HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 30180 Geotechnical Investigation (Mar.18,2003)
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KLEIN FELDER
kq
An employee owned company
March 18, 2003
Project No. 25423
Mr. Brook Morris
Rainbow Canyon Development, LLC
c/o Prism Realty Corporation
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite M-2
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Subject:
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Sbopping Center
SEC and SWC State Highway 79 and Pechanga Parkway
Temecula, California
Dear Mr. Morris:
Kleinfelder, Inc. is pleased to present this report of geotechnical investigation performed for the
proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center. The site is located south of State Highway 79, and
on the east and west sides of Pechanga Parkway, Temecula, California. Pertinent data from a
prior study conducted by EnGEN Corporation are discussed in this report. The results of our
current geotechnical investigation, and our updated conclusions and recommendations for
geotechnical design of the project, are presented in the attached report. A summary of the
primary geotechnical considerations related to the development of the site is presented as an
Executive Summary in the beginning of the report. The conclusions and recommendations
presented in this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 7.
We appreciate the opportunity of providing geotechnical engineering services to you on this
project. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
KLEINFELDER, INC /;2:;;07/:'2.< .
. ~/ '," '-'.h,_".,,:.,'''' ".',Y.:',-,
/d//:' /"<:>~?l j. f;i~~:::>\
A' /Ji\7?/-!i3j~:;~:G ,o~(;~~.~i::~;'.L..
. ;..du..1i.j L./ l~\ B:;"z7;;'~'A F~:
t.,/ J / \{~~1;:~;(>/'
Timothy Slegers, P.E. ,,":c':-O> r:(\::',>\..
Project Engineer ~~,;:~:': ..
cc: John S. Lohman / Kleinfelder
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Jne
l<~EI)\.:FELD::R
Page ii of iv
March 18, 2003
\
iJcD \'a!ie') \:is:;::. O;-iV2, ';u:te -::;C, :'12;-:)2;1:: ElZiL C,';'" 9- -;:3-
G-;.:" ?::::.~.' :._-'- ~&~,
'C--'-.
(S1C':',
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
k.q KI EINFELDER
TABLE OF CONTEl','TS
Section
Pa2e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................,.......................................... ES-I
I INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
l.l PURPOSE AND SCOPE.........................................................................................1
1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT ...........................................................................................3
2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................4
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................5
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................... ...............................................5
3.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ....................................................................5
3.2.1 General..... ........... ......... ............... .................. .......... ................. ....................5
3.2.2 Artificial Fill ...... ......... ....... ........ ................ ............ ...... ........... .... ............ .....6
3 .2.3 Native Soils ................ ...... ..... ......... ............ ..... .............................................6
3.3 SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS.......................................................................6
3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS .........................................................................7
4 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................8
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................ .................8
4.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ...........................:.............................................................8
4.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................9
4.4 NEAR-SOURCE SEISMIC ZONE .......................................................................1 I
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS.........................................................12
5.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................. ................12
5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ......................................:.....................14
5.2.1 Ground Shaking .........................................................................................14
5.2.2 Liquefaction. ............. ..... ......... ...... ....... .............. ....... .... ..... ............ ........ ....15
5.2.3 Seismically-Induced Settlement and Lateral Spreading ............................16
5.2.4 Other Geologic Seismic Considerations ....................................................16
5.3 MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ............................................17
5.4 EARTHWORK ..................................................... .................................................17
5.4.1 Site Preparation...................................... ....................................................17
5.4.2 Materials for Fill........................................................................................19
5.4.3 Excavation Conditions .... ...... .................... ........... ................................... ...20
5.4.4 Collapsible Soils... ..... .... ........... ..... ........ ................ ............. ........... ........... .20
5.4.5 Excavations and Temporary Slopes...........................................................20
5.4.6 Trench Backfill .......................................................................... ................21
5.5 FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................21
5.6 DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING ................................................... .................22
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
March 18,'2003
Page iii of iv
1,,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
It-q KLEINFELDER
5. 7 FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................................................23
5.7.1 Allowable Bearing Pressures .............,.......................................................23
5.7.2 Estimated Settlements................... ..... ..... ... ....... ................ ............... ......... .24
5.7.3 Lateral Resistance .................................................................................:....24
5.7.4 Slope Setbacks ..... ............ ...... ..... ............... ......... ............ ...... ........... ........ ..25
5.7.5 Construction/Design Considerations .........................................................25
5.8 RETAINING WALLS ............................................................................. ..............25
5.9 CONCRETE SLABS SUPPORTED-ON-GRADE...............................................26
5.10 PAVEMENT DESIGN .....................................................,...............................:....27
5.11 EXPANSION POTENTIAL..................................................................................29
5.12 CORROSIVITY ............................. ........... ........ ..... .... ......... ..... ................. ...... .......30
6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .......,....................................................................................31
6.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW........................................................31
6.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ........................................31
7 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................32
8 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................33
PLATES
Plate 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 2 - Plot Plan .
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Exploratory Borings
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - Calculations
Appendix D - ASFE Insert
Appendix E - Application for Authorization to Use
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ioe
Page iv of iv
March 18, 2003
??
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It..~ KLEINFELDER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) was retained by Raiobow Canyon Development, LLC to conduct
a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center in Temecula,
California. The site is located on the south side of State Highway 79, on both sides ofPechanga
Parkway and extends to Jedediah Smith Road in the City of Temecula, Califomia. The project
consists of a retail development with 13 proposed building pads, ranging in size between 2,165
to 35,000 square feet in plan on a total area of approximately 13.17 acres. Current topography
and proposed grades were not available for our review at the date of this report.
EnGEN Corporation previously performed a geotechnical study of the site and conducted
geotechnical observation and testing during rough grading performed in 2001 and 2002. The
western portion of the property (east of Pechanga Parkway) was overexcavated to depths of
approximately 1.5 to 5 feet below original grades. Additional engineered fill was placed to
achieve the current grades which are approximately 6 to 8 feet above the original site elevations.
Soils along the toe of slope at the south property line were removed to a depth of approximately
] 0 feet below original grade and recompacted. The portion of the site west of Pechanga Parkway
was not graded at that time. Although EnGEN observed the removals of the pre-existing
undocumented fill and surficial native soils, observed the compaction of the replacement
engineered fill. They still recommended to overexcavate the existing fill and native soils to
depths of 10 to 15 feet below original grade to provide suitable building pads. Their
recommendations for foundation design included a grid of grade beams in order to reduce the
adverse effects of potential liquefaction.
Kleinfelder drilled a total of]5 hollow-stem auger borings (B-1 through B-15) at the project site
in January and March 2003 to depths ranging from approximately 6Yz feet to 5] Yz feet below
existing grade.
Fill soils, up to approximately 17 feet below current grade, were encountered in Borings B-2
through B-15 excavated for this report. Boring B-1 encountered fill toa depth of approximately
27 feet terminating at a 24-inch diameter sewer line maintained by Eastern Munic.ipal Water
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Iue
ES-I
March 18, 2003
1\
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ K LEI N FE L D E R
District. This depth offill appears to be local due to the buried utility. The location of the boring
was cleared for drilling by a representative of EMWD prior to excavation. The fill encountered
consisted of engineered fill that was placed during grading in 2002 under the observation of
EnGEN Corporation. The upper natural soils, in the eastern portion of the site that are covered by
3 feet or less of artificial fill, generally consist of medium dense to dense silty sands and sands.
The upper native soils are considered to be moisture sensitive, meaning that the soils potentially
become significantly weaker and more compressible when wet or saturated.
The historical high depth to groundwater beneath the site appears to be within 10 feet below the
existing ground surface (bgs).
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analyses conducted for this
study, it is our opinion that the following geotechnical related issues must be considered during
design and construction of the proposed development.
. Provided that the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report are incorporated into
design and construction, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings may be supported on
shallow spread foundations underlain by engineered filL
. No remedial grading has been performed in the area west of Pechanga Parkway following the
February 2000 geotechnical investigation by EnGEN. Boring logs indicate existing
undocumented fill to depths up to 6.5 feet below existing grade and recent alluvium to a
depth of approximately 20 feet below existing grade. Site preparation in this area should
include overexcavation and recompaction of the existing fill soils. Where shallow fill, less
than 4 feet, or native soils are encountered at the surface, we recommend overexcavation and
recompaction to a minimum of 4 feet below existing grades.
. The upper 1 to 17 feet of the onsite soils consists of previously placed artificial fills. The
depth of fill near B-I appears to be utility backfill. It is our opinion that the engineered fill
soils placed at the site in 2000 and 2001 are generally considered suitable for support of the
proposed buildings in the western portion of the site shO\\1l as Pads 3 through 5 (east of
Pechanga Parkway). In the eastern portion of the site where grading has not occurred
(includes Pads 9 through 11, Shops 1 and Major A) the upper 10 to 15 feet of existing native
alluvial soils appear to be moderately collapsible when subject to saturation by water.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
ES-2
March 18, 2003
?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
, I
!I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
Accordingly, in the eastern portion of the site, site grading within building pad areas should
include overexcavation of the upper 5 to ] 0 feet of soils beneath the existing grades.
Engineered fill soils intended to support the proposed structures should be compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The upper 5 feet of soil within the footprint of
proposed structures should be compacted to at least 93 percent. Where proposed buildings
are located only partially in the previously graded area (Pads 7, 8, and 9), the entire building
footprint should also be uniformly overexcavated and the soils recompacted.
. We understand that cleanout of the easterly channel adjacent to Jedediah Srnith Road prior to
placement of fill was not conducted and that placement of fill in this area was not observed.
. The site is not located within a State or County designated Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. The
site is located within the 2-km Near Source Fault Zone of the Elsinore Fault zone. Due to the
site's proximity to the Elsinore Fault zone, relatively large site accelerations approaching
O.68g are anticipated, based on a 10% probability of exceed;mce in 50 years.
. The site is located within a County of Riverside designated ground subsidence zone. The
site's vicinity is reported to be susceptible to ground fissuring due to withdrawal of
groundwater and large seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels.
. The southem portion of the site is listed within a 100-year flood hazard zone by FEMA
(FEMA, 2003). The flood hazard has been mitigated by rough grading to an elevation above
the 100-year flood elevations determined by FEMA (approximately 1008 ft.). The site is
within the floodplain of Temeeula Creek and downstream from the Vail Lake dam, the site
may be subject to inundation from this reservoir should it catastrophically fail or be
overtopped by a seich.
. The site is located within a County of Riverside designated liquefaction hazard zone, The
current data from the current borings indicate that the central and eastern portions of the
property are susceptible to liquefaction at depths of approximately 10 to 30 feet below the
surface, which may result in seismically-induced settlement on the order of 3 to 5 inches.
Differential seismic induced settlement on the order of approximately 1 inch over a
horizontal distance of 50 feet may result. Manifestation of the liquefiable soils at the surface
in the form of sand boils or fissures may occur. Liquefaction may also result in lateral
spreading near the descending slope along the south edge of the site.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, K1einfelder, Inc
ES - 3
March 18,2003
Cp
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ K LEI N FE L D E R
The liquefaction potential appears to impact current building pads 6 through 11, Shops 1, and
Major A. The effects of differential seismically-induced settlement on buildings may be
reduced by placing engineered fill at a minimum of 93 percent relative compaction, using
grade beams to tie all foundation elements together within the buildings, and/or by placing 2
to 3 layers of a geogrid product such as TENSAR within the engineered fill of the building
pads at vertical intervals of approximately 3 feet. Lateral spreading (lateral movement of
earth towards open face slopes during liquefaction at shallow depths) is difficult to mitigate.
Lateral deformation on the order of inches and feet can occur under similar conditions.
Overexcavation of the site soils below the toe of the slope adjacent to Temecula Creek may
significantly reduce the potential impact on the site due to lateral spreading.
Laboratory testing indicates that the onsite soils are considered moderately corrosive to
buried metals and mildly corrosive to concrete. The-owner may wish to consider having a
competent corrosion engineer retained to evaluate the corrosion potential of the site soils
relative to the proposed improvements, recommend further testing as 'required, and provide
specific corrosion mitigation methods appropriate for the project.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
ES-4
March 18,2003
'\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
k~ KLEIN FELDER
1 INTRODUCTION
Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) was retained by Rainbow Canyon Development, LLC to conduct
a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center in Temecula,
California. Our services were performed in general accordance with our revised summary of
scope and cost estimate dated December 9, 2002 that was accepted on December 19, 2002.
Mr. Brook Morris of Prism Realty Corporation provided us with information about the project
along with geotechnical reports prepared by others for the site and a proposed site plan for the
project.
The site is located on the south side of State Highway 79, on both sides of Pechanga Parkway,
extending east to Jedediah Smith Road in the City of Temecula, California. The location of the
site is shown on Plate I, Site Location Map. The proposed site layout is shown on Plate 2, Plot
Plan, which uses the Site Plan provided by Nadel Architects, Inc., dated September 19, 2002 as a
base map. Current topography and proposed grades were not available at the date of this report.
EnGEN Corporation previously performed a geotechnical study of the site and provided results
and conclusions in their reports dated February 3, 2000 and February 28, 2000. Observation of
rough grading was summarized in their May 14, 2002 report. Background information regarding
the investigation and subsequent grading is presented in Section 2 of this report.
l.l PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at
the proposed site and provide design-level geotechnical recommendations for design and
construction of the project. A description of the scope of work performed is presented below.
Task 1 - Literature Review/Utility Clearance. We reviewed published and unpublished
geologic literature in our files and the files of selected public agencies including publications
prepared by the County of Riverside, California Division of Mines and Geology and the U.S.
Geological Survey. We reviewed available appropriate seismic and faulting information
including designated earthquake fault zones and our in-house database of faulting in the general
site vicinity. We also reviewed the previous geotechnical reports for the project and the report of
previous site grading by EnGEN Corporation.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
Page 1 of 34
March 18, 2003
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
Prior to conducting the field investigation program. Each of our proposed boring locations was
cleared for knOV>'ll existing utility lines and 'Nith the participating utility companies through
Underground Service Alert (USA). During drilling of B-1, an existing sewer line maintained by
EMWD was encountered. EMWD was contacted by Kleinfelder to report the event and EMWD
acknowledged that they would repair the line at their expense since they cleared the boring
location prior to being drilled.
Task 2 - Field Exploration. A total of 15 hollow-stem auger borings (B-1 through B-15) were
advanced in our current investigation at the project site to depths r,mging from approximately 6v,
feet to 51 V, feet below existing grade. The locations of the current and previous borings are
presented on Plate 2, Plot Plan. A Kleinfelder geologist supervised the field operations and
logged the borings. Selected bulk, disturbed and relatively urldisturbed sainples were retrieved,
sealed and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation. The number of blows necessary
to drive a California-type sampler were recorded. A description of the field exploration and a
Legend to the Logs of Borings is presented in Appendix A.
Task 3 - Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing was performed on representative relatively
undisturbed and disturbed samples to substantiate field classifications and to provide engineering
parameters for geotechnical design. Testing consisted of:
. Moisture content and dry density
. Grain size distribution - #200 wash sieve
. Direct shear
. Consolidation potential
. Collapse potential
. R-Value
. Compaction Test
. Preliminary Corrosivity Screening Tests
The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.
Task 4 - Geotechnical Analyses. We evaluated the field and laboratory data in conjunction
with the site plan and estimated building loads. We also evaluated potential foundation systems,
lateral earth pressures, settlement, pavement design, and earthworks considerations. Potential
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
March 18,2003
C\
Page 2 of 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFElDER
geologic hazards were evaluated such as ground shaking, liquefaction potential, fault rupture
hazard and seismically-induced settlement. Design recommendations DJr use with standard UBC
(1997) seismic design were considered.
Task 5 - Report Preparation. This report was prepared presenting our findings, conclusions
and recommendations for earthwork and foundation engineering. Recommendations for
foundation type(s), allowable bearing pressure, estimated settlement, passive resist,mce, lateral
earth pressures for retaining structures, pavements, earthwork, and seismicity are presented. This
report also contains a site map, logs of the borings and laboratory test results.
1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
Based on information provided by Prism Realty Corporation and plans for the development
provided to us dated September 19, 2002, it is our understarlding that the project consists of a
retail development with 13 proposed building pads, ranging in size between 2,165 to 35,000
square feet in plan on a total site area of approximately 13.17 acres. The site is divided into two
parcels, A and B, with individual areas of 1.84 and 11.33 acres, respectively. Parcel A consists
of the property west of Pechanga Parkway (Pads 1 and 2) and Parcel B consists of the property
east of Pechanga Parkway extending to Jedediah Smith Road. The total building area will
consist of over 100,000 square feet and the development ,,,,,ill include over 585 surface level
parking stalls. Construction is anticipated to be masonry, wood frame, steel frame and/or
concrete tilt-up buildings '""ith concrete slab on grade floors. We understand that no basement
levels are planned for the buildings in the development.
Detailed structural loads for all buildings on various pads are not available at this time.
However, maximum colunm loads are anticipated to be approximately 120 to 160 kips for
interior columns and approximately 40 kips for exterior columns. Continuous wall loads are
anticipated to range between 2 to 6 kips per lineal foot. Slabs-an-grade are expected to support
maximum floor loads of between 150 to 200 pounds per square foot.
Site grading is anticipated to include cuts and fills up to approximately 2 to 5 feet. The western
portion of the site east of Pechanga Parkway was previously graded as described in the
referenced EnGEN Corporation report dated May 14, 2002. Details of the prior site grading are
discussed in Section 2 of this report.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
Page 3 of 34
March 18, 2003
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.q KLEINFElDER
2 BACKGROUND
EnGEN Corporation previously performed a geotechnical study of the site and submitted the
results and conclusions in their report dated February 28, 2000. In the EnGEN (2000) report,
they concluded that the existing soils were not considered suitable for support of structures and
recommended that overexcavation of the existing soils should be performed to depths of IOta 15
feet below original grade.
Site grading was performed in 2001 and 2002 and included shallow overexcavation in the
western portion of the site east of Pechanga Parkway, as reported by EnGEN (2002). At- that
time, building locations were unknown In general, the western portion of the property east of
Pechanga Parkway was overexcavated to depths of 1.5 to 5 feet below original grades and to the
limits shown on Plate 2. That portion of the site west ofPechanga Parkway was not graded at the
time. Additional engineered fill was placed to achieve the current grades which are
approximately 6 to 8 feet above the original site elevations. Soils along the slope at the south
property line were removed to a depth of approximately IO feet below original grade and
recompacted. The horizontal limits of the 10-foot removal extended from the toe of the fill
embankment to approximately 25 to 30 feet inside the toe. Approximate limits are shown on
Plate 2. According to EnGEN (2002), the maximum fill slope height is approximately 11 feet.
We understand that cleanout of the easterly channel adjacent to Jedediah Smith Road prior to
placement of fill was not conducted and that placement of fill in this area was neither observed
nor tested by EnGEN. This area is noted on Plate 2.
Although EnGEN observed the removals of the existing fill and surficial native soils and also
observed the compaction of engineered fill, EnGEN maintained the original recommendations to
overexcavate to a depths of IOta 15 feet below original grade. Their recommendations for
foundation design included a grid of grade beams in order to reduce the adverse effects of
potential liquefaction.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ioc
Page 4 of34
March 18, 2003
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
'.
k."I KlEINFElDER
3 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site of the proposed development is located south of State Highway 79, at the intersection
with Pechanga Parkway in Temecula, California. The site is divided into two parcels with Parcel
A (1.84 acres) on the west side ofPechanga Parkway, and Parcel B (11.33 acres) on the east side
of Pechanga Parkway and extends east to Jedediah Smith Road. The location of the site is shown
on Plate 2, Plot Plan. Parcel B was rough graded in 2001-2002 and'is currently vacant with some
stockpiled soils. Based on EnGEN Corporation's geotechnical study report, the site was
previously used by Eastern Municipal Water District for purposes associated with its water
reclamation program. Structures associated with the Eastem Municipal Water Districts
operations have been removed. Parcel A, west of Pechanga Parkway, appear to have
approximately 3 to 6 feet of undocumented artificial fill at the surface. Parcel B east of Pechanga
Parkway has documented engineered fill that is approximately 13 feet deep in the westem
portion and shallows to a thin veneer in the eastern portion. TIle site is generally flat and covered
with only minor shrub and grass vegetation.
An existing sewer line easement traverses the westem portion of Parcel B, three natural gas
easements traverse the westem half of Parcel B, and two Metropolitan Water District easements
traverse the eastern portion of Parcel B.
3.2 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
3.2.1 General
The following paragraphs summarIze the results of our field exploration. The boring logs
presented in Appendix A should be reviewed for a more detailed description of the subsurface
conditions at the locations explored.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ioe
Page 5 of 34
March 18, 2003
\"V
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
o
k~ KlEINFElDER
3.2.2 Artificial Fill
Fill soils were encountered in the 15 borings excavated for this report (Boring B-1 - B-15) to
depths of up to approximately 17 feet below current grade. Boring B-1 encountered fill to a
depth of approximately 27 feet terminating at a 24-inch diameter sewer line maintained by
Eastern Municipal Water District. The location of the boring was cleared for drilling by a
representative of EMWD prior to excavation. The fill encountered consists of engineered fill that
was placed during grading in 2002 under the observation of EnGEN Corporation.
3.2.3 Native Soils
The upper natural soils, in the eastern portion of the site that are covered by 3 feet or less of
artificial fill, generally consist of medium dense to dense silty sands and sands. The in-situ
densities tested varied from approximately 83 to 121 pounds per cubic foot at moisture contents
ranging from 2.0 to 30.3 percent. The upper native soils are considered to be moisture sensitive,
meaning that the soils become significantly weaker and more compressible when wet or
saturated. See Appendix A for a more detailed explanation of the field explonition and Appendix
B for laboratory test results and methods.
3.3 SURFACE WATER CONDITIONS
Surface water flow direction is to the south by sheet flow across the previously graded site into
the adjacent unlined section of Temecula Creek.
The southern portion of the site is within a I DO-year flood hazard zone listed as AE by FEMA
(FEMA web site, 2003). The AE flood hazard zone indicates flood elevations of 1008 feet in the
southeast portion of the site diminishing to elevation 1005 in the southwest portion of the site.
The flood hazard has been mitigated by rough grading to an elevation above the 100-year flood
elevations determined by FEMA (approximately 1008 feet). Due to the site's inland location,
tsunamis are not considered a hazard to the site. The site is within the floodplain of Temecula
Creek and downstream from the Vail Lake dam, the site may be subject to inundation from this
reservoir should it catastrophically fail or be overtopped by a seich.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, !nc
Page 6 of 34
March 18,2003
\'?:>
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..,
..
k.~ KLEINFELDER
3.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Groundwater was encountered in boring B-12 at a depth of approximately 29 feet, but was not
encountered in any of the other borings excavated to depths of approximately 50 feet. According
to the State of Califomia (2003), the historical high depth to groundwater beneath the site
appears to be within 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs), and seasonally at the ground surface
(Kennedy, 1977). Since this information is from 1977, and the site has subsequently been graded
with placement of up to 10 feet of additional fill, we conclude that historic high groundwater is
estimated at 10 feet below current grade and the Kennedy, 1977 reference to ground surface is
the pre-graded surface of 2000. Additionally, the groundwater flow direction beneath the site
appears to be towards the west (USGS, 1990).
Fluctuations of the groundwater level, localized zones of perched water, and soil moisture
content should be anticipated during and following the rainy season. Irrigation of landscaped
al'eas on or immediately adjacent to the site can also cause a fluctuation of local groundwater
levels.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
Page 7 of 34
March 18,2003
\A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1..."1=1 KLEINFElDER
4 GEOLOGIC C01\'DITIONS
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The site is located near the southern end of the Temecula Valley, at the confluence of Wolf and.
Pauba Valleys, within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Temecula
Valley is an approximately 1 mile wide, tectonically active graben valley bordered on either side
by the Willard Fault on the west and Wildomar Fault on the east, both of which are major splays
of the Elsinore Fault Zone (Shlemon, 1992). The Peninsula! Ranges are a northwest-southeast
oriented complex of mountain ranges and valleys and are characterized by sub..unit blocks
separated by similarly trending strike slip faults.
The site is regionally mapped as underlain by surficial alluvial sediments of Holocene-age from
both Wolf and Pauba Valleys, consisting of silt, sand and gravel derived from the local Pechanga
and Temecula Creeks (USGS, 1966). Both undocumented fill and engineered fills (EnGEN,
2002) mantel the site on the order of 3 to 17 feet deep, and locally occur as utility line backfill to
a depth of 25 to 27 feet below existing grade. According to prior work on site by others
(EnGEN, 2000) the fills are underlain by the valley floor alluvium reported to extend to an
approximate depth of 20 feet bgs. Underlying the Holocene alluvium is the Pleistocene non-
marine sedimentary Pauba Formation.
4.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The site is located in the Temecula / Wolf Valley area of Fiverside County, in an area with a
potential hazard of ground fissures and the recently identified Wolf Valley Fault. Although the
site is not located within a State of California designated Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone
for active surface faulting (Hart and Bryant, 2000), it is closely located to Fault Rupture Hazard
Zones for both the Wildomar Fault to the northeast and the Wolf Valley fault to the south. The
Willard fault to the west of the site is currently unzoned.
Since the site is located in a relatively flat area, we do not consider landslides or other forms of
natural slope instability to represent a significant hazard to the project. The elevated inland
location of the site is not situated near any impounded bodies of water; therefore, tsunamis are
not considered a potential hazard to the project. Flow for seiches in the Vail Lake may be
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
March] 8, 2003
v5
Page 8 of34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFElDER
considered a potential hazard to the project. Also the site is located within the Floodplain of
Temecula Creek, downstream from the Vail Lake Dam and may be subject to inundation should
this structure catastrophically fail.
Additionally, the site is within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone as designated by the County of
Riverside (1997).
In our opinion, the most significant geologic hazard to the project is the potential for moderate to
strong ground shaking resulting from earthquakes generated on the faults within the vicinity of
the site. In the vicinity of the site, approximately 31 knovv1l active faults have been mapped
within a 62-mile (100-kilometer) radius of the site. This is followed by lesser potentials for
liquefaction, ground fissuring, or surface mpture from previously unknown faulting.
4.3 F AUL TING AND SEISMICITY
We consider the most significant geologic hazard to the project to be the potential for moderate
to strong seismic shaking that is likely to occur during the design life of the proposed project.
The project site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region within the influence
of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. An active fault is
defined by the State of California as a "sufficiently active ,md well defined fault" that has
exhibited surface displacement within the Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A
potentially active fault is defined by the State as a fault with a history of movement within
Pleistocene time (between 11,000 and 1.6 million years ago).
These active and potentially active faults are capable of producing potentially damaging seismic
shaking at the site. It is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground
acceleration as the result of moderate to large magnitude earthquakes.
Faults identified by the State as being either active or potentially active are not known to be
present at the surface of the site. The site is not located within a State of California designated
Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for active surface faulting (Hart and Bryant, 2000).
We have listed within Table I, Significant Faults, the known faults in the region that in our
opinion, could significantly impact the site.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, KJeinfelder, Inc
Page 9 of34
March 18, 2003
\(p
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
;
I.
I
i
;
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.~ KLEINFELDER
We have performed a computer-aided search of the known active and potentially active faults
within a 62-mile (lOO-kilometer) radius of the site and researched available literature to assess
the expected maximum magnitude earthquakes to be generated on each fault. Table 1
summarizes these parameters for 3 of the 31 known active and potentially active faults within the
searched radius of the site that in our opinion may have the greatest impact upon the site.
Selection of the faults was based on their proximity to the site and their potential to generate
moderate to strong ground motion on the site.
Table 1 was generated using, in part, the EQFAULT computer program (Blake, 2000), as
modified using the fault parameters from DMG Open File Report 96-08 and the 1997 UBC fault
maps (ICBO, 1998). This table does not identify the probability of reactivation or the onsite
effects from earthquakes occurring on any of the other faults in the region. The site is located
within the USGS 7'-'2' Temecula and Pechanga, California Quadrangles, at Latitude 33.47450N
and Longitude 117.12560W, at approximately the 1,012 foot elevation (MSL).
Table 1
Significant Fanlts
Elsinore - Temecu1a segment 0.6 (0.4)
San Jacinto - Anza segment 35.1 (21.8)
Newport-Inglewood 44.1 (27.4)
'As defined by the !CBO (1998) and CDMG (OFR 96-08).
6.8
7.2
6.9
B
B
B
A number of moderate to strong earthquakes have occurred in the vicinity of the project site in
the past years. The parameters used by the EQSearch program (Blake, 2000) to define the limits
of the historical earthquake search include geographical limits (within 100 km of the site), dates
(1800 through 2000), and magnitude (magnitudes above M 4). A summary of the results of the
historical search is presented below.
Time period (1800 to 2000)
Maximum Magnitude within 62.1 mi. (100 km) radius (12/16/1858)
Approximate distance to nearest historical earthquake, > M4.0
Maximum Calculated Historic Site Acceleration during period
Number of events exceeding magnitude 4 within the search area
201 years
M7.0
3.6 miles
0.16g
626
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Jne
Page 10 of34
March 18, 2003
\'\
I
I
i
I
I
I
J
I
,
;
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.~ KLEINFELDER
Under the current understanding of regional seismo-tectonics, the largest maximum magnitude
event to impact the site may be generated by the Elsinore Fault (Temecula segment) having a
moment magnitude ofM6.8.
Utilizing the Bozorgina et al attenuation relationship in the FRISKSP program (Blake, 2000)
indicates a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years for an acceleration of 0.68g for alluvial
sites within this area. The site is located in Seismic Zone 4 of the 1997 edition of the Uniform
Building Code (UBC). Structures should be designed in accordance with the values and
parameters given within the UBC.
4.4 NEAR-SOURCE SEISMIC ZONE
In addition to the determination of fault activity, faults are also type classified as an A, B, or C
for Near-Source Zone ground motion (Ca, Cv, Na and Nv) by both the State, and ICBO (in the
UBC, Table 16-U), according to parameters of known slip rate, and maximum earthquake
magnitude. A "Type A" seismic source fault has a magnitude b'Teater than or equal to 7.0 and
slip rate greater than or equal to 5mm/yr. A "Type B" seismic source fault has a magnitude
greater than or equal to 7.0 with a slip rate <5mm/yr.; or magnitude <7.0 with a slip rate
>2mrn/yr.; or a magnitude greater than or equal to 6.5 with a slip rate <2mrn/yr. A 'Type C"
seismic source fault has a magnitude M<6.5 and a slip rate less than or equal to 2mm/yr, or is
unrated under the current knowledge. The site is located at 0.4 km (within the 2-km) Active
Fault Near-Source (Seismic) Zone for the Elsinore Fault (Temecula Segment). The Elsinore
Fault is a Type B fault as designated by the UBC (ICBO, 1998).
Please note that the fault distances presented in Table I, Significant Faults, indicate the distance
from the site to the nearest location where the fault trace is mapped at the ground surface. The
Near Source Zone Map distances are based on the shortest distance from the site to the fault
piane projection to the ground surface, from a depth of 10-km. In some cases the Near Source
Zone Map distance may differ from the map distance shown in Table 1, because the site may be
closer to or further from the fault plane projection than the surface trace of the fault.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
Page 11 of 34
March 18, 2003
\~
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 GENERAL
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotecJmical analyses conducted for this
study, it is our opinion that the following geotechnical related issues must be considered during
design and construction of the proposed development.
. Provided that the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report are incorporated into
design and construction, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings may be supported on
shallow spread foundations underlain by engineered fill.
. No remedial grading has been performed in the area west of Pechanga Parkway following the
February 2000 geotechnical investigation by EnGEN. Boring logs indicate existing
undocumented fill to depths up to 6.5 feet below existing grade and alluvium to a depth of
approximately 20 feet below existing grade. Site preparation in this area should include
overexcavation and recompaction or the existing fill soils. Where shallow fill less than 4 feet
or native soils are encountered at the surface, we reeommend overexeavation and
recompaction to a minimum of 4 feet below existing grades.
. The upper 1 to 17 feet of the onsite soils consists of previously placed artificial fills. The
depth of fill near B-1 appears to be utility backfill. It is our opinion that the engineered fill
soils placed at the site in 2000 and 2001 are generally considered suitable for support of the
proposed buildings in the western portion of the site shown as Pads 3 through 5 (east of
Pechanga Parkway). In the eastern portion of the site where grading has not occurred
(includes Pads 9 through ll, Shops 1 and Major A) the upper 10 to 15 feet of existing native
alluvial soils appear to be moderately collapsible when subject to saturation by water.
Accordingly, in the eastern portion of the site, site grading should include overcxcavation of
the upper 5 to 10 feet of soils beneath the existing grades. Engineered fill soils intended to
support the proposed structures should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. The upper 5 feet of soil within the footprint of proposed beneath structures
should be compacted to at least 93 percent. Where proposed buildings are located only
partially in the previously graded area (Pads 7, 8, and 9), the entire building footprint should
also be uniformly overexcavated and the soils recompacted.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kkinfelder, Inc
Page 12 of 34
March 18,2003
\'\
I
I
I
I
,
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.~ KI.EINFElDER
· We understand that cleanout ofthe easterly channel adjacent to Jedediah Smith Road prior to
placement of fill was not conducted and that placement of fill in this area was neither
observed nor tested by EnGEN.
. The site is not located within a State or County designated fault hazard zone. The site is
located within the 2-km Near Source Fault Zone of the Elsinore Fault zone. Due to the site's
proximity to the Elsinore Fault zone, relatively large site accelerations approaching 0.68g are
anticipated, based on a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years.
. The site is located within a County of Riverside designated ground subsidence zone. The
site's vicinity is reported to be susceptible to ground fissuring due to withdrawal of
groundwater and large seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels.
. The southern portion of the site is listed within a 100-year flood hazard zone by FEMA
(FEMA, 2003). The flood hazard has been mitigated by rough grading to an elevation above
the 100-year flood elevations determined by FEMA (approximately 1008 ft.). The site is
within the floodplain of Temecula Creek and downstreanl from the Vail Lake dam, the site
may be subject to inundation from this reservoir should it catastrophically fail or be
overtopped by a seich.
. The site is located within a County of Riverside designated liquefaction hazard zone. The
current data from the prior and current borings indicate that the central and eastern portions
of the property are susceptible to liquefaction at depths of 10 to 50 feet below the surface,
which may result in seismically-induced settlement on the. order of 3 to 5 inches. Differential
seismic induced settlement on the order of approximately 1 inch over a horizontal distance of
50 feet may result. Manifestation of the liquefiable soils at the surface in the form of sand
boils or fissures may occur. Liquefaction may also result in lateral spreading near the
descending slope along the south edge of the site.
The liquefaction potential appears to impact current building pads 6 through 11, Shops 1, and
Major A., The effects of differential seismically-induced settlement on buildings may be
reduced by placing engineered fill at a minimum of 93 percent relative compaction, using
grade beams to tie all foundation elements together within the buildings and/or by placing 2
to 3 layers of a geogrid product such as TENSAR within the engineered fill of the building
pads at vertical intervals of approximately 3 feet. Lateral spreading (lateral movement of
earth towards open face slopes during liquefaction at shallow depths) is difficult to mitigate.
Lateral deformation on the order of inches and feet can occur under similar conditions.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
March 18, 2003
Page 13 of34
'lP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i
, I
I
, I
I I
I
I
k~ KLEINFElDER
Overexcavation of the site soils below the toe of the slope adjacent to Temecula Creek may
significantly reduce the potential impact on the site due to lateral spreading.
Laboratory testing indicates that the onsite soils are considered moderately corrosive to
buried metals and mildly corrosive to concrete. The ov-mer may wish to consider having a
competent corrosion engineer retained to evaluate the corrosion potential of the site soils
relative to the proposed improvements, recommend further testing as required, :md provide
specific corrosion mitigation methods appropriate for the project.
5.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The site is located in a seismically active region and the proposed new structure can be expected
to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic shaking during its design life. Potential seismic
hazards include ground shaking, localized liquefaction, ground rupture due to f:mlting, and
seismic settlement. The following sections discuss these potential seismic hazards with respect
to this site.
5.2.1 Ground Shaking
Because this site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, we recommend
that, as a minimum, the proposed development be designed in accordance with the requirements
of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBe) for Seismic Zone 4. We recommend
1hat a soil profile factor ofSD be used with the UBC design procedure (Table 16-1). Near source
seismic coefficients for acceleration and velocity, Na, Nv, Ca, and Cv (UBC Tables 16-S and
16-T) should be used for calculating the design. The site is located at 0.4 km (wi1hin the 2-km)
Active Fault Near-Source (Seismic) Zone for the Elsinore Fault, a Type B Fault as designated by
the 1997 UBC (ICBO, 1998). A summary of the seismic parameters is presented below.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, KJeinfelder, Ioc
Page 14 of34
March 18,2003
~\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1997 UBC Seismic Design Parameters
Design Fault Els
Fault Type
Seismic Zone 4-
Soil Profile Factor (Table 16-1)
Near-Source Distance
Na (Table l6-S)
Nv (Table l6-T)
Ca (Table l6-Q) 0.44 (Na)
Cv (Table l6-R) 0.64 (Nv)
5.2.2 Liquefaction
k'l KI.EINFELDER
re Fault
B
= 0.4)
,
D
km
..3
.6
.57
.02
mo
(z
S
<2
]
1
o
1
Liquefaction is a phenomenon associated with shallow groundwater, in combination with the
presence of loose, sands or silts within a depth of about 50 feet below grade or less. Liquefaction
occurs when these soils are subject to strong ground shaking resulting from earthquake induced
ground motion. Liquefaction typically causes these soils to lose a portion or all of their shear
strength. This strength is typically regained sometime after the shaking stops. Soil movements
(both vertical and lateral) have been observed under these conditions due to consolidation of the
liquefied soils and the reduced shear resistance of slopes. Liquefaction potential decreases with
an increase in clay and gravel content and a decrease in grain size. However, the potential
increases with an increase in the duration of the earthquake induced ground shaking.
The site is located within a County of Riverside designated liquefaction hazard zone. Based on
our research, the reported depth to historical groundwater appears to be approximately 10 feet
below existing grade. Due to the depth to historic high groundwater at the site, the presence of
granular soils, and the relatively low penetration resistance of the soils in the eastern portion of
the property, the potential for liquefaction occurrence in the eastern approximately 2/3 of the site
is considered to be high.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright2003, Kleinfelder, lne
Page 15 of34
March 18,2003 z,.'Y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.~ KLEINFELDER
5.2.3 Seismically-Induced Settlement and Lateral Spreading
Seismically-induced settlement is surface settlement caused by densification of non-saturated
soils due to earthquake-induced ground shaking and liquefaction. Based on our field data and
utilizing procedures proposed by Tokimatsu and Secd (1987), we estimated seismically-induced
settlement to be on the order of 3 to 5 inches. Differential seismically-induced settlement is
anticipated to be on the order of 1 inch across a distance of 50 feet. Settlement of dry sands
above the assumed groundwater level is estimated to be negligible due to recommended remedial
grading resulting in approximately 10 feet or more of engineered fill. Calculation for
liquefaction and seismic settlement are presented in Appendix C.
5.2.4 Other Geologic Seismic Considerations
The site is not located within a State of Califomia or Riverside County designated Earthquake
Fault Rupture Hazard Zone for active faulting. The likelihood for ground surface rupture due to
primary faulting from known faults is considered to be low. This is followed by lesser potential
for ground fissuring.
Based on the materials encountered at this site during our field exploration, the eXlstmg
topographic conditions, the potential for saturated soil conditions at shallow depths, and the
proposed site improvements, we consider the liquefaction potential to be high. Due to the low
topographic relief of the site we consider the potential for seismic slope instability to be low, the
low potential for slope instability is related to the potential for lateral spreading resulting from
liquefaction involving the creek bank along the south margin ofth.e property.
The elevated inland location of the site is not situated near any impounded bodies of water;
therefore, tsunamis are not considered a potential hazard to the project. The southern portion of
the site is listed within a 100-year flood hazard zone by FEMA (FEMA, 2003). The flood hazard
has been mitigated by rough grading to an elevation above the 100-year flood elevations
determined by FEMA (approximately 1005 feet). The site is within the floodplain of Temecula
Creek and downstream from the Vail Lake dam, the site may be subject to inundation from this
reservoir should it catastrophically fail, or be overtopped by a seich.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, KleinfeJder, Inc
Page 16 of34
March 18,2003 ~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Id
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k'l KlEINFELDER
5.3 MITIGATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The liquefaction potential appears to impact current building pads 6 through 11, Shops 1, and
Major A. As discussed above there is a potential during the DLE for total and differential
settlements due to liquefaction on the order of 3 to 5 inches and 1 inches over 50 feet. This
settlement, should it occur, is calculated to occur from a depth of approximately 10 feet to 20
feet and 25 feet to 30 feet below grade and may manifest at the surface. Because there will be an
estimated 8 to 10 feet of non-liquefiable soils below the at-grade structures, the potential for a
loss in bearing capacity is considered to be low.
It is our opinion that mitigation of dynamically induced settlement prior to construction of the
proposed structures is geotechnically feasible at the site. Typically, liquefaction is mitigated by
either using deep foundations such as driven piles and a rigid pile cap to support the structures on
the deeper dense, non-liquefiable soils or by using ground improvement/modification techniques
to densify the soils and thereby reducing the liquefaction potential. Other methods such as
permanent lowering of groundwater levels and overexcavation ,md recompaction of liquefiable
soils are not considered to be feasible.
The effects of differential seismically-induced settlement on buildings may be reduced by
increasing the minimum relative compaction to 93 percent, using grade beams to tie all
foundation elements together within the buildings and/or by placing 2 to 3 layers of a geogrid
product such as TENSAR BX11 00 or equivalent within the engineered fill of the building pads
at vertical intervals of approximately 3 feet. Lateral spreading (lateral movement of earth
towards open face slopes during liquefaction at shallow depths) is difficult to mitigate. Lateral
deformation on the order of inches and feet can occur under similar conditions. Overexcavation
of the site soils below the toe of the slope adjacent to Temecula Creek may significantly reduce
the potential impact on the site due to lateral spreacling.
5.4 EARTHWORK
5.4.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable
codes and the recommendations included herein. Based on our field investigation and review of
previous geotechnical reports, the following recommendations are presented.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
Page 17 of34
March 18, 2003 ']..I\.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
kq Kl.ElNFElDER
East Parcel B (Pads 6-11, Shops 1, Maior A)
The upper natural soils in the eastern portion of the site at a depth of about 10 to 16 feet below
existing grade are susceptible to potential hydroconsolidation. The moisture sensitive soils have
a moderate probability to experience significant loss in strength and increase in compressibility
when wet. Potential differential settlement can be reduced by constructing a thick layer of
engineered fill beneath the foundations. The soils in the proposed building pad areas should be
overexcavated to depths of 5 to 10 feet as follows:
Buildings 6-9:
Building 10:
Building 11:
Shops 1:
Major A:
8 feet below existing grade
5 feet below existing grade
8 feet below existing grade
8* feet below existing grade
8* feet below existing grade
*Please note in Section 5.3, to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts of liquefaction,
recommendations are provided to construct the building pad with engineered fill reinforced with
geogrid layers.
The upper 5 feet of engineered fill in the building pad areas should be compacted to a minimum
of 93 percent relative compaction to further reduce the potential adverse effects of the collapsible
soils. The excavation beneath the building pads should extend at least 8 feet laterally beyond the
building footprints.
Parcel A (pads 1 and 2)
Site preparation in the area west of Pechanga Parkway ,:hould include overexcavation and
recompaction of the existing fill soils ",cithin the building pad areas. Where shallow fills less
than 4 feet or native soils we encountered at the surface, we recommend overexcavation and
recompaction to a minimum of 4 feet below existing grades.
West Parcel B (pads 3 through 5)
Engineered fill soils in the western portion of Parcel B we considered suitable for support ofthe
proposed buildings and additional shallow fill placement. Due to weathering of the surficial
soils, we recommend that the surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches,
L6
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ioe
Page J8 of34
March 18, 2003
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.~ KlEINFElDER
moisture conditioned to zero to 3 percent over optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a
minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Parcel Area
In the area where surface paving is planned, the depth of overexcavation may be reduced to
about 2 feet below existing grade. Localized areas requiring deeper fill removal should be
anticipated. Following the over-excavation of the upper loose soils, the exposed subgrade should
be inspected for all unsuitable soils, rubble, and debris and the excavation deepened if necessary.
The exposed subgrade should then be scarified to a depth of 6-inches, brought to near optimum
moisture content and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. Removal bottoms should be
compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method
D-1557-91.
F allowing the sub grade preparation, the removed soils should be replaced in loose lifts of not
more than 8-inches thick, brought to within 0 to 3 percent above optimum moisture and be
mechanically compacted using heavy equipment. All soils should be compacted to at least 90
percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-91. The upper
six inches of the pavement sub grade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction. All earthwork operations should be observed and tested by a representative of this
firm.
5.4.2 Materials for Fill
The onsite soils, less any debris or organic materials may be used for any required fill soils. All
imported soils should be granular in nature and be relatively non-expansive with an expansion
index of less than 35. The imported soils should however contain enough fines to provide a
stable sub grade and maintain low to medium permeability characteristics. Import soil should be
sampled, reviewed, and approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the
site.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
Page 19 of34
March 18,2003
2fo
I
I.'
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
,
I
I
.
.
I
.
I
I
k~ KI.EINFELDER
5.4.3 Excavation Conditions
The borings advanced at the site were advanced using a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill
rig. Drilling was completed with slight to moderate effort through the subsurface soils.
Conventional earth moving equipment is expected to be capable of performing the excavations
required for site development.
5.4.4 Collapsible Soils
Based on our laboratory testing and the results of previous explorations at the site by others, the
upper natural soils at the site to a depth of about 5 to 10 feet have a moderate collapse potential.
Collapsible soils (or moisture sensitive soils) are defined as a soil with a potential for a
significant decrease in strength and increase in compressibility when wet or saturated. The
collapsible soils should be overexcavated and recompacted as properly compacted-engineered
fill during the earthwork operations. As discussed in Section 2, the soils in the vicinity of
Building Pads 3 through 6 and portions of Pads 7 and 8 were overexcavated and recompacted
during grading in 2001-2002.
5.4.5 Excavations and Temporary Slopes
Excavations deeper than 4 feet deep should be sloped back at I: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or be
shored or braced for safety. Excavations eA1:ending below a 1 \1,:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane
extending down from any adjacent footings should be shored for safety. All excavations should
be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer during construction to allow any
modifications to be made due to variations in the soil conditions.
During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff water from
entering all excavations. All runoff water and/or groundwater encountered within excavations
should be collected and disposed outside the construction limits.
All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including
the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is
the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be solely responsible for the means,
methods, and sequencing of construction operations. We are providing the infonnation below
solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the information provided be
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Joe
Page 20 of34
March 18, 2003
z.i
I
I'
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KlElNFHDER
interpreted to mean that Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the
Contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
The Contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depths
(including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state,
and/or federal safety regulations (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations,
29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations).
5.4.6 Trench Backfill
All required trench backfill should be mechanically compacted in 8-inch (maximum) layers with
mechanical compaction equipment. Jetting and flooding is not recommended. We recommend
all backfill be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density based on ASTM Test
Method D1557-91. The moisture content of compacted backfill soils should be within 0 to 3
percent over the optimum at the time of compaction. Some settlement of the backfill may be
expected and any utilities within the trenches should be designed to accept differential
settlement.
If imported material is used for pipe or trench zone backfill, we recommend it consist of
fine-grained sand. In general, coarse-grained sand and/or gravel should not be used for pipe or
trench zone backfill due to the potential for soil migration into the relatively large void spaces
present in this type of material and water seepage along trenches backfilled with coarse-grained
sand and/or gravel.
Recommendations provided above for pipe zone backfill are minimum requirements only. More
stringent material specifications may be required to fulfill local building requirements and/or
bedding requirements for specific types of pipes. We recommend the project Civil Engineer
develop these material specifications based on planned pipe types, bedding conditions, and other
factors beyond the scope of this study.
5.5 FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION
Based on our field observations and the limits of overexcavation and recompaction presented by
the previous consultant (EnGEN, 2002), it appears that the proposed southem slope near the
center of the site (south of Pads 6 through 8) will be constructed as a fill slope. The existing
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfe1der, Ine
Page 21 of34
March 18, 2003
~2>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFElDER
slope also has experienced erosIOn and gullying and vl'ill require remedial grading. We
recommend that a keyway be excavated at the toe of the slope to support the fill soils. The
keyway excavation should expose firm native soils or bedrock and should be at least equipment
width (minimum 10 feet). The keyway should be at least 2 feet deep at the toe of the slope and
should slope down toward the heel at least one foot. Fill soils should be placed as described
above and should be benched into competent existing soils.
Fill slopes should be overfilled a minimum of two feet horizontally from the slope face. The
surface of the overfilled slope should be backrolled at regular intervals to provide the required
compaction. Upon completion of filling, the slope should be trimmed to finish grade so that the
compacted core is exposed at the slope face.
As an alternative, fill slopes may be constructed at grade as long as compaction of each lift
extends to the face of the ' slope. Fill slopes should be backrolled at intervals not exceeding four
, feet in height or as recommended by the project soils engineer during grading. Care should be
taken to avoid spillage ofloose materials dovvn the slope face during grading. At the completion
of mass filling, the project soils engineer should evaluate the slope surface. Should additional
compaction be required, the slope should be moisture conditioncd to slightly above optimum and
compacted with a vibratory sheepsfoot roller and finished with a grid roller operated from it
sideboom tractor until the compaction of the slope face is achieved.
Landscaping of the slope should proceed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for erosion
and deterioration of the slope surface. Proper moisture control should be incorporated into the
landscape design in order to minimize the potential for surficial slope saturation. Irrigation
should be minimized and water should not be allowed to flow over the face of the slopes. The
civil engineer should include methods to prevent erosion and scour of the slope face.
An ongoing program to control rodent infestation should be initiated to protect slopes from
moisture infiltration and promote long term stability.
5.6 DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING
It is important that positive surface drainage be provided to prevent ponding and/or saturation of
the soils in the vicinity of foundations and concrete slabs-an-grade. We recommend that the site
be graded to carry surface water away from the proposed buildings and that positive measures be
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
March 18, 2003
Page 22 of 34
1,0...
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
implemented to carry away roof runoff. The upper soils at the site are moderately collapsible
when saturated with water. The recommended overexcavation is intended to mitigate the
collapse potential of the upper soils. Poor perimeter or surface drainage could allow migration of
water beneath the building or pavement areas, which may result in distress to project
improvements. The following supplemental suggestions are also provided if it is desirable to
further reduce the potential for migration of water under the building pad: When possible, we
suggest that planters adjacent to buildings be placed at least I 0 fi~et from the building footprint.
If planted areas adjacent to the structure are desired, we recommend that care be taken not to
over-irrigate and to maintain a leak-free sprinkler piping system. If possible, we suggest that
planters be sealed. In addition, it is recommended that planter areas next to buildings have a
minimum of 5 percent positive fall away from building perimeters to a distance of at least 5 feet.
Drain spouts should be extended to discharge a minimum of 5 feet from the building, or some
other method should be utilized to prevent water from accumulating in planters. Landscaping
after construction should not promote ponding of water adjacent to structures.
5.7 FOUNDATIONS
5.7.1 Allowable Bearing Pressures
The proposed buildings may be supported on shallow spread footings founded over at least 5 feet
of properly compacted engineered fill soils. Continuous and isolated spread footings should
have minimum widths of 18 inches and be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest final
adjacent sub grade. Within this report, the lowest adjacent grade refers to the finished exterior
grade for the perimeter footings and the finished pad grade for interior footings. Footings
established as recommended may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500
pounds per square foot for dead plus sustained live loading.
The allowable bearing pressure provided above is a net value; therefore, the weight of the
concrete may be assumed to be 50 pounds per square foot. The weight of the soil backfill may
be neglected when computing dead loads. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by
one-third for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces.
Footings may experience an overall loss in bearing capacity or an increased potential to settle
where located in close proximity to existing or future utility trenches. Furthermore, stresses
imposed by the footings on the utility lines may cause c.racking, collapse and/or a loss of
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, KleinfeJder, Ine
Page 23 of 34
March 18, 2003
?P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
kq Kl.EINFELDER
serviceability. To reduce this risk, footings should extend below a I: 1 plane projected upward
from the closest bottom comer of the trench.
Footings for minor structures (loading dock walls, minor retaining walls, free standing walls,
etc.) that are structurally separate from the building can be designed using an allowable bearing
pressure of 1,000 pounds per square foot at a minimum depth of 1 \/, feet below the lowest
adjacent grade. Such footings can be established in the properly compacted fill soils.
5.7.2 Estimated Settlements
Based on anticipated loading conditions, we estimate the total static settlement for the proposed
buildings supported in the manner reconunended to be on the order of \/,- to I inch. Differential
settlements between adjacent columns are estimated to be on the order of \/'-inch. Settlement
due to liquefaction is estimated at 3 to 5 inches with differential settlement on the order of 1 inch
over a 50-feet distance. Seismically induced dry settlement is expected to be negligible
following grading. The seismically induced settlements and liquefaction induced settlement are
in addition to the static settlements presented above. Static settlement of all foundations is
expected to be primarily elastic and should be essentially completed shortly after initial
application of structural loads.
5.7.3 Lateral Resistance
Resistance to lateral loads (including those due to wind or seismic forces) may be provided by
frictional resistance between the bottom of concrete foundations and the underlying soil and by
passive soil pressure against the sides of the foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may
be used between cast-in-place concrete foundations and the underlying soil. Passive pressure
available in engineered fill may be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid
weighing 250 pounds per cubic foot.
The passive resistance of the subgrade soils will diminish or be non-existent if trench sidewalls
slough, cave or are overwidened during or following excavations. If this condition is
encountered, our firm should be notified to review the condition and provide remedial
recommendations, if necessary.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
Page 24 of 34
March 18, 2003
~\
I I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
;
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
5.7.4 Slope Setbacks
Foundations located near descending slopes should be setback from the top of slope at least 10
feet due to the potential for lateral spreading caused by potential liquefaction. Footings located
within 10 feet from the top of slope must be deepened to provide a minimum of 10 feet from the
edge of the footing bottom to the slope face.
5.7.5 Construction/Design Considerations
Prior to placing steel or concrete, footing excavations should be cleaned of all debris, loose or
soft soil, and water. Footing excavations should be observed by the project Geotechnical
Engineer just prior to placing steel or concrete to verify the recommendations contained herein
are implemented during construction.
We recommend that all reinforcement be designed for the specific loading conditions by the
project structural engineer.
5.8 RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls may consist of standard reinforced concrete arld masonry block construction.
Retaining walls may be supported on spread foundations fOlmded in the properly compacted
engineered fill soils.
For the design of retaining walls, where the backfill surface is level; the wall may be designed
assuming that the drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equivalent to a fluid with a density of
30 pounds per cubic foot.
The recommended lateral earth pressures assume that drainage is provided behind the walls to
prevent accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. Walls should be provided with backdrains to
reduce the potential for the accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains may consist of a
2-foot wide zone of Caltrans Class 2 permeable material located immediately behind the wall,
extending to within I foot of the ground surface. Weep holes should be provided or a perforated
pipe (Schedule 40 PVC) should be installed at the base of the backdrain and sloped to discharge
to a suitable collection facility.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
Page 25 of34
March 18, 2003
~z.
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
In addition to the recommended earth pressure, retaining walls adjacent to areas subject to
vehicular traffic shall be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square
foot, which is a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the shoring
due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the wall, the traffic
surcharge may be neglected.
Retaining walls should be designed for lateral surcharges imposed by any adjacent existing
foundations. Additional loads on retaining walls may be imposed by surcharge. An additional
horizontal wall load equal to 50 percent of the surcharge load should be applied uniformly over
the entire height of the wall.
5.9 CONCRETE SLABS SUPPORTED-ON-GRADE
It is our opinion that concrete slab-on-grade floors may be used for the proposed structures.
Slah-on-grade floors may be supported on engineered fill prepared as described in this report.
Concrete slab-on-grade floor slabs should have a minimum actual thickness of 4 inches. All slabs
should be designed for any specific loading conditions by the stmctural engineer, A modulus of
suhgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch may be used for preliminary design.
Surficial soils should be uniformly moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content and
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density.
Subsurface moisture and moisture vapor naturally migrate upward through the soil and, where
the soil is covered by a building or pavement, this subsurface moisture will collect. To reduce the
impact of this subsurface moisture and the potential impact of future introduced moisture (such
as landscape irrigation or precipitation) the current industry standard is to place a vapor retarder
on the compacted crushed rock layer. This membrane typically consists ofvisquene or polyvinyl
plastic sheeting at least! 0 mil in thickness. It should be noted that although vapor barrier systems
are currently the industry standard, this system may not be completely effective in preventing
floor slab moisture problems. These systems typically will not necessarily assure that floor slab
moisture transmission rates will meet floor-covering manufacturer standards and that indoor
humidity levels be appropriate to inhibit mold growth. The design and construction of such
systems are totally dependent on the proposed use and design of the proposed building and all
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
Page 26 of 34
March 18, 2003
~~
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
kq KLEINFELDER
elements of building design and function should be considered in the slab-on~grade floor design.
Building design and construction may have a greater role in perceived moisture problems since
sealed buildingslrooms or inadequate ventilation may produce excessive moisture in a building
and affect indoor air quality.
Various factors such as surface grades, adjacent planters, the quality of slab concrete and the
permeability of the on-site soils affect slab moisture can control future performance. In many
cases, floor moisture problems are the result of either improper curing of floor slabs or improper
application of flooring adhesives. We recommend contacting a flooring consultant experienced
in the area of concrete slab-on-grade floors for specific recommendations regarding your
proposed flooring applications.
Special precautions must be taken during the placement and curing of all concrete slabs.
Excessive slump (high water-cement ratio) of the concrete anlor improper curing procedures
used during either hot or cold weather conditions could lead to excessive shrinkage, cracking or
curling of the slabs. High water-cement ratio and/or improper curing also greatly increase the
water vapor permeability of concrete. We recommend that all concrete placement and curing
operations be performed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual.
5.10 PAVEMENT DESIGN
An R-value test was performed on a selected sample to provide data for the design of paving.
.The test result, presented in Appendix B, indicates the R-value of the sample tested to be 5,
which is considered relatively low. For design of the pavement structural section including
aggregate base, we have utilized an R-Value of 30, based of the presence of predominantly
granules soils at the surface. If fine-grained soils are placed at the surface in pavement areas,
pavement design may need to be modified. We recommend that a minimum 4-inch layer of
aggregate base be placed beneath pavements. The R-value of the sub grade soils should be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer of record following subgrade preparation to access the
applicable final pavement section to be used.
Pavement sections are provided for Traffic Index (TI) values of 4.0 through 8.0 for the parking
areas and access lanes. We have developed the following preliminary recommendations for
asphalt pavement (Table 4), and rigid Portland concrete cement pavements (Table 5).
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
Page 27 of34
March 18, 2003
?;A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KlEINfELDER
Table 4
Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
'#'"", 'lilt
4.0
5.0
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.5
5.5
4.0
6.0
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
13.0
'CMB - Crushed Miscellaneous Base
Table 5
Recommended Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections
5.0 or less
5.1-6.0
6.1 - 8.0
R-value = 30
6.5
7.0
7.5
Pavement sections provided above
implemented during construction.
are contingent on the following recommendations being
. We recommend pavements be underlain by 24 inches of engineered fill outside the area of
previous grading, the upper 24 inches of pavement sub grade be overexcavated and
recompacted prior to placement of the structural section. Prior to fill placement, the exposed
subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, uniformly moisture conditioned to within
o to 3 percent above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. The upper six inches of the pavement subgrade should be compacted to
a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. In areas previously graded, the exposed
sub grade should be scarified, moisture condition as mentioned above, and compacted to at
least 95 percent.
. Subgrade soils should be in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time aggregate base
materials are placed and compacted.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, lne
Page 28 of 34
March] 8,2003
7;i5
I
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLElNFELDER
.
A compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch has been assumed for the design of
the Portland cement concrete paving section.
.
Aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
.
Adequate drainage (both surface and subsurface) should be provided such that the sub grade
soils and aggregate base materials are not allowed to become wet.
.
Aggregate base materials should meet current Caltrans specitications for Class 2 aggregate
base.
. Crushed miscellaneous base (CMB) material should meet current requirements of the
Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook).
. Asphalt paving materials and placement methods should meet current Caltrans specifications
for asphalt concrete.
Pavement sections provided above are based on the soil conditions encountered during our field
investigation, our assumptions regarding fmal site grades, and limited laboratory testing. In the
event actual pavement subgrade materials are significantly different than those tested for this
study, we recommend representative subgrade samples be obtained and additional R-value tests
performed. Should the results of these tests indicate a significant difference, the design pavement
sections provided above may need to be revised.
5.11 EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or
swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from
rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or
other factors and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs
supported-an-grade, or pavements supported over these materials. Depending on the extent and
location below finished sub grade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed
construction.
25423/DBA3R041
Co?yright 2003, Kleinfelder, !nc
Page 29 of 34
March 18,2003
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
The project site is generally underlain by granular soils which, based on soil classili.cation, are
not anticipated to have a significant expansion potential. Laboratory testing performed on
representative soil samples indicates a "very low" to "low" expansion potential as described in
UBC Table 18-I-B. Following grading of the site, we recommend that finish grade soils be
sampled at randomly selected locations and tested to identifY areas where additional steel
reinforcement may be required in the foundatIons.
5.12 CORROSIVITY
Two samples of the near surface soils were tested for corrosion potential to concrete and
reinforcing steel. The sample was sent to AP Engineering and Testing, Inc. for testing of pH,
resistivity, soluble sulfates and soluble chlorides. The sample was tested in general accordance
with California Test Methods 643, 422, and 417 for pH and resistivity, soluble chlorides, and
soluble sulfates, respectively. The test results are as follows:
We have provided the above corrosion tests as requested by the client. These tests are only an
indicator of soil corrosivity for the samples tested. Other soils found on site may be more, less,
or of a similar corrosive nature.
Although Kleinfelder does not practice corrosion engineering, the corrosion values from the soil
tested indicate moderate corrosivity to buried ferrous metals and rnild corrosivity to concrete
elements. Based on guidelines provided in the UBC, Table 19-A-4, cement types or maximum
water-cement ratios are not specified for these concentrations. We recommend that corrosion
mitigation for the site improvements be consistent with the level of corrosion potential identified
above. The proposed concrete mix design should be submitted to a qualified materials engineer
for approval.
Based on the above results, the owner may 'wish to consider having a competent corrosion
engineer retained to evaluate the corrosion potential of the site soils relative to the proposed
improvements, recommend further testing as required, and provide specific corrosion mitigation
methods appropriate for the project.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Joe
Page 30 of 34
March 18, 2003
,?1
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k"ll KLEINFElDER
6 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
6.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
We recommend that Kleinfelder conduct a general review of final plans and specifications to
evaluate that our earthwork and foundation recommendations havt: been properly interpreted and
implemented during design. In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this recommended
review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.
6.2 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative from
Kleinfelder, including site preparation, placement of all engineered fill and trench backfill,
construction of slab and roadway subgrades, and all foundation excavations. The purpose of
these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity to observe the soil conditions,
encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in
this report to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or
construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein.
25423/DBA3R04!
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Joe
Page 31 of34
March 18,2003
p~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k.~ KLEINFELDER
7 LIMITATIONS
This preliminary report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Rainbow Canyon
Development, LLC and their agents for specific application to the proposed Rainbow Canyon
Shopping Center retail development in Temecula, California. The findings, conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We should
review the final location map and grading plans to verify that our borings were properly located,
and to develop recommendations for additional exploration, if appropriate, and to provide
additional information.
The scope of our geotechnical services did not include any environmental site assessment for the
presence or absence of hazardousltoxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or
atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands.
The client has the responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. This report
contains information, which may be useful in the preparation of contract specifications.
However, the report is not designed as a specification document and may not contain sufficient
information for this use without proper modification.
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable
time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on site and off site) or other factors may
change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the
intended use of this report and the nature of the new project, Kleinfelder may require that
additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of
these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability
resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
March 18, 2003 ~
Page 32 of 34
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k'll=) KlEINFElDER
8 REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas F., 2000, FRISKSP, EQFAULT and EQSEARCH, v 3.00, Computer Programs.
California Department of Water Resources, 2003, Historical Data by Well (Web Site), State Well
No.08S02W20E001S, Historical High Measurement on October 30,1948, well located 8000
feet east of site, up gradient, within Temecula Creek Drainage.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of Calif ami a Special Studies Zones Map,
Pechanga Quadrangle.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of California Special Studies Zones Map,
Temecula Quadrangle.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-003.
City of Temecula, Public Safety Element, November 9,1993.
EnGEN, 2002, Geotechnical Report and Compaction Test Results, Rough Grading Operations,
Pala Rainbow Development, South Side of Highway 79 South, East of Existing Pala Road,
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T1956-C, dated May 14,
2002.
EnGEN, 2000, Geotechnical/Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Structures, South Side of
Highway 79 South, East of Existing Pala Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
California, Project Number: TI956-C, dated February 28, 2000.
FEMA, 2003, Map Service Center (web site), Map Panel 0607420010B.P. January 20, 1996.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
Page 33 of 34
March 18,2003 Ao
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
*
I
I
I.
I
il
I .'
il
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KLEINFELDER
Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., 2000, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia: Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, California
Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, supplemented through 1999, as in
CDMG CD 2000-03.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source
Zones in the State of California and Adjacent portions of Nevada, for the 1997 Uniform
Building Code.
Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in
Southern Riverside County, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 131.
Riverside, County of, Transportation and Land Management Agency, 1997, Environmental
Hazards Map, June 10, 1997.
Shlemon, Roy J., and Davis, Paul, 1992, Ground Fissures in the Temecula Area, Riverside
County, California, pps 275-288, in Pipkin, Bermard W. and Proctor, Richard J. Eds.,
Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California.
Ziony, Joseph 1., and Jones, Lucile M., 1989, Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978-84
Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Field Studies Map, MF-1964.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Ine
Page 34 of 34
March 18, 2003 A \
:'~~~:~-:~:t~'::tl?j~:' :'.~,~~!~',:'.~ .~~.,.,
lJ
,<<,',
,',
:;lt~~
~~1~~~ ~{
::~f~\: ff
- .>
,,-..
:'2
;
;:,
"<
:,
.",,;
.,
,','
',."
",
; ,;,> .;,{~~~~: ,.
,. "',',
.<:-~.~
..{:- "
,;,
,
';.
...t
A.i--
[I
I
I
,
I
(
-
l
I
t
l
"'--?~~2c:,(~~~~i-~~~-;;'~~:'''1 - '1"",~ ')' ',',- , ---~~-'....."_~/ ',-v;....~
/ --,~...-l,~ ~\rr-"'(A'~-q:H.j=4~~;; -~; er,:' ~-;:-:.:'ii?:::!:{<~' - 1 ~.-~~~ (~~ '. ' /~ --- .:: '- -- <'--"" ~-.
/, ,/~.J ...-J~,"\,:--,,"?) r. .,..:)7(,~il:-.- 1:: l.." :'l. ".,::-..:.-)ff[$ \;.; ~ r___ ~ -- - \\ - _/ - -, , - .=--=---- -.... --- ,
;Jl@;~,:_n---=_ ':';S'::...-::~~/':~>.'1..,~~:. \\...~?/: _r-~_"->-~~t:~~-~-- __~"'~ --;Z;~Js'(i'3i;;::Sf:~;;;L',Y!,,?-;-,r;-;::~;,...>
~ __"''''~ '/_ ..";":'''_. . ..... ,4. '. ,,~ __,.....,'_ _,",_,;>", ,_,_ 11..---. _~ 1, - ....,..-- N ,_"" .... '- - ~
l.../ I" - '-,,",~-,'l; ".'~,,-'- -'~ ...' ';:'- -.-.::--1') j -",""',~ '<" ~'''''~--''<../''''''- V O~'---'''''.'--'''' -
'_ ~:~~-'JS~~>;':~'-:;~?:;;:~('::'~~\~'_I;~/jJ~:.. _:::._~ ,~~~~ S{'_, 1 :....'~-_ -~~11~1.~-,~,~~~~;~J>'i~\i:~i::~%""~~~:3't::
. ' , ,,\OS'" ,"I-<"'.:";,"''''"~'N~_ ~,,~,~~C' :~, L" '~":'"j~i'~""~ ,~",_:<.:=, "~.';:~ '<,';;;''>;;'11
~'''P }~J/jl~____.">\~~"""" ~,:-,.:..,,: ;-b-"""-='.7 1:.h'--::;',5:I,j..:~~"":;" "";-R>-?'"<"----'---:-._,;:.~::-'~~:.:.I \, '-~\~....~...... \'
t>,F "-"i' j," '....',\' '-' '.'" ~ I~_-, - - --~" ~=" "';;=:/f:::.='~ ;:.-:::-.....] ........~."-r.
~~,~, "~~" ~~~,-:~;~, (!i~~~~ ,'J~;~~;::t~~0~'~, ,~~~,,~~{/~~~':~~f,1'~~~if~,t~~~;::'::\,S:~f~~~:,,~:j~
. .>#..., '" _~" ' _ , ,_--, "" ~ _ , ,.::., ,.-- _ ~,y-.. ~"-" _ " ""'....' _:'1 "'''
. ,'.>.""'~~I ' emeeula"" ~o'1! '7'- ~ ""I> ", '.. t:~S\. .~;!f', ~"'. ....'O',,,"'K" ,. II" '-~~,c..:, .~'~"'c ,'---<;, ,..."
. ',~''''' ~j.( ^'tr~":)'--"C\'C L" ';.'1 -:8,\..,._.,,,, -,' -'."'~\-" -"""1 'p ~ ,'" ,- ","<" "
.~..:' ;r;-\;:: ..."'....)w I ' l+~ ~'~;J~ '\":,':;' ,~~:;;:>;:,~:'1:~_:,-.,,~~:' 'J'<~/;"":.O'"'";.~-~.('~.~~r:::::~':t_:-~;~-:l- ~\"f i'/;I,-'~ "~O 'j..,
\. ~K"~. :'//,~ z...., /;1' ,_~,i', ,- _1:=- -:-~'\, -- :;::-~N' -r ....,.~~..--~-~G'?I '___I' ::-....--/??"r<~-'-, .,r?(;:::\.-..)/ ,'..,.....~ ~_l '~C;1c:::--.\
~ 4 . -, " "" l}.., "-' -->"!t .//....., , '" "" ",..~- ~--- FJ- '-"./ ,.... '/~'~ -~?- ~J' .- -..;:-. '.
.;y'.~...4..- t ,~-' "'- ~/1 __ . '----~.E-' ~->:::r._,..'jf:-~_~':.:::f::..1l.!"""-'''\~''\.-,\._'"'''''' ~'/~ j,~ (~I.-..P""~''--;I--' //)1'
. 7"-..... ",-' '-,', ~~.... "--........:::;',' J~,..,.,'A'~ _"-----"<9"',._"""-"~C--~~__.ll_-~~ ...-;>-.... ),'KI'\.J'~"~"'--'-~ , ";.J~"
, [.' ~ I J I 'In" --' '.+,: ",'".;Ii ,_ _,I ,-" ""'_ "".?:<--:>:~,-;,~~,~, ,-,~.:::: :f3;~"-- "':-\I;--~~~i{\ ," \(:-:....-"';-. --.'-/ ;0.'<"/
, '.' '1/''',' (, >...F.\... _d X/ .,..."..... ~-- --;1;: J...' , - "II.:~' I,-r;~ ~.\ ~"""\ll, ....;'-.:..:::; /_' ,(
t:~. ", t/.<'r \;. J ~'~It.8~" ~'2c";;;,:,,,.:~;Jt'((1JP.:ii~ '1' S;;'~"~! ,te:V/;f~;:A~l:)>':'J'
~\" ~",,', \'l~";:~~f.?--::;-'\'1:') ~ r'-1' ::;'b{;"~"'.1";'/\_-';;;::-~- !~~~~~~~/~~- _.:':'''J1If~ty j ~~;)("t ;f;.~-.)r(<'"'--r~~j,::;,.
.'\~,"'" ~ ",'.', '/'",," '1- .OLA" ~,r"...,(), l'c"",'''200,-'''''''':-'' ,'';:i-'i'-''-f}'' / ,~,{",,",;,A "BiJ7- \ ,-"" '~"c:..
~ ;.. ~' ,~', ~ '...... ',nWc:r"~ ';::-"jl\.r-:-~ '*~'-~'_"'l~--'''';.i,\'"'1/......~tq-" .....~O' )' 1f1\::~-I-"-'r' '/--:'--0
~,\\"~ '?J' ~ '::;'J/,'--'~\'- l..!:e:_rl\~,' ;~;_~"J'::~'=~~,,-:.;.~-~>::-~...;,-:~::;jISAi)~~JJ--J"-=:'~f;')I"" ,:-\5-;~'I:--~.!;':j :::
d" Id, \": ~_~--......., \ ,\\~..k""". v,--- '=:-," -~ - ~~.1;\t,,,,,,/,Y r~'~:::'y,t.... 'l..,'-' .....--r' ....~"'
;!-~ _~ ~ " < W - ::':~~-Jy~~--:"'-II r~'''-~~':-t:." .....,~....j- -7_!l.......'\':-.2:;:--:::'-J".....<...-..:i$~ If __'LJ f:.:'-;:'~'~~?) ....~~.~'.-J-. ;:', (y\'-.;,
_'::~-,\ ':,~-~ ~ '>/ :.0--- \\"~, /....."'" \~-C.l,,','f-:j..~ I~'-'-..!..'-""YL~~I -./,.:.";~.':..i.:.JI,..r.v"-'I....._r/~,"-~_"'---' .;: '1
"-'1/ "\ \\ .\ \ . ,10 -..~, I / \._' '" ;,~...:.:.,:;;:';.J) ~ ,'v'-"'~~' .-/f; L' '1/,: ~.-~~->> f~~""'-~-"" -.. f \
:2:"'k'1 \. M~' '. \ 'Ii C/-'u" .1~,>'~d~,,_~.:.;,X'0't;o";:':I"'i'5i~~'i-' "I~~i~<:8"')~< ';:::;~?': ~\
'~""-'IP 'I~ \ ~ ~-'l. jL ....'"1.~ . '~~~,J l'2.'F--..h~J'#.-,:"= "'--J"<:h~ 'r="~. ;,f/I/i:c';:0..')j~1 I l' ~
'1l' \ ,;". .~' '---,7' '-,~ :"~./ .~-_,'"c;l~i.;0'!IrY'~?l))~~.c!.ps:{,i'?,/<(~';f,\'-!i<i(;.> .I /l\"
(1l~~,\ ~ ~ \,', 1, '-,--,-l~;- ~.%..': \,0--'t,2!,,~1l~\~I:{,m,~~\u~\g':.'ft>if(.~...~~;:,"}.d(-" ~ ~
~\(q;;'\ \, ~, ' I ~ I '-i' I ,.....-~'\:t>o r:7-'<::i~~ - '; "l1~~I~~i*j(.~i\?)~1c~)(~<::::~ 'l-::) / 'i;d ),<~'),o:,~;:.!/ ff ,~ ) ~
"~_~"\~" .\~'v'f j ,\ j'.~" r,:1" . - L', \j'\ ~)J!I{~:~IJ;?:::?~.....d;1i '~-.l ..:..~,-.t.~-...;\v:.,. {r \-l
"",.'11',<',: \ ',0\, . \. z, ~ '1' e' + ,- _.- < ~ " '_' 1'.tV(".Fi:'f-",~Li1"~:Jc/"')/',' (';S{\l)p^~~cJ!f' '/',. ~~~, ^
, , j'" -t - . :-...,L.~ - ~. A'J " ~~~ ~ l' (1lj:~' \.....)I'-.,~"-) ,\1'1 17.' '.;}.(f!.-;}jr;,......~ :1\.... ,~-
',,'\,:l.:.......~.::,~t :/:< [,~~_ '-'" I "',"'-~--' I!fS '~""-~~~/~f.l\Si:r'~r~).~- 0':=::~r~1-~' <.... /~~-.. ./
k;~~ ...~, -2~~\ ~;' ...., :-)~;.., - J' --e7,':<!,'" '--, i ~~~~ 'i v.:-;;=-t-,~';lj'~. h/f~?5~J'f. ;,/ '~""""".6f'. ''--, ,.....-'
~Xi:"\-211'-':.,-{...:::::..~,~~lJJC _~ ~- . 4 ~ )1 .......~ \....~J/',....r:=:,::~i9~r-r.;..<v~.>;o.... ,,~., ~
~ ~'.\\ '::;";1 ;, '1,"'1,.' . .' ",' I ~A, /0<;:- t, (!/'<:-..........., '~<x~~~T:0~~t/({!'::J.~ !:-- --. .
.y',{<~,,~ ;/, ~ ,\ 'II ',BM 014 ~ '- 1-__ ~ I .. Jf' .~~ . _ : ,,-.r'~/}\ \ .~~~ .~!j-:%:;a:d.::- ~ / -
~.\:.,,\l.' "'~,j"." ,__r__~ t:"~~" Ir"'-~- ....... ,," "1"i'-':....'" 00.-'< ~)'I~~r", ~-~ ...-
,":>"',)1 f('(:\'~Gi~ -'~' ;?',' 'f! '-<~~, ',':,<__JU'>A'~:""'~"i rV------ ' ..-<-
r..l.J(l~~-, --:<- 'eo . f J".i' . -"""'-~l I IlN:'-..' .~~).>=-?--- , I ~ /
\' f{\ ~~:.~'~~~~0.:::Zr-,~ ~tatro, . '\~ g -';'-.:s~~ ;;,:J -,I ........",,-....r-~~--~. , _.,..~....-
" , , "=., _'_ ' /,ck 0 ~'l!T-,--,L! ~~~- ~"-. /
-','\' :::"'~",":;-v'''' -....._.:--... \' 7 '''\-. '" 'f" -,; I!--=-=-:;----~----'- -~
"I ~~""~.........~....,~\', ~:...\ '.r "'"",----"""", I, -;:.... "till, .; j ,:;->:::....../ \ ,..-....---; ...-
~.~' \:.~,'~~":.~,}";,~=~~X' ,~......., .'\ ':-' _~4-S!I-F~ ~A >nJ '-'ill: r:, ...- .~~.....,.,.... ,/ i./I'-;.;?-- - ,
,,"ll('O."%.,~,~ ~\,,\I', ( "~ 1 lie ~,I ,; f ~--=- \ r ......-'7 p~~
;>:~~';1S/~: "$\~~i{~\ \~i} ;=~'--'f'~t~ ~~ .~-,:~,;;, -~~' ~ .,\.t-.(.:'>;;':<~' /' j'~~~~-
"S~. .f:p:~~~6 \Y~\\"i ~(,:; '. ~...__...f--..' '\"r>-_~ ,,.~ ];1 lJ'gc~~! : 1,"1 ",'~\ C. _ ''';:7" r: \~""""'/,.J
\~~..~;j!,!:S%P-l ..... \'.' /J1:?;;:_ I ......,-~..,,.,~""_ BM:>'Jj~;' ~JJ~:~-''''!g,~:::~___L__/'>'7- .. ':"- .-' ::.- C~~:
~~r~\':'-'~r~""" . -:.-C-.... I '-..:~1lz '-"'fOOa~'_' './-- r,,:~j..Q~-:'-:~"~\~r-.::--.---neme('JU.~oJ..-:":_---~' 'f ,..-
~sit\8e;:S-:'j~~ \ ~-~~la .</ ,'\OfP Ii ;Q -_....~\ "'-";/ ..----;::.;.'.- -.!,'~~-~~. .:if
~; f~ ~''';:~''''-o/ 1-- -.- I~ 11::>: 1<: r----;/~'" "'_ ,-,;.?;;'Y""';9-
~3!f(-~":-;..r' I---}-"G~f ),,1 Iii ,p^", ';;0 /0 ~~\' '\. (I It -"'~ :.i~'f{f~ ,,~:~
7' ' 1 r1'O""~ , l,f~). ~' \i.c;,~ '>"t;< ffii~tt?,~
~ J \, Course ~v ,.;1 I! ~ ~ l" lii,<< \( ~:~I,i~~ ~f! (e
':I (Q\ I C1l!/ If' r:.__~~__'" ".-t _,,~,=-- /' '\ \... r ..:::;" ~
~fI-:l.... ~ ~ l ~ E it P LY . "F ]~".--~~~ - /' ~*t~~s-:2.~ 1----;:
}\ ~", ?I,f~ II ~1!T: t: ~. ,,61:, / 'fON~'(
\ -'_IN -...... ' ""'----~!, Ii ,q';,. { ". h" I ffi: ~
I' ',., '''''~'' " "~"" ,~,' /I '\,.; e"_~'-<
'jl .......~ .-, ....,.}~, 1"1 "'0<;' _" ... Il I ~....'-......
t',.' ~r-~~ ~:>..a..\.A-\ -m ',,-'t~1 -71i'l-O i~ ',.well / 1--~ I ">-zc---
.,(',>1; ~ +~~."q.._, _ ~ ~~ "I. II 11,g-t-~. p"",-, + / ,,*' / ~
~~"l~ "t' '-, -~~~ ~r !~\ !l it/) t '//)<: *~ I
.....}"", ~ l\\'~-:'- Golf ,t~=,,;l/ _ / I ,1 I
I, ::y;' ' , ",' ,r., f"\ , ,~.--=r..: <>""",- / 'V I
f,,),._~, It," ::,- \'31'.---==:::::::,.-.....---"". ,," "
'\' ,-~ "'<.:,- I - 1;1/ ... 't~;--'- ~_........ &
I"':;, "fDl~l" '" '" -- 't "1 ~ 1~.(,'''''_IO"O '. 11,>/ Ii!
1_;~~~2~'~1' t _JcK~rs::-~, ,....IF ",~IJ:~..l' \'.... ~:::y.... X.,,-/O/F p ~
['~'!' "'"~ I, -~" _ ~ ,=- I "I::.... '-c"-1A' \' '\ ' V
'" >,!-(,::;" .. - \",~-,--- '--1- ,~'~~r -", -./' \ / '"
~-\, \ ;.-J:-:::__- :,,~ ,'~, \I/~l'-\ ' ~- 'L '" ',"
\' .... ~-'I ' ~ J ',\ ~.' '-,n.:.,,"" 1
.""d,_",'0"7'",,~'\i::" ,,,,,,,,./, ~" , .<'
"\): 1~;jYf-'~'i.;'?:";(;--&.! _,.,.......~)- 'j1/ l.t:; " Pc_ - \ -,'" J<.- 'y
,..-\c.r~ ( . -.~ -, ~~' /r'.'t:'!2. I ~~~ .'.....'
J/!i::'" ~P!~.x. (\ -:- 1:!f..(lr..... ...~....J{\~(,. . \./ J,,-,,-,.,::-_,I .,.'
'e>-' ?f;iji~"";"0:'d~)~J;:--:-:~:V"~~)? - , '" V ,').
'-~i~'t"("--\r$..~\\\Jlt,- ' f ~t'lrll~l<'-'f~_~~'_ .... ~:, 7
~(l~':..:.,=- :;___~:/!-(f::Ii..../ ,11[-';',:S:-~')U:.-' ~) (/'--N,. ,'i......- , ''--,---- '
'--"___~'~.,. 'r'::::s...,____=-,,_v-:-,'-<l> -.'
'"7 ~Y ,~^iJ : "rtr'\I' _ /_;,,- .. J<<, __~.-, , /
, " -'-,~' ~:;:~-:.q 1)~;-iJ~';.zt..--, ~.r~~'~~tl;~,-; ~~~ A
\ I '__, ~.,~~ ,~~~~':0~~t~;j"~;\I~'~~~ ./ "-
rv'-~;"f4f~~-:::'\ ~~'- - ~~~~~>'-l\..\'ti"~"''-L( ~ '" ~
\~~ ,~:ftj::::.~'~[,~q!.iJiz~~:- (~~~~~"~"~'~~1.2)-?{ ~~'~2E'\", )/"".::) -
"J, ,?,",--' . ,',;-- ~ ~::"";_,~~,,--, ~"~",--r----:-- ',',
11,0 __ ,. __,)i!J,Ij,~ ,~ ,~,,,..~=~--,_,,~_,,,,,_ -~J ,-, ""0,[,
I
/ kf.
fc;
\// /
/, /'
,~10
...,
..b
..
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
l
I
i
,
I
\
~.
I
I
I
I
<'
",
. -
~
/
I
I
SOURCE: U.$.G.S. 7.5' topographic series. Temeculo and Pechenga. California
quadrangle doted 1968, photorevised 1975.
o
I
FEET
,
2.000
I
KLEIHFELOER
Project: 25423
February 2003
c:
I
PROPOSED RAINBOW CANYON SHOPPING CENTER
SEe and SWC Pechenga Pkwy. and State Hwy. 79
Temeculo, California
LOCATION
MAP
OJ?
---_._~-------------
----~~
I
en
~
rT{
~
o
c:
rT{
~
I
~ ) ~;I
//1- - I
~'.A __>-_00
I - - I
"'J V:> -
~!
. 0
1$/
~/
I
/
-
/
/
I
ff
m_'!2~
~~Gl_
~~~
mijiGl
~o
o
z
.,
-"'1l
~~
"".
.,.
<-.
~
-
~
~
-~~
~~~
ml;fGl
go
I 0
z
- arO& HJ.iivs~a3r~__ _
::::-- ,
--
---------
-- -,
C)
c:
rl\
z
o
s:
Z
m
o~
<0 >
~fr"lJ
~b~~
,,0-<0
>:--lU)x
~OO~
-fir'-<
~"lJ rr1
lJ
0.>
..,
(j
CD
-
-
OJ
-
lJ
0.>
..,
(j
CD
-
o~
~o >-
;t]lrlJ
~b~~
Q~vI~
lioo~
::j~"'TJ'-I
o'il m
Z ~,
I
I '" m
I I I
I ..... ...... f'T1
N 111 X
l-o-~~
z
c \) )>. }>
~ :u '1J -t
i;j ';; :lJ -
o 0 0
o c X Z
." Ul ~
rr1 VI ~
Z 0 m
<i) -
- .-- VI
.~ CD Q
m 0 .--
'" '"
m - OJ
o Z 0
<i) '"
~ r Z
r= 0 <i)
"
m ~ 5
Z 0 "
~ z ~
7- 8 ~
Z '
~ (j) .-
o m ^
~ .Z Ej
'" Z
'0 M
g 5
~ m
-'"
'"
o
o
""
-0
ITS
~
-~
II,,','
.;
;u
m
M
;u
m
Z
"
!OJ
'1J ~-o OJ
.9. 0::0 rn
~ DO rr1
n 0 1l
rt 0.0 ~
VI >
tv UlrTl '1J
y;, ~o L)
",,,~ ;0
(A -f~Z ~
(tin OJ 0
30'0 m
~ g::e 0
,fj-"J 5l ~
o;?~ z
~~ E;
_. m
QoV) r
5'~8 ?o
1l "
3: ~Jl ::!:
o 0 Z -I
..., ......(;1 fT1
n. "
:r IO ijj
t5 ~~~ ~-
o' Z
\..<..I;j .r
r 0
" ~
o
o
'"
'-
'"
'-
o
'"
~
^
M
z
-.,
f'l
5
f'l
'"
-u
r-
o
-i
-U
!j;:
Z
./
~
-
I
,
I
\
I
i
I
I
!
,
I
I
;
I
~
I
i
I
I
i
I,
I
!
I
I
l
I
i
,
i
~
I
,
-
i
I
I
I
k~ KlEINFElDER
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATORY BORINGS
The subsurface exploration program for the proposed project consisted of the excavation and
logging a total of fifteen hollow-stem auger borings with a truck-mounted drill rig. Borings' B-I
through B-Il were drilled on January 10, 2003 and borings B-12 through B-15 were drilled on
March 10, 2003. The drill rig was furnished by Cal Pac Drilling of Calimesa, California. The
borings were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 612 to 51-v:' feet below existing
grades. All borings were backfilled using the soil from cuttings and tamped when the drilling
and excavating was completed. Plate 2 presents the approximaTe locations of the borings.
, The Logs of Borings are presented as Figures A-2 through A-16. An explanation to the logs is
presented as Figure A-I. The Logs of Borings describe the earth materials encountered, samples
obtained and show field and laboratory tests performed. The logs also show the location, boring
number, drilling date and the name of the logger and drilling subcontractor. The borings were
logged using the Unified Soil Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown
on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual.
Bulk and intact samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings.
A California Sampler was used to obtain relatively undisturbed samples of the soil encountered.
This sampler consists of a 3-inch O.D., 2A-inch LD. split barre[ shaft that is driven a total of 12-
inches into the soil at the bottom of the boring. The soil was retained in one-inch brass rings for
laboratory testing. An additional two inches of soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe
and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. For borings B-1 through B-ll, the
sampler was driven using a 140-pound down-hole hammer falling 30-inches, For borings B-12
through B-15, an auto hammer was used to drive the sampler. The total number of hammer
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches is termed the blow count (N) and is
recorded on the Logs of Borings.
Bulk samples of the surface soils were obtained directly from the auger blades and the test pits.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 1003, Kleinfelder, Inc
A-I
March ] 8, 2003
f>lo
I
I
I
I
-
I
i
,
-
!
I
I
i
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled: Water Depth:
Drilled By: Date Measured:
Drilling Method: Reference Elevation:
Logged By: Datum:
0 ~ '" 1> ~
c~ 0 t-i:
z ::>~ -' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 'iij ~ "0
c 0- c "'~
0 '" .!l! 0--""" .~ AND '" LC C
:'::;___.l:: a. '" .32 0
Q. ;0;0 .c Cl~ :;:.(()
o~~ E E Q. CLASSIFICATION - .~ t: .-~
> '" 0. 0.2 0 CO "0",
"''''''' 0 0 -(0 L Cl~ 00 "0",
w~ Vl Vl ClJ~ 0 ::;;0 <0-
1 6 108 10 OS, SE
.~. ."
,,'
2 12 .' GS
5
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (6) (7)
10
NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION
1.
SAMPLE
Split Spoon
Drive Sample
Bulk Sample
Tube Sample
- Graphical representation of sample type os shown below.
St(mdord Penetration Test Sample (SPT)
- California Sample (Col)
- Obtained by collecting cuttings in 0 plastic bog
- Shelby/Pitcher Tube Sample
!TIll
IDIII~
o
2.
3.
SAMPLE NO. - Sample Number
BLOWSjFT - Number of blows required to odvan~ sampler 1 foot (unless 0 lesser distance is specified).
Samplers in general were driven into the soil at the bottom of the hole with 0 standard (140 Ib) hammer "dropping 0 standard 30 inches.
Drive somples collected in buck.et auger borings may be obtained by dropping non-standard 'lI'eight from variable hei9ht~.
When 0 SPT sampler is used the blow count conforms to ASTM 0-1586.
SCRjRQO - Sample Core Recovery (SCR) in percent (X) ond Rock Quality Designation (ROD) in percent (Yo). ROD is defined os the
percentage of core in eoch run which the spacing between naturol fractures is gre<lter thon 4 inches. Mechonical breok:l of the core
ore not considered.
GRAPHIC LOG - Standard symbols for soil cnd rock types, as shown on plate A-.l b.
GEOlECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Soil - Soil classifications are bosed on the Unified Soil ClassifICation System per ASTM D--2487, and designations include consistency, moisture,
color and other modifie~. Field descriptions ho....e been modified to reflect results of laboratory ornllyses where deemed appropriate.
Rod - Rock c1ossificalions generally include a rock type. color, moisture, minerol constituen~, degree of weathering. alteration, ond
the mechanical properties of the rock. Fabric, lineotions, bedding spacing, foliotions, and degree of cementation ore olso presented
where appropriate.
Description of soil origin or rock formation is placed in brackets ot the beginning of the description where applicable, far example, Residual Soil.
DRY DENSITY, MOISTURE CONTENT: As estimated by laboratory or field testing.
4.
5.
6.
7.
properties other than the above):
SG - SpecifIC Gravity
HA - Hydrometer Analysis
AI.. - Atterberg Limits
FN - R-Value
CN - Consolidation
CU - Consor.dation Undrained Trioxial
CO - Consolidated Drained Triaxial
ADOrrlOt-tA.L TESTS - (Indicates sample tesled for
MAX - Maximum Dry Density
GS - Groin Size Distribution
SE - Sand Equivalent
EI - Expansion Index
CHEM - Sulfote and Chloride Content, pH, Resistivity
PM - Permeability
UU - Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
pp - Pocket Penetrometer
WA - Wash Analysis
OS - Direct Shear
CP - Collop:;e Potential
UC - Unconfined Compression
T - lorvone
6.
ATITIUDES - Orientation of rock discontinuity observed in bucket auger boring or rock core, expressed in strike/dip and dip ongle,
respectively, preceeded by 0 one-letter symbol denoting nature of discontinuity os shown below.
8: Bedding Plane
J: Jointing
c: Contact
F: Fault
s: Shear
In. KLEINFELDER
PLATE
EXPLANATION OF LOGS
A-1 CA1
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
,
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
::<
~ ~iO
g ~n:~
8 <,t=:Vi
z zS~
~ ::<~in
~ ~~o
lQ ~s~
~ OQ::'"
o ,,~
u ~
J
~ Oaw
: ~~"
z :ZVl~
~ ~"':
w ~"Ig
~ 03"-
"jji
~
,,~~
~~ffi
?=~i
e
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSltlCATION SYSTEM (ASTM 0-2487)
SECONDARY DIVISIONS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS
GROUP SYMBOLS
ow
00 '=> WELl GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, UTTlE OR NO FINES
0.0.0.
~
ziQ~:<
~."-z'"
~~8~FG
< Wl...;: 15Vl
~gjO~~:,
:<~L..:S
;l'
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LESS 'THAN)
5% FlNES
GRAVEl
WT1H
FlNES
CLEAN
SANDS
(USS THAN)
5" FlNES
SANDS
WT1H
FlNES
GP
.~.~.~ POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEl-SAl'40 MIXTURES, 1J1TLE OR NO FINES
~ SILlY GRAVElS, GRAVEL--sp.ND-SILT MIXTURES
7.17~ CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY t.AlxnJRES
w
::<iQ~:<
Vlx8;i:~
O~ O~-
zl.<,J1.....j::. Vl
~c::O~ ~
o ~ '
:::E~l.o.~
;l'
o
::<~
1'!:5
~u
in
o
91- U11l)
~:::;:lflVl~
o~-w
:J~ ~
GM
GC
sw
WELl GRAD(() SANDS, GRAVEllY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO nNES
POORLY GRADED $.ANDS OR GRAVEllY SANDS. UTTLI OF: NO FINES
o
::<~
1'!:5
~u
in
Qt:: ~g
5a~i5~
:J~ ~
"
SP
SM
SC
....' "
.....
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
S6.NDSTONES
SILTSTONES
ClAYSTONES
Ul.lESTONES
SHALE
ML
SILTY SANDS. SAND-SilT ~~[XTURES
ClAYEY SANDS, SANr-ClA''f MIXTURES
INORG.'IN1C SILTS, VERY FlNE smDS, ROCK flOUR, SILTf OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PlASTICITY, GRAVEl.lY ClAYS,
SANDY CLAYS, SilTY CLAYS, lEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SilTS AND QRG.ANIC SILT-CLAYS OF lOW PlASTlCTTY
INORG.A.NIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDS OR
SILTS, ElASTIC SilTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PlASl1crTY, rAT ClAYS
CL
OL
I I I
MH
CH
OH
///://f;(/o
/f//fdf/
ORGANIC ClAYS OF MEOIL1M TO HIGH PlAST1C1TY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, MUCK AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
SS
SH
II
~
cs
LS
SL
CONSISTENCY CRITERIA BASED ON FIEL.D TESTS
~.
CONSISTfNC'(- TORVANE POCKET ..
RElATIVE DENSITY - COARSE - GRAIN SOIl FINE-GRAIN SOll PENETROMErER . NUMBER OF BLOWS
OF 140 POUND H.lMMER
UNDRAINED UNCONFINED rAUJNG 30 INCHES
RELAlNE SPT . REtATM SPT TO DRrv'[ A 2 INCH 0.0.
DENSIT'( (I blows/tt) DENSITY (X) CONSISTENCY (I blows/ft) SHEAR COMPRESSIVE (1 Jl8 INCH \.0.)
STRENGTH (hf) STRENGTH (hf) SP BARREl SAMPLER
Very Loose o - 15 Very Soft (ASTt04-1586 STANDARD
<4 <2 <0.13 <0.25 PENETRATION TEST)
Loose 4 - 10 15 - 35 So" 2 - 4 0.13 - 0.25 0.25 - 0_5
.. UNCONFINED
l.4edium Stiff 4 - 8 0.25 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 COt.4PRESSlVE
l.4i!Klium Dense 10 - 30 35 - 65 STRENGTH IN
Stiff 8 - 15 0,5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 TONS/Sa.FT.
Dense 30-50 65 - B5 READ FROM POCKET
Very Stiff 15 - 30 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 PENETROMmR
Very Dense >50 85 - 100 Hard >30 >=~.O >4.0
DESCRIPTlON
Dry
Moist
Wet
MOISTURE CONTENT
FlElD TEST
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Damp but no visible water
CEMENTATION
DESCRIPTION
FlELD TEST
Weakly
Crumbles or breaks with hondiing or slight finger pressure
~oderately
Crumbles ar breaks with cons:derable finger pressure
Visible Iree woter, usually soil is below water table
Strongly
Will not. crumble or break with finger pressure
IOIIKLEINFELDER
PLAIT
EXPLANATION OF LOGS
A-1B
Ao~
I~
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
~
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
,
I
i
I
I
-
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
1/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Depth
Date Measu
Elevation:
Reference I
~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
~
~~ ...., '" AND
..., 0 0
" " 0 H
0 ... z "'" CLASSIFICATION
." 0'- 0
..., ~ ~ u . ."
. ..., '" .... .-< ~ '"
> ...., ~ ~ ~ 0 '"
~ . '" 0'-< .
.... '" . ....'" "
., -Q '" '" , "'- "
1010
5
1000
7 40/6"
39
1005
2
10
3 28
50/5"
15
4 24
995
20
5 27
990
25
6 23
985
30
ARTIFICIAL FILL (An:
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine to me
some coarse gramed sand, dense.
-- Abrupt color change to gray, increase, in
sand, mIcaceous,
-- Fine grained, trace medium to coarse gr
-- Mottled brown and dark gray-brown, tra
grained sand and clay,
, ,
-- At 25 feet a sanitary sewer line belong in
Municipal Water District was encountered
ALLUVIUM ~
Sand (SP): lig t gray-brown, wet, [me to
rained trace coarse rained sand. ve!Y..ill:
Total depth 30.5 feet.
Boring terminated due to encountering uti
Boring left open and barricaded to allow r
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
Drafted by:~Re\'iewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
>30.5
red: 1/1 0/03
1012
)atum: MSL
...,
'"
'"
." ~
~ - ~
'" .... ~
. ~'"
...,- . " 0'-
." '" " ..., o II} fJl S
" 0 " " ..-1 +J 01
P 8 ..., . +l ll) 1j 04
. ..., ..-1 1Il...-t
>. ." " '0 ... .
~ o 0 '0 ."
Q :>:u .; "'
dium grained,
fine grained 124 10.1
ained sand. 96 10.2
ce coarse 109 lOA
g to Eastern
medium
'nse.
lity.
epair by EMWD.
yon S'hopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-2
B-1 A.~
I
,
I
I
I
I
~
I
i
I
,
I
,
,
I
i
I
i
i
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
1/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
k SOIL DESCRIPTION
m .:iJ
m ~ "' AND
~ " .... 0 0
" " 0 ..,
0 " z "'" CLASSIFICATION
.rl 0--" "
.... :iJ", m m u . .rl
. '" .-< ~ '"
> m.... 0. 0. ~ 0 Ii'
m mo. . . 0'-<
.-< '" m . . .-<.!l k
'" -0 " <Il "'- "
]010
5
]005
3 53
43
]0
2 37
1000
15
ARTIFICIAL FILL (At):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine to III
sand, some coarse sand, trace gravel, dens
-- Increase in fine grained sand, micaceou
asphalt debris.
ALLlNJUM (Qal):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine grain
hard.
Total depth 16,5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >16.5
ured: 1/10/03
1012
Datum: MSL
....
'"
"'
.rl "
m m
l< .. .-< m
- . k"
....- m " "--..
.rl '" k.... o II) C1J e
" " " " .rl .... 0.
DE; .... m +I ell "O~
..... .,.,j Ql..-i
:>. .rl d '0 " m
k o 0 '0 .rl
0 :>:u <( ..
edium grained
e.
s, gravel sized 118 9.7
ed, micaceous, 96 16.1 WA, CP
12l 8.7
yon Shopping Cent"r PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-3
B-2 ~C
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-1
I
I
I
\
I
,
I
;
\
,
I
;
-
,
I
I
I
I
i
I
,
,
,
I
I
.
i
I
\
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
1/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
~ m:iJ
~~ '" AND
.., 0 0
a a 0 H
0 E-< Z ~'" CLASSIFICATION
'M 0..... 0
.., ..'" ~ ~ u m 'M
~ .... .... . '"
> ~.., ~ ~ . 0 '"
~ ~'" 0.... ~
.... "'~ ....,Q "
.. -0 to to 1Il- "
1010 X
~
.f
~
--
5 57
1005
]0
1000
6 5013"
3 36
15
4 44
995
20
5
39
50/3"
990
25
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Ai):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine to m
some coarse gramed sand, dense,
-- Some gravel.
-- Slightly mottled - brown and gray-brow
-- Dark brown, increase in fine grained sa
ALLUVIUM (Oal):
Silty Sand (SM): gray-brown, moist, fine
Sand (SP): light gray-brown, moist, mech
some coarse grained sand, dense.
)
\
-- Light olive, medium to coarse grained,
iron oxide staining, occasional silty lense
-- Li ht a -brown.
Total depth 25.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >25.5
ured: 1/10/03
1012
Datum: MSL
..,
'"
'"
'M a
~ - ~
s: ~ .... ~
~ "..
..,~ ~ a 0.....
'M '" ".., o CIl tr.l a
a 0 ~ a 'M .., '"
p.!;< .., ~ +' In "0 Ol
..., .ri Ql..-i
>< 'M a "'E-< ~
" o 0 ~ 'M
0 :>:u ..
edium grained,
WA,DS,MAX
n. 124 10.1
nd. 102 6.9
grained, dense.
109 6.8
. ilm grained, - - - -
seams of heavy 107 4.0
s, trace fine roots.
r
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-4
B-3 5\
Drafted by:--Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-1
I
I .,
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
-
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
III 0/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
~
~~ .+> '" AND
+> 0 0
" " 0 H
0 H Z "'" CLASSIFICATION
." 0'- u
+> . ~ u . ."
~ +>.c rl rl ~ .c
> ~+> 0, 0, ~ 0 0,
~ ~ 0, s ~ Orl ~
rl '" . ~ rl'" "
., -Q <Il '" "'- "
1010
5
]005
50
10
2 36
1000
15 3 30
995
20 :'.>'.,
4 30
50/5"
ARTIFICIAL FILL (At):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine to me
trace coarse grained sand, micaceous, dens
-- Darker brown, increase in silt.
ALLUVIUM (OaI~
Sandy Silt (ML): rown, moist, stiff, tra
grained sand.
Sand (SP): light brown, moist, medium g
coarse grained sand, very dense.
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, micaceol
trace cia . ve dense.
Total depth 21.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
th: >21.5
ured: III 0/03
1012
Datum: MSL
+>
.c
'"
." "
. - .
:< '" rl .
~ "'"
+> - . c u'-
." '" " +> o r1J t/] e
" u " " ." +> 0,
p~ +> . +J II) '00-4
.+> .,-l 4I.--t
>< ." " " H .
" o 0 " ."
Q :>:u <( ..
dium grained,
e.
112 7.7
109 3.2 WA,CP
ce medium
102 15.1 WA,CP
-----------
rained, some
-----------.
IS, fine grained, ,t
yon Shopping Cent"r PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-5
B-4 ~z.,
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I l ~
I
,
I
,
i
I
!
I
,
,
I,
I
-
I
I
I
i
I
.
I
I
I
,
I
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
1/l0/03
Ca1 Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
.
· 'i! m" '" AND
g; , " 0 0
" " 0 ,.,
0 .. z ,,, CLASSIFICATION
'j 0'- "
Z" . . u m ...
. .... .... . "
> ." ~ ~ . 0 '"
. . '" 0.... .
.... " . ....'" "
'" -Q m " "'- "
1010
5
1005
43
10
2 28
50/5" .
1000
15
3 61
995
20
4 55
990
25 5 23
985
,',
30 6 30
50/3" ....
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist to very m
medium gramed, some coarse grained san
medium dense.
-- Some gravel, nail in tip of sampler.
-- Bit chatter.
-- Gravel sized asphalt debris.
-- Color change to gray,
-- Dark gray, moist, fine grained, micaceo
ALLUVIUM tOal):
Sand (SP): hg t gray-brown, moist, med
trace coarse grained sand, very dense,
Clay (CL): green-gray, moist, with silt, \
SaDd~p~l~ht~ow~moG(meilillint
very dense,
Total depth 31 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
HI KLEIN FELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >31
ured: 1/10103
1012
Datum: MSL
"
.<:
'"
... "
. - .
t'< '" .... .
. "'"
,,- . " "'-
... " "" o 0'1 rn e
" -~ ' C .r-i ~ Ol
D_ " . +J III 'OJ)..
m" ..-l Ql.-i
i:i' ... c " ... .
o 0 " ...
Q :>:u <( '"
oist, [me to
d, trace gravel,
122 6.2
liS, very dense. 109 12.4
,
ium grained, 106 2,3
------------ 83 30.3
'ery stiff.
------------
o coarse grained,
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-6
B-5 :5~
Drafted by:~1Zeviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-1
I
; -!,.
I
!
I
I
I
,
I
!
I
i
[
I
,
,
I
i
I
i
I
,
,
*
i
,
I
[
I
,
I
I
I
Date Drilled: 1/1 0/03
. Excavated By: Cal Pac Drilling
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger 8"
Logged By: D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
~ SOIL DESCRIPTION
G
~~ . " '" AND
.... 0 0
" " 0 "
0 H :>; "" CLASSIFICATION
." 0'- 0
" "'" G G U . ."
,. .... .... . .a
> G.... '" '" . 0 '"
G G '" ~ ~ 0.... ,.
.... " G .....Q ~
., -0 U) U) lll- "
-
- ]010 -
-
-
511
1005 -
-
-
10- 2
ARTIFICIAL FILL (AD:
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine to m
some coarse gramed sand, trace gravel, m
ALLUVIUM (Oal):
Silty Sand (SM): dark gray, slightly m
micaceous, carbonate filaments, dense.
; ,
52
44 '{
-- Gray, dense, decrease in silt as boring d
-1000 -
-
-
15
. ,-------------------------
:1':::< Sa~d (SP): gray-brown mottled with iron
':: ,:< gramed, mIcaceoUS, dense.
3 39 ,'...:
Total depth 16.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
OIS
th: >16.5
ured: 1/10/03
1012
Datum: MSL
"
.a
'"
." "
. - .
t<, '" .... .
,. ~'"
,,- . " 0-...
." " ~.... o C1 tI) I'!
" 0 " " o..t ~ ~
::>~ " . +l Ul "'Cl~
..... .rl Ql rl
" ." " 'tl H G
~ o 0 ~ ."
0 :>:u "' ,
edium rained,
edium ense.
t, fine grained,
114 9.5 WA,CN
epth increases. 98 14.2
.-----------
oxide, fine
98 10.3
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-7
B-6 5L\
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I
I
I
I
-
i
I
I
I
I
I
l
i
I
I
i
I
,
i
I
,
*
,
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
III 0/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
. ...
· 1l '" AND
~ " .., 0 0
a a 0 .,
0 .. z " '" CLASSIFICATION
." 0'- "
.... ..'" . . u . ."
" .... .... ~ '"
> ..., 0. 0. ~ 0 0.
. . 0. e ~ 0'" "
... '" . . .....0 "
., -0 " <Il "'- t'J
1010
5
1005
31
10 3 39
: "
JOOO : "
: .'
:
,
15 4 69
ARTIFICIAL FILL (An:
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine to m
trace coarse grained sand and trace gravel
ALLUVIUM (Oal):
Silty Sand (SM): tan, moist, fine grained
gramed sand, medium dense.
-~AJg~ffi~t_________________
Sand (S1'): gray brown, moist, fine graine
dense.
-- Medium grained, trace coarse grained s
Total depth 16.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
IfI KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Ca
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >16.5
'ured: 1/10/03
1012
Datum: MSL
..,
'"
'"
." a
~ - .
~ .... .
" ~..
....- . a 0'-
." '" ~.., o III CflES
a " " a ." .., 0.
::>~ .., . +l Cll '0 0..
. .., .ri al r-l
>< ." a -00< .
~ o 0 ~ ."
0 :<:u "'
edium grained,
, medium dense.
, trace medium 94 3.7 WA,CN
EI
101 8,9
-----------
d, some silt,
and. 109 3.2
I
nyon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-a -5
B-7 S
Reyiewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
Drafted bY'
I
i
.'
I
I
-
,
I
,
I
!
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
III 0/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
.
~~ .., '" AND
., 0 0
c C 0 H
0 .. z "" CLASSIFI CATION
.e 0-'" "
., ",c . . u . .e
.. ... ... ~ ,C
> .., ~ ~ ~ 0 0.
. .0. 0'" ..
M ". M.Q "
., -Q '" '" lIl- t!>
]010
5 34
1005
, .'
"
10 ,
2 37 , .'
"
] 000 , "
"
, ..
15 , ..
3 61
ARTIFICIAL FILL (An:
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine grain
ramed sand and avel medium dense.
ALLUVIUM COal):
Silty Sand (SM): gray-brown with iron ox
slightly moist, fine grained, micaceous, m
Sand (SP): gray-brown with iron oxide st
fme grained, dense,
-- Increase in coarse particles.
-- Light gray-brown, fine to medium grain
-- Medium to coarse grained.
Total depth 16.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered,
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >16.5
ured: 11l0/03
1012
Datum: MSL
..,
,C
'"
.e C
. .
~ ... M .
- ~ "'"
..,- . "-...
.e " " .., o OJ Ul E
C " " C .rt +J III
D~ .., . +J III .tH4
. .., ... . M
'" .e C " .. .
" o 0 " .e
Q :>:u -: ..
ed, trace coarse
ide nodules,
edium dense.
98 5.0 WA,CP
------------
aining, moist,
95 7.0
ed. 103 11.4
F
yon Shopping Cent"r PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-9
B-8 ,~
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I
I
i
I
-
I
i
I
I
I
-
;
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
i
,
I
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
III 0/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Measl
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
~
~~ . .., '" AND
.., 0 0
" " 0 H
0 '" z """ CLASSIFICATION
.rl 0..... 0
.., ~ ~ u . .rl
.. ..,'" .-\ .-\ ~ '"
> ~.., 0. 0. ~ 0 0.
~ ~ '" ~ ~ 0.-\ ..
.-\ "" ~ .-\,Q "
'" -0 '" '" lll- "
?:.1
1010
~
~,
oF
~
5
1005
22
2
30
10
3
ARTIFICIAL FILL~An:
Silty Sand (SM): dar broviIl, moist, fine
coarse grained sand and ravel medium d
ALLUVIUM (Oal):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine grain
\ dense.
S-andy siir(KIL):-brown- withiron -ox[(ie S
moist, fine grained, carbonate filaments, ill
stiff.
--------------------------
Sand with Silt (SP-Sl\f): brown to gray-
fine grained sand, medium dense.
Total depth 11.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
HI KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Ca
SEC and SWC Pee hang
Temeeula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >11.5
Ired: III 0/03
1012
Datum: MSL
..,
'"
'"
... "
~ - ~
il: ... .-\ ~
.. "..
.., - ~ " 0.....
... "" " .., o D'l [I) i::
" 0 " " .rl .., 0.
::>8 .., ~ +I 11l "00.
. .., ..-4 (D M
>< ... " 'tl '" ~
" o 0 'tl .rl
0 :>: u .; ..
grained, trace r
ense.
ed, medium WA, MAX
I
,_________.J 90 16,0
~ains, slightly
Icaceous, very
.------------
brown, moist,
94 12.6
nyon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-10
B-9 '"51
Drafted by~Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
.'
I
I
I
(
-
~
-
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
;
i
-
I
!
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
1/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
WaterDep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
~ SOIL DESCRIPTIO N
C .:;J
. ~ '" AND
+J 0 0
a ~ ~ a 0 ..,
0 .. z ~" CLASSIFICATION
.rl 0..... 0
+J C C U . .rl
. +J.c ... .... . .c
> C+J 0, 0, . 0 0,
C C 0, e ~ 0.... .
.... " . . ....'1 "
., -Q " tIl 1Il- l!I
-x 1
-I{
-"
-x
1000 5-:: n 2 20
-
-
-
995 10 3 59
-
-
-
ARTIFICIAL FILL (At):
Silty Sand (SM): dark brown, moist, fine
gram ed, with coarse grained sand and grav
'\ dense.
\-- Decrease in gravel to trace.
ALLUVIUM (Oalt.
Clayey Silt (ML): brown, moist, pin pore
filaments, stiff to very stiff,
------------------------.
, Silty Sand (SM): brown with iron oxide s
" ' fine grained, medium dense.
Sand (SP):Ii"ght-brown-with-sTIgh'tTroil ox
moist, medium to coarse grained, very den
Total depth 14 feet.
Boring terminated due to refusal.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEIN FELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: >14
ured: 1/1 0/03
1005
Datum: MSL
+J
.<:
'"
.rl a
C - C
l3' ~ .... C
. ~..
+J - . a 0.....
.rl " " +J o tll t1l E
a 0 ~ a ..-1 +l 04
D~ +J . +l GI 'd ~
. +J '" C ....
>. .rl " 'l:l .. C
" o 0 'l:l .rl
Q :>:u .; ..
to medium
el, medium
I RV
S and carbonate 111 16.3
------------
tains, moist,
.----------- 109 2.0
-ide staining,
se.
I
I
yon Shopping Cent"r PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-11
B-10 ~
Drafted by~Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
~
I
i
I
,
i
I
1-
,
I
,
i
,
,
I
!
I I
!
I
I
,
j
I
;
I
i
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
1/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 8"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
.
~~ ..... l> AJ\'D
.... 0 0
a a 0 ,.,
0 .. z ~'" CLASSIFICATION
." 0'- 0
.... ~.<: . . " . ."
. .... .... . .<:
> ..... '" '" . 0 '"
. . '" ~ ~ 0.... .
.... '" . .....a "
., -co CIl CIl ..- '"
- !~111 ARTIFICIAL FILL (An:
Silty Sand fSM): brown, moist, fine to
- trace rave, medium dense_
- -- Cob les encountered.
- ,
f- ]000 5 2 44
,
Total depth 6.5 feet.
Boring terminated due to refusal.
Groundwater not encountered,
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
HI KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Car
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, Caiifornia
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORlNG
m
th: >6.5
ured: III 0/03
1005
Datum: MSL
....
.<:
'"
." a
~ .
'" .... .
- . "'"
.... - . a 0'-
." '" " .... o 0'1 tI] a
a 0 ~ a ." .... 0.
D~ .... . +J D) "tI ~
. .... ..-1 C1l M
>1 ." a '0.. .
" o 0 '0 ."
co ;,:" .; ..
edium grained,
'yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-12
B-11 ~
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-l
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
;
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
3/1 0/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 6"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
~ ~:iJ
~ il t> AND
g; ~ .... 0 0
a a 0 H
0 E< Z ~" CLASSIFICATION
,~ 0..... 0
.... :iJ.<: ~ ~ u ~ .~
. .... .... ~ .<:
> ~.... ~ ~ ~ 0 Po
~ .Po 0.... .
.... " . ......0 "
., -Q OJ OJ 01- t!l
-
1010 -
-
-
5-
-
~1005 -
-
-
10-"" 1
-j"
1000 -
-
-
15-, 2
-~
995 -
-
-
20-~ 3
-~
990 -
-
-
25-" 4
-~
~985 -
-
!: -
30-... 5
-~
~980 -
-
13
31
30
55 "
ARTIFICIAL FILL (AD:
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine gram
sana and gravel, micaceous, medium dens
ALLUVIUM (Oa)):
Sandy Silt (ML): grayish brown, moist, \
micaceous, pedogenic carbonate nodules,
rootlets, stiff to very stiff.
, Sand with Silt (SP-SM): brown, slightly
, medium grained, micaceous, dense.
, -- Rock fragments at 15.5 feet.
------------------------'
Silt (ML): brown, moist, with very fme-gJ
trace coarse sand and clay, micaceous, ve
~-----------------------
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine gr
, medium to coarse sand and clay, dense.
-- Fine to coarse grained.
------------------------
, Sand (SP): grayish brown, wet, medium
56 ,.':' grained, very dense.
-
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: 29 feet
ured: 3/10/03
1012
Datum: MSL
....
.<:
'"
.~ a
~ .
i3: '" .... ~
- . "..
....- ~ a 0.....
.~ " " .... o ell CIl E
a 0 " a -Pi"" ill
DE! .... . .;J III "do.
~ .... -Pi lD r-l
>< .~ a 'tl E< ~
" o 0 'tl .~
Q :>: u -: r-
ed, trace coarse
e.
'ery fine grained,
some fine
,------------ WA
moist, fme to
.-----------
'ained sand,
ry stiff to hard.
------------
,ed, trace
-------------
10 coarse
yon Shopping Cent<>r PLATE
a Ph-wy and Highway 79
A-13a
B-12 ~O
am
Drafted by:-..Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-1
I
I'
i
I
I
,
,
!
I
,
;
I
i
I
,
!
,
;
I
i
I
i
,
I
I
!
-
i
I
;
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
..,
.0
" SOIL DESCRIPTION '"
. ." ." "
U '" AND . - .
.., 0 0 :< ~ .-< .
" '" " " 0 H " "'"
0 ,. z "" CLASSIFICATION .., - m " 0___
." 0___ 0 ..... 4-l ~ +l o CIl (I] ~.
.., . . u . ." ~ tJ ::l c: ." .., a.
" "'.0 .-< .-< . .0 (Continued From Previous Page) p a..+J Q) +J 111 '00.
> ..., a. a. . 0 a. -...., -.-I Ql ~
. .0. ~ ~ 0'-< " '" ." " '08 .
.-< " . .-<.0 " " o 0 '0 ."
"' -0 " '" lO- t!) 0 :>:u -: '"
HI KLEINFELDER
I PROJECT NO. 25423
6
-~
-975
-
-
40-~ 7
-",.
970 -
-
45-", &
-~
965 -
-
-
50-ii' 9
-~
11
25
50/5"
16
32
5015"
21
39
50/5"
59
"
"
.~.>>
....
<.::::1---- ------- ------ --- --- - -,------ - ----- --
-- Sharp contact,
Sandy Silt (ML): brown, moist, very fine grained, trace
---!p1'Q.i1!ITIJl:a.n.dJl.!l<LcJ<!Y...IDic~~e~ms~h.a.!:g~ ,-- - - - - - - - - --
, Sand (SP): light brown, wet, medium to coarse grained,
very dense.
....:
,.'
. .">
Total depth = 51.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 29 feet below
ground surface.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC Pechan~la Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLATE
A-13b
4>\ )
LOG OF BORING 8-12
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
!
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
i
,
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
3/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 6"
D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Measu
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
~ ."
· 1l '" AND
.... 0 0
" ~ ~ " 0 H
0 ... z ~'" CLASSIFICATION
:;J 0' "
~ ~ u . ."
.. ...." .... .... :> "
> ~.... Q, Q, :> 0 Q,
~ ~ Q, ~ ~ 0.... ..
.... "'~ .....0 "
'" -0 '" '" 1Il- "
1010
5
1005
10
~ I 8
1000
15
'" 2
995
20 "". 3 3
990
25 4 3
985
.!.
30 =- 5 20
980
9
ARTIFICIAL FILL (At):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist to very mo
gramed, trace coarse sand, trace coarse gra
of as halt. medium dense.
ALLUVIUM (Oal~
Sandy Silt (ML): rown, moist, stiff, ped
carbonate nodules.
Si~ty Sand (S1\1): grayish brown, moist, v
mIcaceous, loose.
-- brown, wet, very fine to medium graine
OrganiC-Silt (OilVblack, very m-ofst, 'm!
occasional clay lenses, soft, highly plastic
density, (sag pond deposit).
-- Some to with fine sand, higher density,
hydrogen sulfide odor.
S;i1d ;fth Sil't(SP-SJ\i):-lfght ,graY'iSh-br
medium to coarse grained, medIUm dense
-- Cobble chatter.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: 29 feet
red: 3/1 0/03
1012
Datum: MSL
....
"
'"
," "
& - ~
de .... ~
- ". "de
....- ~ " "'
." '" " .... o G) tI) a
" " ~ " -.-I +l Pc
DE: .... m +J to 'tl ~
. .... 'n Gl r-l
>- ." " 'tl ... ~
" o 0 'tl ."
0 :>:u -: ..
ist, fine
vel sized pieces
,-
ogenic
.-----------
ery fine grained,
d, bedded.
.-----------
eaceous,
, very low
less plastic, slight
-----------'-
own, v.let,
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-14a
8-13 (pV
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
-
I
i
I
~
I
,
I
I
I
I :
II
I
i
I
,
I
I
I
I
, k SOIL DESCRIPTION
.
~1 . .., '" AND
+' 0 0
" " 0 H
0 " z ,.... CLASSIFICATION
'M 0'- 0
.., . . u . 'M (Continued From Pi'evious
. +'.<:: rl ... ~ .<::
> ..., 0. 0. . 0 0.
. . 0. e e 0'" .
... .... . . . ....Q k
'" -0 " OJ "'- '"
6 32 . .'. , -- Sample mostly decomposed rock frag
-"'" 5014" ,
~975 - .,:,
- -- Frequent cobbles.
40- ',.' -- No recovery.
-
~970 -
- ,
-
45- -- No recovery.
-
965 -
-
,
-
,
50- ~ 7 38 -- Li2Cht brown with decomnosed cobb les
-'"' 50/2"
Total depth = 51 feet. ltel
Groundwater encountered at approxim:
found surface.
oring backfilled with soil cuttings,
III KLEIN FELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
'+,
.<::
'"
'M "
. .
;. '" ... .
- . k'"
+' - . " 0'-
'M .... k.., o 0) tJ) t:!
<: 0 , " 'M +' 0.
;e) "8 .., . +I lTJ "t:l ~
..., .ri Q)....-I
>< 'M " '0 " .
k o 0 '0 'M
0 :>:u -: "'
nts.
or boulders.
y 29 feet below
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-14b
- '0
Pal
me
~
j
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING B 13
Drafted by:------.-Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-1
~
: -!
I
,
I
i
J
I
-
~
,
I
i
,
I
,
i
I
I
i
,
,
I
!
I
;
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled: 3/10/03
.
Excavated By: Cal Pac Drilling
Drilling Method: Hollow Stem Auger 6"
Logged By: D. Hasham
Water Dep
Date Meas
Elevation:
Reference
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
m 0"
~~ t> Al\'D
+' 0 0
~ ~ 0 "'
0 " z ~'" CLASSIFICATION
." 0..... 0
+' .,;: m m u 0 ."
" .... .... ~ ;:
> m+' '" '" ~ 0 '"
m "'" ~ ~ 0.... "
.... '" " .....0 "
., -c '" '" "'- "
-
1010 -
-
-
5-
-
-1005 -
-
-
10-" I
-~
1-1000 -
-
-
15- ~ 2
-~
1-995 -
-
-
20-i" 3
-~
990 -
-
-
25- ~ 4
-~
985 -
-
-
30-~
5
-~
"-
980 -
-
-
" ' ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afl:
, Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fme gram
" ,sana. medium dense.
ALLUVIUM (Oal):
Silt (ML): brown, moist, trace fine sand,
9
,
, ,
,
14 "
ll_gff~1~~~~f~fatW!~~~~mo
, fine-grained, micaceous, medium dense.
~-----------------------
, Sa~d (SP): l~ght grayish brown, moist, fin
.. gramea, medIUm dense.
23
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, flneto ill
trace clay, medium dense.
------------------------
'. Sand (SP): light grayish brown, slightly m
,::' to coarse gramed, WIth gravel, medIUm de
, clay clots.
::: -- Increase in soil moisture, heavily staine
','
','
','
,',
19
40
-- Decrease in soil moisture and iron oxid
increase in gravel and clay clots.
-- Cobble chatter.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
i
l PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
th: > 50
ured: 3/l 0/03
1012
Datum: MSL
+'
;:
'"
." ~
" - "
i< '" .... "
" "'"
+'- m ~ 0.....
." '" " +' o lI'I t1J a
~ .8, ~ " "ri J..l ~
P - +' m +J en "Cl ~
0"" ." m ....
'" ." " 'tl " m
" o 0 'tl ."
C :su -: ..
ed, trace coarse
I
stiff.
.----------- -
------------.1
ist,
-----------
,e to medium
WA
------------
edium grained,
------------
oist, medium
nse, occasional
d with iron oxide,
e staining,
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-15a
B-14 ~
Drafted by:_Reyiewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-1
~.,
f
~
I
-
I
~
~.
I
1
I
I
I
I
,
"
. oo:;;
~ ~ '"
., 0 0
" " 0 H
0 .. Z ~'l<
'M 0'- U
., "'" . . U . 'M
. .... .... . '"
> .., 0. 0. . 0 0.
. . 0. ~ ~ 0.... .
.... 'l< . .....Q "
'" -Q '" '" "'- "
SOIL DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
(Continued From Previous P
-~ 6 28 -- Medium to coarse sand, no gravel.
,,'
975 - -- Cobble chatter.
- ,":'.'
- -..:.
'.
40-_ 7 19 ':. >_ .::..Y ~TY.1IlQi~t.:._ _ ___ __ _ __ ----
-~
970 - Clay (CL): olive brown, moist, stiff, n
- ~-----------------------
- ,,: Sand (SP): li8ht gray brown, very moi
45-"", :.. coarse grame , dense.
-!:'. 8 38 ','
~
f-965 -
".:
- ",:
b.
-", 9 46
I;..
50-1'E-
Total depth = 50 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Ca
SEC and SWC Pechan
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORIN
10
.,
'"
'"
'M "
. - .
l3: "' .... .
. ""'
.,- . " U'-
'M'l< " ., o (II Ul a
" u ~ " .,-i +l Ol
age) p~ ., . 4J tIl1:!p..
. ., .r-! Ql....-l
>< 'M " 'tJ .. .
" o 0 'tJ 'M
Q :>:u -: '"
derateiy pJastiC:- --,
-------------
, medium to
nyon Shopping Center PLATE
ga Pkwy and Highway 79
A-15b
G B-14 Cp-$
st
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
, '.
I
,
I
;
I
-
I
I
I
-
I
I
,
;
I
i
,
!
'~
,
I
I
I
I
I
Date Drilled:
Excavated By:
Drilling Method:
Logged By:
3/10/03
Cal Pac Drilling
Hollow Stem Auger 6"
D. Hasham
h: > 50
Ired: 3/10/03
1012
atum: MSL
"
.c
'"
." 0
* - 0
de ..; 0
" "de
" - . 0 "'-
." '" " " 0 ~ 01 S
o " " 0 ." " 0.
DE! " . " ~ '1:l 0.
~ " ... . ..;
>< ." 0 '1:l8 .
" 0 0 '1:l ."
0 :>:u -: ..
ed, trace coarse F
ed, loose,
..
WA
-----------
-----------.
1, moist, fine- to
WA
lay lenses.
-silts and clays,-- -
/
__________J
, moist, medium
_~"-_________.J
t, fine-grained,
-----------~
urn grained,
yon Shopping Cent". PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-16a
Water Dept
Date Measl
Elevation:
Reference D
" SOIL DESCRIPTION
0 ~.,
~~ '" AND
" 0 0
0 o 0 ..,
0 8 Z "'" CLASSIFICATION
." 0'- "
" 0 0 u ~ ."
" ".c ..; ..; ~ .c
> 0" 0. 0. ~ 0 0.
0 00. S ~ 0"; "
..; '" 0 " ..;.0 "
'" -0 01 01 1Il- "
1010
5
1005
10
7
1&
13
ARTIFICIAL FILL (An:
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine grain
sana, medium dense.
ALLUVITJM (Oal):
Silty Sand (SM): brown, moist, fine grain
occasional clay fenses 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick
Silt (ML): brown, slightly moist.
Sand with sIft-(sP-SM):iight graybra\;;,}
medium-grained, medium dense.
-- Medium to coarse grained, occasional c
-..: BfilVY ir.Q!l QxJd.e_slainlQg,. _ _ _ _ _._ ___
Silty Clay (CL): 2 inch layers of bedded
~~~~~m~~~~~C_____________
Gravelly Sand (SP): light brown, slightl)
tQ ~Q.a.IS~ ,g!:.ain~d FTIh Q,O.llTI>s< gITty:~Lqms
Sandy Silt (ML): olive brown, very mois
trace medium sand, some clay, stiff.
Sand (SP): light gray brown, moist, medi
trace coarse sand, dense.
I
I III KLEINFELDER
I
l PROJECT NO. 25423
Proposed Rainbow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
1000
15
2 15
LOG OF BORING B-15
(PG)
995
20
990
25
4 26
9&5
30
9&0
Drafted by:_Reviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
I
I i \
I
i
I
I
,
-
-
.
I
,
I
,
;
I
,
I
,
,
I
!
I
I
!
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
. " SOIL DESCRIPTION
W wZ
~~ '" AND
-" 0 0
c c 0 H
0 f< Z ;;!'" CLASSIFICATION
... 0..... 0
... W W U w ... (Continued From Previous Pa
. -".0 ... ... . .0
> W-" '" '" . 0 '"
w w '" a a 0.... .
.... .... w ....,q "
'" -Q " '" lll-' "
~6 32 "
"'-
-975 - .;. :'.
-
-
40-" 7 32 -- Medium to coarse grained, moist to v
-...
"'- coarse gravel.
970
- '::.:"
- ,',
, .
45- "" 8 45 -- Occasional decomposed cobbles.
-~
965 -
- , , -- Some coarse gravel.
"" 9 47
-"
'"
50-"'-
Total depth = 50 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainhow Can
SEC and SWC Pechang
Temecula, California
PROJECT NO. 25423
LOG OF BORING
ery
-"
.0
'"
... c
w - w
:3' '" .... w
- . "'"
...- w c 0.....
... .... " .u o UJ {J) Ei
c 0 , C .r! +l 0.
ge) :> 8 -" W +J IJ) 'CIa.
..u or-! QJ...-l
>< ... c " .. .
" o 0 " ...
Q :>:u -: ..
moist, trace
yon Shopping Center PLATE
a Pkwy and Highway 79
A-16b
~ B-15 C::.1
Drafted by:~eviewed by:
Explanation To Logs On Plate A-I
~
;1"
"
F
;1
f., , ,,_,";;;'
I;.,i;'>/:i;i;:
i ; ,: ~'-_{~ .-:r. ,." .
~. ,. -~;~:r'
.-.;J"
',';.'
. ',' .:~~~i:.'-'
AP'PENDix B
'C.', ,.
-..."
.'
, :_"~
.-:':{~::.
.(~~~;::~~:~5:
..:;',;,,';.
. . .~ . ~,,'~,'" -
" '_d -,'
LABORATORY TESTING
'--"'r' .
.-, --;..'':<
,".,.'
:~--;..:, -
y.
".J:L
,"~
^.'r_'"
:,<,,',
~- ~';.""'" - ~ -,'. .-; ".:.: ,-.,',
...,
',",'
. ;~
fPD'.'
I
\ ~
I
!
I
i
i
I
,
,
,
I
l
I
!
~
I
,
,
t
-
,
I
I
;
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
'~
....~ KLEINFElDER
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples to
estimate engineering characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was
performed in accordance with one of the following references:
I) Lambe, T. William, (1951), Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York.
2) Laboratory Soils Testing, U.S. Army, (970), Office of the Chief of Engineers,
Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1906.
3) ASTM Standards for Soil Testing, latest revisions.
4) State of California Department of Transportation, Standard Test methods, latest revisions.
LABORATORY MOISTURE AND DENSITY DETERMINATIONS
Natural moisture content and dry density tests were performed on several relatively undisturbed
samples collected. The moisture content was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test
Method D 2216. The results are presented on the Logs of Borings and are summarized in Table
B-1, Moisture and Density Determinations.
WASH SIEVE
The percent passing #200 sieve of thirteen (13) selected soil samples were performed by wash
sieving in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method]) I 140-92. The test results are
summarized in Table B-2, Wash Sieve Test Results.
EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion index testing was performed on I selected bulk sample of the near-surface soils to
evaluate their expansion characteristics. The test was perfoIDled in accordance with UBC
Standard No. 18-2, Expansion Index Test Method. The test results are presented on Table B-3,
Expansion Index Test Results.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, KleinfeJder,lnc
B-1
March 18,2003
~
I
, -
I
I
,
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
l
I
I
,
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
!
;
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KlEINFElDER
."
REMOLDED DnrnCT SHEAR
One (1) selected sample, remolded to 90 percent relative compaction, was subjecte.d to direct
shear testing for shear strength and cohesion values of the in situ soils in accordance with ASTM
Standard Test Method D 3080. The results are presented in Plate B-l.
MAXIMUM DENSITY
Two (2) maximum density tests were performed on a selected bulk sample ofthe on-site soils to
determine compaction characteristics. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM
Standard Test Method D 1557-91. The test results are presented in Table B-4, Maximum
Density and Optimum Moisture.
R-VALlJ"E TESTS
R-value testing was performed on One (1) sample of the near-surface soils encountered at the
site. The test was performed in general accordance with Caltrans Standard Test tv1ethod 30l.
The test results are presented in Table B-5, R-Value Test Results.
CONSOLIDATION TESTS
Consolidation testing was performed on two (2) relatively undisturbed samples in accordance
with ASTM Standard Test Method D-2435. The test results are presented on Plates B-2 and
Plate B-3.
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TEST
Collapse potential testing was performed on four (4) selected relatively undisturbed sample in
accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D-5333. The test results are presented on Plates
B-4 through B-7_
,'l-
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Hydrometer testing was conducted on one sample to aid in the c:lassification of the fine-grained
soils. The tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method: D 422. The
result of this test is presented on Plate B-8, Grain Size Distribution.
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, inc
8-2
March 18, 2003
10
I
,1<
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
,
~
I
i
,
!
I
i
I
I
;
i
I
i
I
:
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
k~ KLEINFElDER
CORROSIVITY TESTS
A series of chemical tests were performed on selected samples of the near-surface soils to
estimate pH, resistivity and sulfate and chloride contents. A qualified corrosion engineer may
use the test results to evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to construction
materials. The test results are presented in Table B-6.
Table B-1
Moisture and Density Determinations
'B~ing'~ ~DrIlth,,!ji't\- ~~DP1rDens]'fi'l'l('-IlCfi~ i!i!!!i.!li!%J\lfoistupi~~~
~"'''~.a1_,-, ~~:.~"l1',;.~"~^'".~@t.~W~~';'!J.__;Jjji"J:,~,-.,,,,,,,:,;:!:"::;]N, .%~t~~ i:a1tS*WWt:t~v,,,~w~'
",..
B-1 5 123.7 10.1
B-1 10 96.0 10.2
B-1 20 108.8 10.4
B-2 5 118.0 9.7
B-2 10 96.1 16.1
B-2 15 121.2 8.7
B-3 5 124.0 10.1
B-3 10 101.6 6.9
B-3 15 I 09.4 6.8
B-3 20 106.8 4.0
B-4 5 1l2.4 7.7
B-4 10 108.5 3.2
B-4 15 101.7 15.1
B-5 5 I 21.7 6.2
B-5 15 109.0 12.4
B-5 20 105.7 2.3
B-5 25 82.6 30.3
B-6 5 1l3.5 9.5
B-6 10 98.3 14.2
B-6 15 98.1 10.3
B-7 5 94.2 3.7
B-7 10 101.3 8.9
B-7 15 108.5 3.2
B-8 5 98.2 5.0 '
B-8 10 95.3 7.0
B-8 15 103.2 11.4
B-9 5 89.5 16.0
B-9 10 94.4 12.6
B-10 5 111.2 16.3
B-10 10 109.1 2.0
25423/DBA3R041
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, lnc
March 18,2003
1\
B-3
I
Ii ,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
I
i
I
,
I
J
i
,
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
k". KLEINFElDER
Table B-2
Wash Sieve Test Results
i:ii'~~B(frun~~~~De~tlil"lfl.'\l'~S\'-;""~ !li;"RlfCe'nhRlis'sfn~l'J\.'J~tI20Otr'Ol04~mm,~JlIi;
~:ti;l"Ym,.".~~,,-"g~~~/ iZ~$-w"~+~~>iWC"p~__\~}'~~~~1c .-o.i,~,~~",~~"""ce,!,c,~"""""""~~;il~"m~tkt<,q."",,>,,,-,,,,~"}=;i~&_,<\9",
B-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
B-6
B-7
B-S
B-9
B-13
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-15
1-5
10
10
15
5
5
5
1-6
15
30
15
10
15
35.6
41.6
20.5
50.9
42.5
31.S
34.1
4S.1
15.2
10.0
4.0
32.S
5.9
Table B-3
Expansion Index Test Results
_I{O"r,i~ _,U!\~l,~~ ~~~~-- ~~pa~mll:k.I!\~11
,."'^"''''~~''''''' .0
B-7 6-8 20 Very Low II
Table B-4
Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture
B-3
B-9
1-5
1-6
8.0
12.0
133.0
U6.5
Table B-S
R-Value Test Results
iili",_'ii"'''''1P>-''-'_jf' _.:rd~!:l,"".'ir'0"'n~t'li"if'~_'_'fT>"7
~~{~~~;~'ti21WJJ!g~~~~~~~~p_~,,'fI'>"~~~~~~~
B-10 1-5 5
Table B-6
Corrosion Potential Results
i"',wiltei:-SoliiBlei \-;Wa1er.=SolUble[':
~c'S'trt~t~Ii1:'MilGi ,;; ~'G~ldplid~i(irlv ~
~~ll~? ~~ ~t-"1'8:fu)~~:fj5C~Bi ~j/\stij~r('~HJj~~~;~i,~~~
'-'" tPP..., ,,'.. ". _" ,.. P.P....y, ..'
36 134
57 269
;;' ResistiYiTh\2i'jo
~~~~l~i~~~~~
B-7 4,250
B-9 2,100
25423/DBA3R041 B, 4
Copyright 2003, Kleinfelder, Inc
March 18, 2003
IV
I
,"
i
~
I
!
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
II
II
, i
i I
II
I
I
I
;
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
2.5
'+-
..
.>t.
(J) 2.0
(J)
W
0::
t-
(J)
0:: 1.5
<I:
w
I
(J)
1.0
4.0
I I 1
//
/
/"
/'
/ 1../
/
/
/'
/
/"
V
3.5
3.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5 2.0 2.5
NORMAL STRESS - ksf
3.0
3.5
4.0
Test type controlled - strain test
Rate of shear - in/min 0.02
Normal Stress - psf 1000 2000 4000
Maximum Shear - psf 900 1560 2712
Shear Strain - %
Sample B-3.
Depth - ft 1-5
Friction Angle - deg 31
Cohesion - ksf 0.32
Description Silty Sand
Classification SM
.Sample remolded and compacted to 90% of Maximum Dry Density
Maximum Dry Density = 133.0 pcf; Optimum Moisture Content = 8.0 %
Test Sample: Dry Density = 119.7 pcf, Moisture Content = 8.0 %
Moisture Content After Test = 14.2 %
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
1ft
KLEINFELDER
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PROJECT NO.
25423/1
PLATE
B-1
1'0
I
i
, "
I 0
;
I
I
:
I
I 2
I ~
x
, ~
I
- Z
H
<I:
"" 3
l-
I en
,
~ ...J
<I:
Ll
H
I-
, ""
, w
,
I :>
4
I
I
5
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
trrl , -+-+=4111-1 ..t-.1-rTTTl
- I'--.
"
'\.
~
~ r-. f\
......
...... .......
~
6
10
100
0.1
1
PRESSURE - ksf
Sample
Depth
Description
Classification
Compression Ratio
Recompression Ratio
6-6
5.0 ft
Silty Sand
SM
0.023
0.010
Moisture Content Before = 9.5 %
Moisture Content After = 18.8 %
Initial Dry Unit Weight = 113,5 pcf
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLA TE
CONSOUDA TION TEST
B-2
1Pv
-
PROJECT NO.
25423/1
-
I
I
,
,
I~
I
~
i
I
i
i
~
I
,
I
I
I
I I
I'
-
~
-
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
-......... nTm nm
"-..
.........
......,
~"-
~
\
\
I' 1\
..... \
~ r\
i'---- 1\
['--..,
~ 1\
o~
2
~
~
~
Z
H
<I:
a:: 3
I-
Ul
--'
<I:
U
H
I-
a::
w
:>
4
5
6
0.1
10
100
1
PRESSURE - ksf
Sample
Depth
Description
Classification
Compression Ratio
Recompression Ratio
B-7
5.0 ft
Silty Sand
SM
0.033
0.012
Moisture Content Before = 3.7 %
Moisture Content After = 27.3 '\'o
Initial Dry Unit Weight = 94.2 pcf
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLA TE
CONSOUDA TION TEST
B-~~
>
PROJECT NO.
25423/1
r ~"
-.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
'"
2.5
z
H
<L
a::
.... 3.0
(/)
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
I
,
I
,
I
i
I
!
I
,
I
I
I
-
;
I
,
,
,
I
I
i
I
:
I
!
,
I
I
I
I
1'----1__
.............. j'-...
i'..
I"t ~,
~
0.1
1
PRESSURE - ksf
10
Sample
B-2
Depth (ft)
10,0
Description
Silty Sand
Classification
SM
Collapse Potential (%)
Severity of Collapse
0.32
Low
Moisture Content Before = 16.1 %
Moisture Content After = 25.0 %
Dry Density Before = 96,1 pcf
IfI KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLA TE
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TEST
8-4
14>
PROJECT NO. 25423
-
, ~
f
I
i
i
~
II
I
II
i I
I'
*
I
I
t
I
;
,
;
I I
I
;
,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
x
2.5
z
H
<I:
<:t:
>- 3.0
en
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
---- r---
t---
......, ~
,..... ......
.....
6.0
0.1
1
PRESSURE - ksf
10
Sample
8-4
Depth (ft)
10.0
Description
Silty Sand
SM
Classification
Collapse Potential (%)
Severity of Collapse
1.64
Moderate
Moisture Content Before = 3.2 %
Moisture Content After = 19.4 %
Dry Density Before = 108.5 pcf
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLA TE
III KLEINFELDER
8-5
11
PROJECT NO. 25423
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TEST
I
I
,I
i
,
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
><
2.5
z
H
<J:
'"
I- 3.0
Ul
i
I
I
I
I
i
~
I
I
;
~
~
J
I
I
1
-
i
I
I
I
I
I
--- -......
~
...... i'-
..... ,
~
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
0.1
1
PRESSURE - ksf
10
Sample
B-4
Depth (ft)
15.0
Description
Sandy Silt
Classification
ML
Collapse Potential (%)
0.32
Moisture Content Before = 15.1 %
Moisture Content After = 22.1 %
Dry Density Before = 101.7 pcf
Severity of Collapse
Low
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Ph-wy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLA TE
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TEST
8-6
1'6
PROJECT NO. 25423
I
i
I 0.0
:
,
I 0.5
;
I 1.0
I
,
,
I
I
I
-
,
I
,
,
,
I
I
-
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.5
2.0
'"
2.5
z
H
<I:
'"
t- 3.0
(f)
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
k
....... ..........
........
"
.......... I-.......
....,
0.1
1
PRESSURE - ksf
10
Sample
6-8
Depth (It)
5.0
Description
Silty Sand
Classification
SM
Collapse Potential (%)
Severity of Collapse
0.74
Low
Moisture Content Before = 5.0 %
Moisture Content After = 30.7 %
Dry Density Before = 98.2 pcf
L...~ KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLATE
PROJECT NO. 25423
COLLAPSE POTENTIAL TEST
B-7
1~
-
I
J'
i
i
~
~
~
:~
_ ,~ 60
(J)
II ~ 50
, w
: u
_I ~ 40
I g 30
[
*
!
I
i
i
,
I
\
,
!
i
I
i
I
,
I
I
SIEVE ANALYSIS
c:==
HYDROMETER
3"
1,5" 3/4" 3/8"
#4
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
#16 #30 #60 #100 #200
#10
100
, , , , , , 0
1
2
3
, 4
"--
\'. ~
...
90
o
80
o
70
o
o
o ~
H
<I:
>-
w
50 0::
>-
Z
W
u
60 ffi
0-
...J
<I:
70 b
>-
20
80
10
90
o
0.1
0.01
0.001
10
1
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
GRAVEL SAND ]
fine medium fine SILT CLAY
coarse coarse
Symbol Sample Depth (ft) Description Classification
. 6-13 25 Silty Sand SM
III KLEINFELDER
Proposed Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Pkwy and Highway 79
Temecula, California
PLA TE
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
B-8
<eo
PROJECT NO.
25423
~. '~,'
'."';,~-rt
"
~ii
.'.. .~i" .(;""i::~:i;;~c !~jjl'~
. ",' " APPENDIX,G,.,
<>>:,,:~~;./>;.,'.,-.. ~,; .".,.,.~, , ~. '''' "., ~",>- ,'r' , ' '1-' ,,"',">,. .
"~;~i):;. ", .",,:;-~..., ";'~lt~tii2ff~~s~~;~~;::f;~:~,i
:-::\_:', '-". ~~:~~~~_~'~1_' -", -,' :::;,,';~~:_;~',~.}.~:":~ .....~,\n.'J.\t;;
-,' '\'.' _.. '-'::<~~S.~_,'.?
. .;;1.':[';' ' i:'.'I" ~-
.,','
, '_0'
-',:f,
~\",
"';
~", \'-
."r.C",,,.
.,':;:t.>'-
",- -".
.'
~ "
':;1Y'-
"
.-:..
- ",
,;;:.
i
.
.
"
"
>
f-
..
"'
c
.
"
>
.,
0-
.
(;
;;
c
.
.
.
"
"
>
f-
..
"'
c
o
'C
.
.
.
III
.
"
>-
"
c
<(
:;;
"
.
"0
..
c
,g
o
-'!
.
"
0-
:J
..G5
OD
E E
. ,
ZZi:::
]~'*
l~3
c
o
~
.
"
.
2.
CNM
iii;1;";"
a:Nm
.
.
D
.
'"
~
,..
D
~
o
~
o
..
>
.
o
;;
"
o
M
o
o
~
~
o
~:
J~
jj
n
"
~
"
-g
~
"
"
"
<J
<;
c
:2
~
~
.
'0.
.~
.;
.
.
5
'0
B
o
Ii: c..
'0 _
.~ ~
alcoolXl;l8,;
~ -1008
~ ~
,.
,C
,
B
c --.:.
. ~
'E -
o .. l-
8 Cij,)
~ ~g
I JH
:;:fi€ ~~C1
~~~~5~
~~~~0~
~ ~ ~ g",,!Q
Ci. III is:::i: a; ~
85 t;~a- ~
~~.Q~~:;;
4>.c.c gEE
:o1':c.L:xE
C' 0 Go '" '" III
.JIIlOW:':;:::!::
2
~
o
"
..
.
8
>-
:c
D
~
.
D
il
i;;-
E .
. a
w.
. ~
]~
=M
..
Oe
~o~
~B"; >>
iJ2i!g
~~~i!
-ue!Eo
ll>CII0.v
8~~]!
....<>-0-=
ll>IlIC11.9'
c.",,"':C
E c :;:l Cl
Ill.. Z':;:
~~~~
.E:>U)=
Xl~o~
::J' ....Ill
-Zo'"
~f-ug
Z ll.. lll_
w""
- Nco)
;;
,;
z
%.~;j
ijjti";:' lD"''''''
_ ~ 0 r-; "': CC: I'
&8~ 0001:
.!:2c~
age!
." -
:g~B ---,.
00"
So~
o
~~~ u
~ ~ 0 l'
~8~
w u.
~~J
~g~ t
~15u
ou~
c
c .
~ 'E S: 1/
~ F: ~ ~
l;::"t:",r
Will'" ...
~ I':
~
c
c .
g ~ ~ ~
~.e ~ ~
o. ,
~ I':
~
"
- ~,
1II::.....lCttJlO
~5:g,:;:::::
..
.
z
~~ i 1Xl"'Cl>
Ii: Itl 6
o
~c~
.~~~~2~
;n~=
o
=a ~ ::;:-'::!
till- U):::!:u.
[I C
:! 0 c: li;
!!l:;;-o >.LO",:e
~ g~.; ::;~~i
r;OE=
"
"-
" .
g:,; "! ~ It!
''i' "'~ .......,<'1
,~ "
~ _ s
~ 00:::
~ E li; ~_II"!
j g >. .... -~!
t;iS3
~ ~
0o~
; c. iU 0 ~~
is 0"" .... ~
.sl-j
~
~ " 0
O""E ~-E ..... IN <'
. ,
85-'2
.
..
~~
O.
~N
.~
-~
,,~
w"
00
-.
.0
::~
o.
~o
-.
N
..
..
~~
~'-:
. .,
:'<l.f'!
.
o
d
OM
..
.
,
'--
;
, --
1 ">I,,
:~ ~ ~
,~ "'! 0:
~~~
~~ LO ..-
.-.....N
~.~
,.:,...:,...:
~.N
'" OlN
NN~
000
~~~
C"l~g
000
~--
f~ll.
Or:i...Ul
w
r.~
NN~
tOM";
NM~
-e-lD~
~ItlO
NMO
...
NNM
~~.
>-~
~ rn
o .
<5 a
E E
. .
c c
to '~
c;:
o 0
0:;;;
UlV)
. .
c c
. .
E E
" .
..:....:,
"
.
"
z
c
E- OO~~~.....MOOOOOOOOOOOOO
~~ OOLO.....~O.OOOOOOOOOOOOO
~ ocici~~~cicicicicicicidcicicidcid
'"
"-
~~ oo~~~~~o
E c
'0
0-
>'"
zz
zzzzOO
11 3:3':00001=1=
ClC)i=i=i=i=UU
0 WWO()OU~~
E >>ififififww
E ODWWWW::::>::::>
0 allll::::>::J::l:JOO
0 <<0000::;;:;
:J::;;:;::Joo
zz
~z.~ <<!;j:~~eaa
C.!!1U)
ulllU- ZZcicicioII
~U) '-'
a
~S~
~~ ~ l"lMMMMMl"lM
gU).9 ~~~~~~~~
~g.iil
w,"
u fl ~ OCllr-lDO....:r::::r:
Ti.@2. N_____ClCl
0~,g odciciciciZI
oc&
.
.oc
~~~ vMlDMOlOlDN
.",..,LOLO<<lr-r-
.g~ 0 cicicioc:ic:icici
..sg,~
Ooc
< .
::l~~ OlcD....<DLOMON
g.go OlOlOlOlOlCllOl<D
U)~& cic:ic:icicic:icic:i
~.2J
o ~ -
u$;;' W<OLOlt>O.........LO
~ g .. __.................MIO
.0
m8u:
"
.~ LOOLOLOOONN
~~ 0- ~~~:3~~~~ ."
u:: ~
"
"
.~ 0000001'-r-
~E tl LOOLOLOOOtCl<O
~~ c-.iIONNori.odci
0
~"
$5...i
go _ ~~~::""'lOg~
5~~
0-
0
~g2:
< 0 " ....--.....................
~~~
(1)08:
" .
OD ....NM.....lO<Dr-m
>E
. ,
~Z
N
o
I";
.
c
"
.
,i
w
~
.
"
o
~
,.E
c
2
~
I"
.
o
"
::>
;;
'0
~
gl
~I
~oc
-w
-w
"0
"'z
o
OC I
c
.
.
.
~
~
'"
~
~
'"
ii'
~
o
~
o
..
>
o
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
~
,
u .
cO
,,~
. c
~ 0
~.~
~C1
I
I
I
r-
,
i
~
m
~
..
>
l-
n.
U)
"
m
..
>
.,
C'
m
"
~
~
o
.
.
m
~
..
>
l-
n.
U)
o
o
~
m
~
.
'"
~
-;;
~
..
o
""
:;;
"
m
-0
Q.
o
E
"
"
.
~
0-
::;
..Gl
Op
E E
. >
Z Z i:::
13 <3.Q
~~3
~t3
.
.
~
.
'"
~
<
o
>
<
.
<.>
.
2"
< N .
";';;1) ~
O:N<O
~
p
1il
o
o
"
>
o
a
.
"
a
"
o
o
~
;;;
o
:::
J~
11
:;:;
"
~
"
g
o
"
~~
"
"
;5
J2
~
~
.
1".
E
"
.
,
~
~
o
ct Q.
~ .
, ~
~ 0
~<o~~:Z:;
:= 0 E
= 0
8 '5
, <
"
"
~ ..
L!I
:~g:g~8
]~~~~~
2.a<~~el0
g~~~~-;
g is '- III a.'~
'8 <II ~ ~ E ':
.~~%t~~
c- 0 III II> '" '"
::Jmow::l;::r:
B
1il
"
1:
8
>
~
>
e
.
p
<
5
"-
0.0
E 0
. ~
" .
.0
~!
..
<'>0
~ot:':!
g,.9';>,
~.M~~
a:~E&l
'0 e E S
III CIl 0.0
8g~~
",<.>'O.c
<lIllllll.21
0.01"':<:
E <= :;> CI
",o;;~:E
"'::l~ II>
.E~mE
:::~o~
.2zl:;:g
!l!l-ol:l
:z:3i~il:
.... N<'l
.
"
z
Eg"';;:
~'U~ '" on",'"
-~.E f':CC! <0 c;
~8~ ooce
~6"
~~~
.c t: 0 ............ ~
~8~
<0
o
~g~
~~B ~~~::
~ 0"0 .....,..:.,..:.
SO~
:ij g -z ~
~u~ ~
.e ~ l5 <'
08 u ~
o .!!! 0
o
g! ~ S
13~ l!!"
~ ~ :l ~
~ ~
o
<"
_~ S \nil)
.!!l"-IllIONN
~~ ~ t.:;~~
>a> ..........
o -
o
"
_ 0
.!'l",,~it
o c: :t: ..
1-::)0"
~
Z
~~ ~ C
l,Ltll :;>..
o
U
~c~
.~~~:g~~
;n~=
o
_0
5i~ ~~~
'"
~ ~ ~ :s
g~8.~Il)~~
~~~~ ~<O
'0
g
- .
. .
>,G:1 0 Lt)1l)
.. ~~ .....,ja:;
. ~
~ -
~ o~ -
<:E';:' '"
~g~ ~M~
_ 0 m ...
~llJ-'
o
< -
. -
~-==
<<0-
g g-~ o~~
:;:1-1<1 ..
" ~
,
.~ '- ii;
~ ~~ ...."'1<'
.~>
" z
."
0"
~"
""
MW
~~
"':<0
~~
,,~
""
:;!~
M~
~-
"0
:::~
~ll)
...:<"i
o.
,,0
NM
~.-
".
,_0
-~
~
".
o.
~
'-:<.:::
"0
"M
~
..,....................
'-----
~ U'l Il) lI'> It> U>
~~~~~~
,!... 0 0 <:> 0>
"':"';"':"':"':0
~I'" ~.., '" <0
~a;c>;:g:-;
.-......"'''l''l
"llOlOlI'>lOll'>
~<>iN<>iN<>i
"....0......0
'" lI'> "'_.... 10
"..,<') ........~
(:>00000
~~~~~~
':>10<0."'1100
....NN...MlI'>
~~~g~~
g-D.D.....D.D.
(f)UjUjOUjUj
~lI'>lI'> 10
~"":"":MlI'>"!
"'....0........10
'-:OM.... ..-
Ill.... NlI'>o.o.lt)
N_
:0 ",... 0.0. It) 0
<')..,....~..-It)
plt)"'...~1t)
(')<')<')..........-
'" ....<t"X~;:
>~
.!S!~
0"
~ ~
~ ~
" .
< <
~~
8 8
Vii/)
. .
< <
o .
. 0
E E
, .
~~
,,~
.
<5
z
E o"-M~....oOlt)ooooooooooooL
0
E~
:&. q~~~~qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq'
oo...ooooooooooooooooo~
..
w
0_ 0
"5;;!!:
0- ON~d~oo~ooo
E e
2,
>Vl
z zzz zz
zzOzOOO::!OO
. ?;00i=0i=i=i=0i=i=
E eli=i=~i=~~~~~~
0 L1l~~l.L~l.Ll.Ll.L>u..l.L
E E5ttilt~fu~~~~~~
E
0
u ~~~g~gggagg
""""0""000000
z ZZZ ZZ
~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
ow - oO:I:oJ:J::I: J:I
~
~
~~:a
grlC: M<')<')<')<"J<"JM<')<')<')..,
g<l),9 ~~~~:J:J:J~~:J:J
~di<'>
8l~~
0"
~~~ ...lDo>I....XXXIt)XI
"'......elNelelelNelel
0'i2 ooo:i:o:i::i::i:o:i::i:
"'&
. ~
"'"
al~f5 ..........."''''....IO<':IN...O>
.g.~ 'C: ............,It)IO................<O
ocioooocicicicio
<:<3=
- > 0
<.>0:
5~
~g5i g:;:g~~&:n~~a;~
i?-g~ ociooociooooo
o:~
" .
~;~
" oz ....""'00"""""'0 It) <') 10...
n- N.........,<:>ICO....<')N....<O
. o.
0" 0
m8~
E
::~ <:::. ONOItlNNNNONN
< - ~~~~~~~~~~~
u::g
<.>
E
. 0 0...00................0.......
~ ~ tl OOOOIt)COlOOOOOOOOCO
u: g .000 N c;:ic:i cic:i.o 00
<.>
~E
,gS.J! CO NCOOMttlttl....m<DCO
lil U -
~~~ .........MNtClMM.......tCl
<'>W
S1gS
00" ...-.................................-
~~.g
Cl)U~
" .
.p ..."''''....tCl'''...COOle:::
>E
o >
~Z
;g
"
.
~
~
"
~
~
>
~
.E
e
"
"
~
>
,-"
~
:;;
o
~
~
..,
o
o
~
f
~
~'"
-W
-W
~"
wz
oj
0:
,
.
~
~
'"
~
i'?
~
t-
~
o
~
o
~
o
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
\
~<6
ti 0
<<0
::~
0<
~o
~.ffi
~O
I
I
!
r-
.
.
,
..
>
l-
n.
on
C
.
..
>
.,
~
.
"
o
'0
c
.
.
.
,
..
>
l-
n.
on
c
o
'D
o
.
.
'"
.
..
..
..
c
'"
:;;
c
.
;;
n.
c
o
1;
.l!
.
,
~
:;
..m
OD
E E
.,
z z c
!!~
eo u
- 0
o.o.~
c
o
..
c
.
"
.
o
D~
cN~
~~d;
~
~
.
"
>'
>.
D
1ii
o
o
~
.
o
"
"
o
Il
~
'"
o
~
~
,~
g
0.
.
~
0.
"
~
~
o
o
o
o
g
;;
o
.
E
.
r
g
~
~
~
o
0. 0.
~ '0
. ~
-g roE
~<D~~~~
E 0
~ ~
a:
;;;
"
.
u
iij ci
~ ~
~ :;;~
~ ~~
:g .. ~~
~ -g,*~
a ~~l'i ~
~i~~0'*
~ii>-g!5.><~
c. ~ ~ ~ ::l ~
.~50~D..~
u(Do~E....
III 0 _:> '" G>
~eE€'~~
u 0'" n: '" III
::::imow::a:r::
g
~
.
;;
~
8
l
.
n
o
B
.
0.-;;;
E.
. .
" .
.0.
~!
c'J~
~o<'l:
- --
Sfi~-E
~.!!!co
-.;l :5 01 ~
~"e ~ ~
CIlCDO.Q
'8 g~]!
.,u't:l.J::
21 10 1ll.S!l
E g'g:~
lll'ii'i2'::c
~ ;~ ~
..e ::>(1)-
g;~o~
;:) , .... ll>
-20'"
~h: iL~
,U)LL.ll.
~ NM
..
z
~5J
c=~ ..~
.u_ ~~w
_ . 0
-ot:n cicici
00.
a:O~
~i~ ---
..c:1::.9
.0 u
So~
0
~.Q;J .00
:.,u-:-
~g~ ~~~
.nU~
ggz 0
0
.
"E",,5d. N
.e~B ~ ~:-
88.m ~
~ S ~ w
:g ~ e :e N~,
~ € ~ It) ~ ~~
w. 0
> .
o ..
0"
.0.
~~i ."lnl"
~ € . :o~~
. 0
~ [
u
0.
~~~ ~;:;
.
.
Z
~~~ ~..... ~'
Ii: lD 6
"
~c~
. . . >nM"
EO. _Mil
~~~
0
- . ~~ '
$~ "HI)~
I "
S!E i
li&~ I() ;: ~;
. ~ .
OE,s
"0
0
" .
. . ~N'
~.
~ ~~
~
;;;
~ 'OE"
~ E" ~~;
o.
. o~
"E ~j
~
0
~ o~
; 0.0 a;:' ~
0 o ~
~ ~~
-
i i1l _N'
~E
E .0
(Ji, ~z
-
.
~
o
N
~
~
"
w
~
in
~'"
"
~
"!""':
. ,
~~
00
wo
cici
.
00
;Da>........__
:>0
...........---
on","''''''''''''
N.....NC'lNN
.,.;.,..:.,.;..;...;.,.;
M<\IN_eC\>
"';"';"';"':"":0:
~~~8~~
............_NN
000000
~fiS?J~g
NNMM......,
000000
~~~~~~
a)lOMNNIO
N_MM..,.
.000000
<0....................
'...JQ.....JQ..Q..Q..
OUol~lI)Uol(f)
,
~ Il:! ~ (") In II'! "'l
j ~ g:,., ~ ~ ~
>....l''l..,.....101O
)"'0>(")0 "'0
INN,.,..,.., II')
,...., lP m <"l 0 III
~NNN"'''''''
,) lP..... CD ~;:::
~~
.0
'Om
~ e!
00
E E
. .
00
Iii";;;
c;::
00
u u
U5Vj
. .
Co
. .
o.
E E
" .
~~
~"
o
"
Z
E
. g~~~~gg~8ggg8ggggg8g
~g o'o'o'~o'o'o'ooo'oo'ciooo'o'o'o'o'
..
"
0_
:S~
.- o~....::~oo~6oo
E 0
.2 .~
0_
>"
z zzz
zzzz:::!OzOOO
S ;:g8ggSlE8EtE
0 ~~~~~~~~~itit
.
E
E 1jttttfuttffi~:t~~~
0 lD::J::J::J::JIO::JOOO
0 <QQQQO::iQ;:j;:j;:j
...J...J...J...JUO...JOOO
z zzz
~z.~ ~~~~~:i~~~Q~
o.! U)
~~ !:;. IOOOO IOI:r:J:
~ .~~
~~ ~ g~35555g555
~ ciu
~~~
.0'
~~~ rm..,OlP....J:N:r:rr
O....(")NNNONOOG
0~g 5:oo'o'oo:fo'5:5:I
~&
. -
.~
~."
g ~ ~ ..,"'0>"'0.........."'..,0.....
..,..,..,"'w.....................<O
~~~ 0'0'000000000'
,,~
o .
~t~ 0>.........10...,..,"'....<0.........
OlO>OlOlO>O>O>O><O""....
C:C:oC:C:C:C:C:ocio
(/)~~
i:.E ~
6ali' 0.... <0 01"'00 0"''''' l"l
UiJ~ ..,....N....NN....N......,'"
. . .
.9 5 :g
[IJoiJ:
"
.'" lOttlOOOONNNNN
:ge ~ C!",,:~C!q~C!C!C!C!q
u:: ~ ..............................................
0
"
.'" Ottlo(")"'o...................
. 0 lOCDOOOOttlCDa;Ja;Ja;J
.::Ii: I:l
u:: ~ r.,j...tlficio'lfio'C:o'dci
0
~"
!!S..! ttlOO>O>"'N<rlO>NOl....
~o _
15~~ "'.............N...."'........('>..,
"m
~g~
g- ~ 0 ........................-....-.........
~l::iJ
roB::.
" .
on ....N<"l...lOlO....."'o>e::
~E
~:i
.
.
M
.
C-
~
"
.
~
o
..
o
~
o
,
~
S
o
~
~
o
.
~
~
,~
o
~
f
~
,~
-w
-w
"0
"Z
~
a:
o
.
.
.
~
~
"
..
>
i!i
"
>.
n
~
.
0.
o
~
.
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
:~
u'
om
~~
.0
~o
~ .~
.0
~
I
I
9;).
I-
I.,
:
I~
I ~.~~(~I~~'~'jl~m~~lilWI(!I'~~~__
1_~1i]il:ilmlnm,_
, I
'I
I
-
I
I
,
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
i
I
!
~,
I'
I
I
I
I
I ~
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, ami Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe-
cific needs of their clients, A geotechnical engineering study con-
ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc-
tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot-
echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engi-
neering report is unique, prepared solely for the client No one
except you shouid rely on your geotechnical engineering report
WIThout first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre-'
pared it. And no one-not even you-should apply the report for
any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set 01 Project-SpeCifiC Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project,spe-
cific factors when establishing the scope of a study, Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref-
erences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other
planned or existing site Improvements, such as access roads,
parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical
engineer who conducted the study' specifically indicates other-
wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
o not prepared for you,
o not prepared for your project,
o not prepared for the specific site explored, or
o completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnicai engineering report include those that affect:
o the function of the proposed structure, as when
it's changed from a parking garage to an office
building, or from a light industrial plant to a
refrigerated warehouse,
o elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structu re,
o composition 01 the design team, or
o project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes.~ven minor ones--and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur
because their reports do not con sider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface Gomlitions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events,
such as construction on or adjacent to the sITe; or by natural
events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before appiy-
ing the report to determine if IT is still reliable. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are
Professional Opinions
SITe exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken, Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data
and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion
about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub-
surface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-from
those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical eng~
neer who developed your report to provide construction obser-
vation is the mosl effective method of managing the risks asso-
ciated with unanticipated condi1io ns.
~(pj
l-..1.
i
f!. Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included
in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment
and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom-
mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions
revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations If that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject
To Misinterpretation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower
that risk ,by having your geotechnical engineer confer with
appropriate members of the design team after submitting the
report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.
Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering
report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer
participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by
providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for
inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photo-
graphic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete'
Report and Guidance
Some owners and design profeSSionals mistakenly believe they
can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface cond~
tions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation, To help
prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech-
nical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written let-
ter of transmittal. in that letter, advise contractors that the report
was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the
geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee
may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain
the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid
conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi-
cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in
a position to give contractors the best information available to
you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions,
'"
i-
:1
,I
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not
, recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has
created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappoint-
ments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geot-
echnical engineers wmmonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations",
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engi-
neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize
their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions
closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
i
I
rl
,
i
:1
!
!
:1
I
,
I
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a
geoenvironmentlll study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical
engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmen-
tal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g" about the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regu-
lated contaminants, Unanticipated environmental problems have
led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained
your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical
consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an
environmental report prepared for someone else.
I
.,
l
I
Rely on YOUI' Geotechnical Engineer for
Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide
array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine ben-
efit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with
your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information,
I
I
I
I
ASF' e PROFESSIONAL
FIRMS PRACTICING
IN THE GEOSCIENCES
8811 Colesville Road Suite G 1 06 Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile: 301-589-2017
email: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
I
I
Copyright 1998 by AS FE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited.
Re-use of the wording in this document. in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes
of review or scholarly research.
I
IIGER06983.SM
I
I
f.--
;
il
\
I
I
[
I
I
~
T
I
i
r'
I
I
r
I
, '
I
,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
k~ KlEINFElDER
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE
Geotechnical Investigation
Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center
SEC and SWC of Pechanga Park"Way and Highway 79
Temecula, California
File Number: 25423
Report Date: March 18, 2003
KLEINFELDER, INC.
1370 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 150
Diamond Bar, California 91765
(909) 396-0335
To whom it may concern:
Applicant understands and agrees that the Geotechnical Investigation (Report) for the subject site is a
copyrighted document, that Kleinfelder, Inc. is the copyright owner and that unauthorized use or copying
of the Report for the site is strictly prohibited without the express written pelmission of Kleinfelder, Inc.
Applicant understands that Kleinfelder, Inc. may withhold such permission at its sole discretion, or grant
permission upon such terms and conditions, as it deems acceptable.
Applic,ant agrees to accept the contractual terms and conditions be,tween Kleinfelder, Inc. and Raitibow
Canyon Development, LLC originally negotiated for preparation of this Report. Use of this Report
without permission releases Kleinfelder, Inc. from any liability that may arise from use of this report.
To be Completed by Applicant
By:
(company name)
(Print Name)
(address)
(Signature)
Title:
(city, state, zip)
Date:
(telephone)
(FAX)
By:
Approval of Original Client
Date:
(print Name)
(Signature)
For K1einfelder, Inc.'s use only
approved for re-use with additional fee of $
approved for re-use with applicant's agreement to following cooditions:
Applicant agrees to above terms and understands that findings discussed in report
were based on available information and site conditions as noted at time of ESA.
disapproved, report needs to be updated
By:
Date:
(Kleinfelder, Inc. Project Manager)
25423/DBA3R041
Cop)'right 2003, Kleinfelder, loe
~
March 18, 2003
E-I