The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 34387 Parcel 2 Preliminary Geotechnical3~~~~ CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC, SANDIEGO,CA RNERSIDE,CA VENTURA,CA TRACY.CA SACNnMENTO,CA 241C Vineyard Arenuc 12155 Magnulia Avenue 1645 Pacific Avenue 242 W. Larch 3h2% A7adisnn Avenue Suilc G Sui[e 6C Suite 107 Suite F Suite 22 Escondidu, CA 92029 Rivcrsidc, CA 92503 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 N. Ilighlends, CA 956fi11 (760) 746-0955 (95I)352-67UI (805)486-fi475 (209)839-2890 (916)33Ifi030 (760) 746-9906 ~AX (951) J52-fi705 FAX (805) 486-9016 FAX (209) 839-2895 FAX (YI6) J3L60J7 FAX PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIOv PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPi~IENT CREEKSIDE CENTRE SW CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND NICOLE LANE TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: DAVCON DEVELOPMENT, INC. 42389 WINCHESTER ROAD, SUITE B TEMECULA, CA 92590 PREPARED BY: ~ CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, IrC. 12155 MAGNOLIA AVENUE, SU[TE 6-C RIVERSIDE, CA 92503 , ~ 1~ CTE JOB NO. 40-1758 ~~ ~ ' DECEAIBER 1~, 2004 ~ CEOTF,CHNICAI.. I?NYIRONNIF:N"1':V.. ('ONS"i'RU('"I'ION INtiPF:C'PION AND"1'M:ti"fINC. ('IVIL ~NGINF:I?RING• tiUR\'P:\'INC CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC, SANDIEGqCA RIVERSIOE,CA VENTUHA,CA TRAC\',G\ LA~CASTEH,Cp SACRAb1ENTO,G~ N.PpLMtiI'RINGS G 201C Vineyartl T.~e, i90 E. PrincelanE C~. 16C5 Pacif¢ Ave. 2C3 N. I,aah iS156 IU~h Si. \V. 763tl ~ladivon Arr, , 19030 V InJian,a~e Sulte G Suih ] Sui4~ 105 Sui~e F Uni~ k Sui~e lI . . Suite E-k Essondido,CAY2039 Comna,G91]19 OzmrqCA930D Tncy,GY53)R Lann.mr.GYJ53< .V.Nighlantls,CA956W N.PaImSpringx G~92 (]60)]<6J9<c (909~1]1-1890 (XOS)C86bG]5 (309)919-2tl9U (661)]36-96'16 ~916)J31-6U]0 . (p60)R9-Jfil] (]60) ]d69A06 FAX (909) )]I-IIfiA FAX (ROS) iN6Y016 FTX (309) 939-3AY5 FAX (fifil) R6-@Jfi FAX (91fi) 1J1-6p)1 F,\S (]60) lEX-JflYfi iA% ENGINEERING, INC. December 14, 2004 Mr. James Pattoo Davcon Development, Inc. 42389 Winchester Road, Suite B Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Commercial Development Creekside Centre SW Comer of Overland Drive and Nicole Lane Temecula, Califomia Mr. Patton: CTE Job No. 40-1758 Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. has prepared this report of geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial development located at the southwest corner of Overland Drive and Nicole Lane in the City of Temecula, California. The at[ached report discusses the findings and conclusions of our geotechnical investigation and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for use during project design and construction. The project is considered feasible, from a geotechnical viewpoin[, if the recommendations presented in this report aze incoiporated into the design and construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding our findings or recommendations, please do no[ hesitate to con[act this office. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~ odn~lar~~173 Vmc t J. atula, CEG #2057 Geo[echnical Engineering Manager Senior Engineering Geologist v J CEOTECHMCAL•ENVIRONP7h:N"fAL.CONS'1'RUCTIONINSPF,C"I'IONAND'I'ESTINC•CIVII,h:NCINN:P:RINC•SURVp:I'INC ~ ~ ~ TABLE OFCONTENTS I.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... ................1 ~ ' 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................. ................2 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... ................ 2 2.2 Scope of Services .............................................................................................. ................2 ~ , 3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................... ................3 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ................................................. ................3 ~ 4.1 Fieid Investigations ........................................................................................... ................3 ~ ~ 4.2 Laboratory Investigation ................................................................................... ................4 5.0 GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................. ................4 5.1 General Physiographic Setting ........................................................................... ...............~ ~ 5.2 Geologic Conditions .......................................................................................... ...............~ 5.2.1 Engineered Fi11 ........................................................................................... ...............6 , 5.2.2 Quaternary Pauba Formation - Sandstone (Qps) ....................................... ............... ~ ~ ~ 53 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................... ...............7 , 5.4 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................... ...............7 ,~ 5.4.1 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ............................................................... ...............8 5.4.2 Landsliding or Rocksliding ........................................................................ ...............8 5.4.3 Compressible and Expansive Soils ............................................................ ...............8 '~ 6.0 FAULT RUPNRE AND EARTHQUAKE HAZARD EVALUATIONS .............. ...............9 6.1 Local and Regional Faulting .............................................................................. ...............9 6.2 EaRhquake Acceleration .................................................................................... ...............9 ~ ' 63 Seismic Loading Recommendations .................................................................. .............10 6.4 Liquefaction Evaluation ..................................................................................... .............10 ~ 6.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation .......................................................................... 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... .............11 .............1 I 7.1 General ............................................................................................................... .............1 I 7.2 Site Preparation .................................................................................................. .............12 ~ 7.2.1 General ....................................................................................................... .............1 ? 7.2.2 Site Excavations ......................................................................................... ............. I? 7.2.3 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................................. .............13 ~ 7.2.4 Transition Pad Condition ........................................................................... .............14 7.3 Foundations and Slab Recommendations .......................................................... .............1~J ~ 7.3.1 General ....................................................................................................... .............1 ~4 7.3.2 Shallow Foundations .................................................................................. ............. t ~ 7.3.3 Settlement of Foundations ......................................................................... ............. I~ ' 7.3.4 Concrete Slabs ........................................................................................... .............16 7.4 Retaining Walls ................................................................................................. .............17 7.5 Vehicular Pavements and Site Improvements ................................................... .............19 ~ 7.6 Reactive Soils .................................................................................................... .............20 7.7 Exterior Flatwork ............................................................................................... .............21 7.8 Drainage ............................................................................................................. .............31 ~; 7.9 Plan Review ..........................................................................._.......................... .............21 ~ 8.0 LIM[7'ATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................... .............21 ~ 3 ~ FIGURES FIGURE t FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D SITE LOCATION MAP BORING LOCATION MAP RETAINING WALL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES CITED FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORING LOGS LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS ~ ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Inves[igation Page 1 Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 ~ 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~ Our investigations were performed to provide site-specific geotechnical information for the proposed development to be located at the southwest comer of Overland Drive and Nicole Lane in the City of r Temecula, Califomia. The proposed development is to consist of the construction of four commereial buildings along with normal infrastructure including pavement, exterior flatwork, underground utilities, and landscaping. The proposed structures will be a combination of wood- ~' framed and masonry block wall supported on shallow continuous and spread footings with slab-on- grade base floors. Based on our investigations, the site is underlain by engineered fill materials, with underlying medium dense to very dense Quaternary-age non-marine deposits (Pauba Formation-sandstone) ~ below the proposed structure foundation levels. These soils are capable of supporting the proposed structure on conventional shallow foundations as recommended herein. ~ The subject site is located approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the active Elsinore Fault Zone. Based on reviewed geologic literature for the site area, the site is not traversed by an active fault. ~ Therefore, the potential for fault displacement occurring during the useful life of the structure should ~ be considered low. ~ ~~ / ~ ~ ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 2 Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dc & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 ~ Groundwater was encountered at the time of our investigation at a depth of 49 feet below the surface. ~ Groundwater levels will likely fluctuate during periods of high precipitation; however, groundwater ~ is not expected to impact the proposed development. ~ ~ 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ~ 2.lIntroduction Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has prepared this geotechnical engineering and ~ geologic reconnaissance report for Davcon Development, Inc. Presenied herein are the results of the ~ subsurface investigation performed as well as recommendations regarding the geotechnical engineering and dynamic loading criteria for the proposed development. ~ ~ The proposed project wilt consist of the construction of four commercial buildings along ~vith ~ normal infrastructure including pavements, exterior flatwork, underground utilities, and landscaping. The proposed structures will be a combination of wood-framed and masonry block wall supported ~~ on shallow continuous and spread footings with slab-on-grade base floors. ~ , 2.2 Scope of Services ~ Our scope of services included: • Review of readily available geologic reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas (Appendi~ A contains a list of cited references). ~ ~v ' ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 ~ • Exptorations to determine subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. 1 • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the geotechnical design characteristics of the site foundation soils. • Definition of the general geology and evaluation of po[ential geologic hazards at the site. ~ • Preparation of the report detailing the investigation performed and providing concfusions and geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction. ~ ~ 3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ~ The subject site is a wedge-shaped parcel located at the southwest corner of Overland Drive and Nicole Lane in the Ciry of Temecula, Califomia. Currently, the site is an empty, previously-graded ' lot with fill slopes on all sides. The site is bordered by Overland Drive to the north, Nicole Lane to ~ the east, commercial development to the south, and a Riverside County flood control channel (Long Canyon Creek) to the west. Currendy, the ground surface is bare, with minimal vegetation and no ~ observed surface obstructions. A storm drain inlet is located in the southwest corner of the site. ^ 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ~ 4.1 Field Investi atQ ions ' Field explorations, performed on November 10, 2004, induded a site reconnaissance. the exca~ation _ of five soil borings and in situ testing of subsurface deposits. The soi( borings were excavated to ~ investigate and obtain samples of the subsurface soils. The borings (designated B-1 through B-5) ~ were excavated using a truck-mounted eight-inch diameter, hollow stem auger drill rig tu a maximum explored depth oY approximately 51 %: feet below existing grade (fbg). i ~ 1 ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ t ~ Page 4 CTE Job No. 40-1758 Soils encountered within the borings were classified in the field during the exploration operations i^ accordance with Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions were later modified (as appropriate) based on the results of our laboratory-testing program. [n general, soil samples were obtained at 5-foot intervals. Specifics of the soils encountered can be found in the Boring Logs, which are presented in Appendix B. 4.2 Laboratorv Investi~ation Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Specific laboratory tests include: ma~cimum dry density and optimwn moisture content, in-place moisture and density, resistance value, expansion index, gradation, direct shear, Atterberg limits determination, and chemical ana(yses. These tests were conducted to determine the material strength, compressibility, grain-size distribution, physical properties, and corrosivity of the on-site soils. Test method descriptions and laboratory results are presented in Appendix C. $ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page S Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 5.0 GEOLOGY 5.1 General Phvsioaraphic Settine Geomorphically, the subject site lies within the central portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, adjacent to Long Canyon Creek and approximately one-half mile southeast of Santa Gertrudis Creek. The Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province is characterized by a northwest- southeast complex of blocks separated by similar trending faults (Webb and Norris, 1990). The three prominent fault zones in the province are the San Andreas (east), San Jacinto (central) and the Elsinore Fault Zone (west). Activity along these fault zones resulted in the ranges having a gradual west facing slopes and steep east facing escarpments. Separating the ranges and adjacent to the escarpments are inland vaileys. These inland valleys consist of TeRiary and Quatemary-age non- marine sediments, derived from granite, non-marine sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks. 5.2 Geoloeic Condi[ions Site soil materials consist of engineered fill materials, ranging from 7- to 22-feet in thickness. ~~ith underlying Quaternary-age sedimentary rock identified as the Pauba Formation (Kennedy 1977) encountered to the maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet. Below is a brief description of the soils encountered durin~ the investigation. More detailed descriptions are pro~ ided in the Boring Logs in Appendix B. ~ , ~J , Preliminary Geotechnica- Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 Page 6 CTE Job No. 40-1758 5.2.1 EnRineered Fill Engineered fill materials were encountered in each of Ihe five borings. The thickness of the encountered fill ranged from approximately 7-feet to 22-feet. In general, the fill is shallower ~ ~ , in the east-southeast poRion of the site and deepens toward the west-northwest. The encountered fill materials consist offine to coarse grained silty sands (SM) and clayev sands (SC), which are in a dense to very dense condition and can be described as red-bro~~n ro gray-brown, moist, and non-expansive. [n boring B-3, which is in close prosimity to the storm drain inlet, the fill transitions from clayey sand to a less dense, dark gray, very fine grained silty sand beginning at a depth of 6-feet extending down to the contact with natural soils at approximately 12'h feet In boring B-2, a 1-foot layer of silt (ML) was encountered ~ at the contact with natural soils at a depth of approximately 2]- to 22-feet. This silt has moderate organic content and is described as very stiff, moist. dark gray. ~ ~ ~ 5.2.2 Ouaternary Pauba Formation - Sandstone (Qps) Quaternary-age Pauba formational materials were encountered beneath the fill to the maximum explored depth of 51'/ feet below existing grade (fbe). The Pauba Formation is generally described as a succession ofla[e Pleistocene-age ~cell-indurated and e~tensicel~ crossbedded siltstone, sandstone, and conglomerate facies (Kennedy 1977). Speciticall~, the ' , , Pauba formational materials encountered at the site are predominantly beds of silt} sands (SM) with interbedded layers of sandy silt (ML) and poorly-graded sands with silt (SP-S~t 1. \~ ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 7 Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 The si-ty sand layers are in a medium dense to very dense condition and can be described as damp to very moist, fine to coarse grained, weakly to moderately cemented, orange-brown to light tan to gray in color, and occasionally iron-oxide stained. The sandy silt (ML) can be described as stiff to very stiff, moist to very moist, and gray to orange-brown. The poorl}~- graded sand with silt (SP-SM) layers can be described as dense to very dense, damp to moist. light gray to light brown, and containing trace to occasional fine gravel. 53 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in boring B-2 at an approximate depth of 49 fbg, Ground~cater elevations typically fluctuate on a seasonal basis due to changes in precipitation, irrigation, pumping. etc. However, based on our investigation, we do not expect grotmd~~~ater to affect the proposed development. 5.4 Geoloeic Hazards From our investigation it appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by violen[ shakino from earthquake generated ground motion waves. Based on the site distance from the nearest identified fault and the remedial grading recommendations presented in Section 7.2 of diis report, we anticipate the poten[ial for damage from seismic displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed structures to be low. A complete discussion of earthquake hazards (including earthquake accelerations) is presented in Section 6 of Ihis report. `1 ~ i Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre Ovedand Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 Page 8 CTE Job No. 40-1758 5.4.1 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation Due to site elevation and distance from the Pacific Ocean, the site is not considered to be subject to tsunamis. Based on the absence of large bodies of water in [he area, seiche (oscillatory waves in standing bodies of water) damage is not expected. 5.4.2 Landsliding or Rocksliding The potential for landsliding or rocksliding to affect the site is considered remote. No features typically associated with landsliding were noted during the site investigation. In the reference review, no evidence of landslides was found to have occurred within the area of the site. 5.4.3 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on geologic observation, laboratory and in situ testing, materials located at the proposed structure foundation level generally consist of dense to very dense fill materials with very low compressibility characteristics. A sefected sampie of site soil was analyzed for expansion potential using UBC test method 18-2. The expansion index of the soil was found to be 14, whicll indicates a very lo~~ potential for expansion. ,2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 9 Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA Decembet 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 6.0 FAULT RUPTURE AND EARTHOUAKE HAZARD EVALUATIONS 6.1 Local and Regional Faulting As stated, the subject site lies approximately 0.25 mile nor[heast ofthe genera(ly northwest-southeast trending Elsinore Fault Zone (EFZ). Evidence of Holocene (within the last 11,000 years) surface rupture on strands of EFZ has been discovered during several recent studies (Caltech Website, 2000). Therefore, the Elsinore Fault is considered "active." Other principal active faults in this region include the San Jacinto, Newport-Inglewood, and Whittier Faults (Blake 1996). According to the California Division of Mines and Geoloay, a Fault is considered active if it displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart and Bryant, revised 1997). 6.2 Earthquake Acceleration The evaluation of possible bedrock acceleration at the site was performed using the deterministic approach which identifies one or more controlling seismic sources and events residtin~~ in a determination of maximum ground acceleration. We have analyzed possible bedrock accelerations at the site using the computer soft~~are program EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). The program uses the attenuation relationship developed by Campbell 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 10 Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 and Bozorgnia (1997) for alluvium and soft rock conditions. Based on this analysis, the maximum credible site ground acceleration (0.919g) was generated by a 6.8 magnitude earthquake associated with the Elsinore-Temecula Fault. Design of structures for seismic loading should comply with the requirements of goveming jurisdictions, applicable building codes, and practices of the Association of Structurai Engineers of ~ California. , ~ ~ , ' , , ~ ~ 6.3 Seismic Loadine Recommendations According to the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the site is within seismic zone 4 with a seismic zone factor Z= 0.40. The Elsinore-Temecula Fault, a seismic source Type B, is located approximately 0.25 mile (0.4 km) from the site subject site. Based on our investigation and review of geologic fiterature, the site has a soil profile type of So. Based on these parameters, the site near-source factors are N~ = 1.6 and Na = 13, and seismic coefficients C„ = 1.024 and C, = 0.572 6.4 Liauefaction Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strength during earthquake-induced shaking and behave as a fiquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point ~,rain contact and transfer of normal stress to tlie pore water. Liquefaction po[ential varies ~cith groundwater levef, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. ~~ IJ ' Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 11 _ Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 , , We have performed a preliminary screening for liqueFaction potential in accordance with the California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117 (1997). Based on the existing ~ soil conditions (compacted fil( materials and relatively dense natural soils) and the depth to ' groundwater, we find the potential for liquefaction of site soils to be very low. , ' 6.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic events. ~ The underlying site materials are generally in a medium dense to very dense condition, and are not considered (ikely to experience significant seismic settlement. Therefore, in our opinion, the ~ potential for seismic settlemen[ resulting in damage to site improvements is considered low. We also expect that any loose or disturbed materiats present on the site will be mitigated through removal and ' recompaction in order to facilitate the proposed construction. ~ , 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , 7.1 General ' Based on our investigation, the proposed construction on [he site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the desisn of the , project. Recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development are ' included in the subsequent sections of this report. ~ t~j~ , ' ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ' ' ' J ' ~ ' ~ , Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 7.2 Site Prepazation 7.2.1 General Page 12 CTE Job No. 40-1758 Prior to grading the site should be cleared of any existing vegetation, debris and other deleterious materials. In areas to receive structures or distress-sensitive improvements, expansive, surficial eroded, desiccated, bunowed, or otherwise loose or disturbed soils should be removed to the depth of competent material. Organic and other deleterious materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of offsite at a legal disposal site. 7.2.2 Site Excavations Based on our findings, the site is underlain by propedy compacted fill materials, on the order of 7- to 22-feet in thickness, with competent underlying natural soils. Therefore, the majority of the site will require only minimal surface treatment as follows. Within the limits of site grading and five feet laterally beyond the proposed building footprints. site soils should be scarified to a depth of 12-inches, moisture-conditioned to slightly above optimum, and recompacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry densit~ as determined by ASTM D 1557. If loose or disturbed soils are encountered during site preparation, they should be excavated to the depth of properly compacted fill or competent natural soils. ~~° , Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 ' Prior to structural fill placement, the exposed subgrades should be evaluated by a geotechnical representative from this office to confirm that properly compacted fill materials ' aze present and uniform bearing conditions exist. , ' 7.23 Fill Placement and Compaction All additional structural fill and backfiil should be compacted to a minimum relative ' compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D-1557 at moisture content of optimum or ~ slightly above. The optimum lift thickness for fii soils will be dependent on the type of compaction equipment being utilized. Generally, fill should be placed in uniform horizontal ~ lifrs not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be , performed in general conformance with geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. ' Alt soils generated from on-site excavations are suitable for use as structural fill, provided , they are free from deleterious material. Any imported material should be evaluated by the ' project geotechnical engineer prior to being placed at the project site. , ~ 7.2.4 Transition Pad Condition A geotechnical representative should be on-site during grading operations to ensure that a ' cudfill transitional bearing condition «ill not exist for the proposed structures. Based on our , findings, it is anticipated that the proposed footings will be founded en[irely in properlp , ~ ~1 r Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 14 Proposed Creekside Centre ~ Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 , compacted fill materials. If deep foundations are proposed, additional earthwork recommendations will be provided. ' ~ 7.3 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ' 7.3.1 General ' Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. Foundations will be founded entirely in properly compacted , fill materials. These recommendations assume that the soils exposed at finished pad grade ~ will have a very low potential for expansion as anticipated. ' 7.3.2 Shallow Foundations , In general, allowable bearing pressures for shallow spread and continuous footings will be ~ dependent on the footing size as well as the allowable settlements. We recommend that shallow spread and continuous footings be constructed a minimum of 15 inches wide and be ' f d d l oun e at east 18 inches below the lowest adjacent subgrade. ' , Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on an allowable bearing pressure of 2500 psf for footings constructed as stated above. The allowable soil bearing pressure , may be increased by 250 psf for every additional foot of depth to a maximum of 3000 psf. ' The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. ' 1~ ' ' Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 Proposed Creekside Centre , Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 1 Footing reinforcement should consist of a minimum of four #4 bars, two located at the top of ' the footing and two located at the bottom. ' , Lateral loads for structures supported on spread footings may be resisted by soil friction and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used ben+een ' foundations or the floor slabs and [he supporting soils. The passive resistance of the soils , may be assumed equal to the pressure deve(oped by a fluid with a density of 300 pc£ A one- third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The frictional ~ resistance and the passive resistance may be combined without reduction in determining the ' total lateral resistance. 1 ' 7.3.3 Settlement of Foundations We have anal zed settle t i l d i y men potent a ur ng construction and for long-term performance. , Construction settlement is expected to occur as Ioads are applied and structures are brought to their operational weight. Long-term setdement is expected to occur over time as a result , f o compression of wetted or partially saturated soil. Anticipated setttements are related to an ' applied bearing pressure for the proposed building of 2000 psf and a footing yidth of , approximately 18 inches. ' i ~~ 1 i ' , ' , ~~i LJ , , ' ~ , ~ ' i ' ' ' ' Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 16 Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 It is anticipated that shallow foundations designed as recommended will experience maximum total and differential static settlements on the order of 1.0 inch and 0.5 inch, respectively. 7 3.4 Concrete Slabs Concrete building slabs-on-grade should be designed for the anticipated loading. Floor slabs should be a minimum of five inches thick and should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 reinforcing bars placed on 24-inch centers, each way at mid-slab height. The conect placement ofthe reinforcement in the slab is vital for satisfactory performance under normal conditions. The floor slab on foundations should be tied together by extending the slab reinforcement into the footings. In [he areas to receive moisture sensitive floor covering, a polyethylene moisture barrier (10 mil or greater) shoufd be placed beneath the slab. A two-inch layer of coarse clean sand shou(d underlie the polyethylene moisture barrier. To assist in the curing of the concrete slab, we recommend that approximately two-inches of clean fine sand be placed over the polyethylene vapor barrier. The above values assume non-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Drainage measures should include free draining backfi(I materials and perforated drains. Drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location. !~" Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 Page 17 CTE Job No. 40-1758 It is recommended that a low water-cement ratio (0.5 maximum) be used for concrete, and that the slab be moist-cured for at least five days in accordance with methods recommended by the American Concrete Institute. On-site quality control should be used to confirm the design conditions. 7.4 Retainine Walls For the design of walls below grade where the surface of the backfill is level, i[ may be assumed that the soifs wil- exeR an active lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 40 pcf. The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls restrained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf should be used, based on at-rest soil conditions. In addition, a design passive resistance vahie of 300 pounds per square feet per foo[ of depth [0 2000 psf may be used. The earth pressures recommended above are based on the assumption that free draining select granular soils will be used as backfill and that walls are provided ~~ ith a backfill drain system to prevent a buildup of hydrosta[ic pressures. We recommend that walls be backfilled with soil having an expansion index of 20 or less. The backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1: I sloping plane, extended back from the base of the wall. Wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on Z~ ' , LJ , ' , , , ' , , lJ ' , , , , , Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 Page 18 CTE Job No. 40-1758 ASTM D1557-91. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment, which could cause distress to walls, should not be used. 7.5 Vehicular Pavements And Site Improvements The pavement section evaluation presented here is for preliminary consideration only. Pre(iminary pavement sections presented below in Table I for flexible pavement are based on a laboratory determined Resistance "R"- Value of site materials and the assumption subgrade and base materials aze compacted to 95% relative compaction. TARi.F. I Tra~c Area Assumed Determined AC Class II Traffic Index Subgrade Thickness Aggregate Base "R"-Value (inches) Thickness (inches) Load Areas 6.0 21 3.5 10.0 /Drivin~ Lanes Auto Parking Areas 5.0 21 ;.0 8.0 We recommend that soils underlying all proposed pavement areas be prepared in the following manner. Loose or disturbed subgrade soils shouid be removed to the depth of properly compacted fill material. Exposed soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted to 95% of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Soils should then be compacted in 6-inch lifts to subgrade elevation at 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. All Class II aggregate base materials should be compacted to at least 95% of the laboratory maximum densit~ ' ~ ' ' , Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 19 Proposed Creekside Centre Overiand Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 (ASTM D-1557). In addition, it is recommended that all pavement areas conform to the following criteria. ' 1. ~ ' ' ' LJ ' ' , , , , , , ' All trench backfills, including utility and sprinkler lines, should be properly placed and adequately compacted to provide a stable pavement subgrade. 2. An adequate drainage system should be provided to prevent surface water or subsurface seepage from saturating the subgrade soil. 3. Placement and construction of the recommended pavement section should be performed aggregate base should be used as outlined'and should have a minimum R-Value of 78. in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Class II Final in-place density of the Class II aggregate base should be 95 percent oF the maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557. 4. Surface run-off and irrigation water should be directed away from the parking areas to avoid contributing to wet or samrated soils beneath the pavement. 5. Pavement sections are prepazed assuming that periodic maintenance of pavements will be done, including sealing of cracks and other measures. 6. Pavement around areas of heavy loading should be paved with a minimum of 5 inclies of concrete reinforced with No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers. 7.6 Reactive Soils Moderate to high levels of sulfate containing solutions or soil can have a deleterious effect on the in- service performance of concrete foundations and reinforcement steel. In order to evaluate the !~' ' Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 20 Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 foundation environment, a representative sample of site soil, taken from B-2 at a depth of 2 to 4 feet below grade, was tested for soluble sulfate and pH. The results of the tests are as follows: 95 parts per million (ppm) soluble sulfate and 7.2 pH. Based on UBC Table 19-A-4, a sulfate exposure of 95 ppm is considered low; therefore, we recommend concrete containing Type II cement be utilized. Compressive strength of the concrete should be designed to meet the structura] requirements of the pro~ect. On-site soils are expected to be mildly corrosive to ferrous metals. Therefore, ~ve recommend that non-metallic pipes be used, or if inetallic pipes are used, that they be wTapped ~vith the appropriate non-corrosive materials. 7.7 Exterior Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork should have a minimum thickness of4-inches, unless otherwise specified. To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of foundation soils, we recommend that such flatwork be instailed with crack-control joints at approp~iate spacing as desired by the structural engineer. Flatwork, such as driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features, should be installed with crack con[rol joints. All subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the earthwork recommendations previousiy given prior to placing conerete. Positice drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to all flat~vork. `~ ' Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 21 Proposed Creekside Centre I Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 , 7.8 Drainaee Surface run-off should be collected and directed off-site by means of appropriate erosion reducing , devices. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the completed structures and positive ' drainage should be established. Positive drainage is defined as drainage away from structures at a , gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least 5 feet. The project civil engineer should thoroughly evaluate the on-site drainage and make provisions as necessary to keep surface water ' from entering the structure areas. ~I , 7.9 Plan Review , CTE should review project grading and foundation plans before the start of earthworks to identify potentiai conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report. ' , 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION , The recommendations presented herein are preliminary in nature and may be subject to change based , on further evaluation and additional information discovered during the completion of this investigation. ' , The recommendations provided in this report are based on the anticipated construction and the subsurface conditions found in our explorations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. ' ~ ~ ' Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Page 22 Proposed Creekside Centre ' Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 CTE Job No. 40-1758 ' Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE , will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthworks should be observed , and tested [o verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations ' contained within this report. The project geotechnical engineer should evaluate all footing excavations prior to reinforcing steel placement. , ' The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable ' geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or ' implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered ' during construction. ' , Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be not;fied ' and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. CTE should review ' project specifications for all earthwork, foundation, and shoring-related activities prior to the solicitation of construction bids. ' ' ' nr !~'" , ' ' ' ~ , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , ' ' ' t , ' ~ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Creekside Centre Overland Dr. & Nicole Ln., Temecula, CA December 14, 2004 Page 23 CTE 7ob No. 40-1758 We appreciate [his opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contac[ the undersigned. Respectfully submi[ted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. odn~~~GE #2173 Geotechnicai Engineering Manager ...~L~iG:.- ~:\ oF~^~ _"~._ .~ ~~4..1/ u. fl,' ~f;:;: ,t.. ~. _ "~ ; `, : , L ~ No. 2173 ~ ~ ?.'. Exp.6130105 . ~ .~ ~t Fll C Senior ~~C~~~~~ Robert L. Ellerbusch Staff Geologist ~~44~ G:~~ ~~`:~Y:~ 1 J ~'~~.~•:'f ~~p. ~~~i(~/7 ! : RAiaWx)N~.I~ '9 1 .. , ~t:_=r ~ r ~ `~,~' ... ~F ChL'•' v1 , 1 ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' 1 ' 1 ~ ' , ' , , t , . - - . - ~ *\:, . .i- _ . ,. i ~ ~'~; ~.,~,r.~~tt,,~~4'-~~~vy,~r~~.,~ q I~ / ,~~„F~~ I F9 f v ~o, ~ ` R.^ ~ ~~~ .~~ ~ ~' !` q' .4 ~ ~ e~ i~ i\ . .'iE.rR, r / ` ~ `) ~q~7:• ~F~ ~ F~~N . I _ . _ ~~ _ / /_-.- __ __-~ . rwa 4` . •- J~ / . • ~tkI ETA ; ~' .```~`o-~' ~~, 9 591 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~i a~ ~ %ro~ '~li G ~ ~~~f?~ '' I (C 9 / ~; ~`~ ~t ~~~ ` ~ ~~ipr.• s~;~ ~~OVIIY C. 4~ 4 ' ~y . " ~ ~ OR ~ . . . . t~a`.. i.p~' ! ~ .. Op. T' ~ i_~~.L~ , M1Rp ~q `o "~ ~'`p fOf f ~ ~~y I ~~ ~t ~ ' ~ #F t S B t~ 4 : `~V` ' ~ ~Fcrcr`~~~~, L~< ~,,;~:w"~~ ue ~G`, [M ~] _`` . Y r !~"/ ~C}&~\1` ~` ~~ 6ry/!`c ~ , ,:~ ~°~ ~ SITE ~s __. -_, _.____ ,.,a v.un ~ / '" ~ C[HIfR pLW i :' 5~~:•\~ ~ M1A(I i `o-a°~ pp; 4 ~ur _jy ~ . `' F'^,^ o+~'P , p4` ~^ G~ G~ ' p~ y vl/(M51[R ~ ! • `ll T 41Y.i( a+! •t•~, t~ C 'IR . . ...' _ .-... '._~~4' ~ Q' M . \ . ... `4i I F o+~ " J ~ ' ' ., r~" rtsr ~ ~ Ksrza 8~c ` ~~t~~ ~pcanrxr • ` u. ' ` d..0 \ 'v ~' V b` J,~`'' `~ ~ y O~~EPas ow •.4+ fA ' = ~ ~F .' ~ .ra~ i ' . . o. }: . . `, _ - +.~k~, . ,,,ay~.'. _.-„ -I~---~ --4~-5- % +, ! y 9 ~O ~ 0 ~ ~,\ ~~ ~_~ p ~~_~ TEMECULA ~'°` \ . ~ B~s~'rs~ ~:'~l „ 1 _ [x~ s \ ., ':3 _ ..._. .. "_ "__ a+9f_ . - '~'O .' . ., p , !~ ~a `~; ~ ' j .~`A.tT , . ~~ ~~ e 6 ~~un¢~q . ~ ~ ' ~ I ; , p~ OI Y ~ y.~ '~y • / ;~ ~ °"`a~ p -~. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ` ~ ~ a ~ ~ ( W !:' ~ \~ ` q ~~O t `4 ~ y` mou p . w ~ ~~ ~41:\/ c MIO~ e` ~ ~I . " S ~ d ~ fFxf(q . ~ . .~.~ ~.~}~ ~ i~xGi[ o.+~'.po ~.P~ ~ ' ~VrqiOn ~~ ~~4 ' . , ~ I ~ ,~nr, ow~ i . - . .. . ' RqNCNO:' ''~. CAUF00.NlA i - -.? - r ' t r I ~ G~ ~ y i.4. ~+'. '~ PV •h pS ~u~ ~ CO~STRGCTI01 TESTf~G & E~GI~EERI~G. I~C. 6E0'ifde!f~.. ~57 f75t!.i:f!i09 S.vi~:.vSEl:Vi ':ifSi~aN] :F[?if'IO.v ~ IiAV'NEY1.i~!.~iNCi.iGiii4 EiCOUp:DO(1 ~i1:~.i'nl~i-HP S[TE LOCAT[ON i~IAP ~ ~u. Dace Fiw JO-175B DEC2UUJ I i/~ = • I ~V ~ Y 'J m ~ O ~ I~ F d O ' ~ 0 -a u C7 c z ~ .. a , ° N ~ O R ~ __~-~ _ . , ... _._ ____.~__ _ __- _"_~- _ ~.~ _ ._~_ _' _ ~ ~.-_~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~ .. #_____~_y_- 0~ ~ #--~ o ~~ ~ ~ $ o ' ~ ' ~ ¢. ~'^ ' , - ti N ~ tl ~ ~ ~ ' e ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~~~ a t ~ ~ ! ~ ~~ 0 l ~ ~ ! ~ ~ t ' ~ ~ r ! {_ ~- / / zy ~/ ~ ~ _ aN / ~ / I , 1 ~~$ ~~~ / ~` ' ~ \f i' ~~~ ~ ~ _ ~ I • a ~ c e '. r e G 3 ~v~ ~/ / : ~~ e ~ _ ~ ~ ~' ." ~ , ~ " !~'__ / ' ~ ~ ~ >~ _'^ y~ \ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1 =~n T ~~L--~ 4 ~ 1 " \\\~~'/L y/ .`~~ \\ / ` i /. a ~ 0 i ~ ! _ /, \ / ~\ ~ . .. /~~ ~ ~/. \ ~~i., ~) ~ v W 7 r, ~ _ _ ~ ° e z = ~ - z ° o = e e '~ Z J O CJ _...~... ~ I ~~ % ! y/ ~ ~~ ~~ `~, /~ \ ~ . ~t ~, \ .A ~ • ~ \\\~ n' \ ~~ \ ` ~ a'' i~ ~ . ~ <i ~- „~ % . ~\ ~ _~ <~ ~. ~~N ~ V 1 ^ .\ f ~.` /~ / ~~ `~~ ~l ~~ -p~~` // Y~ `\`~(C~ ~V~:% ~~/. \\ "C ~~, /../ ~ i~' \ ~% ,, / , ,~~ i -'- ~~~~,/,/ ~ . \~, ~ ~s -'~ .A ~ . ~/ \~ / ~ ~., ~ /~ ~~\/,I\~y ~; ~`1~~, ~~'. ~. E J ~ ~ ~ ~ .r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ r~. ~ w ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~f ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ' ' RETANIPIG W. FINISH GRADE Q n WALL FOOTI~G ~ v • e~p• ,o e . •. < o~eo \:. . ..~ Q a so0 ~ • <. • ~o . o0 . ~ po ) - o p ~ ~ - > '°~ " O • ~ ' . e J o e ~ a vo i , r e• .~O 0 ~ ° a e ° ~ 0 ' ~ : . ~ pv o ~ ~ \ . ~ > - ~ ~ ' ~ ° • - 4 ~ C0~'STRGCTIO~ TESTIVG & E~GI~EERf~G. [VC. '' GEO1EfXNi(ii3}9f09i!~UC!109:y@IN[i71NGfiil:NGdN9',A:?iC!p5 i , III~VINiY~IJI'~iNUE.iUIIiG ~i[ONOiUO<dlii9~il!~;ie.i}{{ WALL BACKF[LL COMPACTED' T090%REL.4TIVEDENS[T~' ~ ~ 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY F[LTER FABRIC (VtIRAFi 140 N, OR EQUIVALENT) l' MN 4" DI.~. PERFOR~TED PVC P[PE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ[1IVALENT). ~tl~f~lti~i l% GR4DfE~-[' TO SC,'ITABLE OUTLET ~~~' ~ Vl[~I~fU~( 6" LAYER OF ! F[LTER ROCE~ C"NDERLti~[~;G P[PE RETAINING ~VALL DETAIL DEC 200~ ~ 3 ~ ~ '~ ~ APPENDIX A ~ REFERENCES L~ ~ ~ r^ 1' ~~ ~ ! ~ ~ ! ~ ~~ i 3~ ~ ~ REFERENCES ' l. Blake, T. F., 1997, "EQFAULT," Version 3.000 Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software. ~ 2. Califomia Department of Conservation Website, 1999, California Strong-Motion -nstrumentation Program (CSMIP), www.consrv.ca.eov. ~ 3. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, ( 997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in Califomia," Speciai Publication 1] 7. ~ 4. Califomia Test Method 643, 1978, Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts, Department of Transportation, State of California. 5. Day, R. W., 1999, Geotechnical and Foundation Eneineerin ,~ Desi~n and Construc[ion. ~~ 6. Duncan, J.M., and Buchignani, A.L., 1976, An Engineering Manual For Settiement Studies, from _ Luther Davidson Lecture. " 7. Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, W.A., Revised 1997, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquis[- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps," Califomia Division '~ of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. 8. Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Geologic Map of the Elsinore Fauh Zone, Southern Riverside County. ~, California. 9. Kennedy, M.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. 10. Petra Geotechnical, lnc., 2001, Geotechnical Investigation, 37-Acre Commercial Parcel Located West ~ of Margarita Road and South of Overland Drive, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. January 26, 2001. ;,' I L Rogers, Thomas H., 196~, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, Fifth Printing 198~, Scalz R i:zso,ooo. I 2. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1984, [nfluence of SPT Procedures in Soil '~,i Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations. 13. Southern California Earthyuake Center, University of Southem California; 1999; Recommendzd ~ Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Anal}zing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California. 14. Uniform Building Code, 1997, Chapters 16 and 19. I5. Webb, R.W. and Norris, R.M., 1990, Geology ofCalifornia. 1 ~ ~'/ ~ ~ ~ ~ APPENDIX B 1 FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORINGS LOGS ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. , APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND BORINGS LOGS ~ Soil Borine Methods Relativelv "Undisturbed" Soil Samnles ~ Retatively "undisturbed" soil samples were collected using a modified California-drive sampler (2.4- inch inside diameter, 3-inch outside diameter) lined with sample rings. Drive sampling was conducted in genetal accordance with ASTM D-3550. The steel sampier was driven into the bottom ~ of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound weight falling 30-inches. Blow counts (N) required for sampler penetration are shown on the boring logs in the column `Blows/Foot." The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4 inches in diameter, 1.00 inch in height). The samples were retained ~ and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the Construction Testing & Engineering ("CTE") geotechnical laboratory. ~' Disturbed Soil Samnling Buik soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis using two methods. Standard Penetration ,_ Tests (SPT) were performed according to ASTM D-1586 at selected depths in the borings using a '~ standard (1.4-inches inside diameter, 2-inches outside diameter) split-barrel sampler. The steel sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound weight falling 30-inches. Blow counts (N) required for sampler penetration are shown on the boring logs in ~ the column "Blows/Foot." Samples collected in this manner were placed in sealed plastic bags. Bulk soil samples of the drill cuttings were also collected in large plastic bags. All disturbed soil ~ samples were returned to the CTE geotechnical laboratory for analysis. ~ ~; ~ ~' ~ ~ ,~, ~~ r . ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~' ~' r ~ '~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~R S' e GEOTECHNIC.~L ANO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ~N~ INSPECTION ~ 3~1~ VINEYARD ~VENUE. SUItE G ESCONDI00 fw.91n391t.1v) l~fi~~93f [r+cL~FHUNCIr+c PROJECT: Crmkside Rctail Crnter DRILLHR: 2R Drilling SHEET: 1 of 3 CTE JOB NO: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: 8" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLMG DATE: 11/10/04 LOGGED BY: R. Ellerbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVpTION: As buill pad ~ " a n v `- o E ° " F ~ ' " " ~ BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests ` 6 C v pj u $ y ~ 3 0 ~ U ~ a O m ~ o m Z. _ o f vi ~ U DESCRIPTION ~ FILL MAX is EI, DS 2i 128A ~0.o SC Dense, Moist, Red-Brown ClaVey SAND AL (LL=27, P1=91 z3 MD GS (36% fines) 5 16 ie i i9.i to.i sC Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Clavev SAND MD ia io WA (2a% fines) ia izzo io.~ sc Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Clavev SAND MD 25 coarser erained DS ~ io 12 123J i03 SC Dense, Mois[, Red-Brown Clavey SAND MD li $ 13 3i ua.a ioz sc Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Clavev SAND MD so rock in sampler shoe ------- - - ---------------------------------------------- Ouaternarv Pauba Formation - Sands[one (Ops) -~ e WA (33°.o flnes) 9 i> 9 SM Medium Dense, Moist, Li~tht Oran~e-Brown. ~I 6 Fine Siltv SAND ~ FIGURE: B-I ~ '. ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ,~ ~~CONSTR UCTION TE STI NG & ENGINEERIN G~ INC. N ~ U E0. N N E o (~ v l~l~ V ~NEY.~FO AVENUE. SUITE G ESCON~IDO C.~. 931139 (619) 1~6-~91) El1GC~IDUNG~NC PROIECT: Creeksido Retail Cenrer DRILLER: 2R Drilling SHEET: 2 of 2 CTE JOB NO: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: 8" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLMG DATE: I I/10/04 LOGGED BY: R. Elicrbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As built pad V V, O 4 ~ ~ C 6 ~ ° ° " ~ ~ - = ` Y ti ~' ~ ' BORING: B-1 Cont'd Laborato Tests ry v 6 C ~1 N L Y Y L~ 'n U Z x m O O m ~ ~ ~ (j DESCRIPTION 5 8 Iz iZS sM Medium Dense, Moist, Liaht Gravish-Brown M ~3 Fi e il AND. Borin~ terminated at 26.5 ft. No Groundwater encountered. Borina backfilled wi[h soil cunin~s. 3 'S 0 5 FIGURE: B-Ib 3`° ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~, ~ ' ~ ' ~ ~ ERHN G~ INC. ENGINE STING & TE RUCTION CONST ~ ~ E o A ER U E N ~ ~ . (Q 3~11 VINEYARO .~VENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO C.~.91059 (619) )I6-19]f ENfC~E01QlGJHC PROJECT: Crccksidc Retail Center DRILLER: 2R Drilling SHEET: I Of 3 CTE JOB N0: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: 8" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLMG DATE~. I I/10/04 LO(iGED BY: R. Ellerbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As built pad V ~` O = n '~ ' ~ ~= a ' V = E `~ ~ o B~RINU'. B-'~ Labora[oryTests iu F .Q ~ ~ N t y ; ; ~ y V t d a V ~ ~ (d ' ^ O m Z` 0 O ~ VI ~ N V DESCRiPTION ~ FILL CHM 10 la i32.4 6.8 SC-SM Dense. Moist, Red-Brown Siltv ClaYev SAND MD n 5 5 8 i20.e 73 SGSM Medium Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Silry Clavev MD i9 SAND DS 0 zi 33 i38.z s.a sC Verv Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Clavev SAND MD 33 with fine eravel 5 ~ 12 I19.2 Ii.O SC Dense, Mois[, Red-Brown Clavev SAND MD I8 finer orained 0 ------- ------------------------------------------------------------- 6 9 io.3 ML Verv Stiff, Moist. Dark Grav Sandv SILT M iz with some oreanic content . ------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Ouaternarv Pauba Formation - Sandstone (pps) SM Medium Dense, Moist, Oranee-Brown. Fine Silri SAND FIGURE: _ B-'- 3~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~. ~ ,~ ~ ?~ ,~. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '~. ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~,~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~i` s GEOiECNNICAI. ~ND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEE0.ING TESTING AND INSPECTION ~ tll~ VINEYh0.D AVENUE. SUITE G'ESCONDIOO CA. 951139 (M119) ]~6.~9)p ENGDFPAIIIGJNC PROJECT: Crteksidc Rctail Centcr DRILLER: 2R Drilling SHEET: 2 of 3 CTE J08 NO: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: 8" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLING DATE: 11/10/04 LOGGED BY: R. Ellcrbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As built pad ++ ~ o d ^ ° '~ W '~ ~ '° a - - ~ E N T J ° B~RING'. B-2 C~nt~d LaboratoryTests `4'„ F 6 V v j VI V s Q y ; V ) . 3 o ^ r ~n s V ti t 6 A ~ s o m o f ~ o DESCRIPTION S 6 i i 9.6 SM Medium Dense, Moist, OranRe-Brown, Fine M i4 Siltv SAND 3 ------- - --------------------------------------------------------------- 9 i9 5.5 SP-SM Dense, Damp, Li~ht Brown Poorlv-eraded M zi SAND with Silt and occasional fine Qravel GS ( l2% fines) 'S ------- --------------------------------------°---------------------- 9 R i8.i St.~t Medium Dense. Very Mois[. GraY, Fine Silry M 16 SAND WA (27% fines) 0 9 ~2 u.i SM Dense, Moist, Grav, Fine Silry SAND M 2z FeOz stainin~, weaklvi cemented > 9 +rades to ---- z0 z~ ------- SP-SM - ------------ -----------------o -------- -------- Very Dense, Moist. Lioht Gray Poorlv-_raded N~ aa SAND with Silt. _ ` Groundwaterencountered 5 --M~ - ------------------°--------------------------------------- FIGURE: B-2b 3~' _~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. O GEOTECHNIC~L AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ~ND INSlECTIOM ~ ~ ]JI~ VINfVARO ~VENUE.SUITE G ESCON~IDO C.~-93~34 (fi19) ]~6~~9f] QIGOFHlNGJNC. PROIECT: Creeksidc Rctail Ccnter DRILf,ER: 2R Drilling SHEET: 3 Of 3 CTE JOB N0: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: 8" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLMG DATE~. I I/10l04 LOGGED BY: R. Ellerbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As bui~t pad V ~ O p W y C 6 L ~ u ~n '~ ~ ~ = ` ti ' ° ~ BORING: B-2 Cont'd Laborato Tests ry v 6 C V (A s 6 y 3 p N U ~ ~ m ~ m 0 C G ~ ~.l DESCRIPTION 0 9 9 2~.i ML Stiff, Verv Moist, Grav Sandv SILT M 6 Borine terminated at 51.5 ft. Groundwater encountered at 49 ft. BorinR backfilled with soil cuttin~s and benronite chips. 5 0 5 0 7 _ _ _ FIGURE: B-2c :/v \ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~,~ ~~CONSTR UCTION TE STING OL ENG INEERIN G~ INC. ~ N U E0. I S E o ~ . z 3~1~ VINEY~0.0 AVENUE. SUITE G fSCOND100 C~. 93ntv (419) N6~i9pp ENLL~FFAINGJNf PROJECT: Creckside Re~aii Ccntcr DRILLER: 2R Drilling SHEETt 1 Of I CTE JOB NO: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: B" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLMG DATE: 11/10/04 LOGGED BY: R. Ellerbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As built pad c o U ~ a A `~ n ~ ~ b :, n T - o „ a T '~ m -°~ 1'~i B~i~1NG. B-3 LaboraroryTests n " > 3 ~ " U y u - '_ o Z. ~o vi ~ c1 0 m 0 ~ ~ U DESCRIPTION 0 FILL ~, 2i 133.6 v SC-SM Verv Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Siltv Clayev MD 33 SAND AL(LL=26, PI=8) S 18 Zo iz6.o io.i sC-snn _______ Dense~Moist,Gray_SiltyClay_eySAND_____ MD 22 .______ [rans~honm~ to SM Dense, Moist, Dark Gray Fine Siltv SAND 0 > ? io.l sM Medium Dense, Moist, Dark Grav Fine Siltv Nt 6 SAND WA (35°o fines) ------- - - ---------------------------------------------- Ouaternarv Pauba Forma[ion - Sandstone (Oas) 5 g iz 9.z snn Medium Dense, Moist, Oranse-Brown Fine N~ ~4 Siltv SAND WA (26°'o finzs) weaklvi cemented _0 ~ ~ io 8.6 SM Medium Dense, Moist, Oranee-Brown Fine A1 ~~ Siltv AND Borino terminated at 21.~ ft. No Groundwater encountered. Borino backfilled with soil cuttinos. ~- FIGURE: B-3 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'s~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~ GEOTECHNIChL ~ND CONSTRULTION ENGINEE0.ING TfSTING ~N4 INSIECTION CP 1~ 1~ V~NEYARD ~VENUE, SUItE G ESCONUIDO CA 9SIIS9 (R19) )~6-~Yff Q1GL~FHUHG~NC PROIECT: Cmcksidc Retail Crnter DRILLER: 2R Driliing SHEET: I Of I CTE JOB NO: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: 8" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLRJG DATB: 1 I/10/04 LOGGED BY: R. Elkrbusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As built pad " C o .~ LL d ~ '~ ~ T ~ c ~ ;, a T - a a T " m -°, B~~NG: B-L~ Laboratory Tests C 6 C ~ tn V ~ ' O O J L S m ~ m ~ ~ U DESCRIPTION 0 FiLL a 7 I1.6 SM Medium Dense, Mois[, Grav-Brown Siltv SAND M 8 5 13 i9 zs SM Dense, Moist, Grav-Brown Siltv SAND M I6 """' """""""""""_"""""'_"""""""""""_""' Ouaternarv Pauba Formation - Sandstone (Oas) ~ io ie 8.z SM Dense, Moist, Oran¢e-Brown Fine Silry SAND M z~ ~veaklvi cemented W A(2 I% fi nes) S IS 22 6.6 sr~.f Dense, Mois[. Li~ht Tan, Coarse Siltv SAND M 25 WA (13% tinzs) 0 9 t3 iz.9 SM Medium Dense, Moist.Oran~e-Brown Fine ~Z Siltv AND Borin~ terminated a[ 21.5 ft. No Groundwater encountered. Borino backfilled with soil cuttin~s. 2 FIGURE: B-4 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , '~. ~ ' ' ~ , ~ ~' ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. t C~ O GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSiRUCTION ENGINfEFING iESTING AND INSlfCT~ON R 3~11 VINEYARD AVEMUE. SUITE G ESCONO100 <A. 93~129 (619J )~6~191f (~ o+camuxcn+c. PROJECf: Crcekside Relail Center DRILLER: 2R Drilling SHEET: 1 Of I CTE JOB NO: 40-1758 DRILL METHOD: B" HSA/SPLITSPOON DRILLMG DATE: I I/10/04 LOGGED BY: R. EIIerEusch SAMPLE METHOD: 140 LB / 30" ELEVATION: As built pad u a 4 n ~ v ~ ~ v n ~ ~ E " ~ nT LNG. B-5 B~i~ LaboratoryTests ~ y N . .t., y j ' C _ ` 3 ~ ` N ' V t n o m o m o ~ ~ o DESCRIPTION ~ FILL RV I2 i9 izi3 io.o sast.t Dense, Moist, Red-Brown Silty Clavev SAND MD 16 5 12 za 119.9 s.s sGStVt Dense. Moist. Dark Red-Brown Siltv Clavev MD 26 SAND, siiehdv coarser ------- - - - - - ---------------------------------- Ouaternsrv Pauba Formation - Sandstone (Oas) O 18 22 I23.o io.o SM Very Dense, Moist. Tan. Siltv SAND MD aa cemented W A( I 8% fines) 5 ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 6 ~ ~.9 ML-SM Verv Stiff, Moist, Oran¢e-Brown Sandv SILT M i0 to Siltv SAND WA (53% fines) 0 ------- -------------------------------------°°---------------------- 6 S ia.3 Sn4 Medium Dense, Mois[, Oranee-Brown Siltv M 9 AND Borine terminated at 21.5 ft. No Groundwa[er encountered. Borin¢ backfilled with soil cuttines. FIGURE: B-5 ~v ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ' GEOTECXNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGIHEERING TESTING AND INS/ECTION e t~I~VINEYARDAVENUE.5l11TEG ESCONDI~OCG.910t9~>6tl)1~6~~9J1 PROJECf: CreekSide Relail Crntef DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILLING DATE: CTElOBNO: 40-1758 DRILLf.¢THOD: 8"HOLLOWSTEMAUGER II/10/2004 LOGGEDBY: R.Ellerbusch SnI~LEPAETHOD: DRIVE NORMALIZED BLOW COUNT SUMMARY aampier t,onverson SPT Blow Count = 0.62' MoCified California Blow Count SPT = 0, Mod. Cal = 1 Sampler Corrections CH Overburden Pressure, CN =(P,/a'~)'~~, where Pa=2000 psf CE Energy Ratio, CE = 1 A(Aulo Trip Hammeq Ca Borehole Diameter, CB = 1.0 (hollow stem) Cq Rod Length, CR = 0.75, 0.85, 0.95 for lengths < 33'; 1.0 for lengihs > 33' Cs Sampler Liner Correction, CS = 72 (Sampler w/o lineq Cp Dia (type) of Sampler, SPT Blow Counl = 0.62 ' Modified Calitomia Blow Average Borehole Number Normalized Depth (N) Normalized 8lowcounts per Depth B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 Nfio 2.5 65 52 79 43 53 58 5 35 26 44 71 54 46 7.5 37 37 10 20 49 16 53 50 37 15 29 18 30 55 11 29 20 15 21 20 25 18 20 25 23 23 23 30 33 33 35 21 21 40 24 24 45 43 43 50 10 10 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Avera e Normalized er Borehole 29 38 49 37 Averaae Normalized Vertical Profil~ Soil Profile SD FIGURE: NB-I E:\PROJECTS~LIQUIFACTION CHARTS\40-1758 Normalize 81ow Counts.XLS ~ ~{ ~ ~~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ' GEOTECNNICAL ANO CONST0.UCTtON ENGINEERING TEStING ~NOINSPECTION p L1~ VINEY~RU I.VENUE. SURE G ESCONDI~O CI.. 9303a O60) 1~6-~9ff PGMFFAI~'4JVC P0.0JECf: CrceASidc Retail Ccn[er DRILLER: 2R Drilling DRILLMG DA7E: I I/102004 ' ~ CTE JOB NO: 40-1758 DRILL A~THOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER LOGGED BY: R. EllcrbuSCh SAMPLE METHOD: DRIVE BOREHOLE: I NORMALIZE BLOW COUNTS ~ Depth ro GW ~ I Dw = 49.0 ft ~ UNIT WEIGHT WET 142 Sampler Conversion SPT Blow Count = 0.62' Modified California Blow Count ~. ~ SP7 = S, Mod. Cal = C Sampler Corrections' CH Overburden Pressure, CN =(P,/d~)°0, where Pa=2000 pst CE Energy Ratio, CE = 1.0 (Auto Trip Hammer), BO/60 Ca Borehole Diameter, CB = 1.0 (hollow stem) CR Rod Length, CR = 0.75, 0.85, 0.95 for lengths < 33'; 7.0 for lengths > 33' CS Sampler Liner Correction, CS = 1.2 (Sampler w/o liner) Co Oia (type) of Sampler, SPT Blow Count = 0.62 ' Modified Califomia Blow Soil Profle Dala: Corrections Normalized f1 Nm SPT~S OVERBOROEN ENE(!GY BOREOIA RODLENGiN MEiH00 TYPE Depth Blow Rod Sleeved Type a'~ CH CE Ca CR Cs Co Nao Sample Count Leng(h SPT? Sampler (ps~ ' 2.5 44 FROM B-1 10 N C 355 2.37 7.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 65 5 34 FROM B-7 10 N ~ C 710 1.68 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0 62 35 I 7.5 43 FROM B-7 10 N C. 1065 1.37 1.33 1.00 075 7.00 . 0.62 37 ~ 10 . 27 FROM B-1 ~ t0 N C 1420 1.19 7.33 1.00 075 1.00 0.62 20 - 15 48 FROM B-1 10 N C ~ 2130 0.97 7.33 7.00 075 1.00 0.62 29 I 20 75 FROM B-1 10 ~ N S 2840 0.84 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 15 ' 25 25 FROM 8-1 10 N S 3550 075 1.33 1.OD 075 720 1.00 27 30 FROM 8-1 4260 0.69 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 35 FROM 8-1 4970 0.63 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 40 FROM B-1 5680 0.59 7.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 45 FROM B-1 6390 0.56 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ I 50 55 FROM B-1 FROM B-1 7038 7436 0.53 0.52 1.33 7.33 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ 60 FROM B-1 7834 0.57 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 65 FROM B-1 8232 0.49 1.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 70 FROM B-1 8630 0.48 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 75 FROM B-1 9028 0.47 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 - 80 FROM B-7 9426 0.46 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 85 FROM B-1 9824 0.45 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 , 90 FROM B-1 10222 0.44 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ ~ ~'Relerence: DMG SPECIAL PUBLICATION 11] ~ Average Normalized Blowcount for this Boring = 32 ~ ( ~ 1J ` ~ ~ ~ONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. F^i ~ GEOTECHNICAL eN0 CONSTRUCiION ENGINEE0.ING TESTING ~ND INSPECTION ! C~ 3~I~ VINEY~0.D AVENUE. SUITE G ESLONDIDO CA.93039 (]60) t~fi~~915 FTGORFUn'GN[ PROIECT: Crcekside Retail Crnler DRILLER: 2R Drilling ORILLMG DnTE: 11/102004 CTE J08 NO: 40-USB DRILL Fff7HOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER LOGGEDBY'. R.EIICIbUSCh SAMPLEhffTHOD: DRIVE BOREHOLE: 2 NORMALIZE BLOW COUNTS . Depth to GW Dw = 49.0 R UNIT WEIGHT WET 140 '~ Sampler Conversion ~ SPT Blow Count = 0.62' Modified Califomia Blow Count SPT = S, Mod. Cal = C Sampler Corrections' CH Overburden Pressure, CN =(P,/a'~)'~, where Pa=2000 pst CE Energy Ratio, CE = 1.0 (Auto Trip Hammer), 80/60 Ca Borehole Diameter, CB = 7.0 (hollow slem) Cq Rod Length, CR = 075, 0.85, 095 for lengths < 33'; i A for lengths > 33' Cs Sampler Liner Correction, CS = 12 (Sampler w/o liner) Cp Dia (rype) of Sampler. SPT Blow Count = 0.62' Modified California Blow Soil Profile Data: Corrections ~ Normalized ~ X Nm SPT:S OVEHBUROEN ENERGY BORE01~ ROpLfNG1M MEiX00 TYGE Depth Blow Rod S~eeved Type a~ CN CE Ce ~a ~s ~o Nca -Sample Count Length SPT? Sampler (psQ ~ 2.5 35 FROM B-2 10 N C 350 2.39 1.33 1.00 0.75 7.00 0.62 52 5 27 FROM B-2 10 N C 700 1.69 7.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 28 I 7.5 FROM B-2 1050 1.38 1.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 70 66 FROM B-2 10 N C 1400 1.20 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 49 " _ 15 30 FROM B-2 1 ~ N C 2100 0.98 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 18 I 20 21 FROM B-2 10 N S 2800 0.85 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 27 ~ 25 25 FROM B-2 10 N S 3500 0.76 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 23 30 ~ 40 FROM 8-2 10 N S 4200 0.69 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 73 I 35 28 FROM B-2 10 N S 4900 0.64 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 21 ~ 40 - 34 FROM B-2 70 N S 5600 0.60 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 24 45 64 FROM B-2 70 N S 6300 0.56 7.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 43 50 15 FROM B-2 ~ 10 N 5 6938 0.54 1.33 1.00 0.75 120 1.00 10 I 55 FROM B-2 7326 0.52 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 60 FROM B-2 7714 0.57 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 65 FROM 8-2 8102 0.50 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 70 FROM B-2 8490 0.49 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 , 75 FROM B-2 8878 0.47 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 " 80 FROM B-2 9266 0.46 1.33 1.00 075 0.00 0.00 I 85 FROM B-2 9654 0.46 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 , 90 FROM B-2 10042 0.45 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 r ~ ~~'ftelemnre~. OMG SPECIAL PVBLICAiION 11] ' Average Normalized Blowcount for this Boring = 29 URE:I NB-3 ~ ~~ ~ '' ~ CTE lOB NO: LOGGEDBY~. ~ONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ~ q0 GEOTECNNICAL ~NU CONITRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ~NO INSPECTION ~ ~ UI~ VINEY~0.~ AVENUE. SURE G ESCONOIOO CA. 93039 (1fi0~ )~6-~9U Q:GWEFLI:GIVC Crcekside Retail Ccn[er DRILLER: 2R Drilling 40-1758 DRILL t~neTHOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER R.Elkrbusch SnMPLEn~THOD: DRIVE ~' Depth to GW Dw = 49.0 ft UNIT WEIGHT WET 743 ~ Sampler Conversion SPT Blow Count = 0.62 , SPT = S, Mod. Cal = C NORMALIZE BLOW COUNTS DRILLMG DATE: I I/102004 BOREHOLE: } Sampler Corredions' CH Overburden Pressure, CN =(P,/a'~,)'~~, wheie Pa=2000 psf CE Energy Ratio, CE = 7.0 (Auto Trip Hammer), 80/60 Ca Borehole Diameter, CB = 1.0 (hollow stem) Cq Rod Length, CR = 075, 0.85, 0.95 for lenglhs < 33'; 1 A for lengths > 33' Modified Cali(omia Blow Count Cs Sampler Liner Correction, CS = 12 (Sampler w/o liner) Cp Dia (type) o( Sampler, SPT Biow Count = 0.62' Modified California Blow Soil Profile Data : Corrections Normalized I ry Nm SPT•5 OVERB~R~EN ENERGY BOREOU qODLENGTH METn00 ivpE Depth Blow Rod Sleeved Type a'~ C„ CE Ca CR Cs Co Nco Sample Count Length SPT? Sampler (ps~ ~ 2 5 54 FROM B 3 . - 10 N C 358 2.37 1.33 7.00 075 1.00 0.62 79 ~ 5 42 FROM 83 10 N C 715 1.67 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 44 I ).5 FROM B-3 1073 1.37 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 10 11 FROM B3 10 N S 1430 1.1 B 1.33 1.00 0.75 120 1.00 16 - 15 26 FROM B3 10 - N S 2145 0.97 1.33 1.00 075 1.20 1.00 30 ~ I 20 25 20 FROM 8-3 FROM B-3 10 N S 2860 3575 0.84 0.75 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 1.20 0.00 7.00 0.00 20 30 FROM 8-3 4290 0.68 1.33 7.00 075 0.00 0,00 I 35 FROM 8-3 5005 0.63 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 40 FROM 83 5720 0.59 1.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 45 FROM B-3 6435 0.56 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 50 FROM B-3 7088 0.53 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 55 FROM 83 7491 0.52 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 60 FROM B3 7894 0.50 1.33 7.00 0]5 0.00 0.00 65 FROM B-3 8297 0.49 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 70 FROM B-3 8700 0.48 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 75 FROM B-3 9103 0.47 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 80 85 FROM 83 FROM B-3 9506 9909 0.46 0.45 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 FROM B-3 70312 0.44 7.33 7.00 075 0.00 0.00 w , ~'Relerence OMG SPECIAL PUBLICATION N i , ~ Average Normalized Biowcount for this Boring = 3e ~ \ ~~ ~ ~.1 ~~ ~CONSTRUCT[ON TESTING & ENGINEERING, lNC. GEOTECMNIC.~L AND CONST0.UCTION ENGINEERING TESTING ANO INSPECT~ON e LI~ VINEYARO AVENOE. fUITE G ESCONDIDO C.~ V10I9 (l60) ]~6~~Vff FTGQ+tFLAGPI[ _ PROIECf: ICTEIOB NO: ~ LOGGED BY: ~ Crcckside Rctail Ccntcr 40-1758 R. Elkrbusch DRILLER: 2R D~illing DRILL R~'HOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER SAMPLEA~THOD: DRIVE DRILLMG DATE: ~ ~/102004 anacuro c NORMALIZE BLOW COUNTS Depth to GW Dw = 49.0 ft UNIT WEIGHT WET 140 ~ Samplei Conversion SPT Blow Count = O.fi2' Modified California Blow Coun[ , SPT = S, Mod. Cal = C Sampler Correclions• CN Overburden Pressure, CN =(P,la'~)'n, where Pa=2000 psf CE Energy Ratio, CE = 1 A(AUto Trip Hammer), 80/60 Ce Borehole Diameter, CB = 1.0 (hollow stem) CR Rod Length, CR = 0.75, 0.85, 0.95 for lengths < 33'; 1.0 for lengths > 33' Cs Sampler Liner Correclion, CS = 1.2 (Sampler w/o liner) C^ Dia (type) of Sampler, SPT Blow Count = 0.62 ' Modifed Califomia Blow ~al Profile Data: Corrections ~ Normalized ~~ Nm SPT•S OVEFBUROEN ENEPGV BOREOIL RODLENGTH METHOD TYPE I Depth Blow Rod Sleeved Type a'~ CH CE Ca Cq Cs Co Nco Sample Count Length SPT? Sampler (ps~ ~ 2.5 15 fROM B-4 10 N ~ S 350 2.39 1.33 1.00 0.75 120 1.00 4J 5 35 FROM 84 10 N S 700 1.69 1.33 1.00 OJS 1.20 1 00 71 I 7.5 FROM B~ - 1050 1.38 7.33 7.00 075 0.00 . 0.00 ~ 70 37 FROM B-4 10 N S 1400 1.20 1.33 7.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 53 - 15 47 FROM B-0 10 ~ N S 2100 0.98 1.33 7.00 OJS 120 1.00 55 I 20 25 FROM 8-4 10 . N S 2800 0.85 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 25 ~ 25 FROM B-4 3500 0.76 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 30 FROM B-4 4200 0.69 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 35 FROM B-4 4900 0.64 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 1 40 FROM 8-4 5600 0.60 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 45 FROM B-4 6300 0.56 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 50 55 FROM B-4 FROM B-4 6938 7326 0.54 0.52 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60 FROM B-4 7714 0.51 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 65 FROM B-4 8102 0.50 1.33 1.00 0.75 0 00 00 0 ~ 70 FROM B-4 8490 0.49 1.33 1.00 0.75 . 0.00 . 0.00 75 FROM B-4 8878 0.47 1.33 7.00 0J5 0.00 0.00 - 80 FROM B-4 9266 0.46 1.33 1.00 075 0.00 0.00 ~ 85 FROM B-4 9654 0.46 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 90 FROM B-4 10042 0.45 1.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ±~ ~ , ~elerence. pMG SPECIAL PUBLICATION 11]. ~ Average Normalized Blowcount for this Boring = a9 N B-5 , 6~1 1 ~" ~CON3TRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ' # ~ GEOTECHNIUL AND CONST0.UCTIDN ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSFECTION ~ LI~VINEYAROAVENOE.SUREG ESCONOIOOCA.Y3~39(l6U)>~6~~9ff FAGVRAI.~'GIVC PROJECT: Crcckside Relail Ccn[cr DRILLER: 2R Driliing ~ CTE JOB NO: 40-1)58 DRILL METHOD: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER LOGGED BY: R. Ellerbusch SAMPLE h¢THOD: DRIVE NORMALIZE BLOW COUNTS ' Depth to GW Dw = 49.0 ft ~ UNIT WEIGHT WET 134 Sampler Conversion SPT Blow Count = 0.62 ' Modified California Blow Count ~~ SPT = S, Mod. Cal = C DRILLMG DATE: I I/IOQ004 BOREHOLE~. 5 Sampler Correclions' ~ CH Overburden Pressure, CN =(P,/a'~,)"~, where Pa=2000 pst CE Energy Ratio, CE = 1A (Auto Trip Hammer), 80/60 Ca Borehole Diameter, CB = 1.0 (hollow stem) CR Rod Length, CR = 0.75, 0.85, 0.95 for lengths < 33'; 1.0 for lengths > 33' Cs Sampler Liner Correction. CS = 12 (Sampler w/o liner) Cp Dia (type) of Sampler, SPT 81ow Count = 0.62 ' Modifed Caiifomia Blow Soil Profile Data: Corrections Normalized tl Nm SPT•5 OVERBUROEN ENERGV BOREDU ROOLENGTX METMOO TYPE ' Depth Blow Rod Sleeved Type a'~ C„ CE Ca Cq Cs Co Nw Sample Count Length SP7? Sampler (ps~ ' 2.5 35 FROM 8-4 10 N C 335 2.44 1.33 1.00 075 7.00 0.62 53 ~ I 5 7.5 50 FROM B-4 PROM B-4 10 10 N N C C 670 7005 1.73 1.47 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.75 075 7.00 1.00 0.62 0.62 54 ' 70 66 FROM B-4 10 N C 1340 7.22 1.33 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 50 ° 15 17 FROM B-4 10 N C 2010 1.00 1.33 7.00 0.75 1.00 0.62 N I 20 17 FROM B-4 10 N S 2680 0.86 7.33 1.00 0.75 1.20 1.00 18 ~ 25 FROM B-4 3350 0.77 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 30 FROM 8-4 4020 0.71 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 35 FROM B-4 4690 0.65 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 40 FROM B-4 5360 0.67 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 45 FROM B-4 6030 0.58 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 50 FROM B-4 6638 0.55 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 55 FROM B-4 6996 0.53 1.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 60 FROM B-4 7354 0.52 1.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 I 65 70 FROM B-4 fROM B-4 7712 8070 0.51 0.50 1.33 7.33 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 75 FROM B-4 8428 0.49 1.33 7.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 80 FROM 8-4 8786 0.48 1.33 1.00 075 0.00 0.00 I 85 FROM B-4 9144 0.47 7.33 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 ~ 90 FROM B-4 9502 0.46 7.33 1.00_ 075 0.00 0.00 ~5 , 'Re(erence: OMG SPECIAL PUBLICATION 11] Average Normalized Blowcount for this Boring = 37 ~' ~ FicuaE: uB-~ , , ~ , ~ ' APPENDIX C ~ LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 r ' ~~ ' APPENDIX C ~ LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American , Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the vazious test methods used. Laboratory results are presented in the ~ following section of this Appendix. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual ~ classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to AS'fM D2487. ~ Particle-Size Analvsis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM ~ D422. Atterber¢ Limits ~ The procedure of ASTM D 4318 was used to measure the liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of representative samples. ~ Expansion Index Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the.matrix of the onsite soils ~ according to Building Code Standard No. 29-2. In-Place Moisture/Densitv , The in-place moisture content and dry uni[ weight of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed chunk soil samples. ~ Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on either samples direct from the field or on samples recompacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum value overall. Direct shear testing was , performed in accordance with ASTM D3080 -72 to evaluate the sheaz strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. LJ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ Modified Proctor Laboratory compaction tests were performed according to ASTM D1557. A mechanically ~ operated rammer was used during the compaction process. ~ Resistance "R"-Value The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method No. 301 for representative subbase soils. Samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R"-value ~ determined. The graphically determined "R"- value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is the value used for pavement section calculation. ~ ' ~ ~ ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ' S` TABLE G1 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D 1557) Job No. Test Location Soil Description Maxiroum Optimtim Dry Density Moisture (pc~ Content (°/a) 40-1758 B-I @ 2-Sft. Red-Brown Clayey SAND I33.4 7.6 (fill) TABLE C-2 Direct Shear Test Results Job No. Test Location Soil Description Cohesion Phi Angle (ps~ (degrees) 40-1758 B-2 @ Sft. Red-Brown Silty Clayey 0 42 SAND (fill) Red-Brown Clayey SAND 40-1758 B-1 @ ~.Sft. (fll) 0 36 TABLE C-3 Expansion Index Test Results (UBC Standard No. 18-2) 1ob No. Test Location Soil Description Expansion Expansion Index Potential 40-1758 B-I r~i ?-Sft. Red-Brown Clayey SAND Id Very Low (fill) ~'v ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' ' ~ ' i r -- ---- -~ -- i --- i ----- --- ~ - -_- i ; ; ~ ! i ~ '__-_ "'_ :.__-_ __~-.-______.___.`-____.L-"._._-i___.__!__-__1._ __._.._ _ I i ~ "-_-.'.___..... ' '. I : .._'1"---"_'_'_- ~ ~__'-.'-_'_' i -_'_'__"__ '-"___" ~ I I ; ~ ' _'__._._...__-"__. -_'_ _~__~-_______ . . -'__. _-__.__...-__'__ , , ~ _'___'____•`__- __-' ~ '__ _'__~.___ '_:--.-_i-- - a P ~ o ~ o ~o 0 0 0 ( i ~ ~v~ssda Ln3~a ~.i 0 0 IUI OI V 0 E E v ~ U C < ~ > ~ J .. z ~ ~ o z ~ m cF, Q ~ NU W z ~ __ ~ z „' ¢ ~?- n. mi= m_= z== ~~ ~_ ~r- U~' z~_ F~~ f- Y ' i : z== o°_ U t i ~ ~ i ~ ~ F:" <n ' z~ 0 U_ ~ ~ ~ .p,h`f' ~S 5~ , , ~ I ' ~ ~ i 1 1 ~ ~ , ' , ' ' ~ ~ , ~ ' _r_ I ~ _~ , ~ I I I ~ 1 ~ ~ I I ! . ... _ _ _ __ I ' . ..._~_ ~- ~__~___ ' i __ ' _. ~ .___t_..._ ..__ . . , . i r-.... . _________ J _ ... ~ . . '. ._ __ . _~ . _ _. .. _ _ . .... ... ...__ -~' . ~ .ti -~ ..__.: ' . ._ ._. ~ .. -~ . . ' ~ .. . _.: _.._ .._._:. ._. . . . . : . . ~ . -- "..~ _ ~ . _ _.- ---- ~ r ---- - ~ .. __ __ . . - -I . _.. . . _ _. . . _- _ , _-r - -_ . . ~ . .. . _ . .. ------ -- ------ - ---- ----- ,---- ------ _ ---1--- ---=--- -- - --~z - -- . -- -- 0o i ~ ;- - I ___ _ ._..__ __ ._ _ ._- ' -- - - -- . _ . _ ... _ __. . ..... -- - -- os _-_._.___.. Ob ___..__._ .__.. ._ _... _ _ _ _ ..._____ -__-.____...___._..__.__.-_. ..._ ... i .OE... _ . . _ __. . .. . . .._.______.___ ._... _ .. .. . - -- - . . .... .. .. .. ..... .._ .. . _ _. ... . oz _ _- -_ - - ....... __ _ __ . .. _ _ . 91 _._. oi _ ___- - ---- s °.. o,~ _ _ . ~ _._ - - - ~ a ~ ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 ~ ( % 1 J~VISSF'd 1V3JN3d 0 "' O ~ : i < ~ ~ Y ~ E ~ J ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~N ~ ~ s •-7 ~ Q 'a N ~ O ~ N rj~ U w z V °.. .., a ~ ~ z~ Q ~ o = a ~u=~ ~~; z==• z~~ ~_~ ~z= v=~ zo_ F~. ~,~s ~, , ~.- z`- ~<= v~ ~ ~ >'- ~o: ~w z' O `e .Y~y4;/F.ri~ ~J uI ~" V /~ , '~ , ' ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' , ' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 0 , _ rT--~-- ----~----- --- -- _ _ ~ -~ - I ~ ; , , ~ _. _ _ ~ ' ~ ~ - ---_ _- --- ~ ~ -- -_ _ __ _._ , ; ~ -- --- --- ,--~ -- -- _.,.. ---- -- --... _ _ _-- --- - - ooz. _ ; --; , ; - --- ,- - -__ _ _ ._ ~ -- -- _... __ -- _ ooi ! ~ _... ... . .... . __°` _...-.. . ._ ____- - _.. _ . _ _..._. _......_. .__ Ob _. .. _ .._..___-_ i ._ __.._.____.._ ~ __. --- - -- --- - ,_ _ - -- . ._..___ --- -- _ ~ . _ . , - - - ..pZ _ .. ___ --- . . _ .. ._ _ _ _. .._. . ._ ... . _ . ---. ~, ... . - - - - -- . . . --~ _.._ -- - -- . _._. _ _ . 91 O. .. . _. _. . . .. . . ~. _. _ . _ „air _ . __ ,.zii ,,rit . . ,i -.. . - - - -_- - .. ..S ~ . _ _ . . . ._ . . . .. ... _ -..._..._. .____.. .~Z _.__ .._..._.. _ _. . . . .. _ . . . _ -- . . _ _. ~ s 0 ~ = o a m n .o ~n ° °,.~ o ~ . ( r 1 sN~ssva I,v3Ja3a • ~ ~ E E w N 'J: ~ u C z a ~ ~ z ~ d D ~~ o z ' m C.i d N ,-~j1 V w z .a = V V : :. F~ z'^ 4 ~]~_ ~l . = z== o~: z,~ ~____ ~~- V ~ " z= ~_- F?- z=> o~ V = ~ J ~ ~.-.. z~ o` "r. _ ~ ~`4 E ~y* V 5 ~/ ~ I ~ ' ~ , ' , ~ ~ ~ , ' , ' , ~ ' ' , Type of Material: Source of Material: n0actor Air Pressure, tt.lbs. alMOisture, %a t weigM and Dry weight, g :er Atlded, ml sture at Compaction, % Ot Briquene anA Mo10, g Of Mold. a REPORT OF RESISTANCE'R' VALUE-EXPANSION PRESSURE Job No. 40-7758 Job Name: Creekside Plaza La bllnvoice No. 14737, C-3072 Sampled By: Rob E. Date November 15, 2004 ~.eddish Bm ClaYey Sand Submitted By: Rob E. Date: November 30, 2004 -5@2-5' Testedl Calc.By: Stu Sloan Date: December 2, 2004 al 301 Reviewed By: Douglass Johnston Date; December 2, 2004 i2 ii io a5o 2z5 iao Exudation 21 4.5% 4.5 % 4.5 % Expansion 64 60 70 80 s.~ io.s iis R-value 21 2049 1 2062 Wt. Of Briquitte,g 1137 1112 1278 TI 4.5 Height of Bnquette, in 2.44 2.42 2.69 Expansion 64 Initial Wt. Sample,g Dry wt. Sample, g Wet WL Sample, g -- .__---. ..-- ----- --._ - -------._ .._--- .._. . .... .._._ - -- --- . R VALUE @ 700 LBS/IN2 1.5 . . ._.. _ _ . ____ ~_ _:-. _.. _ .... .. . ,. _ _ _ ; ' . ._. __._. : _ . . . _~ .. _ . 40 .. . .. __. "_ '_'.._ . ._ . . . . _ _ .. _~ .. . _ . ~. . . ._, . . i .- _.T _ _ _ ~ T _. i ' -. -.-F L . . __ _. _. _ . ._ __.. . . . 35 . ,.. . _.. : _ _ . '. _ _ _ ,. : . _ _ _ . ~ ~ . .. . ......__ . _:_ __'. .._. ~ __., . ._ _ . . _.. .. _ _ . .. ... _... .. __ _ _.. ..... ~. . : ~ _ .. .. . . . . . . . , __ .. . . _ : . 30 J _. . _ .._.. . .. . _ ... . . _ . : . . .. ._- . _ ' __ __. __ .- :: : . ... : : Q > _.. _ . .... _ . . .. .. ..... __.... ., . ~ . . . ... ... . .. . . . . : _. . . _ ..r.'_:_.:_ . .. _ . :_'_..'_ . _...:_. .__......_ _._ .:__.__ . . _. . . : .._.. ___..~__ __. . . . _ _ . .. . . . . _ . _ _. . . _ . :. . . : . ~ o ....: ..... . ..._ .__ . .. .. _ __..._..... .. .-.. _ .. . ._ _ . • 1 _ _ . . _ . . ~ . . ~ W _ _. ~~. _ Q$ :.. . . .. .... . . ...... ___. ~ . - ZO ~ . . _ . _ _..._ .. _ _ . r '___ _ . . . . . _ . .....:.~ . ~._._r.._.._ .. . . ._ ..... . . . ~ ~ . 1 .... ...:. .... . _ ._ _....._.'._ i . ' . ' ._ ....__ _._ _. __ .. ._.....' . _ : _ .__.. ._ ....... .. . . ~rJ U . :. . . _ . : . . . . . . _ .._. ~. . .. ... . . _ .. _ ' • ' _ .. .... . . .._ .. _ . . . ... . . Q . .. _ .. . _ . . . . .... . __ .. . .. ~Q 0 0.5 t i.5 600 500 400 300 200 100 E%UDATION PRESSURE, LBS/IN] . . . _ .... .. . .......... . . . . _ Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure-Feet .. . _ _. .. .. Expansion From Graph: 0.35 Douglass Jahnston Laboratory Manager J~ , ~ ' ~ ' i ' ~ , ~ , ~ , I , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~/ v ,,.~..,. ~,. -.v:..- ^.. E.S. BABCOCK 6 SONS, INC. en.ew.a ~ooe NELAP ~02f07CA ELApt1/56 6700 Quail Valley Court Riverside, CA 925p7-07pq P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 925p2~z PH (951) 653•3351 FAX (957) 653-1582 www.babcocklabs.com Client Name: Construction Testing 8 Engineering, Inc. Contact: Robert Ellerbach Address: 12155 Magnolia Ave., Suite 6-C Riverside, CA 92503 Report Date: 07-Dec-2004 Lab Samole # Ctient Samole ID Matrix A4K1801-01 40-1758 B-2 @ 2'-4 Soil ' Creekside Plaza Temecula Analytical Report: Page 1 of 3 Project Name: Const. Test.-Soils Project Number: [none] Work Order Number: A4K1801 Received on Ice (YM): Yes Temp: Sample Identification Date Samoled ~ 11/10/04 09:00 ~EO ~N ACCOR09 ` yc o ,~ ~ e f U ~ U -~ Q 2 Date Submitted ~ 11/19/0416:30 Rob Ellerbusch o~ J~ ' ' `` ~ ~ 6 ~ I NELAP 102701CA ELAp~~~~ 6100 Ouail Valley CouM Riverside. CA 925p7.p7~y P.O. Box 432 Riverside, CA 9ZSp2-0q~p PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (g51) 853.7562 www.babcocklabs.com Client Name: Construction Testing 8 Engineering, Inc. Analytical Report: Page 2 of 3 , Contact: Robert Ellerbach Project Name: Const. Test.-Soils Address: 12155 Magnolia Ave., Suite 6-C Project Number: [none] ~ Riverside, CA 92503 Work Order Number: A4K1801 Report Date: 07-Dec-2004 Received on Ice (YM): Yes Temp: °C , Laboratorv Reference Number A4K1801-01 ' Samole Descri otion Matrix Samoled DatelTime Received DatefTime 40-1758 B-2 @ 2'-4' Creekside Plaza Soil 11110/04 09:00 11/19/04 16:30 Temecula ' Analyte(s) Result RDL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag ' Saturated Paste PH 72 0.1 pH Units S-1.10 W.S. 12/O6/04 18:35 imm , Water Extract Sulfate 95 10 ppm lon Chromat. 11l30/04 06:53 AA N-SAG, N-WEX ' , , ' ' ~ , `~~o ~N ACCpqo92 ~ ~ ~ <~s ~ ~ ._ _._..__. __ _..v d NELAP l02101CA ELAPi1/58 "'-`.";+," "`t', ~. 6100 Ouail Valley Court Riverside. CA 92507-07p4 ' P.O. Box 032 Hiverside, CA 92502-0q92 PH (951) 653-3351 FAX (951) 65,'i~1662 E.S. BABCOCK ~'~a~k~•~m ~ 8 SONS, INC. En.eri.e~ooe Client Name: Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. Analytical Report: Page 3 of 3 ' Contact: Robert Ellerbach Project Name: Const. Test.~oils Address: 12155 Magnolia Ave., Suite 6-C Project Number: [none] ~ Riverside, CA 92503 Work Order Number. A4K1801 Report Date: 07-Dec-2004 Received on Ice (YM): Yes Temp: °C ~ Notes and De finitions ' N-WEX Analyte determined on a 1:10 water extract from the sample. N-SAG Results reported in ppm are expressed on an air dried soil basis. ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit (RDL) ' NR Not RepoRed ' ~ RDL = Reportable Detection Limit MDL = Method Detection Limit ~ ' , . , Approvai Enclosed are the analytical results for the submitted sample(s). Babcock Laboratories certify the data presented as part oF this report meet the minimum quality standards in the referenced analytical methods. Any exceptions have been noted. Babcock Laboratories and its officers and employees assume no responsibility and make no warranty, express or implied, ' for uses or interpretations made by any recipients, intended or unintended, of this report. ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ames K. Babcock ~ Allison Mackenzie ^ Lawrence J. Chrystal , President General Manager Laboratory Director cc: ShoR ESB Report `~O ~N ACCpqo'y ~ W ~ ¢ £ U U '~ ~ ' ` ' , ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ' ~ ' , , ~ , ' , ' APPENDIX D EARTHOUAKE ANALYSIS ' (~0 ~ ' , ' ' , ' ~ ' ' ' , , ~ ~ , , ' ~ 40-1758 EQFAULT #44kCrt********4**A44#R4 # # * E Q F A U L T ° * version 3.00 * ~ . .a.c.¢r,r.~~rae+n.a+.aa. DETERMINISTIG ESTZMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 40-1758 ]OB NAME: PROPOSED RETAIL CENTER CA~CULATION NAME: TeSt RUn And1y5i5 FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT DATE: 11-18-2004 SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.5191 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.1536 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 15) Campbell & BOZOfgflld (1997 rtev.) - soft ROCk UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, 5=5igma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: O aasement ~epth: 5.00 km Campbell 55R: 1 campbell SHR: O COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 6` ' L'' L ~ ~ vage__1 40-1758 EQFAULT --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- ABBREVIATED ' FAULT NAME ELSINORE-TEMECULA ' ELSZNORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IW SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY SAN JACINTO-ANZA ~ NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD <offshore) ROSE CANYON CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (E15inOre) SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO ' WHITTIER SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK' SAN ANDREAS - SOUth2~f1 SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino ' EARTHQUAKE VALLEY PINTO MOUNTAIN NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) CORONADO BANK ' PALOS VERDES SAN ANDREAS - COdChE113 ELYSIAN PARK THRUST NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (W25t) ' CUCAMONGA COMPTON THRUST SAN JOSE C~EGHORN ~ NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) BURNT MTN. SIERRA MADRE , EUREKA PEAK ' SAN ANDREAS - Mojave SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I SAN JACINTO - BORREGO ' ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN HELENDALE - 5. LOCKHARDT I LANDERS ~ LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS~ ' CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT ~ RAYMOND ~ JOHNSON VALIEY (NOrthern) ~ EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. ~ , , ~ APPROXIMATE DISTANCE mi (km) 0. 12. 14. 20. 20. 28. 31. 32. 34. 36. 37. 37. 37. 40. 44. 44. 45. 48. 48. 49. 50. 50. 51. 51. 52. 53. 53. 54. 56. 58. S8. 59. 59. 61. 61. 65. 65. 66. 68. 70. 0.4 20.7 22.9 33.1 33.1 45.8 50.1 51.9 56.0 58.3 60.3 60.6 60.6 65.0 72.1 72.2 73.0 77.5 77.7 80.2 80.9 81.4 82.7 83.4 84.6 85.4 86.3 88.1 90.8 94.7 94.7 95.8 95.9 98.3 99.0 104.6 105.7 107.7 110.4 113.7 aage 2 ESTIMATED MAX MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAG.(Mw) ===6.8==== 7.1 6.8 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.8 7.4 7.3 6.5 7.0 6.9 7.4 7.1 7.1 6.7 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.4 7.0 6.4 7.1 , 7.8 6.6 I 6.8 I 7.1 I 7.3 I 6.5 I 6.7 I 6.9 I EARTHQUAKE EVENT --------------- PEAK SITE ACCEL. g ===0.919== 0.230 0.168 0.114 0.143 0.073 0.064 0.054 0.046 0.047 0.045 0.075 0.069 0.031 0.042 0.038 0.058 0.041 0.041 0.027 0.034 0.034 0.028 0.022 0.021 I 0.025 I 0.019 I 0.030 I 0.017 I 0.056 j 0.019 I 0.034 j 0.031 ~ 0.015 ~ 0.014 ~ 0.017 I 0.019 I EST. SITE INTENSITY MOD.MERC. xz Ix VIII VII VIII VII vi vi VI VI vI VII VZ v vr v vr v v v v v v Iv IV v IV v rv v vI IV IV v v v iv Iv ZV IV ~ ' 40-17 58 EQFAULT ' ------- DETERMI ------- NISTI --------------- C -------------- SITE PARAMETERS --------------- ' Page 2 --------------------------------- - I - ~ESTIMATED MAX. EqRTHQUAKE EVENT ' ~ABBREVIATED ~ ~ APPROXIMATE DISTANCE I------------ ~ MA)(IMUM --------- ---------- ~EST SITE FAULT NAME ~ Ilii (km) ~EARTHQUAKE ~ SITE . ~INTENSITY ________________________________ ~ 1 =====__ __==== I MAG.(Mw) 1 ~ ACCEL. g ~MOD.MERC. , VERDUGO ~ 71.6( = 115.2) ========== ~ 6•~ I= ====____- ~ IV HOLLYWOOD ~ 75.1( 120.8) ~ 6.4 ~ 0.011 ~ ZII CALICO - HIDALGO ~ 77,q( 124.6) ~ 7.1 PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK ~ 78.3( 126.0) I ~'1 I IV SUPERSTITION MTN. (San 7acinto) ~ 79.7( 128.3)~ 6.6 ~ 0.012 ~ Iii ' ELMORE RANCH ~ $2.1( 13Z.2)~ 6.6 ~ 0.012 ~ III SANTA MONICA ~ $2.5( 132.8)~ 6.6 ~ 0.011 ~ Iii SUPERSTITION HILLS (San 7acinto)~ 83.5( 134.4)~ 6.6 ~ 0.012 ~ III BrtAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE ~ 84.2( 135.5)~ 6.4 ~ 0.010 ~ IZI ' SAN GABRIEL ~ 85.2( 137.1)~ 7.0 ~ 0.016 ~ IV SIERRA rvwDRE (San Fernando) ~ 85.3( 137.2)~ 6.7 I 0.012 ~ IrI MALIBU COAST ~ NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) ~ $7,1( 89.0( 140.2)~ 143.2)~ 6.7 ~ 6 9 I 0.011 0 013 ~ III ' LAGUNA SALa,DA ~ 91.5( 147.3)~ . 7.0 ~ . 0.015 ~ IVI GRAVEL NILLS - HARPER ~AKE ~ 94.5( 152.1)~ 6.9 ~ 0.013 ~ III ANACAPA-DUME ~ 95.7( 154.0)I 7•3 I 0.015 ~ IV SANTA SUSANA ~ ~ 96.0( 154.5)~ 6.6 ~ 0.009 ~ ZII ' aa xe~r.ee~+x~a+aaaaca~r~eaa,ts~,taa e+evreer.~enae~te trrxnerenas,r ~x~c~ase~r,*+r.~era,tse -END OF SEARCH- 57 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ELSINORE-TEMECULA FAUL T 25 CIOSEST TO THE SITE ' IT IS ABOUT 0.3 MILES (0.4 krtl) AWAY. . LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERAT ION: 0.9192 g , , LJ ' ' ' , Page 3 r- J ' ~