31 33 9 13 21 10 16 23 102 99 SM SP-SM SM CL R-1 R-2 B-1 R-3 R-4 R-5 9 25 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light brownish gray, moist, fine grained sand Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, gray, moist, very fine to fine grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, very fine to fine grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY with GRAVEL, stiff, dark grayish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings -200 EI EI Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 32 50/5" 15 31 40 113 SM SM SC R-1 R-2 17 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Pauba Fanglomerate (Qpf); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown and dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with gravel to 1" CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark olive brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 16 27 46 12 20 30 22 50/6" 28 50 110 SM SM SP CL SM SW R-1 R-2 B-1 R-3 R-4 4 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, light gray, moist, fine grained sand Poorly graded SAND, dense, light gray, moist, fine grained sand Lean CLAY, hard, dark grayish brown, moist SILTY SAND, dense, gray, moist, fine grained sand Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL, dense, light brownish gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 16' Sampled to 16' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings EI, CR Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-10 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 13 40 50/4" 30 36 37 12 26 50/5" 123 SM SC SM R-1 R-2 R-3 9 Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 1" SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray, moist, fine grained sand Drilled to 11.42' Sampled to 11.42' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-11 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 34 50 15 30 32 15 23 29 14 11 12 24 25 26 11 19 31 117 119 116 111 SM SC SM SC B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 6 9 7 18 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown to dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with angular gravel to 1" Pauba Formation (Qps); CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine grained sand Drilled to 26.5' Sampled to 26.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-12 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 24 50 30 50/4" 24 50/5" 110 SM SW SM R-1 R-2 R-3 6 Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray, moist, fine grained sand Well-graded SAND, dense, light brownish gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray, moist, fine grained sand Drilled to 15.92' Sampled to 15.92' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-13 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 17 33 48 21 36 48 23 50 16 38 48 124 SM SM R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 8 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel, cobble @ 4' Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray, moist, fine grained sand, iron oxide staining Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-14 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 30 40 50/5" 21 34 50 21 50 22 21 27 1110 122 SM SM SC CL R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 8 8 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to olive gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 1.5" Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray, moist, fine grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, olive gray, moist, fine grained sand Lean CLAY with SAND, hard, olive, moist, fine grained sand Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-15 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 37 40 43 24 25 35 23 50 20 32 37 132 SM SM B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 4 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown and dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine grained sand SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-26-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2-R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-16 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 6 7 8 SM S-1 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND, gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, very fine to medium grained sand Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings SA Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-1 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 9 14 15 SW SM S-1 Artificial Fill (Af); Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL, light gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, olive brown, moist, fine grained sand SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 6' Sampled to 6' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-2 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 7 10 SM S-1 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand SILTY SAND, olive, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND, medium dense, olive gray, moist, very fine to fine grained sand Drilled to 6' Sampled to 6' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings SA Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-3 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 12 9 12 SM SCS-1 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light olive gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand Drilled to 8' Sampled to 8' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings SA, EI Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-4 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 13 15 13 SM S-1 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter Mo i s t u r e Ground Elevation De p t h Bl o w s El e v a t i o n Pe r 6 I n c h e s Page 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop So i l C l a s s . 11-25-19 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Avenida Alverado Business Park 12582.001 Drilling Method 8" Sa m p l e N o . Fe e t At t i t u d e s SAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling Corp * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Co n t e n t , % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-5 Logged By Date Drilled JTD Fe e t S (U . S . C . S . ) Lo g Ty p e o f T e s t s Gr a p h i c pc f Location Dr y D e n s i t y N This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDIX A-2 Borings Logs (EnGen, 2001) Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDIX B-1 Laboratory Test Results (This Study) 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 12582.001 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER Avenida Alverado Temecula Project No.:LB-3 Sample No.: Soil Type : PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silt with Sand (ML)s, Very Dark Brown. (ML)s GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):0 - 5.0 Project Name:B-1 Dec-194:23 :73 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; LB-3, B-1 (10-26-19) S-1 Dec-193:24 :73 Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silt with Sand (ML)s, Brown. (ML)s GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):3.5 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER Avenida Alverado Temecula Project No.:P-1 Sample No.: Soil Type :12582.001 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; P-1, S-1 (10-26-19) S-1 Dec-190:51 :49 Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Brown. SM GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):4.5 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER Avenida Alverado Temecula Project No.:P-3 Sample No.: Soil Type :12582.001 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; P-3, S-1 (10-26-19) S-1 Dec-190:59 :41 Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Brown SM GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):6.5 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER Avenida Alverado Temecula Project No.:P-4 Sample No.: Soil Type :12582.001 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000 PE R C E N T F I N E R B Y W E I G H T PARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; P-4, S-1 (10-26-19) Tested By:G. Davila Date:12/10/19 Input By: M. Vinet Date:12/16/19 LB-2 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0 X Moist Mechanical Ram Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft³)0.07500 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10232 10380 10378 10274 5571 5571 5571 5571 4661 4809 4807 4703 2252.2 2610.0 2761.3 2483.5 2140.2 2437.0 2537.4 2247.0 277.8 278.0 278.0 279.5 6.0 8.0 9.9 12.0 137.0 141.4 141.3 138.2 129.2 130.9 128.6 123.4 131.0 7.8 PROCEDURE USED Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less X Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits: LL,PL,PI Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Weight of Mold (g) Avenida Alverado Temecula Preparation Method: Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 12582.001 TEST NO. Soil Identification: Project Name: Sample No.: Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)g, Dark Brown.. MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project No.: Boring No.: 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 XX Compaction; LB-2, B-1 (10-26-19) Compaction; LB-3, B-1 (10-26-19) Tested By:G. Davila Date:12/10/19 Input By: M. Vinet Date:12/16/19 LB-3 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0 X Moist Mechanical Ram Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5244 5300 5354 5371 3572 3572 3572 3572 1672 1728 1782 1799 1282.6 1089.5 1235.3 1238.4 1170.6 983.9 1097.2 1080.6 278.0 279.4 279.6 276.3 12.5 15.0 16.9 19.6 110.4 114.1 117.6 118.7 98.1 99.2 100.6 99.3 100.8 17.7 PROCEDURE USED X Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution:4:23:73 GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits: LL,PL,PI Sample No.: Silt with Sand (ML)s, Very Dark Brown. MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project No.: Boring No.: Weight of Container (g) Weight of Mold (g) Avenida Alverado Temecula Preparation Method: Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 12582.001 TEST NO. Soil Identification: Project Name: Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) 90.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30. Dr y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 XX Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf) C (psf)f (o)Saturation (%) Peak 847 34 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Ultimate 261 33 Final Moisture Content (%) 2.202 1.542 Clayey Sand (SC), Reddish Brown. Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) LB-4 R-2 10 89.8 12.25 123.2 0.0025 4.000 3.524 2.824 0.0025 64.3 2.000 0.9905 12.25 18.4 1.000 2.415 0.9999 15.8 111.3 1.000 2.415 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 1.000 1.508 0.902 0.0025 12.25 116.6 2.415 Soil Identification: 12-19 Project No.:12582.001 74.3 1.0040 1.000 17.5 Avenida Alverado Temecula 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Direct Shear; LB-4, R-2 (12-03-19) Normal Stress (kip/ft²) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf) C (psf)f (o)Saturation (%) Peak 1115 41 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Ultimate 632 39 Final Moisture Content (%) 2.582 2.535 Silty Sand (SM), Reddish Brown. Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) LB-5 R-5 15 94.4 11.85 125.9 0.0033 4.000 4.668 3.804 0.0025 93.9 2.000 0.9695 11.85 15.9 1.000 2.415 0.9880 16.6 125.7 1.000 2.415 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 1.000 2.158 1.266 0.0033 11.85 123.1 2.415 Soil Identification: 12-19 Project No.:12582.001 86.7 0.9945 1.000 16.7 Avenida Alverado Temecula 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Sh e a r S t r e s s ( k s f ) Normal Stress (ksf) Direct Shear; LB-5, R-5 (12-03-19) Project Name:Tested By:G. Davila Date:12/6/19 Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:12/17/19 Boring No.:Depth:2.5 - 3.5 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 0.527812/7/19 0 1175 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 8:00 1235 0.5278 27.8 1.0 28 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 109.3 0.5000 10 0.5000 12/7/19 9:00 1.0 1.0 12:25 1.012/6/19 12/6/19 112.3 Moisture Content (%) Date 12:15 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 122.8 Time After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 10 0.543 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) 86.5 4.01 2.70 4770.2 0.0 597.4 4770.2 645.9 1.0278 629.0 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 N/A Avenida Alverado Temecula 12582.001 LB-5 B-1 Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM), Brown MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 10Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 190.4 2.70 372.4 190.4 17.8 0.352 74.8 190.4 629.0 128.7 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 88.550.1 Pressure (psi) 0.334Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 69.1 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 9.3 350.6 325.1 0.501 50.6 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:12/13/19 Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:12/17/19 Boring No.:Depth:15.0 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 11.0 627.6 597.9 0.582 327.6 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 92.251.0 Pressure (psi) 0.368Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 76.2 353.2 199.0 23.5 0.407 89.8 199.0 635.1 123.4 MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 11Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 199.0 2.70 N/A Avenida Alverado Temecula 12582.001 LB-8 R-4 & R-5 Sandy Lean Clay s(CL), Reddish Brown. 99.8 4.01 2.70 756.2 0.0 591.1 756.2 1.2 1.0660 635.1 After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 11 0.687 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) 12/13/19 106.6 Moisture Content (%) Date 9:50 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 118.3 Time 12/14/19 9:00 1.0 1.0 10:00 1.012/13/19 1.0 66 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 100.0 0.5000 10 0.5000 0.566012/14/19 0 1320 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 8:00 1380 0.5660 66.0 Project Name:Tested By:G. Davila Date:12/9/19 Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:12/11/19 Boring No.:Depth:2.5 - 3.5 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 0.643512/10/19 0 1370 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 9:00 1430 0.6435 143.5 1.0 144 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 81.7 0.5000 10 0.5000 12/10/19 10:00 1.0 1.0 10:10 1.012/9/19 12/9/19 93.4 Moisture Content (%) Date 10:00 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 107.0 Time After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 11 1.063 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) 100.0 4.01 2.70 2123.2 0.0 564.1 2123.2 0.0 1.1435 639.3 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 N/A Avenida Alverado 12582.001 LB-10 B-1 Silty Clay (CL-ML), Yellowish Brown. MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 11Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 209.4 2.70 309.8 209.4 38.8 0.515 122.0 209.4 639.3 113.4 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 98.548.7 Pressure (psi) 0.446Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 92.3 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 14.5 337.8 299.8 0.804 37.8 Project Name:Tested By:G. Davila Date:12/6/19 Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date: Boring No.:Depth:6.5 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 0.514012/7/19 0 1145 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 8:00 1205 0.5140 14.0 1.0 14 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 115.0 0.5000 10 0.5000 12/7/19 9:00 1.0 1.0 12:55 1.012/6/19 12/6/19 116.6 Moisture Content (%) Date 12:45 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 126.5 Time After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 11 0.466 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) 99.0 4.01 2.70 841.4 0.0 627.7 841.4 8.6 1.0140 648.0 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 N/A Avenida Alverado 12582.001 P-4 S-1 Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM), Brown. MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 11Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 208.4 2.70 386.5 208.4 13.8 0.318 66.8 208.4 648.0 130.8 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 79.651.4 Pressure (psi) 0.309Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 63.9 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 8.5 577.9 554.4 0.446 277.9 Project Name:Date:12/6/19 Project Number:12582.001 Technician:F. Mina Boring Number:LB-2 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0 Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location: Sample Description:Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)g, Dark Brown. TEST SPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %7.1 8.7 10.2 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.49 2.53 2.55 DRY DENSITY, pcf 118.2 119.8 119.8 COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 185 150 115 EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 649 326 223 EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 32 19 9 STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)46 100 125 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.38 4.49 4.60 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 59 25 13 R-VALUE CORRECTED 59 25 13 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.66 1.20 1.39 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.1.21 0.72 0.34 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:41 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:22 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:22 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Avenida Alverado Temecula N/A 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 CO V E R T H I C K N E S S B Y E X P A N S I O N i n fe e t COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400500600700800 R-VA L U E EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) LB-8 B-1 5.0 - 10.0 BULK 10 667.5 624.7 277.8 12.3 BA 624.7 277.8 346.9 BA 466.8 277.8 189.0 46 54 Project Name: Project No.: Client Name: Tested By:F. Mina Date:12/11/19 Rev. 08-04 SM PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140 After Wash % Retained No. 200 Sieve Dry Weight of Sample (gm) Dry Weight of Sample + Container (gm) Weight of Container (gm) Avenida Alverado Temecula 12582.001 Weight of Container (gm) Moisture Content (%) Weight of Container (gm.) Weight of Dry Sample (gm.) % Passing No. 200 Sieve Depth (ft.) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm.) Moisture Correction Sample Type Visual Soil Classification Soak Time (min) Boring No. Sample No. Container No.: Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm.) MS Mountain View Container No.: Weight of Sample + Container (gm.) Sample Dry Weight Determination 200 Wash; LB-8, B-1 (12-03-19) One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils (ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B' Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:12/12/19 Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:12/17/19 Boring No.:LB-5 Sample Type:IN SITU Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)15.0 Sample Description: Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled ) ** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method. Initial Dry Density (pcf):109.5 Final Dry Density (pcf):113.7 Initial Moisture (%):7.5 Final Moisture (%) :17.2 Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.5388 Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70 Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):37.6 1.050 0.9961 0.00 -0.39 -0.39 2.013 0.9911 0.00 -0.89 -0.89 H2O 0.9633 0.00 -3.67 -3.67 -2.80 Rev. 01-10 Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = Corrected Deformation (%) Pressure (p) (ksf) 0.5328 0.5251 Final Reading (in)Void Ratio Avenida Alverado Temecula 0.4823 0.0039 0.0089 0.0367 Silty Sand (SM), Brown. 12582.001 Swell (+) Settlement (-) % of Sample Thickness Load Compliance (%) Apparent Thickness (in) -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 De f o r m a t i o n % Log Pressure (ksf) Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve Inundate With Distilled Water Project Name:Avenida Alverado Temecula Tested By :M. Vinet Date:12/13/19 Project No. :12582.001 Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:12/17/19 Boring No.LB-2 LB-5 LB-10 Sample No.B-1 B-1 B-1 Sample Depth (ft)0 - 5.0 2.5 - 3.5 5.0 - 6.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 2 3 1 2 3 850 850 850 Timer Timer Timer 45 45 45 26.0955 24.4710 25.2239 26.0937 24.4667 25.2212 0.0018 0.0043 0.003 74.07 176.95 111.11 74 177 111 TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II Soil Identification: Moisture Content (%) SC-SM CL-ML Time In / Time Out Weight of Soaked Soil (g) PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis Wt. of Crucible (g) (SC)g Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) Weight of Container (g) Duration of Combustion (min) Wt. of Residue (g) (A) Beaker No. Crucible No. Furnace Temperature (°C) PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDIX B-2 Laboratory Test Results (EnGen, 2001) Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDIX C Seismic and Slope Stability Analyses 12/17/2019 ATC Hazards by Location https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=33.50559&lng=-117.17567&address=1/2 Hazards by Location Search Information Coordinates:33.50559, -117.17567 Elevation:1068 ft Timestamp:2019-12-17T19:03:48.553Z Hazard Type:Seismic Reference Document: ASCE7-10 Risk Category:I Site Class:C Basic Parameters Name Value Description SS 1.891 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s) S1 0.77 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s) SMS 1.891 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 1.001 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.26 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA SD1 0.667 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA Additional Information Name Value Description SDC E Seismic design category Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2s Fv 1.3 Site amplification factor at 1.0s CRS 0.91 Coefficient of risk (0.2s) CR1 0.898 Coefficient of risk (1.0s) PGA 0.769 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.769 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 8 Long-period transition period (s) SsRT 1.891 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) 1068 ft Map data ©2019Report a map error 12/17/2019 ATC Hazards by Location https://hazards.atcouncil.org/#/seismic?lat=33.50559&lng=-117.17567&address=2/2 SsUH 2.079 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) SsD 2.33 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) S1RT 0.77 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s) S1UH 0.857 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) S1D 1.057 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s) PGAd 0.896 Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design. Disclaimer Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services. While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report. 1.7911.7911.7911.791 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3)Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Pauba Fanglomerate 130 Mohr‐Coulomb 850 34 None 0 0.15 15 0 12 5 10 0 75 50 25 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 Analysis Description Seismic Company Leighton ConsultingScale1:352Drawn By JTD File Name 1.5 to 1 60-foot Cut Slope.slmdDate12/17/2019, 11:09:32 AM Project MS Mountain View Avenida Alverado Business Park SLIDEINTERPRET 8.023 2.3612.3612.3612.361 Material Name Color Unit Weight (lbs/Ō3)Strength Type Cohesion (psf) Phi (deg) Water Surface Ru Pauba Fanglomerate 130 Mohr‐Coulomb 850 34 None 0 15 0 12 5 10 0 75 50 25 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 Analysis Description Static Company Leighton ConsultingScale1:348Drawn By JTD File Name 1.5 to 1 60-foot Cut Slope.slmdDate12/17/2019, 11:09:32 AM Project MS Mountain View Avenida Alverado Business Park SLIDEINTERPRET 8.023 Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDIX D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -i- APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 GENERAL 1 1.1 Intent 1 1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2 2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2 2.2 Processing 3 2.3 Overexcavation 3 2.4 Benching 3 2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3 3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4 3.1 General 4 3.2 Oversize 4 3.3 Import 4 4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4 4.1 Fill Layers 4 4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5 4.3 Compaction of Fill 5 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5 4.5 Compaction Testing 5 4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5 4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6 5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6 6.0 EXCAVATION 6 7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6 7.1 Safety 6 7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7 7.3 Lift Thickness 7 7.4 Observation and Testing 7 Standard Details A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text B - Oversize Rock Disposal Rear of Text C - Canyon Subdrains Rear of Text D - Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Rear of Text E - Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills Rear of Text Retaining Wall Rear of Text LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -1- 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 the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants 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. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -2- 1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -3- If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. 2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. 2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 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 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -4- prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches. 3.0 Fill Material 3.1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction. 3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill 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. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -5- 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). 4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. 4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557. 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). 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. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -6- 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. 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 Safety The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -7- 7.2 Bedding and Backfill All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 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 relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill. 7.3 Lift Thickness 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. 7.4 Observation and Testing The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Project No. 12582.001 MS Mountain View Park , Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, California December 20, 2019 APPENDI X E GBA, Information Regarding This Geotechnical Engineering Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are ����������� The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- phase observations. Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with ��������������� While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org