HomeMy WebLinkAboutTract Map 37928 RGP Soils Report
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT (UPDATE)
WINGSWEEP ENTITLEMENT, PA-10, PA-12 AND
PA-33A
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
WINGSWEEP CORPORATION
C/O DECATUR ADVISORS, LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Project No. 12673.001
June 30, 2020
APPROVED BY
CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC WORKS
valerie.caragan 01/22/2025
01/22/2025 01/22/2025
01/22/20
June 30, 2020
Project No. 12673.001
Wingsweep Corporation
c/o Decatur Advisors, LLC
P.O. Box 2016
Carlsbad, CA 92018
Attention: Mr. Thom Fuller
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update)
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A
City of Temecula, California - JDA Job # 2003
In accordance with your request, we are pleased to provide this geotechnical evaluation
report (Update) for the subject development located in the City of Temecula, California
(see Figure 1). This report summarizes our geotechnical findings, conclusions and
recommendations (including update responses to City reviewer comments) regarding the
design and construction of the proposed residential development and associated
improvements. Based on the results of our review, it is our opinion that the site is suitable
for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are
implemented during design and construction phases of development.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641
Principal Engineer
Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921
Senior Principal Geologist
Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF copy)
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
-i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project and Site Description ............................................................................................ 1
1.3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................. 3
2.1 Field Exploration .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS .............................................. 4
3.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Site Specific Geology ....................................................................................................... 4
3.2.1 Earth Materials ................................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water ..................................................................................... 5
3.4 Regional Faulting and Local Fault Activity ...................................................................... 5
3.5 Ground Shaking ............................................................................................................... 6
3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement) ................................................. 6
3.7 Flooding ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.8 Seiche and Tsunami ........................................................................................................ 7
3.9 Slope Stability .................................................................................................................. 7
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 8
4.1 General ............................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Earthwork ......................................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading ........................................................................... 8
4.2.2 Suitability of Site Soils for Fills ........................................................................................... 9
4.2.3 Rippability ........................................................................................................................... 9
4.2.4 Slope Construction ............................................................................................................. 9
4.2.5 Import Soils ....................................................................................................................... 10
4.2.6 Utility Trenches ................................................................................................................. 10
4.2.7 Shrinkage ......................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.8 Drainage ........................................................................................................................... 11
4.3 Foundation Design ......................................................................................................... 11
4.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures ........................................................................................ 11
4.3.2 Post Tension Design Parameters .................................................................................... 12
4.4 Foundation Setback from Slopes .................................................................................. 12
4.5 Vapor Retarder ............................................................................................................... 13
4.6 Retaining Walls .............................................................................................................. 14
4.7 Sulfate Attack ................................................................................................................. 15
4.8 Concrete Flatwork .......................................................................................................... 15
4.9 Preliminary Pavement Design ....................................................................................... 16
4.10 Percolation/Infiltration Test Results ............................................................................... 17
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- ii -
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES .......................................... 18
6.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................. 19
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 20
Accompanying Tables, Figures, Plates and Appendices
Tables
Table 1. 2019 CBC Site Specific Seismic Coefficients ................................................... 6
Table 2. PTI Method Design Parameters (3rd Edition) ................................................. 12
Table 3. Footing Setbacks ............................................................................................ 13
Table 4. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) ............................... 14
Table 5. Asphalt Pavement Sections............................................................................ 16
Table 6. Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Test Results ............................................ 17
Figures (end of text)
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 4 – Liquefaction Map
Figure 5 – Boring Location Map
Appendices
Appendix A – Logs of Test Borings
Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix C – Site-Specific Seismic and Settlement Analyses
Appendix D – Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix E – Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix F – GBA - Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This geotechnical evaluation report is for Planning Areas (PA) 10, 11, and 33A within
the Roripaugh Ranch Development located in the City of Temecula, California. Our
scope of services for this geotechnical evaluation included the following:
Review of previous geotechnical reports, available site-specific geologic
information and provided site plans.
A site geologic reconnaissance and visual observations of surface conditions.
Excavation, sampling and logging of 22 exploratory geotechnical hollow stem
auger borings for four planning areas including PA-11, which is not a part of
this geotechnical evaluation. As such, borings LB-3 through LB-17 are not
presented in Appendix A and will be included under a separate report
addressing specifically PA-11.
Field percolation/infiltration testing at 3 locations within the site (one test within
each PA) to depths of approximately 5 feet below existing ground surface.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface
exploration program. A brief description of laboratory testing procedures and
laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical engineering analyses performed or as directed by a California
registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) including preliminary foundation and
seismic design parameters based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).
A California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) performed engineering
geology review of site geologic hazards.
Preparation of this report, which presents the results of our exploration and
provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the proposed
development.
This report is not intended to be used as an environmental assessment (Phase I or
other), or foundation/precise grade plan review.
1.2 Project and Site Description
As shown on Figure 1, PA-12 and PA-33A are two adjacent parcels generally located
southwest of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road (MHSR), while PA-10 is located northwest of this intersection. Previous
site grading has created sheet graded pads, roadways, and detention basins. The
site was mass-graded as part of the overall Roripaugh Ranch residential development
(Byerly, 2012). Moderate growth of weeds/grasses and local dense shrubs are
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 2 -
scattered throughout the site. Erosion protection features (sand bags, plastic liners,
etc.) were also noted throughout the site. We understand that these parcels will be
developed into typical residential lots with associated roadways, slopes, basins and
landscape areas (Rick, 2020a, b and c). A summary of preliminary lot amounts are
presented below:
PA-10: 12 Lots, 13 Lots, currently
PA-12: 95 Lots, 104 Lots, currently
PA-33A: 15 Lots
Site grading is expected to have cuts and fills up to approximately 5 feet, not including
remedial grading, where applicable. If site development significantly differs from the
assumptions made and the plans referenced herein, the recommendations included
in this report should be subject to further evaluation.
1.3 Background
Based on our review of referenced reports and aerial images (Google Earth Pro, 2020)
we understand that these existing PAs were graded to their current configuration
during the period between 2003 and 2007. Based on our review and field
observations, it appears that a large bench was created during grading to support the
fill portion of the project fill slopes. Observations of site concrete lined v-ditches did
not reveal any subdrain outlets. Although no documentation is available for the original
site grading work prior to 2005, previous reports provided field density testing until
2007 (Byerly, 2012a). Compacted fill extends to depths of 35± feet within PA-33A.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 3 -
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Field Exploration
Our field exploration program consisted site review and 22 hollow-stem auger borings
including 5 borings (LB-13 thru LB-17) for PA-11, which is not a part of this
study/report. During hollow stem auger excavation, bulk samples and relatively
“undisturbed” Ring samples were collected from the exploration borings for further
laboratory testing and evaluation. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained
utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2⅜-inch inside diameter and 3-inch
outside diameter) driven 18 inches in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
D3550. The number of blows to drive the samplers are recorded on the boring logs
for each 6-inch increment (unless encountering refusal or >50 blows per 6 inches).
Sampling was conducted by a staff geologist from our firm. After logging and
sampling, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during
excavation. The logs of exploratory borings are presented in Appendix A and
locations are shown on Figure 5.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk and undisturbed drive
samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and geotechnical
design parameters. Selected samples were tested for the following parameters: insitu
moisture and density, maximum dry density (Proctor), R-Value, gradation, collapse,
soluble sulfate, pH, resistivity and chloride content. The results of our laboratory
testing are presented in Appendix B.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 4 -
3.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS
3.1 Regional Geology
The site is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern
California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep, elongated
ranges and valleys that trend northwestward. More specifically, the site is situated
within the Perris Block, an eroded mass of Cretaceous and older crystalline rock.
The Perris Block, approximately 20 miles by 50 miles in extent, is bounded by the San
Jacinto Fault Zone to the northeast, the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwest, the
Cucamonga Fault Zone to the northwest, and the Temecula Basin to the southeast.
The southeast boundary of the Perris block is poorly defined. The Perris Block has
had a complex tectonic history, apparently undergoing relative vertical land
movements of several thousand feet in response to movement on the Elsinore and
San Jacinto Fault Zones. Thin sedimentary materials locally mantle the crystalline
bedrock and alluvial and colluvial deposits fill the lower valley areas.
3.2 Site Specific Geology
3.2.1 Earth Materials
Based on our field explorations and review of previous site-specific
geotechnical reports, the site is generally covered by artificial fill underlain by
Pleistocene-aged Pauba Formation. These units are discussed in the
following sections in order of increasing age.
Artificial Fill: As encountered, the artificial fill extends up to an estimated
depth of 35±-feet in PA-33A and becomes shallower in PA-12 and PA-10.
The fill appears to vary in density and composition and generally consist
of medium dense to dense, silty to clayey sand (SM/SC). Based on the
results of the laboratory testing, these materials appear to generally
possess adequate relative density and very low expansion potential.
Localized pockets within the fill appear to possess a collapse potential of
up to 4 percent based on our laboratory testing.
Quaternary Alluvium: It appears that alluvial soils were encountered
beneath the artificial fill in Boring LB-2 at a depth of 30 to 45 feet BGS
underlain by the Pauba Formation. These materials generally consist of
silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and well-graded sand with silt (SW-
SM). The alluvium is medium dense and possess a collapse potential of
up to 3 percent based on our laboratory testing.
Pauba Formation: Where encountered, Pleistocene-aged Pauba
Formation was generally encountered below the artificial fill at depths
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 5 -
ranging from 2.5 to 35 feet. These materials generally consist of medium-
dense to very dense poorly and silty to clayey sand (SM/SC), and local
layers of medium stiff to hard sandy/clayey silts (ML).
3.3 Groundwater and Surface Water
Surface water as not observed during our recent site visit. Groundwater was not
encountered during this exploration to a depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the
existing ground surface. The Department of Water Resource data for Well
335412N1170712W001 indicates a depth to groundwater on the order of 339 feet in
September 2017. The well is located along Vino Way, approximately 1 mile east of
the site. Fluctuations in ground water should be expected due to site irrigation and
infiltration of storm water.
3.4 Regional Faulting and Local Fault Activity
The subject site, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically
active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North
American and Pacific tectonic plates.
The principal source of seismic activity to affect the site is movement along the
northwest-trending regional fault systems such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto,
and Elsinore Fault Zones. Based on published geologic maps, this site is not located
within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018) or
Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone (Riverside, 2020). A lithologic boundary
lineament was mapped trending into the site in a CDMG Special Report 131
(Kennedy, 1997) and shown on current County Fault Hazard Maps (Riverside,
2020). However, these lineaments are not part of a County Fault Hazard zone.
Lineaments were investigated (Leighton, 1990a, b) and concluded to be not related
to active faulting.
The nearest active State Zoned fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone located
approximately 3.9 miles southwest of the site. The nearest County Fault Zone is the
Murrieta Hot Springs Fault Zone located approximately 0.2 miles (1,025 feet) west
of the site. The nearest known active strand of the Murrieta Hot Springs fault is
approximately 1.5 Miles (7,800 feet) northwest of the site (Leighton, 1999). No active
fault traces are known to traverse or project into the project site (CGS, 2018, County
of Riverside, 2020 and Leighton, 1990, 1999, 2001).
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 6 -
3.5 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 table below are
based on an interactive tools/programs currently available on USGS website and
OSHPD seismic maps.
Table 1. 2019 CBC Site Specific Seismic Coefficients
Site Seismic Coefficients / Coordinates PA-12 &
PA-33A PA-10
Latitude 33.5461 33.5528
Longitude -117.1023 -117.1002
Site Class D C
Spectral Response (short), SS 1.43g 1.41g
Spectral Response (1 sec), S1 0.53g 0.52g
Site Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.69 0.74
Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.00 1.20
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv 1.77 1.48
Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.43g 1.69g
Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1 0.94g 0.77g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.95g 1.13g
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.63g 0.52g
Site-Specific Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.62 0.61
g = Gravity Acceleration
The above site-specific ground motion analyses were based on Site Class C for PA-
10 (Pauba formation) and site Class D for PA-12/PA-33 underlain by up to 35 feet
of fill. The seismic coefficients for Site Class D follows Exception (2) in Section
11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 that assumes a fundamental period of vibration less than 0.5s
for the proposed structures. The project structural engineer should confirm such
assumption or else a site–specific ground motion analysis will be required.
3.6 Dynamic Settlement (Liquefaction and Dry Settlement)
PA-12 and PA-33A are located in areas of low to moderate susceptibility to
liquefaction (see Figure 4). Due to the absence of shallow groundwater, the
liquefaction-induced settlement is considered very low. However, during a strong
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 7 -
seismic event, seismically-induced settlement can still occur within loose to
moderately dense, dry or saturated granular soils. Based on our analyses (Appendix
C), the total induced dynamic settlement can range from 1.0 to 2.0 inches in the
existing fill. However, the differential settlement is not expected to exceed 1-inch in
a 30-foot horizontal distance. Dynamic induced settlement in PA-10 is not
considered a geologic hazard due to underlying dense Pauba formation.
3.7 Flooding
The site is not within a flood plain and potential for flooding is considered very low.
3.8 Seiche and Tsunami
Due to the sites elevated location and lack of nearby open bodies of water, the
possibility of the affects due to seiches or tsunami is considered nil.
3.9 Slope Stability
The existing 2:1 slopes in PA-10 and PA-12 (see Figure 5) are considered stable in
their current configuration. As shown on Cross-Section AA’ (see Appendix D), the
approximately 55-foot high slope descending toward Murrieta Hot Springs Road is
cut into dense Pauba formation whereas the approximately 50-foot high slope in the
northwest corner of PA-12 consist of compacted fill over Pauba formation. The
results of our analyses indicate that both slopes are considered stable under static
and pseudo-static conditions. The results of our slope stability analysis are
presented in Appendix D.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 8 -
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 General
The proposed site development appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint
provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and
construction phases of the proposed development. Grading plans should be
reviewed by Leighton prior to construction to provide additional recommendations, if
needed.
4.2 Earthwork
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations
and the Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix E of this report.
In case of conflict, the following recommendations should supersede those in
Appendix E. The contract between the Owner and the earthwork contractor should
be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place fill properly and
in accordance with recommendations presented in this report, including the guide
specifications in Appendix E, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the
geotechnical consultant.
4.2.1 Site Preparation and Remedial Grading
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all-structural
fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) should be cleared of surface and
subsurface pipes, obstructions and erosion control materials. Heavy
vegetation, roots, sand bags, straw waddles and debris should be disposed
of offsite. Voids created by removal of buried/unsuitable materials should be
backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the
recommendations of this report. Area specific remedial grading
recommendations are provided as follows:
Fill Areas: In areas requiring additional fill greater than 2 feet, the upper
12 inches of soils should be removed/over-excavated and recompacted.
Localized areas of deeper removals/ over-excavation may be required in
existing basins or localized loose areas depending on actual conditions
encountered and verification by our field representative during grading.
Cut and Transition Cut/Fill Lots: In cut areas or cut/fill transition lots
exposing Pauba formation or artificial fill, the cut portion should be over-
excavated to a minimum of 2 feet below pad grade or 1 foot below footing
bottom (whichever is deeper). Over-excavation and recompaction should
extend a minimum horizontal distance of 5 feet from perimeter edges of
proposed buildings/foundations/settlement sensitive improvements.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 9 -
Localized areas of deeper over-excavation may be required pending
verification by our field representative during grading.
Pavement Areas: Whether exposing fill or Pauba formation, the cleared
and exposed surface should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned and compacted to minimum 90 percent compaction
or to an unyielding condition.
Geotechnical observation of removal or over-excavation bottoms should be
performed during grading to confirm the competency of the materials being
left in place. After completion of the recommended removal of unsuitable or
surficial soils and prior to fill placement, the exposed surface should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 8-inches, moisture conditioned and
compacted using heavy pneumatic compaction equipment to minimum 90
percent compaction of the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D1557)
and to an unyielding condition. In general, all structural fill should be
compacted throughout to 90 percent.
4.2.2 Suitability of Site Soils for Fills
Topsoil and vegetation layers, root zones, and similar surface materials
should be striped and stockpiled or removed from the site. Existing fill should
be considered suitable for re-use as compacted fills provided the
recommendations contained herein are followed. Fill materials with
expansion index greater than 21 should not be used in subgrade soils below
building pads. If cobbles and boulders larger than 6-inches in largest
diameter are encountered or produced during grading, these oversized
cobbles and boulders should be reduced to less than 6 inches or placed in
structural fill as outlined in Appendix E.
4.2.3 Rippability
The onsite Pauba formation and existing fill soils are considered rippable with
typical conventional grading equipment. Isolated lenses of dense or gravelly
or well cemented Pauba can be expected but are anticipated to be rippable
with typical heavy duty earth moving equipment.
4.2.4 Slope Construction
The existing and proposed 2:1 slopes are considered grossly stable. Any
new 2:1 slopes using the onsite soils compacted to minimum 90 percent
should also be stable under short and long-term conditions. The outer portion
of fill slopes should be either overbuilt by 2 feet (minimum) and trimmed back
to the finished slope configuration or compacted in vertical increments of 5
feet (maximum) by a weighted sheeps-foot roller as the fill is placed. The
slope face should then be track-walked by dozers of appropriate weight to
achieve the final slope configuration and compaction to the slope face.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 10 -
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. Berms
should be provided at the top of fill slopes and drainage should be directed
such that surface runoff over slopes is prevented.
4.2.5 Import Soils
Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by us prior to
import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of
organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have low expansion
potential (E<21) and have a low corrosion impact to the proposed
improvements and R-value greater than 30 if to be used in upper 12 inches
of street subgrade.
4.2.6 Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”), 2018
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. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils
are screened of rocks over 3 inches in diameter and organic matter. If imported
sand is used as backfill, the upper 3 feet in building and pavement areas should
be compacted to 95 percent. The upper 6 inches of backfill in all pavement
areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Where granular backfill is used in utility trenches adjacent moisture sensitive
subgrades and foundation soils, we recommend that a cut-off “plug” of
impermeable material be placed in these trenches at the perimeter of buildings,
and at pavement edges adjacent to irrigated landscaped areas. A “plug” can
consist of a 5-foot long section of clayey soils with more than 35-percent
passing the No. 200 sieve, or a Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)
consisting of one sack of Portland-cement plus one sack of bentonite per cubic-
yard of sand. CLSM should generally conform to requirements of the
“Greenbook”. This is intended to reduce the likelihood of water permeating
trenches from landscaped areas, then seeping along permeable trench backfill
into the building and pavement subgrades, resulting in wetting of moisture
sensitive subgrade earth materials under buildings and pavements.
Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the
project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders
(latest 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 excavations particularly unsafe if all
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 11 -
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.
4.2.7 Shrinkage
The volume change of excavated onsite soils upon recompaction is expected
to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, and location and
compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials
vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be
made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance
area or ability to adjust grades slightly to accommodate some variation.
Based on our geotechnical laboratory results, we expect recompaction
shrinkage (when recompacted to an average 92 percent of ASTM D1557) of
5- to 10-percent by volume for the existing fill. The Pauba formation can
experience up to 5 percent shrink for highly weathered materials and up to 5
percent bulk for less weathered or excavations deeper than 5 to 10 feet.
4.2.8 Drainage
All drainage should be directed away from structures, slopes and pavements
by means of approved permanent/temporary drainage devices. Adequate
storm drainage of any proposed pad should be provided to avoid wetting of
foundation soils or slopes. Irrigation adjacent to buildings should be avoided
when possible. As an option, sealed-bottom planter boxes and/or drought
resistant vegetation should be used within 5-feet of buildings.
4.3 Foundation Design
4.3.1 Bearing and Lateral Pressures
Based on our analysis, the proposed single-family residential structures may
be founded on conventional or 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:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 12 -
- Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 psf at a minimum depth of embedment of 12
inches (minimum width of 12 inches). This bearing
capacity may be increased by ⅓ for short-term
loading conditions (e.g., wind, seismic).
- Sliding Coefficient: 0.35
- Differential Settlement: 1-inch in 30 feet horizontal distance
The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab-on-
grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on
recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein. If exterior
footings are within 5 feet horizontally of side yard swales, the footing should
be embedded sufficiently to ensure embedment below the swale bottom is
maintained.
4.3.2 Post Tension Design Parameters
If needed for settlement considerations, the following post-tensioned design
parameters are provided in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute
(PTI) Method (3rd Edition).
Table 2. PTI Method Design Parameters (3rd Edition)
Design Parameters PI≤15 or EI≤51
Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20
Clay Content (% of total sample) ≤15
Depth to Constant Soil Suction 9.0 ft.
Constant Soil Suction 3.9 ft.
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
- Edge Lift
- Center Lift
4.9 ft
9.0 ft
Soil Differential Movement, ym
- Edge Lift - Swell
- Center Lift - Shrink
1.0 inches
0.7 inches
4.4 Foundation Setback from Slopes
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for
all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, flatwork, building footings,
pools, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing
horizontally to the slope face (or the face of a retaining wall) and should be a
minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet).
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 13 -
Table 3. Footing Setbacks
Slope Height Recommended Footing Setback
<5 feet 5 feet minimum
5 to 15 feet 7 feet minimum
>15 feet H/2, where H is the slope height, not to exceed 10
feet to 2:1 slope face
The soils within the structural setback area generally possess poor lateral stability
and improvements (such as retaining walls, pools, sidewalks, fences, pavements,
decorative flatwork, etc.) constructed within this setback area will 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 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.
4.5 Vapor Retarder
It has been a standard of care to install a moisture-vapor 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 and Associates, Inc. does not practice in the field of
moisture vapor transmission evaluation/mitigation. Therefore, we recommend that a
qualified person/firm be engaged/consulted with to evaluate the general and specific
moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. This
person/firm should provide recommendations for mitigation of potential adverse
impact of moisture vapor transmission on various components of the structure as
deemed appropriate.
However, based on our experience, the standard of practice in Southern California
has evolved over the last 15 to 20 years into a construction of a vapor retarder system
that generally consisted of a membrane (such as 10-mil thick or greater), underlain by
a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of clean ½-inch-minimum gravel or 2-inch sand
layer (SE>30). The structural engineer/architect or concrete contractor often require
a sand layer be placed over the membrane (typically 2-inch thick layer) to help in
curing and reduction of curling of concrete. If such sand layer is placed on top of the
membrane, the contractor should not allow the sand to become wet prior to concrete
placement (e.g., sand should not be placed if rain is expected).
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 14 -
In conclusion, the construction of the vapor barrier/retarder system is dependent on
several variables which cannot be all geotechnically evaluated and/or tested. As
such, the design of this system should be a design team/owner decision taking into
consideration finish flooring materials and manufacture’s installation requirements of
proposed membrane. Moreover, we recommend that the design team also follow ACI
Committee 302 publication for “Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-
Sensitive Flooring Materials” (ACI 302.2R-06) which includes a flow chart that assists
in determining if a vapor barrier /retarder is required and where it is to be placed.
4.6 Retaining Walls
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding
horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength
of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot
yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and
the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest"
conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed
by the soil is the "passive" resistance. Retaining walls backfilled with non-expansive
soils can be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:
Table 4. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained)
Loading
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill
Active 36 55
At-Rest 55 85
Passive* 350 125 (2:1, sloping down)
* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the
duration of the project, not to exceed 2,000 psf at depth.
For walls retaining more than 6 feet of soils, we recommend for non-restrained walls
with level backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 13H psf with resultant force
applied at mid-height of wall, where H is the retaining wall stem height in feet. For
walls with 2:1 sloping backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 28H psf with
resultant force applied at mid-height. These seismic pressures should be added to
static pressures above or any applicable surcharge loads.
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. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding)
such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 15 -
value should be used. 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. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an
adjacent surcharge load), 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. Wall backfill should be non-expansive
(EI ≤ 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.
4.7 Sulfate Attack
The results of the laboratory testing on representative soils samples indicate negligible
exposure to concrete per ACI 318. Further testing should be performed at the
completion of site grading to confirm soluble-sulfate content of finish subgrade soils.
4.8 Concrete Flatwork
Sidewalk/Flatwork should conform to City of Temecula standards. A representative of
Leighton should verify subgrade soil expansion, moisture conditions and compaction
prior to formwork and reinforcement placement. If subgrade soils possess expansion
index greater than 21, we recommend a minimum 8-inch deepened edge be
constructed for all flatwork to reduce moisture variation in subgrade soils along
concrete edges adjacent to open (unfinished) or irrigated landscape areas.
Concrete flatwork should be constructed of uniformly cured, low-slump concrete and
should contain sufficient control/contraction joints. Additional provisions such as
ascending/descending slope conditions, perched (irrigation) water, special surcharge
loading conditions, potential expansive soil pressure and differential settlement/heave
should be incorporated into the design of exterior improvements. Additional exterior
slab details are suggested in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 16 -
Homeowners (HOA) should be advised of their maintenance responsibilities as well as
geotechnical issues that could affect performance of site improvements.
4.9 Preliminary Pavement Design
The preliminary pavement design provided below is based on the locally accepted
Caltrans Highway Design Manual and a preliminary R-value of 29 based on our
laboratory testing for the proposed parking area. For planning and estimating
purposes, the pavement sections are calculated based on assumed Traffic Indexes
(TI) indicated in Table below
Table 5. Asphalt Pavement Sections
General Traffic
Condition*
Traffic Index
(TI)**
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate Base*
(inches)
Private Access Road 5.0 4.0 6.0
Local Street 6.0 4.0 6.0
*Per City of Temecula Standards
**Per city of Temecula Standard 115
Actual R-value of the subgrade soils will need to be verified after completion of site
grading to finalize the pavement design. Pavement design and minimum sections
should also conform to applicable City standards, where applicable.
For rigid pavement design, we recommend that a minimum of 6 inches of PCC
pavement be used, in high impact load areas or if to be subjected to truck traffic.
The PCC pavement should be placed on a minimum 4-inch aggregate base. The
PCC pavement may be placed directly on a compacted subgrade with an R-Value
of 40 or higher. The PCC pavement should have a minimum of 28-day compressive
strength of 3250 psi. Aggregate base should conform to the Standard Specifications
for Public Works Construction (Green Book), 2018 Edition. Placement of concrete
materials should follow applicable ACI and County standards.
The upper 6 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. If applicable,
aggregate base should conform to the “Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction” (Greenbook) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base and
applicable City standards
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 17 -
If pavement areas are adjacent to 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.
4.10 Percolation/Infiltration Test Results
Three percolation tests were performed within selected areas of each site to provide
a general screening characterization of infiltration rates of onsite materials. The
percolation tests were performed in accordance with procedures of Section 2.3 of the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD)
Design Handbook (RCFC, 2011). Results presented below are the most conservative
reading in minutes per inch drop. The infiltration rates were estimated using the
Porchet Method. No factor of Safety was applied to these values. If infiltration basins
are proposed, additional testing will be needed to comply with County guidelines.
Table 6. Summary of Percolation/Infiltration Test Results
Test Hole # /
PA #
Depth
BGS (ft)
Infiltration
Rate (in/hr) Soil Description
P-1 / PA-33A 5 0.03 Silty SAND (SM) / Artificial Fill
P-2 / PA-12 5 0.14 Silty SAND (SM) / Artificial Fill
P-4 / PA-10 5 0.16 Silty SAND (SM) / Artificial Fill
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 18 -
5.0 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 and Associates, Inc. be
provided the opportunity to review the grading plan and 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
and Associates, Inc. during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions
encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and
testing should be provided:
After completion of site demolition and clearing,
During over-excavation of compressible soil,
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 slopes locations, heights or
proposed structure locations/footprints. We should review grading (civil) and foundation
(structural) plans, and comment further on geotechnical aspects of this project.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 19 -
6.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was based in part on data obtained from a limited number of observations,
site visits, soil excavations, samples and tests. Such information is, by necessity,
incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing soil or geologic conditions can
be present within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in
subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, our findings, conclusions
and recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that we
(Leighton and Associates, Inc.) will provide geotechnical observation and testing during
construction as the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for this project. Please refer to
Appendix F, GBA’s Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report,
prepared by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) presenting additional
information and limitations regarding geotechnical engineering studies and reports.
This report was prepared for the sole use of Client and their design team, for application
to design of the proposed development, in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices at this time in California. Any 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.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 20 -
REFERENCES
Army Corps of Engineers, Evaluation of Settlement for Dynamic and Transient Loads,
Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers Press.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16 Publication.
Byerly, John R., Inc., 2012, Interim Grading and Fill Evaluation Report - Planning Areas
(PAs) 14-24 and 27-31, Roripaugh Ranch, Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road, Temecula, California, Report No. 9794, File No. S-13141, dated
November 27, 2012.
Byerly, John R., Inc., 2012a, Report of Existing Grading and Fill; Roripaugh Ranch, Phase
II, Report No. 9794, File No. S-13141, dated December 10, 2012.
California Building Code, 2016, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2
of 2.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for Government
Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, And Geoscience Practitioners for
Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Revised 2018.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology
Board, Special Publication 117A, Revised Sept. 11, 2008.
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003. The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Maps, June 2003. By Tianquing Cao, William A. Bryant, Badie Rowshandel,
David Branum and Christopher J. Wills.
Geocon West Inc., 2020, Geotechnical Third-Party Review (PA20-0567), Proposed
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, Project No. T2652-22-14,
dated May 29, 2020.
Geocon West, Inc, 2020, Geotechnical Third-Party Review #2 (PA20-0567), Proposed
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A, by Geocon West, Inc., Project
No. T2652-22-14, dated June 17, 2020.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in
Southern Riverside County, California, CDMG Special Report 131.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1999, Supplemental Fault Investigation, Winchester
Properties, planning Areas 6, 7 and 8, Murrieta Hot Springs Area, Riverside County,
California, Project No. 11861432.072, dated March 23.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
- 21 -
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2001a, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Portion of
Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside Country,
California, Project No. 11990013-001, dated February 28.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2001b, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Portion of
Roripaugh Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 29661, City of Temecula, Riverside Country,
California, Project No. 11990013-001, dated May 22.
Leighton and Associates Inc., 2017a, Geotechnical Review, Long Valley Wash Channel
Improvements, Roripaugh Ranch Phase 2 – PN 4001, Temecula California, dated
April 19, 2017, Project No. 10967.108.
Leighton and Associates Inc., 2017b, Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed
Roripaugh Ranch Park and Ride (PA 33B) (PN 4002), Roripaugh Ranch, Temecula
California, dated October November 27, 2017, Project No. 10967.109.
OSHPD, 2020, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website
to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16
seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/.
Public Works Standard, Inc., 2018, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction: 2018 Edition, BNI Building News, Anaheim, California.
Rick Engineering Company, 2018a, Roripaugh Ranch Tentative Tract Map 37341, a
subdivision of TTM 37368, 60 scale, 37 sheets, plot date April 25, 2018.
Rick Engineering Company, 2018b, Rough Grading Plan TM 37368, 40 scale, 46 sheets,
plot date May 11, 2018.
Rick Engineering Company, 2020a, PA 10 Lot Fit Study: Options 1-3, dated February 26,
2020.
Rick Engineering Company, 2020b, PA 12 Lot Fit Study, dated February 26, 2020.
Rick Engineering Company, 2020c, PA 33A Lot Fit Study, dated February 26, 2020.
Riverside County, 2020, Map My County, Riverside County Integrated Project Website,
https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake
Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. 8, dated August.
USGS, 2020, Web-Service Wrapper Around the nshmp-haz Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Analysis (PSHA) Platform, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/
³
0 4,000 8,000
Feet
Figure 1
Scale:
Leighton
Base Map: Bing Maps 2020
1 " = 4,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F01_SLM_2020-02-19.mxd on 4/1/2020 9:14:59 AM
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
SITE LOCATION MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Approximate Site Boundary
Date: June 2020
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qvoa
Qps
Qps
Kgd
Kgd
PA-33
PA-12
PA-10
Qvoa Kgd
TrmpKgd
KgbKgd
Kgb
K
g
b
Kgb
Kpvt Qvoa
Kgb
Qvoa
Qps
Qps
Qps
QTws
Qya
KgdQps
QTws
Qvof
Qps
Qps
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 2
Scale:
Leighton
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F02_RGM_2020-02-19.mxd on 4/1/2020 9:25:18 AM
REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Kgb - Gabbro, undifferentiated
Kgd - Granodiorite, undifferentiated
Kpvt - Paloma Valley Ring Complex
QTws - Sandstone and conglomerate of Wildomar area
Qps - Pauba Formation
Qvoa - Very old axial-channel deposits
Qvof - Very old alluvial-fan deposits
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!Qya - Young axial-channel deposits
Trmp - Rocks of Menifee Valley
Approximate Site Boundary
Reference: USGS, 2006 Geologic map of the San Bermardino and Santa Ana 30'x60 quadrangle, California Version 1,0 Open File Report 2006-1217.
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
Date: June 2020
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 3
Scale:
Leighton
Base Map: Bing Maps 2020
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F03_RFM_2020-02-19.mxd on 3/19/2020 12:31:50 PM
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
REGIONAL FAULT MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Fault Location (Riverside County)
Fault Zone Location (Riverside County)
Approximate Site Boundary
Date: June 2020
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Figure 4
Scale:
Leighton
Base Map: Bing Maps 2020
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12673.001 Geol: SIS/RFR
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F04_LM_2020-02-19.mxd on 2/27/2020 3:06:15 PM
Author: Leighton Geomatics (mmurphy)
LIQUEFACTION MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Legend
Liquefaction Susceptibility
Moderate
Low
Very low
Approximate Site Boundary
Date: June 2020
&<&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&<
&(
&(
&(
&(
%
%
%
%PA-10
NOT A PART
PA-12
PA-33A
A
A'
B
B'
Murrieta Hot Sprint
s
R
d
But
t
e
r
f
i
e
l
d
S
t
a
g
e
R
d
LB-3
LB-4
LB-1LB-2
LB-11
LB-9
LB-8
LB-10
LB-7
LB-12
LB-5
LB-6
LB-14 LB-16
LB-17
LB-15
LB-13
LB-19
LB-22
LB-21
LB-20
LB-18
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
Map Saved as P:\Drafting\12673\001\Maps\12673-001_F05_BLM_2020-02-19.mxd on 3/30/2020 4:20:34 PM
BORING LOCATION MAPSommers Bend PA 10, PA 12 and PA 33ACity of Temecula, California
Figure 5
Leighton
³
0 250 500
Feet
Scale:
Base Map: Rick Engineering, 2020.
1 " = 250 '
Project: 12673.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR
Author: (mmurphy)
Legend
&<Approximate Location of Boring
&(Approximate Location of Percolation Test
Approximate Location of SlopeStability Cross-Section
Approximate Site Boundary
LB-22
P-4
%%
A A'
Date: June 2020
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF TEST BORINGS
19
23
28
12
22
29
11
18
24
27
32
38
122
123
111
SM
SC
R-1
B-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
9
11
17
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand, MD = 132.4 @ 8.4%, SE = 19
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown to grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 2"
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
SE
MD
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
10
30
36
12
24
34
10
22
31
19
22
26
12
26
35
116
118
126
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
9
11
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
18
19
10
23
23
19
17
20
25
47
43
23
30
32
108
114
107
104
SW-SM
SC
SM
SW
R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
5
13
16
4
Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); Well-graded SAND with SILT,
medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand, CO = -2.88%
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL,
dense, light olive brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
with fine gravel
Well-graded SAND, dense, light olive gray, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
Drilled to 51.5' Sampled to 51.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 2 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
11
16
17
9
13
21
9
13
23
10
14
22
11
20
29
11
22
26
119
116
124
101
110
SM
SC
SM
SC
SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
12
15
11
22
18
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to medium grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown and dark
grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand, CO = -0.63%
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish
brown and dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
27
42
17
27
30
14
19
23
19
30
48
15
41
50
12
21
43
117
108
117
SM
SC
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
11
13
12
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dense, gray, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
27
32
13
27
50
SM
R-7
R-8
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse sand with fine
gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
Drilled to 36.5' Sampled to 36.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 2 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
15
14
25
19
27
34
14
23
50/5"
11
23
31
99
SM
SC-SM
SW
SM
SC
SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
28
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
Well-graded SAND, dense, light brownish gray, slightly moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown
and light olive gray, moist, very fine to fine grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
10
26
29
14
28
28
14
23
28
10
17
19
10
27
50/5"
117
116
SM
SC
SM
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
8
9
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, very fine to medium
grained sand
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with
gravel to 1"
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand, CO = -3.79%
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, olive gray,
moist, fine to medium grained sand
Drilled to 21.42' Sampled to 21.42' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
17
28
29
16
22
24
15
21
30
17
23
47
19
27
49
121
118
SMB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
7
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, moist, very
fine to medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
9
15
18
10
18
21
10
20
21
11
15
28
114
113
SM
SC
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
10
16
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, moist, very
fine to fine grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
17
24
12
18
18
7
9
9
12
15
15
13
50/6"
115
106
114
107
SM
R-1
B-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
12
17
13
19
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand, MD = 125.1 @ 9.1%, RV = 29
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand, CO = -0.80%
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand, CO = -0.15%
SILTY SAND, dense, olive brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
MD, RV,
SA, CR
CO
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
12
15
24
24
22
27
14
36
50/4"
22
27
44
18
50/2"
102
SC-SM
SM
R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
24 SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark olive gray, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to medium grained sand
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark
grayish brown and dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, pale brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
Drilled to 50.67' Sampled to 50.67' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 2 of 2
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
13
22
27
13
22
27
9
24
38
8
15
26
120
116
SM
SC-SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
10
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with
fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown,
moist, fine to medium grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-10
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
47
50/3"
11
21
42
14
27
27
14
21
36
101
107
SM
SC
SC-SM
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
17
17
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, with gravel to 2",
sample disturbed
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, light olive brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-11
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
8
11
16
12
15
12
15
19
26
13
24
34
110
109
121
SM
SC-SM
SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
7
8
11
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand, CO = -3.41%
SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
CO
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-12
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
19
27
28
19
23
23
11
16
30
10
21
35
114
112
SW-SM
SM
SC-SM
SC
SC-SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
6
16
Artificial Fill (Af); Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL,
yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand
with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown to
dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand
Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-18
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
15
16
18
15
22
28
15
22
30
121
116
SM
SC-SM
SM
R-1
R-2
R-3
8
7
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand, metal wire in shoe
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, dark yellowish brown, moist,
fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-19
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
27
30
40
17
30
30
15
23
22
124
107
SM
SMR-1
R-2
R-3
5
14
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, medium dense, olive gray, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-20
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
22
27
44
34
38
30
13
30
44
114
SM
SMR-1
R-2
R-3
5
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
Pauba Formation (Qps); SILTY SAND, dense, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained
sand
SILTY SAND, dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-21
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
13
18
21
14
21
33
18
26
35
119
115
SM
SC
SW
SM
SC-SM
B-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
5
8
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel, EI
= 8, 22% -200
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark yellowish brown to dark
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
Pauba Formation (Qps); Well-graded SAND, dense, light
brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dense, reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse
grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dense, dark reddish brown, moist, fine
to coarse grained sand
Drilled to 11.5' Sampled to 11.5' Groundwater not
encountered Backfilled with cuttings
EI, -200
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-22
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
S-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained
sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
SC
SMS-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark yellowish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to
coarse grained sand with fine gravel
SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-10-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
SC
SC-SM
S-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish
brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to
medium grained sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
SM
SC
SMS-1
Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown,
slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel
CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand
SILTY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium
grained sand
Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled with cuttings
SA
Hole Diameter
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Ground Elevation
De
p
t
h
Bl
o
w
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
6
I
n
c
h
e
s
Page 1 of 1
'
BULK SAMPLE
CORE SAMPLE
GRAB SAMPLE
RING SAMPLE
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE
TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JTD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
So
i
l
C
l
a
s
s
.
2-11-20
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.
Project
Project No.
See Boring Location Map
Wingsweep
12673.001
Drilling Method
8"
Sa
m
p
l
e
N
o
.
Fe
e
t
At
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
Co
n
t
e
n
t
,
%
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
JTD
Fe
e
t
S
(U
.
S
.
C
.
S
.
)
Lo
g
Ty
p
e
o
f
T
e
s
t
s
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
pc
f
Location
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
COLLAPSE
CORROSION
UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
SIEVE ANALYSIS
SAND EQUIVALENT
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
B-1
Feb-201:55 :44
Project Name:
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):5.0 - 10.0
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:LB-9 Sample No.:
Soil Type :12673.001
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; LB-9, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
12673.001
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:P-2 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish Brown.
0
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):4.0 - 5.0
Project Name:S-1
Feb-201:60 :39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; P-2, S-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
12673.001
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:P-3 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty, Clayey Sand (SC-SM), Brown.
SC-SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):4.0 - 5.0
Project Name:S-1
Feb-201:57 :42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; P-3, S-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
GRAVEL FINES
FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM
12673.001
SAND
SILT FINE
HYDROMETER
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Project No.:P-4 Sample No.:
Soil Type :
PARTICLE - SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
ASTM D 6913
Soil Identification:Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
SM
GR:SA:FI : (%)
Boring No.:
Depth (feet):4.0 - 5.0
Project Name:S-1
Feb-201:80 :19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PARTICLE -SIZE (mm)
"
Sieve; P-4, S-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Compaction; LB-1, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Tested By:F. Mina Date:02/18/20
Input By: M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
LB-1 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5631 5748 5705
3572 3572 3572
2059 2176 2133
1142.9 1518.9 1102.8
1095.4 1424.7 1028.6
332.6 329.0 326.2
6.2 8.6 10.6
135.9 143.6 140.8
127.9 132.3 127.3
132.4 8.4
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
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
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
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)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Sample No.:
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Reddish Brown.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
12673.001
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Project Name:
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Compaction; LB-9, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Tested By:F. Mina Date:02/18/20
Input By: M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
LB-9 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5572 5641 5663 5640
3572 3572 3572 3572
2000 2069 2091 2068
1402.2 1053.3 1600.9 1238.8
1330.0 999.9 1468.5 1126.9
277.8 415.2 328.7 327.6
6.9 9.1 11.6 14.0
132.0 136.6 138.0 136.5
123.5 125.1 123.7 119.7
125.1 9.1
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
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
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
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)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:1:55:44GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Sample No.:
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
12673.001
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Project Name:
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Compaction; LB-13, B-1 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Tested By:F. Mina Date:02/18/20
Input By: M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
LB-13 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in.
1 2 3 4 5 6
5608 5757 5739
3572 3572 3572
2036 2185 2167
1075.1 1013.6 1261.9
1040.3 967.5 1174.6
309.3 311.4 217.4
4.8 7.0 9.1
134.4 144.2 143.0
128.3 134.8 131.1
134.9 7.1
PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
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
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
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)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:
GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:
LL,PL,PI
Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
Preparation Method:
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
12673.001
TEST NO.
Soil Identification:
Project Name:
Sample No.:
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:
Boring No.:
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.65
SP. GR. = 2.70
SP. GR. = 2.75
XX
Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:2/19/20
Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Boring No.:Depth:0 - 5.0
Sample No. :Location:
Sample Description:
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.
Rev. 03-08
0.50402/20/20
0
1130
Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000
6:00
1190 0.5040
4.0
1.0
4 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
117.8
0.5000
10 0.5000
2/20/20 7:00
1.0
1.0
11:10 1.02/19/20
2/19/20
118.2
Moisture Content (%)
Date
11:00
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
127.7
Time
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
7
0.432
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
98.8
4.01
2.70
2123.2
0.0
611.3
2123.2
25.3
1.0040
631.5
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
**
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
12673.001
LB-13
B-1
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
MOLDED SPECIMEN
4.01
1.0000
7Container No.
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
188.0
2.70
391.9
188.0
13.2
0.301
62.7
188.0
631.5
133.2
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
82.350.7
Pressure
(psi)
0.299Total Porosity
SPECIMEN INUNDATION
61.8
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
8.0
577.5
555.3
0.426
277.5
Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:2/19/20
Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Boring No.:Depth:0 - 5.0
Sample No. :Location:
Sample Description:
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.
Rev. 03-08
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
8.5
577.5
554.0
0.470
277.5
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
81.948.9
Pressure
(psi)
0.320Total Porosity
SPECIMEN INUNDATION
66.2
380.3
182.7
14.6
0.325
67.8
182.7
618.5
130.4
Silty Sand (SM), Dark Reddish Brown.
MOLDED SPECIMEN
4.01
1.0000
7Container No.
Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
182.7
2.70
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
**
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
12673.001
LB-22
B-1
96.7
4.01
2.70
5325.8
0.0
595.3
5325.8
175.8
1.0080
618.5
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
7
0.481
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
2/19/20
114.7
Moisture Content (%)
Date
16:30
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
124.5
Time
2/20/20 9:00
1.0
1.0
16:40 1.02/19/20
1.0
8 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
113.8
0.5000
10 0.5000
0.50802/20/20
0
920
Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000
8:00
980 0.5080
8.0
Project Name:Date:2/18/20
Project Number:12673.001 Technician:F. Mina
Boring Number:LB-9 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0
Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location:
Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %12.5 13.6 14.7
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.49 2.50 2.53
DRY DENSITY, pcf 109.8 106.8 107.2
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 125 115 100
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 698 347 180
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 68 35 17
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)75 84 130
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.20 4.67 5.38
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 40 33 10
R-VALUE CORRECTED 40 33 10
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.96 1.08 1.45
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.2.57 1.32 0.64
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:29
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:29
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:29
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
N/A
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
CO
V
E
R
T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
B
Y
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
i
n
fe
e
t
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in
feet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0100200300400500600700800
R-VA
L
U
E
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
Project Name:Date:2/18/20
Project Number:12673.001 Technician:F. Mina
Boring Number:LB-13 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0
Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location:
Sample Description:Silty Sand (SM), Dark Yellowish Brown.
TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %8.8 9.4 10.5
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.50 2.45 2.48
DRY DENSITY, pcf 120.0 116.7 117.5
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 200 150 125
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 784 553 260
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 13 9 3
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)27 40 75
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.30 4.42 4.62
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 74 63 38
R-VALUE CORRECTED 74 63 38
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.41 0.59 0.99
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.0.49 0.34 0.11
EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:69
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:42
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:42
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
N/A
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
CO
V
E
R
T
H
I
C
K
N
E
S
S
B
Y
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
i
n
fe
e
t
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in
feet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0100200300400500600700800
R-VA
L
U
E
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-2 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-6 Depth (ft.)30
Sample Description:
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):102.4 Final Dry Density (pcf):107.4
Initial Moisture (%):5.7 Final Moisture (%) :16.9
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.6456
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):23.9
1.050 0.9898 0.00 -1.02 -1.02
2.013 0.9816 0.00 -1.84 -1.84
H2O 0.9533 0.00 -4.67 -4.67
-2.88
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.5688
0.0102
0.0184
0.0467
Well-Graded Sand with Silt (SW-SM), Yellowish Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.6289
0.6154
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-3 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)10.0
Sample Description:
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):101.0 Final Dry Density (pcf):103.3
Initial Moisture (%):22.0 Final Moisture (%) :24.5
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.6688
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):88.8
1.050 0.9924 0.00 -0.76 -0.76
2.013 0.9841 0.00 -1.59 -1.59
H2O 0.9779 0.00 -2.21 -2.21
-0.63
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.6319
0.0076
0.0159
0.0221
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.6561
0.6423
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-6 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)15.0
Sample Description:
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):108.6 Final Dry Density (pcf):115.3
Initial Moisture (%):6.2 Final Moisture (%) :15.3
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.5526
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):30.5
1.050 0.9880 0.00 -1.20 -1.20
2.013 0.9791 0.00 -2.09 -2.09
H2O 0.9420 0.00 -5.80 -5.80
-3.79
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.4625
0.0120
0.0209
0.0580
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5339
0.5201
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-9 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-3 Depth (ft.)15.0
Sample Description:
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):116.4 Final Dry Density (pcf):119.0
Initial Moisture (%):13.1 Final Moisture (%) :16.4
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.4482
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):78.7
1.050 0.9930 0.00 -0.70 -0.70
2.013 0.9862 0.00 -1.38 -1.38
H2O 0.9783 0.00 -2.17 -2.17
-0.80
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.4168
0.0070
0.0138
0.0217
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.4381
0.4283
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-9 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-4 Depth (ft.)20.0
Sample Description:
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):104.4 Final Dry Density (pcf):106.2
Initial Moisture (%):21.4 Final Moisture (%) :22.7
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.6146
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):94.1
1.050 0.9898 0.00 -1.02 -1.02
2.013 0.9848 0.00 -1.52 -1.52
H2O 0.9833 0.00 -1.67 -1.67
-0.15
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.5876
0.0102
0.0152
0.0167
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5981
0.5900
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-12 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-2 Depth (ft.)5.0
Sample Description:
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):108.9 Final Dry Density (pcf):115.2
Initial Moisture (%):7.2 Final Moisture (%) :16.2
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:0.5482
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):35.6
1.050 0.9889 0.00 -1.11 -1.11
2.013 0.9788 0.00 -2.12 -2.12
H2O 0.9454 0.00 -5.46 -5.46
-3.41
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.4636
0.0111
0.0212
0.0546
Silty Sand (SM), Brown.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
0.5310
0.5153
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement
Potential of Cohesive Soils
(ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B'
Project Name:Tested By:M. Vinet Date:2/20/20
Project No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:2/21/20
Boring No.:LB-14 Sample Type:IN SITU
Sample No.:R-3 Depth (ft.)10.0
Sample Description:
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):82.3 Final Dry Density (pcf):83.4
Initial Moisture (%):27.7 Final Moisture (%) :40.7
Initial Height (in.):1.0000 Initial Void ratio:1.0483
Initial Dial Reading (in):0.0000 Specific Gravity (assumed):2.70
Inside Diameter of Ring (in):2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%):71.4
1.050 0.9928 0.00 -0.72 -0.72
2.013 0.9880 0.00 -1.20 -1.20
H2O 0.9865 0.00 -1.35 -1.35
-0.15
Rev. 01-10
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
1.0206
0.0072
0.0120
0.0135
Silt (ML), White.
12673.001
Swell (+)
Settlement (-)
% of Sample
Thickness
Load
Compliance
(%)
Apparent
Thickness
(in)
Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation =
Corrected
Deformation
(%)
Pressure (p)
(ksf)
1.0335
1.0237
Final Reading
(in)Void Ratio
-8.00
-7.00
-6.00
-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000
De
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
%
Log Pressure (ksf)
Deformation % -Log Pressure Curve
Inundate With
Distilled Water
Sand Equivalent; LB-1, R-1 (02-10-20)
Project Name:G. Davila Date:
Project No. :G. Davila Date:
Client:M. Vinet Date:
18 9 18 5 #DIV/0!19 00
12:00 12:10 12:12 12:32 10.6 2.0 19
12:02 12:12 12:14 12:34 10.8 2.0 19
#REF!#REF!#REF!#REF!
T1 = Starting Time T3 = Settlement Starting Time Sand Equivalent = R2 / R1 * 100
T2 = ( T1 + 10 min) Begin Agitation T4 = ( T3 + 20 min) Take Clay Reading (R1)Record SE as Next Higher Integer
LB-1 R-1 5 Silty Sand (SM)
12673.001
Wingsweep Commons Geo
Wingsweep Corporation
Sample No.
2/19/20
2/20/20
Tested By:
Computed By:
Checked By:
Depth (ft.)Average
SESoil Description SER1R2
19
SAND EQUIVALENT TEST
ASTM D 2419 / DOT CA Test 217
2/19/20
T1 T2 T3 T4Boring No.
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)f (o)Saturation (%)
Peak 224 38 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 400 28 Final Moisture Content (%)
03-20
Project No.:12673.001
42.3
0.9976
1.000
35.9
Wingsweep Commons Ent GeoDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
1.000
1.442
0.920
0.0033
13.63
90.2
2.415
Soil Identification:1.000
2.415
0.9764
41.0
33.2
13.63
79.9
0.0033
2.000
1.539
1.454
Silt (ML), White
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
LB-14
R-3
10
0.00
1.00
2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Direct Shear; LB-14, R-3 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)f (o)Saturation (%)
Peak 207 38 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 111 30 Final Moisture Content (%)
1.552
1.175
Silty Sand (SM), Yellowish
Brown.
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth (ft)
LB-20
R-3
10
56.2
14.22
100.2
0.0033
2.000
1.000
2.415
0.9786
29.9
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
1.000
1.398
0.920
0.0033
14.22
99.5
2.415
Soil Identification:
03-20
Project No.:12673.001
55.3
0.9919
1.000
30.6
Wingsweep Commons Ent Geo
0.00
1.00
2.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Sh
e
a
r
S
t
r
e
s
s
(
k
s
f
)
Normal Stress (ksf)
Direct Shear; LB-20, R-3 (02-10 & 02-11-20)
Project Name:Wingsweep Common Ent Geo Tested By :M. Vinet Date:02/20/20
Project No. :12673.001 Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:02/21/20
Boring No.LB-9 LB-13
Sample No.B-1 B-1
Sample Depth (ft)5.0 - 10.0
100.00 100.00
100.00 100.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
100.00 100.00
1 2
1 2
850 850
Timer Timer
45 45
24.2322 25.0012
24.2300 24.9986
0.0022 0.0026
90.53 106.99
91 107
ml of Extract For Titration (B)30 30
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)1.8 0.4
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 160 20
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 160 20
7.03 6.23
21.0 21.0
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
Beaker No.
Crucible No.
Furnace Temperature (°C)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
Wt. of Crucible (g)
Silty Sand (SM)
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Time In / Time Out
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Duration of Combustion (min)
Silty Sand (SM)
Temperature °C
pH Value
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Soil Identification:
Moisture Content (%)
Project Name:Tested By :M. Vinet Date:
Project No. :Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:
Boring No.:Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. :B-1
Container No.
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant16001600
Silty Sand (SM)
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
16.60
Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Wingsweep Common Ent Geo 02/20/20
02/21/20
5.0 - 10.0
12673.001
LB-9
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
Temp. (°C)pH
Soil pH
1700
1400
100.00
0.00
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
1400 23.2 91 160 7.03 21.0
4
83
116
149
A
500.003140023.20
1700
Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422
(%)(ppm)(ppm)
DOT CA Test 643
1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)
29.80
Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5
1
2
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
50
Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC)Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
3700
Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity
testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
Wt. of Container (g)10.00 3700
0.00
100.00
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)Specimen
No.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
So
i
l
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
o
h
m
-cm
)
Moisture Content (%)
Minimum resistivity
read here
Project Name:Tested By :M. Vinet Date:
Project No. :Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:
Boring No.:Depth (ft.) :
Sample No. :
Silty Sand (SM)
83
116 23.20
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)(%)(ppm)(ppm)
Min. Resistivity Moisture Content
5
3100
Container No.290016.60
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
4
Specimen
No.
1
2
3
420010.00 4200
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC)
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
2850 18.0 107 20 6.23
DOT CA Test 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422DOT CA Test 643
SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
Temp. (°C)pH
Soil pH
1.000
A
500.00
2900
3100
100.00
0.00
21.0
Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Box Constant
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Sulfate Content
Wingsweep Common Ent Geo 02/20/20
02/21/20
0.0
12673.001
LB-13
B-1
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
50
Soil Identification:*
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity
testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.
0.00
100.00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
So
i
l
R
e
s
i
s
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
o
h
m
-cm
)
Moisture Content (%)
Minimum resistivity
read here
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX C
SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC AND SETTLEMENT ANALYSES
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
Schmertmann Method
Date June 11, 2020
Identification Wingsweep 12673.001
Input Results
Units E E or SI
Shape sq SQ, CI, CO, or RE q =1950 lb/ft^2
B =5 ft delta =0.55 in
L =5 ft
D =1 ft
P =45 k
Dw =20 ft
gamma =125 lb/ft^3
t =10 yr
Depth to Soil Layer
Top Bottom Es zf I epsilon strain delta
(ft)(ft)(lb/ft^2)(ft)(%)(in)
0.0 1.0
1.0 2.0 200000 0.5 0.221 0.2725 0.0327
2.0 3.0 200000 1.5 0.463 0.5707 0.0685
3.0 4.0 200000 2.5 0.705 0.8693 0.1043
4.0 5.0 200000 3.5 0.611 0.7534 0.0904
5.0 6.0 200000 4.5 0.517 0.6375 0.0765
6.0 7.0 200000 5.5 0.423 0.5216 0.0626
7.0 8.0 200000 6.5 0.329 0.4057 0.0487
8.0 9.0 200000 7.5 0.235 0.2898 0.0348
9.0 10.0 200000 8.5 0.141 0.1739 0.0209
10.0 11.0 200000 9.5 0.047 0.0580 0.0070
11.0 12.0 200000 10.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
12.0 13.0 200000 11.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
13.0 14.0 200000 12.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
14.0 15.0 200000 13.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
15.0 16.0 200000 14.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
16.0 17.0 200000 15.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
17.0 18.0 200000 16.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
18.0 19.0 200000 17.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
19.0 20.0 200000 18.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
20.0 21.0 200000 19.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
21.0 22.0 200000 20.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
22.0 23.0 200000 21.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
23.0 24.0 200000 22.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
24.0 25.0 200000 23.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
25.0 26.0 200000 24.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
26.0 27.0 200000 25.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
27.0 28.0 200000 26.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
28.0 29.0 200000 27.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
29.0 30.0 200000 28.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
30.0 31.0 200000 29.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
31.0 32.0 200000 30.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
32.0 33.0 200000 31.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
33.0 34.0 200000 32.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
34.0 35.0 200000 33.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
35.0 36.0 200000 34.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
36.0 37.0 200000 35.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
37.0 38.0 200000 36.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
38.0 39.0 200000 37.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
39.0 40.0 200000 38.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
40.0 41.0 200000 39.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
41.0 42.0 200000 40.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
42.0 43.0 200000 41.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
43.0 44.0 200000 42.5 0.000 0.0000 0.0000
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
1.0051.0051.0051.005
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/Ō3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)
Pauba FormaƟon 132 Mohr‐Coulomb 111 30
0.2416
0
0
15
0
0
14
0
0
13
0
0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Analysis Description Seismic
Company Leighton and AssociatesScale1:750Drawn By BSS
Project Number 12673.001Date6/22/2020
Project
Wingsweep - PA10
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.022
1.17
1
1.17
1
1.17
1
1.1
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/Ō3)Strength Type Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)
Water
Surface Ru
Pauba FormaƟon 120 Mohr‐Coulomb 400 28 None 0
ArƟficial Fill 125 Mohr‐Coulomb 100 35 None 0
0.25
13
5
0
13
0
0
12
5
0
12
0
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Analysis Description Seismic
Company Leighton and AssociatesScale1:400Drawn By BSS
Project Number 12673.001Date6/22/2020
Project
Wingsweep - PA12
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.022
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX E
EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
-i-
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 GENERAL 1
1.1 Intent 1
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2
2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2
2.2 Processing 3
2.3 Overexcavation 3
2.4 Benching 3
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3
3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4
3.1 General 4
3.2 Oversize 4
3.3 Import 4
4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4
4.1 Fill Layers 4
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5
4.3 Compaction of Fill 5
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5
4.5 Compaction Testing 5
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5
4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6
5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6
6.0 EXCAVATION 6
7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6
7.1 Safety 6
7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7
7.3 Lift Thickness 7
7.4 Observation and Testing 7
Standard Details
A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text
Retaining Wall Rear of Text
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-1-
1.0 General
1.1 Intent
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the
geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific
recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general
Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical
Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised
recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical
Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants
shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and
accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and
recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the
"work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule
sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and
compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall
observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical
design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly
different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes
in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency
where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,
elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared
for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas,
all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and
processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction
testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical
Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a
routine and frequent basis.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-2-
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and
knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to
receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The
Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and
specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the
number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor
shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work
schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such
changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant
is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment
and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the
recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If,
in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as
unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient
buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than
required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work
and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the
conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be
sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the
owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more
than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more
than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be
allowed.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-3-
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work
in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed
immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to
continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents
that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping
or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform,
flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation
In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be
overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant
during grading.
2.4 Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to
vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key
shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent
material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be
excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat
subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and
benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to
being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The
Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-4-
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable
gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas
acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve
satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless
location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed
within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or
underground construction.
3.3 Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given
to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before
importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests
performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.
The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the
grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be
spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and
moisture throughout.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-5-
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to
attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test
Method D1557).
4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall
be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized
and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to
efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of
slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at
increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion
of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least
90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.
4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be
performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall
be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.
Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test
locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that
are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and
at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or
1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline,
at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure
that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the
Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork
construction if these minimum standards are not met.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-6-
4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and
horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with
the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that
the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient
accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100
feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be
provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical
report(s), the grading plan. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on
conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land
surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient
time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on
geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined
by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions
during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope
shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement
of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of
trench excavations.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-7-
7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works
Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30
(SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and
densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of
90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the
surface.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.
At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can
demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to
the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.4 Observation and Testing
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
Geotechnical Evaluation Report (Update) 12673.001
Wingsweep Entitlement, PA-10, PA-12 and PA-33A June 30, 2020
APPENDIX F
GBA - IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL-ENGINEERING REPORT
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.
Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.
Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning,
collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from
widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined
with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained
from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site
reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models
of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology
and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and
proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical
engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment
to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface
model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that
will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected
performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or
affected by construction activities.
The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a
geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion
of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering
assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed
to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be
titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.
Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an
engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context
of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic
inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.
Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific
needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A
geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer
will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a
different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study
is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared
solely for the client.
Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific
project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical-
engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as
one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during
a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to
develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.
Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of
the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it;
e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental
remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes,
or groundwater fluctuations.
Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can
be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed
subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or
regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain
about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical
engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is
required at all – could prevent major problems.
Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-
engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on
an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and
refer to the report in full.
You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors
when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing
the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.
Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include
those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their
impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept
responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical
engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise
would have considered.
Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s
subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical
engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific
locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from
that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer,
who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about
subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface
conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in
this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer
to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain
informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.
This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or
alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not
final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily
on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize
the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions
exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical
engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist,
the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have
occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume
responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you
fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.
This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk
by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of
the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and
specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.
You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this
report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in
prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-
phase observations.
Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift
unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting
the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent
the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the
complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments
or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note
conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes
only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that
“informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on
the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the
report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific
project requirements, including options selected from the report, only
from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors
that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to
allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in
a position to give constructors the information available to you, while
requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and
preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do
not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other
engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on
project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials
with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That
lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have
resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,”
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’
responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own
responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.
Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an
environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental
site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a
geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering
report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or
recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground
storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface
environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not
obtained your own environmental information about the project site,
ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find
environmental risk-management guidance.
Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater,
water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s
services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent
migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil
through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where
it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.
Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s
recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent
moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by
including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.
Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.
Copyright 2019 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 GBA’s 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 or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org