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 36203 Parcel 1 Geotechnical Report
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL AND INFILTRATION EVALUATION PROPOSED TESLA REPAIR FACILITY – BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS 27635 DIAZ ROAD TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR GREENLAW PARTNERS 18301 VON KARMAN, SUITE 250 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 1548 NORTH MAPLE STREET CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878 PROJECT NO. 2501-CR MARCH 20, 2024 APPROVED BY CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS valerie.caragan 09/17/2024 09/17/2024 09/17/2024 09/17/20 GEOTECHNICAL | ENVIRONMENTAL | MATERIALS March 20, 2024 Project No. 2501-CR Greenlaw Partners 18301 Von Karman, Suite 250 Irvine, California 92612 Attention: Mr. James Roberts Subject: Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Site Improvements 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Roberts: We are pleased to provide the results of this Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for the proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Site Improvements at the subject site located in the city of Temecula , Riverside County, California. This report presents a discussion of our evaluation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for earthwork and construction. GeoTek asserts the planned improvements are feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page ii The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. Edward H. LaMont CEG 1892, Exp. 07/31/24 Principal Geologist Kase I. Gebbie, EIT Staff Engineer Gaby M. Bogdanoff GE 3133, Exp. 06/30/24 Project Engineer Kyle R. McHargue CEG 2790, Exp. 02/28/26 Project Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee \\geotekfs1\Riverside\Projects\2501 to 2550\2501CR Greenlaw Partners Diaz Rd Temecula\Additional GEO and INFIL\2501CR Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation 27635 Diaz Road Temecula rev 3-20-24.docx Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................. 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................. 1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 2 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................ 3 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... 3 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 4 4.2.1 Undocumented Fill .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 4.2.2 Young Alluvial Valley Deposits .................................................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................. 5 4.3.1 Surface Water ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 4.3.1 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 INFILTRATION STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................. 6 4.5 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .................................................................................................................................................... 7 4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................................... 7 4.7 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT ............................................................................................... 8 4.8 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 9 5.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.1 Site Clearing ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 5.2.2 Remedial Grading ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10 5.2.3 Engineered Fill ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2.4 Import Soils .................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2.5 Excavation Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 5.2.6 Temporary Excavations .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 5.2.7 Shrinkage and Subsidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 5.3 BUILDING SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 11 5.3.1 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 13 5.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 13 5.4.1 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Design for the New Parking Lot .................................................................................... 13 5.4.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Design for Heavy Truck Traffic Areas ......................................................... 14 5.4.3 Pavement Construction .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 5.5 SOIL CORROSIVITY ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 5.6 SOIL SULFATE CONTENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.7 IMPORT SOILS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 5.8 CONCRETE FLATWORK ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 5.9 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 17 Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 5.10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 18 6. INTENT ............................................................................................................................................... 19 7. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 19 8. SELECTED REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 19 ENCLOSURES Figure 1 – Site Location and Topography Map Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results Appendix C – Infiltration Test Data and Conversion Sheets Appendix D – General Grading Guidelines Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 1 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The intent of this report is to provide a limited geotechnical evaluation of the existing conditions at the subject site with respect to proposed building and parking lot improvements. Services provided for this study included the following: ▪ Research and review of available geologic and geotechnical data, and general information pertinent to the site, ▪ Perform a reconnaissance of the site, ▪ Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of five (5) exploratory test borings extending to depths ranging from about 11.5 to 16.5 feet below existing grades, ▪ Infiltration testing of two (2) additional test borings at depths of about four (4) feet each within areas of proposed stormwater quality management facilities, ▪ Collection of bulk and in-situ samples of the onsite materials for laboratory testing, ▪ Laboratory testing of the soil samples collected from the site, ▪ Review and evaluation of site seismicity, and ▪ Compilation of this Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation report which presents GeoTek’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the site improvements. The intent of this report is to aid in the evaluation of the site for future improvements from a geotechnical perspective. The professional opinions and geotechnical information contained in this report will likely need to be updated based on review of final site development plans. These should be provided to GeoTek for review when available. 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The approximate 3.35-acre irregular shaped project site is located at 27635 Diaz Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (see Figure 1). The nearly rectangular-shaped project site is also identified by Riverside County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 921-030-043-4. The Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 2 site is developed with an approximately 40,899 square foot single-story industrial building (Temecula Recycling) and single-story office building as well as associated utility, landscaping, and hardscaping improvements. Additionally, the site contains an asphalt paved parking lot area near Diaz Road, and an unpaved parking lot to the southwest of the industrial building. The southwestern half of the parcel is currently occupied by a recycling storage yard, which contains various piles of recycled materials, scrap metal, and numerous roll-off metal containers. Site grades within the project site generally slope gently down to the south-southwest with elevations ranging from about 1,025 to 1,022 feet above mean sea level (msl). The site is bounded on the northeast by Diaz Road, which is followed by the Murrieta Creek, on the northwest and southeast by light industrial facilities, and on the southwest by vacant land. 2.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Based on review of the Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., dated February 1, 2024, GeoTek understands the proposed site improvements will include new asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete drive and parking areas for a proposed Tesla automobile Repair facility. Additional site improvements will include additional storm drain utility installation and possibly stormwater BMP systems. The specific BMP system types are unknown at the current time, but are expected to have an invert elevation of about 4 feet below existing grades. GeoTek understands the proposed Tesla Repair facility will require a new concrete slab-on-grade floor within the existing building area. Modification of structural elements are not anticipated to be necessary as part of the project. Due to the relatively flat topography of the site, minimal cuts and fills are anticipated to be required to achieve proposed grades. No screen or retaining walls are currently planned. If currently proposed site development differs from these assumptions, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation. Final site development plans should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available. Additional geotechnical field exploration, analyses, and recommendations may be necessary upon review of site development plans. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 3 3. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration was conducted on March 1, 2024 and consisted of the excavation of five (5) exploratory hollow-stem auger borings to depths of about 11.5 to 16.5 feet below existing grades. Additionally, two (2) infiltration test borings (I-1 and I-2) were each drilled to approximately four (4) feet below existing grades within the locations of currently planned BMP systems. The later boring locations were selected by the project civil engineer. An engineer from GeoTek logged the explorations and collected relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of on-site soil materials. The approximate locations of the exploratory boring excavations are shown on the Exploration Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the borings are included in Appendix A. 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on the soil samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate the physical properties of the soils for use in the engineering design and analysis. Results of the laboratory testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix B. 4. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS 4.1 REGIONAL SETTING The subject property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends approximately 975 miles south of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the tip of Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 4 Fault zone trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. More specific to the property, this is an area geologically mapped to be underlain by young alluvial valley deposits (Kennedy, M.P., Morton, D.M., Alvarez, R.M., and Morton, Greg, 2003). The nearest zoned fault is the Elsinore fault (Temecula section). The nearest mapped Elsinore fault splay is located about 0.5-miles southwest of the site, while the nearest additional splay of the Elsinore fault (Temecula section) is mapped approximately 0.8-miles to the northeast of the site. 4.2 GENERAL SOIL/GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS A brief description of the earth materials encountered below the site and within the area of anticipated construction is presented in the following section. Based on our field exploration, the area of anticipated improvements is underlain by some near surface fill associated with the current improvements underlain by young alluvial valley deposits. 4.2.1 Undocumented Fill Undocumented fill was encountered in all exploratory borings to depths of about three (3) to four (4) feet below existing grade within the existing industrial building, and to depths of about two (2) to four (4) feet within the proposed paving areas. The fill soils encountered generally consisted of silty sands, clayey sands, sandy to clayey silts, and sandy clays (SM, SC, ML, and CL soil types based upon the Unified Soil Classification System). The undocumented fill soils were likely placed during the construction of the existing industrial facility. Asphaltic concrete and aggregate base was encountered at the surface of Boring B -5, within the existing parking lot area. Additionally, the two (2) borings excavated within the existing industrial building encountered plain (i.e., unreinforced) Portland Cement Concrete slab about 5-inches in thickness at the surface of each boring. Steel reinforcing was not observed to be present within the slab at the boring locations, which were cored with an approximate 12-inch diameter core. In general, the fill encountered within the building area was moist to very moist and in a very stiff in-place condition. The fill encountered in the future pavement areas was moist to very moist and in a loose condition in the upper approximate 2 feet, becoming dense to very stiff below about 2 feet. 4.2.2 Young Alluvial Valley Deposits Alluvial soils were encountered beneath the undocumented fill within all borings performed. The alluvium generally consisted of silty sands, clayey sands, sandy to clayey silts, and sandy to silty Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 5 clays (SM, SC, ML, and CL soil types). The coarse-grained alluvial soils encountered were observed to generally be medium dense to dense, while the fine-grained soils encountered generally were found to be stiff to hard. Alluvial soils were encountered to the maximum depth explored of about 16.5 feet below existing grades. Based on the results of laboratory testing, the surficial soils exhibited a “Low” (21≤EI≤50) and “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) Expansion Index (EI) when tested in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Based on laboratory test results, the near surface soils have a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent (ASTM 4327). Based upon R-Value testing in accordance with ASTM D 2844, the anticipated subgrade soils for site paving areas exhibited a relatively poor pavement support capacity. Collapse testing indicated the native alluvial soils generally exhibit a “very low” potential for hydrocollapse (settlement upon wetting with or without additional loading). Additional details regarding the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. 4.3 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER 4.3.1 Surface Water Surface water was not observed at the time of our field explorations. If encountered during the earthwork construction, surface water on this site is the result of precipitation or surface run-off from surrounding sites. Overall area drainage in the area is most generally directed to the south- southwest. Provisions for surface drainage should be accounted for by the project civil engineer. 4.3.1 Groundwater Groundwater was observed at a depth of about 14 feet below existing grades within Boring B-3. Previous explorations performed by GeoTek within the parcel located immediately southwest of the project site also encountered groundwater at approximately 9 feet below grade (GeoTek, 2023). This concurs with the information from the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Temecula Quadrangle (CGS, 2018a) which shows that historic high groundwater in the site region is about 10 feet below existing grades. It is possible that seasonal variations (temperature, rainfall, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the groundwater level. The groundwater levels presented in this report are the levels that were measured at the time of our field activities. It is recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the site at the time of the construction activities to determine the impact, if any, on the construction procedures. Based on the depth to current and historic high groundwater discussed and due to the minimal anticipated cuts and fills required to reach design grades for the proposed improvements, Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 6 groundwater is not anticipated to significantly impact the construction of the planned improvements. 4.4 INFILTRATION STUDY Infiltration testing within two (2) borings (Boring I-1 and I-2) was performed within one (1) area as directed by the project civil engineer in order to assess the infiltration rates of the underlaying soils. The tests were performed at an approximate depth of four (4) feet below existing grades. Logs of the infiltration test borings are presented in Appendix A, and the locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. A three-inch diameter slotted PVC pipe encapsulated in filter sock was inserted into each of the test holes. The annular space between the test hole sidewalls and PVC pipe was filled with gravel to prevent caving. The soils encountered in our test borings generally consisted of sandy silt. Subsequent to pre-soaking the test holes in general conformance with the County of Riverside Boring Percolation Test Method, testing was performed in the bottom 20 inches of the test borings by a representative from our firm. The percolation testing was performed in general conformance with the County of Riverside and City of Temecula requirements (Riverside County, 2011; City of Temecula, 2018). The percolation rate was then converted to an infiltration rate utilizing the Porchet Method. The infiltration rate for the borings is presented in the following table, after the water level had stabilized. SUMMARY OF RAW INFILTRATION RATES Boring No. Depth of Boring (feet) Infiltration Rate* (inches per hour) I-1 4.0 0.04 I-2 4.0 0.06 *Porchet Method calculated infiltration rate, based upon the measured infiltration rate A suitable factor of safety should be applied to the raw, measured rates to design the infiltration systems. Detailed percolation and infiltration test data is included in Appendix C. The subsurface soils generally exhibit a relatively poor to negligible infiltration capacity. In addition, due to the relatively high groundwater conditions historically within about 9 to 10 feet below existing grades, onsite stormwater infiltration is considered not feasible for the proposed development. It should be noted that infiltration rates will vary and are mostly dependent on the underlying consistency of the site soil and relative density. Infiltration rates will be impacted by weight of Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 7 equipment travelling over the soils, placement of engineered fill and other various factors. GeoTek assumes no responsibility or liability for the ultimate design or performance of the storm water management system. 4.5 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest- trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The site is located in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site nor is the site situated within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. The State of California has indicated that the subject site is located within a zone for liquefaction potential but is not located within an earthquake fault zone nor within a landslide zone. The County of Riverside indicates that the site is “Not” located within a Fault Line or Fault Zone, has a “Very High” liquefaction potential, and has “Active” subsidence. 4.6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The site is located at approximately 33.5091 Latitude and -117.1639 Longitude. Site spectral accelerations (Sa and S1), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods for a Class “D” site, was determined from the SEAOC/OSHPD web interface that utilizes the USGS web services and retrieves the seismic design data and presents that information in a report format. Using the ASCE 7-16 option on the SEAOC/OSHPD website results in the values for SM1 and SD1 reported as “null-See Section 11.4.8” (of ASCE 7-16). As noted in ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, a site-specific ground motion procedure is recommended for Site Class “D” when the value S1 exceeds 0.2. The value S1 for the subject site exceeds 0.2. For a site Class “D”, an exception to performing a site-specific ground motion analysis is allowed in ASCE 7-16 where S1 exceeds 0.2 provided the value of the seismic response coefficient, Cs, is conservatively calculated by Eq 12.8-2 of ASCE 7-16 for values of T≤1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Eq. 12.8-3 for TL≥T>1.5Ts or Eq. 12.8-4 for T>TL. The results, based on the 2015 NEHRP and the 2022 CBC, are presented in the following table and we have assumed that the exception as allowed in ASCE 7-16 is applicable. If the exception is deemed not appropriate, a site-specific ground motion analysis will be required. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 8 SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS Mapped 0.2 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.595g Mapped 1.0 sec Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.595g Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient for Site Class “D”, Fv 1.705 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 0.2 Second, SMS 1.595g Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0 Second, SM1 1.014g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 0.2 Second, SDS 1.064g 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 second, SD1 0.674g Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.787g Seismic Design Category D Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the project structural engineer based upon the local practices and ordinances, expected building response and desired level of conservatism. 4.7 LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT The subject site is located within a zone of potentially liquefiable soils, as indicated by the State of California and County of Riverside. Historic high groundwater is considered to be about 9 to 10 feet below existing grades per the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2018a). Groundwater was encountered within one (1) of the borings performed, at a depth of about 14 feet below existing grades at the time of drilling. The potential for seismic-induced settlement for the project site was assessed in the referenced report (GeoTek, 2022), from an evaluation of one (1) Cone Penetration Test boring (CPT-2) data using a peak ground acceleration of 0.79g and a mean weighted earthquake magnitude (Mw) of 6.96. The earthquake magnitude and ground acceleration were obtained from the USGS websites referenced. The referenced report (GeoTek, 2023) utilized the computer software program Cliq Version 3.3.3.4 (Geologismiki, 2006) for the liquefaction assessment. The results of the seismic-settlement potential from the referenced report (GeoTek, 2023) indicate an estimated maximum earthquake-induced settlement of about ¼ inch. Differential settlement is assumed to be about ½ of the total settlement over a 30-foot span. The magnitude of estimated settlement is considered nominal for the subject site, and therefore should not significantly impact the functionality of the proposed improvements. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 9 4.8 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our investigation. The subject property does not lie within an earthquake induced landslide zone. The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as a seiche or tsunami is considered negligible due to site elevation and distance to an open body of water. Due to the relatively flat site topography and relatively low liquefaction-induced settlement potential, the estimated lateral spread hazard present at the subject site is estimated to be low. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 GENERAL The anticipated site improvements appear feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations, and those provided by this firm at a later date are properly incorporated into the design of the project. Final site development and grading plans should be reviewed by GeoTek when they become available. 5.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the applicable grading ordinances of the City of Temecula/County of Riverside, the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), and recommendations contained in this report. The Grading Guidelines included in Appendix D outline general procedures and do not anticipate all site-specific situations. In the event of conflict, the recommendations presented in the test of this report should supersede those contained in Appendix D. 5.2.1 Site Clearing In areas of planned grading or improvements, the site should be cleared of vegetation, roots, existing flatwork, trash and debris, asphalt concrete, aggregate base, and Portland Cement concrete and these should be properly disposed of offsite. Voids resulting from removing any materials should be replaced with engineered fill materials with expansion characteristics similar to the on-site materials. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 10 5.2.2 Remedial Grading Due to the anticipated disturbance of the upper site soils within the industrial building during slab demolition, the upper one foot of fill soil is recommended to be scarified, moisture conditioned to slightly above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density as determined per ASTM D 1557. A representative of GeoTek should observe and verify that adequate moisture conditioning and proper compaction has been achieved prior to constructing the new building slab. Also, perioding testing of the existing fill, below the recommended 12-inch recompaction zone, should be performed to confirm that these materials have at least 90 percent relative compaction. Pavement and parking areas planned to receive new fill soils or surface improvements should be over-excavated to at least 2 feet below existing grades and the exposed soil should be proof rolled with a heavy rubber-tired piece of construction equipment approved by and in the presence of the GeoTek representative. Any soil that ruts or excessively yields during proof rolling should be removed as recommended by the GeoTek representative. The horizontal limits of the proof rolling and any needed over-excavation should extend at least two feet outside the perimeter of proposed pavement/flatwork area. Following proof rolling and any needed over-excavation, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, be moisture treated to slightly above the soil’s optimum moisture content and then be compacted to at least 90 percent of the soil’s maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. 5.2.3 Engineered Fill The on-site soils are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided that they are free from vegetation, debris, roots, and other deleterious material. Engineered fill should be placed in loose lifts with a thickness of eight inches or less, moisture conditioned to slightly above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D 1557). Engineered fill beneath flatwork areas subject to vehicular traffic should be moisture-conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent (ASTM D 1557) for the upper foot of subgrade. 5.2.4 Import Soils Import soils should have a similar or lesser expansion potential to existing site soils. GeoTek recommends that the proposed import soils be tested for expansion and corrosivity potential. GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 11 5.2.5 Excavation Characteristics Processing/excavations into the on-site soil materials is expected to be feasible using heavy-duty grading equipment in good operating conditions. 5.2.6 Temporary Excavations All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should be constructed in accordance with local and Cal-OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the on-site soils should be stable at 1.5:1 (h:v) inclinations for cuts less than ten feet in height. Excavations should be observed by a representative of GeoTek. 5.2.7 Shrinkage and Subsidence Several factors will impact earthwork balancing on the site, including shrinkage, subsidence, trench spoil from utilities, as well as the accuracy of topography. Shrinkage is primarily dependent upon the degree of compactive effort achieved during construction. For planning purposes, a shrinkage factor of about 5 to 15 percent may be considered for the materials requiring removal and/or recompaction. Site balance areas should be available in order to adjust project grades, depending on actual field conditions at the conclusion of earthwork construction. Subsidence on the order of 0.15 foot may be anticipated for areas to receive fill. 5.3 BUILDING SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of GeoTek’s laboratory testing, the on-site materials are classified as having “Low” (21≤EI≤50) to “Medium” (51≤EI≤90) Expansion Index (EI) per ASTM D 4829. Additional sampling and laboratory testing should be performed after the existing building slab is removed. A summary of geotechnical design recommendations for the new building slab is provided below: Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 12 MINIMUM GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE BUILDING SLAB Design Parameter “Low” to “Medium” Expansion Index (21≤EI≤90) Minimum Slab Thickness (Inches) 5 – Actual* Minimum Slab Reinforcing No. 4 reinforcing bars at 18 o.c. each way, placed in middle of slab Plasticity Index* 15 Presaturation of Subgrade Soil (Percent of Optimum/Depth in Inches) Minimum 120% of the optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 12 inches prior to placing concrete Slab Underlayment System 10-mil vapor retarder placed over 4-inch thick base of ½-inch or larger clean aggregate per Cal Green or equivalent *To be confirmed after building slab demolition It should be noted that the criteria provided are based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the slab thickness and reinforcement based on actual loading conditions. Based upon review, a modulus of subgrade reaction (E1) of 100 pci may be used in the design of structural slabs-on-grade. It should be noted that this value is based upon standard one foot plate load tests. Depending upon the design methodology and foundation geometry this value may need to be modified by the following: Es = E1 ((B+1)/2B)2 where: Es = design modulus B = footing width A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable. Guidelines for these are provided in the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505.2, the 2022 CBC Section 1907.1 and ACI 360R-10. The vapor retarder design and construction should also meet the requirements of ASTM E 1643. A portion of the vapor retarder design should be the implementation of a moisture vapor retardant membrane. It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely impacted as the result of construction related punctures (e.g., stake penetrations, tears, punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as much as Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 13 possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more resistant to accidental puncture than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders may also be more puncture resistant. It is GeoTek’s opinion that a minimum ten mil thick membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be considered, unless otherwise specified by the slab design professional. Moisture and vapor retarding systems are intended to provide a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large extent based on the type of flooring used and atmospheric conditions. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable properties (i.e., thickness, composition, strength, and permeance) to achieve the desired performance level. Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing specific expertise in this area for additional evaluation . It is recommended that control joints be placed in two directions spaced approximately 24 to 36 times the thickness of the slab in inches. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks and should be reviewed by the project structural engineer. 5.3.1 Miscellaneous Foundation Recommendations To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab-on-grade areas, utility trenches should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete, or concrete slurry where they intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge. 5.4 PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.4.1 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Design for the New Parking Lot Pavement design was conducted in accordance with Caltrans Highway Design Manual guidelines for flexible pavements and using an R-value of 11 obtained in accordance with ASTM D2844 Method from samples of the site soils obtained for this investigation. Traffic Indices (TI) of 5.5 and 7.0 were assumed for preliminary pavement design for the parking lot. The traffic indices selected to determine the pavement section should be reviewed by a design engineer when truck traffic loading is known. The table below provides the parking lot area/usage, associated TI, and two options for the recommended minimum structural pavement sections. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 14 MINIMUM RECOMMENDED ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Parking Lot Zone Assumed Traffic Index Design R-Value Asphaltic Concrete (inches) Aggregate Base (inches) Light Vehicular Traffic Areas (including parking stalls and drive aisles not subject to heavy truck traffic 5.5 11 3.0 11.0 4.0* 9.0* Heavy Truck Traffic Areas (including fire lanes, trash dumpster pads and approaches) 7.0 11 4.5 13.0 5.0* 12.0* * - Alternative option The pavement sections recommended are subject to review by the City of Temecula and/or the County of Riverside. Performance of the pavement sections will ultimately be based largely on construction methods, traffic loading and subgrade performance. Verification testing for R-value should be conducted when pavement subgrade elevations are reached to confirm the sections presented above. 5.4.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Design for Heavy Truck Traffic Areas Pavement design was conducted in accordance with the Portland Cement Association guidelines for rigid pavements. The table below provides the parking lot area/usage, associated TI, and the recommended minimum concrete pavement section for the subject project. An R-Value of 11 was also assumed for design purposes, based on laboratory test results obtained from the site soils. MINIMUM RECOMMENDED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Parking Lot Zone Assumed Traffic Index Design R-Value PCC (inches) Aggregate Base (inches) Heavy Truck Traffic Areas (including dock aprons, fire lanes, trash dumpster pads and approaches) 7.0 11 7.5 6.0 Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 15 The concrete should have a minimum modulus of rupture of 530 pounds per square inch (psi), and a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi. The concrete should be properly cured after placement. Concrete should not be placed during hot and windy weather. No “structural” reinforcement of the pavement slabs is required. However, “temperature and shrinkage control” reinforcement should be provided. This reinforcement should consist of No. 3 rebars on 18-inch centers, each way. Any reinforcement should be placed at mid-height of the slabs and be maintained by mechanical means (e. g. “chairs”, etc.). “Pulling up” the reinforcement during placement operations is not acceptable. Reinforcement should not be carried across joints. Crack control joints should be provided in the transverse direction spaced at horizontal intervals with a maximum spacing of 15 feet. The actual design should also be in accordance with design criteria specified by the governing jurisdiction. The concrete pavement section is subject to the review and approval by the City of Temecula/County of Riverside. Performance of the pavement sections will ultimately be based largely on construction methods, traffic loading and subgrade performance. 5.4.3 Pavement Construction All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction of base material, placement of concrete and rolling of asphaltic concrete, should be done in accordance with the City of Temecula/County of Riverside specifications and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City/County inspector where required. The aggregate base should consist of crushed rock with an R-Value and gradation in accordance with Crushed Aggregate Base (Section 200-2 of the “Greenbook”). Asphaltic concrete materials and construction should conform to Section 203 of the Greenbook. Minimum compaction requirements should be 95 percent for the upper foot of subgrade and 95 percent for aggregate base, as per ASTM D 1557. Jurisdictional minimum compaction requirements in excess of the aforementioned minimums may govern. 5.5 SOIL CORROSIVITY The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on two (2) samples collected during the field investigation. The results of the testing indicate that the on-site soils are “extremely corrosive” (737 and 871 ohm-cm) (Roberge, 2000) to buried ferrous metal in accordance with current standards used by corrosion engineers. Additionally, the results of the chloride concentration from two (2) samples indicated concentrations of up to 545.7 mg/kg, which is Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 16 considered a “corrosive” environment according to Caltrans criteria. It is recommended that a corrosion engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for the protection of buried ferrous metal at this site. 5.6 SOIL SULFATE CONTENT The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory on two (2) samples collected during the field investigation. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate results are less than 0.1 percent by weight, which is considered “negligible” (S0 exposure category) as per ACI 318-19. Based on the test results and Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-19, no special recommendations for concrete are required for this project due to soil sulfate exposure. Additional soil sampling, laboratory testing and analysis regarding soil corrosion and soil sulfate content should be conducted following completion of the project rough grading operation. 5.7 IMPORT SOILS Import soils should have expansion characteristics similar to the on-site soils. GeoTek also recommends that the proposed import soils be tested for expansion and sulfate potential. GeoTek should be notified a minimum of 72 hours prior to importing so that appropriate sampling and laboratory testing can be performed. 5.8 CONCRETE FLATWORK 5.8.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs, Sidewalks, and Driveways Exterior concrete slabs, sidewalks and driveways should be designed using a four -inch minimum thickness. Due to the presence of expansive soils at the site, slab reinforcement of at least No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way is recommended from a geotechnical perspective. However, some shrinkage and cracking of the concrete should be anticipated as a result of typical mix designs and curing practices commonly utilized in industrial construction. Sidewalks and driveways may be under the jurisdiction of the governing agency. If so, jurisdictional design and construction criteria would apply, if more restrictive than the recommendations presented in this report. Subgrade soils should be pre-moistened prior to placing concrete. The subgrade soils below exterior flatwork with “Low” and “Medium” Expansion Index (EI) soils should be pre-saturated to a minimum of 110 and 120 percent of optimum moisture content, respectively. Minimum depth of presoaking should be 12 inches. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 17 All concrete installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, should be done in accordance with the City of Temecula and/or County of Riverside specifications, and under the observation and testing of GeoTek and a City and/or County inspector, if necessary. 5.8.2 Concrete Performance Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are hairline to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete, while unsightly, do not significantly impact long- term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete can also undergo chemical processes that are dependent upon a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is subject to internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened control joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are a widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. GeoTek suggests that control joints be placed in two orthogonal directions and located a distance approximately equal to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness. 5.9 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.9.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, which can be significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Overwatering should be avoided. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased the long -term performance of slopes. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 18 It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to screen wall foundations. This type of landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard to the irrigation and drainage in these areas. 5.9.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved area(s) and not be blocked by other improvements. It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 5.10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS GeoTek recommend that site grading plans and relevant project specifications be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. It is also recommended that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. The owner/developer should verify that GeoTek representatives perform at least the following duties: ▪ Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of unsuitable materials. ▪ Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. ▪ Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. ▪ Observe the fill for uniformity during placement, including utility trenches. ▪ Perform field density testing of the fill materials. If requested, a construction observation and compaction report can be provided by GeoTek, which can comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. GeoTek recommends that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 19 6. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed improvements. Implementation of the advice presented in this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The scope of our evaluation is limited to the boundaries of the subject site improvements. This review does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the proposed construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our current understanding of the project and the client’s needs and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 7. LIMITATIONS The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since the recommendations provided are based on the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, GeoTek’s conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions that are limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. 8. SELECTED REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” ASCE/SEI 7-16. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 20 Bowles, J.E., 1977, “Foundation Analysis and Design”, Second Edition. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2022 “California Building Code,” 2 volumes. California Department of Transportation, 2018, “Highway Design Manual”, 6th Edition. ____, 2021, “Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2” dated May. California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly referred to as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1977, “Geologic Map of California.” ____, 1998, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada,” International Conference of Building Officials. ____, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A. ____, 2018a, “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Temecula Quadrangle,” Earthquake Fault Zones and Seismic Hazard Zones. ____, 2018b, “Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Temecula 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Riverside County, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 117. City of Temecula, 2018, “Best Management Practice (BMP) Design Manual,” dated July. GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information. ____, 2020, “Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, Proposed Parking Lot, 27635 Diaz Road, APN 921-030-044, Temecula, Riverside County, California”, Project No. 2501-CR, dated October 1. ____, 2023, “Response to City of Temecula Geotechnical Peer Review, Proposed Parking Lot, 27635 Diaz Road (PA22-0091), Temecula, Riverside County, California”, Project No. 2501- CR, dated July 17. Kennedy, M.P., Morton, D.M., Alvarez, R.M., and Morton, Greg, 2003, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Murrieta 7.5’ Quadrangle, Riverside County, California,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2003-189, scale 1:24,000. Martin, G.R., Lew, M., 1999, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,” prepared through the Southern California Earthquake Center, dated March. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 2011, “Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, Appendix A – Infiltration Testing Guidelines,” effective September 2011. Riverside County GIS website, “Map My County”. Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Center March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page 21 Roberge, P. R., 2000, “Handbook of Corrosion Engineering”. SEA/OSHPD web service, “Seismic Design Maps” (https://seismicmaps.org). State Water Data Library Station Map (https://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/), accessed on September 17, 2020. Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B, 1967, “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice”, Second Edition. U.S. Seismic Design Maps (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps). Greenlaw Partners Proposed Tesla Repair Facility 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR Figure 1 Site Location and Topography Map Modified from USGS Murrieta Quadrangle 7.5- minute Topographic Map Sheets Approximate Site Location Greenlaw Partners ProposedTesla Repair Facility 27635 Diaz Road Temecula,Riverside County,California Project No. 2501-CR Figure 2 Exploration Location Map LEGEND (Locations are Approximate) B-5 Exploratory Boring Location B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 Modified from: Conceptual Site Plan prepared by Kimley Horn, dated February 1, 2024. Site Boundary I-2 I-1 Infiltration Boring LocationI-2 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Site Improvements 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, Riverside County, California Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Facility March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page A-1 A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring) The ring sampler is driven into the ground at various depths in accordance with ASTM D 3550 test procedures. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Bulk Samples (Large) These samples are normally large bags of earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. Bulk Samples (Small) These are plastic bag samples which are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. B – BORING LOG LEGEND The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Classification System f-c Fine to coarse f-m Fine to medium GEOLOGIC B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip C: Contact line ……….. Dashed line denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit / formational change Thick solid line denotes end of the boring (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of borings) GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 SM 4 R1 12 12 SC/CL 17.7 115.7 4 R2 9 9 19.9 110.7 3 R3 CL 5 8 5 R4 11 10 ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s Undocumented Fill: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: B-1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 10 15 5 ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing: 20 25 30 LE G E N D Sample type: AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density Silty f-c SAND, light brown, slightly moist, loose, trace clay Alluvium: F sandy CLAY to clayey f SAND, brown, moist, very stiff to medium dense Becomes dark brown BORING TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings F sandy/silty CLAY, brown, moist, stiff GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 MD, EI, RV, SR SM/SC Expansion Index = 29 R-Value = 13 7 R1 10 SC/CL 11 15.3 114.3 3 R2 CL 4 8 22.7 105.7 Collapse 5 R3 SC/CL 7 10 6 R4 SC/SM 9 9 ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: B-2 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) 5 F sandy/silty CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Undocumented Fill: Silty/clayey f-m SAND, light brown, moist, loose F sandy CLAY to clayey f SAND, brown, moist, very stiff to medium dense Alluvium: F-m sandy/silty CLAY to clayey/silt f-m SAND, brown, moist, stiff 10 Clayey/silty f-m SAND, brown, very moist, medium dense BORING TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET No groundwater encountered 15 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 20 25 30 LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 8 R1 ML 16 19 13.5 123.7 CL 7 R2 ML/SM 25 30 16.8 114.3 5 R3 CL 7 7 16.8 109.5 3 R4 4 5 19.4 112.2 Collapse 5 R5 SC 9 16 ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: B-3 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) Undocumented Fill: F sandy/clayey SILT, light brown, moist, very stiff Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 5" Plain Portland Cement Concrete 10 F sandy SILT to silty f SAND, grey-brown, moist, medium dense to hard 5 Silty CLAY, dark brown, moist 20 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings Clayey/silty f-c SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense 15 Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis 25 30 LE G E N D Sample type: SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk F sandy CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff Alluvium: BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET F sandy/silty CLAY, brown, moist RV = R-Value Test Groundwater encountered at 14 FEET 9 INCHES F-m sandy CLAY, brown, moist, medium stiff GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 MD, EI, RV, SR Expansion Index = 53 LL = 33, PI = 13 7 R1 CL 55.1% Passing No. 200 15 R-Value = 11 14 17.7 118.2 6 R2 CL 14 20 21.0 110.4 3 R3 5 5 CL 19.0 106.9 4 R4 4 5 5 R5 7 11 16.5 110.7 ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: B-4 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 5" Plain Portland Cement Concrete Undocumented Fill: F sandy/silty CLAY, light brown, moist, very stiff Alluvium: 5 CL/ML F sandy/silty CLAY, dark grey-brown, moist, very stiff F sandy/silty CLAY to f sandy/clayey SILT, blackish dark grey, moist, very stiff 10 BORING TERMINATED AT 16.5 FEET No groundwater encountered 15 25 30 LE G E N D F-c sandy/silty CLAY, brown, very moist, stiff ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Sample type: Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 20 F sandy/silty CLAY, brown, moist, medium stiff RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 16 R1 SC/CL 29 35 13.1 126.2 12 R2 SM/ML 12 14 ML 10.7 111.3 4 R3 4 CL/ML 6 Collapse 2 R4 CL 5 8 ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: B-5 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) Alluvium: Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS 5" Asphaltic Concrete over 2" Aggregate Base: Undocumented Fill: F sandy CLAY to clayey f SAND, olive-brown, moist 5 Silty f SAND to f sandy SILT, dark grey-brown, moist, medium dense to very stiff F sandy/clayey SILT, blackish dark brown, moist, stiff F sandy/silty CLAY to f sandy/clayey SILT, dark brown, moist, medium stiff 25 10 F sandy/silty CLAY, dark brown, very moist, stiff BORING TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET No groundwater encountered 15 Boring backfilled with soil cuttings 20 30 LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density ---Large Bulk Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis ---SPT GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 SM/ML ML/CL ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s Undocumented Fill: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: I-1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Silty f SAND to f sandy SILT, brown, moist Alluvium: F sandy/clayey SILT to f sandy/silty CLAY, dark brown, moist 5 BORING TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Boring set with pipe, sock, and gravel 10 15 20 25 30 LE G E N D ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis Sample type: RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 SM/ML ML/CL ---Small Bulk ---No Recovery ---Water Table Jeff CLIENT:Greenlaw Partners DRILLER:2R Drilling LOGGED BY:KIG PROJECT NAME:27635 Diaz Rd Temecula, CA DRILL METHOD:Hollow Stem OPERATOR: 3/1/2024 PROJECT NO.:2501-CR HAMMER:140#/30"RIG TYPE:Track Rig LOCATION:See Exploration Location Map DATE: SAMPLES US C S S y m b o l Boring No.: I-2 Laboratory Testing De p t h ( f t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Bl o w s / 6 i n Sa m p l e N u m b e r Wa t e r C o n t e n t (% ) Dr y D e n s i t y (p c f ) Ot h e r s MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Silty f SAND to f sandy SILT, light brown, slightly moist BORING TERMINATED AT 4 FEET Alluvium: F sandy/clayey SILT to f sandy/silty CLAY, dark brown, moist 30 5 10 15 20 25 No groundwater encountered Boring set with pipe, sock, and gravel Undocumented Fill: LE G E N D Sample type: ---Ring ---SPT ---Large Bulk Lab testing:AL = Atterberg Limits EI = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HC= Consolidation MD = Maximum Density APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Site Improvements 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, Riverside County, California Greenlaw Partners Project No. 2501-CR Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Tesla Repair Facility March 20, 2024 27635 Diaz Road, Temecula, California Page B-1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Atterberg Limits The Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of one soil sample was assessed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4318. The results of the testing are included in Appendix A and within Appendix B. Classification Soils were classified visually in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D 2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of borings in Appendix A. Collapse Test Collapse tests were performed on selected samples of the site soils in general accordance with ASTM D 5333 test procedures. The results of these tests are presented graphically in Appendix B. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on one sample collected during the subsurface exploration. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4829. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B. Boring No. Depth (ft.) Description Expansion Index Classification B-2 0-5 Silty/Clayey Sand to Sandy Clay 29 Low B-4 0.5-5 Sandy/Silty Clay 53 Medium In-Situ Moisture and Density The natural water content of sampled soils was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 test procedures on samples of the materials recovered from the subsurface exploration. In addition, in- place dry density of the sampled soils was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 test procedures on relatively undisturbed samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths in Appendix A. Moisture-Density Relationship Laboratory testing was performed on two samples collected during the subsurface exploration. The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the soil type was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test D 1557 test procedures. The results of the testing are presented graphically in Appendix B. R-Value The Resistance Value (“R” Value) was obtained on two selected samples collected and tested in general accordance with ASTM D 2588 procedures. The test results are presented in Appendix B. Sulfate Content, Resistivity and Chloride Content Testing to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed by others for GeoTek in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. Resistivity testing was completed by others for GeoTek in general accordance with ASTM G187 test procedures. Testing to determine the chloride content was performed by others in general accordance with ASTM D4327 test procedures. The results of the testing are provided below and in Appendix B. Boring No. Depth (ft.) pH ASTM D4972 Chloride ASTM D4327 (mg/kg) Sulfate ASTM D4327 (% by weight) Resistivity ASTM G187 (ohm-cm) B-2 0-5 8.6 545.7 0.0691 871 B-4 0.5-5 8.3 41.7 0.0042 737 Job No. Client Project Location Tested by: 29 26 18 36.39 36.63 17.73 19.00 18.45 35.40 35.61 14.91 15.85 15.39 0.99 1.02 2.82 3.15 3.06 30.21 30.45 6.24 6.26 6.26 5.19 5.16 8.67 9.59 9.13 19.1 19.8 32.5 32.8 33.5 33 19 13 2501-CR Greenlaw Partners 27635 Diaz Road B-4 @ 1-5 feet Number of Blows Plastic Limit Sample Type Wt. of Dry Soil Plasticity Index Moisture Content % Liquid Limit Graph Liquid Limit Plastic Limit ATTERBERG LIMITS DATA Wt. of Dish + Dry Soil Wt. of Moisture Wt. of Dish Field Classification Wt. of Dish + Wet Soil Liquid Limit Sample Number JB 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 40.0 10 100 Mo i s t u r e % Number of Drops 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x Liquid Limit CL ML & OL CH MH & CH CL-ML Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation Rebound Cycle PROJECT NO.: 2501-CR Date: 3/19/2024 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA COLLAPSE REPORT CHECKED BY: JB Lab: Corona Greenlaw Partners Plate B-1 Sample: B-2 @ 5 feet Seating Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 CO N S O L I D A T I O N - P E R C E N T O F S A M P L E T H I C K N E S S ( % ) STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation Rebound Cycle PROJECT NO.: 2501-CR Date: 3/19/2024 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA COLLAPSE REPORT CHECKED BY: JB Lab: Corona Greenlaw Partners Plate B-2 Sample: B-3 @ 9 feet Seating Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 CO N S O L I D A T I O N - P E R C E N T O F S A M P L E T H I C K N E S S ( % ) STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation Rebound Cycle PROJECT NO.: 2501-CR Date: 3/19/2024 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA COLLAPSE REPORT CHECKED BY: JB Lab: Corona Greenlaw Partners Plate B-3 Sample: B-5 @ 7 feet Seating Cycle PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4546 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 CO N S O L I D A T I O N - P E R C E N T O F S A M P L E T H I C K N E S S ( % ) STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT Sample Details Test Results ASTM D 1557Maximum Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft³):126.7Optimum Water Content (%):11.0Method:APreparation Method:MoistRetained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%):3Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%):97Tested By:Mycheal PhillipsDate Tested:3/8/2024 Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship Proctor Report Report No: PTR:24-00051-S01 Client: Project: Phone: (951) 710-1160 GeoTek - Corona Corona, CA 92880 Fax: (951) 710-1167 1548 N. Maple St. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL CC: Page 1 of 1Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:24-00051-S01 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Comments Sample ID:24-00051-S01 Date Sampled:3/8/2024Sampled By:Kase GebbieMaterial:Sandy clayLocation:B-2 @ 1-5 Feet Greenlaw Partners 18301 Von Karman, Ste 250 Irvine, California 92612 2501-CR 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA Sample Details Test Results ASTM D 1557Maximum Dry Unit Weight (lbf/ft³):122.4Optimum Water Content (%):11.5Method:APreparation Method:MoistRetained Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%):3Passing Sieve No 4 (4.75mm) (%):97Tested By:Mycheal PhillipsDate Tested:3/11/2024 Dry Unit Weight - Water Content Relationship Proctor Report Report No: PTR:24-00051-S02 Client: Project: Phone: (951) 710-1160 GeoTek - Corona Corona, CA 92880 Fax: (951) 710-1167 1548 N. Maple St. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL CC: Page 1 of 1Form No: 110031, Report No: PTR:24-00051-S02 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com Comments Sample ID:24-00051-S02 Date Sampled:3/8/2024Sampled By:Kase GebbieMaterial:Sandy clayLocation:B-4 @ 1-5 Feet Greenlaw Partners 18301 Von Karman, Ste 250 Irvine, California 92612 2501-CR 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA Ring #: Ring Dia. :Ring Ht.:1" Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm) Weight of ring (gm) Net weight of sample (gm) Moisture Content, % Specific Gravity, assumed Unit Wt. of Water @ 20°C, (pcf) % Saturation EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) Client:Greenlaw Partners Tested/ Checked By:AH Lab No Corona Project Number:2501-CR Date Tested:3/13/2024 Project Location:27635 Diaz Road, Temecula Sample Source:B-2 @ 1-5 Feet Sample Description: 4.01" 366.0 DATE TIME READING 3/13/2024 0.6760 Initial DENSITY DETERMINATION 775.2 READINGS Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016)123.4 3/13/2024 0.6740 10 min/Dry 409.2 Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F)112.6 SATURATION DETERMINATION 2.70 3/14/2024 0.7030 Final 9.6 62.4 52.2 FINAL MOISTURE Final Weight of wet sample & tare % Moisture 822.7 21.2 EXPANSION INDEX =29 Ring #: Ring Dia. :Ring Ht.:1" Weight of compacted sample & ring (gm) Weight of ring (gm) Net weight of sample (gm) Moisture Content, % Specific Gravity, assumed Unit Wt. of Water @ 20°C, (pcf) % Saturation EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) Client:Greenlaw Partners Tested/ Checked By:AH Lab No Corona Project Number:2501-CR Date Tested:3/13/2024 Project Location:27635 Diaz Road, Temecula Sample Source:B-4 @ 1-5 Feet Sample Description: 4.01" 372.8 DATE TIME READING 3/13/2024 0.6770 Initial DENSITY DETERMINATION 777.3 READINGS Wet Density, lb / ft3 (C*0.3016)122.0 3/13/2024 0.6760 10 min/Dry 404.5 Dry Density, lb / ft3 (D/1.F)111.9 SATURATION DETERMINATION 2.70 3/14/2024 0.7290 Final 9.0 62.4 48.1 FINAL MOISTURE Final Weight of wet sample & tare % Moisture 824.3 20.6 EXPANSION INDEX =53 Project X REPORT S240304E Corrosion Engineering Page 1 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr, Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Results Only Soil Testing for Diaz Road, Temecula March 5, 2024 Prepared for: Jordan Brucelas Geotek USA 1548 North Maple Street Corona, CA 92280 jbrucelas@geotekusa.com Project X Job#: S240304E Client Job or PO#: 2501-CR Prepared by: M. Williams Respectfully Submitted, Eduardo Hernandez, M.Sc., P.E. Sr. Corrosion Consultant NACE Corrosion Technologist #16592 Professional Engineer California No. M37102 ehernandez@projectxcorrosion.com Project X REPORT S240304E Corrosion Engineering Page 2 Corrosion Control – Soil, Water, Metallurgy Testing Lab 29990 Technology Dr., Suite 13, Murrieta, CA 92563 Tel: 213-928-7213 Fax: 951-226-1720 www.projectxcorrosion.com Soil Analysis Lab Results Client: Geotek USA Job Name: Diaz Road, Temecula Client Job Number: 2501-CR Project X Job Number: S240304E March 5, 2024 Method ASTM G51 ASTM G200 SM 4500-D ASTM D4327 ASTM D6919 ASTM D6919 ASTM D6919 ASTM D6919 ASTM D6919 ASTM D6919 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 Bore# / Description Depth pH Redox Sulfide S2- Nitrate NO3 - Ammonium NH4 + Lithium Li+ Sodium Na+ Potassium K+ Magnesium Mg2+ Calcium Ca2+ Fluoride F2 -- Phosphate PO4 3- (ft)(mg/kg)(wt%)(mg/kg)(wt%)(Ω-cm)(Ω-cm)(mV)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg)(mg/kg) B 2 0-5 691.4 0.0691 545.7 0.0546 1,340 871 8.6 173 0.8 95.8 92.0 0.02 1,131.2 12.1 23.6 81.4 10.6 6.2 B 4 0-5 781.2 0.0781 41.7 0.0042 871 737 8.3 174 0.7 0.3 45.1 ND 592.2 1.8 28.4 85.7 22.2 7.5 ASTM G187 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327 Resistivity As Rec'd | Minimum Sulfates SO4 2- Chlorides Cl- Cations and Anions, except Sulfide and Bicarbonate, tested with Ion Chromatography mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil weight ND = 0 = Not Detected | NT = Not Tested | Unk = Unknown Chemical Analysis performed on 1:3 Soil-To-Water extract PPM = mg/kg (soil) = mg/L (Liquid) Note: Sometimes a bad sulfate hit is a contaminated spot. Typical fertilizers are Potassium chloride, ammonium sulfate or ammonium sulfate nitrate (ASN). So this is another reason why testing full corrosion series is good because we then have the data to see if those other ingredients are present meaning the soil sample is just fe rtilizer-contaminated soil. This can happen often when the soil samples collected are simply surface scoops which is why it's best to dig in a foot, throw away the top and test the deeper stuff. Dairy farms are also no torious for these items. If one lot pops up much more corrosive than all others, we would recommend collecting more samples from the lots surrounding the problem lot to determine if the peak is isolated to it. jct X L:il>Ri'([Ui-sl -SIk-c-I <ui Cii.siom PhoiK-:(21 n "2S-72I3 l-'aN (')51)22(.-l72(i W\S'\V.pUl|l.'ClX Cnl lOSIl'II 13.Ivliirriel L ^ on'iii Corrosion I-in i.'i neon nu Ship Samples To;29990 Tcchiiology Or.Suite r.n/\U!.'■ l‘io|rri \.liilj ('JiimlH’i QfSn \'C X?-TTlX ^A^.<LiAV■^J^\AXXItVlI'ORlANi:l>U-;>so complete ['roject :iimI Sample Identificafioii Data as yon would like it to appear in report ineliuie lliis form with samples. QeahB-k.USA Jordan BrucelasCiiniaci.Naiiii;;714-851-4081(‘liiinc ,N(i: A/-Ave.Cc^oA(\_OyMailiiieAddress;Jbrucelas@geotekusa.comCfiniactICiiiail: .AroiMiiliii”Coiilaei;Invoice fJmnil: Rg^c/y ■T€/^-C^ METHOD AN/VLYSIS !O':0UESTED fPletise circle) Ciifiil (No:/Project Name:h.\A.1 Day (●'iiaraiilec SO’'.,tivirk-iia 24 Hour HUSH lODr.niar'e-m' 3-5 Day Slaniiarcl P.O.U: I(Business Days)'Turn Around Time:Cm ,o P TJ loir (i;om>si<m Control iU-eoinineiidalions (.tSOj;soil siimple): .\KKD 'Il)fO-mmdwuler deprh niidj (2)Soil Sanii)le Locations Map u:VDo 'JLCflcl.r" c *rf Default McIIkhI 5 72I- o 'i '■e 'i'c..'tj <c5'OR THERMAL .PBSiSTiVrTV PROVIDE (LSOOu soil sample): (I)OptiinaJ Moisture %i (2)Dry DeiisityIPCF (.p Desired (^impaction Date &Received By: ImiII Corrosion Series Reports 'J/ Geo QuadII CA a',til .roo ●Jt:5 U a::C coaHC.*o OU c/.rjL.o C.fu c S.AMPLE id -RORE U -Description l>M L coi.u:riED o 7^.cDEPTHQOo oO<00 iA Cm O L/t LU H 'i.r -TZ-I6-^\D I 0-su 4 I u I s I I) I Sample DetailsSample ID:24-00051-S01 Date Sampled:3/8/2024Sampling Method:Source:Material:Sandy clay Specification:Location:B-2 @ 1-5 Feet Tested By:Jordan BrucelasDate Tested:3/18/2024 Test Results ASTM D 2844R Value at 300 psi Exudation:13 R Value Specimen ResultsMoisture Content (%)17.4 17.4 17.4Dry Density (lb/ft³)102.1 102.1 102.1Exudation Pressure (psi)127 127 127R Value 9 9 9Expansion Pressure (psi)0.0 0.0 0.0 Moisture Content (%)17.4 15.5 15.5Dry Density (lb/ft³)102.1 105.0 105.0Exudation Pressure (psi)127 217 217R Value 9 10 10Expansion Pressure (psi)0.0 0.2 0.2 Moisture Content (%)17.4 15.5 13.7Dry Density (lb/ft³)102.1 105.0 107.0Exudation Pressure (psi)127 217 386R Value 9 10 17Expansion Pressure (psi)0.0 0.2 0.6 R Value Report Report No: RV:24-00051-S01 Client: Project: Phone: (951) 710-1160 GeoTek - Corona Corona, CA 92880 Fax: (951) 710-1167 1548 N. Maple St. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL CC: Page 1 of 1Form No: 18964, Report No: RV:24-00051-S01 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com 0.8% Retained on the 3/4" SieveComments 2501-CR 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA Greenlaw Partners 18301 Von Karman, Ste 250 Irvine, California 92612 Sample DetailsSample ID:24-00051-S02 Date Sampled:3/8/2024Sampling Method:Source:Material:Sandy clay Specification:Location:B-4 @ 1-5 Feet Tested By:Jordan BrucelasDate Tested:3/18/2024 Test Results ASTM D 2844R Value at 300 psi Exudation:11 R Value Specimen ResultsMoisture Content (%)15.4 15.4 15.4Dry Density (lb/ft³)107.4 107.4 107.4Exudation Pressure (psi)511 511 511R Value 16 16 16Expansion Pressure (psi)1.4 1.4 1.4 Moisture Content (%)15.4 17.1 17.1Dry Density (lb/ft³)107.4 103.8 103.8Exudation Pressure (psi)511 355 355R Value 16 12 12Expansion Pressure (psi)1.4 0.8 0.8 Moisture Content (%)15.4 17.1 16.7Dry Density (lb/ft³)107.4 103.8 101.6Exudation Pressure (psi)511 355 128R Value 16 12 9Expansion Pressure (psi)1.4 0.8 0.7 R Value Report Report No: RV:24-00051-S02 Client: Project: Phone: (951) 710-1160 GeoTek - Corona Corona, CA 92880 Fax: (951) 710-1167 1548 N. Maple St. THIS DOCUMENT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL CC: Page 1 of 1Form No: 18964, Report No: RV:24-00051-S02 © 2000-2024 QESTLab by SpectraQEST.com 0.0% Retained on the 3/4" SieveComments Greenlaw Partners 18301 Von Karman, Ste 250 Irvine, California 92612 2501-CR 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA Date: W.O.: sample ID Client: depth Project:27635 Diaz Road in. mm. #200 0.0029 0.074 225.4 276.3 55.1% Dry Weight Soak Time 1440 Minutes 501.7 Sieve Size Particle Diameter Wt. Retained Wt. Passing % Passing Specs -200 WASH 3/18/2024 2501-CR B-4 Greenlaw Partners 1-5 feet APPENDIX C INFILTRATION TEST DATA AND CONVERSION SHEETS Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Site Improvements 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, Riverside County, California Project:Job No.:2501-CR Test Hole No.:Tested By:Date:3/4/2024 Depth of Hole As Drilled: Before Test:After Test:48" Reading No. Time Time Interval (Min) Total Depth of Hole (Inches) Initial Water Level (Inches) Final Water Level (Inches) Δ in Water Level (Inches) Rate (Minutes per Inch) 8:25 AM 48" 24 8:55 AM 25 23 2/8 6/8 8:56 AM 48" 24 9:26 AM 25 23 2/8 6/8 9:27 AM 48" 24 9:57 AM 30 23 1 9:58 AM 48" 24 10:28 AM 30 23 2/8 6/8 10:29 AM 48" 24 10:59 AM 30 23 2/8 6/8 11:00 AM 48" 24 11:30 AM 30 23 2/8 6/8 11:31 AM 48" 24 12:01 PM 30 23 4/8 4/8 12:02 PM 48" 24 12:32 PM 30 23 4/8 4/8 12:33 PM 48" 24 1:03 PM 30 23 4/8 4/8 1:04 PM 48" 24 1:34 PM 30 23 4/8 4/8 1:35 PM 48" 24 2:05 PM 30 23 6/8 2/8 2:06 PM 48" 24 2:36 PM 30 23 6/8 2/8 2:37 PM 48" 24 3:07 PM 30 23 6/8 2/8 3:08 PM 48" 24 3:38 PM 30 23 6/8 2/8 12 120 10 120 11 120 8 60 9 120 6 60 7 60 4 40 5 60 2 40 3 40 Trial 33 3/8 1 30 Comments Trial 33 3/8 Pre-soak prior to testing 48" 48" PERCOLATION DATA SHEET 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA - Proposed Tesla Repair Center I-1 DRW Project:Job No.:2501-CR Test Hole No.:Tested By:Date:3/4/2024 Depth of Hole As Drilled: Before Test:After Test:48" Reading No. Time Time Interval (Min) Total Depth of Hole (Inches) Initial Water Level (Inches) Final Water Level (Inches) Δ in Water Level (Inches) Rate (Minutes per Inch) 8:27 AM 48" 24 8:57 AM 25 23 4/8 4/8 8:58 AM 48" 24 9:28 AM 25 23 4/8 4/8 9:29 AM 48" 24 9:59 AM 30 23 2/8 6/8 10:00 AM 48" 24 10:30 AM 30 23 2/8 6/8 10:31 AM 48" 24 11:01 AM 30 23 4/8 4/8 11:02 AM 48" 24 11:32 AM 30 23 4/8 4/8 11:33 AM 48" 24 12:03 PM 30 23 4/8 4/8 12:04 PM 48" 24 12:34 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 12:35 PM 48" 24 1:05 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 1:06 PM 48" 24 1:36 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 1:37 PM 48" 24 2:07 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 2:08 PM 48" 24 2:38 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 2:39 PM 48" 24 3:09 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 3:10 PM 48" 24 3:40 PM 30 23 5/8 3/8 48" 48" PERCOLATION DATA SHEET 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA - Proposed Tesla Repair Center I-1 DRW Comments Trial 50 Pre-soak prior to testing Trial 50 1 40 2 40 3 60 4 60 5 60 6 90 7/8 7 90 7/8 8 90 7/8 9 90 7/8 12 90 7/8 10 90 7/8 11 90 7/8 Equation -It = Havg = (HO+HF)/2 = It = Inches per Hour Time Interval, Δt = 30 Client: Greenlaw Partners Project:27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA Project No: 2501-CR Date: 3/4/2024 Boring No. I-1 Percolation to Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method) Final Depth to Water, DF = 24.25 Test Hole Radius, r = 4 Initial Depth to Water, DO = 24 0.04 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 48 ΔH (60r) Δt (r+2Havg) HO = DT - DO = 24 HF = DT - DF = 23.75 ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 0.25 23.875 Equation -It = Havg = (HO+HF)/2 = It = Inches per Hour Time Interval, Δt = 30 Client: Greenlaw Partners Project:27635 Diaz Road Temecula, CA Project No: 2501-CR Date: 3/4/2024 Boring No. I-2 Percolation to Infiltration Rate (Porchet Method) Final Depth to Water, DF = 24.375 Test Hole Radius, r = 4 Initial Depth to Water, DO = 24 0.06 Total Test Hole Depth, DT = 48 ΔH (60r) Δt (r+2Havg) HO = DT - DO = 24 HF = DT - DF = 23.625 ΔH = ΔD = HO- HF = 0.375 23.8125 APPENDIX D GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Limited Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Site Improvements 27635 Diaz Road Temecula, Riverside County, California GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-1 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES Guidelines presented herein are intended to address general construction procedures for earthwork construction. Specific situations and conditions often arise which cannot reasonably be discussed in general guidelines, when anticipated these are discussed in the text of the report. Often unanticipated conditions are encountered which may necessitate modification or changes to these guidelines. It is our hope that these will assist the contractor to more efficiently complete the project by providing a reasonable understanding of the procedures that would be expected during earthwork and the testing and observation used to evaluate those procedures. General Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of governing agencies, Chapters 18 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code, CBC (2022) and the guidelines presented below. Preconstruction Meeting A preconstruction meeting should be held prior to site earthwork. Any questions the contractor has regarding our recommendations, general site conditions, apparent discrepancies between reported and actual conditions and/or differences in procedures the contractor intends to use should be brought up at that meeting. The contractor (including the main onsite representative) should review our report and these guidelines in advance of the meeting. Any comments the contractor may have regarding these guidelines should be brought up at that meeting. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by our representative during grading. Verbal communication during the course of each day will be used to inform the contractor of test results. The contractor should receive a copy of the "Daily Field Report" indicating results of field density tests that day. If our representative does not provide the contractor with these reports, our office should be notified. 2. Testing and observation procedures are, by their nature, specific to the work or area observed and location of the tests taken, variability may occur in other locations. The contractor is responsible for the uniformity of the grading operations; our observations and test results are intended to evaluate the contractor’s overall level of efforts during grading. The contractor’s personnel are the only individuals participating in all aspect of site work. Compaction testing and observation should not be considered as relieving the contractor’s responsibility to properly compact the fill. 3. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed by our representative prior to placing any fill. It will be the contractor's responsibility to notify our representative or office when such areas are ready for observation. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-2 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR 4. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as considered warranted by this firm. 5. In general, density tests would be made at maximum intervals of two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and size of the fill. More frequent testing may be performed. In any case, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 6. Laboratory testing to support field test procedures will be performed, as considered warranted, based on conditions encountered (e.g. change of material sources, types, etc.) Every effort will be made to process samples in the laboratory as quickly as possible and in progress construction projects are our first priority. However, laboratory workloads may cause in delays and some soils may require a minimum of 48 to 72 hours to complete test procedures. Whenever possible, our representative(s) should be informed in advance of operational changes that might result in different source areas for materials. 7. Procedures for testing of fill slopes are as follows: a) Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill, three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. b) If a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. 8. Finish grade testing of slopes and pad surfaces should be performed after construction is complete. Site Clearing 1. All vegetation, and other deleterious materials, should be removed from the site. If material is not immediately removed from the site it should be stockpiled in a designated area(s) well outside of all current work areas and delineated with flagging or other means. Site clearing should be performed in advance of any grading in a specific area. 2. Efforts should be made by the contractor to remove all organic or other deleterious material from the fill, as even the most diligent efforts may result in the incorporation of some materials. This is especially important when grading is occurring near the natural grade. All equipment operators should be aware of these efforts. Laborers may be required as root pickers. 3. Nonorganic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas provided the procedures used are observed and found acceptable by our representative. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-3 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR Treatment of Existing Ground 1. Following site clearing, all surficial deposits of alluvium, and/or weathered bedrock be removed unless otherwise specifically indicated in the text of this report. 2. In some cases, removal may be recommended to a specified depth (e.g. flat sites where partial alluvial removals may be sufficient). The contractor should not exceed these depths unless directed otherwise by our representative. 3. Groundwater existing in alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 4. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. 5. Exploratory back hoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Fill Placement 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see text of report). 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts six (6) to eight (8) inches in compacted thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a nearly horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by our representative. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that recommended by this firm, the contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. The ability of the contractor to obtain the proper moisture content will control production rates. b) Each six-inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In most cases, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D 1557. 4. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is observed by, and acceptable to, our representative. 5. Rocks exceeding eight (8) inches in diameter should be taken off site, broken into smaller fragments, or placed in accordance with recommendations of this firm in areas designated GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-4 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR suitable for rock disposal. On projects where significant large quantities of oversized materials are anticipated, alternate guidelines for placement may be included. If significant oversize materials are encountered during construction, these guidelines should be requested. 6. In clay soil, dry or large chunks or blocks are common. If in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension, then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break up blocks. When dry, they should be moisture conditioned to provide a uniform condition with the surrounding fill. Slope Construction 1. The contractor should obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. 2. Slopes trimmed to the compacted core should be overbuilt by at least three (3) feet with compaction efforts out to the edge of the false slope. Failure to properly compact the outer edge results in trimming not exposing the compacted core and additional compaction after trimming may be necessary. 3. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods, then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled or otherwise compacted at approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. 4. Corners and bends in slopes should have special attention during construction as these are the most difficult areas to obtain proper compaction. 5. Cut slopes should be cut to the finished surface. Excessive undercutting and smoothing of the face with fill may necessitate stabilization. UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractors responsibility. The geotechnical consultant typically provides periodic observation and testing of these operations. While efforts are made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractors’ methods and procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures. Compaction methods vary for trench compaction and experience indicates many methods can be successful. However, procedures that “worked” on previous projects may or may not prove effective on a given site. The contractor(s) should outline the procedures proposed, so that we may discuss GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-5 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR them prior to construction. We will offer comments based on our knowledge of site conditions and experience. 1. Utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, in streets and beneath flat work or hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Soil should be moisture conditioned prior to placing in the trench. 2. Flooding and jetting are not typically recommended or acceptable for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or higher. This is typically limited to the following uses: a) shallow (12 + inches) under slab interior trenches and, b) as bedding in pipe zone. The water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs or completing trench compaction. 3. Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation. Moisture may be reduced to 2% below optimum moisture in areas to be paved within the upper three feet below sub grade. 4. Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is similar to the surrounding soil. 5. Trench compaction testing is generally at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Testing frequency will be based on trench depth and the contractors procedures. A probing rod would be used to assess the consistency of compaction between tested areas and untested areas. If zones are found that are considered less compact than other areas, this would be brought to the contractors attention. JOB SAFETY General Personnel safety is a primary concern on all job sites. The following summaries are safety considerations for use by all our employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-6 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR 1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings. 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel while on the job site. 3. Safety Flags: Safety flags are provided to our field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various locations to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Again, safety is the paramount concern. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a drivable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see diagram below). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend outward to the sides approximately 50 feet from the center of the test pit and 100 feet in the direction of traffic flow. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-7 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment 50 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment Traffic Direction Vehicle parked here Test Pit Spoil pile Spoil pile Test Pit SIDE VIEW PLAN VIEW TEST PIT SAFETY PLAN 10 0 ft Zone of Non-Encroachment Slope Tests When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. Trench Safety It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of the trench backfill. All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which; 1. is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2. exit points or ladders are not provided, 3. displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or GENERAL GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX D Proposed Tesla Repair Facility – Building and Parking Lot Improvements Page D-8 Temecula, Riverside County, California Project No. 2501-CR 4. displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraws and notifies their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons is subject to reprocessing and/or removal. Procedures In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractor’s representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to technicians attention and notify our project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. ALTERNATES Original Ground 3’ Loose Surface Materials Finish Grade 3’ Suitable Material Suitable Material 6” Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet per Lineal Foot Clean Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric Construct Benches where slope exceeds 5:1 Bottom of Cleanout to Be At Least 1.5 Times the Width of Compaction Equipment 4 feet typical Slope to Drain Original Ground Loose Surface Materials Finish Grade Suitable MaterialConstruct Benches where slope exceeds 5:1 Bottom of Cleanout to Be At Least 1.5 Times the Width of Compaction Equipment 4 feet typical Slope to Drain 6” Perforated Pipe in 9 cubic feet per Lineal Foot Clean Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric 1548 North Maple Street Corona, California 92878 TYPICAL CANYON CLEANOUT STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PLATE C-1 TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE Topsoil Bedrock Finish Grade Fill Slope Daylight Cut Line per Plan Project Removal at 1 to 1 Min. 3 Feet Compacted Fill Colluvium Creep Zone Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 Equipment Widths for Compaction Toe of Fill Slope per Plan DAYLIGHT CUT AREA OVER NATURAL DESCENDING SLOPE Topsoil Structural Setback Without Corrective Work Project Removal at 1 to 1 Colluvium Creep Zone Min. 2 Feet Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 Equipment Widths for Compaction Finish Grade Bedrock Min. 3 Feet Compacted Fill Mi n. 2 % Fal l Min. 2 FeetMin. 2 % F al l Compacted Fill Compacted Fill Topsoil Colluvium Creep Zone TREATMENT ABOVE NATURAL SLOPES1548 North Maple Street Corona, California 92878 STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PLATE C-2 TYPICAL FILL SLOPE OVER CUT SLOPE Topsoil Bedrock Finish Grade 2: 1 Fill Slope 4’ Typical Colluvium Creep Zone Minimum 15 Feet Wide or 1.5 Equipment Widths for Compaction Toe of Fill Slope per Plan TYPICAL FILL SLOPE Bedrock or Suitable Dense Material Minimum compacted fill required to provide lateral support. Excavate key if width or depth less than indicated in table above Cut Slope Min. 2 % Fall SLOPE HEIGHT MIN. KEY WIDTH MIN. KEY DEPTH 5 10 15 20 25 >25 7 10 15 15 15 SEE TEXT 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH SOIL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION COMMON FILL SLOPE KEYS 1548 North Maple Street Corona, California 92878 STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PLATE C-3 NOTES: 2) MAXIMUM ROCK SIZE IN WINDROWS IS 4 FEET 3) SOIL AROUND WINDROWS TO BE SANDY MATERIAL SUBJECT TO SOIL ENGINEER ACCEPTANCE 4) SPACING AND CLEARANCES MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPACTION 5) INDIVDUAL LARGE ROCKS MAY BE BURIED IN PITS. SEE NOTE 1 15’ MIN.3’ MIN. 3’ MIN. MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION STAGGER ROWS HORIZONTALLY NO ROCKS IN THIS ZONE CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW FINISH GRADE FILL SLOPE PLAN VIEW FILL SLOPE MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION MINIMUM 15’ CLEAR OR 1.5 EQUIPMENT WIDTHS FOR COMPACTION PLACE ROCKS END TO END DO NOT PILE OR STACK ROCKS SOIL TO BE PLACE AROUND AND OVER ROCKS THEN FLOODED INTO VOIDS. MUST COMPACT AROUND AND OVER EACH ROCK WINDROW 1) SOIL FILL OVER WINDROW SHOULD BE 7 FEET OR PER JURISDUICTIONAL STANDARDS AND SUFFICIENT FOR FUTURE EXCAVATIONS TO AVOID ROCKS ROCK BURIAL DETAILS1548 North Maple Street Corona, California 92878 IN DIAMETER STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PLATE C-4 SEE DETAILS FOR BACKDRAIN AND HEEL DRAIN BACKDRAIN DETAILS HEEL DRAIN DETAILS 6” diameter perforated drain pipe in 6 cubic feet per lineal foot clean gravel wrapped in filter fabric, outlet pipe to gravity flow with 2% minimum fall 4” diameter perforated drain pipe (Schedule 40 PVC or equivalent) in 6 cubic feet per lineal foot clean gravel wrapped in filter fabric 4” diameter solid outlet pipe (Schedule 40 PVC or equivalent) laterals to slope face or storm drain system at maximum 100 foot maximum intervals Note: Additional backdrains may be recommended 2% Minimum Fall 710 E. Parkridge Ave, Suite 105Corona, CA 92879710 E. Parkridge Ave, Suite 105Corona, CA 92879 TYPICAL BUTTRESS AND STABILIZATION FILL1548 North Maple Street Corona, California 92878 STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PLATE C-5