131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949 ... · This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed mixed-use development of Tom’s

131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949) 369-6141 www.lgcgeotechnical.com

Project No. 15186-01 Page i January 8, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services .................................................................................1 1.2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................1 1.3 Project Description ...................................................................................................1 1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation .......................................................................2 1.5 Infiltration Testing ...................................................................................................2 1.6 Laboratory Testing ...................................................................................................3

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS...................................................................................6

2.1 Regional Geology.....................................................................................................6 2.2 Site-Specific Geology...............................................................................................6 2.3 Generalized Subsurface Soils ...................................................................................6 2.4 Groundwater.............................................................................................................6 2.5 Seismic Design Criteria ...........................................................................................7 2.6 Faulting ....................................................................................................................8

2.6.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement..........................................................9 2.6.2 Lateral Spreading..........................................................................................9

3.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................10 4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................11

4.1 Site Earthwork........................................................................................................11 4.1.1 Site Preparation ..........................................................................................11 4.1.2 Removal Depths .........................................................................................12 4.1.3 Over-excavation of Design Cut or Cut/Fill Transition Pads and Streets......12 4.1.4 Temporary Excavations ..............................................................................12 4.1.5 Over-Excavation and Removal Bottoms Preparation..................................13 4.1.6 Material for Fill..........................................................................................13 4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction .................................................................14 4.1.8 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction.................................14

4.2 Foundation Recommendations................................................................................15 4.2.1 Preliminary Foundation Design Parameters ..............................................15 4.2.2 Slab Underlayment Guidelines ..................................................................16

4.3 Soil Bearing ...........................................................................................................16 4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Preliminary Retaining Wall Design..............................17 4.5 Temporary Shoring.................................................................................................18 4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control .....................................................20 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations...............................................................20 4.8 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal..........................................................................21 4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork............................................................................21 4.10 Subsurface Water Infiltration.................................................................................22 4.11 Supplemental Geotechnical Explorations..............................................................23

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)

Project No. 15186-01 Page ii January 8, 2015

4.12 Foundation and Grading Plan Review ...................................................................23 4.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction ..................................23

5.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................24 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES Figures Figure 1 – Site Location Map (Page 5) Figure 2 – Boring Location Map (Rear of Text) Figure 3 – Retaining Wall Backfill Detail Tables Table 1 – Summary of Field Infiltration Testing (Page 3) Table 2 – Seismic Design Parameters (Page 7) Table 3 – Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures (Page 16) Table 4 – Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Material (Page 17) Table 5 – Paving Section (Page 20) Table 6 – Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Low to Very Low Expansion Potential (Page 22) Appendices Appendix A – References Appendix B – Field Exploration Logs Appendix C – Field Infiltration Results Appendix D – Laboratory Test Results Appendix E – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications

Project No. 15186-01 Page 1 January 8, 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services

This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed mixed-use development of Tom’s Truck Center located on the northeast corner of Garfield Street and Second Street in the city of Santa Ana, California, as shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1).

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the existing onsite geotechnical conditions and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development. As part of this report, we have: 1) reviewed available geotechnical reports and in-house geologic maps pertinent to the site (Appendix A); 2) performed a subsurface geotechnical evaluation of the site consisting of the excavation of eleven hollow stem auger borings ranging from approximately 5 feet to 50 feet below existing ground surface; 3) performed laboratory testing of select soil samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation; and 4) prepared this summary report presenting our findings, conclusions, and preliminary geotechnical recommendations for development of the proposed project.

1.2 Existing Conditions

In general, the subject site is bound to the north by E. 4th Street, to the west by Garfield Street, to the south by E. 2nd Street and to the east Breeden Street and an existing industrial development. The site is currently occupied by Tom’s Truck Center which consists of office buildings, numerous metal truck storage and maintenance structures, paved parking areas, and an open dirt lot in the southwestern corner of the site. The site is relatively flat-lying and is transected by E. 3rd Street trending west to east through the center of the site. In addition, Breeden Street and N. Standard Avenue terminate into E. 3rd Street from the north and south, respectively.

1.3 Project Description Based on the proposed site layout prepared by Studio One Eleven (2015), the planned development will include approximately 49 single-family three-story dwellings, 20 “courtyard” type units in three-story buildings, 28 “tuck-under” units in two to three-story buildings, and 61 “courtyard” type units in a two and four-story apartment building with semi-subterranean parking. The apartment buildings are assumed to be wood framed and the parking structure reinforced concrete. Planned building structures, excluding the subterranean parking, are anticipated to be at-grade and require cut and fills (not including remedial grading) to achieve design grades. Grade changes are not anticipated to be greater than about 2 feet. A grading plan depicting planned cuts and fills was not available at the time of this report.

At the time of this report, preliminary building loads were not provided. Based on our experience on similar projects, we have assumed a maximum structural (dead plus live) load of 200 kips and 5 kips per linear foot for column and wall footings, respectively.


The recommendations given in this report are based upon the estimated structural and grading information above. LGC Geotechnical should be provided with project plans and any changes to structural loads when they become available, in order to either confirm or modify the recommendations provided herein.

1.4 Subsurface Geotechnical Evaluation

Recently, LGC Geotechnical conducted a subsurface geotechnical evaluation consisting of the excavation of eleven small-diameter hollow-stem auger borings. The hollow-stem borings (HS-1 through HS-11) were drilled by California Pacific Drilling, Inc., (Cal Pac) under subcontract to LGC Geotechnical. The depth of the hollow-stem borings ranged from approximately 5 feet to 50 feet below existing grade. An LGC Geotechnical representative observed the drilling operations, logged the borings, and collected soil samples for laboratory testing. The borings were performed using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Driven soil samples were collected by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California Drive (MCD) samplers, generally at 5-foot vertical increments. The MCD is a split-barrel sampler with a tapered cutting tip and lined with a series of 1-inch tall brass rings. The SPT sampler (1.4-inch ID) and MCD sampler (2.4-inch ID, 3.0-inch OD) were driven using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches to advance the sampler a total depth of 18 inches or until refusal. The raw blow counts for each 6-inch increment of penetration were recorded on the boring logs. Six of the eleven borings (HS-1, HS-3, HS-4, HS-7, HS-9, and HS-11) were converted in to infiltration test wells, see Section 1.5 for details. Infiltration well construction and testing is described in the following section. At the completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with native soil. Some settlement of the backfill should be expected. The approximate locations of hollow stem auger borings are shown on Figure 2. Boring logs are presented in Appendix B.

1.5 Infiltration Testing

Field infiltration rate testing was performed in general accordance with guidelines set forth by the County of Orange (2013). A 3-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe was placed in the borehole, and the annulus was backfilled with gravel to the surface. The infiltration well was pre-soaked per the County guidelines. Based on the County of Orange methodology, the measured field infiltration rates, summarized in Table 1, have normalized the three-dimensional flow that occurs within the field test to one-dimensional flow out of the bottom of the boring. The approximate locations of the field infiltration tests are shown on Figure 2 and the infiltration test data is attached.


TABLE 1

Summary of Field Infiltration Testing

Infiltration Rate (in/hr) Boring/Infiltration

Location

Approx. Depth

Below EG (ft)

Approx. Existing Ground (EG) Elevation

(ft) Observed Measured*

HS-1 4.8 132 0.2 0.1 HS-3 10.1 134 0.1 0.05 HS-4 9.8 134 0.4 0.2 HS-7 5.2 131 0.4 0.2 HS-9 4.9 131 0.1 0.05 HS-11 9.8 131 0.1 0.05

*Includes generalized factor of safety of 2 from Tested Rate to determine initial “feasibility”.

At the completion of infiltration testing, the pipe was removed and backfilled with gravel and tamped. Some settlement of the backfill should be expected. The boring logs for the infiltration borings are included in this report.

1.6 Laboratory Testing Representative bulk samples were retained for laboratory testing during our field evaluation. Laboratory testing included Atterberg Limits (liquid limit and plastic limit), grain size analysis (passing #200), expansion index, r-value, consolidation, direct shear, corrosion (sulfate, chloride, pH, and resistivity) and in-situ density and moisture contents. The following is a summary of the laboratory test results.

Dry density of the samples collected ranged from approximately 83.5 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) to 117.8 pcf, with an average of 104.3 pcf. Field moisture contents ranged from approximately 1.7 percent to 20.7 percent, with an average of 9.8 percent.

Two Atterberg Limits (liquid limit and plastic limit) tests were performed. Results indicated Plasticity Index (PI) values ranging from 13 to 17.

Three gradation tests were performed and indicated fines content (passing No. 200 sieve) ranging from approximately 7.2 to 73.5 percent. Based on the Unified Soils Classification System (USCS), two of the tested soils would be classified as “fine grained” and one as “coarse grained”.

One Expansion Index (EI) test was performed. Results indicated an EI value of 13 correlating with a “Very Low” expansion potential.

Corrosion testing indicated a soluble sulfate content of 70 parts per million (ppm) and a chloride content of 43 parts per million (ppm).

R-Value test results indicate an equilibrium R-Value of 45.


Two one dimensional consolidation test and one direct shear test were performed on selected samples. The data and plots associated with these tests are provided in Appendix D.

Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix D.

Subject Site

FIGURE 1

Site Location Map

January 2016 DATE

ENG. / GEOL. PROJECT NO. PROJECT NAME

SCALE BJE / KAD Not to Scale

Tom's Truck Center - Santa Ana 15186-01


2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology

The subject site is located within the Coastal Plain portion of the Santa Ana River drainage basin. As such, the site is underlain at depth by unconsolidated alluvial sediment deposits. These sediments are primarily associated with flood deposits of the north-south trending Santa Ana River that is located less than 3 miles northwest of the subject site. Widespread sheet deposits of the Santa Ana River reportedly occurred consistently prior to construction of the upstream Prado Dam.

2.2 Site-Specific Geology

Review of the Santa Ana 30’x60’ Quadrangle Geologic Map indicates that the subject site is underlain by Quaternary Younger Fan deposits (Map Symbol – Qyf). These younger fan deposits are generally described as a mixture of gravel, sand, and silt (CDMG, 2004). In addition, relatively minor amounts of artificial fill associated with previous parking lot and truck storage structure construction are anticipated to be present locally within the site. The artificial fill soils are assumed to have a variable thickness. However, it is anticipated that the artificial fill depths only extend to approximately 2 feet below existing ground or less.

2.3 Generalized Subsurface Soils The field exploration (hollow stem auger borings) indicate primarily medium dense silty sands interbedded with medium stiff to stiff layers of finer-grained silts and clays. It should be noted that borings are only representative of the location where they are performed and varying subsurface conditions may exist outside of the performed location. In addition, subsurface conditions can change over time. The soil descriptions provided above should not be construed to mean that the subsurface profile is uniform and that soil is homogeneous within the project area. For details on the stratigraphy at the exploration locations, refer to the boring logs provided in Appendix B.

2.4 Groundwater

During our subsurface evaluation, groundwater was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Historic high groundwater is estimated on the order of 40 feet below existing ground surface (CDMG, 2001b). Current surface conditions vary greatly, and perched groundwater may be encountered at even shallower depths. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater elevations should be expected over time. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater are likely present within the near-surface deposits due to local seepage or during rainy seasons. Local perched groundwater conditions or surface seepage may develop once site development is completed and landscape irrigation commences.


2.5 Seismic Design Criteria

The site seismic characteristics were evaluated per the guidelines set forth in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC). Representative site coordinates of latitude 33.7473 degrees north and longitude -117.8578 degrees west were utilized in our analyses. The maximum considered earthquake (MCE) spectral response accelerations (SMS and SM1) and adjusted design spectral response acceleration parameters (SDS and SD1) for Site Class D are provided in Table 1.

TABLE 2

Seismic Design Parameters

Selected Parameters from 2013 CBC, Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads

Seismic Design Values

Site Class per Chapter 20 of ASCE 7 D

Risk-Targeted Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SS)*

1.461g

Risk-Targeted Spectral Accelerations for 1-Second Periods (S1)*

0.536g

Site Coefficient Fa per Table 1613.3.3(1) 1.0

Site Coefficient Fv per Table 1613.3.3(2) 1.5

Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SMS) for Site Class D [Note: SMS = FaSS]

1.461g

Site Modified Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SM1) for Site Class D [Note: SM1 = FvS1]

0.804g

Design Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (SDS) for Site Class D [Note: SDS = (2/3)SMS]

0.974g

Design Spectral Acceleration for 1-Second Periods (SD1) for Site Class D [Note: SD1 = (2/3)SM1]

0.536g

Mapped Risk Coefficient at 0.2 sec Spectral Response Period, CRS

1.030

Mapped Risk Coefficient at 1 sec Spectral Response Period, CR1

1.064

* From USGS, 2013

Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 CBC (per Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7) states that the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) should be used for geotechnical evaluations such as liquefaction potential. The PGAM for the site is equal to 0.529g (USGS, 2013).


A deaggregation of the PGA based on a 2,475-year average return period indicates that an earthquake magnitude of 6.96 at a distance of approximately 4.1 miles (6.6 km) from the site would contribute the most to this ground motion (USGS, 2008).

2.6 Faulting

California is located on the boundary between the Pacific and North American Lithospheric Plates. The average motion along this boundary is on the order of 50-mm/yr in a right-lateral sense. The majority of the motion is expressed at the surface along the northwest trending San Andreas Fault Zone with lesser amounts of motion accommodated by sub-parallel faults located predominantly west of the San Andreas including the Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, Rose Canyon, and Coronado Bank Faults. Within Southern California, a large bend in the San Andreas Fault north of the San Gabriel Mountains has resulted in a transfer of a portion of the right-lateral motion between the plates into left-lateral displacement and vertical uplift. Compression south and west of the bend has resulted in folding, left-lateral reverse thrust faulting, and regional uplift creating the east-west trending Transverse Ranges and several east-west trending faults. Further south within the Los Angeles Basin, “blind thrust” faults are believed to have developed below the surface also as a result of this compression, which have resulted in earthquakes such as the 1994 Northridge event along faults with little to no surface expression.

Prompted by damaging earthquakes in Northern and Southern California, State legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults have been developed. Their purpose was to prevent the construction of urban developments across the trace of active faults. The result is the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which was most recently revised in 1997. According to the State Geologist, an active fault is defined as one which has had surface displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as any fault, which has had surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years), but not within the Holocene. Earthquake Fault Zones have been delineated along the traces of active faults within California. Where developments for human occupation are proposed within these zones, the state requires detailed fault evaluations be performed so that engineering geologists can mitigate the hazards associated with active faulting by identifying the location of active faults and allowing for a setback from the zone of previous ground rupture.

The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no faults were identified on the site during our site evaluation. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site.

Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependant on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. The closest major active faults that could produce these secondary effects include the Whittier and Newport-Inglewood Offshore Faults, among others. A discussion of these secondary effects is provided in the following sections.


2.6.1 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement

Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose to medium dense, near surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry loose sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event. The site is located within a State California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction potential (CGS, 2001a). Based on the proposed development and remedial grading, the site will primarily consist of compacted fill over dense young alluvial fan deposits. Therefore, the potential for post construction liquefaction and liquefaction-induced dynamic settlement is considered very low.

2.6.2 Lateral Spreading

Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction-induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. The potential for lateral spreading is considered very low due to the site being relatively level and the lack of an adjacent free face to drive lateral spreading.


3.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our subsurface geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in the following sections are incorporated during site grading and development. A summary of our geotechnical conclusions are as follows: Within the areas explored, the site contains variable amounts of artificial fill with varying depths over

Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Map Symbol – Qyf). Depths of artificial fill are estimated to vary across the site. However, it is anticipated that the artificial fill depths only extend approximately 2 feet below existing ground or less.

Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. Historic high groundwater is estimated as shallow as approximately 40 feet below existing ground surface.

The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. The subject site will likely experience strong seismic ground shaking during its design life.

In general, the existing moisture content of site soils vary from dry to moist. Moisture conditioning of dry soils will be necessary to achieve the required degree of compaction. Where very moist to wet soils are encountered at the base of the removals, stabilization of the subgrade will likely be required prior to placing properly compacted fill soils.

Site soils may generally be used as compacted fill provided they are screened of potential organics and construction debris and properly moisture-conditioned.

Based on current laboratory testing, onsite soils should generally be considered as possessing a “very low” expansion potential. Additional expansion testing of the near surface soils is recommended once rough grading is completed in order to confirm anticipated conditions.

Temporary shoring may be required for construction of the semi-subterranean parking level where adequate lateral distance is not available due to property line constraints for the use of temporary slopes.


4.0 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are to be considered preliminary, and should be confirmed upon completion of grading and earthwork operations. In addition, they should be considered minimal from a geotechnical viewpoint, as there may be more restrictive requirements from the architect, structural engineer, building codes, governing agencies, or the owner. It should be noted that the following geotechnical recommendations are intended to provide sufficient information to develop the site in general accordance with the 2013 CBC requirements. With regard to the possible occurrence of potentially catastrophic geotechnical hazards such as fault rupture, earthquake-induced landslides, liquefaction, etc. the following geotechnical recommendations should provide adequate protection for the proposed development to the extent required to reduce seismic risk to an “acceptable level.” The “acceptable level” of risk is defined by the California Code of Regulations as “that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project” [Section 3721(a)]. Therefore, repair and remedial work of the proposed improvement may be required after a significant seismic event. With regards to the potential for less significant geologic hazards to the proposed development, the recommendations contained herein are intended as a reasonable protection against the potential damaging effects of geotechnical phenomena such as expansive soils, fill settlement, groundwater seepage, etc. It should be understood, however, that our recommendations are intended to maintain the structural integrity of the proposed development and structures given the site geotechnical conditions, but cannot preclude the potential for some cosmetic distress or nuisance issues to develop as a result of the site geotechnical conditions. The geotechnical recommendations contained herein must be confirmed to be suitable or modified based on the actual as-graded conditions. 4.1 Site Earthwork

We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of the demolition of existing structures followed by the completion of rough grading operations and then retaining wall construction, utility construction, foundation construction, and asphalt paving of the interior streets and drives. We recommend that earthwork onsite be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Santa Ana, 2013 CBC requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede all previous recommendations and those included as part of Appendix E. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary and may be revised by the geotechnical consultant based on the actual conditions encountered during site grading.

4.1.1 Site Preparation

Prior to placing structural fill or engineered structures, areas should be cleared of surface obstructions and potentially compressible material (such as undocumented fill, topsoil, vegetation, and construction debris). Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend below proposed removal bottoms, should be replaced with properly compacted fill material.


Any encountered oil or water wells should be properly abandoned in accordance with regulatory requirements.

4.1.2 Removal Depths

All unsuitable and potentially compressible materials not removed by design cuts should be excavated to competent material and replaced with compacted fill soils. In general, existing undocumented artificial fill from previous improvements should be removed to competent young alluvial fan deposits. The depths of removals are estimated to be approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surface or 2 feet below the bottom of structure foundations. It should be noted that over-excavation may be required in design cut areas that exceed the estimated removal depths. Local conditions may be encountered which could require additional removals beyond the estimated depths. The actual depth and lateral extents of removals should be determined by the geotechnical consultant based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading.

4.1.3 Over-excavation of Design Cut or Cut/Fill Transition Pads and Streets We recommend design cut or cut/fill transition pads be undercut 3 feet below ultimate finish pad grade, or a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of structure foundations, whichever is greater. A maximum 3:1 differential fill thickness underneath individual lots should be maintained in order to reduce the potential for future differential settlement. Over-excavation should extend laterally a minimum of 3 feet beyond proposed building footprints. The over-excavation bottoms should be graded with a minimum 2 percent tilt towards deeper fill areas (preferably the street) in order to reduce the potential for ponding of water. Over-excavations/undercuts must be confirmed and mapped by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement.

The actual depth and lateral extents of over-excavation should be determined by the geotechnical consultant, based on subsurface conditions encountered during grading.

4.1.4 Temporary Excavations

We anticipate temporary slopes required for removals, over-excavations and haul roads to be grossly stable at 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter; however, excavations must be made in accordance with Cal OSHA and OSHA requirements. Vehicular traffic, stockpiles, and equipment storage should be set back from the perimeter of the excavations a minimum distance equivalent to a 1:1 projection from the bottom of the excavation. The contractor must request observation of temporary excavations by a representative of LGC Geotechnical, not only to confirm the geotechnical conditions, but to also help provide early warning of potential failures. Based on observed conditions, flatter inclinations may be required. There are a variety of soil types at the site classified as OSHA Type “A”, “B” and “C”


soils. The contractor will be responsible for providing the “competent person” required by Cal/OSHA standards to evaluate soil conditions. Close coordination with the geotechnical consultant should be maintained to facilitate construction while providing safe excavations. Excavation safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor. The potential for impacting the existing offsite improvements may be reduced by performing removals within 10 lateral feet of the existing structure using narrow “ABC” slot cuts. Slot cuts should be no wider than 10 feet and no deeper than 5 feet, and should be backfilled immediately with properly placed compacted fill to finish grade prior to excavation of adjacent slots. Due to the presence of sands at the site which are susceptible to caving, narrower slot cuts may be required. This should be further evaluated during grading. Excavation safety and protection of off-site existing improvements during grading is the responsibility of the contractor. Once an excavation has been initiated, it should be backfilled as soon as practical. Prolonged exposure of temporary excavations may result in some localized instability. Excavations should be planned so that they are not initiated without sufficient time to shore/fill them prior to weekends, holidays, or forecasted rain.

4.1.5 Over-Excavation and Removal Bottoms Preparation

In general, over-excavation and removal bottom areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, brought to a near-optimum moisture condition, and re-compacted per project recommendations. Over-excavation and removal bottoms should be observed and accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to subsequent fill placement.

4.1.6 Material for Fill

From a geotechnical perspective, the onsite soils are generally considered suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are screened of organic materials and construction debris. Any oversized material (material larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension) encountered must be appropriately handled as outlined in Appendix E. Retaining wall backfill should consist of granular free draining soils with a minimum sand equivalent (SE) of 30 per California Test Method [CTM] 217 and a “Very Low” expansion potential (EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829). Soils should also be screened of organic materials, construction debris and any material greater than 3 inches. The site contains soils that are not suitable for retaining wall backfill due to their clay content and expansion potential, therefore import or select grading and stockpiling of onsite soils will be required by the contractor for obtaining suitable retaining wall backfill soil. The contractor should anticipate the importing of soils for the required retaining wall backfill. From a geotechnical viewpoint, any required import soils (except retaining wall backfill) should consist of clean, relatively granular soils of Very Low expansion potential (expansion index 20 or less based on ASTM D4829) and no particles larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension. Required import for retaining wall backfill should meet the criteria outlined in the paragraph above. Source samples of planned importation should be provided to the geotechnical


consultant for laboratory testing a minimum of 3 working days prior to any planned importation. Aggregate base (crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base) should conform to the requirements of Section 200-2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”) for untreated base materials (except processed miscellaneous base) or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.

4.1.7 Fill Placement and Compaction Material to be placed as fill should be brought to near optimum moisture content (generally within optimum and 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to achieve adequate compaction. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Each lift should be thoroughly compacted and accepted prior to subsequent lifts. Generally, placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances and under the observation and testing performed by the geotechnical consultant. Any oversized material, as previously defined, encountered must be appropriately handled (Appendix E).

Fill placed on any slopes greater than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be properly keyed and benched into firm and competent soils as it is placed in lifts. During backfill of excavations, the fill should be properly benched into firm and competent soils of temporary backcut slopes as it is placed in lifts. All benching must be performed behind the design backcuts. Every bench must be a minimum of 4 feet high. Slope face compaction must be achieved by the contractor by overfilling the slope face a minimum of 2 feet and cutting back to design finish grades. Compaction of the slopes at grade is not considered an acceptable method of slope finishing. Aggregate base material (crushed aggregate base and crushed miscellaneous base) should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557.

4.1.8 Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill and Compaction

The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill, provided the soils are screened of rocks and other material greater than 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. If trenches are shallow or the use of conventional equipment may result in damage to the utilities, sand having a sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater (per California Test Method [CTM] 217) may be used to bed and shade the pipes. Sand backfill within the pipe bedding zone may be densified by jetting or flooding and then tamped to ensure adequate compaction. Subsequent trench backfill should


be compacted in uniform thin lifts by mechanical means to at least the recommended minimum relative compaction (per ASTM D1557).

Retaining wall backfill should consist of sandy soils as outlined in Section 4.1.6. The limits of select sandy backfill should extend a minimum ½ the height of the retaining wall or the width of the heel (if applicable), whichever is greater, refer to Figure 3 (rear of text). Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted in relatively uniform thin lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Jetting or flooding of retaining wall backfill materials should not be permitted.

A representative from LGC Geotechnical should observe and test the backfill to verify

compliance with the project recommendations.

4.2 Foundation Recommendations for Structures Based on the provided site layout and the provided and assumed structural loads, the building structures (single-family, and multi-tiered townhouses/apartment buildings) may be placed on a shallow foundation system provided our earthwork recommendations are implemented (i.e., adequate removal and replacement of site fills) during construction. It should be emphasized the altering of the location of structures and/or increasing structural loads and site grades may require modification to the provided preliminary recommendations. Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided in the following sections. Recommended soil bearing and estimated static settlement are provided in Section 4.3. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion project plans (i.e., foundation, grading and site layout plans) as well as completion of grading.

4.2.1 Preliminary Foundation Design Parameters

Due to the very low expansion potential of the onsite soils and relatively small amount of potential seismically induced settlement, the foundation/structural engineer may design a conventional foundation system that is tied together based upon the anticipated dead and live loads (wind, seismic) that will be imparted by the structure. The recommendations below may be utilized in the design of a rigid slab-on-grade conventional foundation designed in accordance with Section 1808 of the 2013 C.B.C. The following sections summarize our provisional recommendations. Please note that the following foundation recommendations are preliminary and must be confirmed by LGC Geotechnical at the completion of grading. The proposed foundations should be designed by the foundation engineer in accordance with the following recommendations. The following recommendations may be superseded by the requirements of the foundation engineer/structural engineer and/or local jurisdictions. Proposed foundations should be designed to accommodate estimated site static settlements.


4.2.2 Slab Underlayment Guidelines

The following is for informational purposes only since slab underlayment (e.g., moisture retarder, sand or gravel layers for concrete curing and/or capillary break) is unrelated to the geotechnical performance of the foundation and thereby not the purview of the geotechnical consultant. Post-construction moisture migration should be expected below the foundation. The foundation engineer/architect should determine whether the use of a capillary break (sand or gravel layer), in conjunction with the vapor retarder, is necessary or required by code. Sand layer thickness and location (above and/or below vapor retarder) should also be determined by the foundation engineer/architect.

4.3 Soil Bearing

The following allowable soil bearing capacity and soil settlement due to structural loads is based on the provided site layout (i.e., anticipated depth of properly compacted fill below structures) and the provided and assumed structural loads. These recommendations are based the assumption our earthwork recommendations are implemented during grading (i.e., adequate removal depths are performed). An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for the design of footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and minimum embedment of 12 inches below lowest adjacent ground surface. This value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of embedment or 100 psf for each additional foot of foundation width to a maximum value of 2,500 psf. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf may be used for a mat post-tensioned slab a minimum of 8 inches below lowest adjacent grade. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Bearing values indicated are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by ⅓ for short duration loading (i.e., wind or seismic loads).

TABLE 3

Allowable Soil Bearing Pressures

Allowable Static Bearing Pressure

(psf)

Minimum Footing Width (feet)

Minimum Footing Embedment*

(feet) 2,500 3 2

2,000 1 1 *Refers to minimum depth to the bottom of the footing below lowest adjacent finish grade.

These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5 horizontal feet to 1-foot vertical) conditions only. Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and live loads. The above vertical bearing may be increased by one-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic loading.


In utilizing the above-mentioned allowable bearing capacity and provided our earthwork recommendations area implemented, foundation settlement due to structural loads is anticipated to be on the order of 1-inch. Soil settlement is a function of footing dimensions and applied soil bearing pressure. Differential settlement should be anticipated between nearby columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. Settlement estimates should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical when foundation plans and structural loads are available. Resistance to lateral loads can be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. For concrete/soil frictional resistance, a coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be assumed with dead-load forces. For slabs constructed over a moisture barrier, a friction coefficient of 0.1 may be used. A passive lateral earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth (or pcf) to a maximum of 2,500 psf may be used for the sides of footings poured against properly compacted fill. This passive pressure is applicable for level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H:1V) conditions only. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be used in combination without reduction. We recommend that the upper foot of passive resistance be neglected if finished grade will not be covered with concrete or asphalt. The provided allowable passive pressures are based on a factor of safety of 1.5 and may be increased by one-third for short duration seismic loading conditions.

4.4 Lateral Earth Pressures for Preliminary Retaining Wall Design

Lateral earth pressures are provided as equivalent fluid unit weights, in pound per square foot (psf) per foot of depth or pcf. These values do not contain an appreciable factor of safety, so the retaining wall designer should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design. A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the actual weight of soil over the wall footing. The retaining wall designer should clearly indicate on the retaining wall plans the type of backfill (select or native) used in the retaining wall design.

The following lateral pressures for approved free-draining select granular soils (sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater per CTM 217) are presented on Table 4.

TABLE 4

Lateral Earth Pressures – Approved Material (SE of 30 or greater)

Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (pcf)

Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards Conditions

Approved Soils Approved Soils

Active 35 55

At-Rest 55 80

If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for “active” pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the earth pressure will be higher. This would include 90-degree corners of retaining walls. Such walls should be designed for “at-rest.”


The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions and a drainage system will be installed and maintained to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. A relatively sandy backfill along with a subdrain pipe wrapped in drainage aggregate and filter fabric (e.g., “burrito” subdrain) properly outletted to a suitable discharge point is typically used for conventional retaining walls. Retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed. Typical conventional (i.e., backfilled) retaining wall drainage is shown on Figure 3. It should be noted that the recommended subdrain does not provide protection against seepage through the face of the wall and/or efflorescence. Efflorescence is generally a white crystalline powder (discoloration) that results when water containing soluble salts migrates over a period of time through the face of a retaining wall and evaporates. If such seepage or efflorescence is undesirable, retaining walls should be waterproofed to reduce this potential. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical consultant. Surcharge loading effects from any adjacent structures should be evaluated by the retaining wall designer. In general, structural loads within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) upward projection from the bottom of the proposed retaining wall footing will surcharge the proposed retaining structure. Uniform surcharges may be estimated using the applicable coefficient of lateral earth pressure using a rectangular distribution. A factor of 0.5 and 0.33 may be used for at-rest and active conditions, respectively. The retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable surcharge loads. If required, the retaining wall designer may use a seismic lateral earth pressure increment of 5 pcf for retaining walls up to a maximum of 10 feet in height with level backfill. This increment should be applied in addition to the applicable static lateral earth pressure using a triangular distribution with the resultant acting at H/3 in relation to the base of the retaining structure (where H is the retained height). For the restrained, at-rest condition, the seismic increment may be added to the applicable active lateral earth pressure (in lieu of the at-rest lateral earth pressure) when analyzing short duration seismic loading. Per Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 CBC, the seismic lateral earth pressure is applicable to structures assigned to Seismic Design Category D through F for retaining wall structures supporting more than 6 feet of backfill height. This seismic lateral earth pressure is estimated using the procedure outlined by the Structural Engineers Association of California (Lew, et al, 2010). The provided seismic lateral earth pressure is for a level backfill condition and a maximum of 10 feet in height; a sloping backfill condition and greater retaining wall heights are not anticipated. However, if a sloping backfill condition or retaining walls greater than 10 feet in height are proposed, the retaining wall designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for specific seismic lateral earth pressure increments based on the configuration of the planned retaining wall structures.

Soil bearing and lateral resistance (friction coefficient and passive resistance) are provided in Section 4.3. Earthwork considerations for retaining walls are provided in Section 4.1 (Site Earthwork) and the subsequent earthwork related sub-sections.

4.5 Temporary Shoring

Temporary shoring may be used where sufficient lateral distance is not available for temporary slopes due to property line constraints. The earth pressures provided below are only for temporary shoring conditions; for permanent earth retaining structures, refer to Section 4.4.


Typical cantilever temporary shoring, where deflection of the shoring will not impact the performance of adjacent structures, may be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per square foot (psf) per foot of depth (or pcf). Braced shoring may be used in areas where the shoring will be located close to existing structures in order to limit shoring deflections or required due to the proposed depth of excavation. Braced shoring with a level backfill may be designed using a uniform soil pressure of 22H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the depth in feet of the excavation being shored. Any slopes above temporary shoring will increase the above-noted lateral earth pressures and can be provided on a case-by-case basis. Any building, equipment or traffic loads located within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) projection from the base of the shoring should be added to the applicable lateral earth pressure. Refer to the discussion provided in Section 4.4. A minimum additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf for the upper 10 feet should be added to the appropriate lateral earth pressures to account for typical vehicle traffic loading. If vehicle traffic is kept at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. The shoring designer should contact the geotechnical engineer for any required geotechnical input in estimating any applicable lateral surcharge loads. For piles spaced a minimum of 2.5 pile diameters on-center, an allowable passive pressure of 500 pcf may be used for passive resistance below the excavation. The provided passive pressure includes an arching factor of 2 and should be limited to a maximum of 12 times the value provided above (e.g., 500 pcf to a maximum of 6,000 psf). The passive pressure is only applicable for level (5 horizontal feet to 1-foot vertical or flatter) soil conditions. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavation below the excavated level should be of adequate strength to transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. The point of fixity may be taken at 3 feet below the base of the excavation. The structural designer should incorporate the appropriate factor of safety and/or load factor in the design. The provided allowable passive pressure is based on a factor of safety of 1.5.

Continuous lagging should be provided between the soldier piles. Lagging should be placed in a timely manner during excavation in order to minimize potential spalling and sloughing. Careful installation of the lagging will be necessary to achieve bearing against the retained earth. The backfill of the lagging should consist of one sack sand-cement slurry or compacted moistened granular soil. It should be noted that backfill of the lagging with compacted granular soil may result in continuation of caving as the excavation depth progresses. Means and methods are per the contractor in order to ultimately ensure full bearing of retained earth to the lagging. The soldier piles should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure; however, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to soil arching between the piles. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure, but may be limited to a maximum value of 400 psf if surcharge loads are not present. Lagging placed behind the solider piles will negate the soil arching effect. It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of the shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. The shoring should be designed to limit deflection to within tolerable limits. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary. In areas where less deflection is desired, such as adjacent to existing settlement sensitive improvements, the shoring should be designed for higher lateral earth pressures. The contractor should evaluate the potential drilling conditions when planning the installation methods, refer to the attached boring logs (Appendix B).


4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Control

Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. Water should not be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or to flow freely down a graded slope. Per section 1804.3 of the 2013 CBC, positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 5 percent for earthen surfaces for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the face of wall. If a distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative of a gradient of at least 5 percent to an area drain or swale having a gradient of 2 percent is acceptable. Where necessary, drainage paths may be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters are recommended and should reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets.

4.7 Preliminary Pavement Recommendations

Preliminary laboratory testing resulted in an R-value of 45 for onsite soils which was utilized in our preliminary analysis of the pavement sections. Provisional minimum street sections are provided below for Traffic Indices of 6.5 or less. Pavement sections are based on County of Orange Highway Design Manual (County of Orange, 2005). These recommendations must be confirmed with R-value testing of representative near-surface soils at the completion of grading and after underground utilities have been installed and backfilled. Final street sections should be confirmed by the project civil engineer based upon the projected design Traffic Index. If requested, LGC Geotechnical will provide sections for alternate TI values.

TABLE 5

Paving Section

Assumed Traffic Index 6.5 R-Value Subgrade 45 AC Thickness 0.30 feet Base Thickness 0.50 feet

The thicknesses shown are for minimum thicknesses per the design manual. Increasing the thickness of any or all of the above layers will reduce the likelihood of the pavement experiencing distress during its service life. The above recommendations are based on the assumption that proper maintenance and irrigation of the areas adjacent to the roadway will occur through the design life of the pavement. Failure to maintain a proper maintenance and/or irrigation program may jeopardize the integrity of the pavement. Aggregate base material (crushed aggregate base and crushed miscellaneous base) should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557. Subgrade below aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content per ASTM D1557.


4.8 Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal

Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary. Corrosion testing of a near-surface bulk sample obtained from HS-4 indicated a soluble sulfate content of 79 parts per million (ppm) and a chloride content of 43 parts per million (ppm).

Caltrans defines a corrosive area where any of the following conditions exist: the soil contains more than 500 ppm of chlorides, more than 2,000 ppm (0.2 percent) of sulfates, or a pH of 5.5 or less (Caltrans, 2012). Based on the test results and the Caltrans criteria, on-site soils are not considered corrosive to bare metals and concrete. Based on our laboratory test results of representative site soil samples, onsite soils have a designated sulfate exposure class of “S0” per ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.1.1. As a result, per Table 19.3.2.1 the minimum compressive strength of structural concrete shall be 2,500 psi. This must be verified based on as-graded conditions.

4.9 Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork

Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, bicycle trails, patio slabs, etc.) has a potential for cracking due to changes in soil volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in Table 6. These guidelines will reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic distress.


TABLE 6

Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork for Very Low to Low Expansion Potential

Homeowner Sidewalks

Private Drives Patios/

Entryways

City Sidewalk Curb and Gutters

Minimum Thickness (in.)

4 (nominal) 4 (full) 4 (full) City/Agency

Standard

Presoaking Wet down prior

to placing Wet down prior

to placing Wet down prior to

placing City/Agency

Standard

Reinforcement No. 3 at 24 inches

on centers No. 3 at 24 inches

on centers City/Agency

Standard Thickened Edge (in.)

8 x 8 City/Agency

Standard

Crack Control Joints

Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum

of 1/3 the concrete thickness

Saw cut or deep open tool joint to

a minimum of 1/3 the concrete

thickness

Saw cut or deep open tool joint to a minimum

of 1/3 the concrete thickness

City/Agency Standard

Maximum Joint Spacing

5 feet 10 feet or quarter cut whichever is

closer 6 feet


Aggregate Base

Thickness (in.)


To reduce the potential for driveways to separate from the garage slab, the builder may elect to install dowels to tie these two elements together. Similarly, future homeowners should consider the use of dowels to connect flatwork to the foundation.

4.10 Subsurface Water Infiltration

Recent regulatory changes have occurred that mandate that storm water be infiltrated below grade rather than collected in a conventional storm drain system where feasible. Typically, a combination of methods is implemented to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration including; permeable pavements/pavers for roadways and walkways, directing surface water runoff to grass-lined swales, retention areas, and/or drywells, etc. It should be noted that collecting and concentrating surface water for the purpose of intentional infiltration below grade, conflicts with the geotechnical engineering objective of directing surface water away from slopes, structures and other improvements. The geotechnical stability and integrity of a site is reliant upon appropriately handling surface water. In general, the vast majority of geotechnical distress issues are directly related to improper drainage. In general, distress in the form of movement of improvements could occur as a result of soil saturation and loss of soil support, expansion, internal


soil erosion, collapse and/or settlement. The measured infiltration rate for all tests performed were less than 0.30 inch per hour. Based on the guidelines set forth by the County of Orange (2013) these results indicate that infiltration within the site is not feasible. We do not recommend that surface water be intentionally infiltrated into subsurface soils at this site.

4.11 Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration

When structural loading is available based on the finalized layout, the data should be provided to LGC Geotechnical for review and analysis. Depending on the findings of the analysis additional subsurface evaluation may be warranted. The depth of additional evaluation should be determined based on the proposed structural loading.

4.12 Foundation and Grading Plan Review

When available, preliminary grading and foundation plans (including structural loads) should be reviewed by LGC Geotechnical in order to verify our geotechnical recommendations are implemented. Updated recommendations and/or additional field work may be necessary.

4.13 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Construction

The recommendations provided in this report are based on limited subsurface observations and geotechnical analysis. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of LGC Geotechnical. Geotechnical observation and testing is required per Section 1704.7-9 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC).

Geotechnical observation and/or testing should be performed by LGC Geotechnical at the following stages: During rough grading (removal/over-excavation bottoms, fill placement, etc.); During temporary shoring construction; During precise grading; During utility trench and retaining wall backfill and compaction; After presoaking building pads and other concrete-flatwork subgrades, and prior to placement of

aggregate base or concrete; Preparation of pavement subgrade and placement of aggregate base; After building and wall footing excavation and prior to placement of steel reinforcement and/or

concrete; and When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operation subsequent

to issuance of this report.


5.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the designer and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and modification, and should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years.

Appendix A References

Project No. 15186-01 A-1 January 8, 2015

APPENDIX A

References

American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14).

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other

Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, 2013. ASTM International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08. California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations

Title 24, Volumes 1 and 2, dated July 2013. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, California Geological Society Special Publication 117A:

Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. ______, 2000, Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California,

Southern Region, CDMG CD 2000-03. ______, 2001a, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Tustin Quadrangle, Official Revised Map, scale:

1:24,000, Release Date: January 17, 2001 ______, 2001b, State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Tustin 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange

County, California, Open File Report 97-20. , 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with

Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007. , 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6,

website link: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html, dated 2010. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, Division of Engineering Services, Material

Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion and Structural Concrete Field Investigation Branch, Corrosion Guidelines Version 2.0, dated November 2012.

County of Orange, 2013, Technical Guidance Document for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary

and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), Exhibit 7.III, December 20, 2013. County of Orange Resources and Development Management Department, 2005, Orange County Highway

Design Manual, Chapter 600, June 2005 Greenbook Committee of Public Works Standards, 2012, Standard Specifications for Public Works

Construction, “Greenbook”. Lew, et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Basements, Structural Engineers Association of California


(SEAOC) Convention Proceedings. Studio One Eleven, 2015, Conceptual Site Plan, Tom’s Truck Center, City Presentation, dated September 16,

2015. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, “2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta),” Retrieved January

7, 2016, from: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/ United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2014, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Retrieved December 30, 2015,

from: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php

Appendix B

Field Exploration Logs

THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION

OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER

LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION

WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA

PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL

CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. THE DESCRIPTIONS

PROVIDED ARE QUALITATIVE FIELD DESCRIPTIONS

AND ARE NOT BASED ON QUANTITATIVE

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS.

CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE

-#200 % PASSING # 200 SIEVE

DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SIEVE AND HYDROMETER

EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE

R RING SAMPLE (CA Modified Sampler)

G GRAB SAMPLE

SPT STANDARD PENETRATION

TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Typ

e o

f T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bo

l

Mo

istu

re

(%

)

Dry D

en

sity (p

cf)

Blo

w C

ou

nt

Sa

mp

le

N

um

be

r

Gra

ph

ic L

og

De

pth

(ft)

Ele

va

tio

n (ft)

Hole Diameter:

Hole Location: See Geotechnical Map

Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole: Drive Weight:

Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105

Geotechnical Boring Log Borehole HS-1

11/16/2015

~132' MSL

8"

B-53 Truck Mounted HSA

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, slightly moist

Total Depth = 5'

Groundwater Not Encountered

Backfilled with Bentonite Chips and Capped with AC to

~4 inches on 11/17/2015

Last E

dited: 11/19/2015

Quaternary Young Fan Deposits (Qyf)

Approximately 6" of AC

No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Typ

e o

f T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bo

l

Mo

istu

re

(%

)

Dry D

en

sity (p

cf)

Blo

w C

ou

nt

Sa

mp

le

N

um

be

r

Gra

ph

ic L

og

De

pth

(ft)

Ele

va

tio

n (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~132' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

R-1

5

6

6

SM SILT, dark brown, loose, very moist

R-2

3

4

5

R-3

4

5

7

SM Silty SAND, Dark yellowish brown, loose, dry

SPT-1

3

4

6

R-4

4

5

6

CL Lean CLAY; yellowish brown, stiff, moist

Total Depth = 21.5'



~4 inches on 11/16/2015

Last E

dited: 11/19/2015

AL

CN

CN

DS

13.0104.6

6.688.6

4.997.6

14.3106.8

CL-ML Silty CLAY, brown, medium stiff, dry




No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Typ

e o

f T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bo

l

Mo

istu

re

(%

)

Dry D

en

sity (p

cf)

Blo

w C

ou

nt

Sa

mp

le

N

um

be

r

Gra

ph

ic L

og

De

pth

(ft)

Ele

va

tio

n (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~134' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

SM Silty SAND, dark brown

R-1

3

3

5

CL Lean CLAY with SAND, brown, medium stiff, very moist

Total Depth = 10'



~4 inches on 11/17/2015

B-1

Last E

dited: 11/19/2015

#200

20.192.9

EI




Approximately 5" of concrete











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~134' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, moist

R-1

2

2

3

Silty SAND, brown, very loose, very moist

Total Depth = 10'



~4 inches on 11/17/2015

B-1

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5

#200

12.998.2

CR

RV




No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~133' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

R-1

12

7

12

ML SILT, brown, Tree Roots and cobbles 1" maximum

dimension, stiff, moist

R-2

4

6

12

SM-SP Poorly Graded SAND, medium dense, dry

R-3

10

14

17

SP SAND, brown, poorly graded, dense, dry

R-4

9

11

7

SP-SM SAND with Gravel, brown, poorly graded, medium

dense, dry, disturbed

SPT-1

2

2

2

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, dry

R-5

4

6

10

ML SILT, brown, stiff, very moist

Total Depth = 21.5'


Backfilled with Bentonite Chips and Capped with AC to 4

inches on 11/16/2015

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5

12.0111.4

1.7109.8

1.7

20.7106.1

2.3108.9




No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~131' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

R-1

2

3

3

SM Silty SAND, brown, loose, moist

R-2

3

3

7

Silty SAND with gravel, brown, loose, moist

R-3

5

10

8

SP-SM Poorly Graded SAND with GRAVEL, brown, medium

dense, dry

SPT-1

3

4

4

No recovery

R-4

5

5

8

SM Silty SAND, brown, loose, moist

SPT-2

3

4

7

Silty SAND, dark brown, medium dense, moist

Total Depth = 21.5'




B-1

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5

6.6101.4

5.0108.3

1.4113.5

7.8110.0




No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~131' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1


Total Depth = 5'



~4 inches on 11/18/2015

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5




No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~130' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

R-1

2

1

1

CL Sandy Lean CLAY; brown, very soft, very moist

R-2

2

2

5

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, moist

R-3

3

3

4

Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, very moist

SPT-1

1

2

3

ML-SM Clayey SILT with Silty SAND, medium stiff, very moist

R-4

3

4

6

SM Sandy SILT, dark brown, loose, very moist

SPT-2

2

2

4

ML Sandy SILT; brown, medium stiff, very moist

Total Depth = 20'




La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5

20.283.5

11.6110.4

19.387.6

12.7109.6

AL




No base











CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~131' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1


Total Depth = 5'


Backfilled with Bentonite chips and cuttings 11/18/2015

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5













CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~131' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 2

R-1

10

8

12

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, medium dense, moist

R-2

3

4

6

Silty SAND with GRAVEL, dark brown, loose, dry

R-3

6

4

3

SM-SP Silty SAND with SAND, brown, loose, moist

SPT-1

2

3

3

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, moist

R-4

5

6

8


SPT-2

1

2

5

Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, moist

R-5

4

6

9

Sandy SILT, dark brown, medium dense, very moist

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5

5.2117.8

4.2111.8

7.9102.0

6.3108.7

18.5107.4



60

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

55

50

45

40

35

Elevation (ft)

Depth (ft)

Graphic Log

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Blow

C

ount

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Moisture (%

)

US

CS

S

ym

bol

DESCRIPTION

Type of T

est

Date:

Project Name:

Project Number:

Elevation of Top of Hole:


Drilling Company:

Type of Rig:

Drop:

Drive Weight:

Hole Diameter:

30

CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE












SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

100

95

90

85

80

75


11/16/2015

~131' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 2 of 2

SPT-3

3

3

6

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, medium dense, moist

R-6

7

9

8


SPT-4

3

4

5


R-7

6

9

11

Silty SAND, dark brown, medium dense, very moist

SPT-5

3

5

7

Silty SAND, dark brown, medium dense, very moist

Total Depth = 51.5'


Backfilled with grout and cuttings on 11/16/2015

10.8106.4

14.5109.2












CN CONSOLIDATION

CR CORROSION

AL ATTERBERG LIMITS

CO COLLAPSE/SWELL

RV R-VALUE


DIRECT SHEAR

MAXIMUM DENSITY

SIEVE ANALYSIS


EXPANSION INDEX

TEST TYPES:

DS

MD

SA

S&H

EI

SAMPLE TYPES:

B BULK SAMPLE


G GRAB SAMPLE


TEST SAMPLE

GROUNDWATER TABLE

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Type of T

est

DESCRIPTIONUS

CS

S

ym

bol

Moisture (%

)

Dry D

ensity (pcf)

Blow

C

ount

Sam

ple N

um

ber

Graphic Log

Depth (ft)

Elevation (ft)

Hole Diameter:


Drop:

Type of Rig:

Project Number:


Drilling Company:

Project Name:

Date:

130

125

120

115

110

105


11/16/2015

~131' MSL

8"

B-53

30"

140 pounds

Cal Pac

Toms Truck Center

15186-01

Logged By CAC

Sampled By CAC

Checked By BJE

Page 1 of 1

SM Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, dry

R-1

1

3

6

SP-SM SAND with SILT, brown, poorly graded, loose, dry

Total Depth = 10'


Backfilled with Bentonite Chips and Cuttings on

11/16/2015

La

st E

dite

d: 1

1/1

9/2

01

5

#200

3.198.3



Appendix C Field Infiltration Test Results

Boring Number:

Test hole dimensions (if circular)4.883

Pre-Test (Sandy Soil Criteria)*

1 8:13 8:38 25.0 3.50 3.55 0.052 8:13 8:38 25.0 3.50 3.55 0.05

Main Test Data

1 9:03 9:33 30.0 3.65 3.80 0.152 9:33 10:03 30.0 2.40 2.60 0.203 10:03 10:33 30.0 2.60 2.75 0.154 10:33 11:03 30.0 2.75 2.90 0.155 11:03 11:33 30.0 2.90 3.10 0.206 11:33 12:03 30.0 3.10 3.20 0.107 12:03 12:33 30.0 3.20 3.35 0.158 12:33 13:03 30.0 2.00 2.20 0.209 13:03 13:33 30.0 2.20 2.40 0.20

10 13:33 14:03 30.0 2.40 2.55 0.1511 14:03 14:33 30.0 2.55 2.75 0.2012 14:33 15:03 30.0 2.75 2.95 0.20

Sketch: Notes:

Trial No.Time Interval,

∆t (min)

Initial Depth to Water, Do

(feet)

Final Depth to Water, Df

(feet)

Change in Water Level, ∆D (feet)

0.3

Infiltration Test Data Sheet

15186-01

Boring Diameter (inches): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Boring Depth (feet)*:

LGC Geotechnical, Inc131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141

Project Name:Project Number:

Tom's Truck Center

Pit Depth (feet):

*measured at time of test

HS-1

Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)

Date:

Pit Length (feet):

11/17/2015

NoNo

Total Change in Water Level

(feet)

Start Time (24:HR)

Stop Time (24:HR)

Time Interval (min)

Initial Depth to Water (feet)

Final Depth to Water (feet)

0.2

0.4

Observed Infiltration Rate (in/hr)

0.50.3

*If two consecutive measurements show that six inches of water seeps away in less than 25 minutes, the test shall be run for an additional hour with measurements taken every 10 minutes. Otherwise, pre-soak (fill) overnight, and then obtain at least twelve measurements per hole over at least six hours (approximately 30 minute intervals) with a precision of at least 0.25 inches

0.30.30.2

Start Time (24:HR)

0.3

0.4

Trial No.

Observed Infiltration Rate (Does Not Include Any Factor of Safety) 0.2

Greater Than or Equal to 0.5 feet (yes/no)

Stop Time (24:HR)

0.30.4

Boring Number:


83


1 8:18 8:43 25.0 4.10 4.30 0.202 8:43 9:08 25.0 4.30 4.50 0.20

Main Test Data

1 9:08 9:38 30.0 4.50 4.70 0.202 9:38 10:08 30.0 4.70 4.90 0.203 10:08 10:38 30.0 3.20 3.65 0.454 10:38 11:08 30.0 3.65 3.90 0.255 11:08 11:38 30.0 3.90 4.20 0.306 11:38 12:08 30.0 3.40 3.60 0.207 12:08 12:38 30.0 3.60 3.85 0.258 12:38 13:08 30.0 3.85 4.10 0.259 13:08 13:38 30.0 3.50 3.80 0.30

10 13:38 14:08 30.0 3.80 4.05 0.2511 14:08 14:38 30.0 4.05 4.30 0.2512 14:38 15:08 30.0 3.50 3.80 0.30

Sketch: Notes:

0.2Observed Infiltration Rate (Does Not Include Any Factor of Safety) 0.1

0.10.20.20.20.20.2


0.10.10.30.20.2

NoNo


Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time

(24:HR)Time Interval,

∆t (min)


(feet)


(feet)



Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time

(24:HR)Time Interval

(min)Initial Depth to Water (feet)



(feet)


Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Date: 11/17/2015HS-3


Infiltration Test Data SheetLGC Geotechnical, Inc

131 Calle Iglesia Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 tel. (949) 369-6141

Project Name: Tom's Truck CenterProject Number: 15186-01

Boring Number:



1 8:55 9:20 25.0 4.85 5.85 1.002 9:20 9:45 25.0 5.85 6.40 0.55

Main Test Data

1 9:45 9:55 10.0 6.40 6.60 0.202 10:00 10:10 10.0 5.30 5.50 0.203 10:10 10:20 10.0 5.50 5.65 0.154 10:20 10:30 10.0 5.65 5.90 0.255 10:30 10:40 10.0 5.90 6.10 0.206 10:40 10:50 10.0 4.80 5.00 0.20789

101112

Sketch: Notes:

Observed Infiltration Rate (Does Not Include Any Factor of Safety) 0.4

0.5


0.70.50.40.70.6

YesYes


Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time


∆t (min)


(feet)


(feet)



Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time





(feet)


Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet):

Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):

Date: 11/18/2015HS-4





Boring Number:



1 8:45 9:10 25.0 3.10 3.50 0.402 9:10 9:35 25.0 3.50 3.85 0.35

Main Test Data

1 9:35 10:05 30.0 3.85 4.05 0.202 10:05 10:35 30.0 3.20 3.65 0.453 10:35 11:05 30.0 3.65 3.90 0.254 11:05 11:35 30.0 3.90 4.05 0.155 11:35 12:05 30.0 3.15 3.65 0.506 12:05 12:35 30.0 2.65 3.35 0.707 12:35 13:05 30.0 3.35 4.00 0.658 13:05 13:35 30.0 3.20 3.90 0.709 13:35 14:05 30.0 3.90 4.60 0.70

10 14:05 14:35 30.0 3.00 3.65 0.6511 14:35 15:05 30.0 3.65 4.35 0.7012 15:05 15:35 30.0 4.35 5.05 0.70

Sketch: Notes:




Date: 11/18/2015HS-7

Test pit dimensions (if rectangular)Boring Depth (feet)*: Pit Depth (feet):

Boring Diameter (inches): Pit Length (feet): Pipe Diameter (inches): Pit Breadth (feet):


Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time





(feet)


NoNo


Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time


∆t (min)


(feet)


(feet)



0.60.90.60.41.0


1.21.51.52.51.32.0

Boring Number:



1 8:23 8:48 25.0 2.60 2.70 0.102 8:48 9:13 25.0 2.70 2.75 0.05

Main Test Data

1 9:14 9:45 31.0 2.75 2.90 0.152 9:45 10:15 30.0 2.90 3.00 0.103 10:15 10:45 30.0 3.00 3.10 0.104 10:45 11:15 30.0 3.10 3.20 0.105 11:15 11:45 30.0 3.20 3.30 0.106 11:45 12:15 30.0 2.35 2.45 0.107 12:15 12:45 30.0 2.45 2.55 0.108 12:45 13:15 30.0 2.55 2.65 0.109 13:15 13:45 30.0 2.65 2.75 0.10

10 13:45 14:15 30.0 2.75 2.85 0.1011 14:15 14:45 30.0 2.85 2.95 0.1012 14:45 15:15 30.0 2.95 3.05 0.10

Sketch: Notes:




Date: 11/17/2015HS-9




Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time





(feet)


NoNo


Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time


∆t (min)


(feet)


(feet)



0.30.20.20.20.2


0.10.20.20.20.20.2

Boring Number:



1 11:20 11:45 25.0 6.40 7.50 1.102 11:45 12:10 25.0 7.50 8.00 0.50

Main Test Data

1 9:03 9:33 30.0 3.65 3.80 0.152 9:33 10:03 30.0 2.40 2.60 0.203 10:03 10:33 30.0 2.60 2.75 0.154 10:33 11:03 30.0 2.75 2.90 0.155 11:03 11:33 30.0 2.90 3.10 0.206 11:33 12:03 30.0 3.10 3.20 0.107 12:03 12:33 30.0 3.20 3.35 0.158 12:33 13:03 30.0 2.00 2.20 0.209 13:03 13:33 30.0 2.20 2.40 0.20

10 13:33 14:03 30.0 2.40 2.55 0.1511 14:03 14:33 30.0 2.55 2.75 0.2012 14:33 15:03 30.0 2.75 2.95 0.20

Sketch: Notes:




Date: 11/18/2015HS-11




Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time





(feet)


YesYes


Trial No.Start Time

(24:HR)Stop Time


∆t (min)


(feet)


(feet)



0.10.10.10.10.1


0.10.10.10.10.10.1


Appendix D Laboratory Test Results

Project No. 15186-01 D-1 January 8, 2016

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was formulated towards providing data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils with respect to residential construction. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM D2216) and dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from undisturbed or disturbed samples. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, Standard ASTM D4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch-thick by 4-inch-diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below.

Sample Location

Compacted Dry Density (pcf)

Expansion Index

Expansion Potential*

3 @ 3-5 ft 114.9 13 Very Low * ASTM D4829

Direct Shear: Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded samples, which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0.05 inch per minute (for sandy soil).

Sample Location

Description Friction Angle Peak / At ¼” Def.

Cohesion (psf) Peak / At ¼” Def.

2 @ 5 ft Brown Silty Clay 33.0/33.2 33.5/17.0

Grain Size Distribution: Representative samples were dried, weighed, and soaked in water until individual soil particles were separated (per ASTM D421) and then washed on a No. 200 sieve. The portion retained on the No. 200 sieve was dried and then sieved on a U.S. Standard brass sieve set in accordance with ASTM D422 (CTM 202). Where an appreciable amount of fines were encountered

APPENDIX C (Cont’d)

Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results


(greater than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) a hydrometer analysis was done to determine the distribution of soil particles passing the No. 200 sieve.

Sample Location Description % Passing # 200

Sieve

3 @ 8.5 ft Lean Clay w/ Sand 74

4 @ 8.5 ft Silty Sand 48

11 @ 8.5 ft Poorly Graded Sand w/ Silt 7

Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM) 422. The results are presented below.

Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm

4 @ 3-5 ft 43

Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below.

Sample Location

Sulfate Content (ppm)

Sulfate Exposure Class *

4 @ 3-5 ft 79 Negligible

*Based on ACI 318R-14, Table 19.3.1.1

Consolidation: Consolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed ring samples (Modified ASTM Test Method D2435). Samples (2.42 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height) were placed in a consolidometer and increasing loads were applied. The samples were allowed to consolidate under “double drainage” and total deformation for each loading step was recorded. The percent consolidation for each load step was recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The consolidation pressure curves are presented in this Appendix.

Sample Location Preconsolidation Pressure

(psf)

Boring B-2, R-3 @ 10’ 1,000

Boring B-2, R-4 @ 20’ 1,000

APPENDIX C (Cont’d)

Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results


R-Value: The resistance R-value was determined by the ASTM D2844 for base, subbase, and basement soils. The samples were prepared and exudation pressure and R-value were determined. The graphically determined R-values at exudation pressure of 300 psi are reported in this appendix. These results were used for pavement design purposes.

Sample Location R-Value

4 @ 3-5 ft 45

Tested By: S. Felter Date: 12/07/15Checked By: J. Ward Date: 12/15/15Depth (ft.):

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)Wt. of Container No. (g)Dry Wt. of Soil (g)Weight Soil Retained on #4 SievePercent Passing # 4

SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h

Project No.: 15186-01Boring No.:

EXPANSION INDEX of SOILSASTM D 4829

Project Name: Santa Ana

3

1000.000.00

1000.000.00

3-5Sample No.: B-1Soil Identification: Brown silty sand (SM)

Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01

100.00

MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test

Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0125Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 584.50 440.53Wt. of Mold (g) 166.40 0.00Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70Container No. O OWet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 833.30 606.93Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 768.70 552.06Wt. of Container (g) 0.00 166.40Moisture Content (%) 8.40 14.23Wet Density (pcf) 126.1 131.2Dry Density (pcf) 116.3 114.9Void Ratio 0.449 0.467Total Porosity 0.310 0.318Pore Volume (cc) 64.1 66.7Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 50.5 82.2

Date Time Pressure (psi)Elapsed Time

(min.)Dial Readings

(in.)

1012/07/15 13:01 1.0 0 0.0870

0.087012/07/15 13:11Add Distilled Water to the Specimen

12/07/15 13:22 1.0 11 0.0950

1.0

0.099512/08/15 8:04 1.0 1133 0.099512/08/15 6:30 1.0 1039

Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 13

Project Name: Santa Ana Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 12/03/15Project No.: 15186-01 Checked By: J. WardBoring No.: Sample Type: RingSample No.: Depth (ft.): 5.0Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.4151.000 1.000 1.000157.86 158.97 162.0241.51 42.11 45.17

Before Shearing198.42 198.42 198.42189.35 189.35 189.3551.07 51.07 51.070.2503 0.0000 0.00000.2471 -0.0015 -0.0177

After Shearing168.62 169.59 168.59145.08 145.06 146.9838.70 38.26 39.322.70 2.70 2.7062.43 62.43 62.43

Sample Diameter(in):

Water Density(pcf):Specific Gravity (Assumed):Weight of Container(gm):Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): FinalVertical Rdg.(in): Initial

DIRECT SHEAR TESTConsolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

Sample Thickness(in.):Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-22

Brown silty clay (CL-ML)

DS 2, R-2 @ 5

Normal Stress (kip/ft²)Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)Deformation Rate (in./min.)

Initial Sample Height (in.)Diameter (in.)Initial Moisture Content (%)Dry Density (pcf)Saturation (%)Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)Final Moisture Content (%)

91.2

1.0002.4156.56

Boring No.Sample No.Depth (ft)

2R-25

20.90.998523.0

Soil Identification: 6.5691.2

6.5690.8

0.6600.0017

2.0001.3331.3300.0017

0.5000.3620.3520.0017

1.0002.415

1.0002.415

1.0000.676

20.71.003222.1

Santa AnaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

20.90.982320.1

12-15

Project No.: 15186-01

Sample Type:

Ring


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

She

ar S

tres

s (k

sf)

Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

She

ar S

tres

s (k

sf)

Normal Stress (ksf)

DS 2, R-2 @ 5

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) (o) Saturation (%)

Peak 33.5 33.0 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)Ultimate 17.0 33.2 Final Moisture Content (%)

12-15


20.71.0032

1.000

22.1

Santa AnaDIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS

Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

0.5000.3620.3520.0017

6.5690.8

2.415Soil Identification:

0.9823

6.56

20.1

1.0002.415

0.998523.0

91.2

1.0002.415

20.9

6.5691.2

0.0017

2.0001.3331.3300.0017

20.9

1.000


Boring No.Sample No.Depth (ft)

2R-25

0.6760.660

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

She

ar S

tres

s (k

sf)

Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

She

ar S

tres

s (k

sf)

Normal Stress (ksf)

DS 2, R-2 @ 5

3 4 11

R-1 R-1 R-1

8.5 8.5 8.5

Ring Ring Ring

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

827.1 806.2 952.3

247.2 252.4 235.6

579.9 553.8 716.7

B B B

400.6 540.6 900.6

247.2 252.4 235.6

153.4 288.2 665.0

73.5 48.0 7.226.5 52.0 92.8

Project Name: Santa Ana


Client Name: LGC Geotechnical, Inc.

Tested By: S. Felter Date: 12/09/15

Brown silty sand (SM)

Brown poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-

SM)

Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft.)

Sample Type

PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE ASTM D 1140

Weight of Sample + Container (g)

Method (A or B)

Weight of Container (g)

Weight of Dry Sample (g)

% Passing No. 200 Sieve% Retained No. 200 Sieve

After Wash

Dry Weight of Sample (g)

Dry Weight of Sample + Cont. (g)


Container No.:

Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)

Sample Dry Weight Determination

Brown lean clay with sand

(CL)s


Moisture Content (%)

Soil Identification

Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)

Moisture Correction

-200 3, R-1; 4, R-1; 11, R-1

Project Name: Santa Ana Tested By : G. Berdy Date: 12/07/15

Project No. : 15186-01 Data Input By: J. Ward Date: 12/14/15

Boring No. 4

Sample No. B-1

Sample Depth (ft) 3-5

225.03

214.47

57.35

6.72

100.05

14

18

880

10:30/11:10

40

19.7446

19.7428

0.0018

74.07

79

ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15

ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.4

PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 40

PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 43

N/A

TESTS for SULFATE CONTENTCHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS

SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II

Soil Identification:


Temperature °C

pH Value

pH TEST, DOT California Test 643

CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422

Time In / Time Out

Weight of Soaked Soil (g)

Olive brown SM, trace

asphalt noted

Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)

Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)

Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)


Duration of Combustion (min)

Beaker No.

Crucible No.

Furnace Temperature (°C)

PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150

PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis

Wt. of Crucible (g)

Wt. of Residue (g) (A)

Project Name: Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 12/03/15Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 12/14/15Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type: RingSoil Identification:

2.4151.000165.5345.270.9094

167.88161.8138.994.995.317

0.3140

232.63207.3250.4522.68102.1

940.21912.7062.43

0.10 0.3136 0.9996 0.00 0.04 0.768 0.040.25 0.3116 0.9976 0.04 0.25 0.765 0.210.50 0.3086 0.9946 0.11 0.54 0.761 0.431.00 0.3055 0.9915 0.23 0.86 0.758 0.631.00 0.3048 0.9908 0.23 0.92 0.756 0.692.00 0.2978 0.9838 0.38 1.62 0.747 1.244.00 0.2768 0.9628 0.57 3.73 0.713 3.168.00 0.2409 0.9269 0.79 7.31 0.653 6.5216.00 0.2001 0.8861 1.06 11.39 0.586 10.334.00 0.2062 0.8922 0.75 10.78 0.591 10.031.00 0.2151 0.9011 0.51 9.90 0.603 9.390.50 0.2191 0.9051 0.43 9.49 0.608 9.06

Pressure (p)

(ksf)

Final Reading

(in.)

Apparent Thickness

(in.)

Load Compliance

(%)

Deformation % of

Sample Thickness

Void Ratio

Corrected Deforma-tion (%)

No Time Readings

Date TimeElapsed

Time (min)Square Root

of TimeDial Rdgs.

(in.)

Sample Diameter (in.) Sample Thickness (in.) Wt. of Sample + Ring (g) Weight of Ring (g)

After Test

Height after consol. (in.)

Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g) Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g)

Before Test

Initial Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Saturation (%) Initial Vertical Reading (in.)

Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g) Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Final Moisture Content (%)

Water Density (pcf)

Final Dry Density (pcf) Final Saturation (%) Final Vertical Reading (in.) Specific Gravity (assumed)

Santa Ana

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATIONPROPERTIES of SOILS

ASTM D 2435

Dark yellowish brown silty sand (SM)

10.0R-3

15186-012

0.580

0.600

0.620

0.640

0.660

0.680

0.700

0.720

0.740

0.760

0.780

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Vo

id R

ati

o

Pressure, p (ksf)

Inundate with Tap water

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final

No Time Readings

0.608 17 9495.3

Degree of Saturation (%)Dry Density (pcf)

0.769

Void Ratio

10.0 4.9

Soil Identification: Dark yellowish brown silty sand (SM)

Project No.:

Santa Ana

12-15

15186-01

Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft.)


ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS

ASTM D 2435

22.7 102.12 R-3

0.2920

0.3420

0.3920

0.4420

0.4920

0.5420

0.5920

0.1 1.0

Def

orm

atio

n D

ial R

eadi

ng (

in.)

Log of Time (min.)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.000.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

Def

orm

atio

n (%

)

Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

0.4500

0.5000

0.5500

0.0 10.0

Square Root of Time (min.1/2)


Project Name: Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 12/03/15Project No.: Checked By: J. Ward Date: 12/14/15Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type: RingSoil Identification:

2.4151.000189.4845.330.9526

287.86256.6438.8214.3104.9

640.3322

232.12209.2738.2518.18109.7

920.28092.7062.43

0.10 0.3316 0.9995 0.00 0.06 0.607 0.060.25 0.3292 0.9971 0.02 0.30 0.603 0.280.50 0.3238 0.9917 0.07 0.84 0.595 0.771.00 0.3205 0.9884 0.17 1.16 0.592 0.991.00 0.3218 0.9897 0.17 1.04 0.594 0.872.00 0.3190 0.9869 0.27 1.32 0.591 1.054.00 0.3099 0.9778 0.42 2.23 0.579 1.818.00 0.2935 0.9614 0.59 3.87 0.555 3.2816.00 0.2618 0.9297 0.78 7.04 0.507 6.264.00 0.2679 0.9357 0.57 6.43 0.513 5.861.00 0.2769 0.9448 0.43 5.53 0.526 5.100.50 0.2809 0.9488 0.38 5.13 0.531 4.75

Pressure (p)

(ksf)

Final Reading

(in.)

Apparent Thickness

(in.)

Load Compliance

(%)

Deformation % of

Sample Thickness

Void Ratio

Corrected Deforma-tion (%)

No Time Readings

Date TimeElapsed

Time (min)Square Root

of TimeDial Rdgs.

(in.)

Sample Diameter (in.) Sample Thickness (in.) Wt. of Sample + Ring (g) Weight of Ring (g)

After Test

Height after consol. (in.)

Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g) Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g)

Before Test

Initial Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Saturation (%) Initial Vertical Reading (in.)

Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g) Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Final Moisture Content (%)

Water Density (pcf)

Final Dry Density (pcf) Final Saturation (%) Final Vertical Reading (in.) Specific Gravity (assumed)

Santa Ana

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATIONPROPERTIES of SOILS

ASTM D 2435

Yellowish brown lean clay (CL)

20.0R-4

15186-012

0.500

0.520

0.540

0.560

0.580

0.600

0.620

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Vo

id R

ati

o

Pressure, p (ksf)


Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final

No Time Readings

0.531 64 92104.9

Degree of Saturation (%)Dry Density (pcf)

0.608

Void Ratio

20.0 14.3

Soil Identification: Yellowish brown lean clay (CL)

Project No.:

Santa Ana

12-15

15186-01

Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft.)


ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROPERTIES of SOILS

ASTM D 2435

18.2 109.72 R-4

0.2920

0.3420

0.3920

0.4420

0.4920

0.5420

0.5920

0.1 1.0

Def

orm

atio

n D

ial R

eadi

ng (

in.)

Log of Time (min.)

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.000.10 1.00 10.00 100.00

Def

orm

atio

n (%

)

Pressure, p (ksf)

0.0000

0.0500

0.1000

0.1500

0.2000

0.2500

0.3000

0.3500

0.4000

0.4500

0.5000

0.5500

0.0 10.0

Square Root of Time (min.1/2)


R-VALUE TEST RESULTSDOT CA Test 301

PROJECT NAME: Santa Ana PROJECT NUMBER: 15186-01

BORING NUMBER: 4 DEPTH (FT.): 3-5

SAMPLE NUMBER: B-1 TECHNICIAN: S. Felter

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown silty sand, trace asphalt noted DATE COMPLETED: 12/4/2015

TEST SPECIMEN a b c

MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 10.0 10.4 11.3

HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.49 2.46 2.43

DRY DENSITY, pcf 128.3 126.3 127.4

COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 225 175 75

EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 454 320 170

EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 22 10 0

STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 47 62 84

TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.57 4.46 4.22

R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 57 47 35

R-VALUE CORRECTED 57 47 33

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. 0.69 0.85 1.07

EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.73 0.33 0.00

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART

R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 56

R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 45

EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 45

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

VE

R T

HIC

KN

ES

S B

Y S

TA

BIL

OM

ET

ER

in f

ee

t

COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0100200300400500600700800

R-V

ALU

E

EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)

Appendix E General Earthwork & Grading Specifications

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading

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 a qualified Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultant 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. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to confirm that the attained level of compaction is being accomplished as specified. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.

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 project 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 “equipment” of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading Page 1

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 personnel will be available for observation and testing. 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. It is the contractor’s sole responsibility to provide proper fill compaction.

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). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. 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. The contractor is responsible for all hazardous waste relating to his work. The Geotechnical Consultant does not have expertise in this area. If hazardous waste is a concern, then the Client should acquire the services of a qualified environmental assessor.

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 over-excavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of oversize material and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.


2.3 Over-excavation

In addition to removals and over-excavations 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 over-excavated 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. Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. 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 over-excavated 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 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 the geotechnical consultant. 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.

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.

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, and the Standard Details. 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 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done 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 maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical

Consultant. 7.4 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. 7.5 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.

PLACE CONCRETE 611

BELOW FINISH GRADE

PLACE CONTINUOUS ROW OF SAND BAGS AROUND MONUMENT

CONCRETE BACKFILL--I-.__

4'

NO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT WITHIN 25 FEET OF ANY INSTALLED SETTLEMENT MONUMENTS

~t:QEA TE PRECISE LOCATION FOR SURVEY READING (IN[)ENT OR SMOOTHED TOP)

FILL WITH ONSITE SOIL TO DRAIN AWAY FROM MONUMENT, SOIL

TO BE LIGH'Tl Y TAMPE[)

LGC Geotechnical, Inc.

TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT

cjaeger

Typewritten Text

Revised 11/15

cjaeger

Typewritten Text

Documents

131 Calle Iglesia, Suite 200, San Clemente, CA 92672 (949 ... · This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed mixed-use development of Tom’s