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 22863 Parcel 1 Geotech Report
July 29, 2024 Project No. 203345-10B Mr. George Ray GTR Property Development 26791 Calle Verano Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Subject: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Proposed Commercial Development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 921-320-061, Located at 29540 Rancho California Road, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California Earth Strata Geotechnical Services is pleased to present our updated geotechnical interpretive report for the proposed commercial development, Assessor’s Parcel Number 921-320-061, located at 29540 Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This work was performed in accordance with the scope of work described in our proposal, dated September 20, 2020. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature, distribution, engineering properties, and geologic strata underlying the site with respect to the proposed development. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services appreciates the opportunity to offer our consultation and advice on this project. In the event that you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Stephen M. Poole, PE, GE Aaron G. Wood, PG, CEG. Principal Engineer Principal Geologist SMP/AGW 42184 Remington Avenue, TEMECULA, CA 92590 951-461-4028, ESGSINC.COM APPROVED BY CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC WORKS david.pina 08/27/2024 08/27/2024 08/27/2024 08/27/20 EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Page i July 29, 2024 Project No. 203345-10A TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................................................1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING .................................................................................................1 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................3 Field Exploration ..............................................................................................................................................3 Laboratory Testing ..........................................................................................................................................3 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................3 Regional Geology ..............................................................................................................................................3 Local Geology ....................................................................................................................................................4 Faulting ..............................................................................................................................................................4 Landslides ..........................................................................................................................................................7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................7 General ...............................................................................................................................................................7 Earthwork ..........................................................................................................................................................7 Earthwork and Grading ..............................................................................................................................7 Clearing and Grubbing ................................................................................................................................7 Excavation Characteristics .........................................................................................................................7 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................................7 Ground Preparation for Fill Areas ............................................................................................................8 Oversize Rock ...............................................................................................................................................8 Compacted Fill Placement ..........................................................................................................................8 Import Earth Materials ...............................................................................................................................9 Cut/Fill Transitions ...................................................................................................................................10 Cut Areas ......................................................................................................................................................10 Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence .......................................................................................................10 Geotechnical Observations ......................................................................................................................11 Post Grading Considerations .......................................................................................................................11 Slope Landscaping and Maintenance .....................................................................................................11 Site Drainage ...............................................................................................................................................11 Utility Trenches ..........................................................................................................................................11 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................12 Ground Motions ..............................................................................................................................................12 Secondary Seismic Hazards .........................................................................................................................13 Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading ...........................................................................................................13 Subsidence .......................................................................................................................................................14 TENTATIVE FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................14 General .............................................................................................................................................................14 Allowable Bearing Values .............................................................................................................................14 Settlement .......................................................................................................................................................14 Lateral Resistance ..........................................................................................................................................14 Structural Setbacks and Building Clearance ............................................................................................15 Foundation Observations .............................................................................................................................16 Expansive Soil Considerations ....................................................................................................................17 Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 51 to 90) ................................................................17 EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Page ii July 29, 2024 Project No. 203345-10A Footings. .......................................................................................................................................................17 Building Floor Slabs ...................................................................................................................................17 Post Tensioned Slab/Foundation Design Recommendations ...............................................................18 Corrosivity .......................................................................................................................................................19 RETAINING WALLS .............................................................................................................................................20 Existing Retaining Walls ...............................................................................................................................20 Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures ............................................................................................................20 Subdrain System .............................................................................................................................................21 Temporary Excavations ................................................................................................................................22 Retaining Wall Backfill .................................................................................................................................22 CONCRETE FLATWORK .....................................................................................................................................22 Thickness and Joint Spacing ........................................................................................................................22 Subgrade Preparation ...................................................................................................................................22 PRELIMINARY ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN ......................................................................22 GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES .........................................................................23 REPORT LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................................24 Attachments: Figure 1 – Vicinity Map (Page 2) Figure 2 – Regional Geologic Map (Page 5) Figure 3 – Riverside County Fault Zone Map (Rear of Text) APPENDIX A – References (Rear of Text) APPENDIX B – Exploratory Logs (Rear of Text) APPENDIX C – Laboratory Procedures and Test Results (Rear of Text) APPENDIX D – Seismicity (Rear of Text) APPENDIX E – Liquefaction Analysis (Rear of Text) APPENDIX F - Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Calculations (Rear of Text) APPENDIX G – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications (Rear of Text) Figure 4 – Leighton and Associates Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text) Figure 5 – Converse Consultants Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text) Plate 1 – Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text) EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 1 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10A INTRODUCTION Earth Strata Geotechnical Services is pleased to present our preliminary geotechnical interpretive report for the proposed development. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nature, distribution, engineering properties, and geologic strata underlying the site with respect to the proposed development, and then provide preliminary grading and foundation design recommendations based on the plans you provided. The general location of the subject property is indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The plans you provided were used as the base map to show geologic conditions within the subject site, see Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 29540 Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The subject property is comprised of a developed land with a vacant commercial building formally utilized as a restaurant. Topographic relief at the subject property is relatively low with the terrain being generally flat. Elevations at the site is approximately 1,045 feet above mean sea level (msl). Drainage within the subject property generally follows surface topography. The site is currently bordered by commercial development and associated parking lots to the northwest and southwest, as well as a gasoline station to the northeast and Rancho California Road to the southeast. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING The proposed commercial development is expected to consist of concrete, wood or steel framed one- and/or two-story structures utilizing slab on grade construction with associated streets, landscape areas, and utilities. The current development plans include the demolition of the existing building and the development of two (2) buildings with associated drive-thru. Site elevations will remain generally unchanged with current site elevations of approximately 1,043 above mean sea level and a finish grade elevation of 1,042.83 for the proposed coffee shop and a proposed elevation of 1,044.13 for the proposed Ono Hawaiian BBQ. Descending 2:1 fill slopes up to 5-feet in height will go down to proposed stepped retaining walls (maximum of 8-feet high) which will form a walkway entrance from Rancho California Road up to a sidewalk between the proposed structures. The existing 5-foot high slopes descending from the coffee shop pad area to the existing retaining walls (a maximum of 8-feet high) will be generally unchanged except for minor cuts (approximately 1 to 2-feet) to bring pad elevation down. The plans provided by you were utilized in our exploration and form the base for our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. N PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 203345-10A VICINITY MAP FEB 2022 FIGURE 1 SEE BAR SCALE Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants www.ESGSINC.com (951) 397-8315 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 203345-10A APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 3 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Exploration Subsurface exploration within the subject site was performed on January 18 and February 14, 2022 for the exploratory excavations. A truck mounted hollow-stem-auger drill rig was utilized to drill five (5) borings throughout the site to a maximum depth of 43 feet. An underground utilities clearance was obtained from Underground Service Alert of Southern California, prior to the subsurface exploration. Earth materials encountered during exploration were classified and logged in general accordance with the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) of ASTM D 2488. Upon completion of laboratory testing, exploratory logs and sample descriptions may have been reconciled to reflect laboratory test results with regard to ASTM D 2487. Associated with the subsurface exploration was the collection of bulk (disturbed) samples and relatively undisturbed samples of earth materials for laboratory testing and analysis. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained with a 3 inch outside diameter modified California split-spoon sampler lined with 1-inch-high brass rings. Samples obtained using a hollow stem auger drill rig, were mechanically driven with successive 30 inch drops of a 140-pound automatic trip safety hammer. The blow count per one-foot increment was recorded in the boring logs. The central portions of the driven samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. The approximate exploratory locations are shown on Plate 1 and descriptive logs are presented in Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Maximum dry density/optimum moisture content, expansion potential, pH, resistivity, sulfate content, chloride content, and in-situ density/moisture content were determined for selected undisturbed and bulk samples of earth materials, considered representative of those encountered. An evaluation of the test data is reflected throughout the Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report. A brief description of laboratory test criteria and summaries of test data are presented in Appendix C. FINDINGS Regional Geology Regionally, the site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest trending steep mountain ranges separated by sediment filled elongated valleys. The dominant structural geologic features reflect the northwest trend of the province. Associated with and subparallel to the San Andreas Fault are the San Jacinto Fault, Newport-Inglewood, and the Whittier-Elsinore Fault. The Santa Ana Mountains abut the west side of the Elsinore Fault while the Perris Block forms the other side of the fault zone to the east. The Perris Block is bounded to the east by the San Jacinto Fault. The northern perimeter of the Los Angeles basin forms part of a northerly dipping blind thrust fault at the boundary between the Peninsular Ranges Province and the Transverse Range Province. The mountainous regions within the Peninsular Ranges Province are comprised of Pre-Cretaceous, metasedimentary, and metavolcanic rocks along with Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 4 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Batholith. The low lying areas are primarily comprised of Tertiary and Quaternary non-marine alluvial sediments consisting of alluvial deposits, sandstones, claystones, siltstones, conglomerates, and occasional volcanic units. A map illustrating the regional geology is presented on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 2. Local Geology The earth materials on the site are primarily comprised of artificial fill and Quaternary alluvial materials. A general description of the dominant earth materials observed on the site is provided below: • Artificial Fill, Undocumented (map symbol Afr): Undocumented artificial fill materials were encountered throughout the site within the upper 9 to 10 feet during exploration. These materials are typically locally derived from the native materials and consist generally of light brown to dark gray to black silty sand and clayey sand. • Quaternary Young Axial Channel Deposits (map symbol Qya): Quaternary young axial channel deposits were encountered beneath the artificial fill to the full depth of exploration. These young alluvial deposits consist predominately of interlayered light brown to light to dark gray, fine to coarse grained silty sand and poorly-graded sand with silt. These deposits were generally noted to be in a slightly moist to very moist, loose to very dense state. Faulting The project is located in a seismically active region and as a result, significant ground shaking will likely impact the site within the design life of the proposed project. The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated by northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas Fault system, which accommodates for most of the right lateral movement associated with the relative motion between the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. Known active faults within this system include the Newport-Inglewood, Whittier-Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. The site lies within the AP Zone for the Elsinore/Wildomar Fault, (see Figure 3, Trace 1, 2 and 3). Traces of this fault system were located by Leighton and Associates, Inc. during their fault investigation for the existing development (LAI, 1978b). In that report the Elsinore/Wildomar Fault was located in trench T1 and T3, the measured trend from those locations placing the fault approximately on the property line of the subject site and approximately 25 feet northeast of the existing structure and approximately 29 feet northeast of the proposed new structure (see Figures 4, 5 and Plate 1); the orientation of the fault observed in their trench was N41˚W; this location and trend align closely with the location and orientation of the faults observed southeast of Rancho California Road during their March 7, 1978 report (LAI, 1978a), see Figure 4. This southeastern trace of the Wildomar Fault is confirmed by trenching by Converse Consultants Inland Empire (CCIE) in their October 6 and December 2, 1988, reports (CCIE, 1988a/b); trenches Trench 1, 2, 3 and 4 found faults which coincide with the locations and trends of the previously recognized Wildomar Fault Zone, see Figure 5. Based on the referenced reports the main trace of the Wildomar Fault is considered to be firmly established at along the subject property’s northeastern property line, approximately 29 feet northeast of the proposed new structure; in the area of the existing entryway northeast of Claim Jumper. It should be noted that the location of the AP Fault trace is offset approximately 43 feet to the southwest from the Riverside County Fault trace (see Figure 3), it is our interpretation that EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 5 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B the AP Fault trace is offset from the true location identified in the referenced Leighton Reports, the location of which is accurately depicted by the Riverside County Fault trace. Regarding the County of Riverside fault currently projected southwest of the subject site (Trace 1, Figure 3); based on our review of geologic maps, existing reports, and conversations with the County geologist; it our interpretation that the basis of this County fault location is the 1977 Elsinore Fault Zone map by Kennedy. In turn; this trace of the Wildomar Fault seems to be founded on topographic lineaments, labelled as Lineaments C and F on Figure 3 (taken from Converse, 1988b). Trenching across these lineaments was conducted by Converse and presented in their December 2, 1988 report for the site southeast of the subject property, see Figure 5 – Trenches 4 and 5. In both Trenches 4 and 5 Converse reports encountering faults which confirm the location of the Kennedy fault trace; however, in these locations Converse reports that the “upper terminus of the fault is truncated by clearly unfaulted coarse-grained pebbly sandstone of the Pauba Formation” (CCIE, 1988a), that “no faults displace the Pauba Formation or the alluvial and colluvial sediments”, and that “all Holocene splays of the Wildomar Fault have a well defined geomorphic expression [which is] not present in the area of Trench 5” (CCIE, 1988b); thus, their conclusion is that Lineaments C and F represent inactive strands of the Wildomar Fault Zone. Leighton and Associates cleared the subject site and parcel southwest of the subject site of active faulting hazard posed by Trace 1 based on trench T1 and magnetometer traverses M1, M2 and M5. This cumulative data clears the subject site of potential active faulting associated with both the County and Wildomar Fault Zones. Regarding exact placement of the traces shown by Riverside County GIS (namely that the Riverside County GIC show the fault traces going through existing structures); it is assumed that the data and the conclusions of the referenced reports was used to justify placement of the existing onsite structure, as well as the structure southwest of the subject site, in their current locations. The alignment of the existing structures would preclude any reasonable projection of an active fault through the proposed new subject site. Given the established locations of Elsinore/Wildomar Fault from the referenced Leighton and Converse investigations, as reflected in the layout of existing structures, it is our conclusion that the hazard posed by surface rupture from active faults traversing the subject site is very low. Though Fault Trace 5 as depicted by Riverside County GIS (See Figure 3) lies on the northeastern property line (as logically should fault Trace 2), the proposed new structures are further away from the property line/fault trace than the existing structure; which given the high degree of certainty with which the fault has been located in the area is a considered suitable setback for the proposed new structures. Based on our review of regional geologic maps and applicable computer programs (USGS Seismic Design Maps, Caltrans ARS online, and USGS Earthquake Hazard Programs), the Elsinore Fault with an approximate source to site distance of 0.04 kilometers is the closest known active fault anticipated to produce the highest ground accelerations, with an anticipated maximum modal magnitude of 7.7. A list of faults as well as a list of significant historical seismic events within a 100km radius of the subject site are included in Appendix D. N REFERNCES: Morton, D.M. and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, 1:100,000. PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 203345-10A REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP FEB 2022 FIGURE 2 SCALE 1:40,625 LEGEND Qya -Quaternary Young Axial-Channel Deposits Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants www.ESGSINC.com (951) 397-8315 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 203345-10A - APPROXIMATE SITE LOCATION Qps -Quaternary Pauba Formation EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 7 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Landslides Landslide debris was not observed during our subsurface exploration and no ancient landslides are known to exist on the site. No landslides are known to exist, or have been mapped, in the vicinity of the site. Geologic mapping of the site conducted during our investigation, and review of aerial imagery of the site, reveal no geomorphic expressions indicative of landsliding. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General From geotechnical and engineering geologic points of view, the subject property is considered suitable for the proposed development, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the plans and are implemented during construction. Earthwork Earthwork and Grading The provisions of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), including the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in the last Appendix of this report, should be applied to all earthwork and grading operations, as well as in accordance with all applicable grading codes and requirements of the appropriate reviewing agency. Unless specifically revised or amended herein, grading operations should also be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of our General Earthwork and Grading Specifications within the last appendix of this report. Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation including trees, grasses, weeds, brush, shrubs, or any other debris should be stripped from the areas to be graded and properly disposed of offsite. In addition, laborers should be utilized to remove any roots, branches, or other deleterious materials during grading operations. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services should be notified at the appropriate times to provide observation and testing services during Clearing and Grubbing operations. Any buried structures or unanticipated conditions should be brought to our immediate attention. Excavation Characteristics Based on the results of our exploration and experience with similar projects in similar settings, the near surface earth materials, will be readily excavated with conventional earth moving equipment. Groundwater Groundwater was observed in Boring B-1 at a depth of approximately 35 feet below existing grade. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 8 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Ground Preparation for Fill Areas For each area to receive compacted fill, the removal of low density, compressible earth materials, such as topsoil, upper alluvial materials, and undocumented artificial fill, should continue until firm competent alluvium and/or artificial fill is encountered. Removal excavations are subject to verification by the project engineer, geologist or their representative. Prior to placing compacted fills, the exposed bottom in each removal area should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. The intent of remedial grading is to diminish the potential for hydro-consolidation, slope instability, and/or settlement. Remedial grading should extend beyond the perimeter of the proposed structures a horizontal distance equal to the depth of excavation or a minimum of 5 feet, whichever is greater. For cursory purposes the anticipated removal depths are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. In general, the anticipated removal depths should vary from 5 to 7 feet below existing grade with locally deeper removals. Removals in paved/hardscape areas may be reduced to 3-feet below existing grades. Removal bottoms in alluvium for the proposed new structures must have a minimum in-situ relative compaction of 85% maximum density. Wet Removals Wet alluvial materials will probably not be encountered within the low lying areas of the site. If removals of wet alluvial materials are required, special grading equipment and procedures can greatly reduce overall costs. Careful planning by an experienced grading contractor can reduce the need for special equipment, such as swamp cats, draglines, excavators, pumps, and top loading earthmovers. Possible solutions may include the placement of imported angular rock and/or geotextile ground reinforcement. More specific recommendations can be provided based on the actual conditions encountered. Drying or mixing of wet materials with dry materials will be needed to bring the wet materials to near optimum moisture prior to placing wet materials into compacted fills. Oversize Rock Oversize rock is not expected to be encountered during grading. Oversize rock that is encountered (i.e., rock exceeding a maximum dimension of 12 inches) should be disposed of offsite or stockpiled onsite and crushed for future use. The disposal of oversize rock is discussed in greater detail in General Earthwork and Grading Specifications within the last appendix of this report. Compacted Fill Placement Compacted fill materials should be placed in 6 to 8 inch maximum (uncompacted) lifts, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve uniform near optimum moisture content and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 9 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Import Earth Materials Should import earth materials be needed to achieve final design grades, all potential import materials should be free of deleterious/oversize materials, non-expansive, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to delivery onsite. Fill Slopes When properly constructed, fill slopes up to 10 feet high with inclinations of 2:1 (h:v) or flatter are considered to be grossly stable. Keyways are required at the toe of all fill slopes higher than 5 feet and steeper than 5:1 (h:v). Keyways should be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 2 feet into competent earth materials, as measured on the downhill side. In order to establish keyway removals, backcuts should be cut no steeper than 1:1 or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. Compacted fill should be benched into competent earth materials. Cut Slopes When properly constructed, cut slopes into older alluvium up to 10 feet high with inclinations of 2:1 (h:v) or flatter are considered grossly stable. Cut slopes should be observed by the engineering geologist or his representative during grading, but are anticipated to be stable. Stabilization Fills Currently, stabilization fills will not be required for cut slopes in the alluvium. Our engineering geologist or his representative should be called to evaluate all slopes during grading. In the event that unfavorable geologic conditions are encountered, recommendations for stabilization fills or flatter slopes will be provided. Fill Over Cut Slopes The fill portion of fill over cut slopes should not be constructed until the cut portion of the slope has been cut to finish grade. The earth materials and geologic structure exposed along the cut slope should be evaluated with regard to suitability for compacted fills or foundations and for stability. If the cut materials are determined to be competent, then the construction of the keyway and subdrain system may commence or additional remedial recommendations will be provided. Temporary Backcuts It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to follow all Cal-OSHA requirements with regard to excavation safety. Where existing developments are upslope, adequate slope stability to protect those developments must be maintained. Temporary backcuts will be required to accomplish removals of unsuitable materials and possibly, to perform canyon removals, stabilization fills, and/or keyways. Backcuts should be excavated at a gradient of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter. Flatter backcuts may be required where geologic structure or earth materials are unfavorable. It is imperative that grading schedules minimize the exposure time of the unsupported excavations. All excavations should be stabilized within 30 days of initial excavation. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 10 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Cut/Fill Transitions Cut/fill transitions should be eliminated from all building areas where the depth of fill placed within the “fill” portion exceeds proposed footing depths. This is to diminish distress to structures resulting from excessive differential settlement. The entire foundation of each structure should be founded on a uniform bearing material. This should be accomplished by overexcavating the “cut” portion and replacing the excavated materials as properly compacted fill. Refer to the following table for recommended depths of overexcavation. DEPTH OF FILL (“fill” portion) DEPTH OF OVEREXCAVATION (“cut” portion) Up to 5 feet Equal Depth 5 to 10 feet 5 feet Greater than 10 feet One-half the thickness of fill placed on the “fill” portion (10 feet maximum) Overexcavation of the “cut” portion should extend beyond the building perimeter a horizontal distance equal to the depth of overexcavation or a minimum of 5 feet, whichever is greater. Cut Areas In cut areas, an area a minimum of 5 feet beyond the footprint of the proposed structures should overexcavated until; competent bottoms are achieved; to a minimum 3 feet below the proposed foundations; or per the Overexcavation Table above; (whichever is greater) and replaced with compacted fill. Final determination of areas that require overexcavation should be determined in the field by a representative of Earth Strata Geotechnical Services. Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence Volumetric changes in earth material quantities will occur when poorly consolidated earth materials are replaced with properly compacted fill. Estimates of the percent shrinkage/bulking factors for the various geologic units observed on the subject property are based on in-place densities and on the estimated average percent of relative compaction achieved during grading. GEOLOGIC UNIT SHRINKAGE (%) Artificial Fill 0 to 5 Alluvium 10 to 15 Subsidence from scarification and recompaction of exposed bottom surfaces is expected to be negligible to approximately 0.01 foot. The estimates of shrinkage/bulking and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. Since many variables can affect the accuracy of these estimates, they should be used with caution and contingency plans should be in place for balancing the project. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 11 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Geotechnical Observations Clearing operations, removal of unsuitable materials, and general grading procedures should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant or his representative. No compacted fill should be placed without observations by the geotechnical consultant or his representative to verify the adequacy of the removals. The project geotechnical consultant or his representative should be present to observe grading operations and to check that minimum compaction requirements and proper lift thicknesses are being met, as well as to verify compliance with the other recommendations presented herein. Post Grading Considerations Slope Landscaping and Maintenance Adequate slope and building pad drainage is essential for the long term performance of the subject site. The gross stability of graded slopes should not be adversely affected, provided all drainage provisions are properly constructed and maintained. Engineered slopes should be landscaped with deep rooted, drought tolerant maintenance free plant species, as recommended by the project landscape architect. Site Drainage Control of site drainage is important for the performance of the proposed project. Roof gutters are recommended for the proposed structures. Pad and roof drainage should be collected and transferred to driveways, adjacent streets, storm-drain facilities, or other locations approved by the building official in non-erosive drainage devices. Drainage should not be allowed to pond on the pad or against any foundation or retaining wall. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. Planters located within retaining wall backfill should be sealed to prevent moisture intrusion into the backfill. Planters located next to structures should be sealed to the depth of the footings. Drainage control devices require periodic cleaning, testing and maintenance to remain effective. At a minimum, pad drainage should be designed at the minimum gradients required by the CBC. To divert water away from foundations, the ground surface adjacent to foundations should also be graded at the minimum gradients required per the CBC. Utility Trenches All utility trench backfill should be compacted at near optimum moisture to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. For utility trench backfill within pavement areas the upper 6 inches of subgrade materials should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. This includes within the street right-of-ways, utility easements, under footings, sidewalks, driveways and building floor slabs, as well as within or adjacent to any slopes. Backfill should be placed in approximately 6 to 8 inch maximum loose lifts and then mechanically compacted with a hydro-hammer, rolling with a sheepsfoot, pneumatic EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 12 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B tampers, or similar equipment. The utility trenches should be tested by the project geotechnical engineer or their representative to verify minimum compaction requirements are obtained. In order to minimize the penetration of moisture below building slabs, all utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they undercut the perimeter foundation. Utility trenches that are proposed parallel to any building footings (interior and/or exterior trenches), should not be located within a 1:1 (h:v) plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the footing. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Ground Motions Structures are required to be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in the 2019 California Building Code Section 1613. The design is dependent on the site class, occupancy category I, II, III, or IV, mapped spectral accelerations for short periods (Ss), and mapped spectral acceleration for a 1-second period (S1). In order for structural design to comply with the CBC, the ASCE Seismic Design online tool was used to compile spectral accelerations for the subject property based on data and maps jointly compiled by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS). The data found in the following table is based on the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with 5% damped ground motions having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2,475 year return period). The seismic design coefficients were determined by a combination of the site class, mapped spectral accelerations, and occupancy category. The following seismic design coefficients should be implemented during design of the proposed structures. Summaries of the Seismic Hazard Deaggregation graphs and test data are presented in Appendix D. 2022 CBC FACTOR (ASCE 7-22) Site Location Latitude: 33.503786˚ (North) Longitude: -117.147896˚(West) Site Class D – Stiff Soil Mapped Spectral Accelerations for short periods, Ss 1.84 Mapped Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Period, S1 0.61 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for Short Periods, Sms 1.91 Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-Second Period, Sm1 1.44 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for Short Periods, SDS 1.27 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-Second Period, SD1 0.96 Seismic Design Category D Importance Factor Based on Occupancy Category II We performed the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the site in accordance with the 2019 CBC, Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12. The probabilistic seismic hazard maps and data files were jointly EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 13 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS) and can be found at the CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page. Actual ground shaking intensities at the site may be substantially higher or lower based on complex variables such as the near source directivity effects, depth and consistency of earth materials, topography, geologic structure, direction of fault rupture, and seismic wave reflection, refraction, and attenuation rates. The mean peak ground acceleration was calculated to be 0.75g. Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary effects of seismic shaking considered as potential hazards include several types of ground failure as well as induced flooding. Different types of ground failure, which could occur as a consequence of severe ground shaking at the site, include landslides, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, and liquefaction/lateral spreading. The probability of occurrence of each type of ground failure depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from faults, topography, the state of subsurface earth materials, groundwater conditions, and other factors. Based on our experience, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing, all of the above secondary effects of seismic activity are considered unlikely. Seismically induced flooding is normally a consequence of a tsunami (seismic sea wave), a seiche (i.e., a wave-like oscillation of surface water in an enclosed basin that may be initiated by a strong earthquake) or failure of a major reservoir or retention system up gradient of the site. Since the site is at an elevation of more than 1,000 feet above mean sea level and is located more than 20 miles inland from the nearest coastline of the Pacific Ocean, the potential for seismically induced flooding due to a tsunami is considered nonexistent. Since no enclosed bodies of water lie adjacent to or up gradient of the site, the likelihood for induced flooding due to a dam failure or a seiche overcoming the dam’s freeboard is considered nonexistent. Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Liquefaction occurs as a result of a substantial loss of shear strength or shearing resistance in loose, saturated, cohesionless earth materials subjected to earthquake induced ground shaking. Potential impacts from liquefaction include loss of bearing capacity, liquefaction related settlement, lateral movements, and surface manifestation such as sand boils. Seismically induced settlement occurs when loose sandy soils become denser when subjected to shaking during an earthquake. The three factors determining whether a site is likely to be subject to liquefaction include seismic shaking, type and consistency of earth materials, and groundwater level. The proposed structures will be supported by compacted fill and competent alluvium, with groundwater at a depth of approximately 35 feet. As such, the potential for earthquake induced liquefaction and lateral spreading beneath the proposed structures is considered very low to remote due to the recommended compacted fill, relatively low groundwater level, and the dense nature of the deeper onsite earth materials. Liquefaction analyses were performed for the existing un-graded and graded conditions, using a conservative groundwater level of 5 feet to represent the historic high groundwater level. The analyses of post graded conditions determined that potentially liquefiable earth materials were encountered in boring B-1, from 19 to 25 feet. According to Fig. 10 of Ishihara (1995) liquefaction should not manifest itself at the surface, due to the recommended grading, the depth of the liquefiable earth materials, and the volume of overburden materials above the liquefiable zone. We estimate that dynamic settlement of sands due to EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 14 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B liquefaction will be on the order of 2.5 inches. The liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement of sands analyses are included within the appendices of this report. Subsidence The site is located in a Riverside County subsidence hazard zone. Based on our subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and analyses, we expect to achieve competent bottoms (i.e. a minimum in-situ relative compaction of 85% max density) in the underlying alluvium at depths of 5 to 7 feet below existing grades, with some locally deeper removals. Given the competent alluvium, the proposed engineered fill, and the recommended foundation design, the hazard posed by subsidence is considered negligible. TENTATIVE FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS General Provided grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report, shallow foundations are considered feasible for support of the proposed structures. Tentative foundation recommendations are provided herein and graphic presentations of relevant recommendations may also be included on the enclosed map. Allowable Bearing Values An allowable bearing value of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is recommended for design of 24-inch square pad footings and 12-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 1-foot of width and/or depth to a maximum value of 3,500 psf. Recommended allowable bearing values include both dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces. Settlement Based on the settlement characteristics of the earth materials that underlie the building sites and the anticipated loading, we estimate that the maximum total settlement of the footings will be less than approximately ¾ inch. Differential settlement is expected to be about ½ inch over a horizontal distance of approximately 20 feet, for an angular distortion ratio of 1:480. It is anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction or shortly after the initial application of loading. The above settlement estimates are based on the assumption that the grading and construction are performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and that the project geotechnical consultant will observe or test the earth material conditions in the footing excavations. Lateral Resistance Passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf may be used to establish lateral bearing resistance for footings. For areas covered with hardscape, passive earth pressure may be taken from the surface. For areas without hardscape, the upper 12 inches of the soil profile must EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 15 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B be neglected when calculating passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.36 times the dead load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting earth materials to determine lateral sliding resistance. The above values may be increased by one-third when designing for short duration wind or seismic forces. When combining passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third. In no case shall the lateral sliding resistance exceed one-half the dead load for clay, sandy clay, sandy silty clay, silty clay, and clayey silt. The above lateral resistance values are based on footings for an entire structure being placed directly against either compacted fill or competent alluvium. Structural Setbacks and Building Clearance Structural setbacks are required per the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). Additional structural setbacks are not required due to geologic or geotechnical conditions within the site. Improvements constructed in close proximity to natural or properly engineered and compacted slopes can, over time, be affected by natural processes including gravity forces, weathering, and long term secondary settlement. As a result, the CBC requires that buildings and structures be setback or footings deepened to resist the influence of these processes. For structures that are planned near ascending and descending slopes, the footings should be embedded to satisfy the requirements presented in the CBC, Section 1808.7 as illustrated in the following Foundation Clearances from Slopes diagram. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 16 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B FOUNDATION CLEARANCES FROM SLOPES When determining the required clearance from ascending slopes with a retaining wall at the toe, the height of the slope shall be measured from the top of the wall to the top of the slope. Foundation Observations In accordance with the 2019 CBC and prior to the placement of forms, concrete, or steel, all foundation excavations should be observed by the geologist, engineer, or his representative to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing materials. The excavations should be per the approved plans, moistened, cleaned of all loose materials, trimmed neat, level, and square. Any moisture softened earth materials should be removed prior to steel or concrete placement. Earth materials from foundation excavations should not be placed in slab on grade areas unless the materials are tested for expansion potential and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 17 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Expansive Soil Considerations Preliminary laboratory test results indicate onsite earth materials exhibit an expansion potential of MEDIUM as classified in accordance with 2019 CBC Section 1803.5.3 and ASTM D 4829. Additional, testing for expansive soil conditions should be conducted upon completion of rough grading. The following recommendations should be considered the very minimum requirements, for the earth materials tested. It is common practice for the project architect or structural engineer to require additional slab thickness, footing sizes, and/or reinforcement. Medium Expansion Potential (Expansion Index of 51 to 90) Our laboratory test results indicate that the earth materials onsite exhibit a MEDIUM expansion potential as classified in accordance with in 2019 CBC Section 1803.5.3 and ASTM D 4829. Accordingly, the CBC specifies that slab on ground foundations (floor slabs) resting on earth materials with expansion indices greater than 20, require special design considerations in accordance with 2019 CBC Sections 1808.6.1 and 1808.6.2. The design procedures are based on the thickness and plasticity index of the various earth materials within the upper 15 feet of the proposed structure. For preliminary design purposes, we have assumed an effective plasticity index of 16. Footings • Exterior continuous footings for both one- and two-story construction should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Exterior continuous footings for three-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Interior continuous footings for one-, two-, and three-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12, 15, and 18 inches, for one-, two-, and three-story structures, respectively, and should be reinforced with a minimum of four (4) No. 4 bars, two (2) top and two (2) bottom. • Exterior pad footings intended to support roof overhangs, such as second story decks, patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center, each way, and should be placed near the bottom-third of the footings. Building Floor Slabs • The project architect or structural engineer should evaluate minimum floor slab thickness and reinforcement in accordance with 2019 CBC Section 1808.6.2 based on an assumed effective plasticity index of 16. Building floor slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on center, each way. All floor slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or bricks to ensure the desired placement at mid-depth. • Interior floor slabs, within moisture sensitive areas, should be underlain by a minimum 10-mil thick moisture/vapor barrier to help reduce the upward migration of moisture from the EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 18 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B underlying earth materials. The moisture/vapor barrier used should meet the performance standards of an ASTM E 1745 Class A material, and be properly installed in accordance with ACI publication 318. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture/vapor barriers are free of openings, rips, or punctures prior to placing concrete. As an option for additional moisture reduction, higher strength concrete, such as a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) may be used. Ultimately, the design of the moisture/vapor barrier system and recommendations for concrete placement and curing are the purview of the foundation engineer, taking into consideration the project requirements provided by the architect and owner. • Garage floor slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and should be reinforced in a similar manner as living area floor slabs. Garage floor slabs should be placed separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with ⅜ inch minimum felt expansion joint materials and quartered with weakened plane joints. A 12-inch-wide turn down founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The turn down should be reinforced with a minimum of four (4) No. 4 bars, two (2) top and two (2) bottom. • The subgrade earth materials below all floor slabs should be pre-watered to achieve a moisture content that is at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content, prior to placing concrete. This moisture content should penetrate a minimum depth of 18 inches into the subgrade earth materials. The pre-watering should be verified and tested by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services during construction. Post Tensioned Slab/Foundation Design Recommendations In lieu of the proceeding foundation recommendations, post tensioned slabs may be used to support the proposed structures. We recommend that the foundation engineer design the foundation system using the Preliminary Post Tensioned Foundation Slab Design table below. These parameters have been provided in general accordance with Post Tensioned Design. Alternate designs addressing the effects of expansive earth materials are allowed per 2019 CBC Section 1808.6.2. When utilizing these parameters, the foundation engineer should design the foundation system in accordance with the allowable deflection criteria of applicable codes and per the requirements of the structural engineer/architect. It should be noted that the post tensioned design methodology is partially based on the assumption that soil moisture changes around and underneath post tensioned slabs, are influenced only by climate conditions. Soil moisture change below slabs is the major factor in foundation damages relating to expansive soil. However, the design methodology has no consideration for presaturation, owner irrigation, or other non-climate related influences on the moisture content of subgrade earth materials. In recognition of these factors, we modified the geotechnical parameters determined from this methodology to account for reasonable irrigation practices and proper homeowner maintenance. Additionally, we recommend that prior to excavating footings, slab subgrades be presoaked to a depth of 12 inches and maintained at above optimum moisture until placing concrete. Furthermore, we recommend that the moisture content of the earth materials around the immediate perimeter and below the slab be presaturated to at least 1% above optimum moisture content just prior to placing concrete. The pre-watering should be verified and tested by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services during construction. The following geotechnical parameters assume that areas adjacent to the foundations, which are planted and irrigated, will be designed with proper drainage to prevent water from ponding. Water ponding near EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 19 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B the foundation causes significant moisture change below the foundation. Our recommendations do not account for excessive irrigation and/or incorrect landscape design. Planters placed adjacent to the foundation, should be designed with an effective drainage system or liners, to prevent moisture infiltration below the foundation. Some lifting of the perimeter foundation beam should be expected even with properly constructed planters. Based on our experience monitoring sites with similar earth materials, elevated moisture contents below the foundation perimeter due to incorrect landscaping irrigation or maintenance, can result in uplift at the perimeter foundation relative to the central portion of the slab. Future owners should be informed and educated of the importance in maintaining a consistent level of moisture within the earth materials around the structures. Future owners should also be informed of the potential negative consequences of either excessive watering, or allowing expansive earth materials to become too dry. Earth materials will shrink as they dry, followed by swelling during the rainy winter season, or when irrigation is resumed. This will cause distress to site improvements and structures. Preliminary Post Tensioned Foundation Slab Design PARAMETER VALUE Expansion Index Medium1 Percent Finer than 0.002 mm in the Fraction Passing the No. 200 Sieve < 30 percent (assumed) Type of Clay Mineral Montmorillonite (assumed) Thornthwaite Moisture Index +20 Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7 feet Constant Soil Suction P.F. 3.6 Moisture Velocity 0.7 inches/month Center Lift Edge moisture variation distance, em Center lift, ym 5.5 feet 2.5 inches Edge Lift Edge moisture variation distance, em Edge lift, ym 3.5 feet 1.0 inches Soluble Sulfate Content for Design of Concrete Mixtures in Contact with Earth Materials Negligible Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (assuming presaturation as indicated below) 120 pci Minimum Perimeter Foundation Embedment 24 Perimeter Foundation Reinforcement -- Under Slab Moisture/Vapor Barrier and Sand Layer 10-mil thick moisture/vapor barrier meeting the requirements of a ASTM E 1745 Class A material 1. Obtained by laboratory testing. 2. Recommendations for foundation reinforcement are ultimately the purview of the foundation/structural engineer based upon the geotechnical criteria presented in this report, and structural engineering considerations. Corrosivity Corrosion is defined by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) as “a deterioration of a substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment.” From a geotechnical viewpoint, the “substances” are the reinforced concrete foundations or buried metallic elements (not surrounded by concrete) and the “environment” is the prevailing earth materials in contact with them. Many factors can contribute to corrosivity, including the presence of chlorides, sulfates, salts, organic materials, different EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 20 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B oxygen levels, poor drainage, different soil types, and moisture content. It is not considered practical or realistic to test for all of the factors which may contribute to corrosivity. The potential for concrete exposure to chlorides is based upon the recognized Caltrans reference standard “Bridge Design Specifications”, under Subsection 8.22.1 of that document, Caltrans has determined that “Corrosive water or soil contains more than 500 parts per million (ppm) of chlorides”. Based on limited preliminary laboratory testing, the onsite earth materials have chloride contents less than 500 ppm. As such, specific requirements resulting from elevated chloride contents are not required. Specific guidelines for concrete mix design are provided in 2019 CBC Section 1904.1 and ACI 318, Section 4.3 Table 4.3.1 when the soluble sulfate content of earth materials exceeds 0.1 percent by weight. Based on limited preliminary laboratory testing, the onsite earth materials are classified in accordance with Table 4.3.1 as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition. Therefore, structural concrete in contact with onsite earth materials should utilize Type I or II. Based on our laboratory testing of resistivity, the onsite earth materials in contact with buried steel should be considered corrosive. Additionally, pH values below 5.6 and above 9.1 are recognized as being corrosive to many common metallic components. The pH values for the earth materials tested were lower than 9.1 and higher than 5.6. If building slabs are to be post tensioned, the post tensioning cables should be encased in concrete and/or encapsulated in accordance with the Post Tensioning Institute Guide Specifications. Post tensioning cable end plate anchors and nuts also need to be protected if exposed. If the anchor plates and nuts are in a recess in the edge of the concrete slab, the recess should be filled in with a non-shrink, non-porous, moisture-insensitive epoxy grout so that the anchorage assembly and the end of the cable are completely encased and isolated from the soil. A standard non-shrink, non-metallic cementitious grout may be used only when the post tension anchoring assembly is polyethylene encapsulated equivalent to that offered from a PTI plant or similar. The preliminary test results for corrosivity are based on limited samples, and the initiation of grading may blend various earth materials together. This blending or imported material could alter and increase the detrimental properties of the onsite earth materials. Accordingly, additional testing for chlorides and sulfates along with testing for pH and resistivity should be performed upon completion of grading. Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. RETAINING WALLS Existing Retaining Walls Existing retaining walls with undermined footings will be demolished and replaced by the proposed new structures. Existing retaining walls to remain are located on the southwest and southeast property lines, and are located outside the area of effect of the new proposed structures, as such the existing walls to remain will not be surcharged by the proposed new structures. We recommend that existing walls to remain be evaluated by qualified structural and materials engineers to determine their overall quality and lifespan. Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 21 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B Foundations may be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Tentative Foundation Design Recommendation section of this report. The following table provides the minimum recommended equivalent fluid pressures for design of retaining walls a maximum of 8 feet high. The active earth pressure should be used for design of unrestrained retaining walls, which are free to tilt slightly. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for design of retaining walls that are restrained at the top, such as basement walls, curved walls with no joints, or walls restrained at corners. For curved walls, active pressure may be used if tilting is acceptable and construction joints are provided at each angle point and at a minimum of 15 foot intervals along the curved segments. MINIMUM STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURES (pcf) PRESSURE TYPE BACKSLOPE CONDITION LEVEL 2:1 (h:v) Active Earth Pressure 45 75 At-Rest Earth Pressure 68 110 The retaining wall parameters provided do not account for hydrostatic pressure behind the retaining walls. Therefore, the subdrain system is a very important part of the design. All retaining walls should be designed to resist surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls, structures, or vehicles should be added to the above earth pressures, if the additional loads are being applied within a 1.5:1 (h:v) plane projected up from the heel of the retaining wall footing. As a way of minimizing surcharge loads and the settlement potential of nearby buildings, the footings for the building can be deepened below the 1.5:1 (h:v)plane projected up from the heel of the retaining wall footing. Upon request and under a separate scope of work, more detailed analyses can be performed to address equivalent fluid pressures with regard to stepped retaining walls, actual retaining wall heights, actual backfill inclinations, specific backfill materials, higher retaining walls requiring earthquake design motions, etc. Subdrain System We recommend a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain system be provided behind all proposed retaining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the proposed retaining walls. The perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch minimum diameter Schedule 40 PVC or ABS SDR-35, placed with the perforations facing down. The pipe should be surrounded by 1 cubic foot per foot of ¾- or 1½ inch open graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. The filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N or equivalent to prevent infiltration of fines and subsequent clogging of the subdrain system. In lieu of a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain system, weep holes or open vertical masonry joints may be provided in the lowest row of block exposed to the air to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the proposed retaining walls. Weep holes should be a minimum of 3 inches in diameter and provided at intervals at least every 6 feet along the wall. Open vertical masonry joints should be provided at a minimum of 32 inch intervals. A continuous gravel fill, a minimum of 1 cubic foot per foot, should be placed behind the weep holes or open masonry joints. The gravel should be wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Mirafi 140N or equivalent. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 22 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B The retaining walls should be adequately coated on the backfilled side of the walls with a proven waterproofing compound by an experienced professional to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Temporary Excavations All excavations should be made in accordance with Cal-OSHA requirements. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services is not responsible for job site safety. Retaining Wall Backfill Retaining wall backfill materials should be approved by the geotechnical engineer or his representative prior to placement as compacted fill. Retaining wall backfill should be placed in lifts no greater than 6 to 8 inches, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture contents. All retaining wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Retaining wall backfill should be capped with a paved surface drain. CONCRETE FLATWORK Thickness and Joint Spacing Concrete sidewalks and patio type slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 6 feet or less, to reduce the potential for excessive cracking. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and provided with construction or expansion joints every 10 feet or less, and for earth materials having a MEDIUM expansion potential the edges of the driveway slabs should be thickened to a minimum of 6 inches. Subgrade Preparation In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracking, subgrade earth materials underlying concrete flatwork should be compacted at near optimum moisture to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557 and then moistened to optimum or slightly above optimum moisture content. This moisture should extend to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade and be maintained prior to placement of concrete. Pre-watering of the earth materials prior to placing concrete will promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. The project geotechnical engineer or his representative should verify the density and moisture content of the earth materials and the depth of moisture penetration prior to placing concrete. Cracking within concrete flatwork is often a result of factors such as the use of too high a water to cement ratio and/or inadequate steps taken to prevent moisture loss during the curing of the concrete. Concrete distress can be reduced by proper concrete mix design and proper placement and curing of the concrete. Minor cracking within concrete flatwork is normal and should be expected. PRELIMINARY ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN Laboratory testing of representative earth materials indicate an R-value of 16 may be used for preliminary pavement design. The following table includes our minimum recommended asphaltic concrete pavement EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 23 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B sections calculated in accordance with the State of California design procedures using assumed Traffic Indices. Final pavement design should be based on sampling and testing of post grading conditions. Alternative pavement sections and calculation sheets have been provided within the appendices of this report. PRELIMINARY ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN PARAMETERS AUTO PARKING AUTO DRIVES ENTRANCES/TRUCK DRIVES Assumed Traffic Index 5.0 6.0 7.0 Design R-Value 16 16 16 AC Thickness (inches) 4* 4* 4* AB Thickness (inches) 5.5 9.0 12.6 Notes: AC – Asphaltic Concrete *denotes City Minimum AB – Aggregate Base The subgrade earth materials immediately below the aggregate base (base) should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557 to a minimum depth of 12 inches. Base materials should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. Base materials should consist of Class 2 aggregate base conforming to Section 26-1.02B of the State of California Standard Specifications or crushed aggregate base conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). Base materials should be compacted at or slightly below optimum moisture content. Asphaltic concrete materials and construction operations should conform to Section 203 of the Greenbook. GRADING PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of GTR DEVELOPMENT and their authorized representative. It likely does not contain sufficient information for other parties or other uses. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services should be engaged to review the final design plans and specifications prior to construction. This is to verify that the recommendations contained in this report have been properly incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Should Earth Strata Geotechnical Services not be accorded the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications, we are not responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We recommend that Earth Strata Geotechnical Services be retained to provide geologic and geotechnical engineering services during grading and foundation excavation phases of the work. In order to allow for design changes in the event that the subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to construction. Earth Strata Geotechnical Services should review any changes in the project and modify and approve in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. This report and the drawings contained within are intended for design input purposes only and are not intended to act as construction drawings or specifications. In the event that conditions encountered during grading or construction operations appear to be different than those indicated in this report, this office should be notified immediately, as revisions may be required. EARTH STRATA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 24 July 29, 2024 Project Number 203345-10B REPORT LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists, practicing at the time and location this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Earth materials vary in type, strength, and other geotechnical properties between points of observation and exploration. Groundwater and moisture conditions can also vary due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. As a result, we do not and cannot have complete knowledge of the subsurface conditions beneath the subject property. No practical study can completely eliminate uncertainty with regard to the anticipated geotechnical conditions in connection with a subject property. The conclusions and recommendations within this report are based upon the findings at the points of observation and are subject to confirmation by Earth Strata Geotechnical Services based on the conditions revealed during grading and construction. This report was prepared with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or their representative, to ensure that the conclusions and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the other project consultants and are incorporated into the plans and specifications. The owners’ contractor should properly implement the conclusions and recommendations during grading and construction, and notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe or unsuitable. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A References California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2018 International Building Code. California Corrosion Guidelines Converse Consultants Inland Empire, 1988, Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract 23992, County Assessor’s No. 923-590-005-05, Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 48, Page 72, “C-12” Information Center Site, Rancho California, California, CCIE Project No. 88-81-110-01, dated October 6. [Riverside County Geo 00563] Converse Consultants Inland Empire, 1988, Response – Riverside County Planning Department Review Letter Dated November 8, 1988 for Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract 23992, County Assessor’s No. 923- 590-005-05, Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 48, Page 72, “C-12” Information Center Site, Rancho California, California, CCIE Project No. 88-81-110-01, dated December 2. [Riverside County Geo 00563] DeLorme, 2004, (www.delorme.com) Topo USA®. Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, William A., 1997, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, CDMG Special Publication 42, revised 2003. Irvine Geotechnical, 2001, Mult Calc 2000, October 10. Ishihara, K., 1995, Effects of At-Depth Liquefaction on Embedded Foundations during Earthquakes, Proc. 10th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, August 29-September 2, Beijing, China. Jenkins, Olaf P., 1978, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet; CDMG, Scale 1:250,000. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Regency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 131. Leighton and Associates, Inc, 1978a, Geologic Seismic Investigation for Proposed Developments, A Portion of Tract 3587, “The Plaza” and an Approximately 55-foot Wide Parcel Southwest of the Intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, Temecula, County of Riverside, California, dated March 7. Leighton and Associates, Inc, 1978b, Geotechnical Investigation for Fault Locations and Soil Liquefaction Study, Lots 17 and 18 (51.36+ Acres), Tract 3334, Rancho California, Riverside County, Temecula, County of Riverside, California, dated July 25. [Riverside County Geo 00141] Leighton and Associates, Inc, 1978c, Soil Liquefaction Study, Lots 17 and 18, Tract 3334, Rancho California, Riverside County, California, dated July 25. [Riverside County Geo 00141] Morton, D.M., Hauser, Rachel M., and Ruppert, Kelly R., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 2.0: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-0172. National Association of Corrosion Engineers, 1984, Corrosion Basics An Introduction, page 191. Per A.B. Chance® Recommendations, 2003 Riverside County GIS, 2023, https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878. APPENDIX B EXPLORATORY LOGS Project Name: 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula Logged By: JMR Type of Rig: Hand B-61 Drop (in): 30 Hole Diameter (in): 8 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map 30 Poorly-Graded SAND; dark gray, moist, dense, fine to medium sand Silty SAND; dark gray, moist, dense, fine to medium sand Silty SAND; dark gray, very moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand Becomes loose below 20 feet Artificial Fill, Undocumented (Afu) Becomes dark gray to black below 7 feet MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Olive brown 3 to 7 feet Clayey SAND; light brown, slightly moist, dense, fine to medium sand Quaternary Young Axial Channel Deposits (Qya) 30 16.9 SM772525'110.9 19.572020'104.0 7.11515'108.2 SP SM 14.2411010'111.9 7.5'112.2 13.4 13.755'121.234 2.5'109.8 17.6 SC Page: 1 of 2 Project Number: 203345-10A Drilling Company: Drilling It Drive Weight (lbs): 140 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): See Map D e p t h ( f t ) B l o w C o u n t P e r Fo o t S a m p l e D e p t h D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) 42184 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590 30 45 Geotechnical Boring Log B-1 Date: January 18, 2022 M o i s t u r e ( % ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy m b o l 0 Project Name: 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula Logged By: JMR Type of Rig: Hand B-61 Drop (in): 30 Hole Diameter (in): 8 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Geotechnical Boring Log B-1 Date: January 18, 2022 Page: 2 of 2 Project Number: 203345-10A Drilling Company: Drilling It Drive Weight (lbs): 140 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): See Map D e p t h ( f t ) B l o w C o u n t P e r Fo o t S a m p l e D e p t h D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 30 30'118.4 15.6 35 Groundwater at 35 feet 40 58 40'119.8 13.9 41.5'108.9 20.7 Total Depth: 43 feet Groundwater at 35 feet45 50 55 42184 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590 65 60 60 Project Name: 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula Logged By: JMR Type of Rig: Hand B-61 Drop (in): 30 Hole Diameter (in): 8 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Geotechnical Boring Log B-2 Date: January 18, 2022 Page: 1 of 1 Project Number: 203345-10A Drilling Company: Drilling It Drive Weight (lbs): 140 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): See Map D e p t h ( f t ) B l o w C o u n t P e r Fo o t S a m p l e D e p t h D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 Artificial Fill, Undocumented (Afu) 37 2.5'119.4 12.5 SM Silty SAND; light brown, slightly moist, dense, fine to coarse sand 5 5'99.2 21.7 27 7.5'111.1 14.7 SP Poorly-Graded SAND; light gray, moist, medium dense, medium to coarse sand Quaternary Young Axial Channel Deposits (Qya)10 13 10'119.1 14.6 SM Silty SAND; light to dark gray, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand 15 28 15'106.2 6.3 Total Depth: 16.5 feet No Groundwater 20 25 42184 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590 32 30 Project Name: 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula Logged By: JMR Type of Rig: Hand B-61 Drop (in): 30 Hole Diameter (in): 8 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Geotechnical Boring Log B-3 Date: February 14, 2022 Page: 1 of 1 Project Number: 203345-10A Drilling Company: Drilling It Drive Weight (lbs): 140 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): See Map D e p t h ( f t ) B l o w C o u n t P e r Fo o t S a m p l e D e p t h D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 Artificial Fill, Undocumented (Afu) SM Silty SAND; light to dark brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand 27 2.5'117.6 13.0 trace gravel Quaternary Young Axial Channel Deposits (Qya) SC Clayey SAND; olive to dark brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand5275'97.3 22.8 35 7.5'106.6 23.3 Dark black, dense, medium to coarse sand below 7 feet 10 32 10'104.8 11.3 15 36 15'105.2 7.4 20 21 20'115.6 14.2 Becomes medium dense below 20 ceet 25 25'-- No Groundwater Total Depth: 26.5 feet 42184 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590 18 30 Project Name: 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula Logged By: JMR Type of Rig: Hand B-61 Drop (in): 30 Hole Diameter (in): 8 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Geotechnical Boring Log B-4 Date: February 14, 2022 Page: 1 of 1 Project Number: 203345-10A Drilling Company: Drilling It Drive Weight (lbs): 140 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): See Map D e p t h ( f t ) B l o w C o u n t P e r Fo o t S a m p l e D e p t h D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 Artificial Fill, Undocumented (Afu) SM Silty SAND; light to medium brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse 21 2.5'116.4 13.5 sand, trace gravel Quaternary Young Axial Channel Deposits (Qya)5 13 5'113.3 16.0 SC Clayey SAND; medium brown to dark brown, slighlty moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand 38 7.5'108.3 19.9 Black to dark brown, dense below 7 feet 10 32 10'112.0 13.4 Moist below 10 feet 15 23 15'89.8 7.0 Becomes medium dense below 15 feet Total Depth: 16.5 feet No Groundwater 20 25 42184 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590 30 Project Name: 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula Logged By: JMR Type of Rig: Hand B-61 Drop (in): 30 Hole Diameter (in): 8 Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map Geotechnical Boring Log B-5 Date: February 14, 2022 Page: 1 of 1 Project Number: 203345-10A Drilling Company: Drilling It Drive Weight (lbs): 140 Top of Hole Elevation (ft): See Map D e p t h ( f t ) B l o w C o u n t P e r Fo o t S a m p l e D e p t h D r y D e n s i t y ( p c f ) M o i s t u r e ( % ) C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Sy m b o l MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 Artificial Fill, Undocumented (Afu) SM Silty SAND; light to strong brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse 23 2.5'111.2 15.6 sand, trace gravel Quaternary Young Axial Channel Deposits (Qya) SC Clayey SAND; dark brown to black, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse5325'113.4 6.1 sand Becomes dense to very dense below 5 feet 60/10"7.5'116.1 14.2 Moist below 7 feet 10 71 10'111.3 9.3 15 71 15'112.8 9.5 Total Depth: 16.5 feet No Groundwater 20 25 42184 Remington Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590 30 APPENDIX C LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX C Laboratory Procedures and Test Results Laboratory testing provided quantitative and qualitative data involving the relevant engineering properties of the representative earth materials selected for testing. The representative samples were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures and/or California Test Methods (CTM). Soil Classification: Earth materials encountered during exploration were classified and logged in general accordance with the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) of ASTM D 2488. Upon completion of laboratory testing, exploratory logs and sample descriptions were reconciled to reflect laboratory test results with regard to ASTM D 2487. Grain Size Distribution: Select samples were tested using the guidelines of ASTM D 1140. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION % PASSING # 200 SIEVE B-1 @ 10 feet Clayey SAND 29 B-1 @ 20 feet Silty SAND 23 B-1 @ 30 feet Silty SAND 18 B-1 @ 40 feet Silty SAND 19 B-1 @ 41.5 feet Silty SAND 13 Moisture and Density Tests: For select samples moisture content was determined using the guidelines of ASTM D 2216 and dry density determinations were made using the guidelines of ASTM D 2937. These tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples and the test results are presented on the exploratory logs. Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of representative samples were determined using the guidelines of ASTM D 1557. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) B-1 @ 5-10 feet Clayey SAND 127.0 10.5 Expansion Index: The expansion potential of representative samples was evaluated using the guidelines of ASTM D 4829. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL B-1 @ 5-10 feet Clayey SAND 65 Medium R-Value: The R-value of representative samples was determined using the guidelines of CTM 301. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION R-VALUE B-1 @ 5-10 feet Clayey SAND 16 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH Tests of select samples were performed using the guidelines of CTM 643. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION pH MINIMUM RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm) B-1 @ 5-10 feet Clayey SAND 8.2 1,030 Soluble Sulfate: The soluble sulfate content of select samples was determined using the guidelines of CTM 417. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SULFATE CONTENT (% by weight) SULFATE EXPOSURE B-1 @ 5-10 feet Clayey SAND 0.001 Negligible Chloride Content: Chloride content of select samples was determined using the guidelines of CTM 422. The test results are presented in the table below. SAMPLE LOCATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION CHLORIDE CONTENT (ppm) B-1 @ 5-10 feet Clayey SAND 80 APPENDIX D SEISMICITY ASCE 7 Hazards Report Address: No Address at This Location Standard:ASCE/SEI 7-22 Latitude:33.503786 Risk Category:II Longitude:-117.147896 Soil Class:D - Stiff Soil Elevation:1035.3867669414306 ft (NAVD 88) Page 1 of 4https://asce7hazardtool.online/Mon May 22 2023 PGA M : 0.75 SMS : 1.91 SM1 : 1.44 SDS : 1.27 SD1 : 0.96 T L : 8 SS : 1.84 S1 : 0.61 VS30 : 260 Seismic Design Category: D - Stiff Soil D Multi-Period Design Spectrum S (g) vs T(s)a Multi-Period MCE SpectrumR S (g) vs T(s)a Two-Period Design Spectrum S (g) vs T(s)a Two-Period MCE SpectrumR S (g) vs T(s)a Design Vertical Response Spectrum Vertical ground motion data has not yet been made available by USGS. MCE Vertical Response SpectrumR Vertical ground motion data has not yet been made available by USGS. Seismic Site Soil Class: Results: Page 2 of 4https://asce7hazardtool.online/Mon May 22 2023 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Source Parameters New Search Distance in Kilometers Name State Pref Slip Rate (mm/yr) Dip (degrees) Dip Dir Slip Sense Rupture Top (km) Rupture Bottom (km) Length (km) 0.04 Elsinore;GI+T+J+CM CA n/a 86 NE strike slip 0 16 195 0.04 Elsinore;GI+T CA 5 90 V strike slip 0 14 78 0.04 Elsinore;T CA 5 90 V strike slip 0 14 52 0.04 Elsinore;W+GI+T+J+CM CA n/a 84 NE strike slip 0 16 241 0.04 Elsinore;W+GI+T+J CA n/a 84 NE strike slip 0 16 199 0.04 Elsinore;W+GI+T CA n/a 84 NE strike slip 0 14 124 0.04 Elsinore;T+J+CM CA n/a 85 NE strike slip 0 16 169 0.04 Elsinore;T+J CA n/a 86 NE strike slip 0 17 127 0.04 Elsinore;GI+T+J CA n/a 86 NE strike slip 0 17 153 18.04 Elsinore;GI CA 5 90 V strike slip 0 13 37 18.04 Elsinore;W+GI CA n/a 81 NE strike slip 0 14 83 22.21 Elsinore;J CA 3 84 NE strike slip 0 19 75 22.21 Elsinore;J+CM CA 3 84 NE strike slip 0 17 118 33.36 San Jacinto;A+CC CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 16 118 33.36 San Jacinto;A+CC+B CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 15 152 33.36 San Jacinto;A+C CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 17 118 33.36 San Jacinto;A CA 9 90 V strike 0 17 71 U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program slip 33.36 San Jacinto;A+CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 15 178 33.66 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+A+CC CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 16 181 33.66 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+A CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 16 134 33.66 San Jacinto;SJV+A+CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 15 196 33.66 San Jacinto;SJV+A+CC+B CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 15 170 33.66 San Jacinto;SJV+A+CC CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 16 136 33.66 San Jacinto;SJV+A+C CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 17 136 33.66 San Jacinto;SJV+A CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 17 89 33.66 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+A+CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 15 241 33.66 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+A+CC+B CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 15 215 33.66 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV+A+C CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 17 181 35.96 San Jacinto;SBV+SJV CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 16 88 35.96 San Jacinto;SJV CA 18 90 V strike slip 0 16 43 44.92 Newport Inglewood Connected alt 1 CA 1.3 89 strike slip 0 11 208 44.92 Newport Inglewood Connected alt 2 CA 1.3 90 V strike slip 0 11 208 44.92 Newport-Inglewood (O shore)CA 1.5 90 V strike slip 0 10 66 49.48 Rose Canyon CA 1.5 90 V strike slip 0 8 70 50.02 San Joaquin Hills CA 0.5 23 SW thrust 2 13 27 52.64 Chino, alt 2 CA 1 65 SW strike slip 0 14 29 54.67 Elsinore;W CA 2.5 75 NE strike slip 0 14 46 56.27 San Jacinto;CC+B CA n/a 90 V strike 0.2 14 77 slip 56.27 San Jacinto;CC+B+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.2 14 103 56.27 San Jacinto;CC CA 4 90 V strike slip 0 16 43 56.85 Chino, alt 1 CA 1 50 SW strike slip 0 9 24 57.54 San Jacinto;SBV CA 6 90 V strike slip 0 16 45 58.91 San Jacinto;C CA 14 90 V strike slip 0 17 47 58.92 S. San Andreas;NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 13 79 58.92 S. San Andreas;BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 85 strike slip 0.1 13 390 58.92 S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 86 strike slip 0.1 13 512 58.92 S. San Andreas;BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 84 strike slip 0 14 321 58.92 S. San Andreas;SSB+BG CA n/a 71 strike slip 0 13 101 58.92 S. San Andreas;NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 79 strike slip 0.2 12 206 58.92 S. San Andreas;BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 263 58.92 S. San Andreas;SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 77 strike slip 0.2 12 170 58.92 S. San Andreas;SSB CA 16 90 V strike slip 0 13 43 58.92 S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 83 strike slip 0.1 13 303 58.92 S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 81 strike slip 0 13 234 58.92 S. San Andreas;SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 13 176 58.92 S. San Andreas;PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 86 strike slip 0.1 13 548 58.92 S. San Andreas;PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 86 strike slip 0.1 13 479 58.92 S. San Andreas;PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 13 421 58.92 S. San Andreas;NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 75 strike slip 0 14 136 58.92 S. San Andreas;NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 13 213 58.92 S. San Andreas;NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 84 strike slip 0.1 13 340 58.92 S. San Andreas;CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 322 58.92 S. San Andreas;CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 85 strike slip 0 14 380 58.92 S. San Andreas;CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG+CO CA n/a 86 strike slip 0.1 13 449 58.92 S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 384 58.92 S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 86 strike slip 0 14 442 58.92 S. San Andreas;NM+SM+NSB+SSB+BG CA n/a 83 strike slip 0 14 271 59.00 S. San Andreas;BG CA n/a 58 strike slip 0 13 56 59.00 S. San Andreas;BG+CO CA n/a 72 strike slip 0.3 12 125 63.36 Earthquake Valley CA 2 90 V strike slip 0 19 20 72.02 S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 341 72.02 S. San Andreas;PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 13 377 72.02 S. San Andreas;CC+BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 279 72.02 S. San Andreas;NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 13 170 72.02 S. San Andreas;SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 13 133 72.02 S. San Andreas;BB+NM+SM+NSB CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 220 72.02 S. San Andreas;NSB CA 22 90 V strike slip 0 13 35 72.10 Coronado Bank CA 3 90 V strike slip 0 9 186 72.10 Palos Verdes Connected CA 3 90 V strike slip 0 10 285 72.79 Pinto Mtn CA 2.5 90 V strike slip 0 16 74 74.06 Newport-Inglewood, alt 1 CA 1 88 strike slip 0 15 65 75.82 Palos Verdes CA 3 90 V strike slip 0 14 99 79.54 Cucamonga CA 5 45 N thrust 0 8 28 79.80 Puente Hills (Coyote Hills)CA 0.7 26 N thrust 2.8 15 17 84.10 San Jose CA 0.5 74 NW strike slip 0 15 20 84.87 Burnt Mtn CA 0.6 67 W strike slip 0 16 21 86.10 Cleghorn CA 3 90 V strike slip 0 16 25 87.94 Sierra Madre Connected CA 2 51 reverse 0 14 76 87.94 Sierra Madre CA 2 53 N reverse 0 14 57 89.32 S. San Andreas;CO CA 20 90 V strike slip 0.6 11 69 90.20 Eureka Peak CA 0.6 90 V strike slip 0 15 19 90.91 North Frontal (West)CA 1 49 S reverse 0 16 50 93.60 Puente Hills (Santa Fe Springs)CA 0.7 29 N thrust 2.8 15 11 93.67 San Jacinto;B CA 4 90 V strike slip 0.7 13 34 93.67 San Jacinto;B+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.4 12 61 95.63 Elsinore;CM CA 3 82 NE strike slip 0 13 39 96.11 Helendale-So Lockhart CA 0.6 90 V strike slip 0 13 114 97.49 S. San Andreas;NM+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 134 97.49 S. San Andreas;CC+BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 243 97.49 S. San Andreas;BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 184 97.49 S. San Andreas;PK+CH+CC+BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0.1 13 342 97.49 S. San Andreas;SM CA 29 90 V strike slip 0 13 98 97.49 S. San Andreas;CH+CC+BB+NM+SM CA n/a 90 V strike slip 0 14 306 97.83 North Frontal (East)CA 0.5 41 S thrust 0 16 27 99.74 Landers CA 0.6 90 V strike slip 0 15 95 + − 3000 km 2000 mi 71.055°N : 167.695°E Lea et | Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community 1992-06-28 15:05:30 (UTC)3.6 km 17km NNE of Thousand Pal… 1992-04-23 04:50:23 (UTC)11.6 km6.1 6km SSW of Morongo Valley, … 1986-07-08 09:20:44 (UTC)9.5 km6.0 16km E of Desert Hot Spring… 1948-12-04 23:43:16 (UTC)6.0 km6.0 16km WSW of Oasis, CA 1937-03-25 16:49:02 (UTC)6.0 km6.0 Long Beach, California Ear th… 1933-03-11 01:54:09 (UTC)6.0 km6.4 2 km W of Hemet, California 1918-04-21 22:32:25 (UTC)6.8 Near San Jacinto, California 1899-12-25 12:25:00 (UTC)6.7 Cajon Pass area, northwest o… 1899-07-22 20:32:00 (UTC)6.4 East of San Diego, California 1894-10-23 23:03:00 (UTC)6.1 Nor thwest of San Bernardino… 1894-07-30 05:12:00 (UTC)6.2 Near Borrego Springs, Califo… 1892-05-28 11:15:00 (UTC)6.5 Nor theastern San Diego Cou… 1890-02-09 12:06:00 (UTC)6.8 Greater San Diego area, Calif… 1862-05-27 20:00:00 (UTC)6.2 Near San Bernardino, Califor… 1858-12-16 10:00:00 (UTC)6.0 Ear thquakes Loaded CLOSE Hazards by Location Search Information Coordinates:33.503786, -117.147896 Elevation:1047 ft Timestamp:2021-12-29T16:44:41.616Z Hazard Type:Seismic Reference Document: ASCE7-16 Risk Category:II Site Class:D-default Basic Parameters Name Value Description SS 1.645 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s) S1 0.614 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s) SMS 1.974 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 * null Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.316 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA SD1 * null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA * See Section 11.4.8 Additional Information Name Value Description SDC * null Seismic design category Fa 1.2 Site amplification factor at 0.2s Fv * null Site amplification factor at 1.0s CRS 0.891 Coefficient of risk (0.2s) CR1 0.897 Coefficient of risk (1.0s) PGA 0.743 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.2 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.891 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 8 Long-period transition period (s) SsRT 1.645 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) SsUH 1.846 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) 1047 ft Report a map errorMap data ©2021 Google, INEGI SsD 2.454 Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) S1RT 0.614 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s) S1UH 0.685 Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) S1D 0.979 Factored deterministic acceleration value (1.0s) PGAd 1.034 Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) * See Section 11.4.8 The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design. Disclaimer Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services. While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report. APPENDIX E LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS LIQUEFACTION & SETTLEMENT OF SANDS ANALYSIS 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula 203345-10A B-1 (In-Situ) Horizontal Ground Acceleration (% g)0.891 Energy Ratio CE (Auto-hammer)1.50 Analyzed Groundwater Depth (feet)5.0 Borehole Diameter CB (6 - 8 inches)1.00 Average Wet Unit Weight (pcf)110.0 Groundwater Depth in Boring (feet)35.0 Design Magnitude Earthquake 7.7 Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF)0.9 Total Effective Fines Sampler NCEER NCEER Liquefaction Layer Layer Depth SPT Stress Stress Content Overburden Type 1998 1998 Safety Thickness Thickness (feet)SPT Cal. Mod.Nm (tons/ft2)(tons/ft2)FC(%)CR CN rd CS (N1)60 (N1)60cs CSR CRR*MSF Factor t (ft)t (inches) 4 30 22.680 0.220 0.220 35 0.75 1.55 0.99 1.00 40 52 0.57 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 7 34 25.704 0.385 0.323 35 0.75 1.39 0.98 1.00 40 53 0.68 ---Corrected SPT >30*3.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 10 30 22.680 0.550 0.394 35 0.75 1.26 0.98 1.00 32 43 0.79 ---Corrected SPT >30*3.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 14 41 30.996 0.770 0.489 29 0.85 1.12 0.97 1.00 44 55 0.88 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 19 45 34.020 1.045 0.608 23 0.95 0.98 0.96 1.00 48 56 0.95 ---Corrected SPT >30*5.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 25 7 5.292 1.375 0.751 23 0.95 0.85 0.94 1.00 6 11 1.00 0.1153 0.12 6.00 72.00 3.50 2.52 30 77 58.212 1.650 0.870 30 1.00 0.77 0.93 1.00 67 83 1.02 ---Corrected SPT >30*5.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 34 60 45.360 1.870 0.965 18 1.00 0.72 0.90 1.00 49 55 1.01 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 39 60 45.360 2.145 1.084 18 1.00 0.68 0.86 1.00 46 53 0.98 ---Corrected SPT >30*5.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 43 58 43.848 2.365 1.179 19 1.00 0.66 0.82 1.00 44 50 0.96 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 2.5 Procedure established by T.L. Youd and I.M. Idriss, et. al., 1996 NCEER-96-0022 Workshop & S.C.E.C. SP117 Evaluation of settlements in sand due to earthquake shaking, Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 3 Extension of rod above boring (feet) * CRR 7.5 is not defined for (N1)60cs greater than 30. Soils with (N1)60cs > 30 are considered too dense to liquefy (NCEER Workshop) (N1)60 = NMCNCECBCRCS (N1)60CS = KS(N1)60 Total Settlement (inches): Settlement Per Sand Layer (inches) Count Blow Project Name: Project Number: Boring Number: Percent Volumetric Strain LIQUEFACTION & SETTLEMENT OF SANDS ANALYSIS 29540 Rancho California Road, Temecula 203345-10A B-1 (5-7 foot removals) Horizontal Ground Acceleration (% g)0.891 Energy Ratio CE (Auto-hammer)1.50 Analyzed Groundwater Depth (feet)5.0 Borehole Diameter CB (6 - 8 inches)1.00 Average Wet Unit Weight (pcf)110.0 Groundwater Depth in Boring (feet)35.0 Design Magnitude Earthquake 7.7 Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF)0.9 Total Effective Fines Sampler NCEER NCEER Liquefaction Layer Layer Depth SPT Stress Stress Content Overburden Type 1998 1998 Safety Thickness Thickness (feet)SPT Cal. Mod.Nm (tons/ft2)(tons/ft2)FC(%)CR CN rd CS (N1)60 (N1)60cs CSR CRR*MSF Factor t (ft)t (inches) 4 50 37.800 0.220 0.220 35 0.75 1.55 0.99 1.00 66 84 0.57 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 7 50 37.800 0.385 0.323 35 0.75 1.39 0.98 1.00 59 76 0.68 ---Corrected SPT >30*3.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 10 35 26.460 0.550 0.394 35 0.75 1.26 0.98 1.00 37 50 0.79 ---Corrected SPT >30*3.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 14 41 30.996 0.770 0.489 29 0.85 1.12 0.97 1.00 44 55 0.88 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 19 45 34.020 1.045 0.608 23 0.95 0.98 0.96 1.00 48 56 0.95 ---Corrected SPT >30*5.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 25 7 5.292 1.375 0.751 23 0.95 0.85 0.94 1.00 6 11 1.00 0.1153 0.12 6.00 72.00 3.50 2.52 30 77 58.212 1.650 0.870 30 1.00 0.77 0.93 1.00 67 83 1.02 ---Corrected SPT >30*5.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 34 60 45.360 1.870 0.965 18 1.00 0.72 0.90 1.00 49 55 1.01 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 39 60 45.360 2.145 1.084 18 1.00 0.68 0.86 1.00 46 53 0.98 ---Corrected SPT >30*5.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 43 58 43.848 2.365 1.179 19 1.00 0.66 0.82 1.00 44 50 0.96 ---Corrected SPT >30*4.00 48.00 0.00 0.00 2.5 Procedure established by T.L. Youd and I.M. Idriss, et. al., 1996 NCEER-96-0022 Workshop & S.C.E.C. SP117 Evaluation of settlements in sand due to earthquake shaking, Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 3 Extension of rod above boring (feet) * CRR 7.5 is not defined for (N1)60cs greater than 30. Soils with (N1)60cs > 30 are considered too dense to liquefy (NCEER Workshop) (N1)60 = NMCNCECBCRCS (N1)60CS = KS(N1)60 Total Settlement (inches): Settlement Per Sand Layer (inches) Count Blow Project Name: Project Number: Boring Number: Percent Volumetric Strain APPENDIX F ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT CALCULATIONS JN:203345-10A CONSULT:SMP PROJECT:Rancho California Road, Temecula CALCULATION SHEET #AutoParking CALTRANS METHOD FOR DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT Input "R" value or "CBR" of native soil 16 Type of Index Property - "R" value or "CBR" (C or R)R R Value R Value used for Caltrans Method 16 Input Traffic Index (TI)5 Calculated Total Gravel Equivalent (GE)1.344 feet Calculated Total Gravel Equivalent (GE)16.128 inches Calculated Gravel Factor (Gf) for A/C paving 2.53 Gravel Factor for Base Course (Gf)1.1 Pavement sections provided below are considered equal; but, do not reflect reviewing agency minimums. A/C Section Minimum A/C Section Minimum GE GE Delta Thickness Base Thickness Base (feet)(inches)(inches)(inches)(inches)(feet)(feet) 0.63 7.60 8.52 3.0 7.8 0.25 0.65 0.74 8.87 7.26 3.5 6.6 0.29 0.55 0.76 9.13 7.00 3.6 6.6 0.30 0.55 0.84 10.14 5.99 4.0 5.4 0.33 0.45 0.89 10.65 5.48 4.2 4.8 0.35 0.40 0.95 11.41 4.72 4.5 4.2 0.38 0.35 1.01 12.17 3.96 4.8 3.6 0.40 0.30 1.06 12.67 3.45 5.0 3.0 0.42 0.25 1.27 15.21 0.92 6.0 0.6 0.50 0.052.11 25.35 -9.22 10.0 0.83 2.53 30.42 -14.29 12.0 1.00 PAVING DESIGN Gravel Equivalent INCHES FEET JN:203345-10A CONSULT:SMP PROJECT:Rancho California Road, Temecula CALCULATION SHEET #AutoDrive CALTRANS METHOD FOR DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT Input "R" value or "CBR" of native soil 16 Type of Index Property - "R" value or "CBR" (C or R)R R Value R Value used for Caltrans Method 16 Input Traffic Index (TI)6 Calculated Total Gravel Equivalent (GE)1.6128 feet Calculated Total Gravel Equivalent (GE)19.3536 inches Calculated Gravel Factor (Gf) for A/C paving 2.31 Gravel Factor for Base Course (Gf)1.1 Pavement sections provided below are considered equal; but, do not reflect reviewing agency minimums. A/C Section Minimum A/C Section Minimum GE GE Delta Thickness Base Thickness Base (feet)(inches)(inches)(inches)(inches)(feet)(feet) 0.58 6.94 12.41 3.0 11.4 0.25 0.95 0.67 8.10 11.25 3.5 10.2 0.29 0.85 0.69 8.33 11.02 3.6 10.2 0.30 0.85 0.77 9.26 10.10 4.0 9.0 0.33 0.75 0.81 9.72 9.64 4.2 9.0 0.35 0.75 0.87 10.41 8.94 4.5 8.4 0.38 0.70 0.93 11.11 8.25 4.8 7.2 0.40 0.60 0.96 11.57 7.78 5.0 7.2 0.42 0.60 1.16 13.88 5.47 6.0 4.8 0.50 0.401.93 23.14 -3.79 10.0 0.83 2.31 27.77 -8.41 12.0 1.00 PAVING DESIGN Gravel Equivalent INCHES FEET JN:203345-10A CONSULT:SMP PROJECT:Rancho California Road, Temecula CALCULATION SHEET #Entrances/Truck Drives CALTRANS METHOD FOR DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT Input "R" value or "CBR" of native soil 16 Type of Index Property - "R" value or "CBR" (C or R)R R Value R Value used for Caltrans Method 16 Input Traffic Index (TI)7 Calculated Total Gravel Equivalent (GE)1.8816 feet Calculated Total Gravel Equivalent (GE)22.5792 inches Calculated Gravel Factor (Gf) for A/C paving 2.14 Gravel Factor for Base Course (Gf)1.1 Pavement sections provided below are considered equal; but, do not reflect reviewing agency minimums. A/C Section Minimum A/C Section Minimum GE GE Delta Thickness Base Thickness Base (feet)(inches)(inches)(inches)(inches)(feet)(feet) 0.54 6.43 16.15 3.0 14.4 0.25 1.20 0.62 7.50 15.08 3.5 13.8 0.29 1.15 0.64 7.71 14.87 3.6 13.8 0.30 1.15 0.71 8.57 14.01 4.0 12.6 0.33 1.05 0.75 9.00 13.58 4.2 12.6 0.35 1.05 0.80 9.64 12.94 4.5 12.0 0.38 1.00 0.86 10.28 12.30 4.8 11.4 0.40 0.95 0.89 10.71 11.87 5.0 10.8 0.42 0.90 1.07 12.85 9.73 6.0 9.0 0.50 0.751.79 21.42 1.16 10.0 1.2 0.83 0.10 2.14 25.71 -3.13 12.0 1.00 PAVING DESIGN Gravel Equivalent INCHES FEET APPENDIX G GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS EARTHSTRATA General Earthwork and Grading Specifications General Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are intended to be the minimum requirements for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications should be considered a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical repor t(s) and if they are in conflict with the geotechnical report(s), the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general specifications. Observations made during earthwork ope rations by the project Geotechnical Consultant may result in new or revised recommendations that may supersede these specifications and/or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: The Owner shall employ a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant), pr ior to commencement of grading or construction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s ) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading or construction. Prior to commencement of grading or construction, the Owner shall coordinate with the Geotechnical Consultant, and Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) to schedule sufficient personnel for the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing. During earthwork and grading operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface conditions to confirm assumptions made during the geotechnical design phase of the pr oject. Should the observed conditions differ significantly from the interpret ive assumptions made during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall recommend appropriate changes to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the reviewing agency where required. The Geotechnical Consultant sha ll observe the moisture conditioning and processing of the excavations and fill materials. The Geotechn ical Consultant should perform periodic relative density testing of fill materials to verify that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of earth materials to receive compacted fill, moisture‐ conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall be provided with the approved grading plans and geotechnical report(s) for his review and acceptance of responsibilities, prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the g rading in accordance with the approved grading plans and geotechnical report(s). Prior to commencement of grading, the Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site. The Contractor shall inform the Owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of work schedule changes and revisions to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate personnel will be available for observation and testing. No assumptions shall be made by the Contractor wi th regard to whether the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations. It is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork operations in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). At the sole discretion of the Geotechnical Consultant, any unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable earth materials, improper moisture conditioning, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress keyway size, adverse weather conditions, etc., resulting in a quality of work less than required in the approved grading plans and geotechnical report(s), the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until conditions are corrected. Preparation of Areas for Compacted Fill Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed in a method acceptable to the Owner, Geotechnical Consultant, and governing agencies. The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals on a site by site basis. Earth materials to be placed as compacted fill shall not contain more than 1 percent organic materials (by volume). No compacted fill lift shall contain more than 10 percent organic matter. Should potentially hazardous materials be encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous materials specialist shall immediately be consulted to evaluate the potentially hazardous materials, prior to continuing to work in that area. It is our understanding that the State of California defines most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, c oolant, etc.) as hazardous waste. As such, indiscriminate dumping or spillage o f these fluids may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or impris onment, and shall be prohibited. The contractor is responsible for all haz ardous waste related to his operations. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Owner should contract the services of a qualified environmental assessor. Processing: Exposed earth materials that have been observed to be satisfactory for support of compacted fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Exposed earth materials that are not observed to be satisfactory shall be removed or alternative recommendations may be provided by the Geotechnical Consultant. Scarification shall continue until the exposed earth materials are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform co mpaction. The earth materials should be moistened or air dried to near optimu m moisture content, prior to compaction. Overexcavation: The Cut Lot Typical Detail and Cut/Fill Transition Lot Typical Detail, included herein p rovides a graphic illustration that depicts typical overexcavation recommendations made in the approved geotechnical report(s) and/or grading plan(s). Keyways and Benching: Where fills are to be placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be thoroughly benched as compacted fill is placed. Please see the three Keyway and Benc hing Typical Details with subtitles Cut Over Fill Slope, Fill Over Cut Slope , and Fill Slope for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or smallest keyway shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide (or ½ the proposed slope height) and at least 2 feet into competent earth materials as advised by the Geotechnical Consultant. Typical benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent earth materials or as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 should be thoroughly benched or otherwise excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the compacted fill. Evaluation/Acceptance of Bottom Excavations: All areas to receive compacted fill (bottom excavations), including removal excavations, processed areas, keyways, and benching, shall be observed, mapped, general elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive compacted fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing compacted fill. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of bottom excavations, processed areas, keyways, and Fill Materials benching. The Geotechnical Consultant is not responsible for erroneously located, fills, subdrain systems, or excavations. General: Earth material to be used as compacted fill should to a large extent be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances as e valuated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Oversize: Oversize material is rock that does not break down into smaller pieces and has a maximum diameter greater than 12 inches. Oversize rock shall not be included within compacted fill unless specific methods and guidelines acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant are followed. For ex amples of methods and guidelines of oversize rock placement see the enclosed Oversize Rock Disposal Detail. The inclusion of oversize materials in the compacted fill shall only be acceptable if the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted fill or thoroughly jetted granular materials. No oversize material shall be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of proposed utilities or underground improvements. Import: Should imported earth materials be required, the proposed imp ort materials shall meet the requirements of the Geotechnical Consultant. Well graded, very low expansion potential earth materials free of organic matter and other deleterious substances are usually sought after as im port materials. However, it is generally in the Owners best interest that potential import earth materials are provided to the Geotechnical Consultant to determine their suitability for the intended purpose. At least 48 hours should be allotted for the appropriate laboratory testing to be performed, prior to starting the import operations. Fill Placement and Compaction Procedures Fill Layers: Fill materials shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in nearly horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickn ess. Thicker layers may be accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant, provided field density testing indicates that the grading procedures can adequately co mpact the thicker layers. Each layer of fill shall be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to obtain uniformity within the earth materials and consistent moisture throughout the fill. Moisture Conditioning of Fill: Earth materials to be placed as compacted fill shall be watered, dried, blended, and/or mixed, as needed to obtain relatively uniform moisture contents that are at or slightly above optimum. The maximum density and optimum moisture content tests should be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM test method D1557‐00). Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture‐conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM test method D1557‐00. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for compaction of earth materials or be p roven to consistently achieve the required level of compaction. Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, additional effort to obtain compaction on slopes is needed. This may be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers as the fill is being placed, by overbuilding the fill slopes, or by other methods producing results that are satisfactory to the Geotechnical Con sultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill and the slope face shall be a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM test method D1557‐ 00. Compaction Testing of Fill: Field tests for moisture content and relative density of the compacted fill earth materials shall be periodically performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the Geotechnical Consultant's discretion based on field observations. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be random. The test locations may or may not be selected to verify minimum compaction requirements in areas that are typically prone to inadequate compaction, such as close to slope faces and near benching. Frequency of Compaction Testing: Compaction tests shall be taken at minimum intervals of every 2 vertical feet and/or per 1,000 cubic yards of compacted materials placed. Additionally, as a guideline, at least one (1) test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slo pe face and/or for each 10 vertical feet of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill placement is such that the testing schedule described herein can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork operations to a safe level so that these minimum standards can be obtained. Compaction Test Locations: The approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location shall be documented by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall coordinate with the Surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established. This will provide the Geotechnical Consultant with sufficient accuracy to determine the approximate test locations and elevations. The Geotechnical Consultant can not be responsible for staking erroneously located by the Surveyor or Contractor. A minimum of two grade stakes should be provided at a maximum horizontal dis tance of 100 feet and vertical difference of less than 5 feet. Subdrain System Installation Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plan, and the typical details provided herein. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrain systems and/or changes to the subdrain systems described herein, with regard t o the extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading or other factors. All subdrain systems shall be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor (except for retaining wall subdrain systems) to verify line and grade a fter installation and prior to burial. Adequate time should be allowed by the Contractor to complete these surveys. Excavation All excavations and over‐excavations for remedial purposes sha ll be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading operations. Remedial removal depths indicated on the geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual removal depths and extent shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading operations. Where fill over cut slopes are planned, the cut portion of the slope shall be excavated, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of t he fill portion of the proposed slope, unless specifically addressed by the Geotechnic al Consultant. Typical details for cut over fill slopes and fill over cut slopes are provided herein. Trench Backfill 1)The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for trench excavation safety. 2)Bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding materials shall have a Sand Equivalency more than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the conduit and thoroughly jetting to provide densification. Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density, from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 3)Jetting of the bedding materials around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. 4)The Geotechnical Consultant shall test trench backfill for the minimum compaction requirements recommen ded herein. At least one test should be conducted for every 300 linear feet of trench and for each 2 ve rtical feet of backfill. 5)For trench backfill the lift thicknesses shall not exceed thos e allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction, unless th e Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment or method. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N T r a c e 1 A s s u m e d o f f s e t o f T r a c e 1 A s s u m e d o f f s e t o f m a i n t r a c e W i l d o m a r F a u l t Subject Site 00 20'40' T r a c e 3 T r a c e 2 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 203345-70A RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAULT MAP JUNE 2023 FIGURE 3 SEE BAR SCALE Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants www.ESGSINC.com (951) 397-8315 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. Subject Site N PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 203345-70A LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL MAP JUNE 2023 FIGURE 4 SEE BAR SCALE Reference: Leighton and Associates, 1978 Geotechnical Investigation for Fault Locations and Soil Liquefaction Study, Lot 17 and 18, Tract 3334, Rancho California Riverside County, California, Dated July 25 Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants www.ESGSINC.com (951) 397-8315 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. N Subject Site Trench no. 5 Trench no. 3 Trench no. 2 Trench no. 1 Trench no. 4 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 203345-70A CONVERSE CONSULTANTS GEOTECHNICAL MAP JUNE 2023 FIGURE 5 SEE BAR SCALE Reference: Converse Consultants IE 1988, Fault Investigation, Tentative Tract 23992, County Assesors Parcel No. 923-570-005-05, Parcel 1 of Record of Survey 48, Page 72, "C-12" Information Center Site, Rancho California, California CCI project no. 88-81-110-01, dated Oct. 6 and Response to RCPD Review Letter dated December 2, 1988 [GEO 00563] Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants www.ESGSINC.com (951) 397-8315 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. Afu Qya B-5 T.D. = 16' NO G.W. B-4 T.D. = 16.5' NO G.W. B-3 T.D. = 26.5' NO G.W. B-1 T.D. = 43' G.W. @ 35' B-2 T.D. = 16.5' NO G.W. 5-7' 5-7' 25' BUILDING SETBACK ELSINORE/WILDOMAR FAULT (LAI, 1978, CCIE, 1988) 3-5' 3-5' 3-5' 25' BUILDING SETBACK LEGEND Locations are Approximate Geologic Units Symbols - Recommended Removal Depths For Structures - Boring Location Including Total Depth and Depth to Groundwater 5-7' B-5 T.D. = 16' NO G.W. - Limits of Report Afu - Artificial Fill, Undocumented Qps - Quaternary Young Axial-Channel Deposits (Circled Where Buried) - Recommended Removal Depths For Paved/Hardscape Areas 3-5' PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. SCALE DATE DRAWN BY DWG XREFS REVISION PLATE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MR. GEORGE RAY 213790-70A JUNE 2023 1" = 30' 1 OF 1 GEOTECHNICAL MAP LOCATED AT 29540 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD CITY OF TEMECULA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APN 921-320-061 JDG Geotechnical, Environmental and Materials Testing Consultants www.ESGSINC.com (951) 397-8315 Earth Strata Geotechnical Services, Inc. 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1" = 40' NOR T H