Murrieta City Council
May 20, 2025

APPENDIX E
'
Kd
,E/>
yW>KZd/KE^dhz

UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD & JEFFERSON

AVENUE, MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA

Prepared For LENNAR MULTIFAMILY

COMMUNITIES, LLC
95 ENTERPRISE, SUITE 200
ALISO VIEJO, CA 92656
Prepared By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
41715 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE N SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CA 92590
Project Number 13343.004
April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022
Project No. 13343-004
Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC
95 Enterprise, Suite 200
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Attention: Mr. Alec Chaseman Development Manager
Subject: Update Geotechnical Exploration
Multi-Family
Residential Development: APN 910-410-011
Murrieta Hot Springs Road & Jefferson Avenue
C
ity of Murrieta, California
I
n accordance with your request and authorization, we are pleased to provide herein the results of our update geotechnical explorat ion for the subject site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the onsite subsurface conditions and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for site development in view of the proposed grading plan.

Based on the results of our exploration, it is our opinion that the subject site is generally suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during design and construction. As discussed further in this report, t he major geotechnical concern on this site is the presence of shallow groundwater and compressible soil layers that underlie the majority of the site.

The oppor
tunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office.

R
espectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

M
itchel S. Bornyasz, CEG 2416
Project Geologist
Ext 8925 [email protected]
Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641
Senior Principal Engineer
Ext 8013, [email protected]
Joe Roe, CEG 2456
Senior Principal Geologist
Ext 4263, [email protected]
D
istribution: (1) Addressee (PDF via email)
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXEC UTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 I NTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK ......................................................................... 2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ....................................................................... 2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS ................................................................................. 3 F IELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................................... 5 FIELD EXPLORATION ........................................................................................... 5 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................... 5 GE OLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 6 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .......................................................................................... 6 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS ........................................................................................ 6 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER ............................................................................ 7 INFILTRATION ..................................................................................................... 7 FAULTING .......................................................................................................... 7 GROUND SHAKING AND SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS .................................................... 8 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS .......................................................................... 9

4.7.1 Li
quefaction ........................................................................................................ 9

4.7.2 Lateral Spreading Potential ................................................................................ 9

4.7.3 Ground Rupture .................................................................................................. 9

4.7.4 Flooding .............................................................................................................. 9 P RELIMINARY RECOMMEN DATIONS ............................................................................ 10 GENERAL......................................................................................................... 10 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 10

5.2.1 S
ite Preparation and Removal .......................................................................... 10

5.2.3Import Soils ......................................................................................................... 12

5.2.4Trench Excavations and Backfill ......................................................................... 12

5.2.5Shrinkage and Bulking ........................................................................................ 12 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 12

5.3.1 G
eneral ............................................................................................................. 12

5.3.2 Foundation Design Criteria ............................................................................... 13 SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................... 14

5.4.1 S
tatic Settlement .............................................................................................. 14

5.4.2 Dynamic Settlement ......................................................................................... 14 FOOTING SETBACK ........................................................................................... 14 SULFATE ATTACK ............................................................................................. 15 CONCRETE FLATWORK ..................................................................................... 15 Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

ii
SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL ............................................................ 15 SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................................................. 15 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ...................................................................... 16 RETAINING WALLS ............................................................................................ 17 GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ............................................................................................... 19 PLAN REVIEW .................................................................................................. 19 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ..................................................... 19 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 20 R
EFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF FIGURES (END OF TEXT)

Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Boring Location Plan
Figure 3 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 4 – Regional Geology Map

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. 2019 CBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS PER USGS GENERAL PROCEDURE ........... 8 TABLE 2. PRELIMINARY ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTIONS ................................................. 16 TABLE 3. RETAINING WALL DESIGN EARTH PRESSURES (STATIC, DRAINED) ............... 17

LIST

OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Field Boring Logs (this and previous studies) Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Results (this and previous studies) Appendix C – Slope Stability and Settlement Analyses
Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E – GBA Important Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the results of this update geotechnical exploration, the proposed development of the subject property appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the preliminary recommendations included in this report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. The main geotechnical/geologic concern associated with this parcel is the presence of compressible and/or liquefiable layers which can induce excessive differential settlement if subjected to additional loads or seismic shaking. The following is a summary of the geotechnical concerns and/or opportunities that exist on this site:
 The site is underlain by alluvial deposits and weathered Pauba Formation to the maximum depth explored. Groundwater has been encountered at a depth of 4.5 feet to 6.5 feet below existing ground surface within the low lying portions of the site.  Remedial grading (over -excavation) will be required to reduce the anticipated excessive differential settlement. However, due to the presence of shallow groundwater and in view of the proposed site developm ent, the depth of over - excavation should be limited to 4 feet below existing ground surface or 3 feet below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper.
 The western portion of the site (~ 350 to 400 feet) lies within a designated A lquist- Priolo (AP) and Riverside County Fault Hazard Zone. However, according to a site- specific fault investigation performed within this zone (Leighton, 1980), no evidence for faults were found to exist within the site or fault zone area. No fault related structural setbacks are recommended.
 Based on the proposed site grading and anticipated building loads, consolidation induced settlement of up to 2. 8 inches is estimated to occur over a period of 16 month. Approximately 50 percent of this settlement will occur within 4 months of applied load.
 Liquefaction-induced settlement is estimated to range up to 3.3 inches. However, due to the depth of the liquefiable layers and presence of cohesive/clay layers at shallow depth, settlement is estimated to be relatively global. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed 1-inch in a 30-foot horizontal distance.  Typical 2- to 3-story multi-family residential and/or retail commercial structures may be founded on conventional shallow spread or continuous wall footings based on a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds-per-square-foot.  The site, like much of the Murrieta area, could be subjected to relatively strong shaking due to earthquakes on active faults in the region. Thus, the potential for relatively high seismic forces should be considered in the design of the proposed buildings.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

2 INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope of Work
The purpose of this update geotechnical exploration is to further evaluate the overall geotechnical/geologic conditions and the potential for settlement on this site in view of the new proposed site pl an. In addition, this report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and remedial grading. As such, this report is a stand-alone document and supersedes the previous reports referenced herein. Our scope of services for this update geotechnical evaluation included the following:

 Review of published geologic hazard maps for this area including site-s pecific geotechnical reports as listed in the references at the end of this report;  Site reconnaissance to observe and document the current surface conditions; During this task, we marked the proposed exploration locations and notified DigAlert for utility clearance,
 Drilled six (6) hollow-stem auger soil borings at select locations across the site. The borings were drilled to target depths ranging from 21 to 31 feet below ground surface (bgs) and were logged by a geologist from our office . Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected at specified intervals of approximately 2½ to 5 feet to the proposed target depth. Samples were then transported to our laboratory for testing. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings to the ground surface,  Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to determine in-situ moisture and density, soil classification, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, Atterberg limits, consolidation, and R-value;
 Engineering evaluation and analysis including: general subsurface soil characterization (thickness of various subsurface soil strata and their classification), settlement, time rate of consolidation, liquefaction, slope stability analysis , geotechnical seismic design parameters; and
 Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations regarding the development of this site as described herein.

Site Location and Description
The vacant 18-acre parcel (APN 910-410-011) is located at the southeast corner of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue, City of Murrieta, California ,see Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site is relatively flat and appears to have been partially graded during previous site work or grading activities associated with the construction of adjacent roads.

At the time of our field exploration, the site was covered with native grasses/weeds and Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

3 brush. The adjacent Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue appear to be improved to their maximum width with existing curbs along the frontage of the parcel. The existing drainage dissecting the parcel in a southerly direction appears to be concrete lined near Jefferson Avenue, just outside the southern boundary of the site.

Proposed Development
Review of the preliminary grading plans (Option 2) provided by Kimley-Horn (December 6, 2021), indicate nineteen (19) buildings consisting of two- to three-story residential apartment buildings, rental offices, and associated facilities. The preliminary grading plans depict conventional cut and fill grading with a net import of approximately 13,200 cubic yards to construct the design building pad elevations. The Option 2 grading plan also depicts 10 to 15 feet high retaining walls bordering the western edges along Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Jefferson Avenue. Site plan reflects minor cut and fill grading (±2 feet) for proposed building pads. Structural loads for the proposed wood-frame buildings are expected to be typical and not exceed 125 kips for column loads and 7.5 kips/ft for continuous wall footings.

If site development significantly differs from the above assumptions and the plans referenced herein, the recommendations included in this report should be subject to further review and evaluation.

Previous Investigations
Based on our in- house data, four site-specific geologic/geotechnical investigations were reviewed for this site.
 The first investigation was a geologic study performed for Riverside County Parcel 15420 by Leighton, in 1980 to evaluate whether or not the Wildomar fault underlies the site. As shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map/Boring Location Plan, the exploratory trench (T-1) extended 350 into the subject parcel and slightly beyond the limits of the designated AP fault zone. The results of this investigation indicate that the mapped Wildomar fault does not exist within the limits of this property and no building restrictions or setbacks are necessary for site development.  The second site- specific geotechnical investigation (LGC, 2004) was performed to explore the subsurface soils conditions and included four (4) geotechnical borings (B- 1 through B-4). The results of LGC’s study indicated the presence of compressible and liquefiable layers underlying the site and thus the recommendations required the removal of the upper 7 to 10 feet of surficial soils. Groundwater was encountered during drilling at a depth a depth of 7.5 to 10 feet below existing ground surface.  A third investigation of this property consisted of an Updated Geotechnical Exploration performed by Leighton in 2011 and consisted of advancing five (5) geotechnical borings (LB-1 through LB-5) to verify and amend the previous findings as applicable.

Results of this update study confirmed the presence of groundwater at shallower Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

4 depths than encountered in 2004 by LGC and potentially liquefiable soils. However, recommended remedial grading was limited to 3 feet below existing ground surface in view of the proposed placement of 5 to 8 feet of import fill across the site at that time.

A consolidation settlement in the underlying compressible silt and clay layers on the order of 2 to 4 inches was estimated. This settlement was expected to occur over a period of 6 to 18 months . Settlement monitoring during grading is recommended to confirm the estimates of time rate consolidation.
 In December of 2021 Leighton provided Due -Diligence level (desktop) review of the site for Lennar Multifamily Communities wherein Leighton reviewed the previous reports and provided recommendations for an additional investigation based on current land improvement plans.

Boring and fault trench logs from the previous studies are included in Appendix A, Exploration Data. Laboratory tests data is included in Appendix B, Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

5 FIELD EXPLORATION AN D LABORATORY

TESTING
Field Exploration
On March 8th, 2022, we conducted a subsurface field exploration of the subject site using a CME 75, truck -mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig. Site exploration consisted of the excavation, sampling and logging of six (6) exploratory borings. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from a depth of 21.5 to 31.5 feet below existing ground surface.

Approximate locations of the borings are depicted on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 2).

The borings were loosely backfilled after drilling with the excavated cuttings.

The exploratory borings were sampled utilizing a 140- pound automatic safety hammer dropping 30-inches. During the drilling operation, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings for laboratory testing and evaluation. The relativ ely undisturbed samples were obtained utilizing a modified California drive sampler (2⅜-inch inside diameter and 3-inch outside diameter) driven 18-inches (where possible), in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. Sampling and logging of the exp loratory borings were performed by a Geologist from our office. Soil materials were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System and further characterized in the laboratory.

Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk samples to provide a basis for development of remedial earthwork and geotechnical design parameters. Selected samples were tested to determine the following parameters: in- situ moisture content, Atterberg limits, maximum dry density and optimum moisture, expansion index, R-value, soluble sulfate content, and consolidation test. The results of our laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

6 GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS
Regional Geology
The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This northwest -trending geomorphic region is characterized, by steep, elongated mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The most common rock types found in the Peninsular Ranges consist of early Cretaceous age (140 to 105 million- year old) formations including the metasedimentary Bedford Canyon Formation and Santiago Peak Volcanics. These formations were intruded by granodiorite, quartz monzonite and other granitics of the Southern California Batholith during the Cretaceous period (Kennedy, 1977).

More specifically, the subject property is located along the eastern edge of the fault controlled, down dropped graben of Temecula Valley where it forms the southern end of the Elsinore Trough (Mann, 1955; Kennedy, 1977). The active Wildomar segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone forms a part of the eastern margin of the graben in this area and the Willard segment of the fault zone extends along the western margin of the trough to the west of the site. The Elsinore Fault Zone extends from the San Gabriel River Valley southeasterly towards, and then beyond the United States-Mexico border.

The Santa Ana Mountains lie along the western side of the Elsinore Fault Zone and the Perris Block is located along the northeastern side of the fault zone. The mountain ranges nearest to the site are comprised predominantly of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the Southern California batholith.

Tertiary aged sediments, different volcanic rock types and Quaternary aged sediments and sedimentary rocks flank the igneous, or other crystalline basement rocks within these mountain ranges. The Tertiary and Quaternary rocks are generally comprised of non- marine sediments consisting of sandstones, mudstones, conglomerates, and localized volcanic units. Alluvial deposits (recent and older Pleistocene-aged) and Pleistocene age Pauba Formation sedimentary materials fill in the lower valley and drainage areas.

Site Geologic Units
Based on the results of this and previous studies, the site is underlain by alluvial deposits and weathered Pauba formation to the depth explored. Although not encountered in our borings, some portions of the site along the existing roads may be covered with a thin layer of artificial fill due to past grading activities associated with the existing street improvements.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

7 Our field exploration and laboratory testing results indicate that the alluvial deposits and/or weathered Pauba formation beneath portions of this site include layers of relatively loose and compressible soils. These soils can undergo significant settlement if subjected to higher loading conditions or seismic shaki ng. Based on the field and laboratory testing performed during this and previous studies , the pertinent engineering properties for the underlying loose/soft silt and clay deposits can be summarized as follows:

 A coefficient of compressibility (Cc) ranging from 0.06 to 0.12 was estimated based on applied loads of less than 2.5 ksf. A higher Cc should be considered for higher loads.
 A coefficient of consolidation (Cv) ranging from 0.08 to 0.16 square-ft/day was measured for the encountered sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay layers.  Expansion Index (EI) is expected to vary from very low (EI<21) for sandy soils to low (EI<51) for the surficial silt and clay layers.

Surface and Groundwater
Surface water was not encountered within the site boundaries during our field exploration, except for the existing creek channel that had storm water ponding in some areas .

Groundwater was encountered at a depth s of 5.7 to 8.8 feet in our current phase of exploration borings. However, previous borings drilled on this site document groundwater as shallow as 4.5 feet below ground surface (Leighton, 2011) . Thus, groundwater is anticipated to be a construction challenge (saturated subgrade instability) during site development if proposed site grading or site utilities extend below groundwater levels.

Infiltration
Due to shallow groundwater (4 to 8 feet bgs) and high silt/clay content in near surface soils, onsite infiltration of storm water is not considered feasible. Current County design guidelines, groundwater should be deeper than 10 feet below bottom of drainage facility (Riverside County, 2011).

Faulting
Murrieta, like the rest of Southern California, is located within a seismically active region located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates.

The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest -trending regional faults such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore fault zones. These fault systems produce approximately 55 millimeters per year of slip between the plates.

The Elsinore fault zone comprised of the Willard Fault and the Wildomar Fault, are estimated to accommodate 10 to 15 percent of the plate boundary slip (WGCEP, 1995).

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

8 The location of the site in relationship to postulated faults in the subject area is depicted on Figure 3, Fault Map. Per published geologic hazards maps, the State Alquist -Priolo (AP) and Riverside County Fault Zones extend into the property for approximately 350 feet (see Figure 2). As previously discussed in this report, fault trench T- 1 (Leighton, 1980) extended 350 into the subject parcel or slightly beyond the limits of the designated AP/County Fault Zones. Based on our review, the postulated mapped Wildomar fault as previously inferr ed (Kennedy, 1977) does not exist within the limits of this property.

Furthermore, trenching conducted during fault hazard investigations for the surrounding and adjacent properties (GeoSoils, 1989; Leighton, 1989; & Soil Tech, 1987) concluded that the previously inferred fault trace as mapped by Kennedy (1977) adjacent to the site does not exist. Based on these findings, the potential for surface rupture is considered very low and building restrictions or setbacks are not necessary for site development Ground Shaking and Seismic Coefficients
Strong ground shaking can be expected at the site during moderate to severe earthquakes in this general region. This is common to virtually all of Southern California.

Intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon earthquake magnitude, site distance from the source, and site response (soil type) characteristics.

Based on the previous explorations, the site is underlain by shallow soft alluvial materials and highly weathered Pauba formation at depth. As such, the site is classified as a Class D site, and in accordance with ASCE 7-16 as the Design Code Reference Document, the 2019 CBC seismic coefficients are listed in table below. These seismic coefficients are generated based on interactive tools/programs currently available on USGS website and/or OSHPD seismic maps.

Table 1. 2019 CBC Seismic Coefficients per USGS General Procedure CBC Categorization/Coefficient Value1
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.1971°
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.5503°
Site Class Definition D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.63 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.61 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.63 g Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 1.04g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 1.09 g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 0.69g Site-Specific Modified Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAm 0.80 g Note: The seismic coefficients for Site Class D follows Exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 that assumes a fundamental period of vibration less than 0.5s for the proposed structures. The project structural engineer should confirm such assumption or else a site–specific ground motion analysis will be required g = Gravity acceleration
Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

9 Secondary Seismic Hazards
Secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking during an earthquake include shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, and flooding. These hazards are discussed in the following sections.

4.7.1 Liquefaction
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils below a near-surface groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey material is not adversely affected by vibratory motion.

When loose to medium dense, saturated granular deposits are subjected to strong seismic shaking of significant duration without substantial dissipation of excess pore water pressure, then soil deposits may liquefy (i.e., behave like a liquid) and lose bearing strength.

Based on our analysis of the subsurface exploration data and laboratory test results, there is a potential for liquefaction in relatively loose silt and sand layers at depth greater than 10 BGS. The total seismically induced settlement in the upper 50 feet is estimated to range up to 3.3 inches where shallow groundwater exists. However, due to the depth of the liquefiable layers and presence of cohesive/clay layers at shallow depth (upper 10 feet), differential settlement is estimated to be relatively global and on the order of 1 inch or less over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

4.7.2 Lateral Spreading Potential
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground. Due to relatively flat terrain, fine and cohesive nature of the shallow layers (upper 10 to 15 feet), it is our opinion that the potential for lateral spreading is low.

4.7.3 Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre- existing active faults. Based on the results of the previous Leighton fault trench investigation, the potential for ground rupture within this site is considered low.

4.7.4 Flooding
Risk of flooding on this site is not within the scope of this study. However, a moderate drainage course traverses the eastern margin of the property from the north. The design civil engineer should consider potential impacts of this drainage or flooding on the site development.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

10 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the site’s development . The main geotechnical concern associated with site development is the presence of potentially shallow groundwater and compressible alluvium in upper 5 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). If subjected to additional loads from proposed building, the underlying alluvium may settle up 2.8 inches that is estimated to occur over a period of 16 month.

Earthwork Considerations
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix D as well as the following recommendations. The recommendations contained in Appendix D are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. The specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede the general recommendations in Appendix D.

The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix D, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.

5.2.1 Site Preparation and Removal
Prior to grading, the proposed structural improvement areas (i.e. all -structural fill areas, pavement areas, buildings, etc.) of the site should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and organic material. Heavy vegetation, roots, and debris should be disposed of offsite. Voids created by removal of buried material should be backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report.

To reduce the potential for adverse differential settlement , we recommend that onsite soils be over-excavated and recompacted to a depth of 4 feet below existing grades or 3 feet below bottom of footings, whichever is deeper. Local conditions may require deeper over -excavation. Such areas should be evaluated by Leighton during grading and depth of removal should not encroach to within 2 feet of groundwater that is expected to be as shallow as 5.7 feet below existing ground surface in some areas . Grading contractor should confirm the depth to Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

11 groundwater with local test pit explorations at the time of earthwork cost estimating and grading.

After completion of the recommended r emoval/over-excavation and prior to placing additional fill, the approved surface should be scarified a minimum of 8 inches, moisture conditioned or dried out and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. The limits of subgrade instability will be determined during site grading based on field observations by the engineering geologist or field technician. The means -and- method of subgrade stabilization may vary and it is the contractor’s responsibility to achieve a non- yielding subgrade prior to fill placement. In areas w here subgrade instability occurs, subgrade stabilization by mechanical modification may be necessary if scarification, aeration and recompaction is not feasible.

Mechanical methods consist of placement of coarse crushed aggregate, perhaps in conjunction with a geogrid or geotextile fabric as further described below.

Rock Stabilization: Subgrade stabilization in this method consists of placing 2- to 3-inch (nominal diameter) crushed rock in lifts and compacting each lift of the aggregate into the subgrade to improve stability. Rock should be mechanically compacted under the weight of the equipment to push the rock into the underlying soils. Vibratory equipment should not be used to work in the rock blanket as the vibrations may aggravate locally soft saturated clays causing pumping conditions to expand laterally and destabilize the subgrade further.

Depending upon the degree of subgrade instability, the initial lift may completely penetrate the subgrade, and additional lifts will be necessary. The quantity of material may be reduced if a geogrid or geotextile fabric is used to provide additional reinforcement effect after the pla cement of the initial lift. Geogrid or geotextile reinforcement should be placed with a minimum 3 feet of overlap between adjacent panels extending a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the footprint on all sides.

5.2.2 Structural Fills
The onsite soils are generally suitable for re-use as compacted fill, provided they are free of debris and organic matter. Fills placed within 10 vertical feet of finish pad grades or slope faces should contain no rocks over 12 inches in maximum dimension.

Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of Leighton. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) and at near or above optimum moisture content.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

12 5.2.3Import Soils
Import soils and borrow sites (if needed) should be evaluated by Leighton prior to importation. Import soils should be granular in nature, free of organic material, and have a low expansion potential, a minimum R-value of 35, and a low corrosion impact to the proposed improvements.

5.2.4Trench Excavations and Backfill
The onsite soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided they are free of rocks over 3 inches in diameter (or per governing agency requirements) and free of organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method D1557).

Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and all applicable OSHA requirements. The contractor should be responsible for providing the "competent person" required by OSHA standards. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils could make excavations particularly unsafe, even and necessary safety precautions should be taken. G roundwater and/or saturated soils may be encountered during excavations and construction of underground ut ilities, if to be installed a depth greater than 5 feet BGS.

5.2.5Shrinkage and Bulking
The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with materials, density, insitu moisture content, location, and compaction effort. The in-place and compacted densities of soil materials vary and accurate overall determination of shrinkage and bulking cannot be made. Therefore, we recommend site grading include, if possible, a balance area or ability to adjust import quantities to accommodate some variation.

Based on our experience with similar materials and the laboratory data, we anticipate shrinkage of approximately 5 to 15 percent in the onsite surficial soils.

A subsidence value of 0.3 should be used to account for potential settlement in underlying materials.

Foundation Recommendations

5.3.1 General
Our recommendations below are provided as minimum and do not supersede local or State ordinances or C odes, the requirements of the project structural engineer or the 2019 CBC. Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed to confirm foundation design parameters as provided below.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

13 5.3.2 Foundation Design Criteria
Based on our preliminary analysis, the proposed structures may be founded on a conventional foundation system in accordance with the design criteria provided below. The proposed foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with the structural consultants’ design, the geotechnical recommendations presented herein, and the 2019 CBC. In utilizing the minimum geotechnical foundation recommendations, the structural consultant should design the foundation system to the acceptable deflection criteria as determined by the structural engineer and/or architect.

Foundation footings for the proposed buildings may be designed in accordance with the following parameters:

 A net allowable bearing capacity of 2, 400 pounds per square foot (psf), or a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci may be used for design of footings founded entirely into compacted fill. The footings should extend a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. A minimum base width of 18 inches for continuous footings and a minimum bearing area of 3 square feet (1.75 ft by 1.75 ft) for pad foundations should be used. Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short -term live loads (e.g. seismic and wind).
 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of

0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third
It should be noted that the above recommendation is based on soil support characteristics only. The footing width, depth, reinforcement, slab reinforcement, and the slab- on-grade thickness should be designed by the structural consultant based on recommendations and soil characteristics indicated herein and the most recently adopted edition of the CBC.

A moisture retarder should be installed underneath all slabs where moisture condensation is undesirable. The vapor retarder should be properly installed in accordance with the recommendations of the architect, concrete subcontractor, and the manufacturer’s recommendations. Moisture vapor retarders may retard but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs.

Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives. A slipsheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc.) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

14 Settlement Considerations
The project civil engineer, structural engineer, and architect should consider the potential effects of both static settlement and dynamic settlement presented below.

5.4.1 Static Settlement
Due to presence of potentially compressible alluvium at shallow depth (~5’ to 15’ BGS), long-term consolidation settlement will occur and expected to generally take place within 16 months of applied loads. This consolidation settlement is estimated to be on the order of 2.8 inches in some areas. Fifty percent of this consolidation settlement will generally occur within four month period of applied load. As such, differential static settlement of 1 inch over a 30- foot span should be considered for design purposes.

5.4.2 Dynamic Settlement
Based on our analysis we estimate that total dynamic settlement may be on the order of 3 .3 i nches. However, due to the depth of the liquefiable layers and presence of cohesive/clay layers at shallow depth and proposed compacted fill cap, this settlement is estimated to be relatively global and on the order of 1-inch over a horizontal distance of 3 0 feet. This post mas s-grading total/ differential settlement is expected to decrease if the underlying materials are allowed t o consolidate under the proposed loading. The project civil, structural engineer and architect should consider the potential combined effects of both static and dynamic settlement as presented in this report. If the above settlements are considered excessive for building design, other methods of ground improvements should be considered such as deeper removal or surcharging.

Footing Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings (retaining and decorative walls, building footings, etc.). This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2 (or as required by the CBC), where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet and need not be greater than 15 feet.

The soils within the structural setback area may possess poor lateral stability and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement.

Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade- beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

15 Sulfate Attack
The results of the laboratory testing on representative soils samples indicate negligible exposure to concrete per ACI 318. Further testing should be performed at the completion of site grading to confirm soluble-sulfate content of finish subgrade soils.

Concrete Flatwork
Sidewalk/Flatwork should conform to City of Murrieta standards. A representative of Leighton should verify subgrade soil expansion, moisture conditions and compaction prior to formwork and reinforcement placement. If subgrade soils possess expansion index greater than 21, we recommend a minimum 8-inch deepened edge be constructed for all flatwork to reduce moisture variation in subgrade soils along concrete edges adjacent to open (unfinished) or irrigated landscape areas.

Concrete flatwork should be constructed of uniformly cured, low -slump concrete and should contain sufficient control/contraction joints. Additional provisions such as ascending/descending slope conditions, perched (irrigation) water, special surcharge loading conditions, potential expansive soil pressure and differential settlement/heave should be incorporated into the design of exterior improvements. Additional exterior slab details are suggested in the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Homeowners (HOA) should be advised of their maintenance responsibilities as well as geotechnical issues that could affect performance of site improvements.

Site Drainage and Erosion Control
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient away from the structures for a distance of at least 5 feet. Below grade planters should not be situated adjacent to structures or pavements unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and drains are made. In general, ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures or pavements. Over-watering of the site should be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest Riverside County grading ordinances.

Slope Stability
The existing 2:1 or flatter descending slopes along the exiting channel and cut slopes in the western portion of the site (Cross-Sections AA’ and BB’ - see Figure 2) were evaluated Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

16 for long-term stability. As presented in Appendix C, the results of our analyses indicate that both slopes are considered stable under static and pseudo-static conditions.

Slope faces are inherently subject to erosion, particularly if exposed to rainfall and storm drainage water. It is recommended that proper erosion control measures be provided that may include breakwater berms and rip- rap in accordance with recommendations of the project Civil Engineer or erosion control specialist.

Preliminary Pavement Design
Our preliminary pavement design is based on an R-value of 18 for onsite soils (clayey sand). For planning and estimating purposes, t he pavement sections are calculated based on a range of Traffic Indexes (TI) as indicated in Table below and the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:

Table 2. Preliminary Asphalt Pavement Sections
General Traffic
Condition
Design
Traffic
Index (TI)
Asphalt
Concrete
(inches)
Aggregate
Base*
(inches)
Automobile
Parking Lanes

4.5 3.0 6.0

5.0 3.0 7.50
Truck Access &
Driveways

6.0 3.5 8.0

6.5 3.5 12.0

Appropriate Traffic Index (TI) data should be selected or verified by the project civil engineer or traffic engineering consultant and appropriate R -value of the subgrade soils will need to be verified after completion of site grading to finalize the pavement design.

Final pavement sections should be constructed in general accordance with local, county and industry standards. The Caltrans pavement section design calculations were based on a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. A minimum of 6 inches of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement over 6-inch of AB may be used, rather than asphalt, in high impact load areas such as loading docks, trash truck bin loading areas , etc. The PCC pavement may be placed directly on a compacted subgrade with an R -Value of 40 or higher. The PCC pavement should be adequately reinforced to prevent shrinkage cracking and have a minimum of 28-day flexural strength of 5 50 psi. Other requi rements of Caltrans Standard Specifications regarding mixing and placing of concrete should be followed.

The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils should be moisture- conditioned to near optimum moisture content, compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557) and kept in this condition until the pavement section is constructed. Minimum Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

17 relative compaction requirements for aggregate base should be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should conform to the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (green book) current edition or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base having a minimum R-value of 78.

If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, some deterioration of the subgrade load bearing capacity may result. Moisture control measures such as deepened curbs or other moisture barrier materials may be used to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. The use of concrete cutoff or edge barriers should be considered when pavement is planned adjacent to either open (unfinished) or irrigated landscaped areas.

Retaining Walls
Retaining wall earth pressures are a function of the amount of wall yielding horizontally under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize full shear strength of backfill soils, then the wall can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.

Retaining walls backfilled with non- expansive soils can be designed using the following equivalent fluid pressures:

Table 3. Retaining Wall Design Earth Pressures (Static, Drained) Loading
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill
Active 33 55
At-Rest 52 85
Passive* 350 125 (2:1, sloping down)
* This assumes level condition in front of the wall will remain for the duration of the project, not to exceed 2,000 psf at depth.

For walls retaining more than 6 feet of soils, we recommend for non-restrained walls with level backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 14H psf with resultant force applied at mid- height of wall, where H is the retaining wall stem height in feet. For walls with 2:1 sloping backfill, a uniform pressure distribution of 28H psf with resultant force applied at mid- height. These seismic pressures should be added to static pressures above or any applicable surcharge loads.

Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls should be designed for the active equivalent-fluid weight value provided above for very low to low expansive soils that are free draining. In Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

18 the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such as basement or elevator pit/utility vaults, the at-rest equivalent fluid weight value should be used. Total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be measured as the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design, or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding calculations. Should a sloping backfill other than a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) be constructed above the wall (or a backfill is loaded by an adjacent surcharge load), the equivalent fluid weight values provided above should be re-evaluated on an individual case basis by us. Non-standard wall designs should also be reviewed by us prior to construction to check that the proper soil parameters have been incorporated into the wall design.

All retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Wall backfill should be non- expansive (EI ≤ 21) sands compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557). Clayey site soils should not be used as wall backfill. Walls should not be backfilled until wall concrete attains the 28-day compressive strength and/or as determined by the Structural Engineer that the wall is structurally capable of supporting backfill. Lightweight compaction equipment should be used, unless otherwise approved by the Structural Engineer.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

19 GEOTE CHNICAL REVIEW
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review all geotechnical aspects of the project including the following.

Plan Review
Leighton should review the rough- grading plans prior to release for bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to evaluate whether the geotechnical recommendations have been effectively incorporated into the plans. Leighton should also review the proposed commercial building layout, retaining wall plans, and foundation plans to determine whether the preliminary recommendations provided in this report are adequate or whether additional recommendations are required.

Construction Observation and Testing
Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton during grading and onsite construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during grading may vary from that encountered in the previously excavated borings. Reasonably continuous geotechnical observation and testing during site grading allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions during grading, if required.

Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement and other site geotechnically -related operations should be observed and tested by Leighton. Additional tests of subsurface materials to confirm compacted density and moisture content, corrosive potential, expansion potential, and resistance value (R - value) should be performed during or prior to grading.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

20 LIMITATIONS
This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations.

Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This investigation was performed with the understanding that the subject site is proposed for development as described in Section 2.3 of this report.

This report was prepared for Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC based on Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC ’s needs, directions, and requirements at the time of our investigation. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except Lennar Multifamily Communities, LLC, and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton Consulting, Inc. has contracted for the work.

Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton Consulting, Inc. from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton Consulting, Inc.

The client is referred to Appendix E regarding important information provided by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA).on geotechnical engineering studies and report and their applicability.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

21 REFERENCES
ASCE, 2016, ASCE Standard 7 -16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures by Structural Engineering Institute.

Blake, T. F., 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.00b, A Computer Program, for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User’s Manual, 77pp.

Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42. 2007 Interim Revision.”
California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018
California Building Code, (CBC) 2019, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2.

California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 2020, Water Data Library, http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/index.cfm, Data viewed March 2021.

California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A guide f or Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.

Civil Tech Corporation, 2005, LIQUEFYPRO Version 5.2, A Computer Program for Liquefaction and Settlement Analysis, Civil Tech Software.

Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California (CDMG), 2008, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, dated March, 2008.

GeoSoils, Inc, 1989, Geotechnical Evaluation, Parcels 1- 6, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24363, Rancho California Area, County of riverside, California. W.O. 218-A-RC dated April 4
th
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1980, Geological Study of Parcel 15420, Riverside County in Compliance with California State Law Chapter 7.5 Division 2 of the California Resources Code as of 7-1-79, dated August 1.

Update Geotechnical Exploration 13343-004
Multi-Family Residential Development, Murrieta, CA April 8, 2022

22 Leighton and Associates, 1990, Geologic Investigation Within the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone, Liquefaction Evaluation, Preliminary Investigation, and Percolation Testing, APN 909- 170-003, Southwest of Jefferson / \venue, Rancho California, County of Riverside, California, Project No. 11891557-01, Dated November 15th Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2011, Geological Study of Parcel 15420, Riverside County in Compliance with California State Law Chapter 7.5 Division 2 of the California Resources Code as of 7-1-79, dated August 1.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2021, Geological Study of Parcel 15420, Riverside County in Compliance with California State Law Chapter 7.5 Division 2 of the California Resources Code as of 7-1-79, dated August 1.

LGC, 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 18-acre Commercial Site, located on the SEC of Jefferson Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs road, Murrieta, California, dated June 10.

OSHPD, 2021, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-16 seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/

Public Works Standard, Inc., 2021, Greenbook, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Building News, Anaheim, California.

Riverside County Information Technology, 2021, Map My County (website), http://mmc.rivcoit.org/MMC_Public/Viewer.html?Viewer=MMC_Public.

Riverside County Flood Control Water Conservation District, 2011, Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Best Management Practices, dated September.

Soil Tech, 1987, Geologic �nd Seismic Hazards Investigation APN 909-170-002Project Number: 2081-r'S-87, dated May 13th
Tokimatsu, K. and H.B. Seed, 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, published August 1987.

FIGURE 1
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F01_SLM_2022-03-14.mxd on 3/21/2022 10:27:48 AM Author: (kmanchikanti) Date: March 2022

SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
Basemap Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation ©
2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS ©
2022 TomTom
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
³
0 120 240
Feet
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F02_BLP_2022-04-05.mxd on 4/6/2022 12:28:59 PM Author: (kmanchikanti) Scale:1 " = 120 '
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB
Date: April 2022
FIGURE 2GEOTECHNICAL MAP/BORING LOCATION PLAN
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California
Basemap Reference: © 2022 Microsoft Corporation
© 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus
DS © 2022 TomTom
LEGEND
&<
Approximate Location of Boring
shown with Total Depth (T.D.) and
Groundwater (G.W.) Depth at Time
of Exploration in Feet Below Ground
(Leighton 2022)
&<
Approximate Location of shown with
Total Depth (T.D.) and Groundwater
(G.W.) Depth at Time of Exploration
in Feet Below Ground (Leighton,
2011)
!(#
Approximate Location of Boring
shown with Total Depth (T.D.) and
Groundwater (G.W.) Depth at Time
of Exploration in Feet Below Ground
(LGC, 2004)
% % Slope Stability Cross-section
% % Approximate Locatoin of Fault
Trench (Leighton, 1980)
Eastern Limits of Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zone
Eastern Limits of Riverside County
Fault Zone
Approximate Site Boundary
B-4
T.D. 26.5'
[email protected]'
LB-5
T.D 25'
[email protected]'
A
LB-6-2022
T.D. 31.5'
G.W. @ 7.8'
A'
T-1
FIGURE 3
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Reference: Riverside County Mapping Portal, 9/9/2019.
1 " = 500 '
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F03_RFM_2022-09-16.mxd on 9/16/2022 3:16:03 PM Author: (mmurphy)
Date: September 2022

FAULT MAP
Approximate
Site Location
Legend
% % Approximate Location of Fault Trench
Approximate Location of Fault (Alquist-Priolo)
Approximate Location of Fault Zone
(Alquist-Priolo)
³
0 500 1,000
Feet
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California
!"a$ %&h(
Qya
QTws
Qya
Qya
Qya
Qps
Qya
Qyls
Qyv
Qyf
Qps
Qps
QTws
Qps
QTws
QylsQps
QTws
QTws
QTws
Trmu
Qps
Trmu
Qyf
Qps
Qps
Qps
Qps
Qyv
Qya
Qpf
Qps
Qyv
Qyv
Qpf
Qpf
Qps
Qyv
Alta M
urrieta Dr
JacksonAve
Kalmia St
Ivy St
Murrieta Hot Springs Rd
Jefferson Ave
Los Alamos Rd
California Oaks Rd
Washington Ave
Scale:1 " = 2,000 '
Map Saved as J:\Drafting\13343\004\Maps\13343-004_F04_RGM_2022-03-14.mxd on 3/21/2022 10:58:33 AM Author: (kmanchikanti) Date: March 2022
³
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Reference: USGS, 2006 Geologic map of the San
Bermardino and Santa Ana 30'x60 quadrangle,
California Version 1,0 Open File Report 2006-1217.

Legend
Qyf - Young alluvial-fan deposits
! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
! !
!
! !
! Qya - Young axial-channel deposits
Qyls - Young landslide deposits
Qyv - Young alluvial-valley deposits
QTws - Sandstone and conglomerate of Wildomar area
Qpf - Pauba Formation
Qps - Pauba Formation
Trmu - Rocks of Menifee Valley, undifferentiated
Project: 13343.004 Eng/Geol: SIS/MSB

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
Approximate
Site Location
FIGURE 4
Proposed Multifamily Residential Development
APN: 910-410-011
Murrieta, California

APPENDIX A

Field Boring Logs (This and Previous Studies)

The exploration logs included within Appendix A and related information depicts subsurface conditions only at the locations indicated and at the particular date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these borings locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions. In addition, any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual

4 6
8 2
2 4
5 13
15 4
5 13
109
96 116
CL-SM
SM
CL
SM
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
21 29
19 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY, SILTY SAND, loose, yellow to brown, dry, fine sand, sparse vegetation
SANDY SILT with clay, black to brown, moist, fine sand, low plasticity
SANDY LEAN CLAY, stiff, black to brown, moist, fine sand, carbonate stringers prevalent
SANDY LEAN CLAY, reddish brown, very moist, fine sand, low plasticity, mottled with light gray, carbonate stringers prevalent PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray, very moist, very fine sand SILTY SAND, gray, moist, very fine sand, micaceous
Total Depth 21.5'
GW measured @ 8.35'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling
PP=1.5 tsf
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JWJ
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
3-8-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
LMC - Murrieta Hot Springs
13343.004
Drilling Method
8"
Sample No.

Feet
Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
JWJ
Feet
S
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1-22
7 5
8 5
8 11
3 4
6 2
4 4
2 2
4 3
6 10
7 12
15 11
21 28
117
113
112
106
94 108
124
SC
SP
CL
CL-CH
ML/CL
SP
CH
SM-SW
SW
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S-1
R-5
S-2
R-6
3 15
17 21
27 22
14 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY SAND, loose, brown, vegetation, trace subangular granitc gravel
Poorly graded SAND with silt, gray to light yellowish brown, moist, fine to medium sand
Sandy Lean CLAY, black to brown, moist, fine sand, low plasticity, transition in sample
Lean CLAY to high porosity Fat CLAY, very stiff, black to brown, moist, medium to high plasticity, carbonate stringers prevalent SANDY SILT with few clay, gray to olive brown, moist, fine sand, low plasticity
SILT with clay, light gray to gray, wet, low plasticity, little fine grained sand
SILT with clay, medium stiff to stiff, olive gray, wet, low plasticity, few fine grained sand
transition in sample, medium to coarse sand ~ 1/8" in diameter over high plasticity fat clay, olive gray to olive brown, moist PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
SILTY SAND, medium dense, gray to olive brown, moist, primarily fine grained sand with few medium grained sand
Well graded SAND, wet, medium sand, well-rounded grains, trace fine gravel
Same as above, dense, gray, medium to coarse sand, fine gravels Total Depth 31.5'
GW measured @ 5.75'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling
PP=3.5 tsf
PP=1.0
PP=0.5
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JWJ
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
3-8-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
LMC - Murrieta Hot Springs
13343.004
Drilling Method
8"
Sample No.

Feet
Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
JWJ
Feet
S
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2-22
11 11
14 6
9 11
4 5
8 3
5 10
4 5
6 1
1 2
111
118
109
116
93 SC
CL/ML
CL
CL/ML
SM
SW
ML\CL
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
S-1
8 16
20 18
23 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY SAND, yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine sand, vegetation (EI=19, RV=18)
SANDY SILT, loose, dark brown, slightly moist, fine sand SANDY LEAN CLAY, very stiff, dark brown, moist, fine sand SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray to dark brown, wet, low plasticity, few to little fine grained sand
SANDY SILT with few clay, brown, wet, little fine grained sand PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
SILTY SAND, gray, wet, fine sand, trace to few medium grained sand
Well graded SAND, white to yellowish brown, wet, medium to coarse sand, with few subrounded gravels, well rounded sand grains SANDY SILT with clay, very stiff, gray, very moist, fine sand, medium plasticity
Total Depth 21.5'
GW measured @ 7.75'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling
EI, RV
PP=2.75
PP=2.75
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JWJ
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
3-8-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
LMC - Murrieta Hot Springs
13343.004
Drilling Method
8"
Sample No.

Feet
Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
JWJ
Feet
S
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3-22
6 10
12 11
9 11
2 2
2 3
5 5
3 5
9 10
22 37
4 8
18 120
118
104
102
114
SC-SM
SC
CL
CL-ML
ML
SM
CH
SC
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S-1
R-5
S-2
14 14
22 23
19 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY SILTY SAND, yellowish brown, slightly moist, vegetated CLAYEY SAND, hard, black to brown, moist, micaceous
SANDY LEAN CLAY, hard, black to brown, moist, low plasticity, few to little fine grained sand
SILTY CLAY, olive gray, wet, fine to medium sand
CLAYEY SILT, medium stiff to stiff, gray, moist, very fine sand, trace coarse grained sand
SANDY SILT with clay, very stiff, gray, low to medium plasticity SILTY SAND, dense, moist, fine sand, few to little medium grained sand
PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
FAT CLAY, very stiff, gray to dark gray, moist, high plasticity CLAYEY SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, gray, moist, fine to medium sand, with fine subangular granitic gravels Total Depth 26.5'
GW measured @ 8.80'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling
PP>4.0
PP=1.0
PP=2.0
PP=3.25
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JWJ
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
3-8-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
LMC - Murrieta Hot Springs
13343.004
Drilling Method
8"
Sample No.

Feet
Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
JWJ
Feet
S
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4-22
5 8
12 11
15 18
6 6
10 7
6 11
2 3
5 6
7 8
3 4
4 12
37 50/6"
125
131
120
120
110
107
SC
SC
SM/SC
SW
SM
SW
SW
CL
ML
SW
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S-1
R-5
S-2
R-6
10 10
14 13
22 22
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY SAND, loose, yellowish brown, moist, vegetation
SANDY LEAN CLAY, hard, dark brown, moist, fine sand, low plasticity, trace coarse grained sand
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, light reddish brown, very moist, fine to coarse sand
SILTY CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, light reddish brown, moist, fine to coarse sand, few fine gravels, subangular to subrounded, trace subangular black slate gravel, flatted
SILTY CLAYEY SAND with gravels, light reddish brown, wet, fine to coarse sand, subangular fine granitic gravels
Poorly graded SAND with SILT, loose to medium dense, light olive gray, wet, fine to coarse sand, trace fine subangular gravel SILTY SAND with few clay, gray to dark gray, wet, fine sand, few to little medium to coarse grained sand
transition to Well graded SAND, light gray to gray, wet, fine to coarse sand, few fine subangular granitic gravels
PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
Well graded SAND with Silt, gray, wet, fine sand, few to little medium coarse grains, few fine granitic gravel, subangular SILTY CLAY, medium stiff to very stiff, dark gray to yellowish red, moist, low plasticity, laminated
SANDY SILT with few clay, gray to yellowish brown, very moist, micaceous
Poorly graded SAND with Silt, very dense, gray, moist, fine sand, few to little medium grains
Total Depth 29.5'
GW measured @ 8.12'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling
PP=>4
PP=2.0
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JWJ
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
3-8-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
LMC - Murrieta Hot Springs
13343.004
Drilling Method
8"
Sample No.

Feet
Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
JWJ
Feet
S
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5-22
8 11
13 5
8 11
3 3
4 4
6 7
5 8
11 2
2 4
2 5
14 7
14 17
125
121
113
111
109
SC
SC
SC
SC-SM
SM/ML
ML
SW
BB-1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
S-1
R-6
S-2
11 14
17 20
20 QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Qal)
CLAYEY SAND with slit, yellowish brown, slightly moist, fine sand, trace fine granitic gravel, (MD= 131.0 @ 10.0, EI=31)
SANDY LEAN CLAY, vey stiff, black to brown, moist, medium plasticity, few to little fine gravel
CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, light reddish brown, moist, fine sand, trace coarse grains
CLAYEY SAND with silt, loose, reddish brown, wet, fine sand, trace to few medium to coarse grains
SILTY SAND, medium dense, olive gray to brown, wet, fine sand, few coarse grains, trace clay
SILTY SAND to SANDY SILT, olive brown, moist, very fine sand, grades silter, trace clay
SANDY SILT with few clay, stiff to very stiff, olive gray to brown, fine sand, low to medium plasticity
SANDY SILT with clay, medium stiff, olive gray to red, mottled with reddish yellow brown
PAUBA FORMATION (Qps)
Well-graded SAND with silt, dense, gray, wet, fine to coarse sand, primarly medium grained, well rounded grains, few to little silt Total Depth 31.5'
GW measured @ 7.80'
Backfilled upon completion of drilling

AL, MD,
EI, CR
PP=3.75
PP=2.0
PP=1.5
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth
Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
JWJ
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
Soil Class.
3-8-22

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
LMC - Murrieta Hot Springs
13343.004
Drilling Method
8"
Sample No.

Feet
Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
Logged By
Date Drilled
JWJ
Feet
S
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location
Dry Density
N
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:
-200
AL
CN
CO
CR
CU
% FINES PASSING

ATTERBERG LIMITS

CONSOLIDATION

COLLAPSE

CORROSION

UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL
DS
EI
H
MD
PP
RV

DIRECT SHEAR

EXPANSION INDEX

HYDROMETER

MAXIMUM DENSITY

POCKET PENETROMETER

R VALUE
SA
SE
SG
UC
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6-22
PP
CN, -200
820
19 17
23 21
SC
ML
SM
ML
SM
SW-SM
R-1R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
126109
112
112
100
110
141914345
469
81611
81317
4913
4719
Surface covered with grass and weedsCLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine tomedium sand, trace fine rootsSILT with SAND, medium stiff, dark brown, moist to wet, fine tocoarse sand, some clay (PP = 0.5 TSF) SILTY SAND, loose, brown, wet, fine sand, (34% fines)
SILTY SAND, medium dense, brown, wet, fine to coarse sand SANDY SILT, stiff, dark grayish brown, wet, fine to medium sand SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist to wet, fine tomedium sand, some oxidation Well-graded SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, wet, fine tocoarse sand, trace siltDrilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater at 6.5'Backfilled with soil cuttings (5/16/2011) 1080
1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

1082'

BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST BSS
Soil Class.
5-16-11
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co.Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Borings Location PlanRegent Murrieta 18603181-001Drilling Method8" Sample No.

FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1Logged ByDate DrilledBSS
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUCSIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Hollow Stem Auger - 140 - Automatic - 30" Drop
EI
PP
-200
14131514
15 26
SC
SW-SM
CL
B-1R-1R-2R-3R-4
R-5
R-6
123123119120
119
112
5796910231061012
71010
458
Surface covered with weedsCLAYEY SAND, loose, dark brown, moist, fine to medium sand,(EI = 33)dark brown, moist, fine sand, to sandy siltmedium dense, brown, moist to wet, fine to coarse sand, (PP = 4TSF)Well-graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, brown, wet, fine tocoarse sandmedium dense, grayish brown, wet, fine to coarse sand, trace silt with silt, medium dense, light brownish gray, wet, medium to coarsesand, (7% fines) SILTY SAND, medium stiff, grayish brown, wet, trace fine tomedium sandDrilled to 20'Sampled to 21.5'Groundwater at 6'Backfilled with soil cuttings (5/16/2011) 1080
1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

1081'

BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST BSS
Soil Class.
5-16-11
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co.Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Borings Location PlanRegent Murrieta 18603181-001Drilling Method8" Sample No.

FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2Logged ByDate DrilledBSS
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUCSIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Hollow Stem Auger - 140 - Automatic - 30" Drop
PPPP1516
18 20
26 SCCL
SW-SM
SWML
CL-ML
R-1R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
119117
118
109
98 4610688
91012
6710
567
Surface covered with weedsCLAYEY SAND, loose, brown, dry to moist, fine to medium sandSANDY Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark brown, moist, fine sand,(PP = 2.5 - 3.5 TSF)SANDY Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark grayish brown, moist towet, fine sand, (PP = 2.5 TSF) Well-graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, brown, wet, fine tocoarse sand, trace gravel Well-graded SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, wet, fine tocoarse sandSILT with SAND, stiff, brown, moist to wet, fine sand, some claySILTY CLAY with SAND, loose, light brown, wet, fine sand, moresand in the top of sampleDrilled to 20'Sampled to 21.5'Groundwater at 5'Backfilled with soil cuttings (5/16/2011) 1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
1045
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

1076'

BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST BSS
Soil Class.
5-16-11
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co.Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Borings Location PlanRegent Murrieta 18603181-001Drilling Method8" Sample No.

FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3Logged ByDate DrilledBSS
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUCSIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Hollow Stem Auger - 140 - Automatic - 30" Drop

PPPPEIPP
AL, PP
1519
20 21
21 19
19 SC
CL
ML
SW
B-1R-1R-2B-2R-3R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
R-8
120109
105
105
105
115
112
48104573342710
5912
5813
4810
567
Surface covered with weedsCLAYEY SAND, loose, dark brown, dry to moist, fine to coarsesand, some rootletsmedium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium sand, (PP= 2 - 4 TSF)SILTY CLAY with sand, medium stiff, dark gray, moist to wet, finesand, (PP = 0.5 - 0.75 TSF)soft, dark grayish brown, wet, fine sand, mottled (EI = 60) (PP =0.25 - 0.5 TSF)SANDY SILT, stiff, brown, wet, fine sand, some clay in the top stiff, grayish brown, wet, fine to coarse gravel, trace clay, mottled(LL = 26, PL = 24, PI = 2) (PP = .05 TSF) stiff, brown, wet, fine to medium sand
Well-graded SAND, medium dense, light brownish gray, wet, fine tocoarse sand with fine gravel, trace silt Well-graded SAND, loose, light brownish gray, wet, fine to coarsesand with fine gravel, trace siltDrilled to 30'Sampled to 31.5'Groundwater at 4.5'Backfilled with soil cuttings (5/16/2011) 1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
1045
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

1078'

BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST BSS
Soil Class.
5-16-11
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co.Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Borings Location PlanRegent Murrieta 18603181-001Drilling Method8" Sample No.

FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4Logged ByDate DrilledBSS
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUCSIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Hollow Stem Auger - 140 - Automatic - 30" Drop

PPPPPPPP
1919
19 24
21 17
SCCL
ML
SW-SM
SW
R-1R-2R-3R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
107111
113
103
108
116
2474711337348
379
457
81320
Surface coved with weedsCLAYEY SAND, loose, dark brown, moist, fine sandLean CLAY with SAND, medium stiff, dark grayish brown, moist,fine sand, more clay (PP=1.5 TSF)Lean CLAY with SAND, medium stiff, dark grayish brown, moist,fine sand, mottled (PP=2.0 - 2.5 TSF)grayish brown, moist to wet, fine sand, (PP=0.5 TSF)SANDY SILT, medium stiff, brown, wet, fine to coarse sand, traceclay, mottled (PP=1.25 TSF) light brown, wet, fine sand, more coarse sand in the top of thesample Well-graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, light brown, wet,fine to coarse sand, more silt toward the bottom Well-graded SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, wet, fine tocoarse sand with fine gravel, trace siltDrilled to 25'Sampled to 26.5'Groundwater at 4.5'Backfilled with soil cuttings (5/16/2011) 1080
1075
1070
1065
1060
1055
1050
1045
Hole Diameter
Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 Blows
Elevation
Per 6 Inches

1080'

BULK SAMPLECORE SAMPLEGRAB SAMPLERING SAMPLESPLIT SPOON SAMPLETUBE SAMPLEBCGRST BSS
Soil Class.
5-16-11
SOIL DESCRIPTIONSampled ByDrilling Co.Drilling Co.ProjectProject No.See Borings Location PlanRegent Murrieta 18603181-001Drilling Method8" Sample No.

FeetAttitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:
2R Drilling, Inc.
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5Logged ByDate DrilledBSS
FeetS
(U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcfLocation
Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at thetime of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locationsand may change with time. The description is a simplification of theactual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may begradual.

TYPE OF TESTS:-200ALCNCOCRCU% FINES PASSINGATTERBERG LIMITSCONSOLIDATIONCOLLAPSECORROSIONUNDRAINED TRIAXIALDSEIHMDPPRVDIRECT SHEAREXPANSION INDEXHYDROMETERMAXIMUM DENSITYPOCKET PENETROMETERR VALUESASESGUCSIEVE ANALYSISSAND EQUIVALENTSPECIFIC GRAVITYUNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Hollow Stem Auger - 140 - Automatic - 30" Drop

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
I Project Number: dgdd 7d7-d/ > Elevation: TRENCH NO. 7- - J
C vl 7 nb
I Equipment: 70 J,L.-/~dCn, o 5 wo Location : SHEET /of 7 vl -we 03 h &OW
n P'd, ur) vr. GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC (O c r)
u
r o
We
GQ T
rt
0 3
rn
2 V)
0 0
P-
VI
' . ----. - DATE: 7/a//m DESCRIPTION: ATTITUDES UNIT
@ -1' 50.13 ~i~r: ~7d(0~0, dry , dcdse-
(TOP SO;^ ' foods ,'/I upp4 gn
\
Q4S0 0'40 DtA3d 07'20 Crf/ 0 Ltdc.
"...... - -
-.-,, ------.
. ' :
'- - - - -
-
.I
- -
cn Y
(0
Y
QYI
&/--
- - -
-
-
- -
z
E 4.
2 0 ..
\
.
9 PS
i
C / ' ~on&+anc : /WL/ g,o~*,o - 13//pi dray I mnss; uc
-..--
--
-
-
'.
,
,
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SK IL,~ 1,
(00
SCALE: 1" = 3 ' SURFACE SLOPE: CJ TREND: fiJOP. -
yo@ S0i.L
-
a--- --- - - -___- - -_-- ---__ _ ---- _._-- - -. _. - T------, --- -- - - -. - ---c- - - -- . . . . ...... . . .... -. . , ... .mn.s.siuc. :. . med,~fh' . >n; w/<oorsc otyu/nf roc* ~~03rnrl~fs
V . .Or3 - 6,5/yj4/1?9 due/.
4 co AP_Z ,Sc . OCCAS;~~ q~ /OO~ j . 5a07c
SILT- f'rr3r.tj t~;7/) MC4S/ousC /:j" co~g/cs-
d2 %.
(3 44 - 6' s4,,ds foe : 8,-j FI 00 6(~.;?+4 /?;~JS;C
rn/cHCeod5, fi1odrcnfc3 C/CNSC, ~~&J;uG
5~13N~/y ~e,t/~. orrAJ/nwill iob/~ .
r)-,pI/"r 3/4;45
.
-..
-
-
--
- - -
P
.... -,,L--. ..... ...........

I ----,, .... . -. .....
. .Qry .
.----- -__ _
. . ( -.I. ::
1 ' -1 I . . .
. . .....
, ; #<.-
, . . . - -A-
:..... ;... - ---
::,, > .... ....... ,. . ... .... ...:. ... I I. ...
i .. ....,. 1..
. .
. . .
.... ,. . ... .. - - -. ..>--
-
--
-
- -
-
. - . . -. . . -.
--..
\5 \ ;.., ,. ; -- - -
I f.ul I
1 I . 1'. : I.. ...:....... . .
. . . .
-: ,
. '-- . mn LSIUG..,
I r .I . . 1. ....... .. .......... m
' ..
-:#- - .-..I-
-
-
- -
.I
-
. . . .- . _.
;-;, - - ,<*- ,-.! - .- ............. , .......
... :. -. . ,I ,I !:.. 4:

I- , , .
. . .
.
*- -- . . ; : --- - . . . : . . ... *.. I. .I ..-.. !I.... 1. ' ."" .. :. ' . ... !..I1 I' I.
.' . . . ,. . ,. .~'
... ..I . v ,I . .*
... '. . .. .I .I. ' .I., . -

, - LOG OF 'i'RENCI1 NO:

L

0 -,om
w
I Project Number: 6%0073-b/
P Elevation: lb8d TRENCH NO. 7-/ 111 3 -3
' -
I Equipment: ,500 &ckhoc w o -am Locat ion : 6 7 111 -w. 03 *
n &V) 0 'd

GEOLOGIC
L. n . w vr? vr.
\ GEOLOGIC (D c
q
u
r
(D
F '
09 3
r)
0 3
Cn
k
V)
0 0
F.
(D.

V)
..-
r?
A~~ITUDES DATE: 7/2/ /PO DESCRIPTION:

Sdto /
UNIT
Qcq r
Q Ps
I
2fPO 2.rJO %.t'/i> %-TC;d 2.f- 3% r
t
.-.____C_ ---- .'
!
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SF Wcl// SCALE: 1" = SURFACE SLOPE: (3 TREND: fi60.E * . . _. .... . , ' . ,.. .. - . - -. - -
i
..... ,
... 1.
' - .......
/---
.--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d
- -
111
-.

L -
- .,
-
-'.--. . .
.................
--L---..., . .- - .___- --
--
-
I
.-- - _ ---.
. .
-.
-
.-,-,-, ........ :'
....... _
-
--
--
...

Y
(D
Ill.
. . . .

I 1 I .I 1. I. l*,l ... .... . . ...
-- -
. , . . ,
. . .>.
e -- -
-- - . . . &

9. --
A -.: ..... /'
d
...
.

Y
........ @ , .- -
... . . .
....
, . . . . . - ^-I. I -, - .: .-- - .
c
(
(
-!
....
. . ,*. ,, .I , I 1 I. 1 I I I'.l
...... -
. .
. .
. .
_--
'
. __..__ /..--.-
,-.,GI*,
.-. .__ '. . ( . _/ --
IL'l I .y-'. ...
-. -_ ,;. .,.. -,. ,. ..
,' . ._ .. . ,:
. -. ...
~-,- . --
--G,
-- ... ., . -
L - -
--- - ..
-l~P.-&;c.
... . ,
--. -_ -- -
-- - --
-- --
I I I 11.
....... ',I[ . . . ,
--
--
I I 1111 . , I. -I . . . ....... .....

APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test Results (This and Previous Studies)
Project Name: Date: 3/11/22
Project Number: 13343.004 Technician: F. Mina
Boring Number: LB-3 Depth (ft.): 0 - 5.0
Sample Number: B-1 Sample Location:

Sample Description: Lean Clay with Sand (CL)s, Dark Brown.

TEST SPECIMEN A B C
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 12.7 13.8 15.5
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.58 2.48 2.55
DRY DENSITY, pcf 113.2 111.6 114.2
COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 125 100 50
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 486 322 193
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 0 0 0
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 90 111 137
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.28 4.35 4.75
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 31 20 8
R-VALUE CORRECTED 33 20 8
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. 1.07 1.28 1.47
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.00 0.00 0.00

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: N/A
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 18
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 18

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 2844
LMC/Murrieta Hot Springs/Geo
N/A

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in
feet
COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in
feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0100200300400500600700800

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)

Project Name: LMC/Murrieta Hot Springs/Geo Tested By : M. Vinet Date: 03/14/22 Project No. : 13343.004 Data Input By: M. Vinet Date: 03/14/22 Boring No. LB-6
Sample No. B-1
Sample Depth (ft) 0 - 5.0
100.00
100.00

0.00 0.00
100.00
1 1
850
Timer
45 25.0362

25.0319

0.0043
176.95
177
Clayey Sand
(SC)
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Soil Identification:

Moisture Content (%)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Duration of Combustion (min)
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Beaker No.

Crucible No.

Furnace Temperature (°C)
Time In / Time Out
Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wt. of Crucible (g)
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)

Project Name: Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 3/11/22
Project No. : Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 3/14/22
Boring No.: Depth: 0 - 5.0
Sample No. : Location:

Sample Description:

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.

Rev. 03-08

0.51863/12/22
0 1235
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 8:00
1295 0.5186

18.6 1.0
19 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
108.9

0.5000
10 0.5000
3/12/22 9:00

1.0 1.0
11:25 1.03/11/22
3/11/22
110.9
Moisture Content (%)
Date
11:15
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
122.0
Time
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
8 0.548
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)

99.9 4.01

2.70 2012.3

0.0 604.5
2012.3

2.5 1.0186
633.4
N/A
LMC/Murrieta Hot Springs/Geo
13343.004
LB-3
B-1
ASTM D 4829
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)s, Dark Brown.

MOLDED SPECIMEN

4.01 1.0000
8Container No.

Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
200.0

2.70 367.7
200.0

17.9 0.354

74.6 200.0
633.4
128.3
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)

88.051.9
Pressure
(psi)

0.342Total Porosity

SPECIMEN INUNDATION

70.8 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)

10.0 629.1
601.8

0.520
329.1

Project Name: Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 3/11/22
Project No. : Checked By: M. Vinet Date: 3/14/22
Boring No.: Depth: 0 - 5.0
Sample No. : Location:

Sample Description:

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.

Rev. 03-08

SPECIMEN INUNDATION

71.8 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)

10.0 633.0
605.7

0.532
333.0
178.0
613.8
127.5
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)

90.750.8
Pressure
(psi)

0.347Total Porosity

2.70 364.9
178.0

19.4 0.367

78.2 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
Clayey Sand (SC), Dark Brown.

MOLDED SPECIMEN

4.01 1.0000
7Container No.

Specimen Diameter (in.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
178.0
N/A
LMC/Murrieta Hot Springs/Geo
13343.004
LB-6
B-1
ASTM D 4829
100.0

4.01 2.70
10123.2

0.0 579.4
10123.2

0.0 1.0307
613.8
After TestBefore Test
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
7 0.579
Dry Density (pcf)
Wet Density (pcf)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Specimen Height (in.)
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
3/11/22
110.1
Moisture Content (%)
Date
10:55
Void Ratio
Pore Volume (cc)
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
121.1
Time
3/12/22 9:00

1.0 1.0
11:05 1.03/11/22

1.0 31 Expansion Index ( Report ) = Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Wt. of Container (gm.)
106.8

0.5000
10 0.5000

0.53073/12/22
0 1255
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 8:00
1315 0.5307

30.7 Compaction; LB-6, B-1 (03-08-22)
Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 03/11/22
Input By: M. Vinet Date: 03/14/22
LB-6 Depth (ft.): 0 - 5.0
X Moist Mechanical Ram
Dry Manual Ram
Mold Volume (ft³) 0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5585 5719 5693
3540 3540 3540
2045 2179 2153
1132.2 1023.2 896.7
1069.8 956.0 836.7
280.1 277.4 333.0

7.9 9.9 11.9
135.0 143.8 142.1
125.1 130.9 127.0
131.0 10.0

PROCEDURE USED
X Procedure A
Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
May be used if +#4 is 20% or less
Procedure B
Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve
Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five)
Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is
20% or less
Procedure C
Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve
Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter
Layers : 5 (Five)
Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six)
Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in.
is <30%
Particle-Size Distribution:

GR:SA:FI
Atterberg Limits:

LL,PL,PI

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Project No.:

Boring No.:

LMC/Murrieta Hot Springs/GeoProject Name:

Weight of Container (g)
Weight of Mold (g)
Preparation Method:

Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
B-1
13343.004
TEST NO.

Soil Identification:

Sample No.:

Clayey Sand (SC), Dark Brown.

Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.

Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.75
SP. GR. = 2.80
SP. GR. = 2.85
XX

Project Name: Tested By: M. Vinet Date: 03/14/22
Project No. : Input By: M. Vinet Date: 03/14/22
Boring No.: Checked By: M. Vinet
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 0 - 5.0
Soil Identification:
1 2 1 2 3 4
17 25 34

21.26 20.81 24.13 23.82 22.76

20.37 20.00 21.90 21.74 20.95

13.79 13.78 13.66 13.67 13.67

13.53 13.02 27.06 25.77 24.86
26 13
13 CL
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 4.38
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)

PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
Clayey Sand (SC), Dark Brown.

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
13343.004
LB-6
B-1
LMC/Murrieta Hot Springs/Geo
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST
NO.

Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)

0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of fine-
grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of coarse-
grained soils
"A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

ASTM D 4318
Project Name: Tested By: JMB Date: 5/26/11
Project No. : Input By: JMB Date: 5/26/11
Boring No.: Checked By: JMB Date: 5/26/11
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 15.0
PLASTIC LIMIT **IN-SITU
1 2 1 2 3 MOISTURE
29 22 17

23.888 23.936 29.086 27.895 25.156 974.0

21.906 21.924 25.952 24.830 22.549 841.5

13.646 13.556 13.626 13.623 13.575 214.2

24.0 24.0 25.4 27.3 29.1 21.1
Liquid Limit 26
Plastic Limit 24
Plasticity Index 2
Classification (ML)s
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 4.38
One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation
LL =Wn(N/25)

PROCEDURES USED
Wet Preparation
Multipoint - Wet
X Dry Preparation
Multipoint - Dry
X Procedure A
Multipoint Test
Procedure B
One-point Test
Rev. 08-04

ATTERBERG LIMITS
Wt. of Container (gm)
LB-4
R-5
MURRIETA 18
603181-001
Sample Description: SILT WITH SAND (ML)s, dark grayish brown.

LIQUID LIMIT
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST NO.

Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm)
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Plasticity Index (PI)
Liquid Limit (LL)

0.121
CL or OL
ML or OL
MH or OH
For classification of fine-
grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of
coarse-grained soils

24.0 25.0

26.0 27.0

28.0 29.0

30.0 10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 50 90 70 60 40 80
"A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL-ML

Project Name: Tested By: JAP Date: 5/25/11
Project No. : Checked By: JMB Date: 5/26/11
Boring No: Depth (ft.) 0-5.0
Sample No. : Location:

Sample Description:

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.

Rev. 03-08
135.8
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)

91.048.4Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
5/25/11
0 Wet Density (pcf)
386.4
189.8

16.6 189.8

2.70 5
640.5
SILT WITH SAND AND TRACE GRAVEL (ML)s, dark brown.

4.01 1.0329

MOLDED SPECIMEN

4.01 1.0000Specimen Height (in.)

98.9 Specimen Diameter (in.)
603181-001
LB-2
B-1
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
**
MURRIETA 18
640.5
After TestBefore Test
3089.6

0.0 3089.6

35.3 607.1
396.2
118.4

8.0 125.9
189.8

2.70 5
418.4
Pore Volume (cc)

0.309
5/25/11
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Container (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
116.6 116.4

0.494

0.5000
10:55 1.0 10 0.5000

1.0 Total Porosity

0.5329

0.53295/26/11

0.331

70.7 SPECIMEN INUNDATION
5:25
10:45
Time Pressure
(psi)

1.0 1.0
Container No.

Date

63.9 1110
Dry Density (pcf)

0.446
5/26/11
Void Ratio
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 1170
Expansion Index ( Report ) =
Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height

32.9 33
6:25
Project Name: Tested By: JAP Date: 5/25/11
Project No. : Checked By: JMB Date: 5/26/11
Boring No: Depth (ft.) 5-7.0
Sample No. : Location:

Sample Description:

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container No. (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h.

Rev. 03-08
135.7
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)

94.648.0Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas]
5/25/11
0 373.8
191.0

20.5 191.0

2.70 4
641.4
LEAN CLAY WITH SAND AND TRACE GRAVEL (CL)s, brown.

4.01 1.0600

MOLDED SPECIMEN

4.01 1.0000Specimen Height (in.)

99.9 Specimen Diameter (in.)
603181-001
LB-4
B-2
EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
**
641.4
After TestBefore Test
3640.2

0.0 3640.2

2.8 597.7
419.8
144.1

8.8 122.7
191.0

2.70 4
444.1
Wt. of Mold (gm.)
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.)
Moisture Content (%)
Wt. of Container (gm.)
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Specific Gravity (Assumed)
Wet Density (pcf)
Total Porosity
9:23
Time Pressure
(psi)
Pore Volume (cc)

0.331
5/25/11
Void Ratio
112.8 112.6

0.585

0.5000
9:33 1.0 10 0.4999

1.0 Dry Density (pcf)

0.495
5/26/11 0.5600

0.56005/26/11

0.369

81.0 SPECIMEN INUNDATION
MURRIETA 18
5:25
6:25

1.0 1.0
Container No.

Date

68.5 1192
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 1252
Expansion Index ( Report ) =
Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height

60.1 60
Project Name: JAP Date: 5/20/11
Project No.: JMB Date: 5/31/11
Boring No.: 10.0
Sample No.:

Sample Description:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.421
Sample Thickness (in.): 0.997
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 198.8
Weight of Ring (g): 44.2
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9557
Before Test 20.24
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 198.8
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 172.0
Weight of Container (g): 44.2
Initial Moisture Content (%) 21.0
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.1
Initial Saturation (%): 96
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.2500
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 198.2
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 172.0
Weight of Container (g): 44.2
Final Moisture Content (%) 20.5
Final Dry Density (pcf): 110.7
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.2942
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.020 0.2500 1.0000 0.00 -0.30 0.594 -0.30 5/24/11 5:30:00 0.0 0.0 0.2676

0.526 0.2675 0.9825 0.00 1.45 0.566 1.45 5/24/11 5:30:06 0.1 0.3 0.2715

0.526 0.2676 0.9824 0.00 1.46 0.566 1.46 5/24/11 5:30:15 0.2 0.5 0.2719

1.051 0.2752 0.9748 0.00 2.23 0.554 2.23 5/24/11 5:30:30 0.5 0.7 0.2721

2.101 0.2860 0.9640 0.00 3.31 0.536 3.31 5/24/11 5:31:00 1.0 1.0 0.2724

4.026 0.2971 0.9529 0.00 4.42 0.519 4.42 5/24/11 5:32:00 2.0 1.4 0.2727

2.101 0.2959 0.9541 0.00 4.30 0.521 4.30 5/24/11 5:34:00 4.0 2.0 0.2729

1.051 0.2942 0.9558 0.00 4.13 0.523 4.13 5/24/11 5:38:00 8.0 2.8 0.2731 5/24/11 5:45:00 15.0 3.9 0.2734
5/24/11 6:00:00 30.0 5.5 0.2736
5/24/11 6:30:00 60.0 7.7 0.2739
5/24/11 7:30:00 120.0 11.0 0.2741
5/24/11 9:30:00 240.0 15.5 0.2744
5/24/11 13:30:00 480.0 21.9 0.2747
5/25/11 5:30:00 1440.0 37.9 0.2752
Rev. 08-04

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 2435)
Void
Ratio
603181-001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness
Corrected
Deforma-
tion (%) Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Checked By:

SILTY SAND (SM), brown.

LB-1
R-3
MURRIETA 18
Depth (ft.):

Tested By:

Time Readings @ 1.051 ksf
Date

0.510

0.530

0.550

0.570

0.590

0.610

0.630

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate
with water
xConsolidation; LB-1, R-3 ------ 1.051 T.R.

SILTY SAND (SM), brown.

Time Readings @ 1.051 ksf
##### ##### 0.268

0.272

0.272

0.272

0.272

0.273

0.273

0.273

0.273

0.274

0.274

0.274

0.274

0.275

0.275
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Sample Description:

ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Rev. 08-04
Degree of
Saturation (%)
Dry Density
(pcf) Void Ratio
100
Project Name: MURRIETA 18
Boring
No.

Sample
No.:

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
Time Readings @ 1.051 ksf

0.523106.1 110.7 0.589
Project No.: 603181-001
96 SILTY SAND (SM), brown.

LB-1 R-3 10.0 21.0 20.5

0.2710

0.2720

0.2730

0.2740

0.2750

0.2760

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
-1.00

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2710

0.2720

0.2730

0.2740

0.2750

0.2760

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.)
Inundate with
water

Project Name: JAP Date: 5/20/11
Project No.: JMB Date: 5/31/11
Boring No.: 10.0
Sample No.:

Sample Description:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.421
Sample Thickness (in.): 0.997
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 198.8
Weight of Ring (g): 44.2
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9557
Before Test 20.24
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 198.8
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 172.0
Weight of Container (g): 44.2
Initial Moisture Content (%) 21.0
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.1
Initial Saturation (%): 96
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.2500
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 198.2
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 172.0
Weight of Container (g): 44.2
Final Moisture Content (%) 20.5
Final Dry Density (pcf): 110.7
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.2942
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.020 0.2500 1.0000 0.00 -0.30 0.594 -0.30 5/25/11 5:30:00 0.0 0.0 0.2752

0.526 0.2675 0.9825 0.00 1.45 0.566 1.45 5/25/11 5:30:06 0.1 0.3 0.2815

0.526 0.2676 0.9824 0.00 1.46 0.566 1.46 5/25/11 5:30:15 0.2 0.5 0.2820

1.051 0.2752 0.9748 0.00 2.23 0.554 2.23 5/25/11 5:30:30 0.5 0.7 0.2823

2.101 0.2860 0.9640 0.00 3.31 0.536 3.31 5/25/11 5:31:00 1.0 1.0 0.2826

4.026 0.2971 0.9529 0.00 4.42 0.519 4.42 5/25/11 5:32:00 2.0 1.4 0.2828

2.101 0.2959 0.9541 0.00 4.30 0.521 4.30 5/25/11 5:34:00 4.0 2.0 0.2832

1.051 0.2942 0.9558 0.00 4.13 0.523 4.13 5/25/11 5:38:00 8.0 2.8 0.2835 5/25/11 5:45:00 15.0 3.9 0.2838
5/25/11 6:00:00 30.0 5.5 0.2840
5/25/11 6:30:00 60.0 7.7 0.2843
5/25/11 7:30:00 120.0 11.0 0.2846
5/25/11 9:30:00 240.0 15.5 0.2849
5/25/11 13:30:00 480.0 21.9 0.2853
5/26/11 5:30:00 1440.0 37.9 0.2860
Rev. 08-04
MURRIETA 18
Depth (ft.):

Tested By:

Time Readings @ 2.101 ksf
Date
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Checked By:

SILTY SAND (SM), brown.

LB-1
R-3

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 2435)
Void
Ratio
603181-001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness
Corrected
Deforma-
tion (%) Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)

0.510

0.530

0.550

0.570

0.590

0.610

0.630

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate
with water
xConsolidation; LB-1, R-3 ------ 2.101 T.R.

SILTY SAND (SM), brown.

Time Readings @ 2.101 ksf
##### ##### 0.275

0.282

0.282

0.282

0.283

0.283

0.283

0.284

0.284

0.284

0.284

0.285

0.285

0.285

0.286
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Sample Description: Project No.: 603181-001
96 SILTY SAND (SM), brown.

LB-1 R-3 10.0 21.0 20.5
Boring
No.

Sample
No.:

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
Time Readings @ 2.101 ksf

0.523106.1 110.7 0.589

ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Rev. 08-04
Degree of
Saturation (%)
Dry Density
(pcf) Void Ratio
100
Project Name: MURRIETA 18

0.2810

0.2820

0.2830

0.2840

0.2850

0.2860

0.2870

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
-1.00

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2810

0.2820

0.2830

0.2840

0.2850

0.2860

0.2870

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.)
Inundate with
water

Project Name: JAP Date: 5/20/11
Project No.: JMB Date: 5/31/11
Boring No.: 7.5
Sample No.:

Sample Description:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.422
Sample Thickness (in.): 0.993
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 196.8
Weight of Ring (g): 43.4
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9159
Before Test 20.24
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 196.8
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 167.5
Weight of Container (g): 43.4
Initial Moisture Content (%) 23.6
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.3
Initial Saturation (%): 100
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.2500
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 192.8
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 167.5
Weight of Container (g): 43.4
Final Moisture Content (%) 20.4
Final Dry Density (pcf): 112.0
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.3336
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.020 0.2500 1.0000 0.00 -0.70 0.643 -0.70 5/24/11 5:35:00 0.0 0.0 0.2761

0.526 0.2759 0.9741 0.00 1.90 0.600 1.90 5/24/11 5:35:06 0.1 0.3 0.2795

0.526 0.2761 0.9739 0.00 1.92 0.600 1.92 5/24/11 5:35:15 0.2 0.5 0.2800

1.051 0.2910 0.9590 0.00 3.42 0.575 3.42 5/24/11 5:35:30 0.5 0.7 0.2805

2.101 0.3138 0.9362 0.00 5.72 0.538 5.72 5/24/11 5:36:00 1.0 1.0 0.2813

4.029 0.3365 0.9135 0.00 8.01 0.501 8.01 5/24/11 5:37:00 2.0 1.4 0.2823

2.101 0.3355 0.9145 0.00 7.91 0.502 7.91 5/24/11 5:39:00 4.0 2.0 0.2836

1.051 0.3336 0.9164 0.00 7.71 0.505 7.71 5/24/11 5:43:00 8.0 2.8 0.2849 5/24/11 5:50:00 15.0 3.9 0.2859
5/24/11 6:05:00 30.0 5.5 0.2867
5/24/11 6:35:00 60.0 7.7 0.2875
5/24/11 7:35:00 120.0 11.0 0.2882
5/24/11 9:35:00 240.0 15.5 0.2890
5/24/11 13:35:00 480.0 21.9 0.2897
5/25/11 5:35:00 1440.0 37.9 0.2910
Rev. 08-04
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 2435)
Void
Ratio
603181-001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness
Corrected
Deforma-
tion (%)
MURRIETA 18
Depth (ft.):

Tested By:

Time Readings @ 1.051 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Checked By:

LEAN CLAY (CL), brown.

LB-4
R-3

0.490

0.510

0.530

0.550

0.570

0.590

0.610

0.630

0.650

0.670

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate
with water
xConsolidation; LB-4, R-3 ---- 1.051 T.R.

LEAN CLAY (CL), brown.

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Sample Description:

ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Rev. 08-04
Degree of
Saturation (%)
Dry Density
(pcf) Void Ratio
100
Project Name: MURRIETA 18
Boring
No.

Sample
No.:

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
Time Readings @ 1.051 ksf

0.505103.3 112.0 0.631
Project No.: 603181-001
100
LEAN CLAY (CL), brown.

LB-4 R-3 7.5 23.6 20.4

0.2800

0.2820

0.2840

0.2860

0.2880

0.2900

0.2920

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
-1.00

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2790

0.2810

0.2830

0.2850

0.2870

0.2890

0.2910

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.)
Inundate with
water

Project Name: JAP Date: 5/20/11
Project No.: JMB Date: 5/31/11
Boring No.: 7.5
Sample No.:

Sample Description:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.422
Sample Thickness (in.): 0.993
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 196.8
Weight of Ring (g): 43.4
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9159
Before Test 20.24
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 196.8
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 167.5
Weight of Container (g): 43.4
Initial Moisture Content (%) 23.6
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.3
Initial Saturation (%): 100
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.2500
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 192.8
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 167.5
Weight of Container (g): 43.4
Final Moisture Content (%) 20.4
Final Dry Density (pcf): 112.0
Final Saturation (%): 100
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.3336
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.020 0.2500 1.0000 0.00 -0.70 0.643 -0.70 5/25/11 5:35:00 0.0 0.0 0.2910

0.526 0.2759 0.9741 0.00 1.90 0.600 1.90 5/25/11 5:35:06 0.1 0.3 0.2969

0.526 0.2761 0.9739 0.00 1.92 0.600 1.92 5/25/11 5:35:15 0.2 0.5 0.2976

1.051 0.2910 0.9590 0.00 3.42 0.575 3.42 5/25/11 5:35:30 0.5 0.7 0.2985

2.101 0.3138 0.9362 0.00 5.72 0.538 5.72 5/25/11 5:36:00 1.0 1.0 0.3004

4.029 0.3365 0.9135 0.00 8.01 0.501 8.01 5/25/11 5:37:00 2.0 1.4 0.3021

2.101 0.3355 0.9145 0.00 7.91 0.502 7.91 5/25/11 5:39:00 4.0 2.0 0.3044

1.051 0.3336 0.9164 0.00 7.71 0.505 7.71 5/25/11 5:43:00 8.0 2.8 0.3065 5/25/11 5:50:00 15.0 3.9 0.3080
5/25/11 6:05:00 30.0 5.5 0.3092
5/25/11 6:35:00 60.0 7.7 0.3101
5/25/11 7:35:00 120.0 11.0 0.3110
5/25/11 9:35:00 240.0 15.5 0.3117
5/25/11 13:35:00 480.0 21.9 0.3125
5/26/11 5:35:00 1440.0 37.9 0.3138
Rev. 08-04
Checked By:

LEAN CLAY (CL), brown.

LB-4
R-3
MURRIETA 18
Depth (ft.):

Tested By:

Time Readings @ 2.101 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)

CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 2435)
Void
Ratio
603181-001
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness
Corrected
Deforma-
tion (%)

0.490

0.510

0.530

0.550

0.570

0.590

0.610

0.630

0.650

0.670

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate
with water
xConsolidation; LB-4, R-3 ---- 2.101 T.R.

LEAN CLAY (CL), brown.

Time Readings @ 2.101 ksf
##### 0.291

0.297

0.298

0.299

0.3 0.302

0.304

0.307

0.308

0.309

0.31 0.311

0.312

0.313

0.314
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Sample Description: Project No.: 603181-001
100
LEAN CLAY (CL), brown.

LB-4 R-3 7.5 23.6 20.4
Boring
No.

Sample
No.:

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)
Time Readings @ 2.101 ksf

0.505103.3 112.0 0.631

ONE - DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
Rev. 08-04
Degree of
Saturation (%)
Dry Density
(pcf) Void Ratio
100
Project Name: MURRIETA 18

0.3000

0.3020

0.3040

0.3060

0.3080

0.3100

0.3120

0.3140

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)
-1.00

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00

0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2950

0.3000

0.3050

0.3100

0.3150

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.)
Inundate with
water

LB-1
R-3

10.0 RING
328.9
327.0
199.9

1.5 RH
328.9
199.9
127.1
RH
283.4
199.9

83.5 34
66 Project Name:

Project No.:

Client Name:

Tested By: JMB Date: 6/3/11
Rev. 08-04
Boring No.

Sample No.

Container No.:

Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
**
Container No.:

Weight of Sample + Container (gm.)
Sample Dry Weight Determination
Depth (ft.)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
Moisture Correction
Sample Type
Visual Soil Classification
Weight of Container (gm)
MURRIETA 18
603181-001
SM
Weight of Container (gm)
Moisture Content (%)
Weight of Container (gm.)
Weight of Dry Sample (gm.)
% Passing No. 200 Sieve
PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
After Wash
% Retained No. 200 Sieve
Dry Weight of Sample (gm)
Dry Weight of Sample + Container (gm)
200 Wash; LB-1, R-3
LB-2
R-5

15.0 RING
717.5
644.2
158.9

15.1 KR
717.5
158.9
485.3
KR
612.5
158.9
453.6
7 93
Project Name:

Project No.:

Client Name:

Tested By: JAP Date: 5/23/11
Rev. 08-04
Boring No.

Sample No.

Container No.:

Wet Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
**
Container No.:

Weight of Sample + Container (gm.)
Sample Dry Weight Determination
Depth (ft.)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (gm.)
Moisture Correction
Sample Type
Visual Soil Classification
Weight of Container (gm)
MURRIETA 18
603181-001
(SW-SM)
Weight of Container (gm)
Moisture Content (%)
Weight of Container (gm.)
Weight of Dry Sample (gm.)
% Passing No. 200 Sieve
PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE
ASTM D 1140
After Wash
% Retained No. 200 Sieve
Dry Weight of Sample (gm)
Dry Weight of Sample + Container (gm)
200 Wash; LB-2, R-5

APPENDIX C

Slope Stability and Settlement Analyses

5.5675.567
W

5.5675.567
HuHu
Type
Water
Surface
Phi
(deg)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit
Weight
(lbs/ft3)
ColorMaterial
Name
1CustomWater
Surface0500Mohr‐
Coulomb115
CL/ML
1CustomWater
Surface24500Mohr‐
Coulomb115
ML
1CustomWater
Surface30500Mohr‐
Coulomb125
Compacted
Fill
50 40 30 20 10 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Scenario
Static
Project Number
13343.001
Company
Leighton and Associates
Drawn By
BSS
File Name Drainage Slope.slmd
Date 4/6/2022, 1:54:05 PM
Project
LMC Murrieta
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.020

1.5701.570
W

1.5701.570
HuHu
Type
Water
Surface
Phi
(deg)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit Weight
(lbs/ft3)ColorMaterial
Name
1CustomWater
Surface0500Mohr‐
Coulomb115
CL/ML
1CustomWater
Surface24500Mohr‐
Coulomb115
ML
1CustomWater
Surface30500Mohr‐
Coulomb125
Compacted
Fill

0.38 60 40 20 0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Scenario
Seismic
Project Number
13343.001
Company
Leighton and Associates
Drawn By
BSS
File Name Drainage Slope.slmd
Date 4/6/2022, 1:54:05 PM
Project
LMC Murrieta
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.020

*********************************************************************************** ********************
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY

Copyright by CivilTech Software
www.civiltechsoftware.com

*********************************************************************************** ********************
Font: Courier New, Regular, Size 8 is recommended for this report.

Licensed to ,  4/6/2022 3:59:52  PM
Input File Name: P:\Leighton ‐ Infocus\13000 ‐ 13999\13343 LMC Murrieta Hot Springs\004 LMC Murrieta ‐ Investigation\Analyses\Liquefaction\B‐1 LGC Liq.liq Title:  LMC Murrieta
Subtitle:  13343.004
Surface Elev.=1078
Hole No.=B
‐1 (LGC)
Depth of Hole= 45.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 5.00 ft
Water Table during In‐Situ Testing= 8.00 ft
Max. Acceleration= 0.8 g
Earthquake Magnitude= 7.70
Input Data:

Surface Elev.=1078
Hole No.=B‐1 (LGC)
Depth of Hole=45.00 ft
Water Table during Earthquake= 5.00 ft
Water Table during In‐Situ Testing= 8.00 ft
Max. Acceleration=0.8 g
Earthquake Magnitude=7.70
No‐Liquefiable Soils:   CL, OL are Non‐Liq. Soil

1. SPT or BPT Calculation.

2. Settlement Analysis Method: Ishihara / Yoshimine

3. Fines Correction for Liquefaction: Idriss/Seed

4. Fine Correction for Settlement: During Liquefaction*

5. Settlement Calculation in: All zones*

6. Hammer Energy Ratio,                                   Ce = 1.25

7. Borehole Diameter,                                         Cb= 1.15

8. Sampling Method,                                          Cs= 1

9. User request factor of safety (apply to CSR) ,   User= 1.1 Plot one CSR curve (fs1=User)

10. Use Curve Smoothing: Yes*
* Recommended Options
In‐Situ Test Data:

Depth SPT gamma Fines
ft pcf %
____________________________________

0.00 24.00 123.50 NoLiq

5.00 14.00 134.00 NoLiq

10.00 12.00 133.10 39.00

15.00 8.00 130.00 65.00

20.00 13.00 130.00 54.00

25.00 36.00 138.40 15.00

30.00 39.00 126.90 10.00

35.00 16.00 128.40 52.00

40.00 16.00 135.10 52.00

45.00 60.00 137.40 52.00
____________________________________
Output Results:

Settlement of Saturated Sands=3.27 in.

Settlement of Unsaturated Sands=0.00 in.

Total Settlement of Saturated and Unsaturated Sands=3.27 in.

Differential Settlement=1.637 to 2.160 in.

Depth CRRm CSRfs F.S. S_sat. S_dry S_all
ft   in. in. in.
_______________________________________________________

0.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 3.27 0.00 3.27

5.00 2.00 0.57 5.00 3.27 0.00 3.27

10.00 0.33 0.73 0.46* 3.27 0.00 3.27

15.00 0.21 0.81 0.26* 2.14 0.00 2.14

20.00 0.31 0.85 0.37* 1.04 0.00 1.04

25.00 1.87 0.87 2.15 0.98 0.00 0.98

30.00 1.87 0.88 2.13 0.98 0.00 0.98

35.00 0.34 0.86 0.39* 0.95 0.00 0.95

40.00 0.30 0.83 0.37* 0.04 0.00 0.04

45.00 1.85 0.80 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
_______________________________________________________ * F.S.<1, Liquefaction Potential Zone
(F.S. is limited to 5, CRR  is limited to 2, CSR  is limited to 2) Units: Unit:  qc, fs, Stress or Pressure = atm (1.0581tsf); Unit Weight = pcf; Depth = ft; Settlement = in.

___________________________________________________________________________________ _
1 atm (atmosphere) = 1 tsf
(ton/ft2)
CRRm   Cyclic resistance ratio from soils
CSRsf  Cyclic stress ratio induced by a given earthquake (with user request factor of safety)
F.S.  Factor of Safety against liquefaction, F.S.=CRRm/CSRsf S_sat Settlement  from saturated sands
S_dry Settlement  from Unsaturated Sands
S_all Total  Settlement from Saturated and Unsaturated Sands NoLiq No ‐Liquefy Soils
Latitude, Longitude: 33.5499, -117.1963
Date 4/6/2022, 1:16:52 PM
Design Code Reference Document ASCE7-16
Risk Category II
Site Class D - Stiff Soil
Type Value Description
SS 1.628 MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
S1 0.611 MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
SMS 1.628 Site-modified spectral acceleration value
SM1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 1.085 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA SD1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description
SDC null -See Section 11.4.8 Seismic design category
Fa 1 Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 Site amplification factor at 1.0 second PGA 0.726 MCEG peak ground acceleration
FPGA 1.1 Site amplification factor at PGA
PGAM 0.798 Site modified peak ground acceleration
TL 8 Long-period transition period in seconds
SsRT 1.628 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) SsUH 1.809 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration SsD 2.465 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) S1RT 0.611 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) S1UH 0.676 Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.

S1D 0.982 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second) PGAd 1.038 Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) CRS 0.9 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods CR1 0.903 Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s Unied Hazard Tool
 Input
U.S. Geological Survey - Earthquake Hazards Program
Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Maps web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical. 
Edition
Dynamic: Conterminous U.S. 2014 (update…
Latitude
Decimal degrees

33.5499
Longitude
Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes -117.1963
Site Class
259 m/s (Site class D)
Spectral Period
Peak Ground Acceleration
Time Horizon
Return period in years
2475
 Hazard Curve
View Raw Data
Hazard Curves
Time Horizon 2475 years
Peak Ground Acceleration

0.10 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.20 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.30 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.50 Second Spectral Acceleration

0.75 Second Spectral Acceleration

1.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

2.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

3.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

4.00 Second Spectral Acceleration

5.00 Second Spectral Acceleration
1e-2 1e-1 1e+0
Ground Motion (g)
1e-12
1e-11
1e-10
1e-9
1e-8
1e-7
1e-6
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
Annual Frequency of Exceedence
Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Spectral Period (s)

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 Ground Motion (g)
Spectral Period (s): PGA
Ground Motion (g): 0.7391
Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration
Time Horizon 2475 years
System
Grid
Interface
Fault
1e-2 1e-1 1e+0
Ground Motion (g)
1e-11
1e-10
1e-9
1e-8
1e-7
1e-6
1e-5
1e-4
1e-3
1e-2
1e-1
1e+0
Annual Frequency of Exceedence
 Deaggregation
Component
Total
ε = (- ∞ .. -2.5)
ε = [-2.5 .. -2)
ε = [-2 .. -1.5)
ε = [-1.5 .. -1)
ε = [-1 .. -0.5)
ε = [-0.5 .. 0)
ε = [0 .. 0.5)
ε = [0.5 .. 1)
ε = [1 .. 1.5)
ε = [1.5 .. 2)
ε = [2 .. 2.5)
ε = [2.5 .. + ∞ )
5 15
25 35
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
45 55
65 75
85 95
9 8.5
8 7.5
Magnitude (Mw)
7 6.5
6 5.5
5 4.5 5 10 15% Contribution to Hazard20 25 30 35
5 15
25 35
45 55
Closest Distance, rRup (km)
65 75
85 95
9 8.5
8 7.5
7 6.5
Magnitude (Mw)
6 5.5
5 4.5
Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total
Deaggregation targets
Return period: 2475 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr ⁻ ¹
PGA ground motion: 0.73908283 g
Recovered targets
Return period: 2796.0398 yrs
Exceedance rate: 0.0003576487 yr ⁻ ¹
Totals
Binned: 100 %
Residual: 0 %
Trace: 0.07 %
Mean (over all sources)
m: 7.02
r: 6.21 km
ε ₀: 1.04 σ
Mode (largest m-r bin)
m: 7.71
r: 1.43 km
ε ₀: 0.54 σ
Contribution: 25.07 %
Mode (largest m-r- ε₀ bin)
m: 7.71
r: 1.42 km
ε ₀: 0.37 σ
Contribution: 16.61 %
Discretization
r: min = 0.0, max = 1000.0, Δ = 20.0 km
m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, Δ = 0.2
ε: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, Δ = 0.5 σ
Epsilon keys
ε 0: [- ∞ .. -2.5)
ε 1: [-2.5 .. -2.0)
ε 2: [-2.0 .. -1.5)
ε 3: [-1.5 .. -1.0)
ε 4: [-1.0 .. -0.5)
ε 5: [-0.5 .. 0.0)
ε 6: [0.0 .. 0.5)
ε 7: [0.5 .. 1.0)
ε 8: [1.0 .. 1.5)
ε 9: [1.5 .. 2.0)
ε 10: [2.0 .. 2.5)
ε 11: [2.5 .. + ∞ ]
Deaggregation Contributors
Source Set  Source Type r m ε0 lon lat az %
UC33brAvg_FM31 System 40.94
Elsinore (Temecula) rev [1] 1.42 7.30 0.61 117.195°W 33.550°N 63.08 33.19 San Jacinto (Stepovers Combined) [3] 33.32 8.04 2.08 116.927°W 33.748°N 48.42 2.94 Elsinore (Temecula) rev [2] 3.22 6.49 1.01 117.175°W 33.531°N 135.90 1.90 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 39.70
Elsinore (Temecula) rev [1] 1.42 7.35 0.60 117.195°W 33.550°N 63.08 32.25 San Jacinto (Stepovers Combined) [3] 33.32 8.03 2.09 116.927°W 33.748°N 48.42 2.91 Elsinore (Temecula) rev [2] 3.22 6.52 1.00 117.175°W 33.531°N 135.90 1.67 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) Grid 9.68
PointSourceFinite: -117.196, 33.599 7.53 5.59 1.69 117.196°W 33.599°N 0.00 2.68 PointSourceFinite: -117.196, 33.599 7.53 5.59 1.69 117.196°W 33.599°N 0.00 2.68 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) Grid 9.68
PointSourceFinite: -117.196, 33.599 7.53 5.59 1.69 117.196°W 33.599°N 0.00 2.68 PointSourceFinite: -117.196, 33.599 7.53 5.59 1.69 117.196°W 33.599°N 0.00 2.68

3.5953.5953.5953.595
RuWater
Surface
Allow
Sliding
Phi
(deg)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit
Weight
(lbs/ft3)
ColorMaterial
Name
0None01000Mohr‐
Coulomb115
CL 1
0None02000Mohr‐
Coulomb115
CL 2
0NoneNoInfinite
strength150
Retaining
Wall
120 100 80 60
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Scenario
Static
Project Number
13343.001
Company
Leighton and Associates
Drawn By
BSS
File Name Street Slope.slmd
Date 4/8/2022, 12:49:42 PM
Project
13343.004
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.020

1.7071.7071.7071.707

0.38 RuWater
Surface
Allow
Sliding
Phi
(deg)
Cohesion
(psf)
Strength
Type
Unit
Weight
(lbs/ft3)
ColorMaterial
Name
0None01000Mohr‐
Coulomb115
CL 1
0None02000Mohr‐
Coulomb115
CL 2
0NoneNoInfinite
strength150
Retaining
Wall
0None30500Mohr‐
Coulomb125
Compacted
Fill 1
120 100 80 60 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Scenario
Seismic
Project Number
13343.001
Company
Leighton and Associates
Drawn By
BSS
File Name Street Slope.slmd
Date 4/8/2022, 12:49:42 PM
Project
13343.004
SLIDEINTERPRET 9.020

APPENDIX D

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications

-i-
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 GENERAL 1

1.1 Intent 1

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record 1

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor 2

2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED 2

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing 2

2.2 Processing 3

2.3 Overexcavation 3

2.4 Benching 3

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas 3

3.0 FILL MATERIAL 4

3.1 General 4

3.2 Oversize 4

3.3 Import 4

4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 4

4.1 Fill Layers 4

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning 5

4.3 Compaction of Fill 5

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes 5

4.5 Compaction Testing 5

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing 5

4.7 Compaction Test Locations 6

5.0 SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION 6

6.0 EXCAVATION 6

7.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 6

7.1 Safety 6

7.2 Bedding & Backfill 7

7.3 Lift Thickness 7

7.4 Observation and Testing 7

Standard Details

A - Keying and Benching Rear of Text
B - Oversize Rock Disposal Rear of Text
C - Canyon Subdrains Rear of Text
D - Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Rear of Text E - Transition Lot Fills and Side Hill Fills Rear of Text Retaining Wall Rear of Text
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-1-

1.0 General

1.1 Intent

These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).

1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record

Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.

Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.

During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and
frequent basis.

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-2-

1.3 The Earthwork Contractor

The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24
hours in advance of such
changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware of all grading operations.

The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.

2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled

2.1 Clearing and Grubbing

Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-3-
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.

As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.

2.2 Processing

Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.

Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.

2.3 Overexcavation

In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.

2.4 Benching

Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15
feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent
material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.

2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas

All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-4-
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.

3.0 Fill Material

3.1 General

Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.

3.2 Oversize

Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10
vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.

3.3 Import

If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section

3.1. The potential import source shall be given
to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.

4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction

4.1 Fill Layers

Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8
inches in loose thickness.

The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-5-

4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning

Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.

Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557).

4.3 Compaction of Fill

After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.

4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes

In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4
feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557.

4.5 Compaction Testing

Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.

Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).

4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing

Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-6-

4.7 Compaction Test Locations

The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.

5.0 Subdrain Installation

Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the grading plan. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.

6.0 Excavation

Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.

7.0 Trench Backfills

7.1 Safety

The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.

LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-7-

7.2 Bedding and Backfill

All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.

The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.

At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.

7.3 Lift Thickness

Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.

7.4 Observation and Testing

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

FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE 1: 1
(HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL)

MAXIMUM FROM TOE

OF SLOPE TO

APPROVED GROUND

EXISTING

GROUND SURFACE

FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
-

CUT-OVER-ALL SLOPE

PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM

FROM TOE OF SLOPE

TO APPROVED GROUND

KEYING AND BENCHING
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

UT FACE SHALL BE

CONSTRUCTED PRIOR

TO FILL PLACEMENT
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5: 1.

MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS A
�Leighton

FINISH GRADE
_ - - - - - - ·10•- - - - COMPACTEDFILL:._-_-_-_-_-_-_:

MIN. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- �--------------- _-_-_-_-_-_ � - �----_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - --
-----7- ------ ------- � -------v------o.-------o---------- -----� ------- _-_ - _-_-__ /--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_----- · 7-----------------------------7-------- v
-----
u
------------ --- - ------ ----
- -_-_-_-_-,e_-_-_ o-_-_-_ -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--: er---_-
- - 10·- - . -7"' - - - - 0 - I-a- - - - - - - - - - - - _-_-_-r:1J:N.:....
_
_
_
...-:_- - - _-_-_-_-_-__ 4'MIN. _ -t� _ 15'MIN._-
_.-l
-
-
-_- -
-------p 7=�----n*-------�-��------- -- ------ - ---------- -- ------ --- - - - -,,,,�- - - _-..::_-_-_OVERSIZE
--_-_-_-_-_-_-_ - - -
-
-
- - - - /"" - - - - _ _ _ _ WINDROW ___ _
�---7--------------
• Oversize rock is larger than 8 inches
in largest dimension.
• Backfill with approved soil jetted or
flooded in place to fill all the voids.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope face.

PROFILE ALONG WINDROW

SECTION A-A'

JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL
-_ ---------------- ----------------_ A' :-::::---::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-� --------_

JETTED OR FLOODED

APPROVED SOIL
�
l
.�
�----------------------.---------------.----------,!

OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS B
L_ ____________ _j_ ________ ____JL__ _____ ___J
�
I
a.

E
� g
Cl
a:

NATURAL
GROUND
/
�----------::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-- -� "'�" ---��--------_:COMPACTED FILL:._-_-_---
�------ - -

TYPICAL

BENCHING
-----------------�---.----..o..._-_-�_-_-_-_-_-_�---_-�----,,......... ----�----------::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::-::::0

SUBDRAIN
(See Alternates A and B)

FILTER MATERIAL

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A PERFORATED PIPE SURROUNDED
WITH FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATION, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE.

FILTER MATERIAL (9FT 3/FT) CLASS 2 GRADING AS FOLLOWS:

Sieve Size
1"
3/4"
3/8"
No.4
No.8
No. 30
No. 50
No.200
Percent Passing
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-1 SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A-2
ALTERNATE B-1

PERFORATED PIPE
6" 0 MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
3/4" MAX. GRAVEL OR

APPROVED EQUIVALENT
(9FT 3 /FT)
ALTERNATE B-2
0 PERFORATED PIPE IS OPTIONAL PER

GOVERNING AGENCY'S REQUIREMENTS

DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINAL
DESIGN

FINISHED GRADE
10' MIN. BACKFILL
r- 15' MIN.---i---i--20' MIN.
5' MIN PERFORATED
6"0MIN.
· • 6"0 MIN.----i
I

NON-PERFORATED

FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140N OR

APPROVED EQUIVALENT)
�
t :g ·e
1------------------,,------------------------,------------g CANYON

SUBDRAIN

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS a.

E
�gSTANDARD DETAILS C
L...-----------------''------------------------1--------------' c.:

I
.15' MIN�
I
�- ��,,,..-����

OUTLET PIPES
4"1> NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
,,,/ / I
/ �,---------J
,,,,,, / I
/ ,..r ,,, ., I
/ ·�
/// /� ,,, , I �
/ --2% MIN. �
�

BACKCUT
/I
/ /
,,,
\
/ I BENCHING
// \ /i ,,,// \ /�
1'± / \ ,-- _J
J (! �/ _ 2% MIN. \ Jo1
. 2% MIN. --- / I

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE B
r•-----15' MIN.----·-1

KEY DEPTH KEY WIDTH
2' MIN.

SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE A POSillVE SEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED ----....

AT THE JOINT
CAL TRANS CLASS 2
,,o���, ;rr��:,��:
���""MIN

OUTLET PIPE
(NON-PERFORATED)
3/4" ROCK (3FT.3/FT)-----­

WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC

T-CONNECTION FROM

COLLECTION PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall •
•
be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet.

SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, ASTM D1527 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 ABS pipe or ASTM D3034 (Schedule 40) or SDR 23.5 PVC pipe.

All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench and, after fill is placed above it, rodded to verify integrity.

FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR

APPROVED

EQUIVALENT)
�
I
.ci
::,
"'1
1-----------------""T"'"------------------.--------------tl

BUTTRESS OR

REPLACEMENT FILL

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS D SUBDRAINS
� g
.__ _______________ _._ _______________ __._ _________ __,a:

OVERBURDEN

OR UNSUITABLE

MATERIAL

CUT-FILL TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
REMOVE

UNSUITABLE
\. GROUND \_..- ----

SIDE HILL FILL FOR CUT PAD

OVEREXCAVATE

AND RECOMPACT
(REPLACEMENT FILL)
/
/
/
----
/
/
/
/
4' MIN. <'\(/'

NATURAL
GROUND
�__-
__----
/
/
/
/
/

FINISHED CUT PAD
L...=��.,......-.J.J-------- SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR SUBDRAINS

WHEN REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSUL TANT
KEY
2'MIN. �

DEPTH UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR MATERIAL APPROVED

BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
�
t .!!!ii= 51
·� 1------------------------.---------------"T"""-------------1!!!

TRANSITION LOT FILLS

AND SIDE HILL FILLS

GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING

SPECIFICATIONS

STANDARD DETAILS E
a.

E
�gLeighton
.__ ___________________ __,_ ______________ _.__ _________ ____.a:

RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL

WITH PROPERSURFACE DRAINAGESLOPEOR LEVEL
CLASS 2 PERMEABLEWEEP HOLE

WATERPROOFING(SEE GENERAL NOTES)

LEVEL ORSLOPE
12"

FILTER MATERIAL
NATIVE
¼ TO 1½ INCH SIZE GRAVELWRAPPED IN FILTER FABRICLEVEL ORSLOPEWEEP HOLE SLOPEOR LEVEL12"

WITH PROPERSURFACE DRAINAGE
4 INCH DIAMETERPERFORATED PIPE (SEE NOTE 3)

FILTER FABRIC
OPTION 1: PIPE SURROUNDED WITHCLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIALOPTION 2: GRAVEL WRAPPEDIN FILTER FABRICSUBDRAIN OPTIONS AND BACKFILL WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50 Sieve Size1"3/4"3/8"No. 4No. 8No. 30No. 50No. 200
Percent Passing10090-10040-10025-4018-335-150-70-3
Class 2 Filter Permeable Material GradationPer Caltrans Specifications (SEE NOTE 5)12" MINIMUM(SEE GRADATION)
WATERPROOFING(SEE GENERAL NOTES)(SEE NOTE 4)12" MINIMUM NATIVE
FOR WALLS 6 FEET OR LESS IN HEIGHT
(SEE NOTE 5)
WHEN NATIVE MATERIAL HAS EXPANSION INDEX OF <50
GENERAL NOTES:* Waterproofing should be provided where moisture nuisance problem through the wall is undesirable.* Water proofing of the walls is not under purview of the geotechnical engineer* All drains should have a gradient of 1 percent minimum*Outlet portion of the subdrain should have a 4-inch diameter solid pipe discharged into a suitable disposal area designed by the projectengineer. The subdrain pipe should be accessible for maintenance (rodding)*Other subdrain backfill options are subject to the review by the geotechnical engineer and modification of design parameters.Notes:1) Sand should have a sand equivalent of 30 or greater and may be densified by water jetting.2) 1 Cu. ft. per ft. of 1/4- to 1 1/2-inch size gravel wrapped in filter fabric3) Pipe type should be ASTM D1527 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) SDR35 or ASTM D1785 Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC), Schedule40, Armco A2000 PVC, or approved equivalent. Pipe should be installed with perforations down. Perforations should be 3/8 inch in diameterplaced at the ends of a 120-degree arc in two rows at 3-inch on center (staggered)4) Filter fabric should be Mirafi 140NC or approved equivalent.5) Weephole should be 3-inch minimum diameter and provided at 10-foot maximum intervals. If exposure is permitted, weepholes should belocated 12 inches above finished grade. If exposure is not permitted such as for a wall adjacent to a sidewalk/curb, a pipe under the sidewalkto be discharged through the curb face or equivalent should be provided. For a basement-type wall, a proper subdrain outlet system should beprovided.6) Retaining wall plans should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer.7) Walls over six feet in height are subject to a special review by the geotechnical engineer and modifications to the above requirements.

V:\DRAFTING\TEMPLATES\STANDARD-FIGURES\ALL-STANDARD-FIGURES.DWG (08-02-21 9:07:35AM) Plotted by: btran

APPENDIX E

GBA Important Information about this Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geotechnical-Engineering Report
Important Information about This
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA)
has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly
a client representative – interpret and apply this
geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as
possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered
exposure to problems associated with subsurface
conditions at project sites and development of
them that, for decades, have been a principal cause
of construction delays, cost overruns, claims,
and disputes. If you have questions or want more
information about any of the issues discussed herein,
contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer.

Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation
techniques that can be of genuine benefit for
everyone involved with a construction project.

Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services
Provided for this Report
Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities.

The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations.

Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions.

Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed
for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects,
and At Specific Times
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project.

Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it:
• for a different client;
• for a different project or purpose;
• for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or
• before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems.

Read this Report in Full
Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full.

You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer
About Change
Y our geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys.

Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect:
• the site’s size or shape;
• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation,
function or weight of the proposed structure and
the desired performance criteria;
• the composition of the design team; or
• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered.

Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report
Are Professional Opinions
Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed.

This Report’s Recommendations Are
Confirmation-Dependent
The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Y our geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation.

This Report Could Be Misinterpreted
Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to:
• confer with other design-team members;
• help develop specifications;
• review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and
• be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed.

Y ou should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- phase observations.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect.

Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations, ” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions.

Y our geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance.

Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with
Moisture Infiltration and Mold
While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies.

Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team.

Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists.

Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA ’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind.

Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

Telephone: 301/565-2733
e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org