Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Geotechnical Report
NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562)799-9469 Fax(562)799-9459 September 18, 2000 County of Riverside Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 91" Floor Riverside, California 92502-1409 Attn.: Mr. Steve Kupferman J SEP 2 1 200 ADMINISTRATION 'IVERSIDE COI. V' "\I!` 67 - Project Number 8702-00 Re: Response to County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet — Proposed Ralphs Towne Center Development — Located at the Southwest Corner of Highway 79 South and Butterfield Stage Road, Temecula, in the County of Riverside, California (Parcel 960-030-012) Dear Mr. Kupferman: Submitted herewith is response to the recent County of Riverside Geotechnical Review dated April 28, 2000 of our geotechnical report for the above referenced project. The following items are provided in the same order of the review sheet for clarity. Response to Item 1 The liquefaction analysis was performed using" SPT blowcount values from Boring 1 to a depth of 50 feet and a groundwater level at 38 feet deep in our previous report, dated April 28, 2000. For a Magnitude 6.8 earthquake along the Elsinore fault (2.5 miles away) and a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.43g, the factors of safety against liquefaction are given in Appendix A. Response to Item 2 The groundwater depth of 32 feet was obtained as the historical high water level as measured by the City of Temecula in a water well (EI. 1100 msl) on Highway 79, approximately % mile west of the site. An updated liquefaction evaluation was performed with the higher groundwater depth and the safety factors against liquefaction are listed in Appendix A. The potential for liquefaction is judged to be low to moderate due to medium dense sands at 45 to 50 feet deep. September 18, 2000 Project Number 8702-99 Page 2 Response to Item 3 The southern portion of the site lies adjacent to the Temecula Creek Channel with an existing Wolf Store Road between the building pad and channel, as shown on the Site Plan. Cross- sections A -A and B -B were prepared which shows a gentle slope from the proposed pad levels to the channel on Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The groundwater level at 32 feet deep lies below the invert of the channel and any liquefiable soils will have vertical and lateral confinement from overlying soils. The lateral spreading calculations are included in Appendix A and indicate 5 to 7 feet of displacement. Since the underlying soils have fines contents of 15 to 40%, the actual lateral spreading displacements would be much less than the computed values and similar to the vertical settlements (2.5 to 3 inches) due to liquefaction of layers at 45 to 50 feet deep. Response to Item 4 The field blowcounts from ring samples in all previous borings were reviewed and used in our updated liquefaction evaluation to provide the most conservative safety factors. Response to Item 5 The earthquake -induced settlements were computed for each soil layer below the groundwater depth of 32 feet. The total seismic settlements should be on the order of 2.5 to 3 inches and would occur rather uniformly across the lot. Differential seismic settlements would be on the order of 1.5 inches over a 100 feet (horizontal) distance in the building pad area. Response to Item 6 The seismic -induced settlements should be mitigated with a two feet compacted fill blanket beneath all building pad areas. This fill blanket provides uniform support for the shallow foundations with differential settlements of 1.5 inches over a 100 feet (horizontal) distance in the building pad areas due to seismic forces. All other recommendations given in our previous report should be followed in final design of building and associated structures at the site. NorCal Engineering September 18, 2000 Page 3 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Project Number 8702-99 If you have any further questions, please Respectfully submitted, QROFESBrU NORCAL ENGINEERING 10 SAN o. r�� < G cy ( F a No. 841 , Scott D. Spensiero Keith D. Tucker „1 o Project Manager Project Engineer Exp. 12/31 /00 R.G.E. 841 0y * Ix ). )'?CHNNGP_a4e NorCal Engineering SEP -OS -00 FRI 02:32 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIN FAX N0, 9099553157 P. 02 Riverside County LMS Page: 09/08/00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14:07 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case #: CUP03318 Parcel: 960-030-012 5. DRT CORRECTIONS REQUIRED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 5 PLANNING 2 DRT - LIQUEFACTION REPORT The project site is located within a liquefaction potential zone. County Geologic Report No. 1018 was submitted to address the liquefaction potential at this site. This rep ort as prepared by Norcal Engineering and is entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, vail Ranch Retail Center Development, Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, Temecula, County of Riverside, CA," dated April 28, 2000. The following additional information ectsand/or of thisreportclarification with respect to the liquefaction asp should be provided to the Planning Department Engineering Geologistt 1. The geotechnical consultant should provide a liquefaction analysis that is based upon an appropriate method and seismic data, using calculations resulting in factors of safety against liquefaction. 2. The liquefaction analysis should be based on the historic high groundwater levels at this site or projected future high groundwater levels, rather than the level encountered during exploratory drilling. 3. The liquefaction analysis should address the potential for lateral spreading relative to the adjacent Temecula Creek. 4. Data from one test boring was used for the liquefaction analysis. The geotechnical consultant should consider using the data from the 20 other borings drilled on the site. 5. The calculations used to determine the liquefaction -induced settlement should be included with the report-. 6. The report should include appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of liquefaction at this site. Four (4) wet -signed copies of the response by Norcal should REQUIF ' SEP -08-00 FRI 02 33 PM RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNIN FAX NO. 9099553157 P. 03 09/oe/00 Riverside County LMS Page: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 14:07 ase #: CUP03318 Parcel: 960-030-012 CONDITIONAL USC. PFRMIT C S. DRT CORRECTIONS REQUIRED 5.PLANNING. 2 ORT - LIQUEFACTION REPORT (cont.) be submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist prior to project app REQUI 7.3 41, UPEO MARKET <. \` _ FFI=q F.80 ILI/ O' 6 SLOPE V 1 mox- - - — 1 "• r �T, 4 �i • •, asi�►.■i FAME m FFa111 3 PROPOSED CURB \ v' . EXIST• .� _ T ' -� —_ �_J ' • '. FLOVI — REQ WAIT. NII till pa, +lr OF YR pli • Ci, r� � � � _ _ _"dam ._ J `� TEMEC A uLA CREEK ® CHANNEL-�- 1INCH .50 FEET NorCal Engineering PLAN MODIFIED FROM TRANS -PACIFIC CONSULTANTS GRADING PLAN DATED AUGUST 11, 2000 s m FFa111 3 PROPOSED CURB \ v' . EXIST• .� _ T ' -� —_ �_J ' • '. FLOVI — REQ WAIT. NII till pa, +lr OF YR pli • Ci, r� � � � _ _ _"dam ._ J `� TEMEC A uLA CREEK ® CHANNEL-�- 1INCH .50 FEET NorCal Engineering PLAN MODIFIED FROM TRANS -PACIFIC CONSULTANTS GRADING PLAN DATED AUGUST 11, 2000 0 ELEVATION (MSL) 1150 RALPHS MARKET 1100 1050 1000 WOLF ROAD I INCH - SO FEET HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TEMECULA CREEK CHANNEL 0 NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS SECTION A -A I RALPHS MARKETCENTER I 2000 1 c3 ELEVATION (MSL) 1150 RETAIL BUILDING 1100 1050 1000 ffl WOLF ROAD TEMECULA CREEK CHANNEL I INCH a 50 FEET HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL NorCal Engineering ILS AND GEOTECHNICAL. CONSULTANTS SECTION B -B Appendix A Updated Liquefaction Evaluation Lateral Spreading Evaluation NorCal Engineering SITE LOCATION: — GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: GEOLOGY REPORT: — DEPTH TO WATER TABLE _ n EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE = • g' PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION = (),3Q DEPTH BELOW FLIYLL (GRAM FEET) HOIST TOTAL DENSITY STRESS (PCF) (PSF) yo EFFECTIVE STRESS (PSF) r �� .I d (') I,(-) Th/_ Oo (-) N VALUE (BLOWS/ FT) RELATIVE C N� DENSITY N BLOWS (f) )-) �) FINES (f) Th Nde /a0 N7.5 N - 7.5 )-) m ® Th/ — a Q0 N -DESIGN (f 4) O SAFETY FACTOR (-) 5 17.0 600 �.�„�r. <<� ;. 0,99 Q ZS Z >a0 >!.� > 3� , >o,(, �117 60 {zoo 0.98 o, -Z--7 5 4-5- (-2S (p.S 59 >0, 15 0.-7 d 9-7 o.z.7 q -.>o I'ns 4 55 >o,ll > o, 14 >o,5 Zostn 0,016 0.21 17-(ao 0.93 II >0•zo >0.'2L NL > I , D 75 0.94 03-6,.1 �5b o.q 1.5 4-6 >o, 16 >o .-M a01g 3o z 6,9-Loz6 4-0 '2 >o,l 1 NL >o.1a5 35 4v -y, v 0.90 o,25 P, `o d•(�l SS 40 fq)OD 4b-6 1.03 0.8-1 O.Z5 14 4- >0.14� 45 Aoo -,H (012 I.o° o.a3 o.ZS Z3 60 0,� l 15 5 I4 C), -7 0, ,-7 I, I 50 57,5t I, A o•go o.ZL z{ 60 0. L1 {-} m INDUCED CYCLIC STRESS RATIO = 7a Ido = 0.65 • a9 x Oo Ii • rd © SOIL RESISTANCE P LIQUEFACTION - Tave /ao q ® MAXIMUM ACCELERATION @ LIQUEFACTION -a," = (Tave / Ifo liq.) • g =©/O U DYNAMIC SAFETY FACTOR = a�ax /adesign earthquake �,e61 A- (0.65)(0-0/tlolyd 1ti NAbo Fiui;.. Cllz c�>� v o.zs o-0 klb% NorCal Engineering (1-4) (.5) SOILS AND GEOTECI-INICALCONSULTANTS EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 11 /� co, DIOx(o0'' I,OQ� PROJECT; 6-702-00 DATE O de�- SEj5Ni.Ec 5 7LiE �E�!T EVAL, �17i� . GWTO 11�, ;3 5 5S 87 OZ6. 130 0 � 7-A.,% >0 7 x Z- J._ So IA .. ...:....:............... :........:......................................... :..... ..:....:....:....:....:... . ................................'............4.......... .. �Q.:r..z. z .................. ............. NorCal Engineering SOILS AND G EOTE_CI I N ICA L CONSULTANTS DATE z000 Ubb 6 -70Z -oo Noz•Cal Engineering SOILS AND GCO'IT_CI [N1CAL CONSULTANTS aATE Noi-Cal Engineering SOILS AND Gf_OlT_CHNICALCONSULTANTS DATE QUOC, oQrwa`6d eYn2 CLQ l fi d 1..l"rLl.n.-'�j o I CV er-,SC dc, CHECKLIST TO ACCOMPANY: U Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports PART SECTION POINT OK NEED MORE INFO/CLARIFICATION; NOTES I A. General 1 X Signed by registered Geotech engineer x 2 . x on CUP map 3 . x on CUP map 4. x x 5 . x It never comes out and calls it 'grading plans' 6. x x GEOTECHNICAL UA f A: B. Field Investigations 1 x 2 . x combination of site plan and CUP map 3. x x 4 ,' 3b . gw found at 38 feet in boring 1: no other gw data given; no borings ,it ,ane. than 81 M =En 1 .' ,,..., .,..._...._...... No calculations included 2 . x 3a . x 3b . x 3c . x 3d . x 4.x 5 . x 6.x 7 X ..pPotcw'C��+S an. Maximum Density test performed; no standard Penetration test 8 . x pg13 9 . n/a 10 . x 11 n/a 12 o calculations included 13 . x assuming it's NorCal Engineering M E. Seismic Eval. Limited but sufficient? D. Slope Stability I 1 WISlopes Q —12-15 feet 2:1; no slope stability covered. 2 2 J40 Not covered; Ralphs slab directly at top of slope? No data on slopes E. Seismic Eval. Limited but sufficient? F. Foundation Design Criteria 1 x n/a 2 2 Not covered; Ralphs slab directly at top of slope? 3 3 3. x 4. 4. x 5. 5. x 6 . G. Foundation Design Criteria (Expansive Earth Mat.) 1 . x n/a 2 . 2 Not covered; Ralphs slab directly at top of slope? 3 3 not covered 4. HO.,- 710 5. o not covered 6 . x pg 12; vapor barrier 7a . x % max/min moisture 7b . x H. Foundation Design Criteria (other special prov.'s) 1 . x No calculations; some surcharges others suggested. 2 . 2 Not covered; Ralphs slab directly at top of slope? 3 . 3 not covered 4a HO.,- 710 4b o not covered 4c . 5 . g�" o calculations provided I. Retaining Walls 1 L:l No calculations; some surcharges others suggested. 2 slightly covered 3 not covered 4 not covered 5 ! o not covered K. Grading Plan _ Limited but sufficient? 4%9„p'% aC+7+tOQNy v, -�1 C'f¢ativ —s�o21 Review f RA c v1 f L. References 1 1 n/a 2 1 n/a M. Conclusions 8 Recomm. J. Pavement Design la Limited data lb . x x 1c . x 2b . 1d . x 1e . x x 1f Not sure what this exactly is... 2a . x 2b . 2c 1 3c . 2d @ of covered; mentions approved subgrade soils. K. Grading Plan _ Limited but sufficient? 4%9„p'% aC+7+tOQNy v, -�1 C'f¢ativ —s�o21 Review f RA c v1 f L. References 1 1 n/a 2 1 n/a M. Conclusions 8 Recomm. 1 x 2a . x 2b . x 2c . x 3a . x 3b . 3c . x 3d n/a 4 Ift Not quite sure what this is asking for... 5a . x 6 "jIffL5 Just doesn't seem thorough enough 7 . x does indicate they will dispose of the large rocks ' 8.x 9 2 10 . Nm not covered .- Lucf, (,[ -A( -e(� p, 11 . see #7 above 12 . n/a (C17G Ft/��F`Q� 09/06/2000 Review of: `Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Vail Ranch Retail Center Development Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 Temecula, County of Riverside, California' Submitted by: Anne Perez 109 MTl02fO M (Following along with the format outlined in the `Technical Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical and Geologic Reports.) B.4.: The groundwater data obtained for the site came only from Boring #1. The water was detected at --38 feet below ground surface. There were a total of 20 borings performed on the site and only one was deep enough to encounter groundwater. There was also no historical data on groundwater levels included in the report. This area (according to GIS) is entirely within a liquefaction potential area. The report indicates that the potential is low to moderate and is basically only based on that one boring. Is this sufficient? C.1.: There were several tests performed (throughout the entire report)but the calculations were not included. D.1.&D.2.: There are a few slopes proposed for the project - although they are 2:1 slopes at heights not exceeding —12-15 feet in height, there still should have been some mention of their stability. E.The seismic evaluation appears complete but on the same hand seems limited. 17.2.: The criteria for foundation material preparation was not covered. H.2.: When looking at the CUP map, it looks as if the Ralphs slab is directly up to the top of the slope. There is no mention of any setbacks with respect to the slopes and slabs. H.3.: The effects of adjacent loads when footings are at differing elevations was not covered. I.1-5: The retaining wall section was seemed brief and incomplete. J.l.a.: The R -value test data seems insufficient within the report. J.l.f.: I'm not sure what this applies to... J.2.d.: The report mentions `approved-subgrade soils' but doesn't actually describe what that is. K.: The Grading Plan Review seems brief - sufficient? M.4.: I'm not sure what this applies to... M.6.: The proposed grading seems so brief almost to the point of being incomplete. M.10.: The soil cement or lime stabilization wasn't covered - did it need to be? M.13.: Irrigation and drainage controls was very briefly covered but only in the retaining wall section. M.14.: No erosion control measures were covered. M.15.: What are slough walls... A 19.: Actual/potential effects extending into/from the site with regards to stability, erosion, sedimentation, groundwater... was not covered. M.20.b.: limited data on stabilization fills is included in the retaining wall section. M.21.: Slopes not mentioned let alone distinguished as cut or fill. M.22.: The report mentions subsidence values - where/how did they come up with them? Overall, the report was brief. It is possible that the report's brevity gave me the impression that it was incomplete or lacking better detailed data. NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 November 17, 2000 County of Riverside Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 91" Floor Riverside, California 92502-1409 Attn.: Mr. Steve Kupferman Project Number 8702-00 Re: Second Response to County Geotechnical Report Review Sheet — Proposed Ralphs Towne Center Development — Temecula, California - Parcel 960-030-012 (County Permit Case No. CUP03318) Dear Mr. Kupferman: Submitted herewith is response to the recent County of Riverside Geotechnical Review dated November 2, 2000 of our geotechnical report for the above referenced project. The following items are provided in the same order of the review sheet for clarity. Response to Item 60.13S Grade. 5 Copies of the geotechnical report are attached. Response to Item 60.Planning. 12 Copies of our "Response to County Geotechnical Review Sheet" dated September 18, 2000 is attached addressing liquefaction evaluation. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING For Keith D. Tucker vJ Project Engineer c,9 R.G.E. nI/00 Scott D. Spensiero Project Manager OF Nov'16,00 02:01p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p-1 Trans -Pacific C O X S O L T A N T S Date: \t- 16 - o ° FACSIMILE COVER SHEET 66'0 Y s��1A 516VZ o To: N 0� G* 6 �t �w1 6 Telephone No.: (*U4 7,1(1- 94Gq Fax No.: (,Mr) -701,1 - I4t�,q From: TPC Telephone: 909-676-7000 ext. 225 Fax No.: 909-699-7324 Subject: Y7-AvP4t-�' yRCPO Na G Message: f4DvVey2 (NND1Tt Oh15' &O. 0e, 4V -ADE- '�; (,o .FLAVINlac. 1Z. Total No. of Pages. 4 Including Cover Sheet Al,� ���,� A v3Gr ti\6a�no �,V1v5 yZ-S?oY2T p�vA-O>v �4\-N -ttt1F, 00w4 -Tr 49'k60w4%9;1 . 27431 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA 92590 *Telephone 909-676-7000 ♦ Fax 909-699-7324 Nov' 16 00 02:01p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p.2 y%02/00- Riverside County LMS Page 41 9:40 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case #: CUP03318 ..Parcel: 960-030-012 -- - ----- 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE 60.BS GRADE. 5 USE-G2.4GEOTECH/SOILS RPTS INEFFECT Geotechnical/soils reports shall be submitted to the County Geologist for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit_ All grading shall be in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical/soils reports as approved by Riverside County.* The geotechnical/soils, compaction and inspection reports will be reviewed in accordance with the RIVERSIDE COUNTY GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC REPORTS. A pregrading meeting, certifications, approvals and inspection procedures will be implemented per the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY GRADING INSPECTION PROCESS. 60.BS GRADE. 6 USE-G2.7DRNAGE DESIGN Q100 INEFFEC'l All drainage facilities shall be designed in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control & Water District's letter regarding.this application, or if not specifically addressed in their letter, to accommodate 100 year storm flows_ 60.BS GRADE. 8 USE-G2.14OFFSITE GDG ONUS INEFFECI Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the owner/applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. FLOOD RI DEPARTMENT 60.FLOOD RI. 1 USE SUBMIT PLANS INEFFEC`. A copy of the mprovement plans, grading plans and any other necessary documentation along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the District for review. The plans shall receive District approval prior to issuance of grading permits. All submittals shall be date stamped by the engineer and include a completed Flood Control Deposit Based Fee Worksheet and the appropriate plan check fee deposit. 60_PLOOD RI. 2 USE EROS CNTRi, AFTER RGH GRAD INEFFEC' Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented irnmediately following rough grading to prevent deposition Nov •16 00 02:02p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p.3 1/02/00 Riverside County LMS Page: 45 19:40 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL.USE_PERMIT..Case # CUP03318 Parcel: 960-030-012 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE 60.PLANNING_ 11 USE - ARCHAEOLOGIST RETAINED (cont.) INEFFECT retained qualified archaeologist. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to be present on-site for monitoring during any grading that involves excavation:of 5 vertical feet or greater. All cultural resources found shall be either be preserved on-site, preserved in a local Temecula Valley museum, offered to the Riverside County Historical Commission for preservation, or offered for preservation or appropriate disposition to the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians otherwise known as the Pechanga band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe. Should cultural resources be found on the project site a written report shall be submitted by a qualified archaeologist to the Planning Department describing the findings with recommendations for preservation or appropriate disposition. A final report shall be submitted by the qualified archaeologist to the Planning Department explaining the final disposition of all cultural resources found on the project site. Four copies of a.signed cultural resources Treatment Agreement (similar to the one attached to these conditions of approval) between the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, otherwise known as the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the developer shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The agreement shall include language requiring that a Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians tribal member be present on the project site during all grading activities. (Amended by Board of Supervisors on October 3, 2000.) 60.PLANNING. 12 USE - LIQUEFACTION REPORT INEFFEC The project is located within a liquefaction potential zone. County Geologic Report (CGR) No. 1018 was prepared for this project by Norcal Engineering and is entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Vail Ranch Retail Center Development, Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, Temecula, County of Riverside, CA,"_ dated April 28, 2000; and "Response to County Geotechnical Review Sheet, Proposed Ralphs Towne Center Development," dated September 18, 2000. Nov IG; 00 02:02p TPC, INC. 909-699-7324 p.4 ,-3-i%02/00, Riverside County LMS Page: 46 19:40 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case..#:.CUP03318 Parcel: 960-030-012 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE 60.PLANNING. 12 USE - LIQUEFACTION REPORT (cont.) INEFFECT CGR 1018 determined that: 1. The liquefaction potential at this site is determined to be low to moderate in the soils beneath the site. 2. The total liquefaction -induced settlement on the site is determined to be 2.5 to 3 inches across the site. The differential settlement would be on the order of 1.S inches over a horizontal distance of 100 feet within the building pad area. 3. Liquefaction -induced lateral spreading into Temecula Creek is determined to be less than 3 inches since the liquefiable layers are at depths of 45 to 50 feet below the ground surface. CGR 1018 recommended that: 1. A two foot thick compacted fill blanket shall be constructed beneath all building pad areas. 2. The foundations and slabs shall be constructed in accordance with the reinforcement recommendations made in the above referenced geotechnical report dated 4/28/00. CGR 1018 satisfies the General Plan and CEQA requirements . for a liquefaction report. Final approval is hereby given. The following is recommended prior to issuance of any grading permits associated with this project: "A grading plan review geotechnical report shall be prepared to address the project grading plans. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a confirmation that the recommended liquefaction mitigation measures are incorporated into the grading plans. This report shall be submitted to the Planning Deaprtment Engineering Geologist for review and approval." 70._ PRIOR TO GRADING FINAL INSPECT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 70_PLANNING. 3 USE PALEONTOLOGIST CERTIFIED INEFFECT A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed 09/22/00 Riverside County LMS 12:53 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case #: CUP03318 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Parcel: 960-030-012 60.PLANNING. 12 USE - LIQUEFACTION REPORT The project is located within a liquefaction potential zone. County Geologic Report (CGR) No. 1018 was prepared for this project by Norcal Engineering and is entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Vail Ranch Retail Center Development, Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, Temecula, County of Riverside, CA," dated April 28, 2000; and "Response to County Geotechnical Review Sheet, Proposed Ralphs Towne Center Development," dated September 18, 2000. CGR 1018 determined that: 1. The liquefaction potential at this site is determined to be low to moderate in the soils beneath the site. 2. The total liquefaction -induced settlement on the site is determined to be 2.5 to 3 inches across the site. The differential settlement would be on the order of 1.5 inches over a horizontal distance of 100 feet within the building pad area. 3. Liquefaction -induced lateral spreading into Temecula Creek is determined to be less than 3 inches since the liquefiable layers are at depths of 45 to 50 feet below the ground surface. CGR 1018 recommended that 1. A two foot thick compacted fill blanket shall be constructed beneath all building pad areas. 2. The foundations and slabs shall be constructed in accordance with the reinforcement recommendations made in the above referenced geotechnical report dated 4/28/00. CGR 1018 satisfies the General Plan and CEQA requirements for a liquefaction report. Final approval is hereby given. The following is recommended prior to issuance of any grading permits associated with this project: "A grading plan review geotechnical report shall be prepared to address the project grading plans. This report shall include, but not be limited to, a confirmation that the recommended liquefaction mitigation measures are Page: 1 RECOMMND 09/22/00 Riverside County LMS Page: 2 12:53 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case #: CUP03318 60. PRIOR TO GRADING PRMT ISSUANCE Parcel: 960-030-012 60.PLANNING. 12 USE - LIQUEFACTION REPORT (cont.) RECOMMND incorporated into the grading plans. This report shall be submitted to the Planning Deaprtment Engineering Geologist for review and approval." 09/08/00 Riverside County LMS Page: 1 14:07 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case #: CUP03318 5. DRT CORRECTIONS REQUIRED �:iI1T6iWON Parcel: 960-030-012 5.PLANNING. 2 DRT - LIQUEFACTION REPORT The project site is located within a liquefaction potential zone. County Geologic Report No. 1018 was submitted to address the liquefaction potential at this site. This report was prepared by Norcal Engineering and is entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Vail Ranch Retail Center Development, Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, Temecula, County of Riverside, CA," dated April 28, 2000. The following additional information and/or clarification with respect to the liquefaction aspects of this report should be provided to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist: 1. The geotechnical consultant should provide a liquefaction analysis that is based upon an appropriate method and seismic data, using calculations resulting in factors of safety against liquefaction. 2. The liquefaction analysis should be based on the historic high groundwater levels at this site or projected future high groundwater levels, rather than the level encountered during exploratory drilling. 3. The liquefaction analysis should address the potential for lateral spreading relative to the adjacent Temecula Creek. 4. Data from one test boring was used for the liquefaction analysis. The geotechnical consultant should consider using the data from the 20 other borings drilled on the site. 5. The calculations used to determine the liquefaction -induced settlement should be included with the report. 6. The report should include appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of liquefaction at this site. Four (4) wet -signed copies of the response by Norcal should REQUIRED 09/08/00 Riverside County LMS Page: 2 14:07 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Case #: CUP03318 Parcel: 960-030-012 5. DRT CORRECTIONS REQUIRED S.PLANNING. 2 DRT - LIQUEFACTION REPORT (cont.) REQUIRED be submitted to the Planning Department Engineering Geologist prior to project approval. 9200 / o ENGINEERING SOILS AND, /GEO -F HNICAL CONS'UL'-TA-N-T'-- LL 4 - - - ------- 9200 / o ENGINEERING SOILS AND, /GEO -F HNICAL CONS'UL'-TA-N-T'-- Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Vail Ranch Retail Center Development Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79 Temecula, County of Riverside, California Prepared For: Cahan Properties 11440 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 273 San Diego, California 92127 Attn: Ms. Robyne DeLatte Project Number 8702-00 April 28, 2000 NorCal Engineering Project Number 8702-00 TABLE OF CONTENTS ---------- Pacle Section 1.0 Project Description............................................................... 2.0 Site Description.................................................................... 2 3.0 Site Exploration................................................................ 4.0 Laboratory Tests 4 4.1 Field Moisture Content................................................................. 4 4.2 Sieve Analysis Tests............................................................ 4 4.3 Maximum Density Tests.................................................................. 4 4.4 Expansion Index Tests.................................................................... 4 4.5 Atterberg Limits................................................................... .... 4 4.6 Corrosion Tests................................................................... 5 4.7 R Value Tests................................................................ ..... 5 4.8 Direct Shear Tests...................................................................... 5 4.9 Consolidation Tests......................................................................... 5 5.0 Seismicity Evaluation.......................................................... 6 6.0 Liquefaction Evaluation .............................. Recommendations 7 7.0 Conclusions and 7.1 Site Grading Recommendations ...................................... Recommendations ....................... 8 7.1.1 Removal and Recompaction ....... 9 7.1.2 Fill Blanket Recommendations......................................... 9 7.2 Shrinkage and Subsidence.................................................... 9 7.3 Temporary Excavations......................................................... ....... 10 7.4 Foundation Design.. ....................................................... 10 7.5 Settlement Analysis............................................................... 11 7.6 Lateral Resistance................................................................. 12 7.7 Retaining Wall Design Parameters ................................................... 7.8 Slab Design.................................................................. 12 7.9 Pavement Section Design ............... ....' Excavation Backfill ...._0... 13 13 7.10 utility Trench and 7.11 Corrosion Design Criteria ................ 14 8.0 Closure................................................................. Specifications for Placement of Compacted Fill .............•..•.••••.•.•.•••• 18 Appendices...................................................................... NorCal Engineering NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562)799-9469 Fax(562)799-9459 Project Number 8702-00 April 28, 2000 Cahan Properties 11440 W. Bernardo Court, suite 273 San Diego, California 92127 Attn.: Ms. Robyne DeLatte RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - Proposed Vail Ranch Retail Center Development - Located at the Southwest Corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, Temecula, County of Riverside, California Dear Ms. DeLatte: m has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Pursuant to your request, this fir ed project in accordance with your approval of Investigation for the above referenc proposal dated March 28, 2000. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the vide recommendations for the subsurface conditions of the subject site and to pro proposed retail center development. The scope of work included the following: 1) site reconnaissance; 2) subsurface geotechnical exploration and sampling; 3) laboratory testing; 4) engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, and 5) preparation of a geotechnical engineering report. It is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed in the design and construction of the project. April 28, 2000 Page 2 Project Number 8702-00 1.0 Proiect Description It is proposed to construct a retail center development consisting of a 58,000 square feet Ralphs Market; a 15,000 square feet drug store; a 12,000 square feet major retail; two retail shop stores, 9,000 and 9,400 square feet respectively; and three individual building pads ranging from 5,500 to 7,000 square feet for restaurant or general retail use on the subject parcel. The buildings are anticipated to have a conventional slab -on - grade foundation system with perimeter -spread footings and isolated interior footings. other improvements will consist of concrete/asphalt pavement, hardscape and landscaping. Final building plans shall be reviewed by this firm prior to submittal for county approval to determine the need for any additional study and revised recommendations pertinent to the proposed development, if necessary. 2.0 Site De_ scription The 10.71 acre property is situated near the southwest corner of Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79, within Riverside County area near City of Temecula. The generally rectangular shaped parcel is elongated slightly east to west with topography of the relatively level site descending from north to south. A small triangular shaped parcel of land south of Wolf Store Road is also included within the scope of this project. The entire site had been previously graded and is currently undeveloped land with a heavy growth of vegetation cover consisting of natural weeds and grasses. Several stockpiles of soil and construction debris are situated along the east property perimeter. 3.0 Site Exploration The investigation consisted of the placement of twenty (20) subsurface exploratory borings by a truck -mounted drill rig with eight inch outside diameter hollow -stem, continuous flight augers to amaximum depth of 50 feet below current ground elevations. The explorations were visually classified and logged by a field engineer with locations of the subsurface explorations shown on the attached Site Plan. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 3 Project Number 8702-00 The exploratory excavations revealed the existing earth materials to consist of a fill and natural soil. A detailed description of the subsurface conditions is listed on the excavation logs in Appendix A. It should be noted that the transition from one soil type to another as shown on the borings logs is approximate and may in fact be a gradual transition. The soils encountered are described as follows: Fill: An engineered soil classifying as a brown, fine to medium grained, silty SAND was encountered across the surface of the site and ranged in depth from 1 to 7 feet. These soils were noted to be dense and damp to moist below the upper one foot. Natural: An undisturbed native soil classifying as a fine to medium grained, SAND to a silty SAND was encountered beneath the upper fill soils. These native soils were observed to be medium dense and damp to moist. Deeper soils consisted of silty sands to sands. The upper one -foot of surface soils was noted to be disturbed and loose from the existing vegetation and surface erosion. The overall engineering characteristics of the earth material were relatively uniform with each boring. Groundwater was measured at an approximate depth of 38 feet below ground surface in Boring B-1. No caving occurred to the depth of our borings. 4.0 Laboratory Tests Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained to perform laboratory testing and analysis for direct shear, consolidation tests, and to determine in- place moisture/densities. These relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with one inch long brass rings with an inside diameter of 2.42 inches into the undisturbed soils. The sampler was driven a total of twelve inches with blow counts taken in six inch increments. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 4 Project Number 8702-00 Standard penetration tests were obtained by driving a steel sampler lined with six-inch long brass rings with an inside diameter of 1.5 inches into the soils. This standard penetrometer sampler was driven a total of eighteen inches with blow counts tallied every six inches. Blow count data is given on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. Bulk bag samples were obtained in the upper soils for expansion index tests and maximum density tests. Wall loadings on the order of 4,000 lbs./lin.ft. and maximum compression loads on the order of 100 kips were utilized for testing and design purposes. All test results are included in Appendix B, unless otherwise noted. 4.1 Field moisture content (ASTM:D 2216) and the dry density of the ring samples were determined in the laboratory. This data is listed on the logs of explorations. 4.2 Sieve analyses (ASTM: D422-63) and the percent by weight of soil finer than the No. 200 sieve (ASTM: 1140) were performed on selected soil samples. These results are shown later within the body of this report. 4.3 Maximum density tests (ASTM: D-1557-91) were performed on typical samples of the upper soils. Results of these tests are shown on Table I. 4.4 Expansion index tests in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29- 2 were performed on remolded samples of the upper soils. Results of these tests are provided on Table II. 4.5 Atterberg Limits (ASTM: D 4318-84) consisting of liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index were performed on representative soil samples. Results are shown on Table III. 4.6 Corrosion tests consisting of sulfate, pH, resistivity and chloride analysis to determine potential corrosive effects of soils on concrete and underground utilities were performed in the laboratory. Test results are provided on Table IV. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 5 Project Number 8702-00 4.7 R Value test per California Test Method 301 was performed on a representative sample, which may be anticipated to be near subgrade to determine pavement design. Results are provided within pavement section design portion of report. 4.8 Direct shear tests (ASTM: D-3080) were performed on undisturbed and disturbed samples of the subsurface soils. The test is performed under saturated conditions at loads of 500 lbs./sq.ft., 1,000 lbs./sq.ft., and 2,000 lbs./sq.ft. with results shown on Plates A and B. 4.9 Consolidation tests (ASTM: D-2435) were performed on undisturbed samples to determine the differential and total settlement which may be anticipated based upon the proposed loads. Water was added _to -the samples at a surcharge of one KSF and the settlement curves are plotted on P al tes C and D. 5.0 Seismicity Evaluation There are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site. The proposed development lies outside of any Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone and the potential for damage due to direct fault rupture is considered very remote. The site is located in an area of high regional seismicity and a maximum credible horizontal ground acceleration of 0.43g may occur from a Magnitude 6.8 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone, which is located approximately 21/2 miles away. Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults. The following earthquake design parameters are based upon the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) for a Seismic Zone 4 with a Z factor of 0.40 and a Soil Profile Type of So, a stiff soil profile. Distance to Fault 4 km Seismic Source Type B Seismic Coefficient = Ca (0.44) Na Seismic Coefficient = Cv (0.64) Nv Near -Source Factor Na 1.1 Near -Source Factor Nv 1.3 NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Project Number 8702-00 Page 6 6.0 Liquefaction Evaluation The site is expected to experience ground shaking and earthquake activity that is typical of Southern California area. It is during severe ground shaking that loose, granular soils below the groundwater table can liquefy. A review of the exploratory boring log and the laboratory test results on selected soil samples obtained indicate the following soil classifications, field blowcounts and amounts of fines passing through the No. 200 sieve. Groundwater encountered at 38 feet below ground surface g�r0T Our analysis indicates the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered to be low to moderate due to medium dense sands below the groundwater level. Seismic induced settlements should be on the order of one inch and would occur rather uniformly across the site. Thus, the design of the proposed construction in conformance with the latest Building Code provisions for earthquake design is expected to provide mitigation of ground shaking hazards that are typical to Southern California. NorCal Engineering Field Blowcount and Gradation Data Blowcounts Relative % Passing Location Classification (blows/ft) Density No. 200 Sieve B-1 @ 5' SM 23 Dense 33 B-1 @ 10' ML 5 Firm 58 B-1 @ 15' ML 4 Firm 55 B-1 @ 20' CL 12 Firm 80 B-1 @ 25' SM 9 Medium Dense 46 B-1 @ 30' ML 7 Firm 65 B-1 @ 35' CL 8 Firm 83 B-1 @ 40' SM 14 Medium Dense 42 B-1 @ 45' SM 23 Medium Dense 14 B-1 @ 50' SM 21 Medium Dense 15 Groundwater encountered at 38 feet below ground surface g�r0T Our analysis indicates the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered to be low to moderate due to medium dense sands below the groundwater level. Seismic induced settlements should be on the order of one inch and would occur rather uniformly across the site. Thus, the design of the proposed construction in conformance with the latest Building Code provisions for earthquake design is expected to provide mitigation of ground shaking hazards that are typical to Southern California. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 7 Project Number 8702-00 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon our evaluations, the proposed development is acceptable from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. By following the recommendations and guidelines set forth in our report, the structures and grading will be safe from settlements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions. The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City Building Ordinance and will not impose any adverse effect on existing adjacent structures. The following recommendations are based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in our field investigation and laboratory data. Therefore, these surface and subsurface conditions could vary across the site. Variations in these conditions may not become evident until the commencement of grading operations and any unusual conditions which may be encountered in the course of the project development may require the need for additional study and revised recommendations. It is recommended that site inspections are performed by a representative of this firm during all grading and construction of the development to verify the findings and recommendations documented in this report. The following sections present a discussion of geotechnical related requirements for specific design recommendations of different aspects of the project. 7.1 Site Grading Recommendations Any vegetation shall be removed and hauled from proposed grading areas prior to the start of grading operations. Existing vegetation shall not be mixed or disced into the soils. Any removed soils may be reutilized as compacted fill once any deleterious material or oversized materials (in excess of eight inches) is removed. Grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Compacted Fill Operations". �5 ^ V( �2 NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Project Number 8702-00 Page 8 7.1.1 Removal and Recompaction Recommendations All disturbed soils (about one foot) shall be removed to competent material, the exposed surface scarified to a depth of 12 inches, brought to within 2% of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory standard (ASTM: D- 1557-91) prior to placement of any additional compacted fill soils, foundations, slabs -on - grade and pavement. Grading shall extend a minimum of five horizontal feet outside the edges of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill placed, whichever is greater. It is possible that isolated areas of undiscovered fill not described in this report are present on site. If found, these areas should be treated as discussed earlier. A diligent search shall also be conducted during grading operations in an effort to uncover any underground structures, irrigation or utility lines. If encountered, these structures and lines shall be either removed or properly abandoned prior to the proposed construction. Any imported fill material should be preferably soil similar to the upper soils encountered at the subject site. All soils shall be approved by this firm prior to importing at the site and will be subjected to additional laboratory testing to assure concurrence with the recommendations stated in this report. Care should be taken to provide or maintain adequate lateral support for all adjacent improvements and structures at all times during the grading operations and construction phase. Adequate drainage away from the structures, pavement and slopes should be provided at all times. If placement of slabs -on -grade and pavement is not completed immediately upon completion of grading operations, additional testing and grading of the areas may be necessary prior to continuation of construction operations. Likewise, if adverse weather conditions occur which may damage the subgrade soils, additional assessment by the geotechnical engineer as to the suitability of the supporting soils may be needed. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 9 r Project Number 8702-00 7.1.2 Fill Blanket Recommendations Due to the potential for differential settlement of foundations placed on compacted fill and the medium dense native materials, it is recommended that all foundations be underlain by a uniform compacted fill blanket at least two feet in thickness. This fill blanket shall extend a minimum of five horizontal feet outside the edges of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill placed, whichever is greater. 7.2 Shrinkage and Subsidence Results of our in-place density tests reveal that the soil shrinkage will be on the order of 15 to 20% due to excavation and recompaction, based upon the assumption that the fill is compacted to 92% of the maximum dry density per ASTM standards. Subsidence should be 0.2 feet due to earthwork operations. The volume change does not include any allowance for vegetation or organic stripping, removal of subsurface improvements or topographic approximations. Although these values are only approximate, they represent our best estimate of lost yardage, which will likely occur during grading. If more accurate shrinkage and subsidence factors are needed, it is recommended that field testing using the actual equipment and grading techniques should be conducted. 7.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary unsurcharged excavations in the existing site materials less than 4 feet high may be made at a vertical gradient unless cohesionless soils are encountered. Temporary unsurcharged excavations from 4 to 8 feet high may be trimmed at a 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient. In areas where soils with little or no binder are encountered, where adverse geological conditions are exposed, or where excavations are adjacent to existing structures, shoring, slot -cutting, or flatter excavations may be required. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 10 Project Number 8702-00 The temporary cut slope gradients given do not preclude local raveling and sloughing. No loads including traffic or stockpiles shall be located at the top of these cuts. All excavations shall be made in accordance with the requirements of CAL -OSHA and other public agencies having jurisdiction. Care should be taken to provide or maintain adequate lateral support for all adjacent improvements and structures at all times during the grading operations and construction phase. 7.4 Foundation Design All foundations may be designed utilizing the following safe bearing capacities for an embedded depth of 18 inches into approved compacted fill materials with the corresponding widths: The bearing value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of depth in excess of the 18 -inch minimum depth, up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. A one third increase may be used when considering short-term loading and seismic forces. Any foundations located along the property lines or where lateral overexcavation is not possible may utilize a safe bearing capacity of 1,500 psf. A representative of this firm shall inspect all foundation excavations prior to pouring concrete. 7.5 Settlement Analysis Resultant pressure curves for the consolidation tests are shown on Plate B. Computations utilizing these curves and the recommended safe bearing capacities reveal that the foundations will experience settlements on the order of 3/4 inch and differential settlements of less than 1/4 inch. NorCal Engineering Allowable Safe Bearing Capacity (psf) Continuous Isolated Width ft Foundation Foundation 1.5 2000 2500 2.0 2075 2575 4.0 2375 2875 6.0 2575 3025 The bearing value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of depth in excess of the 18 -inch minimum depth, up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. A one third increase may be used when considering short-term loading and seismic forces. Any foundations located along the property lines or where lateral overexcavation is not possible may utilize a safe bearing capacity of 1,500 psf. A representative of this firm shall inspect all foundation excavations prior to pouring concrete. 7.5 Settlement Analysis Resultant pressure curves for the consolidation tests are shown on Plate B. Computations utilizing these curves and the recommended safe bearing capacities reveal that the foundations will experience settlements on the order of 3/4 inch and differential settlements of less than 1/4 inch. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 11 7.6 Lateral Resistance Project Number 8702-00 The following values may be utilized in resisting lateral loads imposed on the structure. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code should be adhered to when the coefficient of friction and passive pressures are combined. Coefficient of Friction - 0.40 Equivalent Passive Fluid Pressure = 250 lbs./cu.ft. Maximum Passive Pressure = 2,500 lbs./cu.ft. The passive pressure recommendations are valid only for approved compacted fill soils. 7.7 Retaininq Wall Design Parameters Active earth pressures against retaining walls will be equal to the pressures developed by the following fluid densities. These values are for granular backfill material placed behind the walls at various ground slopes above the walls. Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid (Horizontal to Vertical) Density (Ib./cu.ft.) Level 30 5 to 1 35 4 to 1 38 3 to 1 40 2 to 1 45 Any applicable short-term construction surcharges and seismic forces should be added to the above lateral pressure values. A backfill zone of non -expansive material shall consist of a wedge beginning a minimum of one horizontal foot from the base of the wall extending upward at an inclination no less than 1/4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). All walls shall be waterproofed as needed and protected from hydrostatic pressure by a reliable permanent subdrain system. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Project Number 8702-00 Page 12 7.8 Slab Design I All concrete slabs -on -grade shall be at least four inches in thickness, and six inches in warehouse areas and placed on approved subgrade soils. Reinforcement requirements and an increase in thickness of the slabs -on -grade may be necessary based upon proposed loading conditions in the structures. A vapor barrier sandwiched between a four -inch thick sand layer should be utilized in areas, which would be sensitive to the infiltration of moisture. The subgrade soils shall be moistened to optimum moisture concrete immediately prior to pouring of concrete. All concrete slab areas to receive floor coverings should be moisture tested to meet all manufacturer requirements prior to placement. 7.9 Pavement Section Design The table below provides a preliminary pavement design based upon an R -Value of 42 for the proposed pavement areas. Final pavement design may need to be based on R- ,` Value testing of the subgrade soils near the conclusion of rough grading to assure that these soils are consistent with those assumed in this preliminary design. Traffic Asphaltic Base Type of Traffic Index Concrete (in) Material (in) Parking Stalls 4.0 3.0 3.0 Drive Circulation Areas 6.0 3.5 5.5 All concrete slabs to be utilized for pavement shall be a minimum of six inches in thickness and placed on approved subgrade soils. Final pavement section designs for pavement areas may need to be determined by additional testing of the subgrade near the conclusion of grading operations. In addition, the above recommendations are based upon estimated traffic loads. Client'.. should submit anticipated traffic loadings, when available, so that pavement sections -' may be reviewed to determine adequacy to support these loads. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 13 Project Number 8702-00 Any approved base material shall consist of a Class II aggregate or equivalent and should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. All pavement materials shall conform to the requirements set forth by the County of Riverside. The base material and asphaltic concrete should be tested prior to delivery to the site and during placement to determine conformance with the project specifications. A pavement engineer shall designate the specific asphalt mix design to meet the required project specifications. 7.10 Utility Trench and Excavation Backfill Trenches from installation of utility lines and other excavations may be backfilled with on-site soils or approved imported soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. All utility lines shall be properly bedded with clean sand having a sand equivalency rating of 30 or more. This bedding material shall be thoroughly water jetted around the pipe structure prior to placement of compacted backfill soils. 7.11 Corrosion Design Criteria Representative samples of the surficial soils, typical of the subgrade soils expected to be encountered within foundation excavations and underground utilities were tested for corrosion potential. The minimum resistivity value obtained for the samples tested is representative of an environment that may be moderately corrosive to metals. The soil pH value was considered mildly alkaline and may have a significant effect on soil corrosivity. Consideration should be given to corrosion protection systems for buried metal such as protective coatings, wrappings or the use of PVC where permitted by local building codes. According to the '1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-3 - Requirements for: Concrete Exposed to Sulfate -Containing Solutions', these contents revealed negligible levels of sulfate exposure. Therefore, a Type II cement according to latest UBC specifications may be utilized for building foundations at this time. Additional sulfate tests shall be performed at the completion of site grading to assure that these soils are consistent with the recommendations stated in this design. Sulfate test results may be found on the attached Table IV. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 14 8.0 Closure Project Number 8702-00 The recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are based upon the soil conditions uncovered in our test excavations. No warranty of the soil condition between our excavations is implied. NorCal Engineering should be notified for possible further recommendations if unexpected to unfavorable conditions are encountered during construction phase. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all information within this report is submitted to the Architect and appropriate Engineers for the project. This firm should have the opportunity to review the final plans to verify that all our recommendations are incorporated. This report and all conclusions are subject to the review of the controlling authorities for the project. A preconstruction conference should be held between the developer, general contractor, grading contractor, city inspector, architect, and soil engineer to clarify any questions relating to the grading operations and subsequent construction. Our representative should be present during the grading operations and construction phase to certify that such recommendations are complied within the field. This geotechnical investigation has been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the Southern California area. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERING Keith D. Tucker w Project Engineer R.G.E. 841 QROFESSi0 G� No. 841 Scott D. Spensiero Exp. 12/31/00 f° Project Manager GALIFn\� NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 15 Excavation Project Number 8702-00 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL Any existing low density soils and/or saturated soils shall be removed to competent natural soil under the inspection of the Soils Engineering Firm. After the exposed surface has been cleansed of debris and/or vegetation, it shall be scarified until it is uniform in consistency, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM: D-1557-91). In any area where a transition between fill and native soil or between bedrock and soil are encountered, additional excavation beneath foundations and slabs will be necessary in order to provide uniform support and avoid differential settlement of the structure. Material For Fill The on-site soils or approved import soils may be utilized for the compacted fill provided they are free of any deleterious materials and shall not contain any rocks, brick, asphaltic concrete, concrete or other hard materials greater than eight inches in maximum dimensions. Any import soil must be approved by the Soils Engineering firm a minimum of 24 hours prior to importation of site. Placement of Compacted Fill Soils The approved fill soils shall be placed in layers not excess of six inches in thickness. Each lift shall be uniform in thickness and thoroughly blended. The fill soils shall be brought to within 15% of the optimum moisture content, unless otherwise specified by the Soils Engineering firm. Each lift shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM: D-1557-91) and approved prior to the placement of the next layer of soil. Compaction tests shall be obtained at the discretion of the Soils Engineering firm but to a minimum of one test for every 500 cubic yards placed and/or for every 2 feet of compacted fill placed. NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Page 16 Project Number 8702-00 The minimum relative compaction shall be obtained in accordance with accepted methods in the construction industry. The final grade of the structural areas shall be in a dense and smooth condition prior to placement of slabs -on -grade or pavement areas. No fill soils shall be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When the grading is interrupted by heavy rains, compaction operations shall not be resumed until approved by the Soils Engineering firm. Grading Observations The controlling governmental agencies should be notified prior to commencement of any grading operations. This firm recommends that the grading operations be conducted under the observation of a Soils Engineering firm as deemed necessary. A 24 hour notice must be provided to this firm prior to the time of our initial inspection. Observation shall include the clearing and grubbing operations to assure that all unsuitable materials have been properly removed; approve the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished grade and designate areas of overexcavation; and perform field compaction tests to determine relative compaction achieved during fill placement. In addition, all foundation excavations shall be observed by the Soils Engineering firm to confirm that appropriate bearing materials are present at the design grades and recommend any modifications to construct footings. NorCal Engineering lI } s -2o--- :_ =- �-- __j ---- _ ! i t ► + B-5 B-2 --� B-18 B-6 16+ r y0 N a-1 h[T!1 .� B-4 S I B-15 B-17 r 8 3 I I `W I Q I11 ! t 4 'N i B-7 lqI m - B-8 I W B 13 - Iw ` cKjo Alm t !t �` t ` B-11 I Vj I B-12� r i B-9 I f I B-10 HIGHWAY 79 SQUTH ® NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS CAHAN PROPERTIES PROJECT 8702-00 _ 1 DATE APRIL 2000 SITE PLAN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIELD EXPLORATIONS April 28, 2000 Page 18 Project Number 8702-00 List of Appendices (in order of appearance) Appendix A - Log of Excavations • Log of Borings B-1 to B-20 Appendix B - Laboratory Tests Table I - Maximum Dry Density • Table II — Expansion • Table III — Atterberg • Table IV - Corrosion • Plate A - Direct Shear • Plate B — Consolidation NorCal Engineering April 28, 2000 Appendix A NorCal Engineering Project Number 8702-00 MAJOR DIVISION GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL. 0 GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINE GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS ti...y AND (LITTLE OR NO GRAVELLY FINES) SOILS POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GP GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE COARSE ` OR NO FINES GRAINED GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF GRAVELS SILT MIXTURES WITH FINES COARSE FRACTION (APPRECIABLE RETAINED ON AMOUNT OF GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - NO. 4 SIEVE FINES) CLAY MIXTURES •r~r�f WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY .rtif~f SW SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SAND CLEAN SAND AND (LITTLE OR NO SANDY FINES) POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVEL - MORE THAN SOILS SP LY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. MORE THAN SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT 200 SIEVE 50% OF SANDS WITH MIXTURES SIZE COARSE FINE FRACTION (APPRECIABLE PASSING ON AMOUNT OF r . ' SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY NO. 4 SIEVE FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK JLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYER SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINED AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY SOILS CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS -_- - ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR MORE THAN SILTY SOILS 50% OF MATERIAL SILTS LIQUID LIMIT CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH IS SMALLER AND GREATER THAN PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS THAN NO. CLAYS 50 200 SIEVE ffi,�f/i �i ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO SIZE f{ f/ OH HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTEDUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM NorCal Engineering KEY: ■ In Indicates 2.5 -inch Inside Diameter. Ring Sample. Indicates 2 -inch OD Split Spoon Sample (SPT). Indicates Shelby Tube Sample. Indicates No Recovery. Indicates SPT with 140# Hammer 30 in. Drop. Indicates Bulk Sample. Indicates Small Bag Sample. Indicates Non -Standard Indicates Core Run. COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in - Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm ) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm ) Sand No. 4 ( 4.5mm ) to No. 200 ( 0.074mm ) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 ( 0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 ( 0.42 mm ) to No. 200 ( 0.074 mm ) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 ( 0.074 mm ) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS DESCRIPTIVE TERMS RANGE OF PROPORTION Trace 1-5% Few 5-10% Little 10-20% Some 20-35% And 35-50% MOISTURE CONTENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, Density dry to the touch. DAMP Some perceptible Approximate moisture; below optimum MOIST No visible water; near optimum moisture content WET Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N -VALUE COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Density N ( blows/ft) Consistency N (blows/ft) Approximate Undrained Shear Strength (pso Very Loose 0 to 4 Very Soft 0 to 2 < 250 Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 250-500 Medium Dense 10 to 30 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500- 1000 Dense 30 to 50 Stiff 8 to 15 1000-2000 Very Dense over 50 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000-4000 Hard over 30 > 4000 NorCal Engineering Log of Boring B-1 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: 38' Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples Laborato m F" _o °7 L) �� Ha c a. co (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith - 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured NATURAL SOILS = Silty fine grained SAND C7� - j Brown, medium dense, damp to moist LJ - Upper foot disturbed and loose - —5 9/11/12 11.5 33 4/2/3 16.0 58 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist 10 2/2/2 14.9 55 —15 —20 - 4/6/6 24.2 80 Clayey SILT Grey brown, firm, moist ON - Silty fine grained SAND - Grey brown, medium dense, moist —25 3/5/4 12.5 46 Clayey SILT Dark grey, firm, very moist to wet —30 3/2/5 26.5 65 —35 — NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702.00 f Log of Boring B-1 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: 38' Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sampies Laborato (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- Ology ~ O J m Nv a ° �C O Ce i —35 Surface Elevation: Not Measured o Clayey SILT 2/3/5 33.6 83 Dark grey, firm, very moist to wet Silty fine to coarse grained SAND Light brown, medium dense, wet —40 3/5/9 25.4 42 45 7/7/14 22.9 14 50 8/10/11 23.1 15 Boring completed at depth of 50' 55 —60 —65 —70 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 2 Log of Boring B-2 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 1 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples I Laborato m 3 c nq yam' W (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- Ology T ~ O J m W. O 2 C V o 0 Co 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured L) 0 NATURAL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist 5/6 8.2 105.3 - j Upper foot disturbed and loose -- -5 7/8 11.2 108.1 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist —10 , 4/7 10.9 104.7 Clayey SILT —15 Grey brown, firm, moist , 5/5 15.9 102.6 , 3/6 17.8 103.1 —20 Boring completed at depth of 20' 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 3 Log of Boring B-3 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sampies Laboratory „ �� H (feet) Geotechnical DescriptionN Lith- ogy a° o z 0 ne .° O a 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured m NATURAL SOILS = Silty fine grained SAND - j Brown, medium dense, damp to moist _ ' 5/6 7.5 104.1 - Upper foot disturbed and loose - —5 7/7 11.2 105.3 Sandy SILT —10 Brown, firm, moist ' 5/5 14.0 100.7 —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702.00 4 Log of Boring B-4 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laborato N a! y (feet) Geotechnical Description„ ology r ~ o m_�c °v ° d a ca Surface Elevation: Not Measured 0 y LL NATURAL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND - 4/8 7.8 105.9 - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist _ Upper foot disturbed and loose 5 ' 5/7 10.1 106.1 10 ' 4/4 12.9 103.0 Sandy SILT - Brown, firm, moist —15 , 5/8 16.3 100.1 Clayey SILT Grey brown, firm, moist —20 Boring completed at depth of 20' 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 5 Log of Boring B-5 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 418100 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples Laborato N N H (feet) Geotechnical Description ology 0. T F O J 3-3v W e "p" C U 0 o. Co 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured Q NATURAL SOILS - - Silty fine grained SAND 6/6 8.9 107.0 Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose I - 5 ' 7/9 11.3 106.1 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist —10 ' 4/4 13.5 102.1 15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 25 30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702.00 6 Log of Boring B-6 Project: Cahan PropertiestTemecula Date of Drilling: 418100 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples Laborato N (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology T �- O m EA r C V Co Surface Elevation: Not Measured v 0 _0 NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND _ - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist = - Upper foot disturbed and loose —5 Sandy SILT —10 Brown, firm, most —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 Log of Boring B-7 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 Ibs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laborato „ 3 c _ (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology r ~ o m 'o co Surface Elevation: Not Measured —0 v NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND - I Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose —5 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist —10 —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 8 Log of Boring B-8 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sampies Laborato N g_ (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology a ~ o °` ° p a "" co Surface Elevation: Not Measured 0 00 ci p NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND 5/6 9.9 105.1 Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose 5 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist , 4/3 15.2 100.1 —10 15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 9 Log of Boring B-9 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laboratory « N (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith -W logy 0. a OJ Ne ° _. C O no- o ` Co 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured - m v NATURAL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose —5 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist —10 15 Boring completed at depth of 15' 20 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702.00 10 Log of Boring B-10 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples Laborato N 3.1 (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- logy T O 7 N e °.., C O d Co 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured j FILL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND - Light brown to grey brown, dense, damp to moist 10/12 11.9 116.3 - Upper foot disturbed and loose - ' 8/15 12.5 114.7 _5 NATURAL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND Brown, medium dense to dense, moist 10 _ ' 6/7 14.1 106.1 Sandy SILT - Brown, firm, moist ' 4/7 14.0 104.1 —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 802.00 11 Log of Boring B-11 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laborato N (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- olOgy T F- O J V e ° C OCe opo 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured m t j LL FILL SOILS - - Silty fine grained SAND - Light brown to grey brown, dense, damp to moist - 10/16 10.6 112.9 - Upper foot disturbed and loose _ —5 ' 12/12 11.1 115.1 - NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND —10 Brown, medium dense to dense, moist , 3/7 13.7 100.1 Sandy SILT - Brown, firm, moist 15 — Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 802.00 12 Log of Boring B-12 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laborato (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology a >, o m 0 my c cv 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured FILL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND Light brown to grey brown, dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose - —5 17/32 9.7 117.7 NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND - Brown, medium dense to dense, moist 10 ' 7/13 10.9 109.1 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist 15 Boring completed at depth of 15' 20 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 13 Log of Boring B-13 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laboratory „ 3 c E (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology T ~ O m Ylo ° L C ° o. Ca 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured U p LL"" FILL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND 4.7 - Light brown to grey brown, dense, damp to moist - �- - Upper foot disturbed and loose —5 15/17 9.9 118.1 NATURAL SOILS —10 Silty fine grained SAND 616 12.8 107.4 - Brown, medium dense to dense, moist —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' 20 25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 14 Log of Boring B-14 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laborato 3.1 (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- olo gy T _O J N_e 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured ~ m tj o 0- LL NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose 5 Sandy SILT —10 Brown, firm, moist 15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 802.00 15 Log of Boring B-15 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laborato (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology CL r �- 3 o m o o— y— Surface Elevation: Not Measured 0 L) NATURAL SOILS = Silty fine grained SAND 5.1 - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - - Upper foot disturbed and loose " - ' 7/10 9.9 106.1 —5 ' 6/9 8.1 107.0 —10 ' 6/6 12.1 105.3 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist Clayey SILT —15 Grey brown, firm, moist ' 6/7 13.9 105.7 20 Boring completed at depth of 20' —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702.00 16 Log of Boring B-16 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 418100 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples Laborato �_ (feet) Geotechnical Description lhogY cN o z m 0 C3 p C Surface Elevation: Not Measured —0 NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND Brown, medium dense, damp to moist 5/8 9.6 104.9 - Upper foot disturbed and loose = —5 9/9 11.3 107.1 Sandy SILT —10 Brown, firm, moist 4/7 12.1 102..6 15 Clayey SILT Ji Grey brown, firm, moist 6/6 14.7 104.9 —20 Boring completed at depth of 20' 25 —30 —35 • NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702"00 17 Log of Boring B-17 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Samples Laboratory (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- olo9Y �' o m ° 'ti; 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured U NATURAL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND - - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - Upper foot disturbed and loose _ —5 4/6 7.6 105.9 Sandy SILT - Brown, firm, moist —10 15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering P8702`O0 18 Log of Boring B-18 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sampies I Laborato 3 c "'~ (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology F- o D Nc o a 0 Surface Elevation: Not Measured m tj°._, NATURAL SOILS - Silty fine grained SAND ' - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - - Upper foot disturbed and loose = —5 —10 Sandy SILT - Brown, firm, moist —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' 20 25 —30 —35 7• 1• NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702-00 19 Log of Boring B-19 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laboratory (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology T F- O zNe O C O w a Ca ii Surface Elevation: Not Measured —0 m (j NATURAL SOILS - I Silty fine grained SAND - Brown, medium dense, damp to moist 10/11 11.3 105.1 - Upper foot disturbed and loose - —5 ' 7/12 10.6 105.1 —10 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist —15 , 7/8 10.1 102.9 Boring completed at depth of 15' 20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 8702.00 20 Log of Boring B-20 Project: Cahan Properties/Temecula Date of Drilling: 4/8/00 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Simco 2800HS Hammer Weight: 140 lbs. Drop: 30" Depth Sam les Laboratory d (feet) Geotechnical Description _ 9Y oloh � ~ o o m 0 0 � °v r.c v o - ce Surface Elevation: Not Measured —0 1 NATURAL SOILS Silty fine grained SAND - 1 Brown, medium dense, damp to moist - - ! Upper foot disturbed and loose - —5 —10 Sandy SILT Brown, firm, moist —15 Boring completed at depth of 15' —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 802.00 21 April 28, 2000 Appendix B NorCal Engineering C Project Number 8702-00 April 28, 2000 TABLE MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D-1557-91) Optimum Sample Classification Moisture - 131 @ 2-3' SAND, fine grained, silty 11.0 811 @ 1-4' SAND fine grained, silty 10.5 B13 @ 3-4' SAND, fine to medium grained, silty 9.0 TABLE II EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (U.B.C. STD. 29-2) C Project Number 8702-00 Maximum Dry Densitv fibs./cu.ft.) 120.0 122.5 128.0 ND denotes not detected % by weight ppm — mg/kg NorCal Engineering Expansion Soil Type Classification Index 61 @ 2' SAND, fine grained, silty 12 B11 @ 1-4' SAND fine grained, silty 06 613@ 2' SAND, fine to medium grained, silty 04 TABLE III ATTERBERG LIMITS Sample Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index B1 @ 3-5' 24 18 6 B1 @ 8-11 29 20 9 TABLE IV CORROSION TESTS Sample pH Electrical Resistivity (ohm -cm) Sulfate (%) Chloride (ppm) 81 @ 2' 8.3 1,840 0.0074 30 B13 @ 2' 7.7 1,300 0.0125 49 ND denotes not detected % by weight ppm — mg/kg NorCal Engineering ENT r 2 2.5 26 100 zsOO- 8.2 � ❑ 11 2.0 35 100 112.9 10.6 2000 v 1500 000 1000- 500- 50000 0- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) BNUMBER DRY DRY MOISTURE SYMBOL (f'EE� DE6REE5 (PCF) DENSITY CONT ( (R) 0 2 2.5 33 125 110.1 11.7 (R) 3 3.0 31 175 109.4 10.8 NOTE: TESTS PERFORMED ON SATURATED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOWN BELOW. (FM) FIELD MOISTURE TESTS PERFORMED ON UNDISTURBED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOWN BELOW. (R) SAMPLES REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NorCnl )Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS DIRECT SHEAR TEST Plate A RESULTS PROJECT 8702-00 DATE ENT t 2 2.5 26 100 105.3 8.2 � ❑ 11 2.0 35 100 112.9 10.6 z5m 2000 H 1500 6 N WN K H N 3i 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORIML STRESS (PSF) (R) (R) SYMBOL BORING NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) DEMES (PSF) DRT Fn MOISTURE C (OMTEM'T x 13 3 37 200 117.1 1 9.1 O 19 3.5 34 150 112.1 10.6 0 O NOTE: TESTS PERFORMED ON SATURATED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOWN BELOW. (FM) FIELD MOISTURE TESTS PERFORMED ON UNDISTURBED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOWN BELOW. (R) SAMPLES REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS DATE DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Plate B N 10 MOTE: MATER ADDED AT MODAL PRESSURE AT 1.0 KSF i I i I i I i 0.1 0.5 1.0 5 10 20 40 NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF) COMPRESSION (FM) FIELD MOISTURE - NO MATER ADDED -- — REBOURO (R) SAMPLE REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMM DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS DA CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Plate C DRY MOISTURE LIQUID PLASTICITY SYMBOL SER (') DENSITY CONTENT LIMIT INDEX (PCF) (S) (f) (i) X 2 5 108.1 8.7 O 2 10 104.7 10.9 A 2 15 102.6 15.9 D 2 20 103.1 17.8 COMPRESSION (FM) FIELD MOISTURE - NO MATER ADDED -- — REBOURO (R) SAMPLE REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMM DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS DA CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Plate C a M 9 10 MOTE: WATER ADDED AT NORMAL PRESSURE AT 1.0 ILSF i i I I I i I I I I I I I I � 0.1 0.5 1.0 5 10 20 40 MORMAL PRESSURE (XSF) COMPRESSION (FN) FIELD MOISTURE - NO WATER ADDED REDOUND (R) SAMPLE REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT 8702-00 1 DATE CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Plate D BMW DEPTH DRY MOISTURE LIQUID PLASTICITY SYMBOL IRMBER (FEET) DENSITY CONTENT LIMIT INDEX (PCF) (X) (X) (X) X 10 5 114.7 12.5 012 10 109.1 10.9 A 15 7.5 106.1 9.9 C3 19 7.5 105.1 11.3 COMPRESSION (FN) FIELD MOISTURE - NO WATER ADDED REDOUND (R) SAMPLE REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT 8702-00 1 DATE CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Plate D