HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR 31920-17 FEASIBILITY_DUE-DILIGENCE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION �y u vp
m N
226
To: City of Lake Elsinore Date: 8/30/18
130 S. Main Street BV Job No: 18015.83
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Agency Ref. No: ENG 2018-00178
Project Title: TR 31920-17, Lots 1-31, 34-65
Attn: Dina Purvis Check No: Mylar Submittal
We are forwarding herewith:
❑ WQMP ❑ Traffic Improvements
❑ Rough Grading Plans ❑ Approved Final Map Submittal Pkg.
® Precise Grading Plans ❑ Easement Exhibits
® Erosion Control Plans ❑ Drainage Study / H&H Report
❑ Street Improvement Plans ® Soils Report (Reference)
❑ Storm Drain Improvement Plans ❑ Conditions of Approval RECEIVED
® Cost Estimate ❑ Other: CT-ry nr i A,,
-'- ANC-ELSINORE
Sent for: Status: Pleas �
t 4
❑ Your review ❑ Reviewed ElRe iv sions 1 corrections
® Your Acceptance / Signature ❑ Returned by us Additions/ Deletions
❑ Per your request ® Accepted by us
E &RING DIVISION
Remarks: Approved by Bureau Veritas for final processing.
Special items to note:
® The enclosed instruments of record have been packaged and issuance of permits is
recommended, pending the approval of any other applicable City / County agencies. All
records are hereby transmitted to you for retention in your files.
*** If you have any questions regarding the above, notify us at once. ***
From: Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. cc: File
Engineering Review
Plan Yeck
?-Q
ectio
/-\� , L
Sent by: Bill Bixby Date: 8/30/18
Via: ❑ Messenger ❑ Pickup ❑ Mail ® Other: GSO
Received by: Date:
9988 Hibert Street, Suite 100 ♦ San Diego, CA 92131 ♦ www.us.bureauveritas.com
Phone: (858) 451-6100 ♦ Fax: (858) 451-2846
An Equal Opportunity Employer
--0—I A—cI c I K I lnc\c.. ......\T.....,.....:11..1..\A--.,A R A..I,. 14r ri1.,.J—
&)^_ JJ � r 3 ��j
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PRECISE GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF
OPTION RV PARKING LOT GRADING FINISH
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PRODUCTION, LOTS 1-31 &34-65 TRACT NO. 31920-17 DATE: 07-03-2018
LOCATION: Basswood and Diamond Drive
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL LOT FINISH COST COST
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
1 44 EA 12" SQUARE AREA DRAIN $50.00 $2,200.00
2 3400 LF 4" PVC SDR-35 $12.00 $1,068
r3 43 EA AREA DRAIN POPUP EMITTER NDS 620 $30.00 $1,290
4 108 EA OMIT HALF A BLOCK FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE $50.00 $5,400
5 42 EA 6" SQUARE AREA DRAIN INLET $50.00 $2,100
—6 33,684 SF DRIVEWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE/NATIVE $3.00 $161,052
7 2.335 SF WALKWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE $3.00 $7,005
9 34,583 SF 6" PCC OVER AB RV PARKING $4.50 $155.623
10 2,677 SF REMOVE TEMPORARY PARKING (3"AC/COMP. $0.81 $2,168
NATIVE)_
SUB-TOTAL $277,906
20% CONTINGENCY (X$0.20) $55,581
TOTAL PAGE $333,487
Please note, cost estimate shown are for the quantities of RV parking option. Separate cost estimate prepared
for typical lot grading finish and third car garage.
Attached project estimate prepared by (or under the direction of)
Signature of Regist�ted Civil Engineer
RCE No. T 2 l"It, Exp.Date: (Z A�j K
Prepared under the supervision of:
No.731�f 01V1%.
Approved
By:
Date_:
Civil Engineer Stamp
F:\0651\Engineering\TR_31920-17\Correspondence\Documents\Cost Estimate\Precise Grade\76-186x
Engineer's Estimate RV Parking-Production Precise Grade Improvements.docx
k � 601\1 J-5- �- fv_3 1k1)2r_)
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PRECISE GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF
OPTION THIRD CAR GARAGE LOT GRADING FINISH
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PRODUCTION. LOTS 1-31 &34-65 TRACT NO. 31920-17 DATE: 07-03-2018
LOCATION: Basswood and Diamond Drive
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL LOT FINISH COST COST
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
1 44 EA 12" SQUARE AREA DRAIN $50.00 $2,200.00
2 3400 LF 4" PVC SDR-35 $12.00 $1,068
3 43 EA AREA DRAIN POPUP EMITTER NDS 620 $30.00 $1,290
4 108 EA OMIT HALF A BLOCK FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE $50.00 $5,400
5 42 EA 6" SQUARE AREA DRAIN INLET $50.00 $2,100
6 33,684 SF DRIVEWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE/NATIVE $3.00 $101.052
7 2.335 SF WALKWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE $3.00 $7,005
8 1,344 SF Tx7' CONCRETE PAD FOR WASTE STORAGE BINS $3.00 $4.032
10 2,677 SF REMOVE TEMPORARY PARKING (3" AC/COMP. $0.81 $2,168
NATIVE)
SUB-TOTAL $126,315
20% CONTINGENCY (X$0.20) $25,263
TOTAL PAGE $151,578
Please note, cost estimate shown are for the quantities of third car garage option. Separate cost estimate
prepared for typical lot grading finish and RV parking.
Att ��eoject estimate prepared by (or under the direction of
Signature 6JfRegister tivil Engineer
RCE No. -7_St cl 6 Exp. Date: /z/_:///1S
Prepared under the supervision of:
�C GOFr kJ
1.S,q,�'Y
> No.731 go
LO
0 V I VQ Approved
C By:
Date:
Civil Engineer Stamp
F:\0651\Engineering\TR_31920-17\Correspondence\Documents\Cost Estimate\Precise Grade\76-186x
Engineer's Estimate 3rd Car Garage -Production Precise Grade Improvements.docx
b
/� �'` �- //(/_fir (`//)1F /- �V ` J
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PRECISE GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF
TYPICAL LOT GRADING FINISH
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PRODUCTION. LOTS 1-31 &34-65 TRACT NO. 31920-17 DATE: 07-03-2018
LOCATION: Basswood and Diamond Drive
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL LOT FINISH COST COST
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
1 2 EA 12" SQUARE AREA DRAIN $50.00 $100.00
2 89 LF 4" PVC SDR-35 $12.00 $1.068
3 1 EA AREA DRAIN POPUP EMITTER NDS 620 $30.00 $30
4 108 EA OMIT HALF A BLOCK FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE $50.00 $5,400
6 23,136 SF DRIVEWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE/NATIVE $3.00 $69,408
7 2,335 SF WALKWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE $3.00 $7,005
8 1,344 SF TxT CONCRETE PAD FOR WASTE STORAGE BINS $3.00 $4.032
10 2,677 SF REMOVE TEMPORARY PARKING (3"AC/COMP. $0.81 $2,168
NATIVE)
SUB-TOTAL $89,211
20% CONTINGENCY (X$0.20) $17,842
TOTAL PAGE $107,053
Please note, cost estimate shown are for the quantities of a typical lot finish grading. Separate cost estimate
prepared for buyer option of third car garage and RV parking.
ed project estimate prepared by(or under the direction of)
Signature of Reg' ered Civil Engineer
RCE No 7 ( 9 (p Exp. Date: f 2- 3ih S�
Prepared under the Supervision of:
��-�
No.73190
* Emp. z -3t
N
CIV►I.-
OF A Approved
By:
Date.
Civil Engineer Stamp
F:\0651\Engineering\TR_31920-17\Correspondence\Documents\Cost Estimate\Precise Grade\76-186x
Engineer's Estimate Typical -Production Precise Grade Improvements.docx
OR 6a-As - - 6_Q3 4J,9�3
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PRECISE GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF
OPTION RV PARKING LOT GRADING FINISH
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PRODUCTION, LOTS 1-31 &34-66 TRACT NO. 31920-17 DATE: 07-03-2018
LOCATION: Basswood and Diamond Drive
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL LOT FINISH COST COST
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
1 44 EA 12" SQUARE AREA DRAIN $50,00 $2,200.00
2 3400 LF 4" PVC SDR-35 $12.00 $1,068
3 43 EA AREA DRAIN POPUP EMITTER NDS 620 $30.00 $1,290
4 108 EA OMIT HALF A BLOCK FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE $50.00 $5,400
5 42 EA 6" SQUARE AREA DRAIN INLET $50.00 $2.100
6 33,684 SF DRIVEWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE/NATIVE $3.00 $101,052
7 2,335 SF WALKWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE $3.00 $7.005
9 34,583 SF 6" PCC OVER AB RV PARKING $4.50 $155,623
10 2,677 SF REMOVE TEMPORARY PARKING (3"AC/COMP. $0.81 $2,168
NATIVE)
SUB-TOTAL $277,906
20% CONTINGENCY $0.20 $55,581
TOTAL PAGE $333,487
Please note, cost estimate shown are for the quantities of RV parking option. Separate cost estimate prepared
for typical lot grading finish and third car garage.
Attached project estimate prepared by (or under the direction of)
Signature of Registered Civil Engineer
RCE No. 7 r7 l`7 Exp.Date: /7_A /X
Prepared under the supervision of:
.731 A6
Approved
By:
Date:
Civil Engineer Stamp
F:\0651\Engineering\TR_31920-17\Correspondence\Documents\Cost Estimate\Precise Grade\76-186x
Engineer's Estimate RV Parking-Production Precise Grade Improvements.docx
Fo
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PRECISE GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF
TYPICAL LOT GRADING FINISH
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PRODUCTION, LOTS 1-31 &34-65 TRACT NO. 31920-17 DATE: 07-03-2018
LOCATION: Basswood and Diamond Drive
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL LOT FINISH COST COST
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
1 2 EA 12" SQUARE AREA DRAIN $50.00 $100.00
2 89 LF 4" PVC SDR-35 $12.00 $1,068
3 1 EA AREA DRAIN POPUP EMITTER NDS 620 $30.00 $30
4 108 EA OMIT HALF A BLOCK FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE $50.00 $5,400
6 23.136 SF DRIVEWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE/NATIVE $3.00 $69,408
7 2,335 SF WALKWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE $3.00 $7,005
8 1,344 SF TxT CONCRETE PAD FOR WASTE STORAGE BINS $3.00 $4,032
10 2,677 SF REMOVE TEMPORARY PARKING (3"AC/COMP. $0.81 $2,168
NATIVE)
SUB-TOTAL $89,211
20% CONTINGENCY (X$0.20) $17,842
TOTAL PAGE $107,053
Please note, cost estimate shown are for the quantities of a typical lot finish grading. Separate cost estimate
prepared for buyer option of third car garage and RV parking.
ed project estimate prepared by(or under the direction of)
Signature of Reg' eyed Civil Engineer
RCE No. 7':S j `J (v Exp. Date: f
Prepared under the supervision of:
Q�1EIF�SIp
J.
No.T3193
* z 11 oi�
CIVI
Approved
By:
Date:
Civil Engineer Stamp
F:\0651\Engineering\TR_31920-17\Correspondence\Documents\Cost Estimate\Precise Grade\76-186x
Engineer's Estimate Typical -Production Precise Grade Improvements.docx
o ,.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE
PRECISE GRADE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF
OPTION THIRD CAR GARAGE LOT GRADING FINISH
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT: PRODUCTION, LOTS 1-31 &34-65 TRACT NO. 31920-17 1 DATE: 07-03-2018
LOCATION: Basswood and Diamond Drive
ITEM UNIT TOTAL
NO. QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL LOT FINISH COST COST
CONSTRUCTION ITEM
1 44 EA 12" SQUARE AREA DRAIN $50.00 $2,200.00
2 3400 LF 4" PVC SDR-35 $12.00 $1,068
3 43 EA AREA DRAIN POPUP EMITTER NDS 620 $30.00 $1,290
4 108 EA OMIT HALF A BLOCK FOR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE $50.00 $5,400
5 42 EA 6" SQUARE AREA DRAIN INLET $50.00 $2,100
6 33,684 SF DRIVEWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE/NATIVE $3.00 $101,052
7 2,335 SF WALKWAY W/4" MIN THICK CONCRETE $3.00 $7,005
8 1,344 SF 3'xT CONCRETE PAD FOR WASTE STORAGE BINS $3.00 $4,032
10 2,677 SF REMOVE TEMPORARY PARKING (3"AC/COMP. $0.81 $2,168
NATIVE)
SUB-TOTAL $126,315
20% CONTINGENCY (X$0.20) $25,263
TOTAL PAGE $151,578
Please note, cost estimate shown are for the quantities of third car garage option. Separate cost estimate
prepared for typical lot grading finish and RV parking.
Att e oject estimate prepared by (or under the direction of)
Signature 6f Register Eivil Engineer
RCE No. '7 aI c 7 Exp. Date:
Prepared under the supervision of:
FE
Vim. IZ 3l (S
0
Approved
By:
Date:
Civil Engineer Stamp
F:\0651\Engineering\TR_31920-17\Correspondence\Documents\Cost Estimate\Precise Grade\76-186x
Engineer's Estimate 3rd Car Garage -Production Precise Grade Improvements.docx
dryland,Inc 5171 California Avenue,Suite 120 Irvine CA 92617
OF LAKE ELSINORE Check Date:08/24/2018
SOUTH MAIN STREET Check No.;1079581
c EI.SINORE, CA 92530
11 A/4.3124 Job Gross Amount Discount Amount Payment Amount
ATE 8/27/2018 9;35 AM 1 11,672.04
DER CC 11,672.04
LCWRK3 IMPRV
(FIY ; JJ
Rh1 I
T# : P19-001215 fit e72.oa $11672.04
EnerG°v 11672.04
IV-00015126 11672,04
id BY:RICHMONI) AMER.ICAN HUMFS
ECK 11672.04 REF:1079581
APPI.IEI.i 11672.04
TENDERED 11672.04
CHANGE 0,00
■
■
z
rn I m t rM r u •.
1 m 1 �•-< SO �1 c-, m x '-lrJ
1 1 0. arl 01 I r 4 %0
I 1 -•J �, �+ m I X•
7.
I t 1 tom. M In 0 n'r
I 1 tJ X 'S w•
t1 P. ' 1.+ .:. G'j ham+. r3
1 i En iT 1 t-+ �-
co 6
CD 7.0 II ra n
1 1 UI =r �I r•J
1 1 V0 L I 0
1 1 Q 1 �IJ
1 1 (,T1 1�!
1 01. 171• t (A
Ed
O 1 h•_� tti7 I
1 1 1'i
CD
•p. 6+ I I
August 23,2018 Page 1 of 1
440�
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
June 5, 2018
Project No. 11867.004
Richmond American Homes
5171 California Avenue, Suite 120
Irvine, CA 92617
Attention: Mr. Tommy Eckes
Subject: Foundation Plan Review#2 — Earthen Swale
Tract 31920-17 Sendero at Summerly
Lake Elsinore, California
References: Precise Grading Plan for Summerly, Lots 1-31 & 34-65, of Tract No. 31920-17, City
of Lake Elsinore, by Hunsaker and Associates, Draft.
Precise Grading Plan for Summerly, Lots 32 & 33, of Tract No. 31920-17, City of
Lake Elsinore, by Hunsaker and Associates, Draft.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2016, Feasibility/Due Diligence Geotechnical
Evaluation, Summerly Tract 31920-17, City of Lake Elsinore, California, dated
December 13.
W understand that a 1 percent earthen swale is being proposed for the rear and side
yards of the subject project. From a geotechnical perspective, we generally have no
objection to the proposed design/gradient provided these swales are to drain away from
the structures and be properly maintained at all time to prevent potential water ponding
in the future.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. Please call us if you have
any question.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES ,��yvED GFo�
�-, �oNAL FNc� cy`�'p�RT F. 9 °cam
/ O� ON I S No. 1921 q
a CERTIF!EO
/�� // R ENGINEERING
2641
// f GEOLOGIST
cPj,
Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641 ���°TEcHN��'��`P Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 q� Cµ�a
Principal Engineer FOF CA��FO Sr. Vice President/Sr. Principal Geologis
Distribution: (1) Addressee
Apt
4
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LFIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
April 10, 2018
Project No. 11867.003
Richmond American Homes
5171 California Avenue, Suite 120
Irvine, CA 92617
Attention: Mr. Tommy Eckes
Subject: Foundation Plan Review
Tract 31920-17 Sendero at Summerly
Lake Elsinore, California
References: Precise Grading Plan for Summerly, Lots 1-31 & 34-65, of Tract No. 31920-17, City
of Lake Elsinore, by Hunsaker and Associates, Draft.
Precise Grading Plan for Summerly, Lots 32 & 33, of Tract No. 31920-17, City of
Lake Elsinore, by Hunsaker and Associates, Draft.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2016, Feasibility/Due Diligence Geotechnical
Evaluation, Summerly Tract 31920-17, City of Lake Elsinore, California, dated
December 13.
In accordance with your request, we performed a geotechnical plan review and found that
the geotechnical aspects of the referenced plans are in general accordance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical report referenced above. However, if the RV
parking is considered a high impact load area, then a minimum of 6 inches of PCC
pavement over 6-inch aggregate base should be constructed, as per the geotechnical
report referenced above.
The above referenced soils report should also be referenced and Leighton and
Associates, Inc. should be referred to as the project Soils Engineers. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
,�TONAL F
��RED GFO
ON is v�5 a�KT F, 9,.�0c
No. 1921
CERTIFIED
ry' t 2641 _- '�.l_. * ENGINEE I TG ,t
rG
Simon I. Saiid, GE 264 %P�v (,' "ECrk P�.Q Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921
Principal Engineer FOF CAL�FO Sr. Vice President/Sr. Principal Geolo9 FCAL
Distribution: (1) Addressee
FEASIBILITY/DUE-DILIGENCE GEOTECHNICAL
EVALUATION
TRACT 31920-17
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES
5171 California Avenue, Suite 120
Irvine, California 92617
Project No. 11867.002
January 8, 2018
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
4
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
January 8, 2018
Project No. 11867.002
Richmond American Homes
5171 California Avenue, Suite 120
Irvine, California 92617
Attention: Mr. Chris Courtney
Subject: Feasibility/Due-Diligence Geotechnical Evaluation
Summerly Tract 31920-17
City of Lake Elsinore, California
In response to your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) performed a
feasibility/due diligence geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of this
review is to provide you with our professional opinion with respect to the feasibility of
developing the site for a residential subdivision containing 65 residential lots and
associated interior roadways. This report presents our findings, conclusions and
recommendations for continued development of the planned residential lots.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located within the Summerly Development (previously known as
"Liberty" or "East Lake" developments), Parcel 20 of Tract 31920-1. The subject project
is now known as PA-20 (or Neighborhood 17) or Tract 31920-17. The Riverside County
Assessor's Office identifies the subject site as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 371-270-
023 and comprised of 11.88 acres. The site is at the southern terminus of Diamond
Drive in the southern portion of the overall Summerly Development.
The overall Summerly project is currently being developed by McMillin Summerly, LLC,
with G3SoilWorks providing geotechnical services. The site was previously developed
by Laing-CP, Lake Elsinore, LLC with geotechnical services provided by Neblett and
Associates (Neblett, 2007b). Recent grading was documented by G3SoilWorks and
was completed on December 1, 2017 (G3SoilWorks, 2017)
41715 Enterprise Circle N., Suite 103 Temecula, CA 92590-5661
951.296.0530-Fax 951.296.0534
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8, 2018
SITE CONDITIONS
The Summerly Tract 31920-17 has been recently rough graded and prepared for
continued construction. Streets and parkways are rough graded with elevation held
down for utility spoils and later completion. Based on our site reconnaissance, the
surface soils appear dry but clear of vegetation and signs of weathering or erosion. The
main arterial streets that provide access to the subject site (Diamond Drive Village
Parkway) have been paved. A descending slope at the rear of Lot 42 has not been
completed due to ongoing construction of the offsite storm drain pipe and associated
basin/lake. As indicated on the provided rough grading plans (Wilson Mikami, 2017),
the topography of the site is generally flat lying with pad elevations varying from low
elevation of 1267.1 (Lots 34 and 39) to high elevation of 1269.5 (Lots 28-30 & 47-49).
There are large descending slopes adjacent to the east and west tract boundaries that
range in height from 20 to 50 feet. In addition, there are several minor slopes (<5 feet
high) dedicated as Lots A and B located within the subject Tract.
Although precise grading plans are not available for our review, we anticipate minor cuts
and fills of less than 1 to 2 feet in order to establish proper drainage around each
residential structure will be prepared. The Precise Grade Plans should be reviewed by
Leighton to confirm conformance with our geotechnical recommendations.
DUE DILIGENCE ASSESSMENT
Literature Review
In preparation of this report, we reviewed available in-house and existing geotechnical
reports provided by you. The specific references used in the preparation of this report
are listed at the end of this report.
Site-specific reports provided by you are limited to: (1) Rough Grade Compaction
Report for Stage 2 of the Summerly Development (Neblett, 2007b) and (2) Rough
Grade Compaction Report Tract 31920-17 (G3SoilWorks, 2017). The Neblett's report
summarizes the general grading conditions within the overall tract (Stage 2) and present
preliminary recommendations related to grading, foundation design, retaining walls, and
pavement. This report covers PA's 9-11, 13-22, and 27. The subject tract (previously
Parcel Lot 20) was "intentionally left shallow of proposed grades to receive incidental
spoil dirt from fine grading construction of Stages 1 and 2" (Neblett, 2007b). This report
also includes plates depicting the limits of grading, remedial removal bottom elevations
and field density tests locations. The summary of field density tests indicate fill was
-2 W4
-
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8, 2018
placed for Parcel 20 (subject site) in a sheet graded superpad to an elevation of
approximately 1263. This elevation was approximately 4 to 6 feet below current pad
elevations. Based on the field density tests, approximately 4 feet of fill was tested for
compaction. Density tests indicate the fill within these super-pads ranged from 90 to 94
percent relative compaction and met the required 90 percent minimum.
The final Rough Grade Report of Compaction (G3SoilWorks, 2017), summarizes the
general as-graded conditions specifically within Tract 31920-17, Lot 1 through 65. This
report summarized grading activities completed to date. The removals extended to
approximately elevation 1242 (G3SoilWorks, 2017) and approximately 4 to 19 feet of fill
were placed to reach current rough grade elevations. This variation in compacted fill
thickness from original site grading (Neblett, 2007b) was due to locally deeper removals
of encountered disturbed / weathered soils which extended up to 19 feet below rough
grade elevations. This report presents recommendations related to precise grading,
foundation design, retaining walls and underground utilities. This report also includes
plates depicting the field density tests locations. Compaction tests indicate the fill within
this tract ranged from 90 to 95 percent relative compaction and met the required 90
percent minimum. Expansion potential test results taken during grading and
representative surface tests of five selected lots indicate site soils possess a Very Low
to Medium Expansion Potential (0>EI:551) and have a Moderate Sulfate Exposure to
concrete in contact with soils. Expansion tests performed on four samples of soils used
during overall site grading indicate a Very Low to High Expansion Potential (0>EI!591).
In addition to the aforementioned reports, several other geotechnical and geologic
investigations have been performed for the overall Summerly Development (Neblett,
1998, 2004, 2006, Shlemon, 1999). These reports generally presented data pertaining
to evaluation of faulting within the overall Summerly Development. The previous onsite
evaluation of faulting was based primarily on seismic refraction/reflection survey as well
as deep Cone Penetrometer (CPT), continuous core boring correlation methods, and
fault trenching in areas of inferred faulting. These studies conclude that inactive faulting
exists on the Summerly (Liberty) property. These previous fault studies have been
accepted for the Summerly residential development by the County of Riverside (County
of Riverside, 2007).
As indicated in a preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Neblett (Neblett, 2006),
inactive faulting was identified in the western portion of Parcel 17 and designated Lots
41 through 53 as requiring "Special Foundations". However, the later referenced Rough
Grade Compaction Report Stage 2 (Neblett, 2007) presents the limits of the "Zone of
Special Foundations (ZOSF)" to include Lots 39-54 and 25 through 30 (See attached
-3 - 4
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8 2018
Figure 2). Due to the inactive faulting projected to underlie these lots, the 2006 Neblett
report recommended a greater settlement potential (1-inch in 30 horizontal feet) than
those assigned to other lots (3/4-inch in 30 horizontal feet).
Field Exploration
As a part of our geotechnical due diligence, Leighton performed a limited subsurface
field exploration at the site on December 8 and 12, 2017 that consisted of sixteen (16)
hollow-stem auger borings drilled to depths of approximately 16.5 to 71.5 feet below
existing ground surface (bgs). The boring depths were selected to penetrate existing fill
soils and underlying alluvial soils. The deep 70 foot boring (LB-5) was located along the
high descending slope at the rear of Lots 42-51 to evaluate the stability of this slope as
well as liquefaction potential and settlement of the underlying alluvial soils. As
requested, the boring locations were selected to provide one boring per 4 lots. The
approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 1, Boring Location Map. Prior
to the field exploration, the borings were marked and Underground Service Alert (USA)
was notified for utility clearance.
During drilling of the hollow-stem auger borings, both bulk and drive samples were
obtained from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. Drive samples were
collected from the borings using a Modified California Ring sampler conducted in
accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. The samplers were driven for a total
penetration of 18 inches using a 140-pound automatic hammer failing freely for 30
inches. The number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring
logs.
The borings were logged in the field by a member of our technical staff. Collected soil
samples were reviewed in the field and described in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). The samples were sealed and packaged for
transportation to our laboratory. After completion of drilling and recording ground water
depth, the borings were backfilled with soils generated during the exploration. The
boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions
Based on our subsurface exploration and review of the available documents, the site is
currently underlain by roughly 5 and 20 feet of engineered fill overlying alluvial
lacustrine deposits. The fill was placed during two phases of grading: mass grading and
later rough grading of the site (Neblett, 2007b and G3EarthWorks, 2017). Based on our
-4-
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore,California January 8,2018
recent exploratory borings and laboratory testing, the existing fill soils consists of
medium dense to locally loose clayey sand to silty sand (SC/SM) and medium stiff to
very stiff sandy/silty clay (CL). The underlying alluvium consists of medium dense to
very dense silty sand to well graded sand (SM/SW), and medium stiff to very stiff silty-
sandy clay (CL) to the maximum depth explored or 71.5 Feet (LB-5). Selected samples
of the encountered engineered fill and underlying alluvium were tested for: insitu density
and moisture, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential,
consolidation, collapse, soluble sulfate. Collapse tests indicate some local fill in area of
LB-2 and LB-11 may cause excessive settlement. Completed test results are included
in Appendix B of this draft report. Mitigation for the collapsible fill is discussed later in
the conclusions section of this report.
Groundwater was encountered in boring LB-5 at a depth of approximately 52 feet
(elevation 1217) at the time of exploration. The groundwater was allowed to stabilize
for two days and was measured at a depth of 38 feet (elevation 1229). This later
reading is consistent with the findings of the overall project Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation (Neblett, 2007). The ground water condition is not a concern for site
development.
Faulting
No active fault traces are known to traverse the PA-17 project site (Bryant, 2007, County
of Riverside, 2017 and Neblett, 2007.) This site is not located within a currently
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County of Riverside Fault Hazard
Zone. The nearest active fault is the Glen Ivy South segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone
located approximately 0.68 miles southwest of the site. As defined by the California
Geologic Survey, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within the
Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). A County of Riverside fault hazard zone
associated with the Glen Ivy North strand of the Elsinore fault zone is located
approximately 520 feet northeast of the site. The County of Riverside considers faults
designated within County Fault Hazard Zones to be considered active until proven
otherwise in the same manner as Alquist-Priolo zoned faults.
Detailed site fault investigations have been completed for the overall Summerly
development. During Grading, Neblett Project Geologist was onsite to map the exposed
subgrade. Evidence of faulting was mapped in the deep removals bottoms as
anticipated. No other evidence of faulting was noted in other areas of Stage 2 grading
(Neblett, 2007). As indicated in preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Stage 2
Rough Grade Report by Neblett (Neblett, 2006, 2007 & 2017), inactive faulting was
4/
- 5 -
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8,2018
identified in the western portion of Parcel 17 underlying Lots 39-54 and 25 through 30.
As per project soils report, the recommended mitigation for the in-active fault is to apply
an additional 0.5 inch of differential settlement to the foundation design of Lots 39-54
and 25 through 30.
Ground Shaking
Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe
earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern
California. Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon
earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type)
characteristics. The site-specific seismic coefficients provided in this section are based
on an interactive tool/program currently available on USGS website. Based on ASCE 7-
10 as the Design Code Reference Document and site Class D, the seismic coefficients
for this site are as listed in the following table:
CBC Site-Specific Seismic Coefficients
CBC Categorization/Coefficient Value (g)
Site Longitude(decimal degrees) -117.30376
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.63969
Site Class Definition D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SS 2.45
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, S, 0.99
Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.0
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, F. 1.5
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SM..q 2.45
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM, 1.49
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s PerioT Sn.s 1.63
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, So, 0.99
*g- Gravity acceleration
The results of the analysis also indicate that the adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration
(PGAM)for this site is 0.99 g.
Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement)
The site is located within a Riverside County designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone.
Liquefaction analyses were performed using the "LiquefyPro" program which is based
on the NCEER Workshops (Youd and Idriss, 2001) and current California Geologic
Survey SP 117 guidelines. Our analyses are based on a groundwater depth of—37 feet
/0
-6 -
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867 002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore. California January 8, 2018
(LB-5) during future earthquake events. Based on our analyses (see Appendix C), the
dry and liquefaction-induced settlement in the upper 50 feet is estimated to range up to
2 inches. This settlement is considered in the foundation design parameters provided
herein (See Foundation Design — Settlement considerations).
Lateral Spreading
Deformation due to lateral spreading generally occurs on sloping ground that is
underlain by potentially liquefiable soil layers. Due the absence of potentially
continuous liquefiable layers, the lateral spreading hazard on this site during the design
earthquake event is considered very low.
Flooding
The site is located within a County of Riverside designated Flood Hazard Zone.
Appropriate measures should be taken during design of the project to mitigate any
potential flood control issues. Appropriate measures should be taken during the design
of the project and the project design civil engineer should make a determination if any
mitigation is required.
Slope Stability Analysis
Slope stability analysis was performed to evaluate global stability of the existing
southern slope represented by a geotechnical Cross-Section crossing Lot 47 and Boring
LB-5 (see also Appendix C). The analysis was performed by the computer program
SLIDE v6.033 (Rocscience, 2015) that uses two-dimensional (2D) limit equilibrium
techniques based on vertical slice equilibrium. Algorithms programmed into the
software include techniques for optimization of critical failure surfaces identified by
search routines to refine location and shape of critical surfaces and increase the
potential that the minimum factor-of-safety is detected/calculated.
Cross-Sectional Model: As shown in Appendix C, the slope south of Lot 47 was
considered to be the most significant from a slope stability perspective due to its
height (up to 50 feet). This assumes that the slope below Lot 42, where a storm
drain pipeline interferes with partial slope construction, is completed per the design
plans. This cross-section/Boring LB-5 show medium stiff clay layer a depth of
approximately 35 feet. The data show that a potential continuous 5-foot layer of
sandy/clayey silt exist below the fill and/or within the upper 5 to 10 feet of the
underlying alluvium.
- 7 -
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8.2018
Soil Parameters: Soil parameters used in our analysis are generated based on
the results of our laboratory testing performed for this due diligence evaluation and
previous data performed by others. The soil parameters used in our analyses are
presented in the SLIDE Program output included in Appendix C.
Results of Analyses: Based on the results of our analysis, the existing slope will
be grossly stable and have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1.5 under static
conditions and 1.1 under seismic loading conditions. These results are considered
acceptable for gross stability of this large descending slope. The results of the
analyses are presented in Appendix C.
1/
-8 -
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8 2018
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Feasibility
Based on our review of the referenced reports and the results of this due diligence
evaluation, the proposed residential development is considered feasible from a
geotechnical viewpoint provided the requirements of the recommendations presented in
this report and previous reports are implemented during future design and construction.
In case of conflict, our recommendations presented herein should supersede those
included in the previous reports.
General Conclusions and Observations
1 . Fill materials are reported to have been generally placed as engineered fill and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, as determined by ASTM D
1557. However, based on our exploration the fill varies significantly in composition
and expansion potential, and exhibit potentially low relative compaction (<90%) in
localized areas/zones in upper 10 feet BGS (i.e. LB-2, LB-4, LB-11). In fact, fill
samples tested at depth of 10 feet (LB-2) and 2.5 feet (LB-11) exhibited 1.8 and 2.75
percent collapse potential, respectively. This collapsible soil may cause additional
differential settlement in excess of the provided settlement values in the project soils
report.
Mitigation: The recommended mitigation for the encountered loose/collapsible fill is
to remove and recompact these soils. Based on our exploration, we recommend the
upper 7 feet of existing fill be removed and recompacted underlying Lots 7-9, 16-18,
and 35-38. The Limits of removal are depicted on Figure 1. The actual limit of
removal and re-compaction should be determined during grading by Leighton
representatives based on prevailing fill conditions. Alternatively, additional
settlement may be applied to the foundation design of these lots as outlined in
Settlement Considerations (page 13) and minimal pad processing may be performed
as described in Structural Fills/General (page 10).
2. Based on our recent exploratory borings and laboratory testing, the near surface
soils in most lots consist of medium stiff to very stiff sandy/silty clay to clayey sand
(SC/CL). These materials are expected to possess low to medium expansion
potential (EI<91). Post Tension foundation systems are recommended. The
foundation design parameters presented in the Foundation section take into account
the expansion potential of the site soils. Additional lot by lot testing is recommended
during site preparation to determine a lot by lot expansion potential.
3. The project Lots 39-54 and 25 through 30 are located within a "Zone of Special
Foundations (ZOSF)" requiring additional design considerations against differential
settlement.
/0
- 9
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8. 2018
Mitigation: The recommended mitigation for the ZOSF is to apply an additional 0.5
inch of differential settlement to the foundation design of these Lots 39-54 and 25
through 30.
4. Site flooding during the 100-year storm event is expected to fill the back basin to
elevation 1265.8 feet (FEMA, 2013). This elevation is about 1.3 to 3.7 feet below
pad elevation.
5. A 100-year flood event could cause submergence of underground infrastructure and
prevent storm water from leaving the site. The local storm drain invert at Diamond
Drive is at near elevation 1250 (Wilson Mikami, 2017b), about 15 feet below high
100-year flood water elevation.
A 100-year flood event (and lesser events) will submerge portions of the westerly and
southerly boundary slopes. Saturation and wave action may cause local
degradation/softening and erosion of this large descending slope. Protection of the
slope face in the event of flooding should be considered by the project Civil Engineer. A
slope maintenance program should be provided for these large slopes.
Grading Recommendations
The subject building pads have recently been certified for geotechnical conditions by
G3SoilWorks. However, the ground surface is apparently dry with desiccation cracks
and surficial fill in some areas appears to be relatively disturbed and/or loose. We
recommend that prior to foundation construction or any additional fill, these materials
should be subject to minimum of 12 inches of removal/scarification, moisture
conditioned to 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture and re-compacted to minimum
90 percent relative compaction (D1557). The recommended mitigation for the
encountered loose/collapsible fill is to remove and recompact these soils. Based on our
exploration, we recommend the upper 7 feet of existing fill should be removed and
recompacted underlying Lots 7-9, 16-18, and 35 to 38. The Limits of removal are
depicted on Figure 1 and will be verified during grading by Leighton representatives
based on actual fill conditions encountered.
The extension of the 48-inch storm drain at the rear of Lot 42 and unfinished slope
descending below Lot 42 should be completed prior to foundation construction on Lot 42.
Structural Fills
General: The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided
they are free of debris and organic matter. Areas to receive structural fill and/or other
surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, conditioned
/0
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8. 2018
to at least optimum moisture content and compacted. This includes the bottom of
remedial removal areas (see Settlement Considerations, Page 13). Fill soils should be
placed or compacted at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM
D1557) at or above optimum moisture content. Placement and compaction of fill should
be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and
testing of the geotechnical consultant. The optimum lift thickness to produce a
uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment
used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in
thickness.
Remedial Gradin_g: We recommend the upper 7 feet of existing fill be removed and
recompacted underlying Lots 7-9, 16-18, and 35-38. The Limits of removal are depicted
on Figure 1. The actual limit of removal and re-compaction should be determined
during grading by Leighton representatives based on prevailing fill conditions. This
remedial grading can be avoided by applying the additional settlements to foundation
design as outlined in Settlement Considerations (Page 13).
Import Soils
Although not anticipated, import soils and/or borrow sites should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated,
granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have a
very low expansion potential (EI<21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed
improvements.
Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction, ("Green book"), 2015 Edition. Fill material
above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted
thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D
1557) by mechanical means only. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement areas
should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans,
specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders (most current Edition). The
contractor should be responsible for providing a "competent person" as defined in
Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders. Contractors should be advised
that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite alluvium) could make
- 11 -
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8, 2018
excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not properly implemented.
In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be
highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil
piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the
sides of the trenches. Leighton does not consult in the area of safety engineering.
Drainage
All drainage should be directed away from slopes, structures and pavements by means
of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate drainage should be
provided to avoid wetting of foundation soils. Irrigation adjacent to building foundations
should be avoided when possible.
Slope Design and Construction
Based on our review of the provided rough grade plans, there are several minor slopes
(<5 feet) within the Tract boundary. However, large descending slopes border the
easterly and southerly sides of the tract. These slopes are considered grossly stable for
static and pseudostatic conditions. However, slope faces are inherently subject to
erosion, particularly if exposed to rainfall and irrigation. Landscaping and slope
maintenance should be conducted as soon as possible in order to increase long-term
surficial stability. The existing berms should be maintained at the top of all fill slopes.
Drainage should be directed such that surface runoff on the slope face is minimized.
FOUNDATION DESIGN
Bearing and Lateral Pressures
Based on our review and analysis, the proposed single-family residential structures
should be founded on Post-tensioned slab on-grade foundation systems based on a
Plasticity Index of 15 and the design parameters provided below. The proposed
foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants'
design, the minimum geotechnical recommendations presented herein, and the
applicable CBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations,
the structural consultant should design the foundation system to acceptable deflection
criteria as determined by the architect. Foundation footings may be designed with the
following geotechnical design parameters:
- 12 4C
-
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8, 2018
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 18
inches (minimum width of 12 inches). This bearing capacity may be increased by
'/3 for short-term loading conditions (e.g., wind, seismic).
Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
The footing width, depth, and reinforcement should be designed by the structural
consultant based on our recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein. If
the bottom exterior footings are within 5 feet horizontally of side yard swales, the footing
should be embedded sufficiently to ensure embedment below the swale bottom. Slab
subgrade to be pre-saturated to 2 to 3 percentage points above optimum moistures
content to a depth of 12-inches.
Settlement Considerations
The 2006 Neblett report as well as the 2017 G3Soilworks report recommended a
differential settlement of 3/4-inch in 30 feet horizontal span and a total settlement of 1-
inch. However, due to the heterogeneity of the underlying fill in terms of relative density
and collapse potential, an additional differential settlement of 0.5-inch should be
considered for Lots 35 to 38 and an additional 1.0-inch differential settlement should be
considered in Lots 7 to 9 and 16 to 18 (the corresponding total settlement is twice the
magnitude of the estimated differential settlement). These additional settlements will
not be required if the recommended remedial grading described previously is
implemented. In addition, a differential settlement of 1-inch in 30-foot horizontal
distance should be considered for design in the ZOSF (Lots 39-54 and 25 through 30 -
See attached Figure 2).
As encountered in our borings (LB-3 and LB-5) and the results of our laboratory testing,
compressible silty/clayey alluvial soils exist below the artificial fill. The consolidation
settlement and time-rate of consolidation due to the imposed fill loads were not
addressed in the previous reports. Based on our limited evaluation for this due diligence
report, an additional 2.25 inches of consolidation settlement may still occur in the
underlying clayey/silty layers at depth of approximately 35 to 55 feet below existing
grades. The time required to achieve full consolidation is estimated to be 7 years. It is
our opinion that this settlement will not increase the above differential settlements due
to the depths of the compressible layers. Therefore the settlement parameters provided
above are considered suitable for the subject lots. The structural consultant should
review this section and provide appropriate measures to accommodate the settlement
parameters into the PT slab and foundation design.
4/
- 13 -
t�-0
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867,002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore,California January 8.2018
Post Tension Design Parameters
The following post-tensioned design parameters are prepared in accordance with the
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method (3rd Edition).
PTI Method Design Parameters (3rd Edition)
Cat I Cat 11
Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 -20
Clay Content(% of total sample) 520 20<clay530
Depth to Constant Soil Suction 9.0 ft. 9.0 ft.
Constant Soil Suction 3.9 ft. 3.9 ft.
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, en,
-Edge Lift 4.9 ft 4.8 ft
-Center Lift 9.0 ft 9.0 ft
Soil Differential Movement, ym
-Edge Lift-Swell 0.88 inches 1.22 inches
-Center Lift-Shrink 0.46 inches 0.67 inches
The above "Soil Differential Movement" are due to expansion potential in the near
surface soils and do not include the settlement estimates provided in the Settlement
consideration section of this report.
Vapor Retarder
It has been a standard of care to install a moisture retarder underneath all slabs where
moisture condensation is undesirable. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not
totally eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the
slabs. Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete
additives. Leighton does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission
evaluation/mitigation. Often, the vapor barrier is specified by the project architect or
developer based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and previous
experience. Guidelines for vapor retarder design and placement are also presented in
the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive
Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06).
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls are proposed with a maximum height of 6.0 feet behind parkway at Lots
1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 19, 24, 25 & 30. All of the planned footings are found at the toe of
slope with level backfill. Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of
40
F
- 14-
Leighton
i
I Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
SummerlyPA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8.2018
wall yielding horizontally under load. The subject walls should be designed for "active"
pressure. The site retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive soils should be
designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:
Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)
.. . Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)37 50
At-Rest 55 80
Passive* 300 150 (2:1, sloping down)
*This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the
project, not to exceed 3,500 psf at depth. If sloping down (2:1)grades exist in front
of walls, then they should be designed using passive values reduced to '/2 of level
backfill passive resistance values.
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-
fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free
draining. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured
as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem
design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. If
a backfill is loaded by an adjacent building surcharge load, (i.e. the building set back
from top of wall is less than the height of wall) the equivalent fluid weight values
provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-
standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that
the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.
All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should
be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in
Appendix C, Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail. Wall backfill should be non-
expansive (El <_ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90
percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as
wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day
compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is
structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be
used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.
I/
- 15 - /
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January 8, 2018
Footing Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all
structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). This distance
is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face
(or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope
height (in feet).
Footing Setback
RecommendedSlope Height ..
<5 feet 5 feet minimum
5 to 15 feet 7 feet minimum
H/2, where H is the slope height, footing
>15 feet setback should be a minimum of 10 feet
horizontally from the top of the 2:1 slope
face
Buildings or foundations located 10 feet from top of slope (or greater) will not require
additional embedment. Please note that the soils within the structural setback area
possess poor lateral stability and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks,
fences, pavements, pools, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to
lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements
may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade-beam foundation
system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as
described above. Modifications of slope inclinations near foundations may increase the
setback and should be reviewed by the design team prior to completion of design or
implementation.
Geochemical Characteristics
Limited laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the onsite soils
for soluble sulfate. Based on our testing and testing by G3SoilWorks, the sulfate
exposure to concrete is considered negligible to moderate. Type HN concrete may be
used for concrete in contact with site soils. The laboratory test results are included in
Appendix B. Additional corrosion testing should be performed on representative finish
grade soils at the completion of precise grading. Concrete foundations in contact with
site soils should be designed in accordance with applicable codes. A qualified corrosion
engineer should be consulted to review the results of laboratory tests and coordinate
additional testing if corrosion sensitive materials are to be used.
1�
F-
- 16 -
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore California January,8 2018
Preliminary Pavement Design Parameters
Our preliminary pavement designs are based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual
using an average R-value of 20 due to potentially high silt and clay content in the
subgrade soils. R-Value testing should be performed on representative finish grade
soils at the completion of grading. For planning and estimating purposes, a range of
Traffic Indexes (Tls) has been provided for preliminary pavement recommendations.
Appropriate Traffic Index (TI) data should be selected by the project civil engineer or
traffic engineering consultant.
Asphalt Pavement Section Thickness
lGeneral Traffic Design Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete
Conditions
Local Roads 5.0 3.5 6.0
The upper 8 inches of the subgrade soils should be moisture-conditioned to near
optimum moisture content, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM
D1557) and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Minimum
relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should
conform to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book)
current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration
of the subgrade load bearing capacity may result. Moisture control measures such as
deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials may be used to prevent the
subgrade soils from becoming saturated. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers
should be considered when pavement is planned adjacent to either open (unfinished) or
irrigated landscaped areas.
Where applicable, we recommend that a minimum of 6 inches of PCC pavement be
used, in high impact load areas or if to be subjected to heavy truck traffic. The PCC
pavement should be placed on a minimum 6-inch aggregate base. The PCC pavement
should have a minimum of 28-day flexural strength of 550 psi. Design and placement of
concrete materials should follow applicable ACI and City or State standards. All PCC
pavements should have appropriate joints and saw cuts in accordance with either PCA
or ACI guidelines.
`!/0
- 17 - 1r
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8, 2018
Exterior Flatwork Recommendations
We recommend that the public sidewalks, curbs and gutters be designed by the civil or
landscape engineer. Such design should include control joints, at appropriate intervals,
as determined by City Standards and the project civil or landscape engineer. For on lot
private flatwork, it has been a standard of care to use welded-wire mesh reinforcement
or #3 rebar @ 18-inches O.C. (or #4 @ 24-inches O.C.) reinforcement and a minimum
thickness of 4 inches for sidewalk and/or slabs.
A thickened edge or integral curb should be constructed on the outside of concrete
slabs subjected to wheel loads. The thickened edge should be 1.2 times the slab
thickness or a minimum thickness of 2 inches, whichever results in a thicker edge.
To control the location and spread of concrete shrinkage cracks, crack-control joints
(weakened plane joints) should be included in the design of the concrete pavement
slab. Crack-control joints should not exceed 30 times the slab thickness with a
maximum spacing of 10 feet for the 4-inch-thick or greater slabs. The depth of the
crack-control joints and need for sealing of the joints should be determined by the ACI
Guidelines.
40
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Swnmerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8,2018
GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor
performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to
inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the
opportunity to review the foundation plan(s) prior to bid.
Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and
foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to
provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical
conclusions and preliminary recommendations should be reviewed and verified by
Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions
encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and
testing should be provided:
• During preparation and overexcavation of surface soils as described herein,
• During compaction of all fill materials,
• After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete,
• During utility trench backfilling and compaction, and
• When any unusual conditions are encountered.
Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis may be required based on final
development plans, for reasons such as significant changes in proposed structure
locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation (structural) plans,
and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project.
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867 002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8, 2018
LIMITATIONS
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of
observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced
subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations.
Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that
differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various
climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This
investigation was performed with the understanding that the subject site is proposed for
residential development. The client is referred to Appendix D regarding important
information provided by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) on
geotechnical engineering studies and reports and their applicability.
This report was prepared for Richmond American Homes, based on their needs,
directions, and requirements at the time of our investigation. This report is not
authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except Richmond
American Homes, and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom
Leighton and Associates, Inc. has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this
report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this
report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton and Associates, Inc.
from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance,
regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton and Associates, Inc.
-20 44
-
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867 002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8,2018
CLOSING
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding
this report or if we can be of further service, please call us at your convenience at (866)
LEIGHTON, directly at the phone extensions or e-mail addresses listed below.
I
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
'�E'REU GFO! ,NONAL FtiC"
�5 SAT F, O O� SONNo. 1921
CERTIF',EO 9 /� 2641
* ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
Robert F. Riha CEG 1921 `P Simon I. Saiid GE 2641 9T �TECHN`�
Sr. VP/Sr. Principal GeologistCAI. Principal Engineer �GF CA��F�
Distribution: (1)addressee (via email)
Attachments:
References
Figure 1 — Boring Location Map
Figure 2—Special Foundation Zone (Neblett, 2006)
Appendix A— Boring Logs— Current Study
Appendix B—Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Appendix C— Settlement and Slope Stability Analyses
Appendix D— GBA Important Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report
-21 - � /
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8, 2018
REFERENCES
Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps,
California Geological Survey: Special Publication 42.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016, 2016 California Building Code (CBC),
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on 2015
International Building Code, Effective January 1, 2017.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Maps, June 2003. By, Tianqing Cao, William A. Bryant, Badie
Rowshandel, David Branum, and Christopher J. Wills.
California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1980,
Special Studies Zones, Elsinore Quadrangle, Official Map, Dated January 1, 1980,
1:24,000.
California, State of, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999,
Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Southern
California, Version 1.0, Compiled by D.M. Morton, Open File Report 99-172.
County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2007, Conditions of
Approval (Revised), County Geologic Report No. 1429 (Fault Hazard),
Supplemental Fault Investigation Report, Tentative Tract 31920, Southerly Site,
Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California, Dated June 7, 2007.
County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, 2007, Conditions of
Approval, County Geologic Report No. 1668 (Fault Hazard), Preliminary
Geologic/Geotechnical Investigation and Fault Study, 396-Acre property,
Southeast Portion of the Backbasin, City of Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside,
California, dated June 7, 2007.
County of Riverside, 2007, Conditions of Approval (Revised), County Geologic Report
No. 1429 (Fault Hazard), Supplemental Fault Investigation Report, Tentative Tract
31920, Southerly Site, Lake Elsinore, County of Riverside, California, dated June
7, 2007.
County of Riverside, 2017, Riverside County Hazard Maps, reviewed December 12,
2017, httr):Hmmc.rivcoit.org/MMC PublicNiewer.html?Viewer=MMC Public.
FEMA, 2013, Case No.: 14-09-0292A, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California,
Community No.: 060636, dated December 10, 2013.
G3SoilWorks, 2017 Rough Grade Compaction Report, Tract 31920-17, (DDA Phase F),
Summerly Development, Lake Elsinore, California, Project No. 1-1092, dated
December 13, 2017.
J/
A-1
Leighton
Geotechnical Due Diligence/Feasibility Evaluation 11867.002
Summerly PA-17 Lake Elsinore, California January 8,2018
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California
Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, No. 6, Scale
1:750,000.
Land Concern, 2017, Summerly Tract 31920-17 Side Yard Landscape Plans, 21 sheets,
Approved City of Lake Elsinore 8/23/17.
Morton D.M., and Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana,
30' x 60' Quadrangles, California, USGS Open File Report 2006-1217.
Neblett & Associates Inc., 2006, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and 40-Scale
Grading Plan Review, Tentative Tract 31920, Stage 2-summerly Development, City
of Lake Elsinore, California, Project No. 420-001-05, dated February 6, 2006.
Neblett & Associates Inc., 2007b, Rough Grade Compaction Report, Stage 2 of the
Summerly Development Project, Tract 31920, Lake Elsinore, California, Project
No. 420-001-07, dated November 30, 2007.
Schafer Dixon Associates, 1987, Final Design Geotechnical Investigation, Lake Elsinore
Management Plan, Volume 1 & 2, Project No. 60-242B, Dated March 3, 1987.
Shlemon, Roy, J., 1999, Age of Last Displacement, Subsurface Fault Zone, Phase I
Development, Liberty Project, Lake Elsinore Area (Riverside County), California,
dated June 1999.
Treiman, J. Jerome, and Treiman, J Jerome, compilers, 1998, Fault number 126c, Elsinore
fault zone, Glen Ivy section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United
States: U.S. Geological Survey website,
http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/gfauIts, accessed 12/09/2017.
USGS, 2017 Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, Elsinore fault zone,
Glen Ivy section (Class A),
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/Cfusion/gfault/query results AB.cfm, accessed
December 9, 2017.
Wilson Mikami Corporation, 2017a, Rough Grading Plan, Tract 31920-1 DDA Phase F,
Summerly Development, City of Lake Elsinore, Sheet 4A and 8, File No. 16-324A
and 16-328, Grading Permit No. 15-2467.
Wilson Mikami Corporation, 2017b, Water and Sewer Improvement Plans, Tract 31920-17,
undated, 6-sheets.
Wilson Mikami Corporation, Mass Grading Plan for Tract 31920-1, summerly Development
- DDA Phases E and G, City of Lake Elsinore undated, 17-sheets.
40
A-2 /
Leighton
f Ili(( I' !tl_ ?�� �d M.'`Y i �� ' _�13 i }�_ '�t� -.��0 *Sw � •}- �� �•�ar M ° •• /
:�!� t� ��� s use s use 1 �g ���'' �g (�- :�a�,.' •- �' -
�I• I I �u (• :l�n ,iRR [ C a� � �� a�Yr �`_•i /I r � z
'`� �$ a ��• �� � � �°�B, � jd k r {1� �.�" •/ ,, `
14
.15
' � i � 1 �� .1d�� yl �Y '�a � !N z �� t �• 4t
i a , F I Legand
. IN
pit
i OI Ri4'i I �.. Appraxlmale Boring Location
1 1K { y + •.t I - _ ■ ^ APpraximate Site Boundary
f a I •r CD M.d Raaiw -d Rcm 1
e _ — Y, ram' , and-
LB•
,1 _..
Y, •�'
3.�a �s��� �� �� � �� �� r ��� � � •"P.., \`���
Pro�ecL„66�.g02 v*CWW:SIS/RFR BORING LOCATION MAP
Sw41'•1ao• B61K JrIyMy2�1S
aQu�GnenpvNey Richmond American Summerly PA17
y„nb Tract 32190-17
Lake Elsinore,California Le;gn,o„
r � I
fl•1Ti�iii���♦1e�-.
�J`P►l�0iJ1OJ1J1JfifD11Ji1w1tt0l�•01tC•sfi+01�JOOO��D 1�"J�'�1'.�1`1".'t•'r1"v@'1'r1'1'►;e s�•-e•rr.0 r0.� +>00 �
1vl1olt}011JCJ6A=JOfJ1►J1�tFeJ1Ca�0iZsa1J/01J,�1c1JfyJd4d1J1�108eJd►.e+SOJf►014e.11�JJ41i1��►'Offf�~?��1�J�1�1�J�►Jl i►DV 9v>d
1JOIA1/0a�e�OJ1eJJ01JJJJJJJ11Jf11011A°►1�111��+01�1111�111<�i/�1�'►eF� +t'i��`�A® ►IfJJ1U1�►@11�900>10Jf01O10J11iUJl U~41, �1►11
J•�Ib1l���'� :y JJOON04�j1f�01�100�(1:�►A`��'is�i:�4 r�i`.►t�11111�D1Jk'111JA �Jb v�1J11JA1t►Iroi/��711
1/ ♦f111101/1�f11/1
♦11111♦Ji1J<1r1'V1�•e♦Jt11�0•w11,1J.d101�01yd1111J�111►►►►.eJ11iJ.�/J1F0G0AJ100v1UJ�1010i i11'e1pF1O'tS1t1�f°►J11i.fe111100u1J0F10JO1iOOy>1Jei1J11ftei0UC!1►11=s11:stsr►c161°►�1i O11oi�1-D♦r1a��s♦e�?ii{►tJ+D1i.«w0e/?-1etP►•0Os?i•.1/4�s►,1<���t1/,1�J1*1O 4��1a�:r0 �.e*•O.1j /1Vs01`/Oti1v110e•9JJ�11�1100♦011
J011J111 011f�ti1OeOJJJJ1 00ftd0 1•0iD�4g1ii�i-11O�1�-01J/J�1-1O/1�Jt-1�JJ�10-0110�01-1111��UU0`�1,•(/�I�I�1«}A�,/11,'M1HOo`i1♦P�tt•��
'e101♦1♦
•
J0�011•►c0 �!1 ♦ 'V•�
11�tJI� �J11f111111 rf11111J11111?!f`i►1�1f�01C,610Ae1010 i�i�i`�01C�BSI��1�1.111P1JJ1N.;N�Fe�11�e11�,d1ft010thOt;.
♦♦1111df111l11011CVes@v�f/i•iOei00lpOJtOR1'??•oLl114A1J�1♦ �11•PI•Ir�► • • . •
11Q��111s101J11fJJ111J11/J1111i��011110i►F101114►111111p►i►011111�►111E•O+l�►i�oee� L4Jf0►fi110OC11,,111U1J1�1�11��
♦OfAeJ111J/1J.F.10011f11 ♦•.•060N101 /1111110f11Je10a r' �1J0114 •
d1!!�a•�• ►♦v0411101nfA1/•♦i10e100116•l1aQ•1+ ♦•r•►11►1. ♦ ae110h16i�•
f•4,1111'1.1'1'1'1♦011111/1111.1/111f00111/1�♦111.111►11J�1♦ r11.�.+►1l•1 A
1fv11111111•►♦101v11J141111.11.1tr111.►1/1►1i1011f•1111 NX V1J1FJ 1.1.1 ��
Jf11 r '.v'W 01111+i189f01?C ►OAv110d111J01f0/1Jh►11►1d �C4100tbfi0
Oty00111111ibf1O11111.>11/101fr.1f0001,�Je1�►11101r11�4000.01uJ01Le?�►1'9100A f►00010010`1 f.►00`1Jf0.►f111,�1JJ1111111+►1 f I/0,11A14►
♦111111♦@1♦ ►11111' ♦�►♦11A111O101•►111♦1011111►11♦ �11/11i61OOb+•
►♦♦1111♦d O 1111101fJ1i1����01�►11101101�1111J�►1i���t!111 f 1 J 01•.111 1♦ >1111 O O 1 t t• O
♦♦1111��-1i��� t e.e O.O.O.OA�.A��1►1111/1f�1f1111t0111111t�+/111,,11f1111/1J011iU1��!►il�l'<%
• �•�iee.1 •e• �A1d�f`1�1�11�1 !1 Iq
SPECIAL FOUNDATION ZONE MAP
Richmond _
Reference: Tract 32190-17
Elsinore,Lake • - • •
f
f
I
I APPENDIX A
fBoring Logs (Current Study)
f
f
I
f
i
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
t Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Sum_merly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drillinq Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auqer- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation �1267'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
�, o 0 = SOIL DESCRIPTION N
p L v d Z OM N }; 00 tU
y r >=s31 13 d 3 l7 Cw 3 NV H
ay aQ w a o a) V This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
mw Gw J 00�D 0 a -o _uj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
E
w Q p p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
to a p 0 0)— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be �
gradual.
0 JR-
13 120 5 SM Artificial Fill(Afl;SILTY SAND,medium dense, light brown,
17 moist,fine to coarse grained sand with gravel to 2"
20
1265
9 129 8 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,medium dense,dark grayish brown,
13 moist,fine to medium grained sand,with gravel to 1"
25
5 15 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
15 medium grained sand
25
1260-
10 R-4 14 119 9 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to medium
16 grained sand
21
1255- —
15 R-5 9 122 10 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
11 medium grained sand,roots
18
1250- —
20 R-6 9 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
17 medium grained sand, roots
___20
1245
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
25—
1240
SAMPLETYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1268'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
r �, o (n w SOIL DESCRIPTION y
p� Lw V d Z WX Ul "� WCO
o y o. as a 0 c m a UV This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
>LL �LL m J Y p a •o _�j time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o
W j Q m` L a p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the Q
N d p U U)v actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
0 R-1 5 116 15 SM Artificial Fill(Af);SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,loose,dark MD,EI,
B-1 4 grayish brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand with gravel CR
10 to I"
1265 R-z 7 129 10 SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,loose,dark grayish brown,moist,
5 fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
7
5 R-3 9 115 14 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,medium dense,dark grayish CO
10 brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand
9
1260 i
10 --- �- - - - -- - ---- ---- ---
R-4 11 115 8 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to medium CO
10 grained sand,few caliche stringers
15
1255
15 — - - - - ---------------------------- -
R-5 7 I Sc CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
12 to medium grained sand
1R
1250 Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
20
1245
25
1240
SAMPLEOTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200 %FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY ; 40
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH `
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
'r TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
IProject No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1267'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By J TD
a o SOIL DESCRIPTION y
p = v y Z M= to ; Mtn �
2 Z31 M 0 C4 7 !9 H
M aOi ay aO w a 0 E v N UV This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the r-.
>LL 0� J r E m p OM •o _� time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
uJ Q m ` o a� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
W fl p C) u)— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
N_
0 R-1 26 SM Artificial Fill(AD;SILTY SAND with GRAVEL,medium dense,
24 dark grayish brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand
21
1265
R-2 8 121 12 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to
11 medium grained sand
15
5 R-3 8 122 9 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
19 medium grained sand
30
1260
10 R4 9 118 12 - SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
11 to medium grained sand
14
1255 +
15 R-5 14 126 11 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish
28 brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand
40
1250
20 R-6 20 no recovery
41
50
1245
25 R-7 10 no recovery
38
39
1240
SAMPLOTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 2
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
i Drilling Co. Martini Drillinq Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auqer- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1267'
Location _See Borinq Location Map Sampled By JTD
U) o Ch 0 o SOIL DESCRIPTION y
p L V a Z yt 0 �;; UlW O
m adi aA ao Q G N V(j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ,�-
O m �� ❑CL +� _uj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
�� �� C9 E cow O O o� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a)
W Q li p �V y— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be �0,
gradual. ~
30 R-8 21 CL Quaternary Alluvium(Qall;SANDY Lean CLAY,hard,dark
26 grayish brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand,no
30 recovery initially,resample with SPT,no recovery with SPT,
1235 additional resample with sand catcher,sample disturbed
i
35 ——— — R-s 6 120 15 Sc CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist
8 fine to medium grained sand
30
1230
40 ——— —R-10 a 105 18 C� SANDY Lean CLAY with GRAVEL,stiff,dark yellowish brown
5 moist,fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel,sampled
7 with sand catcher,sample disturbed
1225
45 R-11 5 98 27 SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark yellowish brown,moist,very fine
5 to fine grained sand
8
1220
50 R-12 5 SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
7 grained sand
1215
Drilled to 51.5' Sampled to 51.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
55
1210
SAMPLETYPES- TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE Co COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.**' Page 2 of 2
f
f GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
I Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8" -
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1268'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
o w SOIL DESCRIPTION N
p V N Z yt N �y UJU)
m -c m 3 v c'� c This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~
C.O � C m u U p � PP� Y p �-
>LL 0� M 0 m p a •�0 Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0
W C7 Q E L o o� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
cn a p U U)— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may beSJ
gradual.
R-1 7 112 10 SC Artificial Fill tAf);CLAYEY SAND,loose,dark grayish brown,
B-1 7 moist,fine to coarse grained sand,recovered 3 rings
5
1265 R-2 2 120 19 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
2 medium grained sand
7
5 -- — — — -- ---- -- ---- -
8 116 iz sw Well-graded SAND,loose,brown,moist,fine to medium grained
--- --- 4— -- sand
—
5 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
medium grained sand
1260
10 R-4 19 SM SILTY SAND,dense,dark grayish brown, moist,fine grained
25 sand
37
1255
15 R-5 15 123 10 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to medium
17 grained sand
27
1250
20 R-S 8 sC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine grained
10 sand
19
1245
25 R-7 5 118 12 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to
12 medium grained sand
18
1240
SAMPLETYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 2
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auqer- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1268'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
�, o w SOIL DESCRIPTION N
p t V d Z Nt N ��; Ul(A
+r m d 3 e r- r c �° This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~
coy ay ao c d U U p pP Y P �
> d to J w o— 0 rL •N++ Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
d� Du' 0 E m o 0 om and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the d
ul Q CL
U) d p �V �� actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
30 R-8 5 SM ,
f,,1,y�arvAlluvlum l���]],,SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark
reddish brown,moist,fine grained sand
17 - l-
1235 - Drilled to 31.5' Sampled to 31.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
35
1230
40
1225 -
45
1220
50—
1215-
55
1210
SAMP s TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE Co COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 2 of 2
f GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
I Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drillinq Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auqer- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
o w y-- SOIL DESCRIPTION y
O t V d Z OM N ". ocn 41
w,4) w .0 'O N 3 0 r-- 7 f0 F-
_ ++c �j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the w,
>m LL m 4) m� r sl S Co.0 .0 Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W 0� j Q E m�D o p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the Q
N a p 0 U)v actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be �
gradual.
0 R-1 3 114 16 CL Artificial Fill(Aft SANDY Lean CLAY,medium stiff,dark AL, YID,
B-1 3 grayish brown,moist,fine grained sand EI,CR
5
--- --- -- -- -- ---- -C - RT �� F------------------
R- 5 119 11 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to medium
J6 grained sand
1265 22
5 R-3 5 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist,fine
14 to medium grained sand
20
1260
10 R-4 6 108 23 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,very stiff,dark gray, moist,fine to medium
11 grained sand,organics
22
1255
15 R-6 13 SM SILTY SAND,dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to medium
29 grained sand
44
1250
20 R-6 7 128 9 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,dense,dark grayish brown to dark gray,
21 moist,fine to medium sand,organics
30
1245
25 --- — R-7 7 SM SILTY SAND,dense,dark grayish brown to dark brown,moist,
21 fine grained sand
30
1240
sAMPLETYPEs- TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE Co COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WOO
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 3
f
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
I Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
o v = y� SOIL DESCRIPTION N
p C V d Z NL 0 iw (AU) a)
M M(D Q.p c. o y y UU This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the w
�� Q� m� E m p a o _uj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ of other locations o
.2 Q E 0 o p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
Cl) a p (U U)_ actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
30 R-8 7 92 26 ML Quaternary Alluvium(gall;SILT with SAND,stiff,dark grayish
14 brown,moist,very fine to fine grained sand
18
1235
35 --- --- -- -- -- -- ————— — —————————— ————-
R-9 5 CL-ML SILTY CLAY.stiff.dark brown,moist
9
14
GW measured 12/12/17
1230
40 —-- —R-10 2 104 24 CL Lean CLAY,medium stiff,brown,moist to wet,(PP=2 TSF)
4
7
1225
45 R-11 11 114 17 SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff, brown,moist,fine to medium grained
7 sand
8
1220
50 R-12 3 98 28 Lean CLAY with SAND,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
4 medium grained sand,(PP=1.5 FSF)
7
1215
l 55 ——— —R-13 8 SC CLAYEY SAND,dense,dark yellowish brown,moist to wet,fine
25 to medium grained sand
25
1210
SAMPLEE.TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 2 of 3
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
f Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
�, o w SOIL DESCRIPTION y
o �� a, z om N �� my m
m ay a p m 3 c d w a �(U This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
>LL a) M J r CL �. p CL C V uj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W 0 Q m Z' O O� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the d
CL
U) - actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
•e n R-14 45 SW Well-graded SAND,dense,light gray,wet,fine to medium
50/4" grained sand,heaving sands
e •e e
e •e e
e .e 4
1205
65 — -- —R15 _ 7 - — -- -- Poorly — — -- -- -- ---
graded SAND with SILT,medium dense,dark gray,wet,
50/5" _fine_grained sandSW — ___
Well-Graded SAND,dense,light gray,wet,fine to coarse
grained sand
e •a o
e ° °
1200
e ° °
7 Q —————
R-16 7 CL Lean CLAY,stiff,olive,moist to wet
9
15
Drilled to 71.5' Sampled to 71.5' Groundwater at 52.24'
Backflled with cuttings
1195
75
1190
80
1185
85
11801
SAMPYTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 3 of 3
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summedy Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8'
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
�, o w SOIL DESCRIPTION y
O L V Gf Z Nt (A ��; OU) y
+r a) r y 3 u cw r c i° This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~
coy ay o.0 � C y� (U P � pp� Y p w
> 4) m J w a e— )a 2 a) 06 time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o
�� �� C9 E m o o� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the y
W Q CL
N a p M0 C/)— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
N
0 R-1 7 113 s SC-8M Artificial Fill A SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark
7 yellowish brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
s
R-2 7 120 12 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to
8 medium grained sand,organics
1265 11
5 R-3 5 CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine grained
8 sand
14
1260
10 --- — R-4 4 121 13 CC SANDY n C LeaLAY,stiff,dark brown,moist,fine to medium
5 grained sand
8
1255
15 R-5 4 SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark gray, moist,fine to medium
6 grained sand
12
1250
20 R-6 6 CL-ML SILTY CLAY with SAND,very stiff,dark gray,moist,very fine to
16 medium grained sand,few caliche stringers
22
1245
25 R-7 14 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
18 to medium grained sand
17
1240 33
SAMPt-E�TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TURF:SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 2
1
f GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6
I Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 14O1b -Autohammer -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
o o y. SOIL DESCRIPTION y
p� _� V Gf Z Nt (n OU)
a� fl o a) 30 r-v —0 c 1(j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
>LL Q� M J r m p CL 0 Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0
.2 Q E L �, o o� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
CL
U) a p •) U)-- actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
S
30 R-e 6 SM-ML Quaternary Alluvium ball;SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT,
12 medium dense to stiff,dark gray,moist,very fine to medium
22 grained sand,few caliche stringers
Drilled to 31.5' Sampled to 31.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1235 -
35--
1230-
40
1225 —
45
1220 -
50—
1215
55
1210 SAMPAOTYPE.S: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINEDTRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 2 of 2
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Summerly _ Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
I
SOIL DESCRIPTION N
p
Z
m "- _ m 3 _'� r q This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the H
sod a� >ZO c m U p pP Y p �«
�� �� c`a J r m p a o c L) time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0
W Q E �, C 'per and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the sZ
c/) a p L) U)_ actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
0 R-1 12 116 10 SC Artificial Fill(AD;CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish AL,EI,
B-1 12 brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand SA,CR
12
R-2 6 117 13 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
9 medium grained sand
1265 12
5 R-3 5 95 14 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray to dark yellowish
8 brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
10
1260
10— — R-4 6 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown to
10 dark reddish brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
28
1255 —
15 --- — R-5 5 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine grained
9 sand,organics
16
1250
20 R-6 7 120 14 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
11 medium grained sand
23
1245
25 R-7 11 no recovery,sampler shoe came off in hole,cannot resample
14
15
Drilled to 26.5' Sampled to 26.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1240 — T
SAMPAYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8
fProject No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly i Logged By JTD
1 Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1268'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
o y o SOIL DESCRIPTION y
o s� d z Wr N �'�; wvi a)
o y a� ap 4) 3 c y �U This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the „_
>Il Qly m 0 sZ o p a u c Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
w t j Q m �, p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the 4)
CL
U) ti p U U)_ actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
R-1 10 111 7 SM Artificial Fill(At);SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,
B-1 14 moist,fine grained sand
12
--- - - -- -- --- --—— -- -------------------------- - .
1265 R-2 4 112 14 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark gray, moist,fine to medium
5 grained sand,organics
7
5 R-3 2 SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark gray, moist,fine to medium
_ 9 grained sand
17
1260
10 R-4 7 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist
13 fine to medium grained sand
18
1255
15 R-5 8 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist,fine
22 to medium grained sand
27
1250
20 R-6 6 120 12 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine CO
s grained sand,CO=-0.03%
16
1245
25 R-7 4 CL Quaternary Alluvium(gall;SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark
7 grayish brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
1R
1240 Drilled to 26.5' Sampled to 26.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
SAMPLET YPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS 464
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT �. 0
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER /
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDIRAINEDTMAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9
IProject No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-8-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1268'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
�, SOIL DESCRIPTION N
o ,_ m z W t N �; my
+r Z c T This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~
�� ao c c U P PP Y P
aim G� M J m p CL o Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0
uJ C7 Q m �, 0 o p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
CL
to U U) -' actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
4) p
gradual.
0 R-1 7 121 11 SC Artificial Fill 1:CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish
B-1 10 brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
10
e
1265 R-z 118 10 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark gray,moist,fine to medium
9 grained sand
14
5 R-3 10 SM SILTY SAND,dense,dark yellowish brown,moist,fine to coarse
26 grained sand
34
1260
10 R-4 18 125 7 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist,fine
19 to coarse grained sand
22
1255
15 s •n ; R-T 16 SW Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL,dense,light gray,dry to
43 moist,fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
e ° e 39
1250 e A e
e •n e
20 R-6 9 SM-ML SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT,medium dense to stiff,dark
14 grayish brown,moist,very fine to fine grained sand,caliche
stringers ,
1245 Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
25
12,10
SAMPLYTYPES TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS /
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT 4'4
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH /
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-10
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30"Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
SOIL DESCRIPTION N
O L v d Z M.0 W �,; N0
+_a� :E d r a d 3'J c— c f0 This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~
M m a� ao c m t� p pp Y p w.
m� �� `J m p a Vuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations m
W Q ` �, C p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
� a p 0 0— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >1
N gradual. F-
0 R-1 25 SM Artificial Fill(Aft SILTY SAND,medium dense,gray,moist, EI
B-1 25 fine to medium grained sand, El=66
19
R-2 6 117 12 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist
13 fine to medium grained sand
1265 10
5 R-3 9 92 10 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
14 grianed sand,recovered 4 rings
15
1260
10 --- —R-a 13 SM SILTY SAND,dense,yellowish brown,moist,fine to coarse
22 grained sand
35
1255
1' R-5 s SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dense,dark grayish brown to
16 dark yellowish brown,moist,fine to coarse sand with fine
50/5" gravel
1250
20 R-6 5 126 4 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,gray,moist,fine to coarse grained CO
10 sand,CO=-1.00%
10
1245
25 R-7 6 CL QuatemaryAlluvium(gall;SANDY Lean CLAY,hard,dark
7 gray,fine grained sand,few caliche
Drilled to 26.5' Sampled to 26.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1240i
SAMPAYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-11
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
f Drilling Co. Martini Drillinq Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
�, o a SOIL DESCRIPTION N
o r d z
>Zy QO v ++ V This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
�� 0� i J a 3 m a o V vj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
a) Q E m` �, 0 C p� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the m
0 li p V U) - actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >1
gradual. F-
0 R-1 18 113 15 SC Artificial Fill I[&CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish
B-1 15 brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
14
R-2 107 11 sM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine CO
8 grained sand,CO=-2.75%
1265 8
5 R-3 4 SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
8 medium grained sand
14
1260
10 ——— — R-4 4 97 23 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark grayish brown,moist,fine to
8 medium grained sand
14
1255
15 R-5 17 no recovery
26
32
1250
20 --- --- -- -- -- --------------------- -------
R-6 27 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark yellowish brown,moist,fine
20 to medium grained sand
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1245
25
1240 33
SAMPLEPTYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
I
l GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-12
{ Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
f Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
CA o SOIL DESCRIPTION y
Ow �� U 0 Z y L 0 ��; W(n 4J
M y a� ap 13 d 3 c y eoV This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
> 0� M J r a O� o a o Vuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W C7 Q E m� Z+ O O� and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the m
N 1CL
) p C) W— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
0 R-1 11 SM Artificial Fill(60;SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish
12 brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
13
R-2 12 121 12 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to
12 medium grained sand
1265 21
5 l R-s 12 105 20 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark graysih brown and dark yellowish
12 brown,moist,fine to medium grained sand
13
1260
10 ——— — R-4 8 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,
13 moist,fine to coarse grained sand
16
1255
15 ——— — R-5 6 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,alive brown,moist,fine grained
11 sand
18
'1250
20 R-6 a _ SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown,moist,fine grained
12 sand
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1245
25
1240
SAMPLET YPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-13
fProject No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
f Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8°
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
r
U) w SOIL DESCRIPTION
o m z (nm W �� WCO
'_'4) "i s N 3 V c- w C This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~
ca y ay a0 c d v U P PP Y P w-
>LL 0� M J r O co p CO c Uuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o
W Q �, O 'am and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the C.
to a p U U)_ actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
0 R-1 13 SC-SM Artificial Fill(AD;SILTY,CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL,dark
B-1 15 grayish brown,moist,fine to coarse grained sand with fine
14 gravel
R-2 11 117 9 SM Y SD,SILTAN medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to medium
9 grained sand
1265 13
5 R-3 6 120 13 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to
10 medium grained sand
15
1260
10 R-4 9 CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
10 to medium grained sand
14
1255
15 R-5 8 125 12 CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to
14 medium grained sand,few caliche stringers
22
1250
20 R-6 7 CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to
16 medium grained sand
31
1245
25 R-7 7 SC Quaternary Alluvium(gall;CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,
12 dark gray,moist,fine to medium grained sand,caliche
22 stringers
1240 30
SAMPLE-TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 2
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-13
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summeft Logged By JTD
( Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
f
o d = 6- SOIL DESCRIPTION N
o _" d z (1).c to L_.�r yU) m
ay ap a CD 3 c y c T(j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the W.
>U. a) M J Q- o,5 p a .o c UUj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations o
w0 Q E m 0 o o- and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
N a p 0 U)_ actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be �
gradual.
30 R-8 6 CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to
8 medium grained sand,caliche stringers
16
Drilled to 31.5' Sampled to 31.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
35
23u
40
1225
45
1220
50
1215
55
1210 ggoo
SAMPL QiYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUAE SAMPt E CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 2 of 2
f
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-14
fProject No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
f Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
z tn= rn o Qo SOIL DESCRIPTION y
o u d om; OW 4)
4) +a� M m 3 u c— 3 c �°Lj This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 4-
(a L m m �J w Q � pp a • 4) Vuj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W 0� j Q E m�D �, a p= and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the Q
Cl)M a p V U) - actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
R-1 5 119 13 SC Artificial Fill(M;CLAYEY SAND,loose,dark grayish brown,
4 moist,fine to medium grained sand
7
R-2 11 119 11 CLAYEY SAND,loose,dark brown,moist,fine to medium
8 grained sand
1265 9
$ --- -- - -- -- ———————————————————————————-
R-3 5 110 18 CL SANDY Lean CLAY,stiff,dark brown,moist,fine to medium
7 grained sand
12
1260
10 --- — R-4 6 116 16 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to
9 medium grained sand
15
1255
15 R-5 19 sM SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown,moist,fine to
22 medium grained sand
24
1250
20 R-6 8 SILTY SAND,dense,dark gray,moist,fine grained sand,
J. 20 caliche nodules
a�
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1245
25
1240
9A4APLVI:YPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.'** Page 1 of 1
i
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-15
Project No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTQ
o SOIL DESCRIPTION
o sue, d z ��; Nuj
4) i� as a� 3 d y V V This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
>� LL `J r sz 2 E p s,. . .. _uj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
m E cow and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
LU Q L �` 20 om Y g p p.. rL
N ) 3 (� U)— actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
11Lgradual.
0 R-1 18 118 7 SM Artificial Fill(Afl;SILTY SAND,medium dense,grayish brown,
B-1 17 moist,fine to medium grained sand
18
R-T 5 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine
16 to medium grained sand
I265 15
5 R-3 11 120 8 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,moist,fine
15 to medium grained sand
15
1260
10 R-4 4 SC CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark gray,moist,fine to
9 medium grained sand,caliche nodules
22
1255
15 R- 7 SC-SM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,olive brown,moist,fine
17 grained sand
26
1250
20 R-6 7 115 11 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,dark olive gray,moist,fine
14 grained sand
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1245
25
1240 33
SAn4PLEa YPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
f
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-16
fProject No. 11867.002 Date Drilled 12-12-17
Project Richmond American Summerly _ Logged By JTD
Drilling Co. Martini Drilling Corp Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger- 1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 1269'
Location See Boring Location Map Sampled By JTD
N w o SOIL DESCRIPTION y
p = V d Z NZ (n NfA
M d d s d 3 �'� r c c2 V This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
>LL m� �J r a C p0 c. •T2) V uj time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations O
W G Q E CO L 00 -p- and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the a
N d p V tnv actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be >,
a gradual.
R-1 11 114 13 SC dal RII(Afl;CLAYEY SAND,loose,dark reddish brown,
7 molst,fine to medium grained sand
5
R-2 10 118 12 SC-sM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark grayish brown,
12 moist,fine to coarse grained sand
1265 15
5 R-2 9 SC CLAYEY S_A_N DT medium dense,dark brown,moist,fine to
90_ __ __ _medium_grained sand____m
18 ML SILT with SANDtiff,,s dark gray, oist,very fine to fine grained
sand,caliche stringers
1260 —
10 R-4 9 SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense,olive brown,
21 moist,fine grained sand
27
1255
15 R-5 7 119 11 SM SILTY SAND,medium dense,olive brown,moist,fine grained
12 sand
12
1250
20 R-6 7 SGSM SILTY,CLAYEY SAND,medium dense,dark olive gray,moist,
17 fine grained sand,caliche nodules
A
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
1245
25
1240
SAMPL e PES: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE -200%FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT 40
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL RV R VALUE
***This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document.*** Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX B
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
I
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
1 Leighton ASTMD422
Project Name: Summerl_y 17 Due Dilligence Tested By : M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
Project No. : 11867.002 Data Input By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Boring No.: LB-7 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Sample No.: B-1 Depth (ft.) : 0-5.0
Visual Sample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Brown.
Liquid Limit: 26 LL,PL,PI: 26:15:11 Hygroscopic Corrected WeightMoisture Content of Air- After Hydrometer
Plastic Limit: 15 GR:SA:FI: 0:48:52 of Soils Dry Soil &wet sieve ret.
Passing#10 Passing#10
Plasticity Index: 11 Grp. Symbol: SC on#200 sieve
Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 Wt.of Air-Dry Soil+Cont.(gm.) 10.00 -
Correction for Specific Gravity 0.99 Dry Wt. of Soil+Cont. (gm.) 10.00 57.90 245.60
Wt.of Air-Dry Soil+Cont. (gm.) 640.1 Wt. of Container No._(gm.) 0.00 218.00
Wt. of Container 0.0 Moisture Content(%) 0.0
Dry Wt of Soil m. 640.10 Wt. of Dry Soil (om.) 10.00 57.90 27.60
Coarse Sieve Sieve after Hydrometer&Wet Sieve
U.S. Sieve Cumulative U.S. Sieve Cumulative Wt.
Size Wt.of Dry Soil % Passing Size of Dry Soil % Passing %Total Sample
Retained(gm) Retained (gm)
3" 0.0 100.0 No.10 0.0 100.0 97.9
1'/z" 0.0 100.0 No.20 2.5 95.7 93.7
3/4" 0.0 100.0 No.40 6.2 89.3 87.4
3/8" 0.0 100.0 No.60 11.2 80.7 79.0
No.4 2.2 99.7 No. 100 17.8 69.3 67,8
No. 10 13.2 97.9 No. 200 27.2 53.0 51.9
Pan Pan
IHydrometer Wt.of Air-Dry Soil (gm) 57.9 Wt. of Dry Soil(gm) 57.9
Deflocculant 125 cc of 4%Solution
Elapsed Water Composite Actual %Total Soil Particle
l Date Time Time Temperature Correction Hydrometer Sample Diameter
I (min) °c 152 H Readings (%) (mm)
12/13/17 8:00 0 21 5.0
8:02 2 21 5.0 27.0 36.8 0.032
8:05 5 21 5.0 24.0 31.8 0.021
8:15 15 21 5.0 21.0 26.8 0.012
8:30 30 21 5.0 19.0 23.4 0.009
9:00 60 21 5.0 17.0 20.1 0.006
10:00 120 21 5.0 16.0 18.4 0.004
1 12:10 1 250 21 5.0 15.0 16.7 0.003
12/14/17 8:00 1440 21 5.0 14.0 15.1 0.001
Rev.08-04
i
Sieve&Hydrometer;LB-7,B-1(12-8-17)
60
For classification of fine-
50 grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of
a coarse grained soils CH or OH
x 40 "A"Line
m
a
30
CL or OL
rn 20
a MH or OH
10 �
7 CL.ML ML or OL
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
:]
U gCOARpSE EMI FINE �G CRSO MEDIUM
� g�� FINE
M E SILT CLAY
3i" 9T1/2$I 3/4"03/SNI#4 #105.S#20ND#40D #60 E I B#200 HYDROMETER
100
90
80
70
7- 60
w
50
0o
z 40
LL
w 30
(U
W
W
a- 20
10
0
100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE -SIZE(mm)
Boring Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
No. No.
LB-7 B-1 0 -5.0 SC 0:48:52 26:15:11
Project No.: 11867.002
Sample Description: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence
Clayey Sand (SC), Brown.
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE -SIZE CURVE
a Leighton ASTM D 4318, D 422
'�+�/ Kev un un
I
• ATTERBERG LIMITS
Leighton ASTM D4318
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Project No 11867.002 Input By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Boring No.: LB-5 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Sample No.: B-1 Depth (ft.) 0-5.0
Sample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Brown.
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT **IN-SITU
TEST NO. 1 2 1 2 3 MOISTURE
Number of Blows [N] 15 23 32
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. (gm) 20.113 21.223 28.812 27.774 29.231 **
Dry Wt. of Soil +Cont. (gm) 19.268 20.260 25.255 24.539 25.751 **
Wt. of Container (gm) 13.538 13.543 13.560 13.575 13.610 **
Moisture Content % Wn 14.7 14.3 30.4 29.5 28.7 **
Liquid Limit 29 60For classification of fine-
Plastic Limit 15 50 . grained sails and fine-
grained fraction of CH or OH
a coarse-grained soils "A"Line
Plasticity Index 14 x 40
Classification CL
30
CL or OL
PI at"A"- Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 6.57 20
One- Point Liquid Limit Calculation a •
10
LL=Wn(N/25) 0.121 MH or OH
ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation 33.0
Multipoint -Wet - -
32.0
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint -Dry 31.0
X Procedure A
30.0
Multipoint Test _
U
Procedure B 29.0
Z
One-point Test 0
28.0
27.0
26.0
10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Number of Blows
Rev.08-04
I
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Leighton ASTM D 4318
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Project No. 11867.002 Input By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Boring No. LB-7 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Sample No B-1 Depth (ft.) 0-5.0
Sample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Brown.
PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT **IN-SITU
TEST NO. 1 2 1 2 3 MOISTURE
Number of Blows [N] 15 23 33
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. (gm) 20.333 21.023 31.685 30.209 28.463 "
Dry Wt. of Soil +Cont. (gm) 19.443 20.063 27.903 26.796 25.455 *'
Wt. of Container (gm) 13.718 13.661 13.611 13.639 13.498
Moisture Content(%) [Wnl 15.5 15.0 26.5 1 25.9 25.2 **
Liquid Limit 26 60For classification of fine-
Plastic Limit 15 50 grained soils and fine- /
grained fraction of CH or OH
a coarse-grained soils
Plasticity Index 11 40
Classification CL
30
u CL or OL
PI at"A"- Line = 0.73(LL-20) _ 4.38 20
One- Point Liquid Limit Calculation a 10
LL=Wn(N/25) 0.121 , MH or OH
ML or OL
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit(LL)
PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation 29.0
Multipoint -Wet
28.0
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint -Dry 27.0
X Procedure A Z� -4
o
Multipoint Test
c 26.0
0
U
Procedure B 25.0
D
One-point Test 0
24.0
23.0
22.0
10 20 25 30 40 50 80 70 80 90100
Number of Blows
Rev.08-04
i
44 Leighton MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
I Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/12/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Input By: M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
r Boring No.: LB-2 Depth (ft.): 0 - 5.0
Sample No.: B-1
Soil Identification: Clayey Sand (SC), Dark Olive Brown.
Preparation Method: N
Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume(ft3) 0.03330 Ram Weight= 10 lb.; Drop =18 in.
f TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold g 6219 6311 6268
Weight of Mold 4140 4140 4140
INet Weight of Soil 2079 2171 2128
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. 2494.2 2586.5 2545.0
I Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. 2352.1 2401.7 2322.3
Wei ht of Container (g) 418.8 419.3 420.3
Moisture Content % 7.4 9.3 11.7
f Wet Density 137.6 143.7 140.9
Dry Density 128.2 131.5 126.1
fMaximum Dry Density (pcf) 131.5 Optimum Moisture Content
PROCEDURE USED 135.0
SP.GR =2.70
` ® Procedure A SP.GR.=2.75
Soil Passing No.4(4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if+#4 is 20%or less 130.0
❑ Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter u
Layers : 5 (Five) a
I Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) ?,+
Use if+#4 is>20%and+3/8 in. is c 125.0
20%or less y -
0
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) 120.0
l Use if+3/8 in. is>20%and+3/4 in.
is<30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
SA:F1 Atterber• Limits: 115.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Moisture Content(%)
/ / ,."Pacrion,Ld-4 d-7(7L-0-7//
f
4 Leighton MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
I Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/12/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Input By: M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
Boring No.: LB-5 Depth ft): 0 - 5.0
Sample No.: B-1
Soil Identification: Clayey Sand (SC), Brown.
f
Preparation Method: N
Moist X Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume(ft3) 0.03330 Ram Weight= 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
TEST NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold q) 6139 6274 6270
Weight of Mold (g) 4140 4140 4140
Net Weight of Soil (g) 1999 2134 2130
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (q) 2156.3 2289.7 2271.3
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) 2027.0 2109.2 2057.1
IWeiqht of Container ( ) 158.1 159.3 140.0
Moisture Content M 6.9 9.3 11.2
Wet Densi cf) 132.3 141.3 141.0
Dry Density cf) 1 123.8 1 129.3 126.8
Maximum Dry Density(pcf) 129.4 Optimum Moisture Content(%) 9.5
PROCEDURE USED 135.0
® SP,GR.=2.65
Procedure A SP.GR.=2.70
Soil Passing No. 4(4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if+#4 is 200/c or less 130.0
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in.(9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five) a
Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five)
Use if+#4 is>20%and+3/8 in.is N 125.0
20%or less d
Procedure C
i Soil Passing 3/4 in.(19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers: 5 (Five)
Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) 120.0
Use if+3/8 in.is>20%and +3/4 in.
is<30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
SA:F1 Atterber g Limits: 115.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Moisture Content(%)
"ompacnon;Lc-a,0-7 1)
f
f One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Leighton Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)--Method'B'
fProject Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilliaence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/11/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 12/14/17
Boring No.: LB-2 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-3 Depth(ft.) 5.0
Sample Description: Lean Clay(CL), Dark Brown. _
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation:Arrowhead(Distilled)
**Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation)not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 113.0 Final Dry Density(pcf): 116.3
Initial Moisture(%): 15.3 Final Moisture(%) : 16.7
Initial Height(in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.4916
Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0000 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring(in)7 2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%): 84.0
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance o Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) of Sample
(in)) (% /o) Thickness ( )
1.050 0.0135 1 0.9865 1 0.00 1 -1.35 0.4715 -1.35
2.013 0.0243 0.9757 0.00 -2.43 1 0.4553 -2.43
l H2O 0.0286 0.9714 0.00 -2.86 0.4489 -2.86
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation = -0.44
Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
0 1,00
0.00
E
o -1.00
-2.00
-3.00 Inundate With
f Distilled Water
-4.00
-5.00 -41
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf)
Rev.01-10
I�
I
.� One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Leighton Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)--Method'B'
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/11/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
f Boring No.: LB-2 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-4 Depth(ft.) 10
Sample Description: Silty Sand(SM), Brown.
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled)
**Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 110.0 Final Dry Density(pcf): 114.1
Initial Moisture(%): 10.0 Final Moisture(%) : 16.3
Initial Height(in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.5320
Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0000 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Inside Diameter of Rinq(in): 2.416 Initial Dearee of Saturation % : 50.6
Apparent Load Swell(+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance o Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) of Sample
(in) (o/o /o) Thickness ( )
1.050 0.0102 0.9898 0.00 -1.02 0.5164 -1.02
2.013 0.0180 0.9820 1 0.00 -1.80 0.5045 -1.80
H2O 0,0357 0.9643 0.00 -3.57 0.4773 -3.57
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation = -1.80
Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve
5.00
4.00
3.00
l 2.00
0 1.00
° 000
E
fo -1.00
I �
-2 00 Inundate With
-3.00 Distilled Water
l-I III I
-4.00
-5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf)
Rev.01-10
i
t One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Leighton Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)--Method'B'
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M.Vinet Date: 12/18/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 12/20/17
Boring No.: LB-8 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-6 Depth(ft.) 20.0
Sample Description: Clayey Sand(SC), Brown.
1 Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead(Distilled)
Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 124.3 Final Dry Density(pcf): 128.1
( Initial Moisture(%): 12.3 Final Moisture(%) : 13.7
Initial Height(in,): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.3562
Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0000 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring(in): 2.416 Initial Dearee of Saturation(%) 93.4
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
(ksf) (in) °�° /° of Sample °
(in) ( ) Thickness (�0)
1.050 1 0.0243 1 0.9757 0.00 -2.43 0.3232 -2.43
2.013 0.0296 0.9704 0.00 -2.96 0.3160 1 -2.96
H2O 0.0299 0.9701 0.00 -2.99 0.3156 -2.99
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation = -0.03
Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve
5.00
4.00
3.00
200
1.00
c
a 0.00
03
E
o -1.00
a)
l -2.00
-3.00
Inundate With
-4.00 Distilled Water
-5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf)
Rev,01-10
I
I One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Leighton Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546)--Method'B'
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M.Vinet Date 12/18/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date. 12/20/17
Boring No.: LB-10 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-6 Depth(ft.) 20.0
Sample Description: Silty Sand (SM), Brown. _
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead(Distilled)
*"Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method.
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 114.0 Final Dry Density(pcf): 117.3
Initial Moisture(%): 5.6 Final Moisture(%): 14.0
Initial Height(in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.4791
Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0000 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
f Inside Diameter of Ring(in): 2.416 Initial Dearee of Saturation(%) 31.7
Apparent Load Swell(+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance ° Void Ratio Deformation
/°(ksf) (in) of Sample °
(in)) (%) Thickness (/°)
1.050 0.0165 0.9835 0.00 -1.65 1 0.4547 1 -1.65
2.013 0.0190 0.9810 0.00 -1.90 0.4510 -1.90
H2O 0.0288 0.9712 1 0.00 -2.88 0.4365 -2.88
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation = -1.00
Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve
500
4.00
3.00
2.00
j o 1.00
( 0.00
E
o -1.00
m
-2.00
Inundate With
-3.00 Distilled Water
-4.00
-5.00
0.010 0.1 00 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf)
Rev.01-10
I
i
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Leighton Potential of Cohesive Soils
f (ASTM D 4546)--Method'B'
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dillig_ence Tested By: M.Vinet Date: 12/18/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M.Vinet Date: 12/20/17
Boring No.: LB-11 Sample Type: IN SITU
Sample No.: R-2 Depth (ft.) 2.5
Sample Description: Silty Sand (SM), Brown. _
Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation:Arrowhead(Disfilied)
" Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method,
Initial Dry Density(pcf): 100.4 Final Dry Density(pcf): 105.4
Initial Moisture(%): 9.2 Final Moisture(%) : 20.9
Initial Height(in.): 1.0000 Initial Void ratio: 0.6786
Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0000 Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70
Inside Diameter of Rina(in): 2.416 Initial Dearee of Saturation (%) 36.4
Apparent Load Swell (+) Corrected
Pressure(p) Final Reading Settlement(-)
Thickness Compliance o Void Ratio Deformation
/0(ksf) (in) of Sample
(in)) (%) Thickness ( )
1.050 1 0.0187 0.9813 0.00 -1.87 0.6472 -1.87
I2.013 0.0208 0.9792 0.00 1 -2.08 1 0.6437 1 -2.08
H2O 0.0477 0.9523 0.00 -4.77 0.5985 -4.77
Percent Swell /Settlement After Inundation = -2.75
Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
c
0 0.00
.6
E
o -1.00
l -2.00
Inundate With
-3.00 ttlDistilled Water
` -4.00
-5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
Log Pressure(ksf)
` Rev.01-10
i
I
i
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
Leighton PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/11/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/18/17
Boring No.: LB-5 Depth (ft): 5.0
l Sample No.: R-10 Sample Type: Drive
Soil Identification: Lean Clay (CL), Brown.
Sample Diameter(in.): 2.416 0.750
Sample Thickness(in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring(g): 193.33
0.700
Weight of Ring (g): 43.70
Height after consol. (in.): 1.0000 Inundatewith
Before Test Tap water
0.650
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 149.60
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 119.76
Weight of Container(g): 0.00 0 0 600
Initial Moisture Content(%) 24.9 M
Initial Dry Density(pcf) 99.5
Initial Saturation (%): 97 0 0 550 -
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0000
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 225.38 0.500
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 198.70
Weight of Container(g): 35.24
Final Moisture Content(%) 22.28 0.450
Final Dry Density(pcf): 99.5
Final Saturation (%): 87
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0778 0.400
0.10 1 00 10.00 100
Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 Pressure, p(ksfl
Water Density(Dcf): 62.43
Pressure Final Apparent Load Deformation Void Corrected No Time Readings Taken
(p) Reading Thickness Compliance %of Sample Deforma-
ks in. in. (%) Thickness Ratio tion o Elapsed Square Dial Rcl s
( 0 ( ) ( ) (/0) Date Time p Root of g
Time(min) Time (in.)
0.10 0.0000 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.693 0.00
1.00 0.0388 0.9612 0.00 3.88 0.628 3.88
1.00 0.0378 0.9622 0.00 3.78 0.629 3.78
2.00 0.0405 0.9595 0.00 4.05 0.625 4.05
4.00 0.0548 0.9452 0.00 5.48 0.601 5.48
8.00 0.0778 0.9222 0.00 7.78 0.562 7.78
Consolidation;LB-5,R-10(12-8-17)
No Time Readings Taken
0,0000 00000
r 0,1000
02000 0.2000
m 0.3000
a 0,4000
N 0.4000
0_
0.5000 0.6000
0
0 0.6000
E 0.7000 0 8000
`o
a) 0.8000
1,0000
0,9000
1,0000 1.2000
0.1 1 0 00 10.0
Log of Time(min.) Square Root of Time(min.112)
0.00 41
1 00
2.00
=InTundatewith
er
3.00
4.00
C
O
(0
5.00
0
N
6.00 -
7.00
8.00
I
9.00
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Pressure, p (ksfl
Boring Sample Depth Moisture D Density Degree of
No. No. (ft.)
Content(%) Dry tY(pcf) Void Ratio Saturation(%)
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
LB-5 R-10 5 24.9 22.3 99.5 99.5 0.693 0.562 97 87
Soil Identification: Lean Clay (CL), Brown.
Project No.: 11867.002
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
e Leighton PROPERTIES of SOILS Summerly 17 Due Dilligence
ASTM D 2435
12 17'
( ♦ ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
Leighton PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
1 Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/26/17
Project No.: 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/29/17
Boring No.: LB-5 Depth (ft.): 50.0
Sample No.: R-12 Sample Type: Drive
Soil Identification: Lean Clay(CL), Brown.
Sample Diameter(in.): 2.416 0800
Sample Thickness(in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample+ ring (g): 194.18 0 750
Weight of Ring (g): 46.10 Inundate with
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9346 Tap water
Before Test 0.700
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 148.08
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 116.40 0.650
Weight of Container(g): 0.00 0
Initial Moisture Content(%) 27.2 a
Initial Dry Density(pcf) 96.7 0.600 -
Initial Saturation (%): 99 0
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0000 0.550 - -
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 242.03
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 213.00 0.500
Weight of Container(g): 50.50
Final Moisture Content(%) 24.94 0.450
Final Dry Density(pcf): 103.5
Final Saturation (%): 107
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.0654 0400 ,
Specific Gravity(assumed): 2.70 0.10 1 00 Pressure, p(ksf) 1000 100
Water Density(pcf): 62.43
Pressure Final Apparent Load Deformation Void Corrected Time Readings @ 8sf
(p) Reading Thickness Compliance %of Sample Deforma
Thickness Ratio o Elapse Square Dial Rd s.
(ksf) (in.) (in.) ( ) tion(/o) Date Time p Root of g
Time(min) Time (in.)
0.10 0.0000 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.743 0.00 12/29/17 6:53:00 0.0 0.0 0.0420
2.00 0.0401 0.9599 0.00 4.01 0.673 4.01 12129117 6:53:06 0.1 0.3 0.0469
2.00 0.0390 0.9610 0.00 3.90 0.675 3.90 12 29/17 6:53:15 0.2 0.5 0.0475
4.00 0.0420 0.9580 0.00 4.20 0.669 4.20 12/29/17 6:53:30 0.5 0.7 0.0484
8.00 0.0654 0.9346 0.00 6.54 0.629 6.54 12/29/17 6:54:00 1.0 1.0 0.0499
12/29/17 6:55:00 2.0 1.4 0.0513
12/29/17 6:57:00 4.0 2.0 0.0535
12/29/17 7:01:00 8.0 2.8 0.0557
12/29/17 7:08:00 15.0 3.9 0.0562
12/29/17 7:23:00 30.0 5.5 0.0589
12/29/17 7:53:00 60.0 7.7 0.0599
12/29/17 8:53:00 120.0 11.0 0.0608
12/29/17 10:53:00 240.0 15.5 0.0618
12/29/17 15:00:00 487.0 22.1 0.0634
12/29/17 7:03:00 1450.0 38.1 0.0645
12/2917 7:03:00 1450.0 38.1 0.0654
Consolidation;L13-5,R-12(12-8-17)
I
l Time Readings @ 8sf
l 0.0000 00000
^ 00100 00100
00200 0 0200
--
� 00300 00300
CC 00400 00400
0 0500 0 0500--- - - - -
o �
00600 -- 00600 -
0.0700
0 0700
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0 00 100 200 300 400
Log of Time(min.) Square Root of Time(min.112)
0.00
1.00 - —
l 2.00
0 3.00 Inundate with
r_ Tap water
0
CU
E 4.00 — — —
O
N
0
5.00 - -
6.00 —
7.00
0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
i Pressure, p (ksf)
BoringSample Depth Moisture Degree of
p p Content(%) Dry Density(pcf) Void Ratio Saturation(%)
No. No. (ft.)
Initial Final Initial I Final Initial Final Initial Final
LB-5 R-12 50 27.2 24.9 96.7 103.5 0.743 0.629 99 1 100
Soil Identification: Lean Clay (CL), Brown.
l Project No.: 11867.002
4W, ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
Leighton PROPERTIES of SOILS Summerly 17 Due Dilligence
ASTM D 2435
01-18
f
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Leighton ASTM D 4829
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/12/17
Project No. : 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
Boring No.: LB-2 Depth: 0-5.0
Sample No. : B-1 Location: N/A
Sample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Dark Olive Brown.
Dry Wt. of Soil+ Cont. (gm.) 9582.8
1 Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) 9582.8
Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 557.1
Percent Passing#4 94.2
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01
Specimen Height in. 1.0000 1.0350
f Wt. Comp. Soil+ Mold m. 596.5 633.9
I Wt. of Mold m.) 189.7 189.7
Specific Gravity Assumed 2.70 2.70
Container No. 10 10
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. m. 350.4 633.9
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. m. 324.6 371.8
Wt. of Container m. 50.4 189.7
Moisture Content % 9.4 19.5
Wet Density c 122.7 129.5
Dry Density c 112.2 108.4
Void Ratio 0.503 0.556
Total Porosity 0.335 0.357
Pore Volume (cc) 69.3 76.5
,Degree of Saturation % S meas 50.5 94.6
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate< 0.0002 in./h.
Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings
(psi) (min.) (in.)
12/12/17 7:25 1.0 0 0.5000
12/12/17 7:35 1.0 10 0.5000
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
12/13/17 6:30 1.0 1375 0.5350
12/13/17 1 7:30 1.0 1435 0.5350
1
Expansion Index(El meas) = ((Final Rdg- Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 35.0
i
Expansion Index (Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)if Initial Height is>than Final Heigh 35
Rev.03-08
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Leighton ASTMD4829
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilliq_ence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/12/17
Project No. : 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
Boring No.: LB-5 Depth: 0-5.0
Sample No. : B-1 Location: N/A
Sample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Brown
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 152.3
Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) 152.3
Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 3.5
Percent Passing#4 97.7
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0342
Wt. Comp. Soil +Mold(qm.) 583.0 624.4
Wt. of Mold (qm.) 180.9 180.9
Specific Gravity(Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Container No. 11 111
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. (qm.) 720.7 624.4
Dry Wt. of Soil+ Cont. (gm.) 694.7 367.2
Wt. of Container (gm.) 420.7 180.9
Moisture Content(%) 9.5 20.8
Wet Density( cf) 121.3 129.4
Dry Density(pcf) 110.8 107.1
Void Ratio 0.522 0.574
Total Porosity 0.343 0.365
Pore Volume (cc) 71.0 78.1
Degree of Saturation % S measl 49.1 97.7
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate< 0.0002 in./h.
Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings
(psi) (min.) (in.)
12/12/17 10:40 1.0 0 0.5000
12/12/17 10:50 1.0 10 0.5000
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
12/13/17 6:30 1.0 1180 0.5342
12/13/17 17:30 1.0 1240 0.5342
Expansion Index(El meas) _ ((Final Rdg- Initial Rdg)/ Initial Thick.)x 1000 34.2
Expansion Index(Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)if Initial Height is>than Final Heigh 34
I
Rev 03-08
i
iEXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Leighton ASTM D 4829
i
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 12/12/17
Project No. : 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
Boring No.: LB-7 Depth: 0-5.0
Sample No. : B-1 Location: N/A
iSample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Brown.
Dry Wt. of Soil+ Cont. (gm.) 1623.2
1 Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) 1623.2
Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 15.6
Percent Passing#4 99.0
I MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
Specimen Height in.) 1.0000 1.0266
f Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold m. 586.5 617.5
I Wt.of Mold m. 178.0 178.0
Specific Gravity Assumed 2.70 2.70
( Container No. 12 12
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. m.) 349.9 617.5
Dry Wt. of Soil+ Cont. m.) 323.9 373.1
Wt. of Container m. 49.9 178.0
Moisture Content(%) 9.5 17.8
Wet Density c 123.2 129.1
Dry Density( cf) 112.5 109.6
Void Ratio 0.498 0.538
Total Porosity 0.332 0.350
Pore Volume (cc) 68.8 74.3
Degree of Saturation % S meas 51.5 89.4
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate< 0.0002 in./h.
Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings
i (psi) (min.) (in.)
12/12/17 11:20 1.0 0 0.5000
12/12/17 11:30 1.0 10 0.5000
jAdd Distilled Water to the Specimen
12/13/17 6:30 1.0 1140 0.5266
12/13/17 1 7:30 1.0 1200 0.5266
Expansion Index(El meas) = ((Final Rdg- Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 26.6
Expansion Index( Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)if Initial Height is>than Final Heigh 27
Rev.03-08
f
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Leighton ASTM D 4829
f
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dillig_ence Tested By: F. Mina Date: 12/19/17
fProject No. : 11867.002 Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 12/20/17
Boring No.: LB-10 Depth: 0-5.0
Sample No. : B-1 Location: N/A
r
Sample Description: Clayey Sand (SC), Dark Brown.
i
Dry Wt. of Soil+ Cont. (gm.) 3313.5
Wt. of Container No. (gm.) 0.0
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) 3313.5
Weight Soil Retained on#4 Sieve 3.9
Percent Passing#4 99.9
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Diameter in. 4.01 4.01
Specimen Hei ht in. 1.0000 1.0660
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold m. 591.7 635.4
Wt. of Mold ( m.) 190.7 190.7
Specific Gravity Assumed 2.70 2.70
Container No. 8 8
Wet Wt. of Soil +Cont. m. 350.0 635.4
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. m.) 324.0 366.2
Wt. of Container m. 50.0 190.7
Moisture Content % 9.5 21.4
Wet Density c 121.0 125.8
Dry Density(pcf) 110.5 103.6
Void Ratio 0.526 0.627
Total Porosity 0.345 0.385
Pore Volume cc 71.4 85.0
Degree of Saturation % S measl 1 48.8 92.3
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate<0.0002 in./h.
Date Time Pressure Elapsed Time Dial Readings
(psi) (min.) (in.)
12/19/17 11:00 1.0 0 0.5000
f 12/19/17 11:10 1.0 10 0.5000
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
12/20/17 5:00 1.0 1070 0.5660
12/20/17 1 6:00 1.0 1130 0.5660
f
Expansion Index(El meas) = ((Final Rdg- Initial Rdg)/Initial Thick.)x 1000 66.0
Expansion Index (Report) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero(0)if Initial Height is>than Final Heigh 66
Rev 03-08
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
Leighton
Project Name: Summerly 17 Due Dilligence Tested By : M. Vinet Date: 12/13/17
Project No. : 11867.002 Data Input By: M. Vinet Date: 12/14/17
I
Borinq No. LB-2 LB-5 LB-7
Sample No. B-1 B-1 B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0 - 5.0 0 - 5.0 0 - 5.0
Soil Identification: Sc Sc Sc
Wet Weight of Soil + Container 100.00 100.00 100.00
Dry Weight of Soil + Container 100.00 100.00 100.00
Weight of Container(g) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Moisture Content (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weight of Soaked Soil a 100.00 100.00 100.00
SULFATE CONTENT DOT California Test 417 Part II
f Beaker No. 1 2 3
Crucible No. 1 2 3
Furnace Temperature °C 850 850 850
Time In /Time Out Timer Timer Timer
Duration of Combustion min 45 45 45
I Wt. of Crucible + Residue 26.1164 25.5823 24.3350
l Wt. of Crucible g 26.1005 25.5631 24.3252
Wt. of Residue A 0.0159 0.0192 0.0098
PPM of Sulfate (A)x 41150 654.28 790.08 403.27
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis 654 1 90 403
APPENDIX C
Settlement and Slope Stability Analyses
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Richmond American Summerly 17
Hole No.=LB-5 Water Depth=37.67 ft Surface Elev.=1269 Magnitude=7
Acceleration=0.99g
Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement Raw Unit Fines Soil Description
(0)0 0 0.5 0 1 5 0(in.) 10 S$Weight %
5 NoLq SANDY Lean CLAY
16.8128 40 SILTY SAND
20.4128 40
19.8115 NoLq SANDY Lean CLAY
15 43.8128 40 SILTY SAND
30.6132 45 SILTY,CLAYEY SAND
30.6128 40 SILTY SAND
30 19.2108 95
SILTwfth SAND
13.8110 NoLq SILTY CLAY
6.6 110 NoLq Lean CLAY
45 9 110 NoLq
6.6 110 NoLq
1 30 130 50 CLAYEY SAND
60 57 132 5
Well-Graded SAND
,1
53 130 NoLq:. ., Well-Graded SAND w ith SST
fs1=1.00 ^ ;
S=1.77 in. 14.4110 NoLq • I Pan CJ Ay
CRR CSR fsto— Saturated -
- 75 Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential Unsaturat. —
I �S -
190
1 0
t
I` U
105
Leighton 11867.002 Plate A-1
l _
0
N
O
O
n
ra
+-1
CD
0
N
s
`i 2
CL �
C
ELn
0
C
c L
M �
k � E
(Y1 _ O
I � L O
o g
o Q
N
01
i Y n
O
J1 — M
a
00000000000000000000000000
L6
u o N m L- o N m l- o N m [- o N m [- o N m l- o N m l- o
J 4 O O O o r-I r-I 1-1 r- N N N NM (4 M M d� 4 4 d� lfl lfl Lf Ln
rd
OOZ 09L Ob4 09
0
I
0
N
I N
O
00
0O
-4
y ,1
9 O
O
N
f t]je
n
L Mn
C�
C O
Ln Z
C {Lr
Q7 v
1 � L
cuC
C
Q
N � a
N A p (�
+ i E a
o
o �
-o
Q
00
N
v oh
I N
rn
{ ,4
N
o -�
EIW■■
N + � ,
O O O O O O O O O O O o o 0 0 00 o o coo o 0 o o
-W O m O In o m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O m O
u o N m l- O N m r- O N m l- O N m L- O N m l- o N In r- O
W O O O O rl rl rl '-I N N N N M M* M 1; 4 4 4 4 L 1 L l L! Lf 10 ���
—
U] EKE ,
ooz M obi os
r
APPENDIX D
( GBA Important Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report
Impoplant Inlopmation about
Geolechnical-Enuineepino
. . . . . . . .
While . . . information is help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly those that affect:
a client representative—interpret and apply this the site's size or shape;
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively the function of the proposed structure,as when it's
as possible. In that way, clients can benefit from changed from a parking garage to an office building,or
a lowered exposure to the subsurface problems from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;
the elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or
that,for decades, have been a principal cause of weight of the proposed structure;
construction delays,cost overruns, claims,and the composition of the design team;or
disputes. If you have questions or want more project ownership.
information about any of the issues discussed below,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
Active involvement in the Geoprofessional Business changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their
Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
construction project. would have considered.
This Report May Not Be Reliable
Geotechnical-Engineering Services Are Performed for Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
Specific Purposes, Persons,and Projects for a different client;
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific for a different project;
needs of their clients.A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a different site(that may or may not include all or a
for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil- portion of the original site);or
works constructor or even a different civil engineer.Because each before important events occurred at the site or adjacent
geotechnical-engineering study is unique,each geotechnical- to it;e.g.,man-made events like construction or
engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client.Those who environmental remediation,or natural events like floods,
rely on a geotechnical-engineering report prepared for a different client droughts,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctuations.
can be seriously misled.No one except authorized client representatives
should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first Note,too,that it could be unwise to rely on a geotechnical-engineering
conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one report whose reliability may have been affected by the passage of time,
—not even you—should apply this report for any purpose or project except because of factors like changed subsurface conditions;new or modified
the one originally contemplated. codes,standards,or regulations;or new techniques or tools.If your
geotechnical engineer has not indicated an`apply-by"date on the report,
Read this Report in Full ask what it should be,and,in general,if you are the least bit uncertain
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical
engineering report did not read it in its entirety.Do not rely on an engineer before applying it.A minor amount of additional testing or
executive summary.Do not read selected elements only.Read this report analysis—if any is required at all—could prevent major problems.
in full.
Most of the"Findings" Related in This Report Are
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer Professional Opinions
about Change Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors subsurface through various sampling and testing procedures.
when designing the study behind this report and developing the Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at
confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.A few those specific locations where sampling and testing were performed.The
typical factors include: data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your
• the client's goals,objectives,budget,schedule,and geotechnical engineer,who then applied professional judgment to
Irisk-management preferences; form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual
1 the general nature of the structure involved,its size, sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ—maybe significantly—from
configuration,and performance criteria; those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your
• the structure's location and orientation on the site;and geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team from project start to
• other planned or existing site improvements,such as project finish,so the individual can provide informed guidance quickly,
retaining walls,access roads,parking lots,and whenever needed.
underground utilities.
1 .
This Report's Recommendations Are perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to allow enough
Confirmation-Dependent time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in a position
The recommendations included in this report-including any options to give constructors the information available to you,while requiring
or alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming
not final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and preconstruction
heavily on judgment and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface
1 conditions revealed during construction.If through observation your Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do
actually do exist,the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
no other changes have occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared engineering disciplines.That lack of understanding has nurtured
this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation- unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments,delays,
dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform cost overruns,claims,and disputes.To confront that risk,geotechnical
construction observation. engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports.
Sometimes labeled"limitations,"many of these provisions indicate
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help
Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- others recognize their own responsibilities and risks.Read these
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical engineer should
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a full-time member of the respond fully and frankly.
design team,to:
confer with other design-team members, Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
help develop specifications, The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals' environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental
plans and specifications,and site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform
I be on hand quickly whenever geotechnical-engineering a geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-
guidance is needed. engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,
conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project
Il prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction failures.If you have not yet obtained your own environmental
observation. information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management
guidance.As a general rule,do not rely on an environmental report
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance prepared for a different client,site,orproject,or that is more than six
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift months old.
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture
the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the Infiltration and Mold
complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,none of the engineer's
conspicuously that you've included the material for informational services were designed,conducted,or intended to prevent uncontrolled
purposes only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil through
that"informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where it can
on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.Accordingly,
the report,but they may rely on the factual data relative to the specific proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's recommendations
times,locations,and depths/elevations referenced. Be certain that will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration.Confront
constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold
including options selected from the report,only from the design specialists on the design team.Geotechnical engineers are not building-
drawings and specifications.Remind constructors that they may envelope or mold specialists.
1
GEOPROFESSIONAL
BUSINESS
SABA ASSOCIATION
I Telephone:301/565-2733
e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org
1
Copyright 2016 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly
prohibited,except with GBAs specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission
of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any
kind.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent
1,
..:11vb 0 0 I-A L I-'ILASILK VV11H I-'KLC.ISIUN (,AP CONCERNED BEFORE STARTING WORK.
'ISTING 3'-8" SPLIT FACE PILASTER WITH PRECISION CAP 3. THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OR LIABLE FOR UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO
OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THESE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
'OPOSED 6'-8" SPLIT FACE PILASTER WITH PRECISION CAP PREPARER OF THESE PLANS.
)OPOSED j' 8" SPL11 FACE PILAS I ER WI0-I PRECISION CAP 'erica, Inc. 4. QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE PROVIDED FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
'OPOSED VINYL GATE
Plan Review RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL QUANTITIES PRIOR TO BIDDING FOR CONSTRUCTION.
fliese plans have been re ie-.ved wul nre found to be in substantial
I RB AND GUTTER comptianca w itti 01c.:rt,F,:x:able cntlps arlopted by ordinances.
IRB ADJACENT SIDEWALK A,pprowd is iecomi-non(wd for pond i ssuanco pe:iding approved by PRIVATE ENGINEER 'S NOTE TO CONTRACTOR
a!l City cieparunents�;nd agencies.
)R REFERENCE ONLY. CONSTRUCT PER (lie pJ c adhshune �i, Ilia'
l a'all!!m rerrpsicalionsts to ndcp cable'o" THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPE, CONDUITS OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS
ENCE PLAN. codes and ordwar:c _W,ct!:y coninivning construction,thereunder OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NOT EXISTING
nJ: storelr r.;:u! C,ir;anoian consultants from and UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES
a ,,in t any core .ic! ti::ns in the cemOcted work. TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR FURTHER ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY AND
The or tu-. .:-iI ba edonthaapprovaloftheso RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UTILITY PIPES, CONDUITS OR STRUCTURES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.
oc ai,, r. ^:viv viJation of the applicable codes
IMBING PLAN NOTES AND LEGEND "''"`' "'"d`°.iu;`au;shall tovalid.eor
�.;U:iA�d.a c:r ices shall be valid.FOR INFORMATION ONLY SOILS ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
�� ``�
' I� �_ Date: �- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES. INC. HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS FROM A
- DRAINAGE OF FIXTURES LOCATED BELOW THE
'NEXT UPSTREAM GEOLOGIC/GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STANDPOINT ONLY. THE PLANS ARE IN
SEWER MANHOLE OR BELOW MAIN SEWER LEVEL. COMPLIANCE WITH THE GEOLOGIC/GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
'E IS INSTALLED ON A FLOOR LEVEL THAT IS LOWER THAN THE NEXT PRESENTED IN THE REFERENCED PROJECT REPORT(S) AND SUBSEQUENT ADDENDA. THIS
'OLE COVER OF THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SEWER, SERVING SUCH DRAINAGE REVIEW DID NOT INCLUDE CHECKING THE ACCURACY OF THE CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL
tE PROTECTED FROM BACKFLOW OF SEWAGE BY INSTALLING AN APPROVED ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DIMENSIONS, INCLUDING LINES AND GRADES OR COMPLIANCE
ATER VALVE. FIXTURES ON FLOOR LEVELS ABOVE SUCH ELEVATION SHALL N
THROUGH THE BACKWATER VALVE. CLEANOUTS FOR DRAINS THAT PASS WITH BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF OTHERS.
'KW VALVE SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED WITH A PERMANENT LABEL
ATER VALVE DOWNSTREAM". QEtOFESSIp
VER MANHOLE WITH RIM ELEVATION w 2
Q
VER LATERAL BY. GE# 2641 0: NO. GE002641 o
E. NO BACKWATER VALVE DEVICES ARE REQUIRED FOR PRODUCTION
EXP.
S 1-31 & 34-65 c
ForfCHN��
BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION OF CA��Fo
RIVERSIDE BENCHMARK NO. BM—E-3-70. ELEV. 1279.829. BRASS DISC IN CONCRETE POST 72' NORTH
WALLS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE OF "T" INTERSECTION OF CORYDON STREET AND MISSION TRAIL. 27, EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF
WILL BE CONSTRUCTED PER MISSION TRAIL.
PLAN AND PERMIT.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
�INEER: � OWNERS/APPLICANT �
CENTERLINE OF CEREAL STREET, BEING N52°52'48"W, BETWEEN MONUMENTS 3 AND 4, BEING THE
NOES, INC RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES CENTERLINE INTERSECTIONS OF CEREAL STREET AND STONEMAN STREET AND CEREAL STREET AND
P DR., SUITE 5171 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, SUITE -120 CORYDON STREET. Z
2626 IRVINE, CA 92617
(949) 467-2600 CL
(949) 467-2683 FAX GRADING PERMIT # WDID #:833C382557
BY: SEAL "AS BUILT"
H U N S A KE R & ASSOCIATES �^V ESS,o — ------ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE SHEET 1 w
I R V I N E I N C ��0& J. Sg � RCE----------- DATE
SURVEYING REVIEWED BY: U
PLANNING ■ ENGINEERING ■ EXP-----_.�`����' �92tic, W O
a Hughes ■ Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 583-1010 FX:(949)583.0759 y �
w NO. 73196 m --------------------- PRECISE OF SHEETS o �
HE S PERVISI OF: � Exp. 12/31/18
SCALE_-------- TRACT NO 31920-17
i BENCH MARK: . FILE No. o �
SAOA5s 9r c)�►� �� INSPECTOR RIVERSIDE BENCHMARK NO.
FOFCA0V BM—E-3-70, ELEV. 1279.829 LOTS 1-31 & 34-65 1 � 2
o
J. SAFRAN R. .E. N0. 73196 DATE DATE: TITLE SKEET
FILE: F:\0651\Enqineerinq\TR_31920-17\Grd_Precise\ Production\ SHT n1 riwn