The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutParcel Map 35481 Parcel A Geotechnical Report.pdf �eotechnica� �ngineering �eport Proposed ALDI Building 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, California October 28, 2015 Terracon Project No. 60155085 ��.��r•�c4 fat°, ALDI, Inc. Riverside, California �y��a�r�c� �y: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Irvine, California , , � ,� 1 � �a,�� ._�, � � October 28, 2015 ��0� ALDI, Inc. 1770 lowa Avenue, Suite 240 Riverside, CA 92507 Attn: Mr. Skip Janes Director of Real Estate E: Skip.Janes(c�aldi.us Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed ALDI Building 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, California Terracon Project No. 60155085 Dear Mr. Janes: Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. These services were performed in general accordance with the Task Order dated September 23, 2015. This geotechnical engineering report presents the results of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical engineering recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of pavements, infiltration systems, foundations, and floor slabs for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Q��FESSlp,y,� ��7 �u�O�ycy � �/��J�``� ~�J� � `� l �� ' y p � � �77A55 � Joshua R. Morgan, E.I.T. * �� Fouad (Fred) Abuhamdan, P.E. C{V1�- ? Senior Staff Engineer s�'�TEOFCAL�� Senior Project Manager Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2817 McGaw Avenue Irvine, California 92614 (' �9�!9� ?�i1 0051 f� [949] �61 6110 ferracon-com � � Geotechnical Engineering Report �� Proposed ALDI Building �.<Temecula, California October 28, 2015 E Terracon Project No. 60155085 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY.............................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 1 2.1 Project Description.............................................................................................. 1 2.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 2 2.3 Background......................................................................................................... 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3 3.1 Site Geology....................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Typical SubsurFace Profile .................................................................................. 3 3.3 Groundwater....................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Seismic Considerations....................................................................................... 4 3.4.1 CBC Seismic Site Class and Parameters ................................................ 4 3.4.2 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions................................................. 4 3.4.3 Liquefaction Potential ............................................................................. 5 3.5 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................... 5 3.6 Corrosion Potential ............................................................................................. 6 3.7 Percolation Test Results..................................................................................... 6 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 8 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations .............................................................................. 8 4.2 Earthwork ........................................................................................................... 9 4.2.1 Site Preparation....................................................................................... 9 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................. 9 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement...................................................................10 4.2.4 Compaction Requirements.....................................................................11 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................11 4.2.6 Exterior Slab Design and Construction ...................................................12 4.2.7 Construction Considerations...................................................................12 4.3 Foundations.......................................................................................................13 4.4 Floor Slab ..........................................................................................................14 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures .....................................................................................14 4.6 Pavements.........................................................................................................15 4.6.1 Design Recommendations......................................................................15 4.6.2 Construction Considerations...................................................................16 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS...............................................................................................16 Responsive � Resourceful �a Reliable � Geotechnical Engineering Report Il�rr�con Proposed ALDI Building �. Temecula, California October 28, 2015 �- Terracon Project No. 60155085 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Exhibit No. APPENDIX A— FIELD EXPLORATION SiteLocation Plan .......................................................................................................A-1 BoringLocation Diagram.............................................................................................A-2 Field Exploration Description.......................................................................................A-3 BoringLogs..................................................................................................A-4 thru A-11 APPENDIX B— LABORATORY TESTING LaboratoryTest Description......................................................................................... B-1 AtterbergLimits Results .............................................................................................. B-2 GrainSize Distribution................................................................................................. B-3 Consolidation Test Results................................................................................ B-4 & B-5 CorrosionTest Results................................................................................................ B-6 APPENDIX C— SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS GeneralNotes.............................................................................................................C-1 Unified Soil Classification ............................................................................................C-2 USGS Seismic Design Maps Detailed Report..............................................................C-3 Responsive � Resourceful �, Reliable � Geotechnical Engineering Report "��r.�� Proposed ALDI Building �; Temecula, California t October 28, 2015�� Terracon Project No. 60155085 � ^;�1� ��. '$�:��E ��r��. 4�W.�IY.'994�Ij'Ai�'u il, A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the Proposed ALDI Building project to be located at 29176 Via Las Colinas in Temecula, California. Terracon's geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of eight (8) test borings to approximate depths of 5 feet to 21'/2 feet below the ground surface (bgs). In addition, four (4) of the borings were utilized for percolation testing. The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings and provided our recommendations contained in this report are properly implemented in the design and construction. Based on the information obtained from our engineering analyses of the field and laboratory data, the following geotechnical considerations were identified: �.. The subsurface materials encountered generally consisted of sand with variable amounts of silt and clay overlying clay and silt with variable amounts of sand overlying sand with variable amounts of silt. Fill materials comprised of silty sand were encountered in several borings to depths of approximately 2 feet below existing grade. We assume that the upper fill materials encountered in the borings were placed during the previous grading activities on-site. At the time of our exploration a graded pad was located near the center of the site. The limits of the proposed ALDI building exceed the outline of this graded pad area. In addition, storm water management basins and channels were located at the northwest and southwest boundaries of the site. Terracon does not have any documentation to show if the fill placement or grading operations were inspected and if fill compaction was tested. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of drilling, based on nearby groundwater wells, groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 100 feet below existing grades. f Due to the presence of undocumented fill materials and of the low bearing capacity of near surface soils, the shallow spread footing foundation system and interior floor slabs should bear on engineered fill. Engineered fill should extend to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of foundations, or to the depth of the fill materials, whichever is greater. On- site fill materials and native granular soils are generally suitable for use as engineered fill for this project. Engineered fill should consist of low volume change materials. �� Automobile parking areas— 3" AC over 4" AB or 5" PCC over 4" AB; On-site driveways— 3" AC over 6" AB or 6" PCC over 4" AB. All pavement subgrades should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum depth of 10 inches. F� Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, slab bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction. This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled General Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive � Resourceful �a Reliable � GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED ALDI BUILDING 29176 VIA LAS COLINAS TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Terracon Project No. 60155085 October 28, 2015 `�.�.! kp;p � �Q�� i P�_' � ��'ab This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the Proposed ALDI Building project located at 29176 Via Las Colinas in Temecula, California. The Site Location Plan (Exhibit A-1) is included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: r� subsurface soil conditions � groundwater conditions �� earthwork k� floor slab design and construction r� seismic considerations �:� foundation design and construction r, infiltration systems Our geotechnical engineering scope of work included the advancement of eight (8) test borings to approximate depths of 5 feet to 21'/2 feet below the ground surface (bgs). In addition, four (4) of the borings were utilized for percolation testing. Laboratory testing on representative samples of the subsurface materials, engineering analyses, and development of engineering recommendations for design and construction of foundations and floor slabs. Logs of the borings along with a Boring Location Diagram (Exhibit A-2) are included in Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B of this report. Descriptions of the field exploration and laboratory testing are included in their respective appendices. ;�,�r G �,�� a�Na-�r.�. ��.��-��,�.,��.�� 2.1 Project Description ITEM DESCRIPTION —.----- - __ _ _-- Site layout Refer to the Boring and Test Location Diagram, Exhibit A-2. ---- _. Structures It is our understanding that the project will consist of a single-story ALDI store encompassing an area of approximately 18,500SF. Finished floor elevation � Within one foot of existing grade (assumed). Responsive � Resourceful ra Reliable � Geotechnical Engineering Report ��r��o� Proposed ALDI Building �E Temecula, California October 28, 2015� Terracon Project No. 60155085 ITEM DESCRIPTION Columns: 40 to 80 kips; Maximum loads (assumed) Walls: 1 to 2 klf; Slabs: 150 psf. Based on the existing topography and the differences in elevation between the eastern and western portions of the site, grading may Grading include up to 5 feet of fill/excavation to bring the site to grades. Furthermore, grading will include removal of existing fill materials and bringing the site grades back to proposed elevations. No grading plans were reviewed at the time of this report. ----- -----.....----------- Assumed Design Traffic Index (TI's): Traffic loading Automobile Parking Areas: 4.5 On-site Driveways and Delivery Areas: 5.5 - - -_ __ _ _-- --- -_-_____ _ _ --- _ _ Paving Based on the proposed site layout, it is our understanding that new pavements are planned for the project site. 2.2 Site Location and Description Item � Description _ ------..___ _. _--- Location The proposed ALDI building will be located at 29176 Via Las Colinas in Temecula, Riverside County, California. _._..... ___ _ ...._.._ ._ -- --._ ___._..__ __ ..._---- ..---- -...-- � The site consists of a graded pad and surrounding exposed soils. Existing Improvements Drainage channels and basins are currently present at the northwest and southwest boundaries of the site. Based on our review of the County of Riverside GIS maps, the project Anticipated Seismic site is not located within a fault rupture zone. Furthermore, the site is Hazards located within a very low liquefaction hazard zone. --_---_ _.__—.------- --------------------- Current ground cover The ground is currently covered with rough graded exposed soils. The site has an approximately 2% descending slope from the northeast to the southwest. With approximately 10 foot elevation difference. An Existing topography approximately 2 feet high raised pad has been graded in the center of the site and drainage channels/berms and basins have been graded at the northern and southern boundaries of the site. 2.3 Background Based on historical aerial photographs, the site has remained undeveloped. However it is apparent that rough grading operations for this site were performed to develop an elevated pad and surrounding groundwater channels and basins. Based on our review of available topographic maps, the site is located within a low rolling hills area with elevations ranging between 1,133 feet and 1,140 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The site has an approximately 2% descending slope from the northwest to the southeast. The depth of fill materials were based on our Responsive � Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report ��r�� Proposed ALDI Building �� Temecula, California October 28, 2015�: Terracon Project No. 60155085 observations of the existing graded pad onsite and review of our samples obtained from the exploration. Terracon does not have any documentation to show if the grading operations were monitored, and if the backfill activities were controlled or inspected. Based on field blow counts, it is likely that the fill materials did not receive adequate compaction effort during placement. We recommend fill materials be removed and replaced with engineered fill. rNk�fi �-;R P� ��.;I � � , � s��,+�� p � �°. `��<�' 3.1 Site Geology The site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province in Southern California. Geologic structures within this Province trend mostly northeast, in contrast to the prevailing east-west trend in the neighboring Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province to the north. The Peninsular Range Province extends into lower California, and is bounded by the Colorado Desert to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains to the north. '�2 SurFicial geologic units mapped at the site consist of non-marine deposits of Pleistocene age3. 3.2 Typical Subsurface Profile Specific conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for the borings can be found on the boring logs included in Appendix A. Based on the results of the borings, the subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follow: Description �� Agotto of StDra utmto Material Encountered Consistency/Density ; I _— - — ---- -------- -- Stratum 1 a' 2'/2 to 3 feet Fill: Silty Sand Medium Dense - - T— --- _ __._ _____----------___ Sand with variable amounts of Stratum 1 i 5 to 10 feet I Medium Dense to Dense Silt and Clay __., -----i__ —__---- ----_--- - -----___ ------ ---- Clay and Silt with variable Stratum 2 i 10 to 21'/2 feet Stiff to Hard amounts of Sand _......--- - --._..._._..-------------._.._.-----._..._---.....------..........---.__._ _.__ _ Stratum 3 T1'/2(maximum depth of Sand with variable amounts of Medium Dense to Very exploration) � Silt Dense � Encountered in borings B-2, B-4, and B-5 only. ' Harden, D.R.,"California Geology, Second Edition,"Pearson Prentice Hall,2004. 2 Norris,R. M.and Webb,R.W., "Geology of California,Second Edition,"John Wiley&Sons,Inc., 1990. 3 State of California—Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of California, Olaf P. Jenkins Edition, Santa Ana, Compiled in 1965. Responsive ■ Resourceful �a Reliable 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report ��r,L,J�,r,C��o� Proposed ALDI Building .�, Temecula, California October 28, 2015: Terracon Project No. 60155085 Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the boring logs. Laboratory tests indicate that on-site near surface materials have negligible to low plasticity. The results of a consolidation/collapse test performed at a depth of 2'/� and 5 feet bgs indicate the subsurface materials encountered at an approximate depth of 2'/� feet exhibit slight collapse potential when saturated under a confining pressure of 2,000 psf. The clayey materials encountered at approximately 5 feet bgs exhibit a low swell potential when saturated under a confining pressure of 2,000 psf. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not observed at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or at other locations. Based on ground water data recorded from a nearby monitoring well, depth to groundwater is anticipated to be greater than 100 feet bgs.4 3.4 Seismic Considerations 3.4.1 CBC Seismic Site Class and Parameters DESCRIPTION VALUE ------— - - _--..._-----. ----_.__---- _.____ 2013 California Building Code Site Classification (CBC) ' D -----------------__ __ Site Latitude N 33.50642 __._ _.__..... ------- ------------ _. _ - --._._ ..____ -_..__ Site Longitude W 117.14193 --------._ --------- _...._...----- _--- _.. - - Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.981 g S,Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.813g Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 1.0 --- ---------- - ----- -.._. F„Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 1.5 'Note.The 2013 California Building Code(CBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of 21'/�feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that similar soils continue below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be necessary to confirm and/or modify the above site class. 3.4.2 Faulting and Estimated Ground Motions The site is located in Southern California, which is a seismically active area. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and the magnitude of the seismic event. The table below indicates the distance of the fault zones and the associated maximum credible earthquake that can be 4 Data collected from Well No 335089N1171459W001, approximately 0.5 mile Northwest from the project site measured between (http://www.water.ca.gov/) Responsive , Resourceful � Reliable 4 Geotechnical Engineering Report `��,�,�� Proposed ALDI Building . Temecula, California t October 28, 2015 ; Terracon Project No. 60155085 produced by nearby seismic events, as calculated using the USGS Earthquake Hazard Program 2002 interactive disaggregation. The Elsinore-17 Fault, which is located approximately 2.3 kilometers from the site, is considered to have the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint with an earthquake magnitude of 6.75. Based on the ASCE 7-10 Standard, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the subject site approximately 0.821 g. Based on the USGS 2002 interactive deaggregations, the project site has a PGA with 2% return period in 50 years of 1.068g and a mean magnitude of 6.72. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone based on our review of the State Fault Hazard MapsS and the County of Riverside GIS website. 3.4.3 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a mode of ground failure that results from the generation of high pore water pressures during earthquake ground shaking, causing loss of shear strength. Liquefaction is typically a hazard where loose sandy soils exist below groundwater. The County of Riverside has designated certain areas within the County as potential liquefaction hazard zones. These are areas considered at a risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event, based upon mapped surficial deposits and the presence of a relatively shallow water table. The project site is located within a very low potential liquefaction hazard zone as designated by the County of Riverside GIS website. Based on the anticipated depth to groundwater and the county maps, the liquefaction hazard potential at the site may be considered low. 3.5 Geologic Hazards � Slope stability - The site is relatively flat with less than a 5% slopes across the site; therefore, it is not necessary to perform a slope stability analysis. �. Rock fall hazards - The site is relatively flat with no upgrade slopes around the site; therefore, hazards from rock fall are negligible. �:3 Landslide hazards - The site is relatively flat and there are no steep slopes across the site; therefore, landslide hazards are negligible. �� Surface fault rupture - The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone nor is located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website. �,� Fissures - As the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone nor is located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website, the expectation of fissures occurring at the site is considered low. �� Liquefaction potential - The site is located within a very low liquefaction zone as identified by the County of Riverside GIS website. Liquefaction potential is addressed in Section 3.4.3 of this report. 5 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California,Southern Region",CDMG Compact Disc 2000-003,2000. Responsive ■ Resourceful r:� Reliable 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report ��rr��a Proposed ALDI Building ,: Temecula, California October 28, 2015� Terracon Project No. 60155085 � Collapsible and/or expansive soils — the laboratory test results indicate that the materials at shallow depth exhibit a slight collapse potential and low swell potential when saturated. On site granular soils are expected to have low expansion potential. E Subsidence - The site is located within an active subsidence zone as identified on the County of Riverside GIS website. However based on the depth to groundwater, we anticipate the impact of subsidence resulting from groundwater removal may be considered low. ej Wind and water erosion - The site is located within a well developed area and the ground surface is mostly covered with graded soils and pads; therefore, the possibility of wind and water erosion is considered negligible. � Debris flow - The site is relatively flat and there are no steep slopes across the site; therefore, the possibility of debris flow is considered negligible. � Ground shaking potential - The site is not located with an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, nor is it located within a fault zone based on the County of Riverside GIS website. However, with the active faults in the region, the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking that may result from earthquakes on local to distant sources during the life span of the project. Faulting and ground motion are addressed in Section 3.4.2 above. r Seismic Settlement— Based on subsurface conditions encountered in our borings and the low liquefaction hazard potential, we anticipate seismic settlement to be low. 3.6 Corrosion Potential Results of soluble sulfate testing indicate that ASTM Type I/II Portland cement may be used for all concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete may be designed for low sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4. Laboratory test results indicate the on-site soils have a pH of 8.5, a minimum resistivity of 5,626 ohm-centimeters, a water soluble sulfates content of less than 0.01°/o, Red-Ox potential of 640 mV, a chloride content of 25 ppm, and negligible sulfides as shown on the attached Results of Corrosivity Analysis sheet. These values should be used to evaluate corrosive potential of the on-site soils to underground ferrous metals. Refer to the Results of Corrosivity Analysis sheet in Appendix B for the complete results of the corrosivity testing conducted in conjunction with this geotechnical exploration. 3.7 Percolation Test Results Four (4) in-situ percolation tests (falling head borehole permeability) were performed to approximate depths of 5 to 10 feet bgs. A 2-inch thick layer of gravel was placed in the bottom of each boring after the borings were drilled to investigate the soil profile. A 3-inch diameter perforated pipe was installed on top of the gravel layer in each boring. Gravel was used to Responsive � Resourceful � Reliable 6 Geotechnical Engineering Report `��rr�� Proposed ALDI Building Ft Temecula, California w October 28, 2015 �: Terracon Project No. 60155085 backfill between the perforated pipes and the boring sidewall. The borings were then filled with water for a pre-soak period. At the beginning of each test, the pipes were refilled with water and readings were taken at 10-minute time intervals. Percolation rates are provided in the following table: TEST RESULTS Test Correlated Infiltration Average Location Soil Classification Percolation Rate, in/hr Rate*, in/hr Water Head, (depth) �n B-5 (10 ft) Silty Sand overlying �2 2 0.33 62 Silty Clayey Sand Poorly Graded Sand 27.4 1.39 32 B-6 (5 ft) with Silt over Sandy Lean Clay 3.6 0.23 28 B-7 (10 ft) Silty Sand overlying 21.6 1.13 32 Silty Clayey Sand B-8 (5 ft) Silty Sand 20.9 1.88 17 *If the proposed infiltration systems will mainly rely on vertical downward seepage, the correlated infiltration rates should be used. The correlated infiltration rates were calculated using the Porchet Method. The field test results are not intended to be design rates. They represent the result of our tests, at the depths and locations indicated, as described above. The design rate should be determined by the designer by applying an appropriate factor of safety. The designer should take into consideration the variability of native soils when selecting appropriate design rates. With time, the bottoms of infiltration systems tend to plug with organics, sediments, and other debris. Long term maintenance will likely be required to remove these deleterious materials to help reduce decreases in actual percolation rates. The percolation test was performed with clear water, whereas the storm water will likely not be clear, but may contain organics, fines, and grease/oil. The presence of these deleterious materials will tend to decrease the rate that water percolates from the infiltration systems. Design of the storm water infiltration systems should account for the presence of these materials and should incorporate structures/devices to remove these deleterious materials. Based on the soils encountered in our borings, we expect the percolation rates of the soils could be different than measured in the field due to variations in fines and gravel content. The design elevation and size of the proposed infiltration system should account for this expected variability in infiltration rates. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Geotechnical Engineering Report �rrC�� Proposed ALDI Building �� Temecula, California October 28, 2015 A Terracon Project No. 60155085 �'l ,9p �a� ,�, ��Y�$"."��.��,'�! ��4�� 1� �` , � � k�r ��.",; �� r�l.� i'a��,�J �_��l;��;� � i�i,til ?d .� J �� v� +; 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the test borings provided the recommendations provided in this report are implemented during design and construction. Based on the geotechnical engineering analyses, subsurface exploration and laboratory test results, a spread footing foundation system bearing on engineered fill is recommended for support of the proposed building. The grading plans for the proposed improvement are not finalized at this stage of the project. However, we anticipate major rough grading operations within the project area. Based on the differences in elevation and existing topography on site, grading may include up to 5 feet of cut and fill to bring the site to grades. Our exploration indicate that undocumented fill materials are present near the surface on-site. A graded pad consisting of approximately 2 to 3 feet of fill was observed during the site reconnaissance. We assume that the upper fill materials encountered in the borings were placed during previous grading operations on the site. Based on the blow counts of the fill materials and field blow counts, it is likely that the fill materials did not receive adequate compaction effort during placement. The limits of the proposed ALDI building exceed the outline of the graded pad and encountered fill materials. We recommend that all fill materials within the footprint of the proposed building be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. After removal of undocumented fill within the proposed building footprint, foundations and floor slab areas should be supported on engineered fill. Due to the presence of undocumented fill materials and slight collapse potential of the near surface soils, the foundation system and interior floor slab should bear on engineered fill. Engineered fill should extend to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of foundations, or to the depth of the fill materials, whichever is greater. Support of exterior flatwork and pavements on or above existing fill soils is discussed in this report. However, even with the recommended construction testing services, there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill, but can be reduced by performing additional testing and evaluation. Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. Responsive � Resourceful � Reliable 8 Geotechnical Engineering Report ��r�,�� Proposed ALDI Building �: Temecula, California October 28, 2015 fl, Terracon Project No. 60155085 4.2 Earthwork The following sections present recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for the design and construction of earth supported elements including, foundations and slabs are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. All grading for the proposed building should incorporate the limits of the building plus a lateral distance of 3 feet beyond the outside edge of perimeter footings. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during the construction of the project. 4.2.1 Site Preparation Strip and remove existing vegetation and other deleterious materials from proposed building and pavement areas. Exposed surfaces should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction. Our explorations indicate the site has approximately 2 to 3 feet of fill material encountered in selected borings. We recommend that all fill materials within the footprint of the proposed building be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. Where existing slopes are steeper than 5H:1V (horizontal:vertical), the area should be benched to reduce the potential for slippage between existing slopes and fills. Benches should be wide enough to accommodate compaction and earth moving equipment, and to allow placement of horizontal lifts of fill. For balancing grading onsite, estimated shrink factor of granular soils when used as compacted fill following recommendations in this report ranges between 0.90% and 0.95%. Shrinkage factors are based on converting materials in its natural state before disturbance to materials after compaction. Evidence of utilities and underground facilities was not observed during the site reconnaissance, such features may be encountered during construction. If encountered, abandoned underground utilities and facilities should be removed and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction. 4.2.2 Subgrade Preparation Due to the presence of undocumented fill materials and low bearing capacity of fill soils onsite materials encountered, the proposed building footprint, foundations and interior floor slabs Responsive � Resourceful r� Reliable 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report �� Proposed ALDI Building � Temecula, California October 28, 2015 � Terracon Project No. 60155085 should bear on engineered fill comprised of low volume change soils extending to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the deepest foundation, or to the depth of existing fill materials, whichever is greater. Subgrade soils beneath exterior slabs and pavements should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum depth of 10 inches. The moisture content and compaction of subgrade soils should be maintained until slab or pavement construction. Exposed areas which will receive fill, once properly cleared and benched where necessary, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 10 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted per the compaction requirements in Section 4.2.5. 4.2.3 Fill Materials and Placement All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than three inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer. It is anticipated that the undocumented fill materials beneath the proposed building are going to be excavated. The fill materials generally encountered were silty sandy materials. The sandy fill materials and onsite soils are considered suitable for use as engineered fill. The sandy lean clay soils underlying the fill materials and near surface soils are not considered to be suitable for use as engineered fill beneath foundations and floor slabs. Approved on-site sandy soils and/or imported materials may be used as fill material for the following: r� general site grading �a foundation backfill t� foundation areas r= pavement areas � interior floor slab areas k-� exterior slab areas Imported soils for use as fill material within proposed building and structure areas should conform to low volume change materials as indicated in the following recommendations: Percent Finer by Weight Gradation (ASTM C 136) 3" ......................................................................................................... 100 No. 4 Sieve.....................................................................................50-100 No. 200 Sieve ................................................................................... 15-40 � Liquid Limit....................................................................... 30 (max) ; Plasticity Index ................................................................. 15 (max) � Maximum expansive index*..............................................20 (max) Responsive r� Resourceful r Reliable 10 Geotechnical Engineering Report lr�rr�con Proposed ALDI Building �:Temecula, California October 28, 2015� Terracon Project No. 60155085 "Tested per ASTM method D 4829. Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift. Fill lifts should not exceed 10 inches loose thickness. 4.2.4 Compaction Requirements Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as follows: Per the Modified Proctor Test(ASTM D 1557) Material Type and Location Minimum Range of Moisture Contents for Compaction Compaction Above Optimum Requirement ; Minimum I Maximum Approved on-site granular fill or imported i materials: Beneath foundations: 90% 0% +4% _ ------ _ _ __ _.._... Beneath slabs: 90% 0% +4% Utility Trenches in structural areas*: 9�% 0% +4% Beneath pavements: 95% 0% +4% ---- -------.....-- —.._..--...__.._ -- — Utility trenches (non-structural areas): 9�% 0% +4% Miscellaneous backfill: 90% 0% +4% *Upper 12 inches of utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of relative compaction per ASTM D1557 within pavement areas. 4.2.5 Grading and Drainage Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the development. Infiltration of water into utility trenches or foundation excavations should be prevented during construction. Planters and other surface features which could retain water in areas adjacent to the building or pavements should be sealed or eliminated. Backfill against footings, exterior walls, and in utility and sprinkler line trenches should be well compacted and free of all construction debris to reduce the possibility of moisture infiltration. We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance of 10 feet from the perimeter of any building and the high-water elevation of the nearest storm-water retention basin. Roof drainage should discharge into splash blocks or extensions when the ground surface beneath such features is not protected by exterior slabs or paving. Sprinkler systems and landscaped irrigation should not be installed within 5 feet of foundation walls. Responsive � Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 Geotechnical Engineering Report ��t•��o� Proposed ALDI Building E� Temecula, California October 28, 2015�. Terracon Project No. 60155085 4.2.6 Exterior Slab Design and Construction Exterior slabs-on-grade, exterior architectural features, and utilities founded on, or in backfill may experience some movement due to the volume change of the backfill. To reduce the potential for damage caused by movement, we recommend: f exterior slabs should be supported directly on subgrade fill (not ABC) with no, or very low expansion potential; , strict moisture-density control during placement of subgrade fills; �� maintain proper subgrade moisture until placement of slabs; �: placement of effective control joints on relatively close centers and isolation joints between slabs and other structural elements; 4� provision for adequate drainage in areas adjoining the slabs; �. use of designs which allow vertical movement between the exterior slabs and adjoining structural elements. 4.2.7 Construction Considerations It is anticipated that excavations for the proposed construction can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The workability of the subgrade may be affected by precipitation, repetitive construction traffic or other factors. Workability may be improved by scarifying and drying. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials may be necessary. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce subgrade pumping. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted prior to pavement construction. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season, it may be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water on the site. Once subgrades are established, it may be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils from construction traffic. If unstable subgrade conditions develop during construction, suitable methods of stabilization will be dependent upon factors such as schedule, weather, size of area to be stabilized, and the nature of the instability. If soil stabilization is needed, Terracon should be consulted to evaluate the situation as needed. Responsive ■ Resourceful � Reliable 12 Geotechnical Engineering Report "��r.�� Proposed ALDI Building �. Temecula, California w October 28, 2015� Terracon Project No. 60155085 The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including utility trenches) as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proof-rolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations to the completed subgrade. 4.3 Foundations DESCRIPTION RECOMENDATION — - -----�--__ _ -- ----- - --- -- - _----- Foundation Type Conventional Shallow Spread Footings —.___--_ __.--..-- -.___.___--- _�. -- � Engineered fill extending to a minimum depth of 2 feet below Bearing Material ! the bottom of the footings or to the depth of the ', undocumented fill, whichever is greater. -.--_ . _ __ _ - - --- _ _ _.-_ _ � Allowable Bearing Pressure 2,000 psf Minimum Dimensions Walls: 18 inches; Columns: 24 inches �__ -------------____--- Minimum Embedment Depth Below i. Finished Grade 'I 18 inches -----_ ---�1._--------_____ ---- -- -- _ Total Estimated Settlement 1-inch Estimated Differential Settlement '/z inch in 40 feet. Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within 5 feet of the foundation for perimeter (or exterior) footings. The allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions. The design bearing pressure may be increased by one- third when considering total loads that include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade may be neglected in dead load computations. Foundations should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of control joints at openings or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended. Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required. Responsive � Resourceful r:-� Reliable 13 Geotechnical Engineering Report `�� Proposed ALDI Building t� Temecula, California October 28, 2015 Terracon Project No. 60155085 4.4 Floor Slab DESCRIPTION VALUE Interior floor system � Slab-on-grade concrete. _ Subbase 4-inches of Class II Aggregate Base materials. --- - _ .._ �.-----_- ------------_---- — Engineered fill extending to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom Floor slab support of the footings or to the depth of the undocumented fill, whichever is greater, as outlined 4.2.2 of this report. ----_ _� _..._..— _..__.._ ... ..-- 200 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) (The modulus was obtained Modulus of subgrade based on engineered fill beneath floor slabs, and estimates obtained from reaction NAVFAC 7.1 design charts). This value is for a small loaded area (1 Sq. ft or less)such as for forklift wheel loads or point loads and should be adjusted for larger loaded areas. In areas of exposed concrete, control joints should be saw cut into the slab after concrete placement in accordance with ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1 R-37 8.3.12 (tooled control joints are not recommended). Additionally, dowels should be placed at the location of proposed construction joints. To control the width of cracking (should it occur) continuous slab reinforcement should be considered in exposed concrete slabs. The use of a vapor retarder or barrier should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture to prevent moisture migration. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder/barrier. 4.5 Lateral Earth Pressures For on-site near surFace soils or imported low volume change materials used as engineered fill above any free water surface, recommended equivalent fluid pressures for foundation elements are: CONDITION � Valuea -- — - _...---._ :_ --- ------------__.... Active Case I 37 psf/ft __ _ � _. ___- Passive Case 380 psf/ft At-Rest Case 56 psf/ft Coefficient of Friction 0.35b a Note:The values are based on the low volume change engineered fill materials consisting of on-site granular soils or import materials used as backfill. b Note: The coefficient of base friction should be reduced to 0.30 when used in conjunction with passive pressure Responsive r> Resourceful r>: Reliable 14 Geotechnical Engineering Report ��'�rracon Proposed ALDI Building :, Temecula, California October 28, 2015 � Terracon Project No. 60155085 The lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety and are not applicable for submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such conditions are to be included in the design. Fill against foundation and retaining walls should be compacted to densities recommended in the Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walis should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. 4.6 Pavements 4.6,1 Design Recommendations An estimated design R-Value was used to calculate the asphalt concrete pavement thickness sections and the portland cement concrete pavement sections. R-value testing should be completed prior to pavement construction to verify the design R-value. Assuming the pavement subgrades will be prepared as recommended within this report, the following pavement sections should be considered minimums for this project for the traffic indices assumed in the table below. As more specific traffic information becomes available, we should be contacted to reevaluate the pavement calculations. Recommended Pavement Section Thickness (inches)* Light(Automobile)Parking On-site Driveways and Delivery Areas Assumed Traffic Index(TI)=4.5 Assumed TI=5.5 ------�----.._...------------------ � Section I 5.0" PCC over 4" Class II Aggregate 6.0" PCC over 4" Class II Aggregate Portland Cement Concrete Base over 10" of scarified, moisture Base over 10"of scarified, moisture (600 psi Flexural Strength) conditioned,and compacted materials I conditioned, and compacted materials ----------------------- Section II 4"AC over 4" Class II Aggregate Base�4"AC over 6" Class II Aggregate Base Asphaltic Concrete over 10" of scarified, moisture I over 10" of scarified, moisture _conditioned,and compacted materials conditioned, and compacted materials _ �All materials should meet the CALTRANS Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. These pavement sections are considered minimal sections based upon the assumed traffic and the existing subgrade conditions. However, they are expected to function with periodic maintenance and overlays if good drainage is provided and maintained. All concrete for rigid pavements should have a minimum flexural strength of 600 psi, and be placed with a maximum slump of four inches. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where necessary for load transfer. Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative Responsive � Resourceful �a Reliable 15 Geotechnical Engineering Report �r�rraco� Proposed ALDI Buiiding ��Temecula, California October 28, 2015� Terracon Project No. 60155085 maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surFace sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. 4.6.2 Construction Considerations Materials and construction of pavements for the project should be in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the State of California Department of Transportation, or other approved local governing specifications. Base course or pavement materials should not be placed when the surface is wet. Surface drainage should be provided away from the edge of paved areas to minimize lateral moisture transmission into the subgrade. 5.0 �:°<i� ��-°,��aa�N � � �G':��;��p•,�:� � �;-� Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the Responsive r� Resourceful �� Reliable 16 Geotechnical Engineering Report `��r�.�� Proposed ALDI Building �,Temecula, California �� October 28, 2015�� Terracon Project No. 60155085 event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive �� Resourceful b+ Reliable 17 �� 0� � FI � �� I - i � -, � . „t ,i i"co ,r � ' t: � ' +� � -' ' : � ' '. � 11� ,i � ��?` _ x . )�--�y, , � ,� f- ' :� r �i � , 09 �, � � ' ''� ' � �1 �ty r' /� r �++�Cj � ;'�J t', i�, ` � �-�� ,/� � � 1 .�'. .bA / l �'I` pl t,' ."♦� ,// � — �L./ � x /r `` ;� f 4��\1� � i �+ ��i r i I � � 'i I � .�, .�lp ' . w �` � �{� Z � I�'.;�. �i- _'� ,.Y�. �'w i 1 i I ..�� S 1 �� . � 1 �l � �� ( l ' 1 � ,.. � '1 ,� ^'7 '-y ''�� F� -':, ��.j)� . ...�_J _ •_ fl �.: l i e r. 1 i.,: I C � �`.. t I , t fl� �S � , r � � �i �S � � .7I` ,v. Z-cJ' .\��1 � .t / � ti� '� ;Jlf FJ !r ,O . � . n �-. �� r i � -..�j,. I .; �� r` j 3 �4F i i :: i �K J r � `o .. ti ��C�u I � ' L� , � �, \� �r:.t y t _ �' Ilf r f'�',' - 1_. -�� \ 1 \� ..��5' . i � GI� 1 �# . ��l .Y. � --'A. - , ,� . ' �+_ � ' _ Z � ��{ f .. � t\.�1�7 tl L� 1 .\ ��'_ � � � �.�� t ��I�� :_'� ..�� f. �i.��` : � /.l`-�� t c' �11e�'l�. '�,� � �'Q � ' '\ � ��t�,/,� ,�, �..' .Uti— L � .'�i � r f..,iA�/ : � � � . � � I.� �' ,�� `� \� � � ' � 'I� 1 \ 1 '��` � �� •� 1 � ' �:� � � lii., < f '..i � t �- .,�� rs� L.�-_` ��:r�- C I I ..�� i�� - . �.' C`� , 'i'�3,-• �'( � .'i ��...- �f�•1,�•�r...ir3,�.* (._ ,1�y: ' ' � 1�_' � i�a �-'tr f °a; s� � f+'��'�• z � m j�� 1 � � � I �_i� C � } ' � r ��. c�� j�h ��., , . -� . `� --� Ot}.lMa i �N`t+�' I t �.��: if_`'�_ i ;„, 1 . � � 1 P�, 3 �..�;�` � � c `7 ' :..? C--, I � ;� � �rf`�r,� � '�� ,�- �� 5 � o� ° � '� ,,� ;_, ,��,,�.? � '�, �,,,, '� ' �,� . � ,� ,��, ' ,� i '' v o @„ , t ' � ,'1 �. r � J � 1 drk�L —� —,._ -�:_ � .� �. _�i ��l _ .�- _�� l} l�'.:.1-,� �� '.'J �.jr,� O Q N N �' ',',I_� � _ .�—�'-.:-- �.J_. . � "�� ./`i�.�1`�.)�r. J -� � � ��-�'�'-'-�'�'S-�J s i �1 ,.�k.` r `Jti ~r,� �_ l, � ` , �`� :> s ' LLJ � ^ ►" ' \� (11�/ ,i. � ,p 4�1 L 1 T i r 1 ry�� _� - ~ � N �'1 r��)�{il ,�� ol`I� �: 1. ��(� r�1 `l`^i�i �� c�._ `/� :�� O rn \'��`�'j'.Y��. �r�.�]��)}.� � �?�rpcul�� .�. -i jC` ' I"J�J��,\ �� +.`_� � f .�y;. . �l :!�� . � � ! f�`�� /. .�JI� � I 1�� (/ !I'`.��/M1 ''�4'�/ J . �� •� .`S � ( L J 4 1 � `v� � � �.1 ��'��. t�� C�� S,i .Q,� {� q�G� r � ti � �Z.,: � �f � �`-��' .� � ;' 1 �� , , 4� .\ .r �l. �; o , "�' � �� 1 �' � � . /^ j�� ` , `,l`��'`, Si, h ' 11�j�� `-�� \ _ r i, U,1�• `-�Y ,i\ \� �.� � �t�f ` �� - ��.r;'z. �r a , `` � , � Sy��! p C ��( � � �/� J ti� �'l�f� ti l r wt'.�n.,� .I �_ �� S_ � ��_ �{ ✓� �� \� , � / .E � ^ � i:.'�� ..- 1 'a /!f7 /��."-/�j` { 1 `ll j�V�/�� y'�� a_ h ' ir,l � 1. �+. i�'�� , �Y. ;(�.+J o- ��('p��.\ � `-� t�ly� ��r"•��I'�11A _� ��. 1 '� � `�' l r b ' o � _'� _.a `''' � ��,4� `�\� � � � �� ,� �, l��;��`�� `�- P` "' , �. �n �� 41`;_,.�` �'7�7�`�t �. y� !�-� �'r��`,�I Z��i b\�� o�� e� t _ .r 4�- i� �'�t lJ � .��. .�_r��f�� "!.�/ ),� ' l`�"'.'� �� :/ 3;: I� � ifr��) �hl / � .� \�\.� ` �.l 4 \`�^I,� � '�� `T�-• � - �,. � �I f f �V ( � �N �-� z;� � ��`:�,,� � . e t`5�`1�^ ! � t tn� M f � �'. r�`t } 1 � �, \� �� ,-�. � �;�"� _ �d s�,� f -� • �/ � � � ��C � i��, � �' �r-,nvl'�, 1 � � ��,'�I�,�1'�, 'l �� `o � ri�:� r,r"�ti��v � ;� .�' iitx2 ��,�_�: � �_�� r � �i ��,�E ��sr � � �) p > ,jJ�; � �� , ,.,,� ,�z , j _ Y . ` 7 �:.1�+ � �.�. �.. o r / . .1 � -- � ' � � � • �, L ,�'- �;7 � �'(,.� �-� � � ; �/;:Q�``�i__, t � �r r f��'�� i ��; �_�-��-��'<?��, �r � , �` �� '��,r��'�... �� , . ��' � � 4�i� ��l;��1�i� j i�� ,1�j �f�� ''� � :�� ( �:��J��.� � i'��!�,-r.f' � � �� 'c6,�'� �'l'.� , O r ��j, '\ ,�� , ; ,,�(Cnr�i��'�� r � ='1�;��`� ,1., �,� ��_, � ,i..�'. . ....�,a-. _ u > � ,!l�,-�l --- �- � 1 /f�'!`� / '' f ) � � ��,'jJ� t a� � " F�' 3 " J � I � J ` �`. i / J_f)J i�� -� {b�,t1! I,' 1�� `�\ \� Q�,,!� J�� '� (:ii l tf,- f�`;� - � � U ( 11l � 1 . Ic.. 1�) � �V �� -�/ 1J ��.. `ce"- f_ Jli. ':��J� \?�.,�� / u�ll�� I�.� .� �'7r� �i �'' � � '1' _ -C'^-'. C �/ �S�` lr-�';�� .} "� \\.�`' �\ j . �� f}\�� .'"�� . �i� h�.�-;{�f ,.'� � y' � �� ` ro Z C s> > �o J � 1 -' � � N �7 1. T� �\S�� o�. �� ` y�,� �`� l" -�-," ' �ti-� � � � S � �. �E ,•,� _ ;�.!• /� ��.,.�ti 1 1�� rA�w i . s r� :�� ',,1 �.`.,' /��"��-.�I � � -,d�\- '� .�; �ry` .�:...-� � �\ •��• i .� ` �� \ \ ��`.1 � J��4' /'� yr'� ��'�� -'l:.\•�r �� ''j;' Y�- � �5 y � .`�l �f ��►� F t�� !t �-_ l�r � -\. .�• � �� , \�; 'v ``�� t�� =i} _ ��' �\ �� s ��': ' `j_ c�. . � t``-r. �� . �- , � '�:/ ' y ,I f '- ; \ 5 � , � -r'o;� �� •: , . �=. �, ,o; �, � � � � .. \� �'� '-� ,��! �,' .:.�'r'�' `��n w �n S�� `�`` "', � )f1'3j' *Ci�• .. t / .a�:a: � - v�i � a N �t\•,\� ��, . - �� '` ` ]�� •.r1 /.�,,� '��__. �• ��:�,� .:�/�'�<•� 'V _" `o O m '�'{)' f� fk� � .�; � `?�',`f�� // � ,.,� '- �, .. N - ', ��L"� ��,�� vf; ( � ;. � ....�� ,� . .:.•_ --'�r �' .�:/ ��c �` �t��D —N E o �L �:. -' �,'�-�. �"�-' '� s M /�l�-�, - fCY_ .� ' � z" � '�:.^-�_^-f � ,�'- �s `" ��,r +�- �h ' � e - �' a rn� LL o G� � �� r : �,� � � �t � �'�� ` ¢' .i} _ ' \�\ ��" : �. � /fi �' �[ l� I _��'. � � �S �� 7 . � � . �� ' ` �/ `� �i /. .� � LL � �,.' � �� -� �ya`ym . � a..�/(� � f �. �,� - f_ �"_� � 1 �� %'$ 0 7 � ��r .o OhO �♦ �f�� . ` /� s`' e� ', ,:e'�4f� c�J ��.i, �-.j ; �..� �I� � 3 a � !� �' � 9 � -, f � ,�\ ,�.ya �. �i t-:C �r\ j'�_-� a` o � ¢ � a�rv;� e�' •"'�+� C �, � � ,�. �/ � �j�i� +1, .'., �;'�y�o n Q•,,i }��. � 'rh�`��. �('' O U�C9 �O ' -� 't� . .l�r ._� � .� 1 '�' � f:.� � ¢mZ ZF r �;... /, �r � ,,-�°f c_:�a f� r�� :S'��'�`�'S 1� �>W;� �� -. rf G = �`r � ,.i f ' , �i � r''.�r�`r ,r" ' �j�`"W o�� >` ` � Pr ,¢ � � � �1 �r �F.�, ,_( r� � �� o �ry"� - ��y :�� r � \ �' A..'--� \ ��` r�.. ,� �ry;� �Zf\-�9�r �v o��O�� / ` q `� QS �r �L-- � � ". �C�� W `. ' \, .1 � 9 './f�f�.. r. ,� '��ir.t�_ .-c � � � � .�� a�VO��WOO � �e / . { , � ..� . / `'I � !�"r!`{� v. �,�i..;i�:,+, \ -s''' � y� ` �, �: �Oz=vQWQa 1'•. �� 4.. ' � 1 i � � �� ' ? f( '_'�{ �� v�w c�Q v c�z a / � ... .- l��\ � . �� JI �- �� \ �!i 1 N J Q U a'W � :� � /)�, ti� � � �� Y 4� ��(v�� `1 � � ,r� �,"� a��m �z / W Q O� LL 1/�� \� ' Ty� t..��✓;.� . 1 �,\ , � / �`� . - �,I � n� cn F �\,, :r�/ ��d-��i�,' ,� Y�\j /1��,�,�� :•. 4i `� ,(�� Q ., 0��°�w �� {•� 1 !�i'- �, :�-� /� '�'�`� `•l� ? ,�� ''� ' ��r, ��'"��(\. -.�� a �� cn _ _�f r �", ;/� , \ .\� � �r%�` �'Zfi��\�'r,.Y�,�-'J �S � ( " _ � L � C3;.F Q� � � 1/"�-- �- �1 `�,`. ��\ti��,,�-=�. �.�� ' r o a , �,� `' � rt r ,�. .�; ::� - ._.. --_-- _ . . . ._�... w. —.—�—_�,. .. . ._ _.,., _. — _..s,,,,,�;�.—.w,_.�._ �_..� __. f . .... . . _.� . t,--..�...-w �'' ". , =aaw � ...s_ . �-. . �'� . - R'ancho Cali ornia F�o d1` � � -j 4�¢�,�� _ , �, p,, t , �F s`' � , t�`"p..* :� '�t' . � t . � � � � � � �_��_ /� �=,y, . e � . ." �1.` y .. � .�. �! ,Y�w �r } � y�.i ,� ��t� € L([..�S !e r w/i t�'�„�� .�'.F.t.* �� ,j��F} i :•.ire ��.:2 � �}-r s�A,J�'7i*j, r- ��` �r t+.-j'�� 1 i � .-x ..�li:� � 1��'�j� � < ��"f u ;te,'il.b�V!'a.�}: �.# ' .. 1 '].iTd _ ..a. . . �#.+J� . ri, . � ��„�i��' tr�" .� .. � . T�`. � S- P . ,A'",{ ',' , 1� '.1��,� i'��`3� . � . y '' ,.�� , . , - ' _: �e� �� '� ��,-' , ,.: .�4i'�4�.�i• t..�.�.,. �; t }�t:�� r�,� i �:_ �- _ �- � st �, , � ' � -. • l��. F { : � :�, �. , ;�`. �, 4:•,'� A is�P w�,i.� � � ��.-'�-�e. �� ti� �• . . �' } y�, � �� t� � . „fa' ^°� �� - , .. i . , . • . . ,. . � i �r I a ��} � �" +*� 7�� •4 . i } �j , � , ; . r , }4-�i t��- `�..f T'._�� a�# .� ��`d�'� ♦ y�i N � �� , 4�.i �� ,n a , a.3: ' _ . � : �_'. '�i •tiy s '�u �' a•, ,•�;,,t sl. . i� .- '.:. . . . �� '��. . - �J� . ��j > ,t _� - - . " � �� +� � . ��i . � . l, .... �` C� � � �R � .�f ' . +'t: � v-r ,�� ' ` ��'.� '�' ;� � <..�}.: . � ��, � �, �; ti. " �;�es`�c��.r; af�i . . � � � 'a , . � § ` .:{ �;� { ,FCKK1 Ai1��E i 1�b.i3, � �, ,� �i�f�� ',x `<y , � � ' � '� �i �.j� . •'f' .t', 1�+j�J r .�ti � '1�:. I � 7,��..� . ��` . #j�' .. r ■ . �R. 4� • . .�� '` y . � �t � .��o�. . .f' ' , �,y ;��? , cx�;�;iaG aP;��y a _'� _. , �� 'd x `�� ~ ' ,,f_ . � t f°�. �,1� - � .� ,�• _�� r, :.;z«i~ ��;� .�� ' . .. F...✓�' _, r� ' . 4� i ... 4 � ��- -. � Y 1, b •.,�""'�,�m�- ■ � .:.� i. � � }�: � �"- S" '; . .�^ a e..a�' _} ,f�� ,' ' . ��l, � ` ' _ , ., ' t, � e� � , �. e� yg� � � / . • �`� e ��'` ��',,��. i #.` � ��'. *��t ` .Y;�; . . ... e�'�,` ��$��, �'��}.: i � t� � �� ! , � .. . � � �� ;'! E , � ' ' i . ^ . 1 -�� ' r�f �i� ��t ,�, r � ' ". �# .=�.�� +�k�•�"`�y.-:."4.,i"C�VL1'!S.=pi .h.. . `Y �i ,�� , �'y".S.'�� .:;°g � ' �'`; �'1�� . t. . • . . j�. �' ,�Qy �� °t' <_ .. _.. ..�= . . � R' . . , �,�e�. �. � r .,-,.._. _.._..._-...�_..��_, .-_.. ,i.. ", . . . �#.�.......�.::r..w�.r..--�.--�r*T.7t:': :'+i(�:.+....:`..e�e: _....... w�..a...+..,�_�' ...' .. ._ . Via Las Colinas� �- . .�.�.�, . , ._ ...._�.�, � 3 _ . �� ,...aa,,� z. LEGEND � �3�1 SOIL BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION -{�-- �-5 SOIL BORING/PERCOLATION TEST APPROXIMATE LOCATION N — • EXISTING GRADED PAD 7r DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY,AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ProJectManager, ProjectNo. EXIIII�It FH 60155085 l��rr�con BORING AND TEST LOCATION PLAN Drawn by: Scale: JM 1"-50' PFO osed ALDI Buildin Checkedby: FileName: ConSullin�,En�;in�CrnRScicnli5t> p g �_� FH A-z 29176 Via Las Colinas Approved by: Date: zen r,��N aR�� o-Hr�,carm�ma s�ia FH 10/23/2015 PH�9^9��si-°°s Fnx�sm�:ei-sno Temecula, CiA Geotechnical Engineering Report �r�rr�eon Proposed ALDI Building �� Temecula, California October 28, 2015 r� Terracon Project No. 60155085 Field Exploration Description A total of eight (8) test borings were advanced to an approximate depth of 5 to 21'/2 feet bgs on October 5, 2015. Four (4) of the borings were utilized for percolation testing. The borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the attached Boring Location Diagram, Exhibit A- 2. The test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted drill rig utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of the field exploration. The borings were located in the field by using the proposed site plan, aerial photographs of the site, measuring distances from existing site features, and handheld GPS devices. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the level implied by the method used. Continuous lithologic logs of the borings were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations. At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or ring-barrel samplers. Bulk samples of subsurface materials were also obtained. Groundwater conditions were evaluated in the borings at the time of site exploration. Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or relative density of materials encountered. An automatic hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A significantly greater efficiency is achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. This higher efficiency has an appreciable effect on the SPT-N value. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. Exhibit A-3 BORING LOG NO. B- 1 Pa e � of� PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA �� w STRENGTH TEST ATTERBERG C9 LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 W z � F o � LIMITS z �U `� J� I— H� a in� o wz �I— i— = W � Y cn C� " �W = Z � w w w a �w F �w o. Z �z �� LL-PL-PI v � � �n n.�" Qa' p o w � C7 � �� LL � O� ai U � d DEPTH � SILTY SAND(SMI,trace gravel, brown,medium dense NP 13 7-17-23 7 107 e.o 5 SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM),with gravel, yellow-brown,medium dense 8-13-25 15 111 4-7-10 20-16-4 46 � N=17 � __ N . O �. �o.o � � . SANDY SILT(MLI,brown,very stiff � 7-15-20 12 101 0 z 0 � w F a � N � stiff � 0 5-5-7 � N=12 W � 0 z � 0 J F' . ' � . Q � � 0 20A 2 — � SILTY SAND(SM),with gravel,brown,dense 22-25-16 � N=41 � 21.5 0 W Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet � a z � � 0 � 0 � LL � QStratifcation lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a N Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: �- Hollow stem auger procedures. °—° See Appendix B for description of laboratory � procedures and additional data(if any). o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion, abbreviations. � � � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � Boring Started:10/5/2015 Boring Completed:10/5/2015 oNo seepage encountered during drilling �rraeon 9 m Dry at completion Drill Ri B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � F Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-1 BORING LOG NO. B- 2 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA � w STRENGTH TEST ATTERBERG � C9 LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 W z � � o � LIMITS Z O `� �O ~ H� a in� wz �F F- Q = W > > v�c7 � �W = z a a W w � �w ~ �w a Z ¢~ �� LL-PL-PI w Q w F- g w� N a�� 4 �� pw � K p �m � LL � O� � U � a DEPTH � � FILL-SILTY SAND(SM►,trace gravel,brown 20 2.0 SILTY SAND(SMI,olive-brown to light gray,dense -- 13-16-23 9 107 a.o 5 -? SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL1,brown,hard 12-20-30 16 114 N � � N O � �o.o � � SANDY SILT(ML►,brown,hard � 9-18-27 20 103 0 z 0 U � H a � N � te.o �5 ---- o �/ SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL),brown,very stiff 7-10-12 � N=22 w -- � � o � � 0 J � ' . Q � O � 20.0 2 _- � SILTY SAND(SM),trace gravel,light brown to light gray, 18-30-30 F very dense N=60 � 21.5 0 � Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet a z c� � 0 � 0 � LL O QStratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a NAdvancement Method: Notes: � See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Hollow stem auger procedures. o The estimated depth of the fll materials should nol be � See Appendix B for description of laboratory considered exact due to the similarity of lithology,color,and j procedures and additional data(if any). densities of the graded materials and native soils. o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cut[ings upon completion. abbreviations. � � � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � 1��rr�eO� Boringg tarted 10/5I2015 Boring Completed 10/5/2015 � No seepage encountered during drilling m Dry at completion Drill Ri B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � = Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-2 � BORING LOG NO. B- 3 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA � LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 ^ �z w STRENGTH TEST � � ATTERBERG � � LIMITS z >O _ � �cn w � �a U = �Q w i-w-� a �� wz ��- r > � y cn c� �-w x z a w W w d �w F �w n Z �z �� LL-PL-PI U � � � � v� a_�� p ow � U' � �m � LL kw- p� �~il U � a DEPTH � v SILTY SAND LM�,trace gravel, brown, medium dense 18 12-17-21 5 114 5 - 7-8-10 N=18 7.5 �;;%/ LEAN CLAY(CL),brown,very stiff � �/; 6-11-14 24 92 i %�. � ��/ — N o %�/i�.. � ''�"��10.0 � „ � — �°, SANDY SILT(ML),brown,stiff 4-6-6 o N=12 Z --- - 0 � � � a � � ro � very stiff 15 — � 13-14-26 12 98 J W> - > � Z � O J � Q � N n O L LL1 C7 , 7-11-13 � N=24 � 21.5 O � Boring Terminated at 21.5 Feet a z � � 0 � 0 � � 0 aStratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a NAdvancement Method: Notes: LL See Exhibit A3 for description of field Hollow stem auger procedures. ° See Appendix B for description of laboratory � procedures and additional data(if any). o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. abbreviatlons. � ca � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS J Boring Started:10/5/2015 Boring Completed:10/5/2015 �� 1 �rr�con No seepage encountered during drilling Drill Rig:B-53 Driller:Cal Pac m Dry at completion � = Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-3 � BORING LOG NO. B- 4 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA c7 LOCATION See Exhlbit A-2 �� W STRENGTH TEST � ATTERBERG � Z � LIMITS Z �U " w� � H� a �� Wz �� H _ > w � r cn c� � �'w x z a w W W a �w � �w a Z �z �� LL-PL-PI U � � � a�� p oW � C� � �� r p ai vi—i U � a DEPTH � FILL-SILTY SAND(SM�,trace gravel,brown,medium dense NP 20 3.5 13-25-32 5 119 SILTY SAND(SM�,trace gravel,light brown to light gray, medium dense s.o 5 SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM), brown,medium dense 6-9-14 N=23 � 10-16-26 20 109 � N . O o � � 7-11-16 19 105 0 z 0 U � K .' F- a � � � N �e.o 15 o POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT(SP-SM�, � yellow-brown,dense 17-21-41 2 112 � W � 0 z ch 0 J F � very dense 31-35-27 v� N=62 0 20.0 2 � Boring Terminated at 20 Feet � � 0 w K ¢ Z C9 K O � O � LL ❑ QStratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a N Advancement Me[hod: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: " Hollow stem auger procedures. o The estimaled depth of the fill materials should not be � See Appendix B for description of laboratory considered exact due to the similarity of lithology,color,and j procedures and additional data(if any). densities of the graded materials and native soils. o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. abbreviations. � � 0� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 1��rr�eon Boring9 tarted 10/5/2015 Boring Completed:10/5/2015 � No seepage encountered during drilling m Dry at completion Drill Ri B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � = Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-4 � BORING LOG NO. B- 5 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA w STRENGTH TEST ATTERBERG � LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 ^ w Z a F o � LIMITS Z O v v �~ � H� a �� wz z� i— = Q w � } rn(9 � �W =2 Z °- w W w a �w � �w n ZQ �z �� LL-PL-PI U q!� � � v� a�" K p �W � V � �m Q LL Fw— �c~il v~i U � W p (� O p. DEPTH FILL-SILTY SAND LMI,brown 3.0 SILTY SAND(SM),brown 5 �.o SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SC-SM), brown,medium dense 6-9-13 N N=22 � N O � �o.o � � Boring Terminated at 10 Feet � 0 z 0 U � H a � � 0 � 0 � J > � Z (� � � Q � N O � F � O w K ¢ z c� � 0 � 0 � LL � aStratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a � Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: " Hollow stem auger procedures. p The estimaled depth of the fill materials should not be � See Appendix B for description of laboratory considered exact due to the similarity of lithology,color,and � procedures and additional data(if any). densities of the graded materials and native soils. o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. abbreviations. N � � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 0 1��rracon Boring9 tarted 10/5/2015 Boring Completed:10/5/2015 � No seepage encountered during drilling m Dry at completion Drill Ri B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � = Project No.:60155055 Exhibit: A-5 F- BORING LOG NO. B- 6 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA w STRENGTH TEST ATTERBERG C� LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 W z a � o � LIMITS w � v > (n� w � F p, Z OU ^ WOQ � I-� a (nI- o WZ ��' F = w � Y c�C7 `" ~W 2 Z a W w� a �w F �w o_ Z �z �� LL-PL-PI v o Q� � �� a�v � � �w � � �� p v~i v�i U � a DEPTH � POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT�SP-SMI, olive-brown NP 10 3.0 14-10-11 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL), brown,very stiff N-21 ' s.o 5 Boring Terminated at 5 Feet � � N O � � N O Z O U � Fw- a' � � 0 � 0 � J> > � Z � � K a � m 0 � � 0 w � a z � � 0 � 0 � LL � QStratifcation lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a � Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: " Hollow stem auger procedures. QSee Appendix B for description of laboratory � procedures and additional data(if any). o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfllled with soil cuttings upon completion. abbreviations. � � � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � Boring Started:10/5/2015 Boring Completed:10/5/2015 � No seepage encountered during drilling 1 �rr�eon m Dry at completion Drill Rig:B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � = Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-6 � BORING LOG NO. B- 7 Pa e � of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula,CA w STRENGTH TEST ATTERBERG c9 LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 W z � � o � LIMITS Z oU LL �O ~ H� a v�H WZ ��— H a a w� J �� F wz y z ¢� >c=7 w w Fw � ww� N a�g �z oW LL-PL-PI v � � �m ¢ u- w �� w 0 � � o v� cn a DEPTI-I � SILTY SAND(SM),yellow-brown 5 �.o SILTY CLAYEY SAND(SGSM),trace gravel,olive to light gray,dense 14-19-21 � N=40 � — N O ,� �o.o � � Boring Terminated at 10 Feet � 0 Z 0 � � � a � � 0 N O � J � � Z � O J � Q � N � � F � 0 W � Q Z � � 0 � � � LL � QStratifcation lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a N Advancement Melhod: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: "-- Hollow stem auger procedures. °—° See Appendix B for description of laboratory � procedures and additional data(if any). o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cutlings upon completion, abbreviations. N � � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS J � 1��rr�con Boringg tarted 10/5/2015 Boring Completed 10/5/2015 � No seepage encountered during drilling m Dry at completion Drill Ri B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � F Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-7 BORING LOG NO. B- 8 Pa e � of 1 PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. Riverside, CA SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas Temecula, CA C7 LOCATION See Exhibii A-2 �N w STRENGTH TEST � ^ ATTERBERG w z a F o LIMITS w } U Z OU '" JO ~ H� a a-iH � Wz �� F- Q = w � } cn C�.� " �'W = Z � a W� d �w ~ �w a za �z �� LL-PL-PI U w I-LLl � w� t~j� a��- K Q pw � U` � �m � � F p� r~iJ U �' d DEPTH � � SILTY SAND(SMI,trace gravel,olive-brown,medium dense to dense 5-5-5 N=10 a.o 5 Boring Terminated at 5 Feet � � N O F � N O Z O U � Fw- a � � 0 N O � J> > � Z (� � � Q � N O � H K O w � ¢ z � � 0 � 0 � LL � aStratifcation lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. � a a � Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: " Hollow stem auger procedures. � See Appendix B for description of laboratory j procedures and additional data(if any). o Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and Z Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion, abbreviations. � � 0� WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 1('�rr�con Boringg tarted 10/5/2015 Boring Completed 10/5/2015 � No seepage encountered during drilling m Dry at complefion Drill Ri B-53 Driller:Cal Pac � � Project No.:60155085 Exhibit: A-8 APP BX L O i4`T Y TE TI Geotechnical Engineering Report �f�r�r�r�a� Proposed ALDI Building � Temecula, California October 28, 2015�: Terracon Project No. 60155085 Laboratory Testing Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix C. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties: �� In-situ Dry Density In-situ Water Content �: Soluble Chlorides Soluble Sulfates , pH Minimum Resistivity r3 Percent Passing #200 Sieve � Consolidation/Swell Potential �� Atterberg Limits Exhibit B-1 ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS ASTM D4318 60 50 — P L A 0� S 40 -- ,� T � C G� T 30 — Y � O I i N 2O D E G� MH or OH X 10 � _ C -ML ML r OL i� 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT � Boring ID Depth LL PL PI Fines USCS Description N • B-1 0-2.5 NP NP NP 13 SM SILTY SAND a o m B-1 7.5-9 20 16 4 46 SC-SM SILTY CLAYEY SAND � o ♦ B-4 0-2.5 NP NP NP 20 SM FILL-SILTY SAND N Z ° * B-6 5 NP NP NP SM SILTY SAND � � w � a � � ro 0 � N � N F- � J � � W m K W � Q F � O a w � ¢ z � � 0 � 0 � LL O W F Q � Q a w � LL 0 J a > � 0 z w N PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building PROJECT NUMBER: 60155085 � > SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. o Temecula,CA 1 r�rracon Riverside,CA � g , EXHIBIT: B-2 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D422 U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 � 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 8�� 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 95 90 - — 85 - 80 — 75 - — 70 --- � 65 _ W 60 � m 55 - � z 50 — LL H 45 — z w � 40 w a 35 � 30 N O F 25 � 0 20 z ° 15 � � rw- 10 - a " 5 � N O � 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 N � GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS � � " COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY Z coarse fine coarse medium fine � " Boring ID Depth USCS Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu � o � B-2 0-2.5 FILL-SILTY SAND a � m B-3 0-2.5 SILTY SAND J Q Z � � Q � 0 � � ° Boring ID Depth D,00 �ao �so �,o %Gravel %Sand %Fines � Q • B-2 0-2.5 4.75 0.628 0.162 0.0 78.0 20.2 a � m B-3 0-2.5 4.75 0.575 0.172 0.0 80.2 17.7 LL � J Q 1 F � Z W N PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building PROJECT NUMBER: 60155085 � > SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. o Temecula,CA 1��rr�con Riverside,CA � g , EXHIBIT: B-3 SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 1.0 0.5 -0.5 0 z a � -1.0 J Q N � � N O o -1.5 � (V O N Z O U Q K K F- 'Z.O a � N � O LL� N O N `� -2.5 U N 7 ZQ K H � JI � o -3.0 �, 100 1,000 U H � PRESSURE,psf 0 a w � J Q Z � � � � Specimen Identification Classification Ya, pcf WC,% � � • B-2 5.0 ft SANDY LEAN CLAY 114 16 a � < W NOTES: � LL O J Q � F 0 Z W N PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building PROJECT NUMBER: 60155085 � � > SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. o Temecula, CA 1��rr�con Riverside, CA � °mg , EXHIBIT: B-4 SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D4546 1.0 0.5 -0.5 a z a N -1.0 J Qu N 'J � �L W N O o -1.5 � N O N Z O U Q � � � '2.0 a � � w 0 � � 0 m N -2.5 � Z � � � JI Q o -3.0 �, 100 1,000 U F � PRESSURE,psf 0 a w � J Q Z � � � � Specimen Identification Classification Yd, pcf WC,% LL W • B-3 2.5 ft SILTY SAND 114 5 Q � a w NOTES: � LL � J Q � F- � Z lll � PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building PROJECT NUMBER: 60155085 � � } SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. o Temecula, CA 1��rr�con Riverside, CA � g , EXHIBIT: B-5 ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS ASTM D4318 60 50 — P L A 0� s 40 � T � I C G� T 30 — Y � O I � N 20 D E G� MH or OH X 10 � _ C -ML ML r OL e� 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Boring ID Depth LL PL PI Fines USCS Description � � • B-1 0-2.5 NP NP NP 13 SM SILTY SAND a o m B-1 7.5-9 20 16 4 46 SC-SM SILTY CLAYEY SAND � o ♦ B-4 0-2.5 NP NP NP 20 SM FILL-SILTY SAND N Z ° * B-6 O-2,5 NP NP NP 'IO SP-SM POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT � � w F a � � m 0 � � 0 � N F � J � � w m � W � Q F � O a w � � ¢ z � � 0 � 0 � LL � W H Q K Q a w � LL � J Q 1 F � Z W ¢ PROJECT: Proposed ALDI Building F PROJECT NUMBER: 60155085 r SITE: 29176 Via Las Colinas CLIENT: ALDI, Inc. o Temecula,CA 1��rr�con Riverside,CA � g , EXHIBIT: B-2 CHEMICAL LABORATORY TEST REPORT � ��rr�cO� Project Number: 60155085 Service Date: 10/26/15 750 Pilot Road, Suite F Report Date: ]0/26/15 Las Vegas,Nevada 891 19 Task: (702)597-9393 Client Project Aldi:Temecula Sample Submitted By: Terracon(60) Date Received: 10/23/2015 Lab No.: 15-0878 Results of Co��osivity Anr�lysis Snnzple Number Saniple Loc�ition B'� Snmple Deptlz (ft.) 0.0 pH Analysis,AWWA 4500 H 8.45 Water Soluble Sulfate(SO4),AWWA 4500 E <0.01 (percent%) S�ilfides,AWWA 4500-S D,(mg/I<g) Nil Red-Ox,AWWA 2580,(mV) +640 Total Salts,AWWA 2510,(n�g/I<g) 230 Chlorides,AWWA 4500 Cl B,(mg/kg) 25 Resistivity,ASTM G-57,(ohm-cm) 5626 -�`�,"� - ;� ��.__ _ Analyzed By: Kurt D.E�gun C�hemist The tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM,AASHTO,or DOT test methods. This report is exclusively for the use of the client indicated above and shall not be reproduced except in full without the written consent of our company. Test results transmitted herein are only applicable to the actual samples tested at the location(s)referenced and are not necessarily indicative of the properties of other apparently similar or identical materials. � ��i c su�� e � �ocu � � GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS � ' � � Water Initially (HP) Hand Penetrometer Encountered Au er Shelb Tube S lit S oon � Water Level After a (T) Torvane 5 Y P p Specified Period of Time J Water Level After � (b/f) Standard Penetration Ve � j � a Specified Period of Time N Test(blows per foot) Z Rock Macro Modified W W � Core Core California J Water levels indicated on the soil boring F— N N value a Ring Sampler � logs are the levels measured in the 0 � e � � Q borehole at the times indicated. � (P1�) Pnoto-lonization�etector Groundwater level variations will occur .?� over time. In low permeability soils, �ovA) Organic Vapor Analyzer Grab No Modified accurate determination of groundwater sample Recovery Dames&Moor levels is not possible with short term Ring Sampler water level observations. (WOH) Weight of Hammer DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System.Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve;their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles,gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50%of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve;they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device.The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/-indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead,the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve.) (50%or more passing the No.200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,field Includes gravels,sands and silts. visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance (q Standard Penetration or Standard Penetration or � Descriptive Term Ring Sampler Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Ring Sampler (Density) N-Value Blows/Ft. (Consistency) Strength,Qu,psf N-Value glowslFt. � Blows/Ft. BlowslFt. W I— Very Loose 0-3 0-6 Very Soft less than 500 0-1 <3 2 ~ Loose 4-9 7-18 Soft 500 to 1,000 2-4 3-4 � Z W Medium Dense 10-29 19-58 Medium-Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4-8 5-9 � H � Dense 30-50 59-98 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8-15 10-18 Very Dense >50 >99 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15-30 19-42 Hard >8,000 >30 >42 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descri�ve Term(s) Percent of Major Com o� particle Size of other constituents �y Weiaht of S m Trace <15 Boulders Over 12 in.(300 mm) With 15-29 Cobbles 12 in.to 3 in.(300mm to 75mm) Modifier >30 Gravel 3 in.to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm Silt or Clay Passing#200 sieve(0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriqtive Term(sl Percent of Term Plastici�,y Index of other constituents �Weiaht Non-plastic 0 Trace <5 Low 1 -10 With 5-12 Medium 11 -30 Modifier >12 High >30 1��rr�con Exhibit C-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM _ ___ __ _ -- _------ _ _. --_ _ Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A I croup ��ou Name B — � Symbol p ____ ---- -_......__ - -- -' Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu>_4 and 1 <_Cc s 3 E I GW I Well-graded gravel F More than 50%of Less than 5%fines° Cu<4 and/or 1 >Cc>3 E ` GP �Poorly graded gravel F --- -- -- coarse fraction retained Gravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM I Silty gravel F,c," Coarse Grained Soils: I on No.4 sieve More than 12%fines° Fines classify as CL or CH GC I Clayey gravel F,c," _. More than 50°/o retained -- ---___..--__- ____, _ _ ---__- ---- _._. ____. -__ _------- -.. on No.200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu>_6 and 1 <_Cc<_3 E SW Well graded sand� --— ----- - -- --- 50%or more of coarse Less than 5%fines° Cu<6 and/or 1 >Cc>3 E SP I Poorly graded sand� -- - ----.._....- - - - fraction passes No.4 Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH SM I Silty sand c'"' _- ___-- -- ----— — sieve More than 12%fines° Fines classify as CL or CH SC I Clayey sand c"� _ _ __ __... ._ ------_-_ _ ___ _ ------ __ - __ - --- --- _ PI>7 and plots on or above"A"line� CL �Lean clayK`"" Inorganic: — _.-- _ Silts and Clays: PI<4 or plots below"A"line� I _ML !SiItK�"' ----___._____ -....-_ Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clayK,�,""," Pine-Grained Soils: Organic: ------ . -- <0.75 OL --- .--. K,�,M,o -- Liquid limit-not dried Organic silt 50%or more passes the ---- - _ ...---.. ----- -._ _..... ... __�_ __. No.200 sieve PI plots on or above"A"line I CH Fat clayK�"' Inorganic: _ _. �.__,�.K M __". Silts and Clays. l PI plots below 'A"line I MH Elastic Silt -_._— _ ___- — - -._.. Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay K,�"'P Organic: _---- <0.75 OH ---- KLMQ - - Liquid limit-not dried Organic silt ' ' ' ---_ ----_ ___ ___ --------- --- -------- - -__-- --- --- --- Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter,dark in color,and organic odor PT �Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch(75-rnm)sieve "If fines are organic,add"with organic fines"to group name. B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders,or both, add"with cobbles � If soil contains>_ 15%gravel,add"with gravel"to group name. or boulders,or both"to group name. ' If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area,soil is a CL-ML,silty clay. �Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded K If soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200,add"with sand"or"with gravel," gravel with silt,GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay,GP-GM poorly whichever is predominant. graded gravel with silt,GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. � If soil contains>_30%plus No.200 predominantly sand,add"sandy"to °Santls with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded group name. sand with silt,SW-SC well-graded sand with clay,SP-SM poorly graded "'If soil contains>_30%plus No.200,predominantly gravel,add sand with silt,SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay "gravelly"to group name. �p �2 "PI>_4 and plots on or above"A"line. E Cu=D6o/D�o Cc= 30 °PI<4 or plots below"A"line. D�o x Dso P PI plots on or above"A"line. F If soil contains>_15%sand, add"with sand"to group name. °PI plots below"A"line. �If fines classify as CL-ML,use dual symbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. 60 I i ,�" I For classification of fine-grained ,� � . soils and fine-grained fraction ,�'I ( 50 of coarse-grained soils � ��,' `�e � , �. Equation of"A"-line �J,"' ��P ( � Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5. ,�� I � I X 40 then PI=0J3(LL-20) ' 0 '•, p ' Equation of"U"-line ' / �� Z ' Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7, ,�� G � 30 ' then PI=0.9(LL-S) ;�� . U ' .'' 0� H � �� ot � a20 ; _ - ____ _ .. ___ :. G�- . . :_ ___ 1_ .._..__ _ -- _ � ' MH or OH � , , ,� 10 _ _ ; __ _ _ _. __ � ;�--- L- ML ' ( _� 4 '�- ML or OL 0 ' � � I i 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) 1 r�rr�cor� Exhibit C-2 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 1 of 6 ��!� Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.50642°N, 117.14193°W) Site Class D - "Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/III Section 11.4.1 — Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SS) and 1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1�1' SS = 1.981 g From Fic,Lure 22-2�Z� S1 = 0.813 g _ _ _ Section 11.4.2 — Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class vs N or N�h s� A, Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,Z00 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w >_ 40%, and _ _ __ • Undrained shear strength s� < 500 psf F. Soils requiring site response See Section Z0.3.1 analysis in accordance with Section 21,1 For SI: ift/s = 0.3048 m/s ilb/ft� = 0.0479 kN/mz http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/desig�lmaps/Lis/report.php?template=minimal&latitud... 10/28/2015 � �Jesign Maps Detailed Report Page 2 of 6 Section 11.4.3 - Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient Fa Site Class Mapped MCE � Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period SS <_ 0.25 SS = 0.50 SS = 0.75 SS = 1.00 SS >_ 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of SS For Site Class = D and S5 = 1.981 g, F� = 1.000 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F� Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S, <_ 0.10 5, = 0.20 S, = 0.30 S, = 0.40 S, >_ 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S� For Site Ciass = D and S, = 0.813 g, F� = 1.500 http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitud... 10/28/2015 � �Dasi�n M�ps Det�iled Report Page 3 of 6 Equ�ti�� (ii.��-1): SMS = FaSs = 1.000 x 1.981 = 1.981 g �q�aa�ion (11,�4-�): Sh,i = F�S1 = 1.500 x 0.813 = 1.220 g _. ___ _- __ _ . _ . _ Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equatior� (19..4-�): Sos = z/ SMS = Z/ x 1.981 = 1.321 g Equation (11.4-4): SDS "- 2/ SMl - 2/ x 1.220 = 0.813 g __ . __ . . __ _ . . ___. Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum From Fa��a�� 1��3' T� = 8 seconds ____ _ _ _ _ __ _.__ __. __ _ . Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum r '��7y:5��,��5 +{�,��"�T�1 , i Tn�7�� g�� ar � � �'��'��T, :�$-Ss,tfi � � � � � ��;��`�r�+�� i :.� , � j i. � ( � Ei_� � . .., _ . ...,. _ .. _ . _ � � C G v. � � � J. � � ) � ry� �,p, 't J ' t� 'y q ,} i � h� kL#� ..,..,.s � p�J�.1J.`� �L �,�1li��e . ._ m. , ee-,. . +��.,,. . r Rericsd,T�sec} http://ehp2-e�rthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitud... 10/28/2015 ti�esign Maps Detailed Report E'age 4 of 6 5ection 11.4.6 — Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. I i � _ -- � s� ; � ; o i � i , � i � t � _- .�..'�� . . _.. _ .... ....� �f.t �a .:.'z."$ . _ '_'.. ,__�.._'� " L � � � � � � 15 :� � �3rr Y � L'E V' � ' � �, , _, v.�.., . . ._ _ .�. � .x. ,M �t.;� i I �.�.��'.:� �.-��4.� �.�i .�,.,J *}{j.,Y+ .. pQriad,T(seck http://ehp2-earthquake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitud... 10/28/2015 Design Maps Detailed Report Page 5 of 6 Section 11.8.3 - Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7�4� PGA = 0.821 Equation (11.8-i): PGAM = FP�APGA = 1.000 x 0.821 = 0.821 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FP��, Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA <_ PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA >_ 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.821 g, FP�, = 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 - Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17�5' CRS = 0.894 From Figure 22-18�6� CR, = 0.875 http://ehp2-earthc�liake.wr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitud... 10/28/2015 � �esi�;n Maps Detailed Report P2ge 6 of 6 Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CA7"EGORY Ve4l.tJE AF Sps I or TI ITI I�1 �os < 0.167g A A A O..L6�g S JDS < O.�J� B B C 0.33g 5 Sps < 0.50g C C D 0.50g 5 Sos D D D For Risk Category = I and So5= 1.321 g,Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter RYSK C/Al'EGORY VALUE OF Spl I or II IYI IV Sol < 0.067g A A A 0.067g <_ So1 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g 5 Sol < 0.20g C C D 0.20g S Spl D D D For Risk Category = I and Sp, = 0.813 g,Seismic Design Category = D Note: When Si is greater than or equal to 0.75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category - ��the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = E Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. References 1. Figure 22-1: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-l.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 12.pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/desig nmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 17.pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22- 18.pdf http://ehp2-earthquake.we.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php`?template=minimal&latittld... 10/28/2015