The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7378b.gro (fnl) dated 10-22-19 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF GRADING KUMAR CONVENIENCE MART 301 NORTH MAIN STREET CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ac '� • f MR. R KUMAR 401 EAST 6TH ET CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92879 W.O. 7378-B-SC OCTOBER 22,2019 • A49 MOP 6 lk tQ0 •is • P�tIIV•SAPy 197�9 / Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 26590 Madison Avenue • Murrieta, California 92562 • (951) 677-9651 • FAX (951) 677-9301 • www.geosoilsinc.com October 22, 2019 W.O. 7378-B-SC Mr. Raj Kumar 401 East 6t" Street Corona, California 92879 Subject: Geotechnical Report of Grading, Kumar Convenience Mart, 301 North Main Street, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California Dear Mr. Kumar: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this geotechnical report of grading for the subject building pad, Kumar Convenience Mart, 301 North Main Street, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. Grading of the new building pad area began on October 12, 2019 and was substantially completed on October 16, 2019. Based on the observations and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the graded building pad appears suitable for it's intended commercial use. Unless specifically superceded by recommendations presented herein, the recommendations and conclusions contained in the referenced reports by GSI (see Appendix A) remain pertinent and applicable, and should be appropriately implemented, as warranted. ENGINEERING GEOLOGY The geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were observed on a part-time basis by representatives from our firm. Observations during the process of grading included removals of weathered and loose, potentially compressible near surface artificial fill, and young alluvial fan deposits to competent fan deposits, as well as fill placement, along with the typical grading procedures of the contractor, in general accordance with the referenced preliminary geotechnical investigation for the site (GSI, 2018b). The earth materials encountered during the process of grading within the project included near surface artificial fills and young alluvial fan deposits and were generally as indicated within the referenced report by GSI (2018b). PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK The purpose of the grading was to remove and recompact near-surface weathered soils, and provide a relatively level building pad for the proposed commercial construction (Kumar Convenience Mart), along with associated infrastructure and underground utility improvements. Typical cut/fill grading techniques were utilized to attain the desired graded configurations. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION Earthwork operations have been completed in general accordance with recommendations provided in the field based upon conditions exposed and/or in accordance with the recommendations provided in the referenced report by GSI (2018b). Preparation of Existing Ground 1. Deleterious material, such as concentrated organic matter, and miscellaneous debris, etc., were stripped from the surface and disposed of offsite, prior to grading and subsequent fill placement. The locations, elevations, and limits of proposed improvements were provided by others. 2. Potentially compressible and weathered near surface artificial fills and young alluvial fan deposits were removed to the limits indicated in the approved referenced report (GSI, 2018b). 3. After surficial removals of weathered near surface materials had been completed, bottom tests were performed on the existing in-place young alluvial fan deposits to evaluate if potentially compressible materials had been removed. Bottom testing indicated that the in-situ native materials, below the recommended removals, were above minimum density requirements of 105 pcf. Bottom tests are included in the enclosed Table 1 at the end of this report. 4. Subsequent to the above removals,the exposed subsoils were scarified to a depth of about 6 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture content, then compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). 5. All processing of original ground was observed by a representative of GSI. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 Fill Placement In areas that received fill, soils consisting of native onsite earth materials were placed in 6-to 8-inch lifts, watered, and mixed to achieve at least optimum moisture conditions, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557) utilizing a heavy earth scraper, skid-steer loader, and fire hose. Fill materials were placed in general accordance with the approved earthwork guidelines for the site (GSI, 2018b). The approximate minimum to maximum depth of fill placed during site grading is presented in the attached Table 2. Field Testing 1. Field density tests were performed using the nuclear (densometer) methods ASTM D 6938-10 (Procedure A), and the sand-cone method ASTM D 1556. The test results are presented in the enclosed Table 1 . The approximate locations of the bottom tests and field density tests taken during the precise grading operations are shown on Figure 1 , which utilize the 20-scale precise grading plans prepared by Love Engineering, Inc. (LEI, 2016). 2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and selected locations to check the compactive efforts provided by the contractor. Where test results indicated less than optimum moisture content, or less than 90 percent relative compaction, the contractor was notified and the area was reworked until retesting indicated at least optimum moisture conditions and a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent were attained. Based upon the grading operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered representative of the compacted fill. 3. Visual classification, supplemented by laboratory testing, was the basis for evaluating which maximum density value to use for a given density test. Groundwater and Seepage No perched water or seepage was encountered during grading operations in the areas under the purview of this report. Generally, and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in the development of the site. However, perched groundwater and/or seepage may occur in the fill due to migration from drainage areas and development during and/or after periods of above normal or heavy precipitation or irrigation. This potential increases on shallow fill pads. Thus, perched groundwater conditions and/or seepage may occur in the future, and should be anticipated. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of this report and do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future. If in the future, perched water conditions are observed due to excessive irrigation, precipitation,or otherfactors not obvious during site grading, GSI should be contacted for recommendations for mitigation. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 3 76.67 E- (77.21 EG) - -_ I `° wR S,w �v - - - a (77.21 EC) 711, - � 20 'C 0 20 40 1273'/2 I I 7.00 EG TE 1273'/2 FX-18.-. 7(-21 X 12 BT 2 I SCALE 1X-7 LLJ 000 1.2% BT-3BT 1 X 15 I ;. I GSI LEGEND I � ri � � � r` oo ;� X-16 n rn 00 ..� X-10 Iv ' v 06 3 aD ao ao ao 5 a) PROP FOODMA;?' r- a6 r` X 13 AfC PE=79.00 78.52 FS r- 78.64 00 GAL FF=79.67 X 8 I Afc Artificial Fill - Compacted PROPANE N H LJ� ,2�� LOT 1 TANK X-22 Qyf X-20 BT_6 I Qyf Pleistocene-age Young Alluvial Fan Deposits, I ; ;� , _ , Circled where Buried • X-14 _ oo O 12 LL BT-4 X-9 -1 'Ij BT-6 Approximate Location of Remedial Removal n ^ 0D o I PROP X-11 I Bottom Test 1 v.� I I `^^, r^. • ol", WALL X-22 Approximate Location of Field Density Test 1 I 78.45 EG �2� •• �7 z2 X-17 BT-5 X-19 W ( ) F.. I 1273Yz Approximate Elevation of Remedial Removal • \-71 1273'/2 n 1273'/2 I u � Bottom 7 •( 8.69 EG) L I - Area Under the Purview of this Report �J (78.81 EG) 80.00 FS I I 179.65 FS LZ u L LLJ CN I N o 7 � M a?I o L` • 80.35 FS 00 rn l � � i 79.23 FS 80.15 FS Is 00 CIO ao ao _ -00 r- --j r` 79.40 •• fcc--c (81.00 EG) 7960 3S 80.77 FS w 80.31 FS J L 80.29 FS L) cc � ^ 80.00 FS 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 80.45 FS _ j 1.3% • • 128 r10 r- LL_ cn n 1.5x 82.15 FS 17! i s1.65 FS 82.3 /HIP z ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE rn °' __ _ 81.80 EG) 81.84 EG) 82.22 EG) ° (82.52 EG) This document or e file is not part of the Construction Documents and should not be relied upon as being an (80.34 EG) (80.57 EG) _ �-(82.17 EG) accurate depiction of design. �Attr --- ---- N 18'28'04"E 100.04'17 - - i a�--- N 18'28'04"E i 00.04' - - - i PREPARED BY: LOVE ENGINEERING s1,42TC T PRO p 82.0 TC) ,�, PLANNING - ENGINEERING - SURVEYING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE HEET 2 (80.92 FL) W=40 2 (81.5 FL) 31915 Rancho California Road, Suite 200-166, Temecula, CA 92591 11.18 TC) (81.39 TC) 81.86 TC) TEL (951) 440 - 8149 / FAX (951) 303 - 6701 KUMAR CONVENIENCE CENTER 2 o.ss FL) (ac.89 FL) (81.36 FL FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATION MAP 301 N MAIN ST :F ,HEETs LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 FILE r,:: MAIN STREET Figure 9 THOMASS.LOVE DATE PRECISE GRADING PLAN Figure adapted from Precise Grading Plan by Love Engineering, Inc.2016. W.O.7378-B-SC DATE:10/19 SCALE: See Bar Scale LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density Testing The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type encountered was evaluated in general accordance with test method ASTM D 1557. The following table presents the results: MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE SOIL TYPE DENSITY (pcf) CONTENT (%) A - Brown, Clayey SAND 133.5 7.7 B - Light Brown, Silty SAND 132.0 10.1 Expansion Potential Expansion Index (E.I.) testing was performed subsequent to grading for the typical foundation soil type exposed at pad grade, in general accordance with the 2016 California Building Code ([2016 CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2016). Based on the test results obtained (<5), the expansive potential of the soils for the subject building pad may be classified as very low (i.e., E.I. between 0 to 20). Soluble Sulfates/Corrosivity Subsequent to site grading, a typical sample of the site earth materials was analyzed for soluble sulfate and corrosion potential. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results and the American Concrete Institute (ACI, 2014a), the soluble sulfate content for the subject building pad is considered Class "SO" (0.00 to 0.10 Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil, Percentage by Mass). As such, sulfate-resistant concrete is not required for these specific conditions. The soluble sulfate results are indicated in the table below: SAMPLE ID-F-SAMPLE H CHLORIDE SULFATE RESISTIVITY DEPTH (FT.) p (ppm) % BY WEIGHT (ohm-cm) Building Pad I 0-1.5' I 7.3 I 170 I 0.0230 890 Based on the results of the resistivity and pH testing,the onsite soils are considered neutral (a pH between 6.6 and 7.3 is considered neutral) and are considered severely corrosive toward ferrous metals in a saturated state (below 1,000 ohm-cm is considered severely corrosive). Chloride testing yielded a concentration of 170 parts per million (ppm), which is somewhat elevated. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 5 Although the site soils are generally categorized as being severely corrosive toward ferrous metals in a saturated state, other than Exposure Classes SO and C1, no other exposure conditions are indicated in Table 19.3.1 .1 of the ACI (2014a) were warranted. It is our understanding that ferrous metals embedded in properly placed and formed concrete should be adequately protected from these conditions. Typical development of this type does not generally use significant amounts of exposed metal piping and/or other buried metal improvements. Based on the conditions encountered, a consulting corrosion engineer should be considered to provide recommendations for foundations, piping, etc., as warranted. SEISMIC SHAKING PARAMETERS The following table summarizes the reevaluated site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 CBC, Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program Seismic Design Maps, provided by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD, 2019) has now been utilized to aid in design (https://seismicmaps.org). The short spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds. 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE 2016 CBC REFERENCE Risk Category I, II, or III Table 1604.5 Site Class D Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10 (p. 203-205) Spectral Response F2.349(0.2 sec), Ss g Section 1613.3.1 Figure 1613.3.1(1) Spectral Response- (1 sec), S, 0.945 g Section 1613.3.1 Figure 1613.3.1(2) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, F, 1.5 Table 1613.3.3(2) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 2.349 g Section 1613.3.3 Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMs (Eqn 16-37) Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.4179 Section 1613.3.3 Response Acceleration (1 sec), S1V11 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 1.566 g Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration (0.2 sec), Sps (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.945 g Section 1613.3.4 Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 (Eqn 16-40) PGAM 0.928g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11.8.1) Seismic Design Category(') E Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10 Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2 Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-13-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 6 GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS PARAMETER VALUE Distance to Seismic Source-A fault** 2.2 mi (3.5 km)* Upper Bound Earthquake (Elsinore-Glen Ivy/Temecula Fault) M, = 6.8** FBlake (2000a) ao, et al. (2003) Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage, ground failure, or surface manifestations will not occur in the event of a large earthquake in this region. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2016 CBC and regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., MW 5.5) will likely be necessary. It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the recent grading conducted and testing performed by GSI, it is our opinion that the subject building pad appears suitable for its intended commercial use from a geotechnical viewpoint. Recommendations for foundation design,foundation construction (mat slab systems), soils moisture transmission considerations, wall design, and development criteria, etc. have been previously provided within our limited evaluation of surficial soil conditions report (GSI, 2018b). Based on the observations, testing, and laboratory data obtained at the conclusion of site grading, the conclusions and recommendations previously presented by GSI (2018b) are considered valid and applicable. All other findings, conclusions and recommendations in previous referenced reports by GSI remain pertinent and applicable, except as specifically superceded herein. GSI should review foundation plans, prior to construction. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-13-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 7 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading/recertification. • During excavation. • During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaki ng/presatu ration of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders. • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drains, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • During slope construction/repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or owner improvements, such as flatwork, foundations, walls, etc., are proposed, prior to construction. GSI should review and approve such plans, prior to construction. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with Code requirements. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 8 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, foundation designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs,foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application, per the State of California (2019). The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums,the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing,that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (foundation, block wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9 LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 10 The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, \,VpFE3s/0* AI GFD �Qti��p VTSk 'f1,ell GeoSoils, Inc. `��000A'cRF��N NA a No.2377 N' No. RCE 47 57 Certified 7t Exp. I 1 �c N Engincering .� Todd A. Greer �F01 `FOP David W. keII gTFOF CA'�ef®Q Engineering Geologist, C Civil Engineer, RCE 4785 TMP/TAG/JPF/DWS/jh Enclosures: Table 1 - Field Density Test Results Table 2 - Lot Summary - As-Graded Conditions Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Data Distribution: (3) Addressee (2 wet signed for governing agency) Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October 22, 2019 File:a\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 11 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TEST ,gATE .TEST LOCATION. TRACT ELEV .MOISTURE DRV. REL .TEST. SOIL. NO. NO.- Of; CONTENT DENSITY COMP METHOD TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEPTH (ft) (%) Grading BT-1 10/12/19 Building Pad NW Main St. 1263.5 5.7 107.3 ND BT-2 10/12/19 Building Pad NW Corner Main St. 1263.5 6.1 107.7 ND BT-3 10/12/19 Building Pad NW Main St. 1263.5 6.7 108.8 ND BT-4 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1263.5 12.3 106.1 ND BT-5 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1263.5 7.8 108.2 ND BT-6 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1263.5 5.3 108.5 ND 7 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1 1265.0 11.2 119.7 90.7 1 ND B 8 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1265.0 10.2 120.3 91.2 SC B 9* 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1265.0 10.0 116.5 88.3 ND B 9A 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1265.0 10.4 119.8 90.8 ND B 10 10/14/19 Building Pad Main St. 1266.0 10.8 120.5 91.3 ND B 11 10/15/19 Building Pad Main St. 1266.0 11.1 122.9 93.1 SC B 12 10/15/19 Building Pad Main St. 1 1266.0 8.3 123.6 92.6 1 ND A 13 10/15/19 Building Pad Main St. 1266.0 7.9 122.1 91.5 ND A 14 10/15/19 Building Pad Main St. 1267.0 12.1 119.3 90.4 ND B 15 10/15/19 Building Pad Main St. 1267.0 11.8 121.2 91.8 ND B 16 10/16/19 Building Pad Main St. 1267.0 11.4 120.5 91.3 ND B 17 10/16/19 Building Pad Main St. 1267.0 10.6 119.7 1 90.7 SC B 18 10/16/19 Finish Grade Bulding Pad Main St. FG 11.0 122.5 92.8 ND B 19 10/16/19 Finish Grade Bulding Pad Main St. FG 11.3 120.9 91.6 ND B 20 10/16/191 Finish Grade Bulding Pad Main St. FG 11.1 123.4 93.5 ND B 21 10/16/191 Finish Grade Bulding Pad Main St. FG 10.8 121.4 92.0 ND f__qB22 10/16/19 Finish Grade Bulding Pad Main St. FG 10.5 122.3 92.7 ND LEGEND * = Failing Test A= Retest BT= Bottom Test FG = Finish Grade ND = Nuclear Densometer Test SC = Sand Cone Test Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October,2019 File:C:\excel\tables\7300\7378b.gro Tbl1 GeoSoils, Inc. Page 1 Table 2 LOT SUMMARY - AS-GRADED CONDITIONS MiNiMuM!'�;-MAXiMU;M")'•;EXPANSION POTENTIAL(2r•••••'•••SOLUBLE' SATURATED'RESISTIVITy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L•OT . .DEPTH . . .REPTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SULFATE . . . .•CHi ORIDE -P LASTICITY.-.•.-.-.-AND•.•.•.•.•.•.•.(F.ERRQU.S.METAL•S). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ....................... . . .'..•'...'..•.'. .NUMBER. .'OF'FILL•..'..OF.FILL•..'EXPANSION' ' ASTM/CBC• -USDA •'.•'.•.'•'.•'.•.'.'..'.•.'.'..'.•.'.'..'.•.'. :.:(ft}; ; :(##) ; :�IVDI=X:.:. .:.GLr4SS.: ;{%:bjr VV#) CLASS.�3J. . �pPm). . . . . . . . . . . . .CLASS csr.:.:.:.:•(olim-crji) ; .CRTEGORYt'? Bldg. Pad 5'/2 51/2 0 Very Low 0.0230 SO 170 NP 7.3 Neutral 890 Severely Corrosive (1) All field measurements approximate (5) Plasticity Index per ASTM 4318 and CBC(2016) NP= Non-Plastic ND*=No Detection (2) Test and Classification per ASTM D 4829 and CBC(2016) (6) pH per CTM 643 and Classification per USDA(1993) (3) Classification per Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI(2014a)and CBC(2016) (7) Corrosivity to ferrous metals only,per CTM 643. There are no exposure conditions that relate to Tables (4) Chloride Content as per CTM 422 19.3.1.1 or 19.3.2.1 of ACI(2014a) Mr. Raj Kumar W.O. 7378-B-SC Kumar Convenience Mart, Lake Elsinore October, 2019 File:c:\excel\tables\7300\7378b.gro Tb12.xIs Page 1 APPENDIX A REFERENCES GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2014a, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318, dated September. 2014b, Building code requirements for concrete thin shells (ACI 318.2-14), and commentary (ACI 318.2R-14), dated September. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10. California Building Standards Commission, 2016a, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations,Title 24, Part 2,Volume 2 of 2, based on the 2015 International Building Code, 2016 California Historical Building code, Title 24, Part 8, 2016 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10, and the 2015 International Existing Building Code. 2016b, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Based on the 2015 International Building Code. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2019, Seismic design maps, https://seismicmaps.org/. Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., 2003,The revised 2002 California probabilistic seismic hazard maps, dated June, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/Documents /2002_CA_Hazard_Maps.pdf. County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, Building and Safety Department, Planning Department, Transportation Department, 2000, Technical guidelines for review of geotechnical and geologic reports. Desert Design, 2016, Kumar convenience mart site plan, 1 sheet, scale: 3/32" = 1', dated March. GeoSoils, Inc., 2019, Foundation plan and calculation review, proposed Kumar Convenience Mart, 301 North Main Street, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, W.O. 7378-Al-SC, dated April 29. 2018a, Response to commercial plan corrections, proposed Kumar Convenience Mart, 301 North Main Street, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, W.O. 7378-Al-SC, dated June 7. GeoSoils, Inc. 2018b, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, 301 North Main Street, proposed Kumar Convenience Mart, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California, W.O. 7378-A-SC, dated January 16. Kanare, Howard M., 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Engineering Bulletin 119, Portland Cement Association. Love Engineering, Inc., 2016, Precise grading plan Kumar convenience center, in the City of Lake Elsinore, 2 sheets, various scales, dated April 10. 2006, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Kumar Convenience Center, water and sewer improvement plans, in the City of Lake Elsinore, 3 sheets, plotted September 22. Peyton-Tomita &Associates, LLC, 2018, Kumar Convenience Mart, 301 N. Main St., Lake Elsinore, CA, 10 Sheets, J.N. DS201501 , delta revision 3, dated March 6. State of California, 2019, Civil Code, Sections 895 et seq. Mr. Raj Kumar Appendix A File:e:\wp10\murr\sc7300\7378b.gro GeoSoils, Inc. Page 2 APPENDIX B LABORATORY DATA GeoSoils, Inc. SailEar CORROSION&THERMAL SCIENCES 42184 Remington Ave,Temecula CA 92560 ph(951)795-3135 • fx(951)894-2683 Work Order No. : 19J1141 Client: GeoSoils, Inc. Project No. : W.O. 7378-B-SC Project Name: Kumar Conv. Mart - Lake Elsinore CA Report Date: October 22, 2019 Laboratory Test(s) Results Summary The subject soil sample was processed with the U.S. Standard No. 10 Sieve and tested for pH (ASTM G 51-95 2012), Soil Resistivity (ASTM G 57-06 2012), Sulfate Ion Content (ASTM D 516-16) and Chloride ]on Content (ASTM D 512-12B). The test results follow: As Rec'd Saturated Sulfate Chloride Sample Identification (H") Resistivity Resistivity Content Content (ohm-cm) (ohm-cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) Sample E-1 @ 0-18" 7.3 31,000 890 230 170 *ND=No Detection We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures. Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager ulr" Form No. 1-PR �fiA«o�� WWW SOlICOr.COl77 Rev. 08/2019