Appendix D Geotechnical Study

(1)

Newport Pointe Commercial Center Project

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Appendix

D

(2)

PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT UPDATE

PROPOSED NEWPORT POINTE RETAIL CENTER

APN: 360-020-051, NEWPORT ROAD

MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for

DW SJ&P, LLC

4740 Green River Road, Suite 304 Corona, California

Prepared by

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. 9980 Indiana Avenue

Suite 14

Riverside, California 92503

Project No. 18226-01

(3)

9980 Indiana Avenue ● Suite 14 ● Riverside ● California ● 92503 ● Phone (951) 688-5400 ● Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, contact: e-mail: [email protected]

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

So i l Eng in e e rin g, En vi ron m en ta l En gi ne e rin g, M at e ria l s T e st ing , G eo lo g y

December 6, 2020

Project No.: 18226-01

TO: DW SJ&P, LLC

4740 Green River Road, Suite 304 Corona, California

SUBJECT: Preliminary Soil Investigation Report Update, Proposed Newport Pointe Retail Center, APN: 360-020-051, Newport Road, Menifee, California

In accordance with your authorization, GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. (GeoMat) is pleased to present our preliminary soil investigation report update for the proposed retail development at APN: 360-020-051, in the City of Menifee, California.

The purpose of the review is to update the original soil report for the modified number of buildings and locations. The previous project plans included nine buildings. The new project plan includes six buildings.

The accompanying report presents a repeat of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations included in the original soil report with the addition of three subsurface exploratory boreholes, associated laboratory testing, and revision of the seismic design parameters.

The primary purpose of this investigation and report is to provide an evaluation of the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the design and construction of the proposed site development. More specifically, this investigation was to address geotechnical conditions for the preliminary design of the foundations for the proposed structures. An environmental study is not part of this scope of work.

If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service.

Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 Art Martinez

Project Engineer, Exp. 12/31/2020 Staff Engineer

(4)

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope of Work

• Review of our original soil report for the site. • Exploration of the site at three additional locations. • Logging of test hole and sampling of select soils. • Laboratory testing of select soil samples. • Prepare 2019 CBC seismic design parameters. • Preparation of this soil investigation report.

1.2 Existing Site Conditions

The subject site is located on the southwest corner of Newport Road and Evens Road, in the City of Menifee, California. Access onsite is from Newport Road which is a fully developed paved road but without any concrete curb or gutter improvements adjacent to the subject site. Evens Road is a fully developed road with existing concrete curb and gutter improvements but without any driveway approach to the site. The geographical relationship of the site and surrounding vicinity is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1.

The site is rectangular in shape measuring approximately 1260 feet long and 340 feet wide with a recorded lot size of 11.14 acres. The site is generally flat with no abrupt major grade changes. The lot is covered mostly in light seasonal grasses and a couple mature trees. The upper approximately 18-inches of soil is loose dry soil from recent tilling.

1.3 Proposed Development

According to the Proposed Site Plan (Sheet SP-23, plan dated 2020) by McKently Malak Architects, the site is proposed for six commercial buildings with associated parking spaces, drive aisles, concrete hardscape, and landscaping.

(7)

2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Field Work

Three additional exploratory boreholes were drilled up to 15 feet below ground surface on November 26, 2020 utilizing a CME 55 mobile drill rig equipped with 6-inch diameter hollow stem augers. Previously, 21 boreholes were drilled for the site. Refer to Plate 1 for borehole locations.

Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained with the California Ring Sampler (ASTM D 1587). This sampler has three inches external diameter, 2.5-inches inside diameter, and is lined with 1-inch high brass rings, with an inside diameter of 2.41-inches. The sample barrel is driven into the ground at the bottom of the boring with 140-pound hammer with a free fall of approximately 30-inches. Sampler driving resistance, expressed as blows per six inches of penetration, is presented on the boring logs at the respective sampling depths. Ring samples were retained in close-fitting, moisture tight canisters for transport to our laboratory for testing.

Additional representative samples have been recovered with the SPT (Standard Penetration Test, ASTM D 1586) sampler. This sampler consists of steel driving shoe and tube that split longitudinally in half, and a coupling at the top. The coupling connects the sampler to the drill rod. The standard split tube has an inside diameter of 1 3/8-inch (1 1/2-inch inside diameter without liners) and an outside diameter of 2-inches. Unless noted otherwise, liners are usually not used. The standard driving weight and free fall for this test is similar to California Ring Sampler. Blow counts required to drive the samplers 18-inches are recorded on the boring logs. The sum of the number of blows for the last 12-inches on an 18-inch penetration represents the SPT count. This data is shown on the boring logs when obtained in the field.

Bulk samples were also collected from the auger cuttings during drilling. The samples were collected in plastic bags, tied, and tagged for the location and depth. The geotechnical boring logs are presented in Appendix B and may include a description and classification of each stratum, sample locations, blow counts, groundwater conditions encountered during drilling, results from selected types of laboratory tests, and drilling information.

2.2 Subsurface Findings

The subsurface materials encountered at the exploratory boring locations are briefly described below. Detailed descriptions are provided in the boring logs, which are presented in Appendix B.

Based on our exploratory borings, the site generally consists of medium dense to very dense silty sand (USCS “SM”) and clayey sand (USCS “SC”), and firm sandy lean clay (USCS “CL”). The subgrade soil can generally be described as dry to moist in the upper 7 feet and becomes very moist to wet thereafter.

Relatively shallow bedrock (between 3 and 7 feet below ground surface) was encountered on the western side of the site. Perched water was also encountered in the middle to western areas of the site at depths between 3 and 13 feet below ground surface.

2.2.1 Soil Type

Per Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) the site soil may be classified as Type B.

2.3 Groundwater

(8)

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 3 Highest historical groundwater records for the site were researched utilizing the USGS National Water Information System, USGS Groundwater Watch, and the State of California, Department of Water Resources.

The closest well to the site is located approximately 1/2-mile northeast of the site (State Well No. 05S03W33K001S). Highest historical groundwater at this well was recorded on October 18, 2012 at 30 feet below ground surface. During this time, the water elevation was at 1386.9 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The lowest elevation onsite is approximately 1426 amsl (Google Earth).

Please note that the potential for rain or irrigation water locally seeping through from elevated areas and showing up near grades cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. Fluctuations in perched water elevations are likely to occur in the future due to variations in precipitation, temperature, consumptive uses, and other factors including mounding of perched water over bedrock or natural soil. Mitigation for nuisance shallow seeps moving from elevated lower areas will be needed if encountered. These mitigations may include subdrains, horizontal drains, toe drains, french drains, heel drains or other devices.

2.4 Laboratory Testing

Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples. The tests consisted primarily of moisture content, dry density, sieve analysis, direct shear, expansion, and soluble sulfate content. The soil classifications are in conformance with the Unified Soil Classifications System (USCS), as outlined in the Classification and Symbols Chart (Appendix B). A summary of our laboratory testing, ASTM designation, and graphical presentation of test results is presented in Appendix C.

2.4.1 Moisture Content and Dry Density

The field moisture contents, as a percentage of the dry weight of the soils, were determined by weighing samples before and after oven drying. The dry density, in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), was also determined for all relatively undisturbed ring samples collected. These analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM Methods D2216 and D2937. The results of these determinations are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B.

2.4.2 Grain Size Distribution

Sieve analysis tests were performed on representative soil samples to quantitatively determine the grain size distribution of the site soils and to assist in their classification. Test procedures were in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422.

2.4.3 Direct Shear

Direct shear tests were performed on a remolded soil sample accordance with ASTM Method D3080. The sample was soaked prior to testing. A different normal stress was applied vertically to each soil sample ring, which was then sheared in a horizontal direction. A new ring was used for each load. Each shear test was performed on a single ring with no multiple re-shearing.

2.4.4 Hydrocollapse

(9)

2.4.5 Expansive Soil Characteristics

Based on the laboratory testing, the onsite soils are expected to have very low to medium expansion potential (EI<90), as defined in Table 18-I-B of the 2001 CBC. Test procedures were in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829.

2.4.6 Soluble Sulfate Content

(10)

3.0 GEOLOGIC FINDINGS

3.1 Regional Geologic Findings

The subject site is within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province south of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges are dominated by northwest-trending, strike-slip faults. The Transverse Ranges are dominated by east-west trending, reverse and thrust faults.

According to the USGS Geologic Map of the Romoloand 7.5’ Quadrangle, the regional area is underlain by young alluvial valley deposits (Qyvsa), older alluvial fan deposits (Qofa), and granitic bedrock (Kdvg), see Figure 2.

There are no mapped active or potentially active faults with surface expression that trend through or are adjacent to the subject property, according to those references cited herein. The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 2000). According to the California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California 2010, the site is located approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the Elsinore Fault, see Figure 3.

The subject site, as is the case with most of the tectonically active California area, will be periodically subject to moderate to intense earthquake-induced ground shaking from nearby faults. Significant damage can occur to the site and structural improvements during a strong seismic event. Neither the location nor magnitude of earthquakes can accurately be predicted at this time.

3.2 Site Geologic Findings

The site is relatively flat with no immediate major grade changes. According to the Geologic Map of the Romoland Quadrangle, the site is underlain by older alluvial-fan deposits of the late to middle Pleistocene age.

3.3 Secondary Geologic Hazards

3.3.1 Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, cohesionless soils are subject to ground shaking during an earthquake of large magnitude when the water table is less than 30 feet below ground surface. According to the City of Menifee General Plan, the site is not located in an area considered susceptible to liquefaction.

3.3.1.1 Seismic Induced Settlement and Lateral Displacement

The site is not located in an area susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction associated ground deformation (seismic settlement and differential compaction) beneath the site is considered to be very low.

3.3.2 Landslides and Stability

The site and the surrounding properties are flat and not prone to slope instability hazards, such as landslides.

3.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches

(11)

3.3.4 Subsidence

Subsidence occurs when a large portion of land is displaced vertically, usually due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. No large-scale extraction of groundwater, gas, oil, or geothermal energy is occurring or planned at the site or in the general site vicinity. There appears to be little or no potential for ground subsidence due to withdrawal of fluids or gases at the site.

3.3.5 Collapsible Soil

Soil hydroconsolidation (hydro-collapse) is a phenomenon that results in relatively rapid settlement of soil deposits due to addition of water. This generally occurs in soils having a loose particle structure cemented together with soluble minerals or with small quantities of clay. Water infiltration into such soils can break down the interparticle cementation, resulting in collapse of the soil structure. Collapsible soils are found primarily in Holocene alluvial fan deposits.

Selected soil samples representing the upper five feet of soil was tested in the laboratory for collapse potential. Test results indicate that relatively no hydro-collapse occurred in the tested samples. Therefore, the potential for hydro-collapse to occur onsite is low (<1%), negligible trouble value based on NAVFAC, see Appendix C for Results.

3.4 Site Class

Based on current standards, the proposed development is expected to be designed in accordance with the requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height.

Based on the soils encountered in the exploratory borehole within the subject site and with consideration of the geologic units mapped in the area, it is our opinion that the site soil profile corresponds to Site Class D in accordance with Section 1613.2.2 of the California Building Code (CBC 2019) and Chapter 20 of ASCE/SEI 7-16.

We have downloaded the seismic design parameters in accordance with the provisions of the current California Building Code (CBC, 2019) and ASCE/SEI 7-16 Standard using the Structural Engineers Association of California, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Web Application (https://seismicmaps.org). The mapped seismic parameters are attached to this report in Appendix D.

The 2019 CBC is based on the guidelines contained within ASCE 7-16 which stipulates that where S1 is greater than 0.2 times gravity (g) for Site Class D, a ground motion hazard analysis is needed unless the seismic response coefficient (Cs) value will be calculated as outlined in Section 11.4.8, Exception 2. Assuming the Cs value will be calculated as outlined in Section 11.4.8, Exception 2, we recommend the following seismic

design parameters.

Parameter ASCE 7-16 2019 CBC Coefficient Value

0.2-second Period MCE Figure 22-1 Figure 1613.2.1(1) SS 1.398

1.0-second Period MCER Figure 22-2 Figure 1613.2.1(2) S1 0.517

Soil Site Class Figure 20.3-1 Section 1613.2.2 Site Class D

Site Coefficient Figure 11.4-1 Section 1613.2.3(1) Fa 1.200

Site Coefficient Figure 11.4-2 Section 1613.2.3(2) Fv 1.783 *

Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Parameters Equation 11.4-1 Equation 16-36 SMS 1.677 Equation 11.4-2 Equation 16-37 SM1 0.922 * Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation 11.4-3 Equation 16-38 SDS 1.118 Equation 11.4-4 Equation 16-39 SD1 0.615 *

(12)

4.0 SOIL INFILTRATION

4.1 Boring Percolation Testing Method

Infiltration tests were conducted at depths ranging between 36 and 60-inches below existing ground surface. The infiltration testing was performed in general accordance with the guidelines published in the Riverside County Environmental Health Department procedures.

A drill rig equipped with 8-inch hollow stem augers was used to drill the test holes. A 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing wrapped with filter fabric was placed in the borehole. Gravel was also placed in the bottom of the boreholes.

The boreholes were presoaked prior to the percolation testing. Presoaking was conducted using five-gallon water bottles. Infiltration testing was conducted the next day.

Testing for these boreholes was conducted from a fixed reference point with readings taken every 30 minutes. Measurements were taken by filling up the test hole with water and allowing the water to percolate. The drop of water level was recorded. A wristwatch was used to record the time measurements.

4.2 Infiltration Test Results

The infiltration test results are as follows:

Test No. Test Depth Below Ground Surface

Percolation Raw Rate (in/hr)

Adjusted Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

P-1 60” 0.00 0.00

P-2 36” 0.50 0.05

P-3 36” 0.50 0.05

P-4 36” 0.75 0.07

The percolation rate is the rate in horizontal and vertical direction. This rate is adjusted using Perchet Method for horizontal water infiltration. Refer to Appendix E for test results. A safety factor should be applied to this rate by the design engineer. Safety factor discussion is in the following paragraph.

4.3 Factors of Safety

Long-term infiltration rates may be reduced significantly by factors such as soil variability and inaccuracy in the infiltration rate measurement. The correction factor for site variability is between 3 and 10. Safety factors for operating the system, maintenance, siltation, biofouling, etc. should also be considered by the design civil engineer at his discretion. Minimum safety factor required by the County of Riverside for tests conducted when deep exploratory borehole has been drilled at the site is 3.

4.4 Considerations for Infiltration Facilities

• In our opinion, no significant water infiltration is expected to occur at the tested depth and locations onsite.

• Filter fabric should be used whenever aggregates are placed against native soils.

(13)

• Please note that soils in infiltration areas should not be subject to compaction during construction. • The proposed system by the civil engineer should be constructed and maintained in accordance with

manufacturer guidelines.

An important consideration for infiltration facilities is that, during construction, great care must be taken not to reduce the infiltrative capacity of the soil in the facility through compaction by heavy equipment or by using the infiltration area as a sediment trap.

Infiltration facilities should be constructed late in the site development after soils (that might erode and clog the units) have been stabilized or should be protected (by flagging) until site work is completed.

Infiltration facilities should be sited with the following guidelines:

INFILTRATION FACILITY SETBACKS

Setback From Distance

Property Lines and Public Right of Way 5 feet

Foundations 15 feet or within a 1:1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation

Slopes H/2, 5 feet minimum (H: is slope height)

Private drinking water wells 100 feet

Ferrous metal pipes should be protected from potential corrosion by bituminous coating, etc. We recommend that all utility pipes be nonmetallic and/or corrosion resistant. Recommendations should be verified by soluble sulfate and corrosion testing of soil samples obtained from specific locations during construction.

If applicable, four to six inches diameter observation well(s), with locking cap, extending vertically into the system’s bottom is suggested as an observation point. Observation well(s) should be checked regularly and after large storm event. Once performance stabilizes, frequency of monitoring may be reduced.

(14)

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

• Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. • The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of Southern California. During its

design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. Therefore, typical structural design mitigations should be considered by the structural engineer.

• Based on laboratory testing, the expansion potential of the near-surface soils at the site is expected to range from very low to medium (EI<90). This would require verification subsequent to completion of new footing excavations.

• The use of a shallow concrete foundation is considered feasible for the proposed development.

• Perched water was encountered between 3 and 13 feet below ground surface. Very moist to wet soil, associated with the perched water, was generally encountered around 7 feet below ground surface, refer to the geotechnical borehole logs in Appendix B for location and depth to perched water and saturated soil conditions. The contractor should anticipate that pumping subgrade conditions may be encountered during site grading activities, and the subgrade may need to be stabilized.

• The Potential for rain or irrigation water moving through from adjacent and elevated areas cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site excavation, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. Since groundwater may fluctuate throughout the year, we recommend the contractor verify groundwater conditions and evaluate dewatering requirements prior and during to construction.

(15)

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Site Preparation

All grading should be performed in accordance with our General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix F except as modified within the text of this report.

All debris, undocumented fill, abandoned utility lines, roots, irrigation appurtenances, underground structures, deleterious materials, etc., should be removed and hauled offsite. Cavities created during site clearance should be backfilled in a controlled manner.

6.2 Subgrade Preparation

Overexcavation and recompaction is recommended to replace the existing loose soils and to reduce the potential for excessive settlement of the onsite soils. Care should be taken during overexcavation operations to maintain sidewall stability and personal safety.

The recommended overexcavations described below may be extended deeper if loose soil is encountered in the bottom of the overexcavation. Once the bottom of the excavation is observed by a representative of this firm to be in competent native soil, the bottom of the overexcavation should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method; prior to placement of fill. Deeper overexcavation, especially to remove loose soils or deleterious material, may be required depending upon field observations of excavation bottom by the soil engineer or his representative.

The lateral extent of the overexcavations should be the greater of 5 feet beyond building lines or equal to the depth of fill, where possible.

6.2.1 Building Pads

Building pad areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevations or existing grade, whichever is greater.

6.2.2 Canopy Foundations

The proposed canopy foundation areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad subgrade elevation or existing grade, whichever is greater.

6.2.3 Pavement Subgrade

Subsequent to site clearance, the proposed pavement areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below proposed subgrade elevation or existing grade, whichever is greater.

6.2.4 Miscellaneous Areas to Receive Fill

(16)

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 11 6.2.5 Shallow Perched Water Conditions

Due to the relatively shallow perched water conditions encountered at the site, unsuitable soft wet soils may be encountered below the ground surface in some areas. If a suitable bottom is not obtainable within a reasonable depth of the site overexcavations, supplemental recommendations will be provided during construction to stabilize areas of soft soils.

Scarification and air drying of these materials may be sufficient to obtain a stable subgrade. However, if highly unstable soils are identified, and if the construction schedule does not allow for delays associated with drying, mechanical stabilization, usually consisting of coarse crushed stone or geotextile, could be necessary. In this event, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. Typically, an unstable subgrade can be stabilized using a suitable geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 580I, HP 570 or HP 270, and/or a 18 to 24-inch thick layer of coarse (2 to 4 inch particle size) crushed stone. Other options, including lime treatment, are also available.

6.2.6 Compacted Fills/Imported Soils

Any soil to be placed as fill, whether presently onsite or import, should be approved by the soil engineer or his representative prior to their placement. All onsite soils to be used as fill should be cleansed of any roots, or other deleterious materials. Rocks larger than 8-inches in diameter should be removed from soil to be used as compacted fill.

All fills should be placed in 6- to 8-inch loose lifts, thoroughly watered, or aerated to near optimum moisture content, mixed and compacted to at least 90 or 95 percent relative compaction depending on the material (subgrade soil or aggregate base) and application (pavement subgrade, building pad, etc.). This is relative to the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method.

Any imported soils should be sandy (preferably USCS "SM" or "SW", and very low in expansion potential) and approved by the soil engineer. The soil engineer or his representative should observe the placement of all fill and take sufficient tests to verify the moisture content and the uniformity and degree of compaction obtained.

6.2.7 Shrinkage and Subsidence

Based on laboratory test results, we estimate that shrinkage of soils onsite should be approximately 6 (±3) percent. Shrinkage is defined as the decrease in volume of soil upon removal and re-compaction expressed as a percentage of the in-place volume. The following table summarizes the calculated shrinkage values used in determining the total estimated amount.

This shrinkage is exclusive of any losses due to removal of roots, oversized rocks, or any underground structures and is based on an average 92 percent relative compaction. An increase in relative compaction obtained would increase the shrinkage factor.

Furthermore, a subsidence of approximately 0.10 (± 0.05) feet may also be considered during site preparation. The above shrinkage and subsidence estimates should be used with caution since they are not absolute values. We recommend that an earthwork balance area should be designated to allow for variations in the indicated shrinkage and subsidence estimates.

6.2.8 Trench Backfill

(17)

6.3 Temporary Excavations

All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who should also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations.

6.3.1 Excavation Characteristics

The upper alluvial soil onsite generally consists of medium dense to very dense silty sand and clayey sand. This material may exhibit difficult excavating resistance for smaller excavating equipment like rubber-tired backhoes.

The shallow bedrock encountered onsite did not hinder our drilling efforts but should be expected to exhibit difficult excavation resistance for typical excavation equipment.

6.3.2 Safe Vertical Cut

Temporary un-surcharged excavations of 4 feet high may be made at a vertical gradient for short periods of time. Temporary un-surcharged excavations greater than 4 feet may be trimmed back at 1H:1V gradients.

Exposed condition during construction should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer. No excavations should take place without the direct supervision of the project geotechnical engineer.

All applicable requirements of the California Construction and general Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and current amendments, and the Construction safety Act should be met. Cuts should be observed during excavation by the project’s geotechnical consultant. If potentially unstable soil conditions are encountered, modifications of slope ratios for temporary cuts may be required.

6.3.3 Excavation Setbacks

No excavations should be conducted, without special considerations, along property lines, public right-of-ways, or existing foundations, where the excavation depth will encroach within the “zone of influence”. The “zone of influence” of the existing footings, property lines, or public right-of-way may be assumed to be below a 45-degree line projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, property line, or right-of-way.

6.3.4 Precaution for Excavations

The Contractor should be aware that unsupported excavation depths should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, and/or federal safety regulations (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations). Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if they are not followed, the Owner, Contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor’s “responsible person”, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety procedures.

6.4 Tentative Foundation Recommendations

The use of shallow spread footings founded in compacted fill is feasible. A maximum allowable bearing value of 2500 psf is recommended for the following footing system.

• Depth of continuous and pad footings below natural and finish grade and below slab on grade should be at least 24-inches. Pad footings should measure at least 24”B x 24”W square.

(18)

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 13 • The above recommended soil bearing value may be increased by one third for temporary (wind or

seismic) loads.

Resistance to lateral footing will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction. For footings bearing against firm native material, passive earth pressure may be considered to be developed at a rate of 240 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 2000 psf. Base friction may be computed at 0.38 times the normal load. If passive earth pressure and friction are combined to provide required resistance to lateral forces, the value of the passive pressure should be reduced to two-thirds the value.

Foundation design comes under the purview of the structural engineer. The above recommendations should not preclude more restrictive structural requirements. The structural engineer should determine the actual footing sizes and reinforcement to resist vertical, horizontal, and uplift forces under static and seismic conditions.

Reinforcement and size recommendations presented in this report are considered the minimum necessary for the soil conditions present at foundation level and are not intended to supersede the design of the project structural engineer or criteria of the governing agencies for the project.

6.4.1 Total Settlement

Onsite soils below the foundation depth have relatively high strengths and will not be subject to significant stress increases from foundations of a new structure. Therefore, estimated total long-term static and seismic settlement between similarly loaded adjacent foundation systems should not exceed 1-inch. The structures should be designed to tolerate a differential settlement on the order of 1/2-inch.

6.5 Slabs-on-Grade

Slabs-on-grade should be placed on ground compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Office slabs should be at least 4-inches thick. Warehouse/storage slabs and slabs subject to traffic should be at least 6-inches thick. The structural engineer should design the actual slab thickness and reinforcement based on structural load requirements. Slabs subject to structural loading may be designed utilizing a modulus of subgrade reaction (K) of 200 pci. If moisture intrusion is objectionable, the concrete slab should be provided by a 10-mil Visqueen moisture barrier placed and sealed over subgrade.

Slab-on-grade thickness and reinforcement should be evaluated by the structural engineer and designed in compliance with applicable codes. Excess soils generated from foundation excavations should not be placed on any building pads without proper moisture and compaction. All slab subgrades should be verified to be saturated to a depth of 12-inches prior to placement of slab building materials. Moisture content should be tested in the field by the soil engineer. Slabs subgrade should be kept moist and the surface should not be allowed to desiccate.

The addition of fiber mesh in the concrete and careful control of water/cement ratios may lessen the potential for slab cracking. In hot or windy weather, the contractor must take appropriate curing precautions after the placement of concrete.

The use of mechanically compacted low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) is recommended. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tiles or other crack sensitive flooring (such as marble tiles) is planned directly on concrete slabs.

6.6 Retaining Walls

(19)

Lateral Pressure Condition Soil Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf) Drained

At Rest Case Level 60

Active Case Level 40

Passive Case Level 240 (to a maximum value of 2000 psf)

Horizontal Coefficient of Friction 0.38

Unit Soil Weight 120 pcf

All retaining walls and block walls footings should be founded in compacted fill or firm native soils. We recommend drainage for retaining walls to be provided in accordance with Plate 2 of this report. Maximum precautions should be taken when placing drainage materials and during backfilling. All wall backfills should be properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.

6.7 Tentative Pavement Design

On the basis of laboratory testing of onsite soils and assumed Traffic Indices, the minimum recommended pavement thickness is presented in the following sections. Final pavement design recommendations should be based on laboratory test results of representative pavement subgrade soils upon the completion of rough grading.

6.7.1 Pavement Subgrade

All pavement subgrade should be cleared of any deleterious material and overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing or finished subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The bottom of the excavation should be further scarified an additional 12-inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557 test method. Aggregate base, if utilized, should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557 test method.

6.7.2 Asphalt Concrete

The following table summarizes the recommended pavement design for the subject site.

Location Traffic Index Soil R-Value Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Auto Parking 5.0 25 3.0” AC over 6.5” Class 2 Base Truck Drives 6.0 25 3.5” AC over 8.5” Class 2 Base Truck Loading 7.0 25 4.0” AC over 11.0” Class 2 Base

6.7.3 Portland Cement Concrete

For interior private drives, 8-inches minimum concrete over compacted native subgrade is recommended. Pavement subgrade should be saturated to a depth of 12-inches and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Saturated subgrade should be tested for moisture by the soil engineer.

Concrete pavement should be air entrained Portland Cement Concrete Pavement and must have a minimum 28-day flexural strength of 450 psi (compressive strength of approximately 3500 psi).

(20)

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 15 Proper subgrade preparation and joint sealing will reduce (but not eliminate) the potential for slab movements (thus cracking) on native soils. Frequent jointing will reduce uncontrolled cracking and increase the efficiency of aggregate interlock joint transfer.

6.8 Site Drainage

Positive drainage should be provided and maintained for the life of the project around the perimeter of all structures (including slopes and retaining walls) and all foundations toward streets or approved drainage devices to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying natural and engineered fill soils. In addition, finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down (at least 2%) and away to facilitate surface drainage. Perimeter water collection devices may be installed around the structure to collect roof/irrigation/natural drainage. Roof drainage should be collected and directed away from foundations via nonerosive devices. Over the slope drainage must not be permitted.

Water, either natural or by irrigation, should not be permitted to pond or saturate the foundation soils. Planter areas and large trees adjacent to the foundations are not recommended. All planters and terraces should be provided with drainage devices. Internal drainage should be directed to approved drainage collection devices.

Location of drainage device should be in accordance with the design civil engineer’s drainage and erosion control recommendations. The owner should be made aware of the potential problems, which may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, patios and other devices.

(21)

7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Plan Reviews

The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited exploratory trenches at the site. We should be retained to review final grading and foundation plans to revise our conclusions and recommendations, as necessary. Professional fees will apply for each review.

Our conclusions and recommendations should also be reviewed and verified during site grading and revised accordingly if exposed geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations.

Additional Observation and/or Testing

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. should observe and/or test at the following stages of construction.

• During overexcavation and compaction of subgrade soil

• Following footing excavation and prior to placement of footing materials. • During wetting of slab subgrade and prior to placement of slab materials. • During all trench and wall backfill.

• When any unusual conditions are encountered. Final Report of Compaction During Grading

(22)

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK

The concept of risk is an important aspect of the geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be used in conjunction with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions and recommendations presented in the geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as planned.

The engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections constitute GeoMat Testing Laboratories professional estimate of those measures that are necessary for the proposed development to perform according to the proposed design based on the information generated and referenced during this evaluation, and GeoMat Testing Laboratories experience in working with these conditions.

9.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION

This report was prepared for the exclusive use on the new construction. The use by others, or for the purposes other than intended, is at the user’s sole risk.

Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar locations within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report.

The field and laboratory test data are believed representative of the site; however, soil conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed during construction may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this condition occurs, the possible variations must be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and adjusted as required or alternate design recommended.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer for the addition and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractor carry out such recommendations in the field.

This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.

(23)

Topo USA® 6.0

(24)

Qofa

kdvg

Qyvsa

LEGEND: Qofa: Old alluvial fan deposits

Qyvsa: Young alluvial valley deposits kdvg: Granodiorite to tonalite

REFERENCE: Morton, D.M., Bovard, K.R., and Morton, Gregory, 2003, Geologic map and digital database of the Romoland 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2003-102, scale 1:24,000

DWN BY: CHK'D BY: DATUM: PROJECTION: SCALE: PROJECT: TITLE:

PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT APN: 360-020-051, NEWPORT ROAD

MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

DATE: PROJECT NO.: FIGURE NO.: AM MN --NTS AUGUST 2019 18226-01 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14

(25)

Explanation

Faults

Historic Fault Displacement Holocene Fault Displacement Evidence of Late Quaternary Fault Displacement Undivided Quaternary Faults

REFERENCES:

Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W.A., 2010,“Fault Activity Map of California,” California Geological Survey, GDM-006, May 2010

Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zone

Epicenters and Magnitudes

7+ 6-7 5-6

MS48: Earthquakes, 1769 to 2015 - California (Magnitude 5.0+)

Figure 3

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. 9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14

Riverside, California 92503 DWN BY: CHK'D BY: DATUM: PROJECTION: SCALE: REV. NO.: PROJECT: TITLE:

PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT APN: 360-020-051, NEWPORT ROAD

MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA

REGIONAL FAULT MAP

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A

REFERENCES

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. “Preliminary Soil Investigation Report, Proposed Newport Pointe Retail Center, APN: 360-020-051, Newport Road, Menifee, California.” Report Dated September 3, 2019, Project No. 18226-01.

McKently Malak Architects “Proposed Site Plan, S.W.C. of Newport Road & Evans Road, Menifee, California,” Sheet SP-03, Plan Dated July 9, 2019.

City of Menifee, General Plan, Safety Element

Morton, D.M., Bovard, K.R., and Morton, Gregory, 2003, Geologic map and digital database of the Romoland 7.5' quadrangle, Riverside County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2003-102, scale 1:24,000

Riverside County Information Technology (RCIT), Riverside County Map My County Interactive Webpage.

State of California, Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library.

USGS, National Water Information System

USGS, Groundwater Watch, California Active Water Level Network.

State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Interactive Website

Structural Engineers Association of California, OSHPD Seismic Design Maps Interactive Website

(https://seismicmaps.org/)

California Geological Survey, Map No. 6, Fault Activity Map of California, Compiled by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant, California Geologic Data Map Series, 2010

USGS Map Sheet 48 (MS48): Historic Earthquakes, 1769 to 2015 – California (Magnitude 5.0-Plus) Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.01, Soil Mechanics, September 1986.

Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.02, Foundation and Earth Structures, September 1986.

Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design, Bearing Capacity of Soils, EM 1110-1-1905.

US Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-EG Engineering Manual 1110-1-1904, Settlement Analysis, September 30, 1990

Robert Day, Geotechnical Engineer’s Portable Handbook. Robert Day, Geotechnical Foundation Handbook.

(30)

(31)

UNCONFINED Sampler and Symbol Descriptions COMPRESSIVE

SANDS AND GRAVELS SILTS AND CLAYS SPT, N STRENGTH, tsf B VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT

LOOSE SOFT

MEDIUM DENSE MEDIUM FIRM S

DENSE FIRM

VERY DENSE VERY FIRM

HARD R D DRY MOIST WET TRACE SOME FEW MOSTLY LITTLE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS

COARSE GRAINED SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)

GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

GP

SANDS WITH FINES

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)

SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES

SC

POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES

GRAVELS WITH FINES

(APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES)

GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES

GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES

FINE GRAINED SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50

ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY _{FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY}

CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, _{SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS}

OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

SAND AND SANDY SOILS

MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

SP

SILTS AND CLAYS

LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50

MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY _{SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS}

CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY

OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

NOTE: Dual symbols are used to indicate gravels or sand with 5-12% fines and soils with fines classifying as CL-ML. Symbols separated by a slash

RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY

10 - 30 4 - 8 0.50 - 1.00 SPT, N

0 - 4 0 - 2 0 - 0.25

Bulk "grab" sample taken from the auger cuttings or excavated soil

1.4" I.D./2" O.D. Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) sampler (SPT)

DESCRIPTION 2.5" I.D./3" O.D. Dames and Moore Manual Ring Sampler

30 - 50 8 - 15 1.00 - 2.00 50+ 15 - 30 2.00 - 4.00 4 -10 2 - 4 0.25 - 0.50

2.5" I.D./3" O.D. Modified California Ring Sampler (Ring)

DESCRIPTION CRITERIA DESCRIPTION CRITERIA

CONSTITUENT DESCRIPTIONS

30+ >4.00

MOISTURE CONDITION

CRITERIA Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Damp but no visible water

Visible free water, usually soil is below water table

KEY TO BORING LOGS

(32)

Boring Location: Logged by:

Drill Company/Rig Date Started: Notes:

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 27 40 48 4 4 6 9 13 18 7 14 22 9 11 29 SC

SANDY LEAN CLAY

firm, very moist

15 109

AM

Project No. 18226-01

Advanced/Diedrich D-50 Hollow Stem Auger

SAMPLES Gr a p h ic L o g 140 lbs./30-inches Hammer Weight/Drop:

LABORATORY TEST DATA

Mois tu re C o n te n t (% ) D ry D e n s it y (p c f) C las s if ic a tion (U S C S ) D E P TH (FT) Ty p e S a mple

California Ring (R), Standard Penetration Test (S), Bulk "Grab" Sample (B)

No Groundwater Drilling Method: See Plate 1 8/20/2019 10 15 Sampler(s): Automatic 8/20/2019 dense 5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 20 B low s / 6 " SM SILTY SAND

medium brown silty sand, loose, dry

very dense

medium brown clayey sand moist

CLAYEY SAND

medium brown clayey sand medium dense very moist dense very moist

APPENDIX B

18226-01 PROJECT NO.

This log is part of the report prepared by GeoMat for this project and should be read together with the report. This summary applies only at the location of the exploration and at the time of drilling or excavation. Subsurface

conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with tiume. Data presented are a simplification of actual conditions encountered.

(33)

PAGE 1 of 1 Boring Location: Logged by:

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 5 8 12 7 13 18 11 17 23 CLAYEY SAND 38 16 22 104 B S R S 20 20 40 SC CL 35 40 45 50 30 25

APPENDIX B

Fine s ( % ) L iqu id L im it P las tic L im it P las t. I n d e x MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 20 B low s / 6 " SM SILTY SAND

medium dense cohesive

medium brown clayey sand moist

firm, very moist

CLAYEY SAND

medium brown clayey sand medium dense, moist

very moist TD = 15'

B-2

Drilling Method: See Plate 1 8/20/2019 10 15 Sampler(s): Automatic 8/20/2019 APN: 360-020-051 Newport Road

Menifee, California

PROJECT:

Log of Boring

red clayey sand dense, slightly cohesive 5

AM

Project No. 18226-01

No Groundwater

7 30

SC

SANDY LEAN CLAY

(34)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 14 28 30 CLAYEY SAND R 38 SC 35 40 45 50 30 25

APPENDIX B

dense

slightly cohesive

medium brown clayey sand moist Drilling Method: See Plate 1 8/20/2019 10 15 Sampler(s): Automatic 8/20/2019 5 AM Project No. 18226-01 Advanced/Diedrich D-50 Hollow Stem Auger

No Groundwater

16 116

(35)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 28 50/5" 4 5 5 4 5 6

very dense, indurated

18 104

AM

Project No. 18226-01

No Groundwater

B-4

PROJECT:

Log of Boring

medium dense 5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 20 B low s / 6 " SM SILTY SAND

SILTY SAND

medium brown silty sand medium brown clayey sand moist medium dense very moist very moist TD = 15'

APPENDIX B

(36)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 34 26 20 4 6 6 3 5 6 4 5 7 8 12 26 42 24 R S S 30 12 11 12

black and white granitic bedrock

TD = 25' 35 40 45 50 S S 30 BR 25 38

APPENDIX B

Fine s ( % ) L iqu id L im it P las tic L im it P las t. I n d e x 23 10 dense BEDROCK MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 20 B low s / 6 " SM SILTY SAND

medium brown silty sand, dry

dense slightly moist

PERCHED WATER AT 10 FEET BGS

medium dense saturated soil saturated soil medium dense saturated soil Drilling Method: See Plate 1 8/20/2019 10 15 Sampler(s): Automatic 8/20/2019 medium dense 5 AM Project No. 18226-01 Advanced/Diedrich D-50 Hollow Stem Auger

perched water @ 10' bgs

(37)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 28 50/4" 9 14 22 23 44 28

trace amounts of gravel

10 126

AM

Project No. 18226-01

B-6

PROJECT:

Log of Boring

dense 5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 20 B low s / 6 " SM SILTY SAND

very dense drills like silty sand

BEDROCK

dense moist TD = 15'

APPENDIX B

Fine s ( % ) L iqu id L im it P las tic L im it P las t. I n d e x 30 BR 25 35 40 45 50 BR >50 36 >50 R S S 14 36

(38)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 24 50/4" 50/5"

R S >50 >50 35 40 45 50 30 BR 25

APPENDIX B

very dense drills like silty sand

BEDROCK

moist very dense TD = 10' Drilling Method: See Plate 1 8/20/2019 10 15 Sampler(s): Automatic 8/20/2019 5 AM Project No. 18226-01 Advanced/Diedrich D-50 Hollow Stem Auger

7 112

(39)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 27 50/2" 24 50/6" dry R S >50 >50 35 40 45 50 30 BR 25

APPENDIX B

medium brown silty sand

BEDROCK

black and white granitic bedrock very dense TD = 6.5'

B-8

PROJECT:

Log of Boring

5

AM

Project No. 18226-01

No Groundwater

12 118

(40)

Date Finished: Hammer Type: SPT "N" Value 14 25 27 4 5 6 3 4 6 3 5 6 4 5 5 47 22 R S S 34 11 10 11 SC CL TD = 25' 35 40 45 50 S S 30 25 10

APPENDIX B

Fine s ( % ) L iqu id L im it P las tic L im it P las t. I n d e x medium dense saturated soil MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 20 B low s / 6 " SM SILTY SAND

dense slightly moist

CLAYEY SAND

medium brown clayey sand

SILTY SAND medium dense saturated soil saturated soil medium dense saturated soil Drilling Method: See Plate 1 8/20/2019 10 15 Sampler(s): Automatic 8/20/2019 medium dense 5 AM Project No. 18226-01 Advanced/Diedrich D-50 Hollow Stem Auger

20 107

SM

SANDY LEAN CLAY

Appendix D Geotechnical Study

Newport Pointe Commercial Center Project

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Appendix

D

PRELIMINARY SOIL INVESTIGATION REPORT UPDATE

PROPOSED NEWPORT POINTE RETAIL CENTER

APN: 360-020-051, NEWPORT ROAD

MENIFEE, CALIFORNIA

GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

3.0 GEOLOGIC FINDINGS

4.0 SOIL INFILTRATION

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES

8.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK

9.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION

Qofa

kdvg

Qyvsa

REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP

Explanation

Figure 3

REGIONAL FAULT MAP

REFERENCES

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

KEY TO BORING LOGS

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

B-2

Log of Boring

APPENDIX B

B-4

Log of Boring

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

B-6

Log of Boring

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

B-8

Log of Boring

APPENDIX B