The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTract Map 35181 Lot 1 Geotechnical Update � �-; ; - GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT � LOT 1 OF TRACT 35181 (APN 909-370-042) r� NEC OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY i ` TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA i ; �- i �-' Prepared for � � l , MCA REALTY INC. 4041 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 220 � � Newport Beach, CA 92660-2514 � ; � � � � Project No. 10788.005 � �. � �__� LJ August 31 , 2016 �J �� , ♦ ,� ,� �-- Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY � I ♦ Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY August 31, 2016 Project No. 10788.005 ! MCA Realty Inc. 4041 NlacArthur Blvd., Suite 220 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2514 i Attention: Mr. Richard E. Macklin i Subject: Geotechnical Update Report Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042) � IVEC of Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway ! Temecula, California � � ' In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Gonsulting, Inc. (Leighton) � is pleased to present this update report for the subject lot. This report provides a summary of our findings and recommendations for continued site development. Based � on our review/evaluation, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the intended L . use provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during � ' design and construction phases of development. � . The opportunity to be of continued service on this project is greatly appreciated. Please 'i call the undersigned if you have any questions. � � Respectfully submitted, � LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Q��ESSfO S�pNAI �F �. �9 p�s e, s�� ,50�c�T F,9,Q�o `� �✓i . O 'y G� f� � � � I�fo.2e41 � � � No.]921 "'� � e . �� w� �P- �i', .� C�R7IFIED � � � N �, * ENGINEERING * � , , J, GEOLOGIST Q, � Simo� I. Saii , GE 26 ,� Robert F. Riha, CEG 19 �9rF oF c A��F�Q`' Principal Engineer '��.�.. _ Sr. Principal Geologist Distribution: (3) Addressee (plus pdf via email) � _. 41715 Enterprise Circle N.,Suite 103■Temecula,CA 92590-5661 , 951.296.0530■Fax 951.296.0534■www.leightonconsulting.com �_, r Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 � Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 � , TABLE OF CONTENTS � Section Paqe '� �- 1 . 0 1 NTRODUCTI ON ....................................................................................... 1 � 1.1 Purpose and Scope......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Location and Description.......................................................................... 1 �__, 1.3 Proposed Development................................................................................... 1 i' 1.4 Summary of Past Grading Activities................................................................2 1.5 Field Exploration .........................................................2 .................................... �-, . 1.6 Laboratory Testing .,........................................................................................ 3 � 2 . 0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ......................4 2.1 Site Reconnaissance ......................................................................................4 r l 2.2 Re ional Geolo ic Settin � ' ' ......4 9 9 9......................................................................... � 2.3 Site Geologic Units..........................................................................................4 ,_, 2.3.1 Stockpile............................................................................................ 5 '� ' 2.3.2 Artificial Fill documented 5 � ).................................................................. � : 2.3.3 Pauba formation ................................................................................ 5 2.4 SurFace Water and Groundwater..................................................................... 5 l2.5 Ground Shaking ..............................................................................................6 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards ........................................:..................................6 , 2.6.1 Ground Rupture.................................................................................6 � 2.6.2 Landsliding.........................................................................................6 ' 2.6.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement ...............................................7 � � 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS ...................... 8 L � 4. 0 PRELIMINQRY RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 9 , 4.1 General 9 ........................................................................................................... � ; 4.2 General Grading Recommendations...............................................................9 4.2.1 Shrinkage...........................................................................................9 � 4.2.2 Oversize Rock Placement..................................................................9 ' 4.3 Foundation Desi n 10 � 'g ........................................................................................ 4.3.1 General............................................................................................ 10 4.3.2 Allowable Bearing Pressures........................................................... 10 �_. 4.3.3 Vapor Retarder................................................................................ 11 4.4 Settlement Considerations............................................................................ 11 � 4.5 Footing Setback............................................................................................ 11 �� 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................................ 12 4.7 Site Drainage and Erosion Control................................................................ 13 ; 4.8 Soil Corrosivity.............................................................................................. 13 '� 4.9 Pavement Desi n 14 ,_, g .......................................................................................... 5 . 0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW .............................................................. 16 ,_J ♦ `__ -i - ; Leighton � ,-, Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 I Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 �-, i 6 . 0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 18 i l � , Accompanving Figures, Tables and Appendices � Fiaures/ Plates — at end of text � ' Figure 1 — Site Location Map � Plate 1 — Site Plan / Existing Site Conditions— Boring Location Plan i ' Tables Table 1. 2013 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients...................................................6 � , Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)............................... 12 � Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design .....................................................................:.. 14 � � A�pendices � . Appendix A— Logs of Exploratory Borings and Laboratory Test Results Appendix B — General Earthwork and Grading Specifications � , Appendix C — GBA Information Regarding This Geotechnical Engineering l : I � : � .. � �__, � i �_: L_, L �� . �J � �-- _;;_ , Leighton , Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 ' ' Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 i � 1 . 0 INTRODUCTION i_, 1.1 Purpose and Scope ( The purpose of this geotechnical update is to describe current site conditions and % ' provide updated geotechnical recommendations. Our scope of work included the �- following: � � ■ Review available geotechnical reports previously prepared for this site as well as other published geologic reports and maps available from our in-house r ' library. In particular, we will review previous reports prepared by both Leighton and GeoTek for this site (see References). � ■ Visit the site to observe current site conditions. � ; ■ Excavation, logging and sampling two (2) hollow stem borings located within the existing stockpile for the primary purpose of evaluating shrink potential during future grading. ( � ■ Analysis of the data will be conducted by a State of California licensed � ; Geotechnical Engineer and Certified Engineering Geologist. ( ■ Preparation of this report documenting the results of our review and providing L_. geotechnical recommendations for site development. 1.2 Site Location and Description This site is located at the intersection of Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway (northeast corner), in the City of Temecula, California (see Figure 1). The site is �J an a roximatel 14-acre raded ad and currentl referred to as PM 35181 PA pp Y 9 p Y � � 16-0063. Onsite vegetation generally consists of seasonal grasses and weeds. LJ A large stock pile is located in the middle portion of the site (see Plate 1). Access to the site is through a gate off of Dendy Parkway. L1.3 Proposed Development ( Based on review of provided conceptual grading Plan (SB&O, 2016) and `J discussions with you, we understand that the site will be developed to host a � typical tilt-up structure for commercial/office use, a retaining wall along Dendy '� Parkway, onsite water quality basins, and other site improvements including pavement and main driveway from Dendy Parkway. We understand the site will � be raised by about 5 to 9 feet to accommodate the onsite stockpile material. ♦ I � - 1 - ; Leighton � � Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 The site is restricted by a "Conservation Easement" and Fault Hazard Zone as de icted on the ro�ect Conce tual Gradin Plan and shown on Plate 1. p p 1 p 9 � 1.4 Summary of Past Grading Activities �- j Based on our past experience on this site and review of in-house data (see References), the following is a summary of past grading activities and/or findings �-, associated with this site: � ; ■ The�current Lot was initially rough graded in 2006 as part of an overall site �� referred to as "Temecula 52" (TM 29162). i ■ Prior to grading, the site was used for sand mining operations and resulted � � in several stockpiles and disturbance of near surFace soils (GeoTek, 2006). As such, rough grading included over-excavation of up to 25 feet to remove loose/unsuitable soils. � ,I ■ As per instructions of the archeologists at time of rough grading, two main areas were identified as "Indian Burial Ground" and as such, required ( ' remedial grading was not perFormed in those areas which only received l_ , fill. These two areas are generally located within the fault structural setback (see Plate 1). l_ ; ■ Existing stockpile was generally generated from the excavation of cut slopes along the west side of the adjacent PHS building pad that was ( graded in August 2008 (Leighton, 2009). l ; 1.5 Field Exploration L-. In addition to our site reconnaissance visit, we performed a subsurface exploration of the existing stockpile consisting of the excavation of two (2) hollow � i stem auger borings. Approximate locations of the borings are depicted on the Boring Location P lan (P late 1). T he exp loratory borings were excavate d 'in ' � utilizing a truck-mounted, CME 75 drill rig using 8-inch hollow-stem flight augers. �_� During the drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. Sampling of the � borings was conducted by a staff geologist from our office. The collected �J samples were transported to our laboratory for testing. Borings were backfilled � with excavated soils/cuttings. The logs of borings are presented in Appendix A J i I ' � ♦ ✓ -2- i Leighton � ' Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 i Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 � � 1.6 Laboratory Testing � Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples to provide a basis � for development of geotechnical conclusions and recommendations. Selected samples were tested to determine the following parameters: insitu moisture and ( �' density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion index, soluble sulfate and chloride content, pH and resistivity. The results of our laboratory testing and summaries of the testing procedures are presented in � ' Appendix A. � i �� I ; � ; l _; l ; L_: LJ L_� L_; 1 , � I � � ��J ♦ �I � -3- Leighton �_ Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 ' Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),.Temecula,California August 31,2016 ��' 2 . 0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ' 2.1 Site Reconnaissance � Based on a site reconnaissance performed by Leighton on August 16, 2016, the following is a summary of our field observations: ■ The site is generally in the same graded condition as described in the as- graded soils report (GeoTek, 2006) and fault evaluation report (Leighton, 2015). Since the 2006 As-Graded report, a stockpile was placed as the result �l of grading the adjacent PHS parcel and it covers the middle portion of the site. In addition, a water quality basin is located in the western corner of the �-�, site, which was constructed as part of the offsite drainage improvements for � the adjacent PHS building pad. ■ Surface soils appear to be relatively dry and disturbed by vegetative growth i , and weathering, especially adjacent to existing basins. � : 2.2 Regional Geologic Setting � ' The subject property is located within a prominent natural eomorphic province in 9 southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This province is � ; characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the region has created the geomorphology present today. �_. Specifically, the property located along the southern portion of a fault controlled �J down dropped graben, known as the Elsinore Trough. The Elsinore Trough is bounded on the northeast by the Wildomar Fault and on the southwest by the � Willard Fault. The Murrieta Creek-Temecula segment of the active Elsinore Fault �__� Zone encroaches approximately 300 feet into the property eastern boundary. However, based on the results of the fault investigation (Leighton, 2015), a fault � structural setback was established and the proposed building currently borders the south side of this setback. � 2.3 Site Geologic Units � Our field observations and review of pertinent literature (see References) indicate ��J that the site is generally covered by artificial fill underlain at depth by Pauba formation and/or older alluvium. These materials are further described below: � ♦ � L- -4- Leighton r� IGeotechnical Update Report 10788.005 � Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 �,. � ' 2.3.1 Stockpile r-' The existing stockpile covers most of the site (see Plate 1). Based on in- � house data and our field observations during grading of the adjacent PHS building pad, the stockpile was generally generated from the excavation of � the cut slopes along the west side of PHS building. These excavations � were within the Pauba formation and underlying Bedford Canyon formation. As such, it should be expected that some portions of the ( stockpile will contain oversize rock (>12-inch in size) due to excavation in � the metasedimentary rock formation. The oversize rock may exceed 20 I� percent of the overall volume in some limited zones within the stockpile. � Based on our two exploratory borings performed for this update report, the stockpile materials generally consist of silty sand to sandy silt materials , (SM/ML) with variable amounts of gravel and cobbles. At depth greater than 20 feet, these materials contain more clay content and were classified as clayey sand (SC) and sandy clay (CL). These materials are � , generally dense to very dense based on the reported N-values and ` � generally possess low expansion potential (EI<51). The clayey sand materials in the lower portions of the stockpile may possess higher [ � expansion index. , 2.3.2 Artificial Fill (documented) l 1 As indicated before, grading to existing pad elevation (not including stockpile) resulted in over-excavation of up 25 feet below original ground surface (GeoTek, 2006). As such, the graded pad is currently underlain -� by a compacted fill mat varying in depth from approximately 4 to 25 feet. However, areas previously referred to as "Indian Burial Ground" only received fill without the required remedial grading. The reported near -- surFace soils have low expansion potential (0<EI<51). 2.3.3 Pauba formation � The site is underlain at depth and near surFace by relatively dense sandy materials, locally referred to as Pauba Sands and/or older alluvium, �_; (GeoTek, 2005, Leighton, 2015). These materials are considered dense/ suitable for support of additional fills or structural improvements. �J 2.4 Surface Water and Groundwater ; No surFace water was observed during our site reconnaissance. Local perched �� water may be encountered at depth or adjacent to existing desilting/detention basins. [ � � ♦ ; � -5- Leighton —' Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 2.5 Ground Shaking ' Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern -, California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily ' upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics. The site-specific seismic coefficients based on the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) are provided in following table: Table 1. 2013 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients -. . . .- . Site Longitude(decimal degrees) -117.1836 — Site Latitude decimal de rees 33.5168 Site Class Definition D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SS 1.90 r- � ; Ma ed S ectral Res onse Acceleration at 1 s Period, S, 0.77 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.0 � Lon Period Site Coefficient at 1 s Period, F„ 1.5 � Ad'usted S ectral Res onse Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.90 Ad�usted S ectral Res onse Acceleration at 1s Period, SM, 1.16 Desi n S ectral Res onse Acce/eration at 0.2s Period, Sps 1.23 [ Desi n S ectral Res onse Acceleration at 1s Period, Sp� 0.77 *g-Gravity acceleration ,-� � ; 2.6 Secondary Seismic Hazards ( ' Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking � � during an earthquake include ground rupture, landsliding, and liquefaction and/or � dynamic settlement. These hazards are discussed in the following sections. ��-� 2.6.1 Ground Rupture � Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre- existing active faults. As such, a ground rupture hazard exists within the northeastern portion of the site within the designated Fault Hazard Zone i (Leighton, 2015) or east of the Structural Fault Setback Line presented on �_.. the Conceptual Grading Plan (also see Plate 1). 2.6.2 Landslidinq - Ground shaking during earthquakes can result in landsliding on natural , slopes. No evidence of existing landslides was observed during our field ♦ � -6- , Leighton — Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 mapping or during the previous field investigations of the subject site. Landsliding is not considered a hazard for this site. 2.6.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement -, Due to the dense nature of the underlying soils materials and lack of ' shallow groundwater, the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered very low. �, i : � � l ; l � l � � � i �I_J LJ , �� I ,_, ♦ ." -7- Leighton �� r _. , Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 I I Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 I ' 3 . 0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS / CONCLUSIONS � � Based on the results of this geotechnical update, the major geotechnical opportunities �-, and/or constraints that may affect site development are as follows: � '� � � ■ The onsite soils/stockpile materials are generally suitable for re-use as fill materials �- in structural pad areas provided they are relatively free of organic material and/or � any deleterious materials and oversize materials/rock (>12-inch in diameter). The oversize rock may be placed in deep fill areas (>10 feet below building pad) in accordance with acceptable rock fill procedures. Alternatively, this oversize rock � may be placed within the non-structural "Conservation Easement." Screening of � : stockpile materials may b� needed to remove such materials. Oversize rock (>6- �-, inch in diameter) should not be placed in the upper 5 feet within building subgrade. � Onsite soils below current pad grades are expected to generally consist of artificial , • fills compacted to minimum of 90 percent per ASTM 1557. These materials are [ ; considered suitable for foundation support provided actual conditions are further veri fied during construction or by additional field density test evaluations. At [-� minimum, the upper 12 to 18 inches of surface soils should be scarified and ; recompacted prior to placement of any additional fill or foundation construction. ■ A ground rupture hazard exists within the eastern portion of the site and structural � ; setbacks have been established from the designated fault zones (Leighton, 2015). ■ Based on the previous laboratory testing results, the onsite earth materials are ( J expected to generally possess a low expansion potential (EI<51). Some clayey L sand materials within deep portions of the stockpile may exhibit medium expansion potential (51<EI<91). These materials should not be placed within upper 3 feet of � finish grade. ■ Conventional spread and/or continuous wall footings are considered suitable � ' foundation system for the proposed buildings. �� ■ Shrinkage of stockpile soils should be anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 12 � ' percent based on average Insitu relative compaction of 92.5 percent after grading. L_ A subsidence value of 0.1 feet may be considered for planning purposes for compression of surFace material due scarification and recompaction. � , �_: I;_; ♦ -8 - �� Leighton Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 i i 4. 0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General i ' The proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint � provided our recommendations included in this report are implemented during r design and construction phases of development. � 4.2 General Grading Recommendations � . ' Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix B. The recommendations contained in Appendix B, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading � ' ro'ects and some of the recommendations ma not be strictl a licable to this p J Y Y pp project. Additional specific recommendations may be warranted based on j ,, proposed site grading and prevailing soils condition encountered during construction. The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill � ' properly in accordance with the project specifications. ( 4.2.1 Shrinkaqe l_: The volume change of stockpile soils upon recompaction is expected to vary depending on location and rock content. The in-place and -� compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we ( � recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to �-- adjust grades to accommodate some variation. Based on our experience with similar soils, we expect recompaction shrinkage (when recompacted ; to an average 92 percent of ASTM D1557) of 4- to 12-percent by volume � - for the stockpile materials. A subsidence value of 0.1 feet may be considered for planning purposes for compression of surFace material due �I scarification and recompaction. L_; i 4.2.2 Oversize Rock Placement '� The California Building Code and County of Riverside require that no oversize rock (>12-inches) be placed within 10 feet of the surface of a ', structural fill and/or building pad. The grading plan should be carefully �-� reviewed during grading to verify that oversized rocks are buried below a 10-foot fill cap or placed in the non-structural conservation easement area without restriction. The edge of rock burial area in these areas should be ♦ �_: -9- �_: Leighton r-, Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 � ,, i : limited to a projection by 1:1 line down from the edge of improvements , such as parking lot curb, pavements or other improvements. In addition, ,� ' oversize rock (>6-inch in diameter) should not be placed in the upper 5 feet within pad subgrade. � Generally, in structural fill areas, the oversize rock (maximum dimension � � , of 12 inches or more) will require windrowing, individual burial, or other �-� special placement methods at a minimum depth of 10 feet below finish � , grade elevation as further described in Appendix A. In addition, an adequate supply of granular fill material will be needed for placement r � around the rocks. � � In the non-structural Conservation Easement area, oversize rock � placement can be placed as a rock blanket to planned ground surFace � elevations provided surFace drainage swale can be constructed and rocks are not placed within 10 feet of the slope face. The non-structural rock ;, blanket should contain an adequate supply of sand, gravel and various � ; rock fragments so no significant voids are formed. The rock fill should be placed on prepared subgrade, watered and worked forward by heavy equipment to form a dense rock fill to reduce surFace settlement. � . A grading contractor with experience in the handling and placement of � � oversize rock should be selected for this project. ' 4.3 Foundation Design �, 4.3.1 General The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab- ( J on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based � on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein. Based on previous and our recent testing, low expansive soils (0<EI<51) should be ianticipated on this site. 4.3.2 Allowable Bearinq Pressures � The following bearing pressures may be used for design of foundations: � ' ■ Allowable vertical bearinq pressure: 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot) �- for a minimum 12 inches embedment into compacted fill and a minimum footing width of 12 inches. The bearing pressure value may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of embedment or each �� additional foot of width to a maximum vertical bearing value of 3,000 psf. This value can be increased by one-third for transient or temporary ' loads (e.g., seismic, wind). � ♦ - 10 - Leighton �i Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 , , Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 � ,, ' ■ Lateral bearing pressure: 3,000 psf/foot per foot of depth and �, embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf. i ■ Slidinq Coefficient: A sliding coefficient of 0.35 may be used for soil to �-�. structural concrete interface. 4.3.3 Vapor Retarder �_, It has been a standard of care to install a moisture retarder underneath all islabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not totally eliminate moisture vapor movement , from the underlying soils up through the slabs. Moisture vapor � transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission ,-, evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a qualified person/ � firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed �� construction. This person/firm should provide recommendations for � ; mitigation of potential adverse impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as deemed appropriate. The slab � subgrade soils should be well wetted prior to placing concrete. �_.; 4.4 Settlement Considerations [ ; Fill thickness on the project site is expected to range up to approximately 35 feet or more depending on finish grade elevations. Compressibility of properly placed ( � compacted fills is anticipated to be relatively low. We recommend that the � J planned buildings be designed in anticipation of up to 1 inch of total settlement with '/-inch of differential settlement across a lateral distance of 40 feet (1/480 �; angular distortion). � 4.5 Footing Setback L; We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes ( for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). L� This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing � , horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a i minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be �_; less than 7 feet and need not be greater than 15 feet. � ��_� Soils within the structural setback area may possess poor lateral stability. Improvements such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, or pavements i constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or �; ♦ �� - 11 - � Leighton �_ � Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 r--. I I differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated � by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. � , � 4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures i , Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear r , strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If I ; the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be ( designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the � : resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils should be designed using the following � ; equivalent fluid pressures: Table 2. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures(Static, Drained) L_. .. . . � . �- . . � . C__; Active 37 50 At-Rest 50 80 f � Passive* 300 150 (2:1, sloping down) � * This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of l_: the project, not to exceed 3,000 psf at depth. If sloping down (2:1) grades exist in front of walls, then they should be designed using passive values �' reduced to'/of level backfill passive resistance values. i , Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active ; equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils � that are free draining. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest � equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the � ground surFace measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning a.nd sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a I�� backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight ; � values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. ; Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to � ♦ � �_; - 12 - ` Leighton Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 � Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 I , � check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall � � design. � All retainin walls should be rovided with a ro riate draina e. The outlet i e �_ J p pp p 9 P p ; should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non- ` expansive (EI <_ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be � used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the _ 28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer I , that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction i equipment s hou l d be use d, un less ot herwise approve d by t he Structura l rI" Engineer. l : 4.7 Site Drainage and Erosion Control l ,' All drainage should be directed away from structures (buildings, retaining walls etc.) by means of approved permanent or temporary drainage devices. Adequate storm drainage should be provided to avoid siltation of any temporary � � catch basins. In eneral ondin of water should be avoided ad�acent to the 9 , p g J structures or pavements. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a [__, minimum 2 percent gradient away from the structures for a distance of at least 5 feet. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion and runoff during � j construction should also be implemented in accordance with the local grading ordinances. �J 4.8 Soil Corrosivity Factors contributing to soil corrosivity commonly include soluble sulfate and Ii chloride concentrations, soil pH, and minimum soil resistivity. Soluble sulfates may cause corrosion of concrete in contact with the soil. High chloride levels ( tend to reduce soil resistivity and break down otherwise protective surface L= deposits, which can result in corrosion of buried steel or reinforced concrete � structures. Low minimum resistivity and or high soil pH indicate a potential for ;J corrosion to buried metal conduits or other metal improvements. The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for representative onsite �L� soil samples. The results indicate that the water soluble sulfate is less than 0.20 percent by weight, which is considered to present negligible to moderate i ' �J ♦ ��_ - 13- �� Leighton �J � Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 �j ' exposure to buried concrete. As such, Type II cement or equivalent may be used � for this project. i The results of our laboratory resistivity testing on a representative onsite soils ' ' sample also indicate "Severely Corrosive" soils to buried metallic structures and � utilities. A corrosion engineer should be consulted to review the soil corrosion potential and provide specific recommendations if corrosion sensitive materials [ � are to be used. We recommend at least that ferrous pipe be protected by polyethylene bags, tape or coatings, di-electric fittings, concrete encasement or other means to separate the pipe from wet onsite soils. 4.9 Pavement Design � � � In order to provide the following preliminary recommendations, we have assumed _ an R-value of 35 for preliminary design purposes. These recommendations are [ : intended for planning purposes only and should not supersede minimum City requirements. For the final pavement design, appropriate traffic indices should j ' be selected by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant and L � representative samples of actual subgrade materials should be tested for R- value. [ , Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design . , •- � • • - - �I� ��• -�. :. � i �_� •� � - - - 4.5 to 5 3.0 4 5.5 to 6 3.5 6 -- 6.5to7 4.0 7 � The subgrade soils in the upper 6 inches should be properly compacted to at �_: least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and should be moisture- ( conditioned to near optimum and kept in this condition until the pavement section L_. is constructed. Proof-rolling subgrade to identify localized areas of yielding subgrade (if any) should be perFormed prior to placement of aggregate base and � under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. , , Minimum relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 �� percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Base rock should conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works ;' Construction" (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base �� ♦ J - 14 - Leighton � Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 i�� having a minimum R-value of 78. Asphaltic concrete should be placed on i-, compacted aggregate base and compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative �, compaction based on the laboratory standards ASTM D1561 and D2726. � The preliminary pavement sections provided in this section are meant as l minimum, if thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, r increased maintenance and repair may be needed. I ' I ., � � , l ' l ,. l � L � L� � . � l__ L � � �� ,� � � � - 15- � Leighton � Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 �, l ; 5. 0 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW r, . � Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor perFormances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to iinadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and foundation plan(s) prior to bid. Additional � , geotechnical explorations and/or analyses may be required based on final development ' plans. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project. I_. � In addition, reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site r-, grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and ( ; the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical -- conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical , observation and testing should be provided: � � ■ After com letion of site clearin p 9� ■ During preparation and overexcavation of surface soils as described herein, � ' ■ During compaction of all fill materials, ■ After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete, ` j ■ During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and ■ When any unusual conditions are encountered. L . � i L �: ��_� ��; � - 16- �� Leighton �l Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 �� ` � 6. 0 LIMITATIONS �� This report was prepared for MCA Realty Inc., based on their needs, directions, and requirements at the time. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied � upon by any party except MCA Realty Inc., with whom Leighton contracted for the work. � , Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify �, Leighton from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or � reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton. I � The recommendations in this due-diligence geotechnical report should be reviewed in �-, light of changes to the current site design. The conclusions and recommendations in � ; this review and the referenced reports are based in part upon data that was obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that � differing geotechnical or geological subsurface conditions can and do occur. Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this review and previous �; reports can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to review foundation plans and observe the subsurFace conditions during construction. �_, The client is referred to Appendix C regarding important information provided by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) on geotechnical engineering studies and , reports and their applicability. � � � � � � , L I ' � I� ♦ I - 17- � Leighton ,� Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 , ', Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 �'' ` REFERENCES �� ASCE, 2010, ASCE Standard 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by Structural Engineering Institute, ISBN 0-7844-0809-2, Second � Printing, Published in 2010. I � California Building Code, 2013, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2. � ; GeoTek, Inc., 2005, Addendum Geotechnical Report, Temecula 52 - Temecula, �, California. Project No. 3681 SD3, Dated February 7. I ; GeoTek, Inc., 2006, Interim Report of Geotechnical Testing and Observation Services during Earthwork Construction, Temecula 52 Project, City of Temecula, (�' California. Project No. 3009SD3, Dated July 31, 2006. r� Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special � , Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special ( � Publication 42 Interim Revision. l_� Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2008, Interim As-graded Soils Report, Proposed PHS � Building (Tract No. 35181), Winchester Road and Dendy Parkway, � , Temecula, California, dated September 9, 2008. � � Leighton Consulting Inc., 2015, Supplemental Fault Evaluation, Lot 1 Tract Map 35181, _; APN 909-370-42-4, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, GEO 2450, Project No. 10877.003, Dated August 31, 2015. [ ' Leighton Consulting Inc., 2015, Response to Comments County Geologic Report No. 2450, City of Temecula - Lot 1 Tract Map 35181, Riverside County, i California, Project No. 10877.003, dated October 20, 2015. ` � Leighton Consulting Inc., 2016, Results of Field Percolation Testing, Lot 1, Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042), Dendy Parkway, City of Temecula, California, project � No. 10877.004, dated April 29, 2016. Riverside County, Planning Department, 2015, Approval for GE002450, city of LTemecula - Dendy Parkway, dated November 10, 2015. i SB&O, 2016, Conceptual Grading Plan, PM 35181, PA 16-0063, Sheet 1 of 1. LJ' United States Geological Survey, (USGS), 2016, an Interactive Computer Program Published on USGS Website to Calculate Seismic Response and Design � Parameters based on ASCE 7-10 procedures. � ♦ v - 18- � Leighton __.. ,�� r, ,w ;,�,.. � - -� `_. � _ \ � ""�. , ,� � ��►. �'� ��, '�� ti ,> �� " : �.,� � �,�v.,�.ty:�'+�+ Ilrf-: .� ':� "0, � �'�^"$ ;I �' 6 , � :i �i``1 ,,,F ,� �+'""� fi f1+r , � ��e'" -r �e r .�..`` c,r�� % �� v� i. ��;. � : � .+ ?,cv��"ttj y � -! fi � � ,/��N�'v . t _,� fti+ ✓I < L ` � � t '-J '�L '� _, . t4 r �� j+' � �� . � � .��. ✓ '� � ��"� s '�r��k,} � ; � 1�' �' - � °'� �; / - '� , 1 �,�y ,�� . °' r ��'` 4 , � �, �w tt ' i�''"�y'�' +� -} i �s ..1� ° •�a ,r, `°^,.� r}� .�- �r ,I , . •, ' _ .�� , � • u �ya h .� '�-' . l� �.� �� r•�'l.., . x' 9'd�� "S�/�J / �` \ 1 L jA a � � }� 4'@�. ' :� � � ' -� �l- `I �� `1 "�Y t �.` d+�',p�h., a`� , / '� %/ �' � '1 r - ,./��` � `�t�4 l.r '0 � .�y3.. , q;.,.�. �° 4 1�;. � ,"i � t. \ F�: \ �S " � . , � ��'? .r.. !�. t �i + � �'�� " .L� �'i��,r J �' �p � � /5� \h \ .. � �^ ` Y• � 4S ''k �<� ''�"��F'�, 4�; i�' . v" .qfw�l?� � �� 1�� . /, y .. �� _ �� i rit�, � "� ,yy a � �,� _o�E �� ; ,. . � � ,.p�'(+ ''� � �F � 1 � �� ` � `� � 6�� '� yy �v ��kt� �� j . •{m . . � - i. ,.r l � 'q �1 �2 �F ',,.y��'f � � �1{'� • � � ' f . � ��\�r y v.. �` . �1"�-� -.,' �s h �� .� � e a�� ,�8`f. �+� � ,+� �'�t s,; �n ti � � �' $/ � >��h �p.�p� ��3,j� � i p� �' � +[.� .. ' � . .� �1 �`ty ��.�� t�' C!;�� GU'��"j� '�!*_,� \ . +�f�.�I � .. .\,��',� rx°� �'.. � r�� .."�^ �?�+'�.h.y�-F'-.�'D4�aFxr �� rf � :a� � ii drr� .*, 1 ti`c > �' a ��/¢� ..� A ��'�� I . •\1 . / �� , ':� / `�'$s o�'6�G'S!J � ;� �k� Y�. , _ ��,s A� �. s a� .e�. � v.'" /�� "�,gF �, rM, r ` r ,.' /.'� `ti i� t �"� t«','f�+�i"� �� r+� �y ,��, �y, s'�''"�`i i . , ./4''` s: .. ._. � .;� 'rkA �, ��$�` ��,��n:° � `�ig� .� r 3 t1',. z� ,�% 4 'r ' ��`�,, �,p"��§'� y�'�� . � y,� i� .,a .4`.., �1`.. - "tui', , 4�, ;:�"�.f�4�.' � . *�� .g��+�. ,./, .�q, a , � �� • , �� )Y3 bl\�� •�•�„ � `;"• f in � �� -'.)�, 'A+�"�� i. �...' �.- ti : •; � ��y�� .. .. ��' . -•..�.. Ft' /,p; . �'?. � , q�-,� . . D � f , i/� J ;q - -' , .. . .,, �, „ �,,�9 � r < q� � .. > � �' w i ;r. � - � � � �� ;� i ":V . ' . A/�� ,'� t�j� ��.��. ,� � �� , ° ,.` � �,�.�u �`� � �� `: � ,� ��{ .. p�„ _ �.. . �t�;t'�,�f ,c f,i�ya E,,'�",♦ w:� , ' ��«��,�� `t�'r" q� '�♦��Tn ''�r _� III a �t $� �� ,�� ,* . t ''y.�`� �``�, �' %�.1�"'e•`�,��,��`,,� . � . \.� .. 1 1• • - .,.w•�:;�,.. , � f ``,pi� r ♦ . t°'s � �iF'�e � -�, -: . , � ;� '� �' �' ,�•9� `'�` '-� �� \''� _ . ; , , , ! . .-- �, - • . • t ; : ..� . � �,, � - I j , � ,��'�" , �,,,� '',� � ' . � � , � ;. 'E ,'`""_.. °'�� .�'` �'?. ��' r`��"`: � �:. � -��, "` � • . , �' � ' '�,,� � �� +` � ' .�(' - .,,� __ fy„ . � f�N��•�,' l t�� Yv�� f��Y't(.�9, '� µ��.e' I ' � ' . .. , 1 y � J " � ? !\� ��I" T� �..�j'� �A;."�� `.. ..*'�. a�f . � . : ,,. �� _. , � s��`; "� '��r�"'h o i -�rr'- ' � ;� � �,ems° '.��, � �y ��+ �` ".�• e� , . , �r 4 _ � .�, r' �� y, ,� �y�.:Fr.��. �F.. ' ` ` ,��.Yy'. ,g� �� J� .,` � •+,�a" �`5�:�'' `� .�y,� � :- -; . �. �� § � �� \ .'�. �' � ��,,, "'1 f � ♦ �' � �. �� "r �:�, �� '^�, e � ��'1'�t�' Y�`'��f� °��' t°�` '� � .. . . 4�.�''„ 1�, ��.� ,�r t,, - s� �'„�:� • ``�. ;( - � a'��'* '1�'y�.'; � ,'�. k �a� ,♦ `• � . , �'�h p'1F^�1,,, ''� . ',� ; .� �y�� '��r�s"�� - - �` 'k^r. �y ♦ �. +�� ..>,� '@ _..� � '�� - �� V � i , ��.� t Ci y" e ��^� t�, � I n.:; .�� r� ,•'�� J.��'i' � .� � , � � � �� _ ` �� <�_� , :, r _ �. � . ...,,. _ , , _�_. _ , , .. , �_ _-_. �� . � � ' �<=.y . J""``""`^�......:. � � � -. ..� __. - e 1t�� I - - y ,J f o��°�o D o . o o-o -o�o�,�P -o o��r��.1p�[�1r�j o�,U� � �� , � L�Jo`=n=^=1I;^�,��._,, Q� - .o 0 0� '' o o II UJp U.JIN��lJu'p o 0 0 0 Q� ..,' ��i=.,ra-u �IIN�I'IRI�.GU�o�o r�i�s�o D- o -o .�o Q�o�O . ...� �_ . -- ' � Oo' -' _o 0 0 . o �� .�j ..._:-�.. ._ ._ _ .. . .: , ' • - 1 : 11 . '• � 111 �. - • � 1 . • � • ' • _ � _ � �- • � � i - - � � � - • • , I � � i � � � , .�:��'�...� i�i��",�Al�° �F � �d� /,4 �`��O�S' r� �rAr.�ru�v ca��an+� �� # � . T�AL .�� l�� F � ��L � �� , �.�:�� , � � , . .:. . . �9 �2a—.�tr.�2 . , � ��,,,.�.. ,.� r�� e�n+ �'s�) �sz-�za� �,4x r� ,�raav �a� �.�ca�a�+ � � � � , �_ �, �� _:.�.--'"�� ;,. �. r� " _ , , - � � _ � ' � � � � � , _ � ` � . .. , �� , .., � ..�� a ; � � �� > > d7,/� Y' .. ` � , '�1 � � , �°" � I q�°��'"' �„ '.� ; ;,• ,,, . �� E� EA7�S'� QR'�fitVl,� 4� E��Y,�" CYRr'� AtGd�7t1, .5UJT� f�^'6 � �� , . � P } bi�fE76�d' �._ � �,r.a-�"'��,� ._ �< ` �� ' ` � � � �¢� TE�OEG'L/�R �25�Ct " c.�n�r,er� �r�rc° �r�nr�`�re�a+ate �` .. � -� � " - r � , ; : � �`�r�` ��r � �� r� � � � � � / / �// ��t� ��' , ��+r� �r�c i�r,�nruar�c ,�.� �� y ' �- � �r,��r� qq�� ,., . , � " , �.�j 9 .. .... .: f.rf��l�JSJL'��r1 �� JJJ �j� �t}�� } ��j^^� � , .. .. , .. �'°- .. }� �Y li �/ '� ; . ..... ,..... � .. ... .. � .. ...� .. `; . .. '• ti'�y�CYt• �yf�1YI.� �..: •• � . . . . � �'h� � �N{��T /gl dl�e� � ✓ +✓ W � �e�{�� = . .. . W' �a a ji 9V� 1d Tif� ... �p � 16V; � � , . .`". . � ,. �. iD x,i` ..,� � ��`. � . . . . Sb3 P'�!liRa'�'8 e7W��L$s , P ., . . , ,. , '' ,��" ...,, .. I ; ��S'��W� �� i lsT1T l�tA. �. w., : w ,...,,. � .> .. ��t ��' � . � ; � , ;a �fiS�A�IEl��` 0 15 � . . ;,,,,.-=�`"`` y � ; , , �' �'�. c� a rr�e '� �nn�vv �.ac ,s�es� au� � � .- �,,, ..... :-., ' , ,�� rtar� a�� t�u�• s.�� ;;�""'"'r ' . : ,,,. � °r; ,� ,'` t �, �� irf��pycri�r+r �c��s�-�� , � �{ ./� � ��r. y� �� r� , �/+ c p ; ke _ : ;4 � p4r� � HT� 7l7►�IS! � _, � t � � , . . _ .,. . . .. . . � - .. . ' � � . ..' l ' �f . . ��_ �'2 � v - M� �6 �Yj1 a . .e' . , . � ��'i:n., ��.,v„...... � .it..�,.43� '� : , �� a-- ' � �,.; � . �� . . � �� ... � _ '� .. ,; -""' ` FAUL7' .S�TBAI� . , ` - , a �� . � ��r ,_. ' `: �, + ' ,o,:.�'°�' ,��"� � � � Lllx' t�' GX/ �t?5�3�5'�-�2' �"� � ' U/VE .�y � � ; „ �'°"�' c� � '� � � �y� .r ,. ,:. .�;. : . I" ' .�b.�l �:, i `; 6. ,,. ` _ ., " . . l +.o �. .'�� . L[:nE J�� r. , ..._,. - , , .. ; , ,; � ' . '� , ..,,.� ._.,r" .,,, . �. , . .,. ' ,tt ,,. � . " . , f,.t .. � .:',. :. - "" �� ,s' : � � ` � � ..�.� � '"'�� ;;, �� , •� �� `"'"" � � , , �. � � ,... .,:. �-: � � .�..�-miWl � �� .,. � � " , ' '� sp"� ; „'`�'"" _ t,�p � �.�r �.�.� r� ,,��,, � -� � ,� � ' �� ,.: , , ;� �� ' .� � ; � �,: �r . ,. ."� �y . . .�'�G. . ,. ,,.,�►"�°" . ` . � „�. �� ,� �� : > �� . � � : � �~��`r' ��' � �v"s n"°ro�� E.+��"°f�� t' t��"L��'�`� �. � � _ �� r �.�� . �. �. � � �� ::,.. �... � _ �... �� :�� ..-. � � , , ,, , ,, . 1 � �, � � ��, �.� '' � � � �-�' ,-'�r~� l � �`w�� eYv � �,,,-''"'°' '�.�.� .�_�, ,,.- �. , �� . � , s �� , � � ° � �� _.,. .:... ` ' �"� � r��r1��.J,—a �sr� �,��r°r.�� . ,. - �; ; ,. .,�. . � � ; o � � : / � �.i•�'.7�° 'T.c 6 �'S' 7' �� `� ; : �°,;� , , '� �� 5�'`�„� `` ..+- ,, , ;, y,.�� 1P� lt�2�i2f! � � �� Y. , `� � �..s; '9 •� 6T• •.� '� '� Ft� PG'F°. Pt'1�aTEAA�2 LL�EAID' �Q4gTL� a4'�41Y � """�.-�-"' � " � . � ,��''� � ,,,... �5 � �� s' ,�� ` ' ,� � 1�� .. � � �� /` � �� , `� "'~�� ,�n�cr�c+ r,��o � �t�s�a � � ...--�' � � � ,,.�,r�t--' .o"� �. r° � � : ��,� � .� ; � �� ,... •-~-�� `�, � �r�F�� c�vc�r� �- .��°.�r� �'i,�,� l�'.��o> � r: -� � ..: � � '.,.. � ... -- �� . � .� ...:, . ,� . � �� . ,. �� ,,""• ;� ; , � ; � :� .�,,,,.. � l ; r ' � � ,,,. �✓ '.!., t'� �;, 6�,,,,,.. �� 3 � �jr� � � �, 4'�„ . •° � �. 0.9� � � � ��. � � �� ' JPNo �fiE7�ZA ('G1V 5 � ,� � �.�� , ` , � �` R,�Y RlC,Y�17`�WAY'� .St1�,�7D�7VC1E � � ,,,- ..x. ... . � '�� '� k ''�`` , � 1 �,� t� i � � .,. � �� " � � �� _ � ..8� � : � �* , � r � � !�//�IA4f � � A�.�l�" .s� sr� �,�v .:� . � �� 6 ..-�-- �.� ,, � �.�a �s , � ; ;� � �� _ �- �'�"--,� �r� Fz � .��r �,�t,+� ` ,�'' v� �,� .. t''�, , ` �� , � � .� .►,.. v� � ._.'�•.,- � � � 't'� �.s Fz � �� c►r a� .s�at.� � s� �,� r�� aa�� - <i��,J �r. � . ,. .. �. ,�' � � ,�,,.�-�-�-~� �� Afo � . � .��_ � � ,,� �� . _. ,. . ._. . ,/'� ,�+T° s�'r �"" ; .�.�- . � � . ��;� � �-�',,�--'''� ,�`,�, ✓` ' �,. ./� ' �,,, ...• "',' ��;, � �� ,�,� " ' - � 4•� � �� S7' STR�"7' �.IafT � �: �.�,50 � #: . , � � �` �1�" - �,,,, •�►� � � ... � g� �!N ; � � � , � �� S'Fi3 S'T.Nhld?.�IP�' �.. , �� '� � �� 'L'�Wf7G�lRf° EA7r.5"T �,� �: �� ,✓'� � r ,..... ♦ � �; � `'• �� ` a^,/W �i41.Ae' � � � �: � �� , �� . .�� -" df+ATD�' [�dlAEllY�.45�V� ;�� ..� � � � � °,� . � � �� 4 .�- 0% � • �� 3�` J?7P Lt� GYlR� �� _ � . � �.. .� � d � -� � „�.:�-;' � � � °�. ,- � �� . � r�Aca��aar�� q��/f1 � �L C��''lPl�?"f�� ..:; 1N �� . �� ;,,��'1;. �41 �� ..-= � �..�. �� .. : �� ,. ��•,,r, � M�N �� } .�t� .�,�r. � � �: ".�. ... .... .. 9 ., ; .. . . ..... ... .l_ ,.. �i ,'� ,:�' � 9V!' . £LVTNYLT y , ... '� , . � .. , �AQ�� 1 � � ��fi ��.� ��i sv +� . .. ... � .; , : �. , � . > . , ;F„ > , ,�: . g87P'LiN£ TDY 1't�' !�'�Ta�/ 9i� '.,. ,�'° i a, \ J�.� -T2. � � �. � � . , ��--,,., .. : � 1?4� T°YA��L , , _ ; � � , , .. `; _ £. , � . _ 'c�, � �, 6y� ,, :- � ._ ,}? � . �;. < ,T�7` �'E7V3�i'L!!WE' 4�PR tf'�f T�JP � �',, , , _ � /+"' � , - v .,... - � ,\y�.._ ,� ; , ,� � , 1 : . .A' � �.�. , ,,' , . " l � LYlt� � �'tT�P � �� • r ; �� . ` � � �. � � �'' !� . , a � � <,. � �' � �`;: � � ��, � � � ,�� '�T � � . ' , , � �� .�� , „ � �� r � � �� . : .v.a. �, ,,� �� . �� .�� i � � . � � �� .._ � �•>. . . °'. �, � � {��t'�,3' �E � ,, �� . � � _� _��.:,,�` � , � ,�. \ :. �r y ��e � �? � ��. ''�� G R,sb�' � gy/9 .li� t. ��, . � , r F �.�. � r� ,, .. , � �.. "�" ., � ;: ; '" , , , c.�/�N Twl � aw a�. �� /LAJ� , ,�. , ', � � .. . — . � ...�.. ' ..,..t; . '. �..�. � . � � . .�� ._,. .. . �— � , ;, �, . ,� \ � .�G4�" � 1 r � , �. �� w. �: _ � � .� : � � � � _ _1__ � �� • , ��j. 7Ltll �''S �^ y�. --_ _ ___ � � , , �,- ' ' , �'� .,... � `� ... ' � ':. : �, .^,° . . ., � � . '�... L.,w �' e a '�� .t ' . ' '� ... . . . . , . < . � , .'. . , ,. �.. ?C, ' � ��. � � � � . ,�� ,� � � � �� , � � _�, � . �� .�� _�--_�—,�_� :� � � � ° � ��.�� . ;,, r ,� , � �� °� �� 1 , � �: . ' � 1�UE}°.4/PTE�IE,MT° G'(!1/hl�"G'Dld� i ;,:,_ �_ ,��. - ��. s �`•,� , ,r'" . -� s �� `�jp'yy�() jq[��y� /y�� y $�� , , i vt .:< < ,� s i . ,.. •. �. � , � . / � •.� � � � � � � ' �. [ ; ' , :•• . , ,.. .... �''. ..�� /T�d/�/{/fr � j//{��//Y�(�� ' /�� i/1iG� � � � � G ' : � ; ; 'y� � � � � .. . .�, ��... ,�'' . - . �,; ; r . �. , ,.. g - � ; � , �'� ��, , ..' , , . . , . , .. . ... ... .. .p ,:. ,� '�. > . . �; i _ ,. ' . ,. '. . ,,.. ��' ..., , ',, ' `, . � . , ...� � �.� . a a � �. e �� s ' .. ' ',., � , , �.. � � . . �.. �:._. ,;.,. . . , , , . � .,,, � . , , � � . � � , �t.��.. , , ','.. . , , . �. . .�-. , . K'':, . , ' ' ' .' .,, . �.;�. . �' . ___' ; , , `-. �` ,; ' �,- � � � �� ,�a � � �;''� �,a,;��:. ,�.�.� � •' � , ;� . , �., 9.P1 , � � � �'�� ',�"�'i10 2�7i9//4/ �� Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,California August 31,2016 � APPENDIX A � ; � Borinqs Loqs and Laboratorv Test Results �, �;. �� L ; L ; _; J _J J �, GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 I ' Project No. 10788.005 Date Drilled 8-16-16 Project Dendy Lot 1 Stockpile Logged By JTD , Drilling Co. 2_R Drilling Hole Diameter 10" � ' Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30"Drop Ground Elevation �1105' � Location See Boring Location Map-Plate 1 Sampled By JTD i ' � � y o � � „o N.-: SOIL DESCRIPTION N o�, r� � m z y.c N ��,; u�v� m � m�- pu- �� co �Q' o c V� This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ,�' J _� time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o � ; W � Q � m� � �o 'p� and may change with time. The description is a simpl�cation of the a y a p U �" actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be a gradual. F- � B-� SM/ML Undocumented Artificial Fill(Aful;SILTY SAND to SANDY MD,CS, � SILT with GRAVEL,grayish brown,dry to moist,fine to EI coarse grained sand with abundant gravel and cobble to 6" r-, MD 132.5 @ 8.2,EI 46 I I ; 5 R-1 12 925 s SILTY SAND,dense, light brown,dry to moist,fine to coarse � ; 3o grained sand 33 �� 10 � ' � ' --- --- -- -- -- -- ------------ ------- , R-2 15 119 10 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark reddish , 26 brown to grayish brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand, 32 with gravel to 1" r� . � � L ! 15 --- — R-3 17 125 5 SM SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,gray,moist,fine to coarse MD,EI ; B-2 3� grained sand,with gravel to 1",rig chatter @ 16'-18' 35 MD 136.0 @ 6.8,EI 38 � , u Z� R-4 50/5" 101 s SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark gray,moist,fine to �J coarse grained sand,gravel and cobble to 3",cobble @ 21' � �, 25 � ' � ' --- --- --- -- -- -- ------ ------------ I R-5 15 119 10 SGSM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish i ' 2� brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand,with gravel to 1", � 35 cobble @ 27',29' ( �._� ( ' SAMPLET1fPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ' '� I� C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS EI EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER � T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE ; ***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 2 � � , GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 Project No. 10788.005 Date Drilled 8-16-16 Project Dendy Lot 1 Stockpile Logged By JTD � Drilling Co. 2-R Drilling Hole Diameter 10" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30"Drop Ground Elevation �1105' �, Location See Boring Location Map-Plate 1 Sampled By JTD � � � �, �, �,o �; SOIL DESCRIPTION y o N �` � -- p� t� v G1 Z y.0 y �Y fA(/� d � � �d Qd Qrn � d 3� �� w c �V This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the w I �� `J .� � m� p a p� V�j time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations � W C9 Q � L � �o o� and may change with time. The description is a simpl�cation of the Q � a p V �� actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be �, graduaL � � 30 R-s 50/5" 111 7 SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish brown, moist,fine to coarse grained sand,with gravel and cobble to 3" � l ( 35 R-7 33 1t3 s CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish brown; l '� 50/4" moist,fine to coarse grained sand,with gravel to 1" � ( l 40 R-s 2s �1s 9 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish brown, L ; 3a moist,fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel 2s �J Drilled to 41.5' Sampled to 41.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings 45 L � '� 50 L.� u � 1 55 U � � � SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: I B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS � � C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS EI EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH , S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER ' T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE �' ***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 2 ot 2 ; i ;-, GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Project No. 10788.005 Date Drilled 8-16-16 � Project Dendy Lot 1 Stockpile Logged By JTD i Drilling Co. 2-R Drilling Hole Diameter 10" Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30"Drop Ground Elevation �1096' I� Location See Boring Location Map-Plate 1 Sampled By _JTD ` _ �, o ; � �,o �;� SOIL DESCRIPTION N � (-� ++d �� t a� 'a d �� w �c �� This Soil Descri tion a lies onl to a location of the ex loration at the ~ , �� Q.� Q.p 3 c d� C> P PP Y P � > d ca J +r Q- �— p a !�.� V�j time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o WLL �LL C� Q � m� � �O 'o� and may change with time. The description is a simpl'if'ication of the Q � a p V (�v actual conditions encountered. Transitions beiween soil types may be � �� gradual. l � � GM Undocumented Artificial Fill(Aful;SILTY GRAVEL with SAND, � light brown,dry to moist,fine to coarse grained sand 0 r, � I �o a 5 o R-1 16 121 3 SM/ML SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT with GRAVEL,dense,light MD,CS � ' B-1 24 brownish gray,dry to moist,fine to coarse grained sand,with 29 gravel and cobble to 3",cobble @ 4',MD 132.4 @ 7.2 � � : �; 10 R-2 �7 ��2 5 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,grayish brown,moist,fine to 41 coarse grained sand with fine gravel,Cobble @ 6'-8' 37 L � 15 R_3 2� No Recovery �i 50/5" L Zo ___ ___ ___ __ __ __ ____________________________ , R-4 s3 SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish brown, ' moist,fine to coarse grained sand, no recovery, reample with SPT �' 25 R-5 �2 ��s 11 CL GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND,stiff,dark grayish brown, ' �a moist,fine to coarse grained sand,with gravel to 1" —J 13 ', Drilled to 26.5' Sampled to 26.5' Groundwater not J encountered Backfilled with cuttings ' SAMPLE-TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS '� � C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS EI EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE � ***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of � �, � MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ,� Leighton ASTM D 1557 I � ' Project Name: MCA Lot 1 Dendy Tested By : F. Mina Date: 8/30/16 Project No.: 10788.005 Input By : M. Vinet Date: 8/30/16 � Exploration No.: B-1 Depth (ft.) 0 - 5.0 Sample No : B-1 ( Soil Identification: Sandy Silt with Gravei s(ML), Light Brown. l� Preparation Method: X Moist e Mechanical Ram � ' Dry Manual Ram � Mold Volume(ft3) 0.07560 Ram Weight=10/b.; Drop=18 in. I Moisture Added(ml) 110 220 330 TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) 10097 10281 10155 [ , Weight of Mold (g) 5351 5351 5351 AS REC'D Net Weight of Soil (g) 4746 4930 4804 MOISTURE Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) 1631.4 2166.7 1219.0 946.1 � i D Wei ht of Soil + Cont. 1571.1 2043.5 1169.3 908.4 rY 9 �9) Weight of Container (g) 673.3 666.5 696.3 136.5 C_; Moisture Content (%) 6J 8.9 10.5 4.9 Wet Density (pcfi� 138.4 143.8 140.1 L� D Densi 129J 132.0 126.8 Maximum Dry Density(pcF) 132.5 Optimum Moisture Content(% 8.2 [ , PROCEDURE USED 145.0 � Procedure A SP.GR.=2.75 Soil Passing No.4(4.75 mm) Sieve SP.GR.=2.so L; Mold: 4 in.(101.6 mm) diameter SP.GR.=2.85 Layers: 5 (Five) 140.0 Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) May be used if+#4 is 20%or less J � Procedure B 135.0 Soil Passing 3/8 in.(9.5 mm) Sieve � ', Mold: 4 in.(101.6 mm) diameter v ' Layers: 5 (Five) �- � Blows per layer: 25 (twenry-five) ,�+ Use if+#4 is>20%and+3/8 in.is y 130.0. 20%or less � m C -J � Procedure C Q Soil Passing 3/4 in.(19.0 mm) Sieve q25.0 Mold: 6 in.(152.4 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) � Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) • Use if+3/8 in.is>20%and+3/a in. is<30% 120.0 � Particle-Size Distribution: ' Atterber� Limits: 115.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20. , , Moisture Content(%) Compaction C;B-1,B-1(8-16-16) � ' � MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST 1� Leighton ASTM D 1557 �l ! Project Name: MCA Lot 1 Dendy Tested BY : F. Mina Date: 8/30/16 P�o;e�t No.: 10788.005 Input B,, : M. Vinec Date: 8/30/16 � ExP�o�at�o� No.: B-1 Depth (ft,) 15.0 - 20.0 S�mple No : B-2 �, So�� Identification. S��ty Santl w�th Gravel (SM)g, 0��„e Brown. � ; P�ePe�at�o„ Method: X Mo�st X Me�ha��a� Rem Dry Manual Ram ' Mold Volume(ft3) 0.07560 Ra m Weight = �O/b., D�oP = 18;�. � Moi�n��a Aeaae (,,,i) 0 110 220 � ' TEST N0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wt. Compacted So�� + Mo�d (g) 10066 10346 10216 �, Weight of Mo�d (g) 5351 5351 5351 AS RECD Net Weight of So�� (g) 4715 4995 4865 MOISTURE � Wet Weight o�Sa�� + Co�t. (g) 1294.7 1221.8 1084.1 804.1 � D�y We�9ht of So�� + Co�t, (g) 1268.1 1166.9 1029.6 770.4 Weight ofContainer (g) 716.6 421.0 421.1 137.0 � �� IVloisture Content ��0) 4,8 7.Y 9.0 5.3 _� Wet De�S�t„ �pcf) 137.5 145.7 141.9 Dry Density (P�f) 131.2 135.7 130.2 l_J Maximum Dry Density(pc� 136.0 Optimum Moisture Content(% 6.8 [_ PROCEDURE USED 145.0 � Procedure A SP.GR.=2.75 � SP.GR.=2.80 So��Pe�s�„9 No.4(4.75 mm) S�a„a SP.GR.=2.85 Mo�d : 4�,,. (101.6 mm) d�eme=a� 140.0 -' LeYa�� : 5 (F�„a) Blows per layer: Z5 �twenty-Five� f j MeY ea �sea ir+#4 is 20%o�iass � L � Procedure B 135.0 So�� Pe��9 3/8��. (9.5 m m) S�e„a � Moia . 4 i�. (101.6 m�,) aie�„aca� V , Leya�� : 5 (F�„e) Q. �___� IJIOwS pef 18yBf . ZJ (YwenYy-flve, U�e �f+#4�� >20% e�d +3/8��. �� 'y 130.0 20%o�ies� � d � 0 �, � Procedure C Z` So��Pess�„9 3/4�,,. (19.0 m m) S�a�e � 125.0 r , Moia : 6 i�. (152.4 m,,,) aia�„aca� Leya�s : 5 (F�„a) u B�o,�,s aa��aya�. 56 (f�fzY-s�x) U�a ir+3/8 i.,. is >20%a.,a +3/a i,,. ,s <30% 120.0 � �' ' ' Particle-Size Distribution: �� Atterber� Limits' 115.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20. `�" Moisture Content(%) Compaction C;84,B-2(8-16-16) I ' ' `�� MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST Leighton �_� ASTM D 1557 I�' Project Name: MCA Lot 1 Dendy Tested By : M. Vinet Date: 8/31/16 ;--. Project No.: 10788.005 Input By : M. Vinet Date: 8/31/16 ' , Exploration No.: B-2 Depth (ft.) 5.0 - 10.0 � Sample No : B-1 I-� Soil Identification: Sandy Silt with Gravel s(ML), Olive Brown. � I ', Preparation Method: X Moist B Mechanical Ram � ' Dry Manual Ram � Mold Volume(ft3) 0.07560 Ram Weight= 10/b.; Orop=IS in. r- I Moisture Added(ml) 0 110 220 TEST N0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 �-, Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) 10041 10223 10178 � Weight of Mold (g) 5351 5351 5351 Net Weight of Soil (g) 4690 4872 4827 �' Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) 459J 529.9 326.5 Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) 443.0 502.9 305.7 , Weight of Container (g) 136.9 136.3 80.4 �_; Moisture Content (%) 5.5 7.4 9.2 Wet Density (pc� 136.8 142.1 140.8 ( ' D Densi 129J 132.3 128.9 L_� Maximum Dry Density(pc� 132.4 Optimum Moisture Content(% 7.2 i 1 PROCEDURE USED 145.0 L_� � Procedure A SP.GR.=2.75 � Soil Passing No.4(4J5 mm) Sieve sP.GR.=2.so � ; Mold: 4 in.(101.6 mm) diameter SP.GR.=2.s5 Layers: 5 (Five) 140.0 Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) I ' May be used if+#4 is 20%or less ` ' � Procedure B 135.0 Soil Passing 3/8 in.(9.5 mm) Sieve f Mold: 4 in.(101.6 mm) diameter � ' Layers: 5 (Five) �- L Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) �+ Use if+#4 is>20%and+3/8 in.is y 130.0 20%or less � a� ; � �- Procedure C 2' S�oil Passing 3/4 in.(19.0 mm) Sieve � 125.0 � Mold: 6 in.(152.4 mm) diameter ' Layers: 5 (Five) `_. Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) Use if+3/8 in.is>20%and+3/a in. is<30% 120.0 � Particle-Size Distribution: I Atterber� Limits: 115.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20. � � � Moisture Content(%) ; , Compaction C;B-2,B-1(846-16) � f EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS r L G I g rl t01'1 ASTM D 4829 �., ' Project Name: MAC Lot 1 Dendy Tested By: F. Mina Date: 8/30/16 � Project No. : 10788.005 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 Boring No.: B-1 Depth: 0-5.0 � Sample No. : B-1 Location: N/A i i '- Sample Description: Sandy Silt with Gravel s(ML), Light Brown. ( '' Dry Wt.of Soil +Cont. (gm.) 4911.9 ! �� Wt.of Container No. (gm.) 0.0 Dry Wt.of Soil (gm.) 4911.9 ' Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 1768.9 I . Percent Passing#4 64.0 � , MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test � : Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01 ��' S ecimen Hei ht p g (in.) 1.0000 1.0462 Wt. Comp. Soil+ Mold ( m.) 605.7 640.7 Wt.of Mold (gm.) 188.3 188.3 , Specific Gravity(Assumed) 2.70 2.70 ; Container No. 7 7 Wet Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 567.3 640.7 � Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 545.1 386.5 J Wt. of Container (gm.) 267.3 188.3 Moisture Content(%) 8.0 17.1 ' Wet Densit (pcfl 125.9 130.4 , Dry Density(pcfl 116.6 111.4 Void Ratio 0.446 0.513 Total Porosity 0.308 0.339 ; Pore Volume (cc) 63.9 73.4 De ree of Saturation % S meas 48.4 89.8 � � SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate<0.0002 in./h. � Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings ; (psi) (min.) (in.) ; 8/30/16 12:00 1.0 0 0.5000 � 8/30/16 12:10 1.0 10 0.5000 L--- Add Distilled Water to the Specimen ; 8/31/16 7:00 1.0 1130 0.5462 � 8/31/16 8:00 1.0 1190 0.5462 �_ ' Expansion Index(EI meas) _ ((Final Rdg- Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 46.2 � _ Expansion Index(Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)if Initial Height is>than Final Height Q,s � �. Rev.03-OS L_� �� r�. � EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS r ' L G I C�rl t0 f'1 ASTM D 4829 �-' . Project Name: MAC Lot 1 Dendy Tested By: F. Mina Date. 8/30/16 � : Project No. : 10788.005 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 Boring No.: B-1 Depth: 15.0-20.0 �� , Sample No. : B-2 Location: N/A I . Sample Description: Sandy Silt with Gravel s(ML), Light Brown. r-' Dry Wt.of Soil +Cont. (gm.) 2760.2 j ; Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0 Dry Wt.of Soil (gm.) 2760.2 ( ; Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 655.0 � ' Percent Passing#4 76.3 ( MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test l ; Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01 Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0380 � Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 615.0 642.5 Wt. of Mold (gm.) 190.1 190.1 ( � Specific Gravity(Assumed) 2.70 2.70 L__; Container No. 8 8 Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. (gm.) 530.9 642.5 � Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 508.7 393.4 � Wt. of Container (gm.) 230.9 190.1 Moisture Content(%) 8.0 15.0 Wet Density(pcfl 128.2 131.5 , Dry Density(pcfl 118.7 114.3 Void Ratio 0.421 0.475 Total Porosity 0.296 0.322 ��, Pore Volume (cc) 61.3 69.1 De ree of Saturation % S meas 51.4 85.3 I ' SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate<0.0002 in./h. �__, Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings (J (psi) (min.) (in.) ; � 8/30/16 12:30 1.0 0 0.5000 L J 8/30/16 12:40 1.0 10 0.5000 Add Distilled Water to the Specimen � 8/31/16 7:00 1.0 1100 0.5380 � 8/31/16 8:00 1.0 1160 0.5380 I�_ , , , Expansion Index(EI meas) _ ((Final Rdg- Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 38.0 Expansion Index(Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)if Initial Height is>than Final Height 38 � . Rev.03-OB L.; li ' l__, r-, , � TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT �-- Leighton CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS � Project Name: MCA Lot 1 Dendv Tested By: M.Vinet Date: 8/30/16 n Project No. : 10788.0050 Data Input By: M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 ( ; __ Boring No. B-1 B-2 � ' � , Sample Na B-1 B-1 Sample Depth (ft) 0-5.0 5.0- 10.0 � Visual Soil Classification s(ML) s(ML) r-, I Wet Weight of Soil+Container(g) 100.0 100.0 i ; Dry Weight of Soil+Container(g) 100.0 100.0 Weight of Container(g) 0.0 0.0 � Moisture Content(%) 0.0 0.0 Wei ht of Soaked Soil 100.0 100.0 � SULFATE CONTENT, Hach Kit Method � Dillution : 1 3 3 ' Water Fraction (ml) 25 25 - Tube Readin 90 65 L_; PPM Sulfate 270 195 , % Sulfate 0.0270 0.0195 �' CHLORIDE CONTENT,AASHTO T-291 ( � ml of Chloride Soln.For Titration (B) 30 30 L� ml of AgNO3 Soln.Used in Titration(C) 1.6 0.6 PPM of Chloride(C-0.2)*Titre(1) '1000/10g 42 12 �, PPM of Chloride, D Wt. Basis 42 12 pH TEST,ASTM D-4972 L� Container No. A A � , Temperature(C°) 21 21 � H Value METHOD A 6.85 6.78 Rev.11-09 ( I L_� � �, `_J �`� � SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST Leighton ASTM G-�s7 �� Project Name: MCA Lot 1 Dendv Tested By: M.Vinet Date: 8/30/16 Project No. : 10788.005 Data Input By: M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 Boring No.: 6=1 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 � ;, Sample No. : B_1 Depth (ft.) : 0-5.0 Visual Soil Identification: s(ML) ••NOTE:ASTM G-187 REQUIRES SOIL SPECIMENS TO PASS THROUGH NO.B SIEVE PRIOR TO TESTING.THEREFORE,THIS TEST METHOD MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE FOR COARSER MATERIALS. Initial Moisture Content(%) �, Wet Wt. of Soil+Cont. (g) 100.0 Initial Soil Weight(gm)(Wt) 622.2 I Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. (g) 100.0 Box Constant: 0.98 � Wt. of Container (g) 0.0 I-, Moisture Content(%) (MCi) 0.00 MC=(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 � ; Remolded Specimen Moisture Adjustments Water Added (ml) (Wa) 80 100 120 140 �� Adj. Moisture Content(%) (MC) 12.86 16.07 19.29 22.50 _ Resistance Rdg. (ohm) 1500 1100 1000 1100 �,, Soil Resistivity(ohm-cm) 1470 1078 980 1078 1600 L_J 1400 [ ; 1200 .�. � v 1000 � � .c 0 , � 800 [� N � 600 � �--� t� 400 I J 200 L 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 �; Moisture Content(%) i � LJ Minimum Resistivity Moisture Content Sulfate Con�tent Chloride Content Soil pH • (ohm-cm) (/o) ppm / /a (ppm) I ' ASTM G-187,D-2216 HACH KIT METHOD AASHTO T-291 ASTM D-4972 � .��... � .�. ...�. ,.. ,. ......,.. ..0 ,... ... . ._..�.,,... ..�..v___�._ � .....�r. �.._...._,....�._ax__u. .�.�.,� -_ u.,..w_, u..,�.,M,�, ,._...W.__a_ �� 980 19.29 270 0.0270 42 6.85 Rev.11-04 � , L� r l � SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST I Leighton ASTM G-187 � ;�� j Project Name: MCA Lot 1 Dendv Tested By: M.Vinet Date: 8/30/16 Project No. : 10788.005 Data Input By M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 ;-- Boring No.: B=2 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 8/31/16 I Sample No. : B=1 Depth (ft.) : 5.0- 10.0 Visual Soil Identification: s(ML) "NOTE:ASTM G-187 REQUIRES SOIL SPECIMENS TO PASS THROUGH NO.B SIEVE PRIOR TO TESTING.THEREFORE,THIS TEST METHOD MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE FOR COARSER MATERIALS. Initial Moisture Content(%) Wet Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 100.0 Initial Soil Weight(gm)(Wt 622.0 � Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 100.0 Box Constant: 0.98 � Wt. of Container (gm.) 0.0 r Moisture Content(%) (MCi) 0.0 MC=(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/1Nt+1))-1)x100 I� � ; Remolded Specimen Moisture Adjustments Water Added (ml) (Wa) 80 100 120 140 � , Adj. Moisture Content(%) (MC) 12.86 16.08 19.29 22.51 Resistance Rdg. (ohm) 3000 2300 2200 2300 � Soil Resistivity(ohm-cm) 2940 2254 2156 2254 3500 L , 3000 �' 2500 � t� L_� t 2000 0 � ( '� 1500 L__; .y d ( � L 'O 1000 � ( ' 500 I �J L 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Moisture Content (%) �� Minimum Resistivity Moisture Content Sulfate Content Chloride Content Soil pH (ohm-cm) (/o) ppm/ /o (ppm) � ASTM G-187, D-2216 HACH KIT METHOD AASHTO T-291 ASTM D-4972 � _.� �_. ._._..�u�ti mW�._,._�, .., ._.L� _.�..�� .rw..__. ._,�_.�v, ,......,_ ..�,__.._,...�_ �,� ...�P�_.n_�u�_�. _ ...4 .w_�....,._ �__.�._. �J 2156 19.29 195 0.0195 12 6J8 Rev.11-04 � I I � i ; ', APPENDIX B , - LEIGHTON CONSULTING , INC . EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS ' TABLE OF CONTENTS � ; , Section Appendix B Paqe '� ' B-1.0 GENERAL........................................................................................................... 1 ;- , B-1.1 Intent ......................................................................................... 1 .................... � ' B-1.2 Role of Leighton Consulting, Inc.................................................................... 1 B-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor............................................................................. 1 �� ; B-2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED .....................................................2 � B-2.1 Clearing and Grubbing ..................................................................................2 �_ B-2.2 Processing..................................................................................................... 3 I ' B-2.3 Overexcavation 3 , ............................................................................................. B-2.4 Benching ....................................................................................................... 3 B-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas.............................................................. 3 � B-3.0 FILL MATERIAL ........4 ......................................................................................... �_, B-3.1 Fill Quality......................................................................................................4 � ' B-3.2 Oversize........................................................................................................4 �_, B-3.3 Import............................................................................................................4 � � B-4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ...........................................................4 �_; B-4.1 Fill Layers......................................................................................................4 B-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning ..............................................................................5 � , �_, B-4.3 Compaction of Fill.......................................................................................... 5 B-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes..............................................................................5 � B-4.5 Compaction Testing ...................................................................................... 5 � I B-4.6 Compaction Test Locations � ........................................................................... 5 , B-5.0 EXCAVATION.....................................................................................................6 � ' B-6.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS........................................................................................6 B-6.1 Safety............................................................................................................6 ` B-6.2 Beddin and Backfill 6 g ...................................................................................... '�-- B-6.3 Lift Thickness 7 ................................................................................................ �_� ' B- 1 . 0 GENERAL B-1.1 Intent These Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications are for grading and earthwork shown on the current, approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the Leighton Consulting, Inc. � geotechnical report(s). These Guide Specifications are a part of the recommendations �_, contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the project-specific ' recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these Guide Specifications. i Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide geotechnical observation and testing during � ' earthwork and grading. Based on these observations and tests, Leighton Consulting, Inc. � - may provide new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications (_ or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). , � B-1.2 Role of Leiqhton Consultinq, Inc. Prior to commencement of earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall meet � with the earthwork contractor to review the earthwork contractor's work plan, to schedule sufficient personnel to perForm the appropriate level of observation, mapping and � , compaction testing. During earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall � ' observe, map, and document subsurface exposures to verify geotechnical design assumptions. If observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the � ; interpreted assumptions during the design phase, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate these observed ( � conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be L-� geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include (1) natural � . ground after clearing to receiving fill but before fill is placed, (2) bottoms of all "remedial ; J removal" areas, (3) all key bottoms, and (4) benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. ' '�- Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe moisture-conditioning and processing of the , subgrade and fill materials, and perForm relative compaction testing of fill to determine the �' attained relative compaction. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide Daily Field Reports L� to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. ' B-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor �__� The earthwork contractor(Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced and knowledgeable ' in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture- ` ' conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and � accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Guide Specifications prior to ; B-1 � ' Lei4hton Consultinca, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications l commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for perForming ' ' grading and backfilling in accordance with the current, approved plans and specifications. I The Contractor shall inform the owner and Leighton Consulting, Inc. of changes in work � schedules at least one working day in advance of such changes so that appropriate �r- ' observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not � assume that Leighton Consulting, Inc. is aware of all grading operations. � � � The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish earthwork and grading in accordance with the applicable grading � ' codes and agency ordinances, these Guide Specifications, and recommendations in the � approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of Leighton Consulting, Inc., unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture � ` condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work � : less than required in these specifications, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that earthwork and grading be stopped until C , unsatisfactory condition(s) are rectified. [ , B-2 . 0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED B-2.1 Clearinq and Grubbinq L_� Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots and otherdeleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing �, agencies and Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Care should be taken not to encroach upon or otherwise damage na tive an d/or his toric trees designa te d by t he Owner or appropria te agencies to remain. Pavements, flatwork or other construction should not extend under L the "drip line" of designated trees to remain. L� Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on J specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 3 percent of organic i materials (by dry weight: ASTM D 2974). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be � ; allowed. � If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the �J affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for ; proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. ` ; As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of i__; `J B-2 �_J I Leicahton Consultina, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications � these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. I B-2.2 Processinq Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill, by Leighton � , Consulting, Inc., shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches (15 cm). Existing i , ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following �-,. Section B-2.3. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large � , clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform,flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. � : B-2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical ( report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly t , fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground � as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. All undocumented fill soils (; under proposed structure footprints should be excavated r , B-2.4 Benchinq � ; Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), (>20 percent grade) the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet (4.5 m) wide and at least 2 feet (0.6 m) deep, into ' competent material as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet (1.2 m) into competent material or as otherwise j_, recommended by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), (<20 percent grade) shall also be benched or otherwise over- ( excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. L, B-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas ' All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and � benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being ; ' accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall L-� obtain a written acceptance (Daily Field Report) from Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining j ' elevations of processed areas, keys and benches. �_� i �� ! �_; �� B-3 iLeiahton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications � B - 3 . 0 FILL MATERIAL � �: � B-3.1 Fill Qualitv � ' Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement. �, Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc. or mixed �, with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. ` B-3.2 Oversize i , Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum � dimension greater than 6 inches (15 cm), shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials and placement methods are specifically accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material � l does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet (3 m) measured � vertically from finish grade, or within 2 feet (0.61 m) of future utilities or underground construction. [ ; B-3.3 Import , If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the [ j requirements of Section B-3.1, and be free of hazardous materials ("contaminants") and rock larger than 3-inches (8 cm) in largest dimension. All import soils shall have an ( Expansion Index (EI) of 20 or less and a sulfate content no greater than (<_) 500 parts- L , per-million (ppm). A representative sample of a potential import source shall be given to Leighton Consulting, Inc. at least four full working days before importing begins, so that Lsuitability of this import material can be determined and appropriate tests perFormed. ( B-4 . 0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION L_� B-4.1 Fill Lavers � ' Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill, as described in �J Section B-2.0, above, in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches (20 cm) in loose � thickness. Leighton Consulting, Inc. may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the � grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers, and only if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction approve. Each layer shall be spread evenly and � ' mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. i �_� ; '�� '�.� B-4 Ir� Leicahton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications ;� B-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioninq � Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a -, relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and � optimum soil moisture content tests shall be perFormed in accordance with the American l '�� Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557. I ; B-4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, each layer � shall be uniformly compacted to not-less-than (>_) 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. In some cases, structural fill may be i� specified (see project-specific geotechnical report) to be uniformly compacted to at-least � , (>_) 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 modified Proctor laboratory maximum dry density. For fills thicker than (>) 15 feet (4.5 m), the portion of fill deeper than 15 feet below proposed finish grade shall be compacted to 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory �' maximum densi . Com action e ui ment shall be ade uatel sized and be either tY p q p q Y �, specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the , specified level of compaction with uniformity. � B-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes L - In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall , be accomplished by back rolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to � 4 feet (1 to 1.2 m) in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction ( � of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory 1--� maximum density. ' B-4.5 Compaction Testinct �' Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Location and frequency of tests shall be at our field (_; representative(s) discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to J inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). � � B-4.6 Compaction Test Locations l� Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal � coordinates of each density test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project L_: surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that Leighton i '. i�, f `J B-5 � � Leiqhton Consultinq. Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications � ' � Consulting, Inc. can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. Adequate grade stakes shall be provided. �' '' B- 5 . 0 EXCAVATION � Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by � ' Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on � geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined �, by Leighton Consulting, Inc. based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during � ; grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, then observed and reviewed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement of (� materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. l ; B-6 . 0 TRENCH BACKFILLS � ' B-6.1 Safetv ' The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA re uirements for safet of trench q Y � excavations. Work should be performed in accordance with Article 6 of the California (; Construction Safety Orders, 2015 Edition or more current (see also: http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb4a6.html ). C, B-6.2 Beddinq and Backfill _, All utility trench bedding and backfill shall be perFormed in accordance with applicable [ , provisions of the 2015 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). Bedding shall be placed to 1-foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and L densified by jetting in areas of granular soils, if allowed by the permitting agency. Otherwise, the pipe-bedding zone should be backfilled� with Controlled Low .Strength (J Material (CLSM) consisting of at least one sack of Portland cement per cubic-yard of sand, and conforming to Section 201-6 of the 2015 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Backfill over the bedding zone shall be L placed and densified mechanically to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) from 1 foot (0.3 m) above the top of the conduit to the surFace. Backfill � above the pipe zone shall not be jetted. Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. and backfill above the pipe zone (bedding) shall Lbe observed and tested by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. � J B-6 ��', Leighton Consultinq, Inc. Earthwork and Gradinq Guide Specifications � B-6.3 Lift Thickness � Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to ' Leighton Consulting, Inc. that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative '� compaction by his alternative equipment and method, and only if the building officials with I"� the appropriate jurisdiction approve. � � I , � I : . . �l � �,I �-� �_J �, �_� r , L �_� ( ' �� r � ' � _� J B-7 �' Geotechnical Update Report 10788.005 I Lot 1 of Tract 35181 (APN 909-370-042),Temecula,Califomia August 31,2016 � �� ! APPENDIX C �� GBA, Information Reqardinq This Geotechnical Enqineerinq ; i, �, i ; l _. � l '; l � l , L ; L , ( �� L_� � � � �_� � � � . �_; � �� ( ' i_J I , r� � � � I � I � I � � � ■ ■ ■ I I I � ' . . . . . � . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • � . . �, The GeOpl'OfeSSiOn81 BUSIneSS ASSOCIBtiOn (GBA) Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly those that affect: a client representative—interpret and apply this • the site's size or shape; � geotechnical-engineering report as effectively • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's ' as possible. In that way,clients can benefit from changed from a parking garage to an office building,or a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse; . the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or that,for decades, have been a principal cause of weight of the proposed structure; construction delays,cost overruns,claims, and . the composition of the design team;or � - disputes. If you have questions or want more . project ownership. information about any of the issues discussed below, � contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a impact.Thegeotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can responsibility or liability forproblems that arise because thegeotechnical be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise construction project. would have considered. This Report May Not Be Reliable Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for po not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepazed it: �J Specific Purposes, Persons,and Projects . for a different client; Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific . for a different project; needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering study conducted . for a different site(that may or may not include all or a -, for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- portion of the original site);or works constructor or even a different civil engineer.Because each . before important events occurred at the site or adjacent _J geotechnical-engineering study is unique,each geotechnical- to it;e.g.,man-made events like construction or engineering report is unique,prepazed solely for the client.17iose who environmental remediation,or natural events like floods, rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a di�erent client droughts,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations. can be seriously misled.No one except authorized client representatives _ should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first Note,too,that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepazed it.And no one report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time, -not even you-should apply this report for any purpose or project except because of factors like changed subsurface conditions;new or modified the one originally contemplated. codes,standards,or regulations;or new techniques or tools.If your geotechnical engineer has not indicated an"apply-by"date on the report, Read th is Report in Full ask what it should be,and,in general,if you are the least bit uncertain Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical engineering report did not read it in its entirety.Do not rely on an engineer before applying it.A minor amount of additional testing or _; executive summazy.Do not read selected elements only.Read this report analysis-if any is required at all-could prevent major problems. in full. Most of the "Findings" Related in This Report Are You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer Professional Opinions _� about Change Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures. when designing the study behind this report and developing the Geotechnical engineers can abserve actual subsurface conditions only at confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.A few those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed.The . typical factors include: data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your • the client's goals,objectives,budget,schedule,and geotechnical engineer,who then applied professional judgment to risk-management preferences; form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual • the general nature of the structure involved>its size> sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from � configuration,and performance criteria; those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your . the structure's location and orientation on the site;and geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to • other planned or existing site improvements,such as project finish,so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly, retaining walls>access roads,pazking lots>and whenever needed. : underground utilities. � � � ', ThiS RepOr't's Recommendations Are perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to allow enough Confirmation-Dependent time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in a position r-, The recommendations included in this report-including any options to give constructors the information available to you,while requiring I , or alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming not final>because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and preconstruction heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer . conferences can also be valuable in this respect. ,_� can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface ' ; conditions revealed during construction.If through observation your Read Responsibility Provisions Closely � ,' geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do actually do e�cist,the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other � no other changes have occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared engineering disciplines.That lack of understanding has nurtured this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments,delays, � ; dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform cost overruns,claims>and disputes.To confront that risk,geotechnical construction observation. engineers commonly include e�cplanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled"limitations;'many of these provisions indicate �' This Report Could Be Misinterpreted where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help � ' Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read these engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the respond fully and frankly. design team,to: . confer with other design-team members, Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered . help develop specifications, The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an . review pertinent elements of other design professionals' environmental study-e.g.>a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental � plans and specifications,and site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform . be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering a geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical- guidance is needed. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, r� conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of � You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. lreport.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction failures.If you have not yet obtained your own environmental observation. information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance.As a general rule>do not rely on an environmental report ; Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance prepared for a di$'erent client,site,or project,or that is more than six Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift months old. unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting ( , the information theyprovide for bid prepazation.To help prevent Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture �, the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the infiltration and Mold complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note water infiltration,or similar issues in this report>none of the engineer's conspicuously that you've included the material for informational services were designed,conducted,or intended to prevent uncontrolled ', purposes only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil through that"informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where it can on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions>or recommendations in cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.Accordingly, the report,but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific proper implementation of thegeotechnical engineer's recommendations �'I, times,locations,and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that will not of itself be su,�"icient to prevent moisture infilCration.Confront constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements> the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold including options selected from the report,only from the design specialists on the design team.Geotechnical engineers are not building- drawings and specifications.Remind constructors that they may envelope or mold specialists. Cc � � ' � GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS / � ASSOCIATION � I Telephone:301/565-2733 e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org wwwgeoprofessional.org � Co � ht 2016 b Geo rofessional Business Association(GBA).Du lication,re roduction,or co of this document,in whole or in azt,b an means whatsoever,is stricd PYr B Y P P P PY�B P Y Y Y prohibited,eaccept with GBA's specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission � of GBA,and only for purposes of scholazly reseazch or book review Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent �J L