HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 19580-1 Parcel 3 Geotechnical InvestigationCTE�TH
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED HOME 2 TEMECULA HOTEL DEVELOPMENT
SINGLE OAK DRIVE & RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
TEMECULA HHG HOTEL DEVELOPMENT LP
ATTN. MS. PATRICIA SANTINI
105 DECKER COURT, SUITE 500
IRVING, TEXAS 75062
PREPARED BY:
CTE, SOUTH, INC.
14538 MERIDIAN PARKWAY, SUITE A
RIVERSIDE, CA 92518
CTE JOB NO.40-3211
JULY 27,k 2015
14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A j Riverside, CA 92518 1 Ph (951) 571-4081 1 Fax (951) 571-4188
Inspection J Testing I Geotechnlcal I Environmental I Construction Engineering f Civil Engineering I Surveying
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES................................................................... 2
2.1 Introduction- ............. * ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Scope of Services..............................:................................................................................. 2
3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................................ 3
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.................................................................
3
4.1 Field Investigation..............................................................................................................
3
4.2 Laboratory Analyses...........................................................................................................
4
5.0 GEOLOGY...............................................................................................................................
4
5.1 General Physiographic Setting............................................................................................
4
5.2 Site Geologic Conditions....................................................................................................
5
5.2.1 Artificial Fill..............................................................................................................
5
5.2.2 alder Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)...............................................................
5
5.2.3 Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp)....................................................................
5
5.3 Groundwater Conditions.....................................................................................................
6
5.4 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................................
6
5.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture................................................................................................
6
5.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting......................................................................................
7
5.4.3 Liquefaction Evaluation.............................................................................................
8
5.4.4 Seismic Settlement Evaluation..................................................................................
9
5.4.5 Tsunami and Seiche Evaluation.................................................................................
9
5.4.6 Landsliding...............................................................................................................
9
5.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Soils..........................................................................
10
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................
10
6.1 General..............................................................................................................................
10
6.2 Site Preparation.................................................................................................................
10
6.2.1 General.....................................................................................................................
10
6.2.2 Remedial Grading and Excavations.........................................................................
11
6.2.3 Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill........................................................................
11
6.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction...............................................................................
12
6.2.5 Utility Trenches.......................................................................................................
13
6.3 Foundations and Slab Recommendations.........................................................................
13
6.3.1 General.....................................................................................................................
13
6.3.2 Shallow Foundations................................................................................................
13
6.3.3 Settlement of Shallow Foundations.........................................................................
15
6.3.4 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade........................................................................................
15
6.3.5 Pipe Bedding and Thrust Blocks..............................................................................
16
6.3.6 Elevator....................................................................................................................
17
6.4 Seismic Design Criteria....................................................................................................
17
6.5 Vehicular Pavements........................................................................................................
18
6.6 Retaining Walls.................................................................................................................
20
6.7 Corrosive Soils..................................................................................................................
22
6.8 Exterior Flatwork.............................................................................................................. 23
6.9 Drainage............................................................................................................................ 24
6.10 Percolation Test Results.................................................................................................. 24
6.11 Plan Review.................................................................................................................... 25
7.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................... 25
I " 0411
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3 RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND EXPLORATION LOGS
APPENDIX B LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
l P
Geotechnical Investigation Page 1 r �.
Proposed Home 2 Temecula '
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This geotechnical report was performed to provide site -specific geotechnical information for the
proposed hotel located at Single Oak Drive and Rancho California Road in Temecula, California.
The proposed hotel is understood to consist of a new wood -framed four-story hotel. The
structure will be founded on shallow footings with slab -on -grade base floor. Construction will
also include a pool, exterior flatwork, pavements, and underground utilities.
Based on our investigation and review of geologic maps, the site is underlain by older alluvial
flood plain deposits and underlying Pauba Formation rock. The east side of the site is underlain
by artificial fill, approximately 3 to 5 feet in thickness. Groundwater was encountered at the
time of our investigation in one boring (boring B-1) at a depth of approximately 43 feet.
Groundwater levels will likely fluctuate during periods of high precipitation. Groundwater is not
expected to impact the proposed development, although grading or construction could be
adversely affected if performed during or following periods of wet weather.
Based on our investigation and geologic literature review, the site is located within a Riverside
County Fault Zone, and is in a moderate zone for liquefaction and potential area for subsidence.
A fault study investigation was not within our scope of services.
Based on our investigation, the proposed development at the site is considered feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations herein are implemented during project
design and construction.
' Geotechnical Investigation Page 2
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 Introduction
CTE, South, Inc. has prepared this report for Temecula HHG hotel Development LP. Presented
herein are the results of the subsurface investigation performed as well as recommendations
regarding the geotechnical engineering and dynamic loading criteria for the proposed
construction.
The proposed project is understood to consist of a new four-story, wood -framed hotel with
stucco and stone exterior. The structure will be founded on shallow footings with slab -on -grade
base floor. Footings are anticipated to be up to two feet deep. Construction will also include a
pool and related facilities, exterior flatwork, pavements, underground utilities and elevator. The
shaft for the elevator piston will extend about 40 feet below the bottom of the elevator pit.
2_.2 Scope of Services
Our scope of services included:
■ Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical literature pertinent to the site.
• Explorations to determine subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions to the depths
influenced by the proposed development.
Percolation testing at two locations for use in on -site stormwater EMP design.
• Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the geotechnical
design characteristics of the site foundation soils.
• Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the site.
r Preparation of this report detailing the investigation performed and providing conclusions
and geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction. Included in the
report are site geology and hazards, seismic effects and design parameters, earthwork
r
Geotechnical Investigation Page 3 '
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
recommendations, foundation design parameters including lateral resistance, retaining wall
design parameters, pavement section recommendations and percolation test results. A fault
study investigation was not within our scope of services.
3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The site is located between Single Oak Drive and Rancho California Road, east of Business Park
Drive in Temecula, California. Figure I shows the location of the site. The site is currently
unoccupied and has been graded. The site slopes very gently to the northeast. Sparse vegetation
consists of grass and weeds with trees along the property line.
4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
4.1 Field Investigation
Our field investigation was performed on June 16, 2015 and included nine (9) exploratory
borings identified as B-1 thru B-9.. Borings B-1 through B-5 were drilled at the building
location. Borings B-6 through B-9 were drilled in parking and drive areas. In addition, two
percolation tests were performed. The exploration and percolation test locations are shown on
Figure 2.
The explorations were excavated to investigate and obtain samples of the subsurface soils. The
borings were excavated using a truck -mounted, eight -inch diameter, hollow -stem auger drill rig
to a maximum explored depth of 51.5 feet below the existing surface.
Soils encountered within the explorations were classified in the field in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions were later modified (as appropriate)
based on the results of our laboratory -testing program. In general, soil samples were obtained at
Geotechnical Investigation Page 4
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
5-foot intervals with standard split spoon (SPT and California Modified) samplers. Specifics of
the soils encountered can be found on the Exploration Logs, which are presented in Appendix A.
4.2 Laboratory Analyses
Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to evaluate their physical
properties and engineering characteristics. Specific laboratory tests included: maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content, in -place moisture and density, "R" value, expansion
index, direct shear, consolidation, gradation, Atterberg limits, and chemical analyses. These tests
were conducted to detennine the material strengths, physical properties, and corrosivity of the
on -site soils. Test method descriptions and laboratory results are presented in Appendix B and
on the Exploration Logs.
5.0 GEOLOGY
5.1 General Physiographic Setting
Geomorphically, the subject site is situated near the western edge of the Perris structural block.
The Perris structural block lies within the Pennisular Range Geomorphic Province and is a
relatively stable, rectangular shaped area located between the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault
zones, which are major components of the San Andreas Fault system consisting of a series of en -
echelon northwest -striking right lateral faults and pull -apart basins. The Perris block consists of
phyllite, schist and gneiss of Mesozoic to possible Paleozoic -age medasedimentary rocks
intruded by plutonic rocks of the Cretaceous -age Pennisular Range batholith. Tertiary -age
sediments, Miocene -age volcanics, and Quaternary -age sediments unconformably cap the older
Mesozoic -age rocks is this portion of the Perris block.
G eot echni c al Investigation
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
Julv 27.2015
5.2 Site Geolojzic Conditions
Page 5
CTE Job No. 40-3211
Based on our investigation and review of geologic mapping (Tan and Kennedy, 2000), the site is
underlain by older alluvial flood plain deposits and underlying Pauba Formation rock. Artificial
fill was encountered along the eastern edge of the site. Below is a brief description of the
materials encountered during the investigation. More detailed descriptions are provided in the
Exploration Logs in Appendix A.
5.2.1 Artificial Fill
Artificial fill was encountered in boring B-G from the surface to approximately 3 feet
below grade. The artificial fill consisted of clayey sand. Based on our explorations and
observations, the artificial fill is limited to the eastern portion of the site and is estimated
to be approximately 5 feet in maximum thickness.
5.2.2 alder Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)
Older (Pleistocene -age) alluvial flood plain deposits were encountered in the borings
from the surface (or below the artificial fill) to a depth of approximately 18 to 20 feet.
The deposits consisted of medium dense to very dense clayey sand and silty clayey sand,
and stiff to hard lean clay.
5.2.3 Pauba Formation sandstone facies
Pauba Formation rock was encountered in the borings below the older alluvial deposits
and extended to depth below our explorations. The rock consisted of moderately hard to
1 .
' Geotechnical Investigation Page 6
4
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
Julv 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
hard sandstone. A hard breccia layer was encountered in boring B-1 at approximately 45
feet below grade.
.3 Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 43 feet in boring B-1. Groundwater
levels will likely fluctuate during periods of high precipitation. Groundwater is not expected to
significantly impact the proposed development, although grading or construction could be
adversely affected if performed during or following periods of wet weather. Excavation for the
elevator piston could encounter groundwater.
5.4 Geoloaic Hazards
From our investigation, it appears that geologic hazards at the site are limited primarily to those
caused by strong shaking from earthquake -generated ground motions. Presented here are the
geologic hazards that are considered for potential impacts to site development.
5.4.1 Surface Fault Rupture
As defined by the California Geological Survey, an active fault is one that has had
surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). This
definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 and revised in 1994 as the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The name Special Studies Zones was changed to
Earthquake Fault Zones as a result of a 1993 amendment. Special Publication - 42 was
most recently revised in 2407 and is subject to periodic amendments. The intent of this
act is to require fault investigations on sites located within Earthquake Fault Zones to
Geotechnical Investigation Page 7, '
Proposed Home 2 Temecula r
Temecula, California
Julv 27.2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
preclude the construction of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active
fault. The site is adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
Current mapping by County of Riverside TLMA GIS database show that the site is
located within a County of Riverside fault zone. We have requested to the County of
Riverside to review available geotechnicallgeologic reports for developed parcels
adjacent to the site in order to obtain data regarding the fault zone. The county has
informed us that they do not have any reports for the subject parcel in their database.
Currently, we are awaiting access to review available reports for the adjacent parcels. At
this time, the need for a site fault investigation cannot be determined. Upon review of
available reports, we will issue an addendum to this report to present our opinion on the
need for a site fault investigation.
5.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting
The California Geological Survey broadly groups faults as "Class A" or "Class B" (Cao
et al, 2003). Class A faults are identified based upon relatively well-defined paleoseismic
activity, and a fault slip rate of more than 5 millimeters per year (mmlyr) and 100%
moment for characteristic. Class B faults are all other faults that are not defined as Class
A faults. The following Table 1 presents the ten nearest active faults to the site and
includes magnitude and fault classification.
' Geotechnical Investigation Page 8
4 Proposed Horne 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
TABLE .1
NEAR SITE FAULT PARAMETERS
FAULT NAME
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
FROM SITE (mi)
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAGNITUDE
CLASSIFICATION
Elsinore — Temecula
(Murrieta Creek)
0.1
6.8
A
Elsinore -- Julian
12.1
7.1
A
Elsinore -- Glen Ivy
14.9
6.8
A
San Jacinto — San Jacinto
Valley
21
6.9
A
San Jacinto — Anza
21.9
7.2
A
Newport -Inglewood (Offshore)
27.2
7.1
B
Rose Canyon
29.8
7.2
B
Chino -Central Ave (Elsinore)
32.9
6.7
B
San Jacinto -- San Bernardino
36.2
6.7
A
Whittier
36.9
6.8
A
5.4.3 Liquefaction Evaluation
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine sands, silts or low plasticity clays lose their
physical strength during earthquake -induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due
to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water.
Liquefaction potential varies with groundwater level, soil type, material gradation,
relative density, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 9, r
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 44-3211
Based on the presence of cohesive clay soils and underlying rock, and the depth to
groundwater, the potential for liquefaction of site soils is considered low.
5.4.4 Seismic Settlement Evaluation
Seismic settlement (dynamic densification) occurs when loose to medium dense granular
soils densify during seismic events. The site materials consisted predominantly of dense
to very dense clayey sand, stiff to hard clay, and underlying rock, which are not
considered likely to experience significant seismic settlement. We also expect that
shallow loose or disturbed materials present on the site will be mitigated through removal
and replacement with compacted fill, as recommended herein, in order to facilitate the
proposed construction, Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for seismic settlement
resulting in damage to site improvements is considered low.
5.4.5 Tsunami and Seiche Evaluation
Due to site elevation and distance from the Pacific Ocean, the site is not considered to be
subject to damage from tsunamis. Based on the absence of large bodies of water in the
area, seiche (oscillatory waves in standing bodies of water) damage is also not expected.
5.4.6 Landsliding
No features typically associated with landsliding were noted during the site investigation.
In the reference review, no evidence of landslides was found to have occurred within the
area of the site. Therefore, the potential for Iandsliding to affect the site is considered
very low.
• ' Geotechnical Investigation Page 14
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
5.4.7 Compressible and Expansive Sails
Based on our investigation and laboratory consolidation testing, site soils are expected to
have low compressibility characteristics relative to the post -construction overburden.
Based on the results of expansion index and Atterberg tests, site soils are anticipated to
have low to medium expansion potential.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
Based on our investigation, the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into design and
construction of the project. Preliminary recommendations for the design and construction of the
proposed development are included in the subsequent sections of this report. Additional
recommendations could be required based on the actual conditions encountered during earthwork
and/or improvement construction..
6.2 Site Preparation
6.2.1 General
Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of debris and deleterious materials. In areas to
receive structures or distress -sensitive improvements, expansive, surficial eroded,
desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise loose or disturbed soils should be removed to the
depth of competent material as recommended below in Section 6.2.2. Organic and other
deleterious materials not suitable for use as structural backfill should be disposed of
offsite at a legal disposal site.
r
Geotechnical Investigation Page 11
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
6.2.2 Remedial Grading and Excavations
Due to disturbed surface soil, presence of expansive clay and in order to provide uniform
structural support, remedial grading will be required. The proposed building pad should
be excavated to a depth of 5-feet below existing grade, or 3-feet below footing bottoms,
whichever is greater. The excavation should extend laterally at least 5-feet beyond the
foundation limits. The soils exposed at the bottom of the over --excavations should be
documented by a geotechnical representative of this office to determine their suitability.
If unsuitable materials or undocumented fills are encountered at the bottom of the
excavation, they should be removed to the depth of competent natural material.
Temporary, unsurcharged excavations up to four feet deep may be cut vertically. Deeper
excavations, including the elevator pit, should be sloped back or shored. Temporary
sloped excavations should be cut at a slope of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter.
Vehicles and storage loads should not be placed within 10 feet of the top of the
excavation. If temporary slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are
recommended along the tops of slopes to divert runoff water from entering the excavation
and eroding the slope faces.
6.2.3 Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill
Exposed excavation bottoms and subgrade surfaces to receive fill should be scarified to a
minimum depth of 8 inches, brought to 2 percent or more above optimum moisture
' Geotechnical Investigation Page 12
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 „ _ CTE Job No. 40.3211
content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined
by ASTM D 1557.
6.2.4 Fill Placement and Compaction
Structural fill and backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum
dry density (as determined by ASTM D 1557) at moisture content 2 or more percent
above optimum. The upper 12-inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D 1557) at a moisture content of
2 or more percent above optimum. Compaction equipment should be appropriate for the
materials being compacted. The optimum lift thickness for fill soils will be dependent on
the type of compaction equipment being utilized. Generally, fill should be placed in
uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Placement and
compaction of fill should be performed in general conformance with geotechnical
recommendations and local ordinances.
Sandy soils generated from on -site excavations are anticipated to be suitable for use as
structural fill, provided they are free from debris and deleterious material. On -site
expansive clay soils are not considered suitable for compacted fill and should be wasted
or used in non-structural areas such as landscaping. Rocks or other soil fragments greater
than four inches in size should not be used in the fills. Proposed import material should
be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer prior to being placed at the site. Import
materials should consist of noncorrosive, granular material with an expansion index less
than 20.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 13 r
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
6.2.5 Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be excavated in accordance with the recommendations presented
in Section 6.2.2. Backfill should be placed in loose lifts no greater than eight inches and
mechanically compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of the maximum
dry density (per ASTM D 1557) at moisture content 2 or more percent above optimum
moisture content.
6.3 Foundations and Slab Recommendations
Foundations and slabs for the proposed structure should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations and the following minimum preliminary geotechnical
recommendations. Foundations are expected to be supported in properly compacted fill
material. Fill soils should have a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index < 20).
6.3.2 Shallow Foundations
Following site grading, it is our opinion that the use of isolated and continuous footings
will be geotechnically suitable for the proposed structure. We recommend that
continuous footings be constructed a minimum of 18 inches wide and be founded at least
24 inches below the lowest adjacent rough grade elevation. Isolated footings should be a
minimum of 24 inches in dimension and founded at least 24 inches below rough grade
elevation.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 14
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
Foundation dimensions should be based on an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000
pounds per square foot (psf) for the minimum footing dimensions noted above. The
allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for short -duration loading which
includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Actual footing dimensions should be
determined by the structural engineer.
Footing reinforcement within continuous footings should consist of a minimum of four
number 4 bars, two located at the top of the footing and two located at the bottom. This
minimum reinforcement is due to geotechnical conditions and is not to be used in lieu of
that needed for structural considerations. Reinforcement for isolated footings should be
determined by the structural engineer.
Lateral loads for structures supported on spread footings may be resisted by soil friction
and by the passive resistance of the soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 may be used
between foundations and the supporting materials. The passive resistance of the soils
may be assumed equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a density of 250 pounds
per cubic foot. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic
loads. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance may be combined without
reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 15 • '
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
6.3.3 Settlement of Shallow Foundations
We have analyzed settlement potential during construction and for. long-tenn
performance. Construction settlement is expected to occur as loads are applied and
structures are brought to their operational weight. Long-tenn settlement is expected to
occur over time as a result of compression of wetted or partially . saturated soil.
Anticipated settlements are related to an applied bearing pressure of 3,440 psf.
It is anticipated that shallow foundations designed and constructed as recommended will
experience maximum total settlement of 1 inch or less and differential static settlement of
1/2 inch or less over a distance of 40 feet or more.
6.3.4 Concrete Slabs -On -Grade
Concrete slabs -on -grade should be designed for the anticipated loading. Lightly loaded
concrete slabs should measure a minimum of G inches thick and be reinforced with a
minimum of number 3 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch centers, each way at mid -slab
height. An uncorrected modulus of subgrade reaction of 204 pci may be used for elastic
design. Concrete slabs subjected to heavier loads may require thicker slab sections
and/or increased reinforcement as per the project structural engineer. The correct
placement of the reinforcement in the slab is vital for satisfactory performance under
normal conditions
Geotechnical Investigation Page 16
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
In areas to receive moisture -sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture -sensitive
materials, a polyethylene or visqueen moisture vapor retarder (10-mil or thicker) should
be placed beneath the slab. A two-inch layer of coarse clean sand should underlie the
moisture vapor retarder. To protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement, a
maximum two-inch layer of similar material may be placed over the moisture vapor
retarder.
It is recommended that a water -cement ratio of 0.5 or less be used for concrete, and that
the slab be moist -cured for at least five days in accordance with methods recommended
by the American Concrete Institute. an -site quality control should be used to confirm the
design conditions.
6.3.5 Pipe Bedding and Thrust Blocks
We recommend that pipes be supported on a minimum of 6 inches of sand, gravel, or
crushed rock. The pipe bedding material should be placed around the pipe, without
voids, and to an elevation of at least 12 inches above the top of the pipe. The pipe
bedding material should be compacted in accordance with the recommendations in the
earthwork section of this report.
Thrust forces may be resisted by thrust blocks and the adjacent soil. Thrust blocks may
be designed using a passive resistance equal to the pressure developed by a fluid with a
density of 250 pounds per cubic foot.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 17 • r
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
6.3.6 Elevator
The dimensions and depth of the elevator pit are not available at this time. Excavation
should be as presented above. Deeper excavations may require shoring or be laid back to
an inclination of 1:1 or flatter. Cantilevered shoring may be designed for an active
equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf. If other methods are used (i.e. struts and walers), we
should be contacted to provide detailed design recommendations.
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 43 feet in boring B-1 and may be
encountered during excavation of the elevator shaft. Provisions should be made to
dewater the excavation if water is encountered. In addition, sloughing of the soils below
the groundwater level may occur. Casing should extend the total depth of the excavation.
We anticipate that the elevator shaft can be excavated with normal heavy-duty drilling
equipment.
6.4 Seismic Desian Criteria
The seismic ground motion values listed in Table 2 below were derived in accordance with the
ASCE 7-10 Standard that is incorporated into the California Building Code, 2013 (effective
January 1, 2014). This was accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on the soil
properties at the site, and then calculating the site coefficients and parameters using the United
States Geological Survey Seismic Design Maps application for the 2013 CBC values. These
Geotechnical Investigation Page 18
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
values are intended for the design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions.
The site coordinates used in the application were 33.49849°N and 117.16007'W.
TABLE 2
SEISMIC. GROUND MOTION VALUES
PARAMETER
VALUE
CBC REFERENCE (2013)
Site Class
D
ASCE 7, Chapter 20
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SS
1.956g
Figure 1613.3.1 {I }
Mapped Spectral Response
0.804g
Figure 1613.3.1 (2)
Acceleration Parameter, S I
Seismic Coefficient, Fa
1.000
Table 1613.3.3 (1)
Seismic Coefficient, F„
1.500
Table 1613.3.3 (2)
MCE Spectral Response
1 956g
Section 1613.3.3
Acceleration Parameter, S Ms
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, S M
1.206g
Section 1613.3.3
Design Spectral Response
1.304g
Section 1613.3.4
Acceleration, Parameter S DS
Design Spectral Response
0 804g
Section 1613.3.4
Acceleration, Parameter Soi
Mapped MCE Geometric Peak
0 812g
ASCE 7, Chapter 11
Ground Acceleration, PGA,,,
6.5 Vehicular Pavements
Pavement sections were evaluated using a laboratory determined `R' value of 44, correlating to a
modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 200 pci for site subgrade soil. The pavement
section recommendations are based on the assumption that the subgrade soil (the top 12-inches
minimum) will be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per
ASTM D 1557).
Geotechnical Investigation Page 19
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
If concrete pavement is used, the concrete should have a minimum modulus of rupture (flexural
strength) of 600 psi. We estimate that a 4,500 psi 28-day compressive strength concrete would
generally provide the minimum required flexural strength; however, other mix designs could also
meet the requirements. As such, we recommend that the contractor submit the proposed mix
design with necessary documentation to offer a proper level of confidence in the proposed
concrete materials. Recommended concrete pavement sections are presented below in Table 3.
TABLE 3
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCQ PAVEMENT SECTION
Traffic Area
Assumed
Design Modulus
PCC
Traffic Index
of Subgrade
Thickness
Reaction (Ni)
(inches)
Parking
5.0
200
6.0
Driveways
6.0
200
6.0
An unreinforced pavement with the minimum thickness indicated above should generally be
constructed with maximum joint spacing of 24 times the pavement thickness, in both directions,
and in nearly square patterns. As an alternative, the concrete pavement could be constructed
with typical minimal reinforcement consisting of #4 bars at 18 inches, on center, both ways, at or
above mid -slab height and with proper concrete cover.
' Geotechnical Investigation Page 24
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2415 _ _ CTE Job No. 40-3211
Recommended asphalt concrete pavement sections are presented below in Table 4.
TABLE 4� :.:
PRELIMINA RY ASPHALT:CAN CRETE r(AC):PAVEMENT SECTIQNS .
Traffic Area
Assumed
Design `
AC
` :Aggregate Base
Traffic Index
R' Value
Thickness"
Th claiess*
�inches"
inches
�� )
Parking Areas
5.0
44
3.0
4.5
Driveways
6.0
44
3.5
4.5
* R Value = 78 min.
In addition, it is recommended that pavement areas conform to the following criteria:
• Placement and construction of the recommended pavement section should be
performed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction (Greenbook, latest edition).
Aggregate base should confonra to the specification for Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate
Base (Caltrans, 2010) or Greenbook Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB).
• Pavement sections are prepared assuming that periodic maintenance will be done,
including sealing of cracks and other measures.
6.6 Retaining Walls
If retaining walls are proposed, the following recommendations should be incorporated into
design and construction. For the design of walls where the surface of the backfill is level, it may
be assumed that the on -site sandy soils will exert an active lateral pressure equal to that
developed by a fluid with a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The active pressure should
be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For walls
Geotechnical Investigation Page 21
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
restrained at the top so that such movement is not permitted, a pressure corresponding to an
equivalent fluid density of 60 pcf should be used, based on at --rest soil conditions. These
pressures should be increased by 20 pcf for walls retaining soils inclined at 2:1
(horizontal :verti cal).
Retaining walls over six feet high should be designed for earthquake forces. Lateral pressures on
cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) due to earthquake motions may be calculated based on
work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total lateral thrust against a properly drained and
backfilled cantilever retaining wall above the groundwater level can be expressed as:
P AE = PA + ❑P AE
For non -yielding (or "restrained') walls, the total lateral thrust may be similarly calculated based
on work by Wood 0973):
PKE=PK+APKE
Where:
PA = Static Active Thrust
PK = Static Restrained Wall Thrust
❑PAE = Dynamic Active Thrust Increment = (318) ki, •yH2
❑PKE = Dynamic Restrained Thrust Increment = kh yH2
kj, = 213 Peak Ground Acceleration =2/3 (PGA,,,) = 0.54g
H = Total Height of the Nall
7 = Total Unit Weight of Soil ;z 135 pounds per cubic foot
Geotechnical Investigation Page 22
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
The increment of dynamic thrust in both cases should be distributed as an inverted triangle, with
a resultant located at 0.6H above the bottom of the wall.
Recommendations for waterproofing the walls to reduce moisture infiltration should be provided
by the project architect or structural engineer.
We recommend that walls be backfilled with soil having an expansion index of 20 or less with
less than 30 percent passing the #200 sieve. The backfill area should include the zone defined by
a 1:1 sloping plane, extended back from the base of the wall footing. Wall backfill should be
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D 1557. Backfill should
not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction
equipment, which could cause distress to walls, should not be used.
The recommended lateral earth pressures presented herein assume that drainage will be provided
behind the walls to prevent the accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. A backdrain system
(similar to that shown on Figure 3) should be provided to reduce the potential for the
accumulation of hydrostatic pressures.
6.7 Corrosive Soils
Sulfate -containing solutions or soil can have a deleterious effect on the in-service performance of
concrete. In order to evaluate the foundation environment, a representative sample of site soil
was laboratory tested for pH, resistivity, soluble sulfate and chloride. The results of the tests are
Geotechnical Investigation Page 23
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
summarized below in Table 5.
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Sample Location.
pH
Resistivity.
(ohm -cm
Sulfate.
m}
Chloride...
{ m)
B-3 @ 10-13 ft.
8.1
990
130
97
B-5@ 2-5 ft
7.4
2600
58
22
Based on ACI 18 Building Code and Commentary Table 4.3.1, sulfate exposure of less than 150
ppm is considered negligible. We recommend that Type 11 modified or Type V cement be used.
We further recommend that at least a 3-inch thick concrete cover be maintained over the
reinforcing steel in concrete in contact with the soil.
Based on the results of the resistivity tests, site soil appears to be corrosive to ferrous metals.
We recommend plastic pipes be used. CTE does not practice in the field of corrosion
engineering. Therefore, a corrosion engineer could be consulted to determine the appropriate
protection for metallic improvements in contact with site soils.
6.8 Exterior Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork should have a minimum thickness of four inches, unless otherwise
specified by the project architect. To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused
by minor settlement of foundation soils, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with
Geotechnical Investigation Page 24
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
crack -control joints at appropriate spacing as recommended by the structural engineer. Flatwork,
such as driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features, should be installed with crack control
joints. Subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the earthwork recommendations
provided herein. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork as
per the recommendations of the project civil engineer of record.
6.9_Drainage
Positive drainage at a slope of 2 percent or more should be established for a minimum distance
of five feet away from structures and improvements, and as recommended by the project civil
engineer of record. To facilitate this, the proper use of construction elements such as roof drains,
downspouts, earthen and/or concrete swales, sloped external slabs -on -grade, and subdrains may
be employed. Downspouts should have extensions at least three feet long to direct water away
from the foundations. Irrigation adjacent to the structure should be limited to that necessary to
maintain plant vigor. If possible, irrigation adjacent to the structure should be eliminated to
mitigate potential expansion of the underlying soils. The project civil engineer should
thoroughly evaluate the on -site drainage and make provisions as necessary to keep surface water
from entering structural areas.
6.10 Percolation Test Results
Percolation test results are presented below in Table 6.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 25 • r
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
Test.= : `50''1 J3escri o .TestNo: a r 3 e 'haf s.. fi ti' i�l .atlonRatec
..�•� ��i. FFP "i,.. ..x.Y:•'-�,'.��:t�� s y 3� 3 �'.. �gq�,;'�. •.r�.,, f.y:.
�ft:abelow`.LkSCS�.S
..Fi}�.:
-: .suzface�
P-1 3.0 Sc 1.0 .
P-2 2.5 SC-SM with 2.0
Gravel
Percolation rates can be affected by such factors as build-up of silt, debris, degree of soil
saturation, and compaction of soil from grading. An appropriate factor of safety should be
applied to the above percolation rates to accommodate subsurface inconsistencies, potential
compaction from grading, and potential silting of the soils.
6.11 Plan Review
CTE should be authorized to review project grading and foundation plans and the project
specifications before the start of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the
recommendations contained in this report.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the anticipated construction and the
subsurface conditions found in our explorations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should
be checked in the field during construction to document that conditions are as anticipated.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 26
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27, 2415 CTE Job No. 40-3211
Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that
CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. Earthwork should be
observed and tested to document that grading activity has been performed according to the
recommendations contained within this report. The project geotechnical engineer should
evaluate footing excavations prior to placement of reinforcing steel.
The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have
been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by
reputable geotechnical consultants perforining similar tasks in this area. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions
expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this
report may be encountered during construction.
This report is applicable to the site for a period of three years after the issue date provided the
project remains as described herein. Modifications to the standard of practice and regulatory
requirements may necessitate an update to this report prior to the three years from issue.
Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If
conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be
notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. CTE
should review project specifications for all earthwork, foundation, and shoring -related activities
prior to the solicitation of construction bids.
Geotechnical Investigation Page 27 '
Proposed Home 2 Temecula
Temecula, California
July 27 2015 CTE Job No. 40-3211
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions
regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
CTE, South, Inc.
Essr
A . L
Clifford A. Craft, GE #243 *� orECI", r��"* Vincent J. Patula, CEG #2057
Senior Geotechnical Engineer qTF� CAL Senior Engineering Geologist
.12Z Z.'�o
Robert L. Ellerbusch
Staff Geologist
AL
J.
o ? No.2057 t
a } ENGOGI�tG
* GEOLOGIST
t4ptQF-CAVW�
REFERENCES
1. Cao, Tianqing, et al, 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Maps, June.
2. California Building Code, 2013, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2,
Volumes 1 and 2.
3. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1990, State of
California Special Studies Zones, Temecula Quadrangle, Revised Official Map, January
1, Scale 1:24,000.
4. Hart, Earl W. and Bryant, W.A., Revised 1997, "Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault
Zones Maps," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
5. International Building Code, 2012 Edition.
6. Seed, H.B., and R.V. Whitman, 1970, "Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic
Loads," in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground
and Design of Earth -Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell
University.
7. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, M.P., 2000, Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle,
San Diego and Riverside Counties, California: A Digital Database, Scale 1:24,000.
8. Webb, R.W. and Norris, R.M., 1990, Geology of California.
9. Wood, J.H., 1973, Earthquake -Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05.
Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
4r
A., 41OF
(4k.
*dPr
44
g JACO) N.
4
All"T.3
I .k
/ '.
�14 cl,f ILI'
, V-S
wl
T
N
NO SCALE
�i
�I
v�
4 B-1
r
11
tp
1!
■ -� _ 1 g Oak Drive
"IgTlYp FACE CF CGRh
' LANDSCAPE ` �• —
1 SETBACK
A
MONUMENT SIGN
lwFLxIx4 PArr+ M1 _ n —
9 • P-1
t 1 . , ..
■ : _ _ - M0704 CYCLE PARK"
Y =: .5! .
t = --_
+�
■ � � �/ � lam. - rr•-�- a {• s' ` f ii � * � ' } �T
.l..-rr1 Orr i{
ti LANDSCAPE
1 SETBACK
i
Basic Scats:
4 storyconeopt
Hamel
site area: 115,870 s.f.
2,66 acres
A.P.N. 921.020.041
Zoning SIP Zone
CUP Is required
FAR maximum 40% 46,481 s.1.
Maxinvurn lot coverage: 40% 46.481 s1.
Minimum raga open space: 25% 29,450 s.f.
Haight restsictian: 5o teet
V17+A'.w.'il1M I.1C riEb Wr[1Ya
arM,yrq rvLweV,annA: U+rw0.
Parking rewired'
.r,Z,�rcrswauFr.arxowc�lw
IIguestroom + 120 �+tomco iti+n rro 'rnci�I rm
7110 guestrooms • 12
total required 132 spaces
1 AQA required parking
1 Table 11S-208.2 101 - 150 5 spaces
8 Access
no access allayed from Rancho California
1 Singto Oak Drive - 250' between driveways.
I conditional upon trafAc englneef approval
-- I unit count:
1 fwat 18
second 34
thirddL 3�4
+ fourth 34
r s total 120 units
required FAR: .57
iparking provided: 134 spaces
9J$�B-6
i
010
1 ^ — B—.7 m r� ■. t r.. �L
y
■ .�' Fi1LE Piz
1 f O1ITDCORPATIO - - - • • '' , -• --r .._.
.[. O 14► 7 •a rr t
_ILL39
' NtC'+'CLE Pin[ AIgC O
��/ B-5
f j eA Of GMtlPr MOVE
B
� .S • 12
- . L"L aF GNGP'Y ABaYE
1
B-7
LEGEND 0
a i 10
APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION 1 I
t LANDSCAPE SETBACK
P-1 APPROXIMATE PERCOLATION TEST LOCATION ■ WAUIJ PAIN
2? FCO1 LANDSCAPE EA EMEW
EXISTINo rACf OF Cv" c+rr P1G+1 or WAT MONUMENT SIGN
Rancho California Road
UTH
1
1
• P-2
J
S[tlM.1riA[ER
HEAowAu
RIGHT TURN IN ONLY
silo
1116' • 1'.0'
TAB %
w.swn+
uyA � •
'kart
c
E
I� ~
a
O
P.Vftd %W-Os
747
Site Plan
Apr 23, 2015
No. Description hate
SHEET vD
A- 1
EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
Home 2 Hotel Development
Single Oak Drive, Temecula, California
No. Date Figure
40-32I1. JULY 2415 2
RETAINING WALL
F7
FINISH GRADE
WALL FOOTING
CTrSOUTH
, N.
WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED
TO 90% RELATIVE
COMPACTION
t o .
a a 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED
BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI
` 140 N, OR EQUIVALENT)
dd
- ° o
D G t � J►�J]�
C
d
4 R
0
a�
� d•
.0o
• � p
4" DIATERFORATED PVC
PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
' , EQUIVALENT) LAID WITH
d PERFORATIONS DOWN.
•-�■� /� ����, fLAMJIMUM 10-/- GRADIENT
•yam\yam\���
00,
TO SUITABLE OUTLET.
M NIMUM 6" LAYER OF
a/" GRAVEL UNDERLYING
PIPE.
RETAI NI NG WALL DRAI N DETAI L
Home 2 Hotel Development
Single Oak Drive, Temecula, California
!as Date Figure
40-3211 JULY 20 3
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND EXPLORATION LOGS
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION METHODS AND EXPLORATION LOGS
Soil Boring Methods
Relatively "Undisturbed" Soil Samples -
Relatively "undisturbed" soil samples were collected using a modified California -drive
sampler (2.4-inch inside diameter, 3-inch outside diameter) lined with sample rings.
Drive sampling was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D-3550. The steel
sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 140-pound
weight falling 30-inches. Blow counts (N) required for sampler penetration are shown on
the boring logs in the column "Blows/Foot." The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4
inches in diameter, 1.0 inch in height) and sealed in waterproof plastic containers for
shipment to the CTE, South, Inc. geotechnical laboratory.
Disturbed Soil Sampling
Bulk soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis using two methods. Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed according to ASTM D-1586 at selected depths
in the borings using a standard (1.4-inches inside diameter, 2-inches outside diameter)
split -barrel sampler. The steel sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with
successive drops of a 140-pound weight falling 34-inches. Blow counts (N) required for
sampler penetration are shown on the boring logs in the column "Blows/Foot."' Samples
collected in this manner were placed in sealed plastic bags. Bulk soil samples of the drill
cuttings were also collected in large plastic bags. The disturbed soil samples were
returned to the CTE, South, Inc. geotechnical laboratory for analysis.
CTgs"'TH
DEFT
N1 TI ON OF TERMS
PRI M ARY DI VI SI GNS
SYMBOLS
SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAVELS
CLEAN
, 4
A GW a
�`a �_ " " -
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES
LITTLE OR NO FINES
z
MORE THAN
HALF OF
GRAVELS
c 5% FINES
r 4 4
GP
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,
COARSE
LITTLE OF NO FINES
GRAVELS
G M
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES,
NON -PLASTIC FINES
0 0
N N
FRACTION IS
❑ _ w in
w ¢ 0 w
Z
LARGER THAN
N0. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY MIXTURES,
z � w
PLASTIC FINES
SANDS
CLEAN
=' "` ` ,'-
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
V5
= N
w w Q 04
0O
MORE THAN
HALF OF
SANDS
5°Io FINES
"' - -..... "
FINES
��
POORLY GRADED SANDS,OGFRA GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
Q w z
g
COARSE
INES
5M
SILTY SANDS, SAND_SLT MIXTURES, NON -PLASTIC FINES
D
FRACTION 15
SMALLER THAN
NO.4 SIEVE
SANDS
WITH FINES
5C
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY M IXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
LU
ML
INORGANICSILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY
❑ U- w N
❑
511.TS AND CLAYS
OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS
0 _j
D
LIQUID LIMIT IS
CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
U_ ¢ j
rn ¢ < w
LESS THAN 50
GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTSOR LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTSAND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
❑ _ N
OL
? ¢ .� �
W ¢
M H
INORGANIC SILTS, M ICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
w w wZ
SILTS AND CLAYS
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
CH
INORGANIC CLAY SOF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
x
z 0 F-- z
LIQUID LIMIT IS
�
GREATER THAN 50
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
SAND
BOULDERS
COBBLES
SILTS AND CLAYS
COARSE�VEL
FINE
COARSE MED UM FINE
12" 31 34' 4 10 40 200
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SI EVE SIZE
ADDITIONAL TESTS
(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COL LIM N HEADI NGS)
M AX- M axi mum D ry Densi ty
PM - Permeabi l i ty PP Pocket Penetrometer
GS- Grai n Size Di stri buti on
SG- Specif i c Gravity WA- Wash A nal ysi s
SE- Sand Equi vat ent
HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Di rect Shear
El- Expansion Index
AL-Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined Compression
CH M - Sulfate and Chl on de
RV- R-Value M D- M of sture(Densi ty
Content, pH, Resistivity
CN- Consolidation M- Moisture
COR - Corrosi vity
CP Cal I apse Potential SC- Swel I Compression
SD- Sample Disturbed
H C- Hydrocol I apse ❑ 1- Organi c I mpuri ti es
RD S- Remo] ded D i rest Shear
FIGURE:
BL1
C T9 S�OUl 1 1
PROJECT: DRILLER: SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
$
o
c
CL
0
E
�'_'
U5
U
BORI N G L EGEN D
Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
4
Block or Chunk Sample
Bul k Sample
5
Standard Penetration Test
10
M odi f i ed Sp1 i t-Barrel D ri ve Sarnpl er [Cal Sampl er)
1S
z
Groundwater Table
..,....
---------------....---------------------------------------------------------
Soil Type or Classification Change
20
Formation Change l{Approxi mate boundaries queried (?)I
"SM"
Quotes are Placed around d assi f i cations where the soi Is
25
exist i n situ as bedrock
FIGURE:
BL2
C Te SOUTH
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 1 of 3
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: S" Hollow Steni Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autohammer ELEVATION: —1021'
�
L
V'
r
E
.flC
G
a
BORING : B —1
Laboratory Tests
Q
U
❑
�e
07
7
❑
0.1
❑
�
�
a
C7
DESCRIPTION
Sc
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)
25
Clayey SAND, very dense, damp, reddish brown, scattered
MAX, El
5015"
110.5
4.1
gravel, iron -oxide staining.
MD
GS (40% pass #200)
AL (LL=26, PI=7)
30
34
Clayey SAND, very dense, damp, reddish brown, scattered
36
123.2
4.6
gravel, iron -oxide staining.
MD
10
17
Lean CLAY with Sand, very stiff, moist, dark gray to black.
28
106.1
20.4
MD, DS
10
SC
I 1
Clayey SAND, medium dense, dark gray, scattered gravel,
16
iron -oxide staining.
MD, DS
Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp)
20-
16
28
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted.
35
104.1
1.3
MD, DS
2
B-1
Boring B-1
CTrso'T"
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 2 of 3
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Augei• DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb/30" Autohammer ELEVATION: -1021'
�
�
a
Iw
U
BORING: B- l Cont'd.
Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
2
9
11
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted,
14
2.6
iron -oxide staining.
M
_30-
10
12
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted.
17
3.8
M
I5
20
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted,
30
6.7
iron -oxide staining.
M
4
12
30
SANDSTONE, hard, gray, well sorted, iron -oxide staining.
50
101.7
26.0
MD
Groundwater at 43 ft.
4
20
40
BRECCIA, hard, dark grayish brown, angular rock fragments,
50
12.7
iron -oxide staining.
M
5
B-lb
Boring B-1 b
CTrs"'TH+
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 3 of 3
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hallow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb/30" Autoliammcr ELEVATION: —1021'
0
C,
o
a
BORING: B-1 Conttd.
Laboratory Tests
y
s
V
G
DESCRIPTION
5
16
19
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, gray, poorly sorted.
16
20.0
M
Total Depth = 51.5 ft.
Groundwater encountered at 43 ft. below surface.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings, with bentonite plug above
water level.
5
5
b
7
7
B-lc
Boring B-1 c
CTr
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 1 of 2
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE; 6/1612015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autohamtner ELEVATION: —1021'
BORING' B-2
Laboratory Tests
U
C]
U
Ca
ro
>
Ca
Ci
C1
14
0
DESCRIPTION
SC-SM
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits
p (Qoa)
Silty Clayey SAND, damp, grayish brown.
$
16
19
Silty Clayey SAND, medium dense, moist, grayish brown,
16
119.1
8.8
trace gravel, faint iron -oxide staining.
MD
1
5
•------
cL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
Lean CLAY with Sand, very stiff, very moist, dark gray to black.
9
24.3
M
1
10
15
Sandy Lean CLAY, very stiff, moist, dark gray, trace gravel,
15
112.7
9.3
faint iron -oxide staining.
MD
Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp)
9
14
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted.
17
1.7
M
2
B-2
Boring B-2
CTrs"'TH
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Driiihig CM C 75 SHEET: 2 of 2
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autohammer ELEVATION: —1021'
F
E
a
BORING: B-2 Cont'd.
Laboratory Tests
a.
J
o
Ca
y
o
U
DESCRIPTION
15
16
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted.
26
98.6
1.7
MD
13
13
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, grayish brown, well sorted.
13
5.2
M
Total Depth = 31.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
3
4
4
5
B-2b
Boring B-2b
9
t
CTr so,.
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211
LOGGED BY: R.E.
DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 1 of 2
DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
SAMPLE METHOD: 140 1b130" Autoliammer ELEVATION: —1021'
�
�
a
B V R ; ..
Laboratory Tests
G
Q
Q
m
0
CE7
DESCRIPTION
0
sc-SM
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits P (Qoa)
Silty Clayey SAND, damp, reddish brown.
5
8
16
Silty Clayey SAND, dense, moist, reddish brown, trace sub-
25
7.7
angular gravel, iron -oxide staining.
M
15
CLEl
20
Lean CLAY, hard, moist, dark gray to black.
WA (76% pass #200)
34
124.6
17.4
MD, CN
AL (LL=32, P1=13)
1
7
10
Lean CLAY with Sand, very stiff, moist, dark gray.
12
12.6
M
Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp)
2
20
30
SANDSTONE, hard, light grayish brown, faint iron -oxide
37
104.8
1.4
staining.
MD
251
B-3
Boring B-3
CTrs"'TH
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 2 of 2
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: S" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 IWO" Autohammer ELEVATION: —1021'
H
�
'
BORING: B-3 Cant'd.
Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
to
14
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light grayish brown, well
17
2.4
sorted.
M
12
12
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light gray, well sorted.
15
2.2
M
Total Depth = 31.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
3
4
4
5
B-3b
Boring B-3b
C T
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 1 of 2
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/I6/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autoliammer ELEVATION: —1022'
�
BORING: B —4
Laboratory Tests
x
�
A
C]
�
t/}
U
U
DESCRIPTION
0
SC
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits
p (Qna)
Clayey SAND, moist, reddish brown, trace gravel.
AL (LL=25, PI=7)
WA (41 % pass 4200)
$
40
43
Clayey SAND, very dense, moist, dark reddish brown,
45
96.7
12.0
trace gravel, faint iron -oxide staining.
MD
I
4
-
CL
_____.------------------------------------------------------------------------
-�
6
Sandy Lean CLAY, stiff, moist, dark gray.
7
12.6
M
15-
lb
24
Clayey SAND, dense, moist, grayish brown, iron -oxide staining.
25
4.6
M
2
10
Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp)
10
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, heavy iron-
14
2.8
oxide staining.
M
2
B-4
Boring B-4
CTgs"'TH
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 2 of 2
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: S" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Aulohammer ELEVATION:—1022'
C
o
BORING: B-4 Cont'd.
Laboratory Tests
x
DESCRIPTION
2
9
14
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, heavy iron -oxide
16
staining.
7
G
10
19.4
at 3 V CLAYSTONE moist -grayish brown. iron -oxide stainin .
M
Total Depth = 31.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
3
4
4
5
B-4b
Boring B-4b
CTrso'T"
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: I of 1
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autoliaimner ELEVATION: —1021'
o
c
v
_52
�
=
BORING: B-5
Laboratory Tests
U
C6
DESCRIPTION
SC-SM
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits
p (Qoa)
23
Silty Clayey SAND, very dense, moist, reddish brown, scattered
CHM
30
sub -angular gravel, iron -oxide staining.
41
110.8
6.9
MD
5
13
25
Silty Clayey SAND, very dense, moist, dark reddish brown,
5015"
112.6
15.8
trace gravel.
MD
1
20
....C_....-
L
...........-------------------------------------------------------------------------
32
No sample recovery, Lean Clay with Sand, hard, moist, black
35
(as observed from soil cuttings)
1
13
19
Sandy Lean CLAY, very stiff, moist, dark gray, trace gravel.
23
92.1
13.6
MD
2
19
Pauba Formation sandstone facies (Qp}
25
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted, iron-
33
103.6
1.6
oxide staining.
MD
-2j
B-5
Boring B-5
CTrs"'TH
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 211 Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 2 of 2
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/201 S
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autohammer ELEVATION: —102F
�
�
a
y
`
�
�'
nT� T1�T
B Vi111V B-5 Cont.
Laboratory Tests
ej
F
CA
.�
L
:3
!C
DESCRIPTION
2
9
14
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted, iron-
17
8.1
oxide staining.
M
I2
I 1
SANDSTONE, moderately hard, light brown, well sorted.
14
2.6
M
Total Depth = 31.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
3
4
4
5
B-4b
Boring B-5b
CTkE
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 1 of I
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: S" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autoliammer ELEVATION:—1021'
�
C
o
v
_
a
BORING: B-6
Laboratory Tests
o
m
o
m
o
U
DESCRIPTION
SC
Artificial Fill
Clayey SAND, moist, reddish brown.
4
s
11
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)
5
14
Clayey SAND, dense, damp, grayish brown, scattered gravel.
]1
32
Total Depth = 6.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
1
1
2
2
B-6
Boring B-6
r
C T
SDU�'.K
N%i;i�
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: I of 1
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib130" Autoliammer ELEVATION:—1023'
o
CIOF
00
BORING: B-7
Laboratory Tests
x
�n'
U
DESCRIPTION
Sc
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)
20
Clayey SAND, very dense, moist, dark gray, scattered gravel,
32
iron -oxide staining.
30
5
13
13
Clayey SAND, medium dense, moist, dark gray, scattered gravel,
15
iron -oxide staininia.
Total Depth = 6.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
1
1
2
2
B-7
Boring B-7
n
C Tg
SDZTT�
PROJECT: Horne 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: 1 of I
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/16/2015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb130" Autohamrner ELEVATION: —1022'
c.
B— p
BORING: O
Laboratory Tests
U
a.
DESCRIPTION
SC-SM
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)
30
Silty Clayey SAND, very dense, moist, reddish brown, scattered
5015"
gravel, iron -oxide staining.
5
38
- GC
Clayey Sandy GRAVEL, car gray>5i brown, sunangnlar. - - ----
5d15"
Total Depth M 6.5 ft.
No Groundwater encountered.
1
Bore hole backfilled with soil cuttings.
1
2
B-8
Boring B-8
P
C Tr �"\' TH
PROJECT: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development DRILLER: 2R Drilling CME 75 SHEET: I of 1
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211 DRILL METHOD: 8" Hollow Stem Auger DRILLING DATE: 6/1 G12015
LOGGED BY: R.E. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib130" Autoliammer ELEVATION:--1020'
�
�
o
/¢
as
A
a
�'
,�
�
a
nn T
BORING: B-9
Laboratory Tests
06
a
o
U
r
Q
m❑
m
Q
�
�
v
DESCRIPTION
Sc
Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa)
10
Clayey SAND, medium dense, moist, reddish brown, scattered
13
gravel, iron -oxide staining.
16
Practical refusal at 4 ft (rock).
5
No Groundwater encountered.
Bore hole backfill with soil cuttings.
1
1
2
B-9
Boring B-9
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
b
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties. Tests
were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), or
other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used.
Laboratory results are presented in the following section of this Appendix.
Atterberg Limits
The liquid limit and plasticity index were determined on selected soil samples in accordance with ASTM
D4318.
Chemical Analysis
Soil materials were collected and tested for Sulfate and Chloride content, pH, and Resistivity.
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications
were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D 2487.
Consolidation
To assess compressibility and volume change behavior when loaded and wetted, a relatively undisturbed
sample was subjected to consolidation in accordance with ASTM D 2435.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples. Direct shear testing was performed
in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse
field conditions.
Expansion Index
Expansion Index testing was performed on selected samples of the on -site soils according to ASTM D
4829.
In -Place Moisture/Density
The in -place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected relatively undisturbed samples in
accordance with ASTM D 2216 and D 2937, respectively.
Modified Proctor
Laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were evaluated according to ASTM D
1557.
Resistance "R" VaIue
The resistance "R"-value was measured by the California Test 301. The graphically determined "R"
value at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds per square inch is the value used for pavement section
calculation.
Sieve Analysis Gradation
Sieve analyses and/or 200 washes were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM
C 136 and D 1140 to determine grain -size distribution.
PRECONSOLIDATION
N�mmi■nnniii
��nmii■nnnii
■mno��mmii
■mnm�nnmii
■mmo■►�mii i
■�mmi■mmni
SHEARING DATA
5000
400
N
{� 3000
N
w
2000
a
w
rn 1000
0 I I i I I• ••�I I i I i
J�_II•.II..II..II..IL{I 0 2 4 6 8 9 0 12 14 16 i 8 20
100 STRAIN
VERTICAL 400 psf
STRESS 900 psf
1300 osf
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST— ASTM D3080
Job Name: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Develo2ment Initial Dry Density (pco: 106.1
Project Number: 40-3211 Sample Date: 6/16/2015 Initial Moisture (°/°}: 20.4
Lab Number: 25400 Test Date: 6/26/2015 Final Moisture (%}: 25.2
Sample Location: B-1 a10' Tested by: RJP Cohesion: 350 psf
Sample Description: Dark Gray Lean Clay Checked by: RE Angle Of Friction: 35
Ur■■\MEN
�■■i1
■�IIIIIY■�1:!nll■�1�11111
FAILURE ENVELOPE
5000
4000
N
C.
N 3000
w
N
Z
d 2000
w
1000
d; a.1200 mmdmia
0
0 1250 2500 3750 5000
VERTICAL STRESS jpsf]
'5�
CTE
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST— ASTM D3080
Job Name: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development Initial Dry Density (pco: 104.1
Project Number: 40-3211 Sample Date: 6/16/2015 Initial Moisture (°/o}: 1.3
Lab Number: 25400 Test Date: 6/26/2015 Final Moisture (%}: 22.4
Sample Location: B-1 cr 20' Tested by: RJP Cohesion: 760 psf
Sample Description: Light Brown Sandstone Checked by: RE Angle Of Friction: 36
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
,
5.00
0
x
6.00
a
n
J
0
7.00
z
0
U
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
100 1000 10000
VERTICAL EFFECTIVE STRESS (psf)
SWELL/CONSOLIDATION TEST
Sample Designation
Depth (ft)
Symbol
Legend
B-3
10
■
1 FIELD MOISTURE
- - - - - - - - -- - - SAMPLE SATURATED
Initial Dry Density, pcf
Initial Moisture Content, %
Sample saturated
124.6
17.4
at 1000 psf
REBOUND
145M MwWian Parkway, SuUA I Rivr ". CA 0518 1 Ph (951)5714MI I Fax (051)671-4188
C TfS"
�
CTE JOB NO: 40-3211
` In T GooNchnice Envlranmanral Coruwedon E rAw CIA a Sm =s��+ I +� ! I I � G►oi r �+aM �a I rvl+a
�J
Home 2 Temecula
Specimen/ Mold No. 6 5 4
Compactor Air Pressure, ft.lbs. 350 350 350 Exudation
Initial Moisture, % 1.5 1.5 1.5
Wet weight and Dry weight, g 1200.0 1182.8 1200,0 1182.8 1200.01 1182.8 Expansion
Water Added, ml 90 100 110
Moisture at Compaction, % 9.1 9.9 10.8 R-value
Wt. Of Briquette and Mold, g 3273 3299 3276
Wt. Of Mold, g 2120 2120 2116
Wt. Of Briquitte,g 1153 1179 1160 TI 4.5
Height of Briquette, in 2.49 2.54 2.52 Expansion 56
Dry Density, pcf 128.7 128.0 126.0
Stabilometer PH @ 1000 lbs 18 40 49
Stabilometer PH @ 2000 Ibs 34 86 113
Displacement 3.89 4.56 4.46 Initial Wt. Samr
Expansion From Graph: 0.42
" I I �%"'\
f
C
�
0 LABORATORY COMPACTION OF SOIL (MODIFIED PROCTOR)
ASTM ❑ 1557
Project Name: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development
CTE Project No.: 40-3211 Sampled By: RE Date: 6/16/15
Lab No.: 7839 Tested By: KC Date: 719115
Sample ID: B-1 2-5 ft. Reviewed By: RE Date: 719115
Sample Description: Reddish Brown Clayey Sand with gravel.
TEST N.
1
2
3
4
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (lbs)
8.766
9.007
9.194
9.137
Wt. of Mold (lbs)
4.407
4.407
4.407
4.407
Net Wt. of Soil (lbs)
4.359
4.600
4.787
4.730
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
506.8
698.3
460.4
608.9
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
487.3
659.0
425.9
554.2
Wt. of Container (g)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Moisture Content (%)
4.0
6.0
8.1
9.9
Wet Density (pcf)
130.9
138.1
143.8
142.0
Dy Density cf
125.9
130.4
133.0
129.3
PROCEDURE USED
Procedure A
it Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
)ld : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
yers: 5 (Five)
)ws per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
iv be used if No.4 retained =1< 25%
X I Procedure B
Soil Passing 318 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if 3/8" retained =1< 25%
I Procedure C
ail Passing 314 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
)ld : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
yers : 5 (Five)
)ws per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
iy be used if 3/4" retained =/< 30%
Preparation Method: Dry
Moist x
Mechanical Rammer
Manual Rammer x
Hammer Weight: 10.0 lb.:],
Drop:1 1$
Mold Volume (ft.3): 0.03330
MMM
sp
mmmm �Mrrm
mmmmmmkwnmm MMME mmmm
MMMMmmmmmmmm MMM MMME mmmm Mm'sm MMM mmmm
mmmmm�mmmm�m mmmm
ImmmmWIMMM.I...
.-�azklvmmmm
mmm MMMi
mmmm mm�mmmmmmm
lm�ml_=L mm MMMMM FAA ■�WMMM.M
MMMMMmmmm. MM mm..Igg MMIMM M
M M M M M M M M W
OVERSIZE FRACTION
Total Sample Weight (g):
13770.8
Weight Retained (g)
Percent Retained
756.5 Plus 3/4"1
5.5
1830.2 Plus 318"
13.3-
IL 2790.3 1 Plus #41
20.3
Maximum Dry Density (pct 133.3
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 7.8
Rock Correction Applied per ASTM ❑ 4718
Maximum Dry Density (pct} 136.0
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 7.0
14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A I Riverside, CA 92518 1 Ph (951 )571-4081 I Fax (951 )571-4188
Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental I Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
r
Q
a
Q
Q
r
G
w
N
r
U
H
Q
a
r
a
a
0
a
C
w
�
�
w
a
r ,
o
n
"
ea
V
r
V
i�
U
C"
N
G]
O
x
N
0
d'
W
5
U
d
2
R,
4
E
a
�
a
d
w
�
cn
�
O �
a
�'
qa
�
91
ol
fn
uz/
M
uz
ti
o
o a]
r
a
coo
Q
o
(D
W
a
u')
ONISSVd
a
d
1N3:DNgd
Q
c?
o
cV
a
a
r
C��S�D�UTH
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM D 4829
CTE Project Number: 40-3211
Project Name: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development
Sample ID: B-1 @ 2-5 ft.
Sample Description: Clayey SAND
Test Start Date: Time: Initial Reading:
7-10-2015 9:30 am 0.0061
Test Finish Date: Time: Final Reading:
7-11-2015 9: 3 0 am 0.0172
Specimen Moisture Content: 8.7 %
Specimen Dry Density: 109.9 pcf
Specimen Percent Saturation: 47.1 %
Expansion (inches) : 0.0111
Expansion Index: 11
Expansion Potential: Very Low
14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A I Riverside, CA 92518 I Ph (951) 571-4481 1 Fax (951 ) 571-4188
Inspection I Tesfing I Geotechnical I Environmental I Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
CTrs"TH
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM D 4829
CTE Project Number: 40-3211
Project Name: Home 2 Temecula Hotel Development
Sample 1D: B-3 @a 10-13 ft.
Sample Description: Lean CLAY
Test Start Date: Time: Initial Reading:
7-12--2015 9:00 am 0.0052
Test Finish Date: Time: Final Reading:
7-13-2015 9:00 am 0.0685
Specimen Moisture Content: 11.1 %
Specimen Dry Density: 106.1 pcf
Specimen Percent Saturation: 54.1 %
Expansion (inches): 0.0633
Expansion Index: 63
Expansion Potential: Medium
14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A I Riverside, CA 92518 1 Ph (951 ) 571-4081 1 Fax (951) 571-4188
inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental I Construction Engineering j Civil Engineering I Surveying
a
040
BABCOCK Laboratories, Inc.
7Iff Vinlel(nd gjl:►(111aw fil? O� o- hill I'(d)f
Client Name: Construction Testing & Eng., Inc. Analytical Report: Page 1 of 4
Contact: Robert Ellerbusch Project Name: Const. Test. -Soils
Address: 14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A Project Number: Hotel Development - Temecula,
Riverside, CA 92518 Work Order Number: B5F2a54
Report Date: 24-Jun-2015 Received on ice (YIN): No Temp: °C
Attached is the analytical report for the sample(s) received for your project. Below is a list of the individual
sample descriptions with the corresponding laboratory number(s). Also, enclosed is a copy of the Chain of
Custody document (if received with your samples}). Please note any unused portion of the sample(s) may be
responsibly discarded after 30 days from the above report date, unless you have requested otherwise.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve your analytical needs. If you have any questions or concerns regarding
this report please contact our client service department.
Sample Identification
Lab Sample #
Client -Sample I❑ Matrix
Date Sampled By
Date Submitted By
135F2054-01
40-3211: B-3 @ 10-13' Soil
06/16/15 09.00 Rob
06/18/15 16:52 R. Ellerbusch
Ellerbach
135F2054-02
40-3211: B-5 @ 2-5' Soil
06/16/1511:00 Rob
06/18/1516:52 R. Ellerbusch
Ellerbach
mailing
location
P 951 653 3351
NELAP no. 02101CA
P.C. Box 432
6100 Quail Valley Court.
F 951 653 1662
CA Elap no. 2698
Riverside, CA 92502.0432 Riverside, CA 92507-0704
www.babcocklabs.com
EPA no. CA00102
BABCOCK Laboratories, Inc.
771r ,S' awlaPd !/ EE'(-iF8( err, j;,r Oi7, ► 7Q (l ) *('(11)
Client Name: Construction Testing & Eng., Inc. Analytical Report: Page 2 of 4
Contact: Robert Ellerbusch Project Name: Const. Test. -Soils
Address: 14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A Project Number: Hotel Development - Temecula,
Riverside, CA 92518 Work Order Number: B5F2054
Report Date: 24-Jun-2015 Received on Ice (YIN): No Temp: °C
Laboratory Reference Number
B5F2a54-01
Sample Description Matrix Sampled Date/Time Received Date/Time
40-3211: B-3 @ 10-13' Soil 06/16/15 09:00 06/18/15 16:52
Analyte(s)
Result
RDL
Units
Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag
Saturated Paste
pH
8.1
0.1
pH Units
S-1.10 W.S.
06/22/15 23:30
cdcs
Minimum Resistivity
990
10
ohm -cm
Cal Trans 643
06/22/15 23:30
cdcs
Water Extract
Chloride
97
10
ppm
Ion Chromat.
06/20/16 02:29
dcb N-SAG
Sulfate
130
10
ppm
Ion Chromat.
06/20/15 02:29
dcb N-SAG
mailing
location
P 951 653 3351
NELAP no. 02101CA
P.D. Box 432
6100 Quail Valley Court
F 951 653 1662
CA Elap no. 2698
Riverside, CA 92502.0432
Riverside, CA 92507-0704
www.babcocklabs.com
EPA no. CA00102
(Doe
BABCOCK Laboratories, Inc.
'A( Q ri 100 )- h
Client Name: Construction Testing & Eng., Inc.
Analytical Report: Page 3 of 4
Contact: Robert Ellerbusch
Project Name: Const. Test. -Soils
Address: 14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A
Project Number: Hotel Development - Temecula,
Riverside, CA 92518
Work Order Number: B5F2054
Report Date: 24-Jun-2015
Received on Ice (YIN): No Temp: °C
Laboratory Reference Number
B5F2054-02
Sample Description
Matrix Sampled Date/Time Received DateMme
40-3211: B-5 @ 2-5'
Soil 0611611511:00 06/18/15 16:52
Analyte(s) Result
RDL Units Method Analysis Date Analyst Flag
Saturated Paste
pH 7.4
0.1 pH Units S-1.10 W.S. 06/22/15 23:30 cdcs
Minimum Resistivity 2600
10 ohm -cm Cal Trans 643 06/22/15 23:30 cdcs
Water Extract
Chloride 22
10 ppm Ion Chromat. 06/20/15 02:39 dcb N-SAG
Sulfate 58
10 ppm Ion Chromat. 06/23/15 04:52 dcb N-SAG
mailing location P 951 653 3351 NELAP no. 02101CA
P.C. Box 432 6100 Quail Valley Court F 951 653 1662 CA Elap no. 2698
Riverside, CA 92502-0432 Riverside, CA 92507-0704 www.babcocklabs.com EPA no. CA00102
ADO
BABCOCK Laboratories, Inc.
111r i o.) f 00 l frr1 f
Client Name: Construction Testing & Eng., Inc. Analytical Report: Page 4 of 4
Contact: Robert Ellerbusch Project Name: Const. Test. -Soils
Address: 14538 Meridian Parkway, Suite A Project Number. Hotel Development - Temecula,
Riverside, CA 9251$ CA
Work Order Number: B F2054
Report Date: 24-Jun-2015 Received on Ice (YIN): No Temp: °C
Notes and Definitions
N-SAG Results reported in ppm are expressed on an air dried sail basis.
ND: Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the Method Detection Limit (if MDL is reported), otherwise at or
above the Reportable Detection Limit (RDL)
NR: Not Reported
RDL: Reportable Detection Limit
MDL: Method Detection Limit
* / "' : NELAP does not offer accreditation for this anaiytelmethodfmatrix combination
Approval
Enclosed are the analytical results for the submitted samples). Babcock Laboratories certify the data presented as part of
this report meet the minimum quality standards in the referenced analytical methods. Any exceptions have been noted.
Babcock Laboratories and its officers and employees assume no responsibility and make no warranty, express or implied,
for uses or interpretations made by any recipients, intended or unintended, of this report.
Digitally signed by: Sushmitha Reddy
7:�7�DN: CN 1-5ushmitha Reddy C= U5
o = Babcock Labs, Inc.
Date: 2015.06.26 18,10:67-07'00'
cc:
e-ShortNo Alias
n2ailing location P 951 653 3351 NELAP no. 02101CA
P.O. Box 432 6100 Quail Valley Court l+ 951 653 1662 CA Elap no. 2698
Riverside, CA 92502-0432 Riverside, CA 92507-0704 www.babcocklabs.com EPA no. CA00102