Orange City Council
April 11, 2023

BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs
Yes N1. Education for Property Owners, Tenants
and Occupants
Educational materials will be provided to tenants
annually. Materials to be distributed are found in
Appendix B. Tenants will be provided these
materials by the Owner prior to new occupancy
and annually thereafter.

Frequency: At lease signing & annually
Yes N2. Activity Restrictions
The Owner will prescribe activity restrictions to
protect surface water quality, through lease terms
or other equally effective measure, for the
property. Restrictions include, but are not limited
to, prohibiting vehicle maintenance, vehicle
washing, and washing of impervious areas.

Frequency: Ongoing
2506

OP ERA TIONS AND MA INTENANCE PLAN

BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Yes N3. Common Area Landscape Management
Maintenance shall be consistent with City
requirements. Fertilizer and/or pesticide usage
shall be consistent with County Management
Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers (OC DAMP
Section 5.5) as well as local requirements.

Maintenance includes mowing, weeding, and
debris removal on a weekly basis. Trimming,
replanting, and replacement of mulch shall be
performed on an as-needed basis to prevent
exposure of erodible surfaces. Trimmings,
clippings, and other landscape wastes shall be
properly disposed of in accordance with local
regulations. Materials temporarily stockpiled
during maintenance activities shall be placed
away from water courses and storm drain inlets.

Frequency: Monthly
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
Yes N4. BMP Maintenance
Maintenance of structural BMPs implemented at
the project site shall be performed at the
frequency prescribed in the O&M Plan included
in this WQMP (Appendix D). Records of
inspections and BMP maintenance shall be kept
by the owner/developer and shall be available
for review upon request.

Frequency: Ongoing
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
2507

OP ERA TIONS AND MA INTENANCE PLAN

BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Yes N11. Common Area Litter Control
Litter patrol, violations investigations, reporting
and other litter control activities shall be
performed on a weekly basis and in conjunction
with routine maintenance activities.

Frequency: Weekly
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
Yes N12. Employee Training
Educate all new employees/ managers on storm
water pollution prevention, particularly good
housekeeping practices, prior to the start of the
rainy season (October 1). Refresher courses shall
be conducted on an annual or more often basis.

Frequency: Upon Hire and Annually thereafter
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
Yes N14. Common Area Catch Basin Inspection
Catch basin inlets and other drainage facilities
shall be inspected after each storm event and
once per year. Inlets and other facilities shall be
cleaned prior to the rainy season, by October 1
each year.

Frequency: Annually
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
Yes N15. Street Sweeping Private Streets and
Parking Lots
Private streets, drive aisles & any exposed parking
areas must be swept at least weekly, including
prior to the start of the rainy season (October 1).

Frequency: Weekly
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPs
2508

OP ERA TIONS AND MA INTENANCE PLAN

BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
BMP
Applicable?
Yes/No
BMP Name and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Yes S1. Provide storm drain system stenciling and
signage
Storm drain stencils shall be inspected for
legibility, at minimum, once prior to the storm
season, no later than October 1 each year.

Those determined to be illegible will be restenciled as soon as possible.

Frequency: Annually
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
Yes
S4. Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape
design, water conservation, smart controllers,
and source control
Inspect, test and adjust irrigation system to
eliminate overspray to hardscape areas, ensure
timing and cycle lengths are correct.

Frequency: Weekly Visual inspection testing 2x
per year
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
Yes S13. Wash water control for food preparation
areas
Food preparation areas will be inspected on a
regular basis to ensure proper waste disposal and
water usage procedures. Any grease interceptors
shall be inspected and maintained in accordance
with manufacturer’s recommendations (typically
quarterly).

Frequency: Quarterly
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA
2509

OP ERA TIONS AND MA INTENANCE PLAN

BMP INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
BMP Name and BMP Implementation,
Maintenance and Inspection Procedures
Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Frequency and Schedule
Person or Entity with
Operation & Maintenance
Responsibility
Biotreatment BMP # 1: Proprietary Biotreatment (Modular Wetland System)
Modular Wetlands by Modular Wetlands Systems, Inc. are
proprietary biotreatment systems that utilize multi-stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling, and biofiltration. The pre-treatment chamber
contains the first three stages of treatment and includes a catch basin inlet filter to capture trash, debris, gross solids and sediments, a settling chamber for separating out larger solids, and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine TSS, metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff then flows through the wetland chamber where treatment is achieved through a variety of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, adsorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and
plants, functioning similar to bioretention systems. The discharge chamber at the end of the unit collects treated flows and discharges back into the storm drain system.

The Modular Wetland units shall be maintained
in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

The system shall be inspected at a minimum of
once every six months, prior to the start of the
rainy season (October 1) each year, and after
major storm events. Typical maintenance
includes:
▪ Removing trash & debris from the catch basin
screening filter (by hand, 2x per year at a
minimum).
▪ Removal of sediment and solids in the
settlement chamber (vacuum truck, once per
year at a minimum).
▪ Replacement of the BioMediaGREENTM filter
cartridge and drain-down filter (if equipped,
once per year at a minimum)
▪ Trim plants within the wetland chamber as
needed in conjunction with routine landscape
maintenance activities (typically 2x per year).

No fertilizer shall be used.

Wetland chamber should be inspected during
rain events to verify flow through the system. If
little to no flow is observed from the lower valve
or orifice plate, the wetland media may require
replacement. If prior treatment stages are
properly maintained, the life of the wetland
media can be up to 20 years.

Frequency: 2x per year
StreetLights Creative Studio,
LLC or HOA/POA

2510

OP ERA TIONS AND MA INTENANCE PLAN

Required Permits
This section must list any permits required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs. Possible examples are:
▪ Permits for connection to sanitary sewer
▪ Permits from California Department of Fish and Game
▪ Encroachment permits
If no permits are required, include the statement below:

At this time, permits are not required for the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the BMPs.

Forms to Record BMP Implementation, Maintenance, and Inspection The form that will be used to record implementation, maintenance, and inspection of BMPs is attached.

Recordkeeping
All records must be maintained for at least five (5) years and must be made available for review upon request.

Waste Management
Any waste generated from maintenance activities will be disposed of properly. Wash water and other waste from maintenance activities is not to be discharged or disposed of into the storm drain system.

Clippings from landscape maintenance (i.e. prunings) will be collected and disposed of properly offsite, and will not be washed into the streets, local area drains/conveyances, or catch basin inlets.

2511

RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date:

Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed):

Signature:

BMP Name
(As Shown in O&M Plan)
Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Activity Performed
2512

RECORD OF BMP IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, AND INSPECTION Today’s Date:

Name of Person Performing Activity (Printed):

Signature:

BMP Name
(As Shown in O&M Plan)
Brief Description of Implementation, Maintenance, and
Inspection Activity Performed
2513
www.modularwetlands.com


Maintenance Guidelines for
Modular Wetland System - Linear
Maintenance Summary
o 5HPRYH7UDVKIURP6FUHHQLQJ'HYLFHದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV ƒ 
PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH

o 5HPRYH6HGLPHQWIURP6HSDUDWLRQ&KDPEHUದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV ƒ
PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH

o 5HSODFH&DUWULGJH)LOWHU0HGLDದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOWRPRQWKV ƒ 
PLQXWHSHUFDUWULGJHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH

o 5HSODFH'UDLQ'RZQ)LOWHU0HGLDದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV ƒ
PLQXWHDYHUDJHVHUYLFHWLPH

o 7ULP9HJHWDWLRQದDYHUDJHPDLQWHQDQFHLQWHUYDOLVWRPRQWKV ƒ 
6HUYLFHWLPHYDULHV

System Diagram











 


$FFHVVWRVFUHHQLQJGHYLFHVHSDUDWLRQ
FKDPEHUDQGFDUWULGJHILOWHU
$FFHVVWRGUDLQ
GRZQILOWHU
3UH7UHDWPHQW
&KDPEHU
%LRILOWUDWLRQ&KDPEHU
'LVFKDUJH
&KDPEHU
2XWIORZ
3LSH
,QIORZ3LSH

RSWLRQDO

2514
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Procedures
Screening Device

1. Remove grate or manhole cover to gain access to the screening device in the PreTreatment Chamber. Vault type units do not have screening device. Maintenance can be performed without entry.

2. Remove all pollutants collected by the screening device. Removal can be done manually or with the use of a vacuum truck. The hose of the vacuum truck will not damage the screening device.

3. Screening device can easily be removed from the Pre-Treatment Chamber to gain access to separation chamber and media filters below. Replace grate or manhole cover when completed.

Separation Chamber

1. Perform maintenance procedures of screening device listed above before maintaining the separation chamber.

2. With a pressure washer spray down pollutants accumulated on walls and cartridge filters.

3. Vacuum out Separation Chamber and remove all accumulated pollutants. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.

Cartridge Filters

1. Perform maintenance procedures on screening device and separation chamber before maintaining cartridge filters.

2. Enter separation chamber.

3. Unscrew the two bolts holding the lid on each cartridge filter and remove lid.

4. Remove each of 4 to 8 media cages holding the media in place.

5. Spray down the cartridge filter to remove any accumulated pollutants.

6. Vacuum out old media and accumulated pollutants.

7. Reinstall media cages and fill with new media from manufacturer or outside supplier. Manufacturer will provide specification of media and sources to purchase.

8. Replace the lid and tighten down bolts. Replace screening device, grate or manhole cover when completed.

Drain Down Filter

1. Remove hatch or manhole cover over discharge chamber and enter chamber.

2. Unlock and lift drain down filter housing and remove old media block. Replace with new media block. Lower drain down filter housing and lock into place.

3. Exit chamber and replace hatch or manhole cover.
2515
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Notes

1. Following maintenance and/or inspection, it is recommended the maintenance operator prepare a maintenance/inspection record. The record should include any maintenance activities performed, amount and description of debris collected, and condition of the system and its various filter mechanisms.

2. The owner should keep maintenance/inspection record(s) for a minimum of five years from the date of maintenance. These records should be made available to the governing municipality for inspection upon request at any time.

3. Transport all debris, trash, organics and sediments to approved facility for disposal in accordance with local and state requirements.

4. Entry into chambers may require confined space training based on state and local regulations.

5. No fertilizer shall be used in the Biofiltration Chamber.

6. Irrigation should be provided as recommended by manufacturer and/or landscape architect. Amount of irrigation required is dependent on plant species. Some plants may require irrigation.









2516
www.modularwetlands.com


Maintenance Procedure Illustration
Screening Device
The screening device is located directly
under the manhole or grate over the
Pre-Treatment Chamber. It’s mounted
directly underneath for easy access
and cleaning. Device can be cleaned by
hand or with a vacuum truck.

Separation Chamber
The separation chamber is located
directly beneath the screening device.

It can be quickly cleaned using a
vacuum truck or by hand. A pressure
washer is useful to assist in the
cleaning process.







2517
www.modularwetlands.com




Cartridge Filters
The cartridge filters are located in the
Pre-Treatment chamber connected to
the wall adjacent to the biofiltration
chamber. The cartridges have
removable tops to access the
individual media filters. Once the
cartridge is open media can be
easily removed and replaced by hand
or a vacuum truck.

Drain Down Filter
The drain down filter is located in the
Discharge Chamber. The drain filter
unlocks from the wall mount and hinges
up. Remove filter block and replace with
new block.
2518
www.modularwetlands.com
Trim Vegetation
Vegetation should be maintained in the
same manner as surrounding vegetation
and trimmed as needed. No fertilizer shall
be used on the plants. Irrigation
per the recommendation of the
manufacturer and or landscape
architect. Different types of vegetation
requires different amounts of
irrigation.





2519
www.modularwetlands.com
Inspection Form
Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]
2520
For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Yes
Depth:

Yes No
Modular Wetland System Type (Curb, Grate or UG Vault): Size (22', 14' or etc.):

Other Inspection Items:

Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P (760) 433-7640 F (760) 433-3176 Inspection Report
Modular Wetlands System
Is the filter insert (if applicable) at capacity and/or is there an accumulation of debris/trash on the shelf system? Does the cartridge filter media need replacement in pre-treatment chamber and/or discharge chamber? Any signs of improper functioning in the discharge chamber? Note issues in comments section.

Chamber:

Is the inlet/outlet pipe or drain down pipe damaged or otherwise not functioning properly? Structural Integrity:

Working Condition:

Is there evidence of illicit discharge or excessive oil, grease, or other automobile fluids entering and clogging the unit?
Is there standing water in inappropriate areas after a dry period? Damage to pre-treatment access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Damage to discharge chamber access cover (manhole cover/grate) or cannot be opened using normal lifting pressure?
Does the MWS unit show signs of structural deterioration (cracks in the wall, damage to frame)? Project Name
Project Address
Inspection Checklist
No Comments
Does the depth of sediment/trash/debris suggest a blockage of the inflow pipe, bypass or cartridge filter? If yes, specify which one in the comments section. Note depth of accumulation in in pre-treatment chamber.

Is there a septic or foul odor coming from inside the system? Is there an accumulation of sediment/trash/debris in the wetland media (if applicable)? Is it evident that the plants are alive and healthy (if applicable)? Please note Plant Information below.

Sediment / Silt / Clay
Trash / Bags / Bottles
Green Waste / Leaves / Foliage
Waste: Plant Information
No Cleaning Needed
Recommended Maintenance
Additional Notes:

Damage to Plants
Plant Replacement
Plant Trimming
Schedule Maintenance as Planned
Needs Immediate Maintenance
2521
www.modularwetlands.com
Maintenance Report
Modular Wetland System, Inc.

P. 760.433-7640
F. 760-433-3176
E. [email protected]
2522
For Office Use Only
(city) (Zip Code) (Reviewed By)
Owner / Management Company
(Date)
Contact Phone ( ) _
Inspector Name Date / / Time AM / PM
Weather Condition Additional Notes
Site
Map #
Comments:
2972 San Luis Rey Road, Oceanside, CA 92058 P. 760.433.7640 F. 760.433.3176 Inlet and Outlet
Pipe Condition
Drain Down Pipe
Condition
Discharge Chamber
Condition
Drain Down Media
Condition
Plant Condition
Media Filter
Condition
Long:

MWS
Sedimentation
Basin
Total Debris
Accumulation
Condition of Media
25/50/75/100
(will be changed
@ 75%)
Operational Per
Manufactures'
Specifications
(If not, why?)
Lat: MWS
Catch Basins
GPS Coordinates
of Insert
Manufacturer /
Description / Sizing
Trash
Accumulation
Foliage
Accumulation
Sediment
Accumulation
Type of Inspection Routine Follow Up Complaint Storm Storm Event in Last 72-hours? No Yes Office personnel to complete section to
the left.

Project Address
Project Name
Cleaning and Maintenance Report
Modular Wetlands System
2523

APPENDIX E

INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS

APPENDIX D

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (FOR REFRENCE ONLY)
2524

DESIGN-LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT

PROPOSED MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AND

PARKING STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
840 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH

ORANGE, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For SLR ORANGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4180 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE 125
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037
Prepared By LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
17781 COWAN
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614
Project No. 12423.006
February 8, 2022
2525
February 8, 2022
Project No. 12423.006
SLR Orange Development, LLC
4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 125
La Jolla, California 92037
Attention: Mr. Scott Levy
Subject: Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Mixed-Use Residential and Parking Structure Development 840 The City Drive South
Orange, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) is pleased to present the results of our geotechnical exploration for the mixeduse multi-family residential-commercial-retail development project. Leighton understands the development is to include a 5-story residential apartment complex with ground floor retail elements over three levels of subterranean parking. Also proposed is a separate/detached two-story, on-grade parking garage structure with a partial belowgrade ramped level.

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the general distribution of subsurface earth deposits and groundwater to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the currently planned development.

Based on the results of our exploration and analysis, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the intended use from a geotechnical perspective provided our recommendations included herein are properly incorporated during design and construction. However, these recommendations should be further evaluated once final grading and foundations plans become available.
2526
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006 Cover Letter Page 2
We appreciate this opportunity to submit this report and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please contact us at (866) LEIGHTON; specifically, at the phone extensions or e-mail addresses listed below.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Joe A. Roe, PG, CEG
Senior Principal Geologist
Ext. 4263; [email protected]
Carl Kim, PE, GE 2620
Senior Principal Engineer
Ext. 4262; [email protected]

LFO/JAR/CCK/lr
Distribution: (1) Addressee
2527
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006 TOC Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Site Description.......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Proposed Development ............................................................................. 2

1.3 Previous Investigations.............................................................................. 2

1.4 Purpose and Scope ................................................................................... 3

1.5 Shear Wave Velocity.................................................................................. 5

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS............................................................................... 6

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting ......................................................................... 6

2.2 Site Geology .............................................................................................. 6

2.3 Groundwater.............................................................................................. 7

2.4 Expansive Soils ......................................................................................... 8

2.5 Corrosion ................................................................................................... 8

2.6 Infiltration ................................................................................................. 10

3.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION ..................................... 12

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture.............................................................................. 12

3.2 Seismicity and Ground Shaking............................................................... 12

3.3 Liquefaction Potential............................................................................... 13

3.4 Seismically-Induced Settlement............................................................... 14

3.5 Seismically-Induced Lateral Displacements............................................. 14

3.6 Seismically-Induced Landslides............................................................... 15

3.7 Flooding................................................................................................... 15

3.8 Seiches and Tsunamis............................................................................. 16

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 17

4.1 Site Grading............................................................................................. 18

4.1.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................ 18

4.1.2 Overexcavation ............................................................................. 19

4.1.3 Subgrade Preparation................................................................... 19

4.1.4 Subgrade Instability below Groundwater....................................... 19

4.1.5 Fill Materials.................................................................................. 20

4.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction..................................................... 20

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Design................................................................ 21

4.2.1 Conventional Spread Footings...................................................... 21

4.2.2 Mat Foundations ........................................................................... 22

4.3 Flagpole-type Foundations ...................................................................... 23

4.4 Slabs-on-Grade ....................................................................................... 23 2528
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006 TOC Page ii

4.5 Shoring .................................................................................................... 24

4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures .................................................................. 24

4.5.2 Surcharge Pressure from Adjacent Structures.............................. 25

4.5.3 Design of Soldier Piles .................................................................. 25

4.5.4 Lagging ......................................................................................... 26

4.5.5 Anchor Design............................................................................... 26

4.5.6 Anchor Installation......................................................................... 26

4.5.7 Anchor Testing.............................................................................. 27

4.5.8 Internal Bracing............................................................................. 28

4.5.9 Deflection ...................................................................................... 28

4.5.10 Monitoring ..................................................................................... 28

4.6 Retaining Walls........................................................................................ 29

4.7 Pavement Design Parameters ................................................................. 30

4.8 Portland Cement Concrete Paving .......................................................... 30

4.9 Drainage and Landscaping...................................................................... 31

4.10 Dewatering............................................................................................... 32

4.11 Utility Trenches ........................................................................................ 32

5.0 GEOTECHCNIAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES.............................................. 33

6.0 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................... 34

7.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 35 TABLES
Table 1 – Groundwater Depths by Elevation................................................................... 7 Table 2 - Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity...................................................... 9 Table 3 - Sulfate Concentration and Exposure................................................................ 9 Table 4 - Corrosivity Test Results ................................................................................. 10 Table 5 – Measured Infiltration Rate ............................................................................. 11 Table 6 - 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Parameters................................................. 13

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 – Site Location Map Rear of Text
Figure 2 – Geotechnical Map Rear of Text
Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map Rear of Text
Figure 4 – Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map Rear of Text Figure 5 – Seismic Hazard Map Rear of Text
Figure 6 – Flood Hazard Zone Dam Inundation Map Rear of Text 2529
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006 TOC Page iii
Appendix A – Exploration Logs
Appendix B – Field Percolation Test Data
Appendix C – Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D – Liquefaction Analyses
Appendix E – City of Orange Well Permit
Appendix F – General Earthwork and Grading Recommendations 2530
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Description
Our understanding of site geotechnical conditions is based on a review sitespecific geotechnical reports prepared by other consultants (see References) and the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses (Leighton, 2019a, 2021a, 2021b).

The site address is 840 The City Drive South in Orange, California. The location (latitude N33.7752°, longitude W117.8910°) and immediate vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The property is currently developed for office and/or commercial use. Existing improvements include three multi-story office buildings centrally located on the site surrounding an automotive roundabout. A 3-story hotel and retail strip mall occupy the northeast and southeast site corners. An office/retail building and above-ground parking structure occupy the southwest and west site margins. Areas of interconnecting paved parking/drive-aisles and landscape elements surround the existing improvements. A small one-story utility building is located in the parking lot north of the business complex. The layout of existing and planned improvements is shown on Figure 2, Geotechnical Map.

Abutting the property offsite to the west and north are existing residential developments. To the east and south are The City Drive South and Garden Grove Boulevard, respectively.

The property occupies a relatively flat to gently southeasterly sloping non-marine river terrace, representing a remnant of the Santa Ana River (SAR) now lower in elevation and confined to a channel to the east of the site. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Anaheim Quadrangle (USGS, 1981) indicates the site surface spans elevations (El.’s) ranging from approximately El.+118 to El.+120 feet mean sea level (msl). Based on our field measurements the nearest embankment of the SAR is on the order of 16 feet in height measured from toe of slope and inclined at approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).

Based on our review of historical aerial imagery, circa 1953 and 1963 (NETR, 2019), the site was formerly used for agricultural purposes, evident from visible tree-rows, until the early 1970’s. The first modifications to the property included grading in 1971 associated with construction of two (2) buildings and surface 2531
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

parking. The existing commercial building located in the southern portion of the site (840 The City Drive South) is visible in 1995 imagery.

1.2 Proposed Development
Our understanding of the current project layout is based on review of the Parking Structure Exhibit titled 840 City Drive Orange California, dated July 8, 2021, prepared by Streetlights Creative Studio, LLC. Improvements include a mixed-use residential building complex within an existing parking lot on the east margin of the site. The proposed residential building will occupy a trapezoidal shape and encompass an area of approximately 1.83 acres. Demolition of an existing onestory multi-tenant strip mall building at the southeast site corner will be required to accommodate the new apartment complex building.

The new building will be five-stories in height, contain 226 units, 9,200 square feet of ground-level retail space, a 3,500-square-foot fitness center, 5,000-square-foot lobby, and a centrally located pool and courtyard. Three levels of subterranean parking (levels B1, B2 and B3) are planned beneath the footprint of the residential complex.

A separate/detached 2-story on-grade parking structure is also planned, within an existing parking lot area between Garden Grove Boulevard and existing office buildings. We anticipate ancillary improvements will include pavement, flatwork, landscaping, utility installations, and a proposed stormwater infiltration system.

1.3 Previous Investigations
LeRoy Crandall & Associates (LRC), December 2, 1985: LRC prepared a Report of Foundation Investigation for the existing site improvements, including advancement of nine geotechnical exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 41 feet below ground surface (bgs) using a 20-inch-diameter bucket auger rig. Two additional 5-inch-diameter mud-rotary borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 60 feet bgs. The site contained an abandoned department store building at the time of their investigation. LRC indicated the building was underlain by a mantle of engineered fill 2 to 6 feet thick, which was previously placed under their observation and testing, compacted to a minimum 90% relative compaction. LRC reported the occurrence of groundwater seepage in their exploratory borings 3, 4, 5, and 7, within alluvium deposits at depths of 35, 41.5, 41, and 40 feet bgs, respectively. Seepage was not reported in their borings 1, 2 or 6. LRC provided soil parameters and recommendations for foundation, pile capacities, floor slab, 2532
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

pavement design. LRC performed laboratory testing, including analyses for moisture and dry density, direct shear strength, consolidation, maximum density, R-Value and corrosivity parameters.

LeRoy Crandall & Associates (LRC), August 19, 1988: LRC prepared a report documenting engineered fill (Ef) placement during earthwork construction for the existing Nexus City Square Development. The grading encompassed the existing parking lot within which the on-grade parking structure is currently proposed, see Figure 2 for approximate engineered fill depths.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2019a, 2019b, and 2021: Leighton previously performed a series of site-specific geotechnical due-diligence evaluations of former design concepts. As part of those studies, two geotechnical borings (LB-1 and LB-2) and percolation tests (LP-1 and LP-1a) were performed within the proposed residential building area. The borings were advanced to depths of 11 to

81.5 feet bgs, respectively. The borings and percolation test locations are presented on Figure 2. The logs of former and current borings are presented in Appendix A, Exploration Logs.

As part of the former due-diligence Leighton studies, laboratory tests were performed to determine moisture, in-situ density, and corrosion potential properties. The results of corrosion testing are discussed in Section 2.5 and full results are provided in Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results. Moisture contents and in-situ density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

1.4 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the general distribution of subsurface earth deposits, groundwater conditions, soil engineering properties and impacts to the development to provide geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction.

The scope of our studies included the following:
• Background Research: We reviewed published geologic reports/maps historical aerial photographs and topographic maps relevant to the site readily available in-house or accessible on-line. We obtained site-specific documents on-file with the City of Orange including prior geotechnical reports documenting 2533
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

past site grading activities, for a list of documents reviewed in preparation of this study see Section 7.0, References.
• Permitting: A well permit was obtained from the City of Orange Public Works Department – Water Division, for excavation and backfilling of two deep borings. A copy of the approved permit is attached as Appendix E, City of Orange Well Permit.
• Field Exploration: We advanced two (2) hollow-stem auger borings (LB-3 and LB-4) on December 27, 2021 extending to depths of approximately 59 feet and

61.5 feet bgs, respectively. The explorations were performed to assess the subsurface materials expected to be encountered during grading and for use in engineering design. The approximate locations of all explorations are shown on Figure 2. Boring logs are presented in Appendix A.

During drilling, bulk and relatively undisturbed drive samples were collected from the borings for geotechnical laboratory testing. The driven samples were obtained using a Modified California Ring sampler conducted in accordance with ASTM Test Method D3550. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were also performed within the hollow-stem auger borings in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1586. The samplers were driven for a total penetration of 18 inches, unless practical refusal was encountered, using a 140-pound automatic hammer falling freely for 30 inches. The number of blows per 6 inches of penetration was recorded on the boring logs. The borings were logged in the field by a member of our technical staff under the direct supervision of a State of California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG).

Soil samples were reviewed and described in the field in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with a mixture of bentonite and grout and patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete (AC) at the ground surface.
• Infiltration Testing: Two hollow-stem auger borings (LP-2 and LP-3) were advanced within proposed detached parking garage area of the development on December 27, 2021, to depths of approximately 8 feet bgs. The borings were converted into temporary test wells by installing 2-inch-diameter slotted (0.020-inch slots) PVC well casing, and placing No. 3 Monterey Sand in the annular space of the well within the test zone. Pre-soaking and percolation testing of the LP-2 and LP-3 wells were performed on December 27 and 28, 2021, respectively. Testing was performed in general accordance with the 2534
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013). Results of the percolation testing are presented in Appendix B, Field Percolation Test Data. Refer to the discussion of infiltration rate presented in Section 2.6, Infiltration Rate.
• Cone Penetrometer Testing: In addition to the hollow-stem auger borings, four (4) Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT-1 through CPT-4) soundings were advanced on December 27, 2021 to target depths ranging from approximately

60.5 to 90 feet, encompassing both the proposed parking garage and residential building areas (Figure 2). Shear wave velocity measurements were recorded in CPT-2 and CPT-3 and pore water pressure was performed within CPT-1, CPT-1, CPT-3 and CPT-4 to estimate groundwater depths. A report of CPT soundings is presented in Appendix A.
• Laboratory Testing: Representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration program were selected for testing. A brief description of laboratory testing procedures and laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C, Geotechnical Laboratory Testing. Moisture content and in-situ density are presented within our boring logs, see Appendix A. • Engineering Analyses: Geotechnical engineering analyses performed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE) including foundation and seismic design parameters based on the 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

A California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) performed engineering geology review of site geologic hazards.
• Report Preparation: This report was prepared to document findings and conclusions, and provide design-level geotechnical recommendations addressing the currently proposed development concept.

1.5 Shear Wave Velocity
Shear wave velocities were profiled at 5-foot intervals to a depth of 60 and 75 feet bgs in CPT-2 and CPT-3, respectively, to estimate average S-wave velocities of the upper 100 feet (30 meters - Vs30). The average sear wave velocity recorded onsite is approximately 707 feet per second (ft/sec). The shear wave velocity report is included in Appendix A. Based on collected velocities and in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code, the soils at this site classified as Seismic Site Class D.
2535
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS

2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The subject site lies within the Downey Plain at the southeastern margin of the Los Angeles Basin, a large structural depression within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. In general, the Downey Plain is bordered by the Coyote and Peralta Hills on the north, the Santa Ana Mountains and Tustin Plain to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the south and Los Angeles Coastal Plain to the west.

From a more local perspective, the site lies within the upper outwash plain of the lower Santa Ana River (SAR), in close proximity to where the river exits Santa Ana Canyon and discharges onto the Downey Plain, see Figure 3, Regional Geology Map. The surface distribution of Holocene sediments, as recorded in early editions of regional soil survey maps (Eckmann and others, 1919), suggest the main channel of the SAR has often meandered across the Downey Plain from Alamitos Bay to Newport Bay during the Holocene epoch (last 11,000 years). Historical accounts, documents, and results of our study further support widespread sheet flooding and marine transgression as being the dominant depositional process associated with the SAR floodplain.

2.2 Site Geology
Our findings indicate the site surface is underlain by deposits of engineered fill that was placed under the observation and testing of LeRoy Crandall and Associates, Inc. (LeRoy Crandal, 1971, 1985, 1986a/b, 1987 and 1988a/b). The fill is underlain by deposits of Holocene alluvium, and in turn by older Pleistocene age to depths noted below. Descriptions of on-site soil units are presented in Appendix A.

Engineered Fill (Map Symbol: Ef): Borings in the area of the proposed on-grade two-story parking garage encountered fill deposits to depths up to approximately 5 feet bgs. The thickness of the fill is expected to vary across the site, and likely be thickest in areas of existing buildings. Where encountered, the fill consists of silty sands with local fractions of crushed aggregate and gravels. The source of the fill is likely that documented by the above noted geotechnical reports of LeRoy Crandall and Associates (1971, 1985, 1986a,b, 1987, and 1988a,b). We anticipate all fill will be removed from within the footprint of the planned residential podium structure. Within the area of the proposed parking structure the fill will need to be removed, reconditioned and replaced as engineered fill. 2536
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Map Symbol: Qyf): Deposits of Holocene age (11,000 years to present) alluvial fan sediments underlie existing fill to depths between approximately 46 and 55 feet bgs. The upper 10 feet of this unit was found to consist of unconsolidated and massive sand and silty sand that is generally loose to medium dense. This material is underlain in sharp contact by a 5- to 12-foot-thick unit of silty clay to clay that appears to be generally laterally continuous across the site between our borings. Below the clay are alternating lenses of sand, silty clay and silt lenses of variable thickness, moisture and density/stiffness.

Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Map Symbol: Qof): Underlying the deposits of Qfy are older alluvial deposits assigned as Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof). This unit was distinguished in the field during drilling based on distinctive characteristics including soil color, degree of iron oxide precipitation and other pedogenic age-associated properties. This unit is interpreted as Pleistocene in age (1.8 million to 11,000 years). Deeper in the section is a distinct poorly- to wellgraded sandy gravel unit at approximately 76 feet bgs (Leighton, 2019, 2021a, 2021b).

2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered within our borings (Appendix A) at the depths noted below in Table 1. The groundwater depths represent measurements within our borings at the time of drilling, following a short period to allow groundwater to stabilize in the boring.

Table 1 – Groundwater Depths by Elevation
Boring
Approximate
Boring Elevation
(feet msl)
Depth to Measured
Groundwater during
Drilling (feet bgs)
Approximate
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet msl)
LB-1 116 34 82
LB-2 116 32 84
LB-3 115 39 76
LB-4 115 40 75
The shallowest depth of groundwater measured in boring LB-2 (Figure 2) during our exploratory drilling is 32 feet within the northeasterly corner of the planned 2537
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

residential structure. Review of the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California (SHZR 003) indicates a depth of historic high groundwater depth occurring between approximately 25 to 30 feet bgs (CGS, 2001).

Given the above information we recommend a groundwater depth of 30 feet bgs be assumed for the purposes of project design. Fluctuations in groundwater level should be expected based on a number of factors. An overall rise in groundwater can occur in response to seasons of heavier rainfall and/or periods of locally intense rainfall or storm water runoff. An overall lowering of groundwater levels may occur during summer months or periods of prolonged drought.

Considering the proposed subterranean parking structure currently conceived at a depth of up to 36 feet below street grade, construction dewatering should be anticipated.

2.4 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are typically categorized as containing higher fractions of clay particles subject to swelling when wetted, and shrinkage when dried. The higher the expansive clay content, the greater the potential their ability to impart forces such as uplift upon foundations within their influence. Without proper mitigation measures, a potential for heaving and cracking of both building foundations and slabs-on-grade can result. Bulk samples of the upper 2-5 feet of soil from borings LB-3 and LB-4 yielded expansion indexes of 5 and 0, respectively. Accordingly, the upper onsite soils have low expansion potential.

2.5 Corrosion
Soil Resistivity: In general, soil resistivity, which is a measure of how easily electrical current flows through soils, is the most influential factor for ferrous corrosivity. Based on findings of studies presented in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) STP 1013 titled “Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion” (February, 1989), an approximate relationship between soil resistivity and soil corrosiveness was developed as shown in Table 2 below. 2538
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Table 2 - Soil Corrosivity as a Function of Resistivity Soil Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Classification of
Soil Corrosiveness
0 to 900 Very severe corrosion
900 to 2,300 Severely corrosive
2,300 to 5,000 Moderately corrosive
5,000 to 10,000 Mildly corrosive
10,000 to >100,000 Very mildly corrosive
Sulfate Exposure: Sulfate ions in the soil can lower the soil resistivity and can be highly aggressive to Portland cement concrete by combining chemically with certain constituents of the concrete, principally tricalcium aluminate. This reaction is accompanied by expansion and eventual disruption of the concrete matrix. A potentially high sulfate content could also cause corrosion of reinforcing steel in concrete. Section 1904A of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) defers to the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI’s) ACI 318-14 for concrete durability requirements. Table 19.3.1.1 of ACI 318-14 lists “Exposure categories and classes,” including sulfate exposure as follows:

Table 3 - Sulfate Concentration and Exposure
Soluble Sulfate in Water
(parts-per-million)
Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4)
in soil (percentage by weight) ACI 318-14 Sulfate Class 0-1000 0.00 - 0.10 S0 (negligible)
1000-1,500 0.10 - 0.20 S1 (moderate*)
1,500-10,000 0.20 - 2.00 S2 (severe)
>10,000 >2.00 S3 (very severe)
*or seawater
Representative bulk samples of near surface soil collected between 2 and 5 feet bgs from borings LB-3 and LB-4, as well as ring sample collected at 32.5 feet bgs from boring LB-3, were tested to evaluate corrosion potential. The chemical analysis test results for onsite soils are attached in Appendix C. The results of chemical analysis are summarized below.
2539
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Table 4 - Corrosivity Test Results
Test
Parameter
Test Results General Classification of Hazard
LB-3 @

32.5’
LB-3 @
2-5’
LB-4 @
2-5’
LB-3 @ 32.5’ LB-3 @ 2-5’ LB-4 @ 2-5’
WaterSoluble
SulfateSO4 in Soil
(ppm)
82 152 128
Negligible
sulfate
exposure to
buried
concrete-S0
Exposure Class
Negligible
sulfate
exposure to
buried
concrete-S0
Exposure
Class
Negligible
sulfate
exposure to
buried
concrete-S0
Exposure
Class
WaterSoluble
Chloride in
Soil (ppm)
100 120 80
Non-corrosive
to buried
concrete (per
Caltrans
Specifications)
Non-corrosive
to buried
concrete (per
Caltrans
Specifications)
Non-corrosive
to buried
concrete (per
Caltrans
Specifications)
pH 7.74 8.82 9.36 Mildly alkaline Mildly alkaline Mildly alkaline Minimum
Resistivity
(saturated,
ohm-cm)
5,894 2,796 3,598 Mildly Corrosive
to buried
ferrous pipes
Mildly
Corrosive to
buried ferrous
pipes
Mildly
Corrosive to
buried ferrous
pipes

2.6 Infiltration
Percolation tests were performed within shallow in-situ sandy alluvial soils in general accordance with the Orange County Technical Guidance Document (TGD) for the Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Programs (WQMPs) (OCPW, 2013).

Percolation test borings LP-1 and LP-1a were located within the eastern portion of the planned residential structure. LP-2 and LP-3 were drilled within the area of the planned on-grade parking structure. The wells were constructed by installing twoinch-diameter perforated PVC casing into the boreholes within test zones (see Table 5 below) and solid PVC pipe above perforated sections. Borehole annular spaces were infilled with clean sand (#3 Monterey Sand) to approximately 1-foot above the screen zone. The wells were then pre-soaked prior to the testing in an attempt to model the behavior of stormwater quality control devices during a design storm event. After the conclusion of the percolation testing, the well casing was removed and the test holes backfilled with excess soil cuttings.

Based on the results of pre-soaking and initial field tests, test wells LP-1, LP-2 and LP-3 were performed using the falling head test procedure, where the drop of water 2540
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

levels inside the well was recorded over the testing period. Percolation test well LP-1a was performed using of a constant head percolation test method, where a constant head of water was maintained throughout the test period. Measured percolation rates were calculated by dividing the rate of discharge (cubic inches per hour) by the infiltration surface area, or flow area (square inches). Discharge volume was calculated by adding the total volume of water that dropped within the PVC pipe and annulus incorporating a porosity reduction factor to account for the filter pack material. The flow area was based on the average water height within the slotted pipe section of the test well only.

Results of the infiltration testing from this study, as well as those performed during the due-diligence phase of this project (Leighton, 2019), are presented below in units of inches per hour (in/hr) in Table 5. Test data are also presented in Appendix B, Field Percolation Test Data.

Table 5 – Measured Infiltration Rate
Percolation Test
Boring/Well
Designation
Percolation Test
Method
Approximate Depth of
Test Zone Below
Ground Surface (feet)
Unfactored
Infiltration Rate
(in/hr)
LP-1 Falling Head 15-20 0.01
LP-1a Constant Head 6-11 105
LP-2 Falling Head 5-8 1.73
LP-3 Falling Head 5-8 1.24
Note: Invert of any stormwater infiltration shall be set back at least 15 feet, and outside a 1:1 plane drawn down and out from the bottom of adjacent foundations.

With the exception of LP-1 the results of the percolation testing indicate favorable rates of infiltration at the specific locations and depths tested. The calculated infiltration rates are the result of small-scale test performed at specific locations and depths.

The actual infiltration rate over the area of the proposed infiltration device could vary from the test locations as noted above. Therefore, care must be used in the selection of infiltration rate for use in design and the potential for variances in soil conditions (fines content) that could significantly affect long term field performance. The infiltration rate will decline over time between maintenance cycles as the BMP surface becomes occluded and particulates accumulate in the infiltrative layer of testing suggest some lateral variability in both infiltration rates and fines content. Infiltration is considered feasible at this site.
2541
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

3.0 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS EVALUATION

3.1 Surface Fault Rupture
Our review of available in-house literature indicates that no known active faults have been mapped across the site, and the site is not located within a designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2018; Bryant and Hart, 2007). Therefore, a surface fault rupture hazard evaluation is not mandated for this site and the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is low.

The location of the closest active faults to the site was evaluated using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS, 2008). The closest active faults with surface expression to the site are the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier fault zones located approximately

9.0 miles and 10.2 miles from the site, respectively. The Puente Hills fault is a blind thrust fault that is concealed at depth, without the potential for surface fault rupture. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 42 miles northeast of the site, and considered the largest active fault in California. Major regional faults with surface expression in proximity to the site are shown on Figure 4, Regional Fault and Historical Seismicity Map.

3.2 Seismicity and Ground Shaking
The principal seismic hazard to the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along any of several major active and potentially active faults in southern California, see Figure 4. The intensity of ground shaking at a given location depends primarily upon the earthquake magnitude, the distance from the source, and the site response characteristics.

To accommodate effects of ground shaking produced by regional seismic events, seismic design can be performed by the project structural engineer in accordance with the 2019 Edition of the California Building Code (CBC 2019). Table 6, 2019 CBC Seismic Parameters (below), lists seismic design parameters based on the 2019 CBC, Section 1613A.3 (ASCE 07-16) methodology:
2542
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Table 6 - 2019 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Parameters
Categorization/Coefficients CodeBased (1) (2)
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) West -117.8910
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) North 33.7752
Site Class D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, Ss 1.346 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, S1 0.478 Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, Fa 1.0
Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period, Fv null*
Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SMS 1.346 Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SM1 null* Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, SDS 0.898 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1s Period, SD1 null* PGAM 0.626

1. All were derived from the SEA web page: https://seismicmaps.org/

2. All coefficients in units of g (spectral acceleration)

3. See Appendix E for details of the seismic evaluation.

4. *Requires Cs calculation, see below.

Based on the 2019 CBC Table 1613.2.3(2), the long period site coefficient should be determined in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16 since the mapped spectral response acceleration at 1 second is greater than 0.2g for Site Class D. In accordance with Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-specific seismic analysis is required; however, the values provided herein may be utilized if design is performed in accordance with exception (2) in Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, with special requirements for the seismic response coefficient (Cs). The project structural engineer should review the seismic parameters.

3.3 Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose and medium dense, near-surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, 2543
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential.

As shown on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 2001), the project site is located within an area defined by the State of California as susceptible to liquefaction, see Figure 5, Seismic Hazard Map. Groundwater was encountered at a depth as shallow as 32 feet below ground surface. Historic high groundwater was mapped between 25 to 30 feet bgs.

A site-specific liquefaction analysis was performed for the site using a historic high groundwater level of 30 feet bgs, a PGAM 0.63g and a modal earthquake magnitude of 7.3. The results indicate the potential for liquefaction at the site as low to moderate with little to no expression anticipated at the ground surface. The results of liquefaction analysis are presented in Appendix D, Liquefaction Analysis.

3.4 Seismically-Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction-induced settlement (below groundwater). The settlement occurs primarily within loose to moderately dense sandy soil due to reductions in soil volume during and shortly after an earthquake event.

Based on our analysis, the total seismically induced settlement is expected to be on the order of 1 inch or less (Appendix D). Accordingly, seismically induced differential settlement is expected to be on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal distance of 30 feet.

3.5 Seismically-Induced Lateral Displacements
The results of our lateral spreading and flow failure analysis indicate maximum displacement of less than 2 inches (Appendix D). Accordingly, conventional spread footings may be used for the proposed building and parking structure.

Ground oscillation is a phenomenon typically resulting in the development of random cracks and ridge formations at the surface, due to variable vertical and lateral movements of broken blocks of non-liquefiable soils overlying liquefiable soil in response to earthquake motion. Ground oscillation usually occurs on relatively level ground surfaces where lateral spreading does not occur. The occurrence of ground 2544
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

oscillation may cause damage to pavements, walkways, pipelines, and other lightly loaded near-surface structures. Since the potential for surface manifestation of liquefaction is low on the site, the potential for ground oscillation occurrence at the site is also considered low.

3.6 Seismically-Induced Landslides
The potential for seismically-induced landsliding is not considered to be a hazard at the site due to the absence of slopes. In addition, based on the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Anaheim Quadrangle (CGS, 2001), the site is not located within an area defined by the State of California as being potentially susceptible to seismically-induced landslides, see Figure 5. Proposed slopes, while not anticipated, should be engineered and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter.

3.7 Flooding
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps the site is located outside the limits of the 500-year flood zone, see Figure 6, Flood Hazard Zone and Dam Inundation Map. Based on the above, we consider the potential flooding hazard to be low on the site.

Strong seismic ground motion can cause dams and levees to fail, resulting in damage to structures and properties located downstream. The site is located within the inundation zone of Prado Dam, located on the lower Santa Ana River, approximately 20 miles upstream from the site (Figure 6). The potential for earthquake induced flooding exists if Prado Dam were to fail during a large earthquake.

Prado Dam, owned and operated by the Los Angeles District of the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps), has been continuously improved and is regularly maintained by the Army Corps to maintain operational capacity. There is no evidence, reports or documentations that indicate the dam has a high potential for failure during an earthquake. Catastrophic failure of this dam is expected to be a very unlikely event in that dam safety regulations exist and are enforced by the Division of Safety of Dams, Army Corps and Department of Water Resources.

Therefore, the potential for flooding or earthquake-induced flooding due to dam failure is considered less than significant.
2545
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

3.8 Seiches and Tsunamis
Seiches are large waves usually generated within enclosed on-land bodies of freshwater in response to ground shaking. Tsunamis are waves typically generated within oceans in response to displacement of the sea floor or major ground movement. Based on the inland location of the site, impacts to the site due to seiches or tsunamis is not considered to be a hazard.

A swimming pool is proposed as part of the residential development. Dependent upon the magnitude and duration of a seismic event in the area, waves could be generated sizeable enough for water to escape the confines of the pool. 2546
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this study, it is our opinion that the subject site is suitable for the proposed project from a geotechnical viewpoint. Geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development are presented in the following sections and are intended to provide sufficient geotechnical information to develop the project plans in accordance with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code (CBC) requirements. The following recommendations may be superseded by more restrictive requirements of the structural engineer and the local reviewing agency.

The recommendations presented below are based on results our exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis. The recommendations are also predicated upon proper field observation and testing by Leighton personnel during construction. Leighton should be notified of suspected variances encountered in the field during construction to evaluate their effect on the recommendations presented herein.

Leighton should review the grading plan, foundation plan, shoring plan and structural loads and specifications as they become available to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the plans prepared for the project.

Presented below are geotechnical recommendations for your use in project design. • Our liquefaction analysis indicates alluvial soils underlying the site could be subject to about 1 inch or less of settlement.
• The residential building and parking structure may be supported on mat foundations or spread footings established on engineered fill or undisturbed natural soils. • Residential basement construction and protection of adjacent offsite improvements is expected to require use of perimeter shoring.
• Subterranean floor slab and wall elements should consider a historic high groundwater depth of approximately 30 feet bgs. A sub-slab and back-wall drainage system is anticipated to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressure on the basement slab and/or behind walls. Alternatively, a continuous, waterproofed mat foundation with walls designed for hydrostatic pressure below groundwater may be used in lieu of foundation drains.
• Use of a dewatering system is anticipated as groundwater was encountered at least 4 feet above an assumed basement floor depth (36 feet bgs). The actual depth of 2547
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

groundwater at the time of excavation may vary based on seasonal fluctuations in static groundwater levels.
• Site soils may be excavated using conventional grading equipment. • Caving and raveling of soils in unshored excavations should be expected. • Based on laboratory test results and field observations, onsite earth materials are expected to possess low expansion potential and present a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete. Site soils are deemed corrosive to ferrous metals. The site class for corrosion protection of concrete reinforcement is C1 per ACI 318. Additional testing should be performed during site grading to verify these findings. • The incorporation of infiltration BMP elements into stormwater system design is considered feasible on the site. The infiltration rate will decline over time between maintenance cycles as the BMP surface becomes occluded and particulates accumulate in the infiltrative layer of testing suggest some lateral variability in both infiltration rates and fines content. Infiltration is considered feasible at this site, however the WQMP plans should be provided to the geotechnical engineer to review to ensure infiltration of stormwater does not cause a hazard to long term performance of the structures.

4.1 Site Grading
We recommend all earthwork for the project be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, applicable County of Orange grading ordinances and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix F. The recommendations contained in Appendix F, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those provided in Appendix F.

4.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to construction, the site should be cleared of any vegetation, trash and/or debris within the area of proposed grading. These materials should be removed from the site. Any underground obstructions onsite should be removed. Efforts should be made to locate any existing utility lines to be removed or rerouted where interfering with the proposed construction. Any resulting cavities should be properly backfilled and compacted. After the site is cleared, the soils should be carefully observed to verify all unsuitable 2548
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

deposits have been removed. All unsuitable deposits should be excavated and removed from the proposed building/structure footprint prior to fill placement.

4.1.2 Overexcavation
Existing fill and unsuitable surficial deposits will be removed by the planned excavation for basement levels at the proposed residential building.

Remedial earthwork is anticipated for preparation of the on-grade parking structure pad and surrounding flatwork. Given the age of the existing engineered fill (Leroy Crandall, 1988) and lack of maps in the report of compaction indicating placement of fill, we anticipate an overexcavation depth of approximately 5 feet to remove and recondition existing fill for the at-grade parking structure. Local areas of deeper overexcavation may be recommended during grading by a Leighton representative depending on exposed subsurface conditions.

4.1.3 Subgrade Preparation
Where firm and non-organic subgrade soils are exposed; these areas should then be scarified to a minimum depth of 12-inches and re-compacted to achieve 95 percent relative-compaction; relative to the ASTM D1557 modified Proctor laboratory maximum density. The moisture content of clayey soils should be established at about 4 percent over optimum moisture content. The moisture content of any relatively non-expansive and predominantly granular soils should be established at about 2 percent over optimum moisture content.

4.1.4 Subgrade Instability below Groundwater
Saturated subgrade conditions are expected to exist across the entire footprint of the planned subterranean parking structure. Adjustment to the limits should be anticipated based on observed performance during stabilization. The stabilization methodology may vary and it is the contractor’s responsibility to achieve a non-yielding compacted subgrade prior to fill placement. The following proven geotechnical solutions may be considered.

Rock Stabilization: After excavation to basement level, a 3- to 4-inch-thick layer of 2- to 3-inch crushed rock can be placed in the excavation to stabilize 2549
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

the subgrade. 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 or sands causing pumping conditions to expand laterally and destabilize the subgrade further. Should pumping or saturated conditions should persist, a layer of Mirafi HP 370 or equivalent geotextile reinforcement can be placed across the subgrade area with a minimum 2 feet of overlap between adjacent geotextile panels.

Additional layers of stabilization fabric or rock may be needed if yielding conditions persist.

Cement Treated Subgrade: Cement treatment should be performed by a qualified grading contractor with experience in cement-soil mixing.

Preparation, spreading/mixing, and compacting of cement treated soils should conform to applicable provisions of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (green book) section 301-3.2, current edition, and Portland Cement Association, Engineering Bulletin for Soil-Cement.

The completed subgrade surface should be compacted uniformly to 90% relative compaction based on ASTM D1557. The compacted surface should be generally non-yielding and firm for support of construction equipment provided dewatering efforts maintain a distance of at least 5 feet below bottom of foundation bearing level throughout construction.

4.1.5 Fill Materials
The onsite soil, free of organic material, cobbles, boulders, rubble, and rock less than 8 inches in largest dimension, is generally considered suitable to be used as fill from a geotechnical perspective. If on-site soils are used as fill, care must be used during grading and construction to not allow the soils to become dry or desiccated. Soils that become dry should be removed and replaced with compacted fill or properly moisture conditioned. Any imported fill soil should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement as fill.

4.1.6 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches, moistureconditioned to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content for sandy soils and at least 4 percent above optimum moisture content for clayey soils, 2550
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.

4.2 Preliminary Foundation Design
Conventional spread footings or mat foundations established on engineered fill or undisturbed native alluvial soil may be used to support the proposed structures.

4.2.1 Conventional Spread Footings
Footings should be embedded a minimum 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Footings at the lowermost basement level of the residential building may impose an allowable soil bearing pressure of 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches for continuous footings and 18 inches for isolated footings. A onethird increase in the bearing value for short duration loading, such as wind or seismic forces may be used. The ultimate bearing capacity can be taken as 18,000 psf, which does not incorporate a factor of safety. A resistance factor of 0.45 should be used for initial bearing capacity evaluation with factored loads.

Footings at the ground surface may impose an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches for continuous footings and 18 inches for isolated footings. A one-third increase in the bearing value for short duration loading, such as wind or seismic forces may be used. The ultimate bearing capacity can be taken as 9,000 psf, which does not incorporate a factor of safety. A resistance factor of 0.45 should be used for initial bearing capacity evaluation with factored loads.

The recommended bearing values above are net values, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf); the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads.

The bearing capacities above are for an estimated settlement of 1 inch due to dead plus live loads. Differential settlement can be taken as half the total settlement over a horizontal distance of 30 feet. Since settlement is a 2551
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

function of footing size and contact bearing pressure, differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists.

Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction between the soil and structure interface and passive pressure acting against the vertical portion of the footings structures. Above groundwater, a passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of 0.30 may be used. For calculating lateral resistance below the groundwater depth of 30 feet bgs, a passive pressure of 200 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 2,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of

0.35 may be used.

Note that the passive and frictional coefficients do not include a factor of safety. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

4.2.2 Mat Foundations
A mat foundation may be designed using an average allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 25 pounds per cubic inch (pci). Maximum localized allowable bearing pressures should not exceed 4,000 psf.

Differential settlement of the mat foundation due to the static loads is expected to be on the order of ½ inch over a distance of 30 feet. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading.

The perimeter of the mat foundation should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.

The ultimate bearing capacity can be taken as 12,000 psf, which does not incorporate a factor of safety. A resistance factor of 0.45 should be used for initial bearing capacity evaluation with factored loads. The recommended bearing values are net values, and the weight of concrete in the footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf); the weight of soil backfill can be neglected when determining the downward loads.

Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by a combination of friction between the soil and structure interface and passive pressure acting against 2552
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

the vertical portion of the footing structures. Above groundwater, a passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of 0.30 may be used. For calculating lateral resistance below the groundwater depth of 30 feet bgs, a passive pressure of 200 psf per foot of depth to a maximum of 2,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of

0.35 may be used.

Note that the passive and frictional coefficients do not include a factor of safety. The frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

4.3 Flagpole-type Foundations
Proposed light poles and similar structures may be supported on flagpole-type foundations. Flagpole-type foundations may be designed to impose an allowable vertical bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and an allowable lateral bearing pressure of 600 psf per foot below grade up to a maximum of 6,000 psf. The recommended bearing value is a net value, and the weight of concrete in the flagpole footings can be taken as 50 pounds per cubic foot.

4.4 Slabs-on-Grade
Unloaded concrete slabs may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pci provided the subgrade is prepared as described in Section 4.1. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend slab-on-grade be a minimum 6 inches thick with No. 3 rebar placed at the center of the slab at 24 inches on center in each direction. The structural engineer should design the actual thickness and reinforcement based on anticipated loading conditions. Where moisture-sensitive floor coverings or equipment is planned, the slabs should be protected by a minimum 10-mil-thick vapor barrier between the slab and subgrade. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 can be used between the floor slab and the vapor barrier.

Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal and should be expected; however, concrete is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low-slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. Additionally, 2553
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

our experience indicates that the use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations can generally reduce the potential but not eliminate for concrete cracking.

To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with construction or weakened plane joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form approximately square panels.

4.5 Shoring
Shoring is anticipated to consist of soldier piles and lagging. Soldier piles may consist of steel H-beams set in predrilled holes and backfilled with lean-mix concrete to the ground surface. If the depth of the excavation is less than approximately 15 feet, tieback anchors, or internal bracing are not expected to be required. Deeper excavations for the blow grade parking structure will require some form of bracing.

The potential raveling and caving of sand layers may pose difficulties in the drilling of the soldier piles and tie-back anchors. Accordingly, the shoring contractor should be prepared to use special techniques and measures, if necessary, to permit the proper installation of the soldier piles and tie-back anchors.

4.5.1 Lateral Earth Pressures
For design of cantilevered shoring, where the surface of the backfill is level, it can be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the shoring should be designed to resist any applicable surcharge loads due to foundation, storage, traffic, or other anticipated loads.

For the design of braced shoring, a uniform distribution of lateral earth pressure plus any surcharge loadings occurring as a result of traffic and adjacent foundations should be used. The recommended pressure distribution for the case where the grade is level behind the walls is 28H in pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the height of the wall in feet.

In addition to the recommended earth pressure, the upper 10 feet of shoring adjacent to streets should be designed to resist a uniform lateral pressure 2554
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

100 psf, acting as a result of an assumed 100 psf surcharge behind the shoring due to normal street traffic. If the traffic is kept back at least 10 feet from the shoring, the traffic surcharge may be neglected. We can determine lateral surcharge pressures for specific cases, such as construction crane, concrete trucks, and other heavy construction equipment adjacent to shoring, if requested.

4.5.2 Surcharge Pressure from Adjacent Structures
Where building foundations are within a 1:1 plan projected upward from the bottom of the planned shoring and basement walls, a lateral surcharge load should be applied to the active earth pressure to account for the pressure imposed by the foundation. Once details of existing adjacent foundations are established, we can provide design surcharge pressures to be applied to shoring and basement walls should these be considered necessary. For preliminary design, a uniform horizontal surcharge pressure of ½ the bearing pressure of adjacent footings may be assumed.

4.5.3 Design of Soldier Piles
For the design of soldier piles spaced at least two diameters on centers (OC), the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation and below groundwater may be assumed to be 400 psf at the excavated surface, up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations may be a lean-mix concrete. However, the concrete used in that portion of the soldier pile which is below the planned excavated level should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads from the soldier pile to the surrounding soils.

The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be used in resisting the downward component of the design load. The coefficient of friction between the soldier piles and the retained earth may be taken as 0.35. This value is based on the assumption that uniform full bearing will be developed between the steel soldier beam and the lean-mix concrete and between the lean-mix concrete and the retained earth. In addition, provided that the portion of the soldier piles below the excavated level is backfilled with structural concrete, the soldier piles below the 2555
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

excavated level may be used to resist downward loads. The frictional resistance between the concrete soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 500 psf.

4.5.4 Lagging
Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. Careful installation of the lagging will be necessary to achieve bearing against the retained earth. Sandy soils will ravel into the excavation.

The soldier piles should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure.

However, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils.

For clear spans up to 8 feet, we recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi-circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 400 psf at the midline between soldier piles, and 0 psf at the soldier piles.

4.5.5 Anchor Design
Tie-back friction anchors may be used to resist lateral loads. For design purposes, it may be assumed that the active wedge adjacent to the shoring is defined by a plane drawn at 35 degrees from the vertical through the bottom of the excavation. The anchors should extend at least 40 feet beyond the potential active wedge and to a greater length if necessary to develop the desired capacities.

The capacities of anchors should be determined by testing of the initial anchors as outlined in the following section, Anchor Testing. For design purposes, it may be estimated that drilled friction anchors will develop an average friction value of 600 psf. For post-grouted anchors, it may be estimated that the anchors could develop an average friction of up to 1,800 psf. Only the frictional resistance developed beyond the active wedge would be effective in resisting lateral loads. If the anchors are spaced at least 6 feet on centers, no reduction in the capacity of the anchors need be considered due to group action.

4.5.6 Anchor Installation
The anchors may be installed at angles of 15 to 40 degrees below the horizontal. Caving of the anchor holes should be anticipated and provisions 2556
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

M
L
L PP
b
t
test = design
**
made to minimize such caving. Mining (removal of soils from the anchor holes without advancing the drilling auger) of the sandy and gravelly soils could occur and the shoring contractor should take special care to prevent, or at least minimize, such mining.

Conventional anchors should be filled with concrete placed by pumping from the tip outward, and the concrete should extend from the tip of the anchor to the active wedge. To minimize chances of caving, we suggest that the portion of the anchor shaft within the active wedge be backfilled with sand before testing the anchor. This portion of the shaft should be filled tightly and flush with the face of the excavation. The sand backfill may contain a small amount of cement to allow the sand to be placed by pumping.

4.5.7 Anchor Testing
For post-grouted anchors where concrete is used to backfill the anchor along its entire length, the test load should be computed as that required to develop the appropriate friction along the entire bonded length of the anchor. The test load should therefore be computed as:

where Lt=Total Length of Anchor
Lb=Post-grouted Length of Anchor
M=150%
However, based on our experience nearby, the unbonded length of anchors within the active wedge may be encased in PVC sheathing to prevent load transfer to surrounding soil. Accordingly, the test loads need not be increased using the criteria described above if the unbounded length of anchors is thus isolated from surrounding soil.

All of the production anchors should be pretested to at least 150% of the design load; the total deflection during the tests should not exceed 12 inches. The rate of creep under the 150% tests should not exceed 0.1 inch over a 15-minute period for the anchor to be approved for the design loading.
2557
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

After a satisfactory test, each production anchor should be locked-off at the design load. The locked-off load should be verified by rechecking the load in the anchor. If the locked-off load varies by more than 10% from the design load, the load should be reset until the anchor is locked-off within 10% of the design load.

The installation of the anchors and the testing of the completed anchors should be observed by our firm.

4.5.8 Internal Bracing
Raker bracing, if used, could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen). For design of such temporary footings, poured with the bearing surface normal to rakers inclined at 45 to 60 degrees with the vertical, a bearing value of 4,000 psf may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade. To reduce the movement of the shoring, the rakers should be tightly wedged against the footings and/or shoring system.

4.5.9 Deflection
It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored embankment. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We estimate that this deflection could be on the order of 1 inch at the top of a shored embankment up to 20 feet in height.

If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize settlement of adjacent structures and of any utilities in the adjacent streets. To reduce the deflection of the shoring, if desired, a greater active pressure could be used in the shoring design.

4.5.10 Monitoring
Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all the soldier piles. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system is finalized 2558
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

4.6 Retaining Walls
The following soil parameters may be used for the design of retaining walls with level backfill:

Conditions Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(psf per foot)
Active 40
Seismic Increment
(Additive to Active Pressure) 20
At-Rest 60
Passive above Groundwater 300
Passive below Groundwater 200
Parameter Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.35
Care should be taken to provide appropriate drainage so water is not allowed to remain behind the retaining wall for any significant length of time. In addition to the recommended earth pressures, walls below grade adjacent to existing structures or streets and areas of traffic should be designed to accommodate surcharge loads. For traffic surcharge, a uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot acting as a result of an assumed 300 pounds per square foot surcharge behind the wall due to normal traffic; the traffic surcharge load may be neglected provided a minimum of 10 foot clearance between the wall and the traffic is maintained.

For preliminary surcharge loading from adjacent temporary or permanent loading, a uniform horizontal surcharge of 1/3 of the bearing value may be used for active conditions. A horizontal surcharge of ½ of the bearing value may be used for atrest conditions.

If permanent shoring is to be constructed as part of retaining wall systems, shoring should be designed to accommodate the earth pressures discussed above. Soil ties anchored by concrete deadmen may be an efficient means of supporting retaining walls. For calculating lateral resistance of concrete deadmen, a passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth below the lowest adjacent grade to a maximum of 3,000 psf and a frictional coefficient of 0.4 may be used. Note that the passive and frictional coefficients do not include a factor of safety. The 2559
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

frictional resistance and the passive resistance of the soils can be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance.

4.7 Pavement Design Parameters
The required paving and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (Traffic Index or TI). Assuming the paving subgrade will consist of the on-site or comparable soils compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM Designation D1557 method of compaction as recommended, the minimum recommended paving thicknesses are presented in the following table.

Area
Traffic
Index
Asphalt Concrete
(inches)
Base Course
(inches)
Light Truck 5 3 4
Heavy Truck 6 3 6
Main Drives 7 4 6
We have assumed that the subgrade will have an R-value of at least 50 based on results of laboratory testing (Appendix C). The asphalt paving sections were determined using the Caltrans design method. We can determine the recommended paving and base course thicknesses for other Traffic Indices if required. Careful inspection is recommended to verify that the recommended thicknesses or greater are achieved, and that proper construction procedures are followed. Traffic Indexes (TIs) used in our pavement design are considered reasonable values for proposed auto parking lots, and should provide a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Higher TIs should be used in heavy truck traffic areas or highvolume lanes.

4.8 Portland Cement Concrete Paving
We have assumed that the subgrade will have an R-value of at least 50, which will need to be verified during grading. Portland cement concrete (PCC) paving sections were determined in accordance with procedures developed by the Portland Cement Association. Concrete paving sections for a range of Traffic Indices are presented in the following table. We have assumed that the Portland Cement Concrete will have a compressive strength of at least 4,000 pounds per square inch.
2560
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Area
Traffic
Index
PCC
(inches)
Base Course
(inches)
Light Truck 5 5 4
Heavy Truck 6 6 4
Main Drives 7 6½ 4
The paving should be provided with expansion joints at regular intervals no more than 15 feet in each direction. Load transfer devices, such as dowels or keys, are recommended at joints in the paving to reduce possible offsets. The paving sections in the above table have been developed based on the strength of unreinforced concrete. Steel reinforcing may be added to the paving to reduce cracking and to prolong the life of the paving.

Paving Materials: Asphalt concrete, aggregate base and Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications (2018 Edition).
• Asphalt Concrete (Hot Mixed Asphalt) for pavement should be Type A and should conform to Section 39 of the Standard Specifications. Asphalt concrete specimens should be tested for surface abrasion in accordance with CT-360. • Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) should conform to Section 26 of the Standard Specifications.
• Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement should conform to Section 40 of the Standard Specifications. PCC pavement materials (pavement, structures, minor concrete) should conform to Section 90 of the Standard Specifications.

As an alternative, asphalt concrete can conform to Section 203-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), 2018 Edition. Crushed aggregate base or crushed miscellaneous base can conform to Sections 200-2.2 and 200-2.4 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), 2018 Edition, respectively.

4.9 Drainage and Landscaping
Building walls below grade should be waterproofed or at least damp proofed, depending upon the degree of moisture protection desired. Surface drainage should be designed to direct water away from foundations and toward approved 2561
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

drainage devices. Irrigation of landscaping should be controlled to maintain, as much as possible, consistent moisture content sufficient to provide healthy plant growth without overwatering. Infiltration is not recommended within 30 feet of the subterranean structure as clayey stratigraphy may cause lateral migration of infiltration water to act upon the basement walls.

WQMP plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer to ensure infiltration does not cause issues to the proposed design.

4.10 Dewatering
To facilitate construction, the groundwater should be lowered and maintained at least 5 feet or deeper below the planned basement subgrade to provide for reasonable working conditions. Construction dewatering is expected to consist of a series of perimeter dewatering wells, sump pumps or drainage trenches. The construction dewatering program should be designed and implemented by a qualified dewatering contractor prior to grading operations. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for construction related discharges to storm drain systems.

4.11 Utility Trenches
Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1.2 and 306-1.3 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, (“Greenbook”). Bedding sand should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater.

Laboratory testing (Appendix C) indicates material for this purpose may be available onsite and segregated for reuse during subterranean excavation. Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) by mechanical means only.
2562
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

5.0 GEOTECHCNIAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. Poor performances of many foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend that Leighton be provided the opportunity to review the grading plan, shoring and foundation plan(s).

Reasonably-continuous construction observation and review during site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Geotechnical conclusions and recommendations presented herein should be reviewed and verified by Leighton during construction, and revised accordingly if geotechnical conditions encountered vary from our findings and interpretations. Geotechnical observation and testing should be provided:
• After completion of site demolition and clearing;
• During shoring installation and performance testing;
• During ground preparation, excavations, overexcavation of soils; • During compaction of all fill materials;
• After excavation of all footings, and prior to placement of concrete; • During subgrade preparation, base placement and asphalt paving; • During utility trench backfilling and compaction; and • When any unusual conditions are encountered.
2563
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

6.0 LIMITATIONS
Leighton and Associates, Inc.’s work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in California at this time. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report.

This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or a duly authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner, to ensure that information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for this project and incorporated into plans and specifications.

The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on the subject or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.

Accordingly, the findings of this report may at some future time be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside Leighton’s control. Conditions revealed in construction excavations may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by Leighton and Associates, Inc. and additional recommendations may be warranted based on additional observations and findings.

The conclusions and preliminary recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a necessarily limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples and tests. Such information can be obtained only with respect to the specific locations explored, and therefore may not completely define all subsurface conditions throughout the site. The nature of many sites is that differing geotechnical and/or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Furthermore, changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time.

Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report should be considered preliminary if unanticipated conditions are encountered and additional explorations, testing and analyses may be necessary to develop alternative recommendations.

Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform such independent investigations as they deem necessary to satisfy themselves as to the surface and/or subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in the performance of work on the subject site.
2564
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

7.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary, an ACI Standard, reported by ACI Committee 318.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, Errata Incorporated through March 15.

Barrows, A.G., 1974, A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the NewportInglewood Structural Zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 114, 115 p.

Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., Interim Revision 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publications 42, 42p.

California Building Standards Commission, 2019, 2019 California Building Code (CBC).

California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), 2020, Interactive Wellfinder Website, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx California Geological Survey (CGS, previously known as the California Division of Mines and Geology), 1998, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones – Anaheim Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000.
, 2000, CD-ROM containing digital images of Official Maps of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that affect the Southern Region, DMG CD 2000-003 2000. , 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998.
, 2001, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Orange County, California, 1997 (Revised 2001) Seismic Hazard Zone Report 003.
, 2018b, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018. 2565
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Chaker, V., J., and Palmer, D., 1989, Effects of Soil Characteristics on Corrosion, ASTM STO 1013.

California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB), GeoTracker, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

Eckmanm E.C., Strahorn, A.T., Holmes, L.C., and Guersney, J.E., 1919, Soils Map of the Anaheim Area, California: United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils, in cooperation with the University of California, Agricultural Experiment Station, scale 1:62,000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Angeles County and Incorporated Areas, Map Number 06037C1595G, dated December 21, 2018.

Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR), 2019, Historic Aerials by NETR Online, website: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer, accessed February 2019.

Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2019a, Due Diligence Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Mixed-Use Residential Development, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, dated July 18, 2019 (revised January 4, 2021a and August 17, 2021b).
_____, 2019b, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 840 The City Drive South, Orange, California, DRAFT dated July 18.
_____, 2021, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Parking Garages, 750 and 790 The City Drive South, Orange, California, DRAFT dated January 27.

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1971, [Report of Compacted Fill, Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive, Orange, California,] Job Number B-69175, dated March 16, 1971 (report not on-file at City of Orange).
_____1985, Report of Foundation Investigation, Proposed Nexus City Square, Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive, Orange, California, Job Number A-85360, dated December 2, 1985.
_____, 1986a, Interim Report of Compacted Fill, Proposed Nexus City Square, 700 City Drive South, City of Orange, California, prepared for the Nexus Development Corporation Job Number B-86037, dated June 16, 1986.
2566
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

_____, 1986b, Report of Supplementary Studies, Proposed Woodfin Suites Hotel and Business Center, Nexus City Square, Garden Grove Boulevard and The City Drive, Orange, California, prepared for Hartage Construction Corporation, Job Number B-85360-C, dated September 16, 1986.
_____, 1987, Soils Observation and Testing Services, Buildings 1, 2, and 3, and Paved Areas, Nexus City Square, 3631 Garden Grove Boulevard, Orange, California, prepared for Nexus, U.S.A., Job Number B-86037, dated April 1987. _____, 1988a, Observation and Testing of Compacted Fill, Observation of Foundation Excavations, and Observation and Testing of Asphaltic Paving, Parking Deck I, Nexus City Square, 3631 Garden Grove Boulevard, Orange, California, prepared for Nexus, U.S.A., Job Number B-86037, dated August 19, 1988. _____, 1988b, Supplement to Final Report, Soils Observation and Testing Services, Building Nos. 2, 3, and Paved Areas, Nexus City Square, 3631 Garden Grove Boulevard, Orange, California, prepared for Nexus, U.S.A., Job Number B-86037 & B-87174.

Orange County Public Work (OCPW), 2013, Technical Guidance Document for Preparation of Conceptual/Preliminary and/or Project Water Quality Management Plans, dated December 20, 2013.

Salkin Engineering, 1988, Grading Plan, Nexus City Square, City of Orange, California, Job number 3240, delta 11 dated July 8, 1988.

Streetlights Creative Studio, LLC, 2020, Architectural Plans, 840 The City, dated November 17, 2020. USGS, 1965, Photo revised 1981, 7.5 Minute Series, Anaheim Quadrangle, California-Orange County, Scale 1:24,000, 5-Foot Contour Interval, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
_____, 1999, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Version 1.0, Open-File Report 99-172.
_____, 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps – Fault Parameters, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm. _____, 2019, Unified Hazard Tool, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ 2567
Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration Report
Proposed Multi-Use Residential Development Project, 840 The City Drive, Orange, CA 12423.006

Wright, T.L., 1991, Structural Geology and Tectonic Evolution if the Los Angeles Basin, California, in Biddle, K.T. (editor), Active Margin Basins: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 52, pp. 35-134.

Yerkes, R.F., et al., 1965, Geology of the Los Angeles Basin, California an Introduction:

US Geological Survey Professional Paper 420-A.57p.
2568
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Thematic Information: Leighton
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.006 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\006\Maps\12423-006_F01_SLM_2022-01-05.mxd on 1/5/2022 3:44:02 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: January 2022

SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Boundary
FIGURE 1
2569
LB-2
T.D.36.5'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
G.W.@32'
LB-1
T.D.81.5'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Qof@76'
G.W.@41'
LP-1a
T.D.11'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Test Interval 6-11'
LP-1
T.D.20'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
Test Interval 15-20'

APPROXIMATE

BOUNDARIES

OF THIS REPORT
T.D.60.51'
G.W.@47'
CPT-2
T.D.81.70'
G.W.@39'
CPT-1
T.D.76.06'
G.W.@41'
CPT-3
T.D.90.44'
[email protected]'
CPT-4
LP-2
T.D.8'
Ef 0-6'
Qyf@6'
Test Interval 5-8'
LP-3
T.D.8'
Ef 0-5'
Qyf@5'
Test Interval 5-8'
LB-3
T.D.59.5'
Ef 0-5.5'
[email protected]'
G.W.@39'
LB-4
T.D.61.42'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
G.W.@47'
PROPOSED 2-STORY PARKING

STRUCTURE (ON-GRADE)

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL TRUCTURE
(3 LEVELS

SUBTERRANEAN PARKING)

A B' B A'

GEOTECHNICAL MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South
Orange, California
Engineered Fill (LeRoy Crandal & Associates, 1988)
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits
LEGEND
Ef
Qyf
Qof
LB-2
T.D.36.5'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
G.W.@32'

SCALE FEET
0 50 100
V:\DRAFTING\12423\006\CAD\2022-01-04\12423-006_F02_GM_2022-02-03.DWG (02-03-22 1:34:48PM) Plotted by: btran Date: February 2022
Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Scale: 1"=50'
Proj: 12423.006
FIGURE 2
Reference: PDF As shown
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boring
showing total depth (T.D.) depth to earth units and
groundwater (G.W.) in feet below ground surface
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boring
showing total depth (T.D.) depth to earth units and
groundwater (G.W.) in feet below ground surface
Approximate location of hollow-stem auger boring
converted to temporary percolation test well
showing total depth (T.D.), depth to earth units and
percolation test interval in feet below ground surface
Approximate location of cone penetrometer tests (CPTs)
showing total depth (T.D.), and groundwater (G.W.)
in feet below ground surface
T.D.90.44'
[email protected]'
CPT-4
LB-4
T.D.61.42'
Ef 0-4'
Qyf@4'
G.W.@47'
LP-3
T.D.8'
Ef 0-5'
Qyf@5'
Test Interval 5-8'
Geologic Cross Section, See Plate 1
B B'
2570
Qyf
Qw
Qyf
Qof
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Thematic Information: Leighton, USGS
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.006 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\006\Maps\12423-006_F03_RGM_2022-01-05.mxd on 1/5/2022 3:45:11 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: January 2022

REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Qof, Old Alluvial Fan
Deposits
Qw, Alluvial Wash
Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan
Deposits
FIGURE 3
2571
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
W
fa
hittier
ult
Cherry-Hill
fault
Reservoir
Hill fault
THUMS-Huntington Beach
Los Alamitos fault
³ 0 510
Miles
Scale:1 " = 5 miles
Project: 12423.006 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Date: January 2022
Approximate
Site Location

REGIONAL FAULT AND

HISTORICAL SEISMICITY MAP
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\006\Maps\12423-006_F04_RF&HSM_2022-01-05.mxd on 8/16/2021 12:05:22 PM Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Thematic Information: Leighton, Bryant, W. A. (compiler), 2005, Digital Database of Quaternary and Younger Faults from the Fault Activity Map of California, version 2.0: CGS, USGS, SCEC.

Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
FIGURE 4
LEGEND
Earthquake Events (1769 - 2010)
! 4 - 5
! 5 - 6
! 6 - 7
Moment Magnitude Range (M )o
! 4 - 5
! 5 - 6
! 6 - 7
Historic (<200 years)
(Holocene (<10K years)
Quaternary (<1.6M years)
Pre-Quaternary (before 1.6 million years)
Fault Ages
2572
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Thematic Information: Leighton, CGS
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.006 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\006\Maps\12423-006_F05_SHM_2022-05.mxd on 8/16/2021 12:05:56 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: January 2022

SEISMIC HAZARD MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South,
Orange, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
Liquefaction Susceptibility Zone
FIGURE 5
2573
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
³ 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Scale:

Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2022
Thematic Information: Leighton, CA DWR, FEMA
1 " = 2,000 '
Project: 12423.006 Eng/Geol: CCK/JLH
Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12423\006\Maps\12423-006_F06_FHM_2022-01-05.mxd on 8/16/2021 12:06:35 PM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran)
Date: January 2022

FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AND

DAM INUNDATION MAP
Proposed Multi-family/Commercial Retail Development
840 The City Drive South, Orange, California
Approximate
Site Location
LEGEND
FEMA Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Plain
100 Year Flood Plain
DAM
Prado
Villa Park Dam
FIGURE 6
2574

APPENDIX A

EXPLORATION LOGS
2575
SM
SMg
SM
SM/SP
CL
ML
CL
SM
CL-ML
ML
SM
106
106
116
105
102
11 7
6 21
24 BB-1
R1
R2
R3
S1
R4
S2
R5
BB-2
S6
CR
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
5 10
9 5
9 7
5 7
12 2
2 3
1 2
4 3
6 9
2 4
5 4
7 10
2 6
7 @0': 3.5-inches asphalt concrete over 2-inches base.

Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
Silty SAND with gravel, greyish brown, moist, predominantly fine sand, few medium sand, some fine to medium gravels, few clay. @3': Gravelly silty SAND, greyish-brown, moist, fine sand, 3/4-inch subangular gravel.

Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf):
@5': Silty SAND, reddish brown, moist, medium dense,
predominantly fine sand, some medium to coarse sand, some fine subrounded gravels.
@7': Silty SAND to SAND with silt, dark brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, very fine sand, some fine sand, few medium sand, micaceous.
@10': Trace coarse sand.
@12': Very loose/soft.
@15': Silty CLAY, mottled greyish brown and orange, slightly moist to moist, firm, few medium sand, oxidized, laminated in lower 6-inches, moderate plasticity.
@20': Sandy SILT, grey-brown, moist, stiff, very fine sand. @20.75': Silty CLAY, mottled grey-brown and orange, moist, stiff, few very fine sand, few CaCO3 blebs, oxidation streaks and blebs, moderate plasticity.
@22.75': Silty SAND, pale tan, moist, loose, very fine sand, micaceous.
@25': CLAY with Silt, mottled grey-brown and orange, slightly moist, stiff, trace coarse sand, oxidation staining, micaceous, moderate plasticity.
@27': Sandy SILT, orange-brown, moist, stiff, very fine sand. @28': Silty SAND, orange-brown, moist, very fine sand, with a 3-inch bed of fine to medium SAND.
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2576
SM
SP-SM
ML
SP-SM
SP
ML
SP
SM
120
103
13 21
R6
S4
R7
S5
S6
S7
PP
PP
9 19
28 2
3 4
6 17
30 2
3 6
1 2
3 2
3 5
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf), continued:
@30': Silty SAND, dark brown, very moist, dense, predominantly fine sand, some medium sand, some FeO and MnO spotting
and staining, micaceous.
@35': SAND with Silt, pale tan, wet, loose, fine to medium sand, micaceous
Groundwater measured at 35 feet bgs
@+/- 36' bgs: Approximate basement depth
@36.25': Sandy SILT, grey-brown, very moist, firm, very fine sand. @40': SAND with Silt, pale tan, very moist to wet, dense, fine to medium sand, micaceous.
@45': SAND, brown, wet, loose, very fine to fine sand in upper 6-inches, becoming tan, medium to coarse sand.
@46.5': Sandy SILT, mottled brown and orange, wet, stiff, very fine sand, laminated.

Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
@50': SAND, brown, wet, loose, very fine to medium sand, few coarse sand, few silt, micaceous, massive.
@55': Increased SILT content.
@56.25': Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose, very fine to fine sand. 116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
85 80
75 70
65 60
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2577
SP-SM
ML
SP
ML
SP
ML
SP
GM
SP-SM
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
1 2
4 2
4 5
3 6
9 5
9 20
7 14
16 Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof), continued:
@60': SAND with Silt, brown, wet, loose, fine to medium sand, zones of medium to coarse sand, micaceous.
@61.25': SILT, mottled brown and orange, wet, firm, gleyed, with few CaCO3 stringers.
@65': SAND, brown, wet, loose, fine to coarse sand, micaceous. @65.5': SILT, strong brown, very moist to wet, stiff, mottled grey and brown, trace medium sand.
@70': SAND, brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse sand. @71': SILT, strong brown, very moist to wet, stiff, trace medium sand.
@75': SAND, brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse sand. @76': Silty Sandy GRAVEL, reddish brown, wet, medium dense, very fine sand, fine subrounded gravels (predominantly black slate), single mechanically broken medium gravel,
matrix-supported.
@80': Varied gravel lithology (granitoids and various medium- to high- grade metamorphic lithologies).
@80.25': SAND with Silt, dark brown, wet, medium dense, with significant black medium sand, slightly micaceous.
@81': SAND with Silt, brown, wet, medium dense, very fine to medium sand, some coarse sand.

Total Depth: 81.5 feet bgs
Groundwater measured at 35 feet bgs during drilling.

Boring backfilled with bentonite, surface patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete.
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
60 65
70 75
80 85
90 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
55 50
45 40
35 30
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2578
SP-SM
SPg
SP
SM-ML
CL
ML
SM
108
106
102
91 93
97 115
5 8
4 29
30 27
15 BB-1
R1
R2
R3
R4
S1
R5
S2
R6
S3
R7
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
11 15
24 8
11 13
7 11
16 2
3 3
1 1
1 3
4 5
1 1
2 2
6 7
1 1
2 4
8 16
@0': 3.5-inches asphalt concrete over 4-inches base.

Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
SAND with Silt, yellowy-brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, some medium sand, few coarse sand.
@3': Gravelly SAND with Silt, greyish-brown, slightly moist, very fine to fine sand, 3/4-inch subangular gravel.

Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf):
@5': SAND, pale tan, slightly moist, medium dense, very fine to fine sand, poorly graded.
@7': SAND, pale tan, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, few fine subrounded gravels, micaceous, grading finer to fine sand with some medium sand, no gravel.
@10': SAND, pale tan, slightly moist to moist, medium dense, predominantly medium sand, some coarse sand, trace fine gravels, grading finer to fine sand.
@12': SAND with Silt, medium brown, very moist, very loose, very fine to fine sand.
@15': Silty CLAY, mottled orangey-brown and brown, moist to very moist, very soft, trace coarse sand, some blocky structure, moderate plasticity.
@20': Soft, trace root casts.
@22': Firm, with few coarse sand, MnO spotting, rootlet casts. @25': Clayey SILT, mottled orangey-brown and brown, moist to very moist, soft, MnO spotting, few regions of CaCO3 blebs. @27': Sandy SILT, mottled orange and grey, very moist, very stiff, very fine sand.
@27.75': Silty SAND, dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very fine to fine sand, micaceous.
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2579
SP-SM
104 21 SP
S4
R8 PP
3 6
8 8
17 20
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf), continued:
@30': SAND with Silt, dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very fine to fine sand, trace fine gravels.
@32': Groundwater measured at 32 feet bgs.
@35': SAND, tan, wet, medium dense, predominantly fine to medium sand, some very fine and coarse sand, micaceous. @+/- 36' bgs: Approximate basement depth
@36.25': Sandy SILT, brown, very moist, fine to very fine sand.

Total Depth: 36.5 feet bgs
Groundwater measured at 32 feet bgs during drilling.

Boring backfilled with bentonite, surface patched with cold-mix asphalt concrete.
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 Soil Class.
6-26-19

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
85 80
75 70
65 60
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2580
SM
SP
SP
SM
CL
CL
CL
R-1
R-2
BB-1
R-3
R-4
R-5
7 13
15 8
11 9
4 6
10 3
6 7
3 6
7 @0': 4-Inches asphalt concrete over 5-inches base
Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
@9": Silty SAND, olive brown, very moist, fine to medium sand, some coarse sand, some fine to medium gravel, some clay, trace coarse gravel
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': SAND, light tan, moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand, some medium sand, micaceous
@10': SAND, tan, moist, medium dense, mostly medium sand, some coarse sand
@11': Silty SAND, dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine sand, some clay
@15': Silty CLAY, olive brown, very moist, stiff, gleyed, with calicum carbonate nodules
@16.5': Silty CLAY, olive brown, very moist, stiff, gleyed, with calicum carbonate nodules
@18.5': Silty CLAY, olive brown, very moist, stiff, gleyed, with calicum carbonate nodules
Total Depth: 20 feet
Converted to temprary percolation test well
Test zone screened from 15-20 feet
Boring backfilled upon completion
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
11-25-20

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1
Logged By
Date Drilled
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2581
SM
SP
SP
@0': 4-Inches asphalt concrete over 5-inches base
Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
@9": Silty SAND, olive brown, very moist, fine to medium sand, some coarse sand, some fine to medium gravel, some clay, trace coarse gravel
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': SAND, light tan, moist, medium dense, mostly fine sand, some medium sand, micaceous
@10': SAND, tan, moist, medium dense, mostly medium sand, some coarse sand
Total Depth: 11 feet
Converted to temprary percolation test well
Test zone screened from 6-11 feet
Boring backfilled upon completion
116'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
KMD
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Soil Class.
11-25-20

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling, Co.

Content, %
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-1a
Logged By
Date Drilled
115
110
105
100
95 90
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * KMD Feet
S (U.S.C.S.)
Log
Type of Tests
Graphic
pcf
Location See Figure 2
SLR Orange
12423.002
Drilling Method
8" Feet
Hole Diameter Moisture 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Sample No.
2582
7 14
29 4
11 17
8 7
10 6
9 10
3 3
5 3
6 9
2 2
3 6
6 8
2 2
2 107
87 95
SM
SM
SM
SM
SC
CL
CL
ML
CL
CL
ML
CL
CL
LB1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
R-6
SPT-1
R-7
SPT-2
5 29
25 @0': 4" apshalt over 3" base
Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
@7": Silty SAND, olive brown, predominantly fine SAND, trace CLAY, trace GRAVEL, slightly moist
@2.5': Silty SAND, dark yellow brown, black mottling, slight FeO staining, dense, predominantly fine SAND, trace CLAY, trace GRAVEL, slightly moist
@5': Same as above, medium dense
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5.5': Transitions to Silty SAND, gray brown, very friable, predominantly fine SAND, moist
@7.5': Silty SAND, olive brown, medium dense, predomantly medium SAND, trace GRAVEL, friable, slightly moist
@10': Clayey SAND, dark brown, medium dense, predominantly fine SAND, micaceous, low plasticity, slightly moist
@11': Transitions into CLAY
@12.5': Silty CLAY, olive brown, mottled w/ red FeO staining, medium stiff, medium-high plasticity, moist
@13': ~3" thick SILT zone, dark brown, miceaous, wet
@15': Silty CLAY, dark brown mottled light gray, MnO and FeO stained, stiff, medium plasticity, contains carbonate blebs and root casts, moist
@17.5': FeO stained, thinly laminated in upper 6", transitions into massive, medium stiff
@22.5': SILT, light brown, mottled gray, FeO stained, massive w/ interbedded laminated zone, medium plasticity, stiff @23': Silty CLAY, olive brown, mottled w/ red FeO staining, medium stiff, medium-high plasticity, moist
@27.5': Sandy CLAY, dark brown, FeO stained, predominantly fine SAND, micaceous, medium stiff

CN, CR,
DS, EI
MD, RV
PP
PP
, DS
PP
CN, DS
PP
CN, DS
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * 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-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
115
110
105
100
95 90
85 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
2583
19 31
32 4
9 11
5 7
16 1
2 3
6 7
12 3
4 7
97 91
108
CL
SM
SP
CL
SP
CL-ML
CL
SM
CL
CL
R-8
SPT-3
R-9
SPT-4
R-10
SPT-5
13 31
22 Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf), continued @32.5': Silty SAND, light olive brown, very dense, predominantly fine SAND, thinly laminated in top 1", friable, moist
@37.5': Poorly graded SAND, grayish brown, fine to coarse SAND, predominantly fine and medium SAND, trace rounded gravel, dense, horizontally thinly bedded, very moist to wet @39': Groundwater encountered
@42.5': Lean CLAY, olive gray, MnO and FeO stained, local rounded gravels, very stiff, thinly laminated, wet
@47.5': Poorly graded SAND, dark gray brown, loose,
predominantly fine and medium SAND, wet
@48.5': Transition into SILT with Clay, yellow brown in upper 4", dark red brown in lower 2", divided by thin MnO layer, high plasticity
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
@52.5': Sandy CLAY, dark brown, slight FeO staining, very stiff, thinly laminated, wet, interbedded with ~2" Silty SAND layer @57.5': Silty CLAY to CLAY, yellow brown, very stiff, high plasticity, wet
@58.5': Silty CLAY to CLAY, reddish brown w/ blue gray
mottling, MnO stained, very stiff, local caliche, root casts, wet CN, CR
CN, AL
AL
CN, AL
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * 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-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
2584
T.D. 59 feet bgs
Groundwater measured at @40 feet bgs during drilling
Backfilled w/ bentonite/grout mix
Patched with cold-mix asphalt
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * 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-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
2585
8 6
6 3
3 4
3 4
5 5
5 4
3 6
9 4
6 7
2 2
2 3
7 11
SM
SM
SM
SM
CL
CL
CL
CL
ML
CL-ML
LB1
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
R-5
LB2
R-6
SPT-1
R-7
@0': 3" apshalt over 3" base
Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
@6": Silty SAND to Sandy SILT, dark brown to grayish brown, predominantly fine SAND, slightly moist
@2.5': Silty SAND, olive brown, loose, predominantly fine SAND, slightly moist
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, dark brown, loose, fine to medium SAND, predominantly fine SAND, slightly moist
@7.5': Silty SAND, medium gray brown, loose, trace CLAY, thin horizontal laminations, slightly moist
@10': CLAY, dark blackish brown, medium stiff, high plasticity moist
@11' 5": Transitions into Silty CLAY, yellow brown, medium stiff, horizontally laminated, low plasticity, moist
@12.5': Silty CLAY, grown mottled w/ red FeO staining, stiff, low plasticity, contains carbonate blebs and porous regions, slightly moist
@15': Same as above, stiff, medium plasticity, moist
@20': Same as above, medium stiff
@21': 5" SILT layer interbedded within Silty CLAY, dark yellow brown, wet
@25': SILT with Clay, brown mottled w/ gray, FeO stained, very stiff, contains carbonate stringers, slightly moist

CN, CR,
DS, EI
MD, RV
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * 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-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
115
110
105
100
95 90
85 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
2586
3 5
7 9
12 15
6 10
7 30
50/4"
2 4
6 4
9 31
SM
CL
SP
SC
SP
CL-ML
SP
ML
SP
SPT-2
R-8
SPT-3
R-9
SPT-4
R-10
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf), continued @30': Silty SAND, yellow brown, very stiff, predominantly fine SAND, friable, moist
@35': Sandy CLAY, yellow brown, very stiff, wavy laminations, low plasticity, moist
@40': Poorly graded SAND, yellow brown, medium dense,
predominantly coarse SAND, trace medium SAND, wet
Groundwater measured @40 feet bgs
@41': Transitions to Clayey SAND, predominantly fine SAND, low plasticity, wet
@45': Poorly graded SAND, yellow gray brown, very dense, coarse SAND, friable, wet
Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof)
@50': SILT with Clay, yellow brown mottled gray with root casts, stiff, fine SAND, medium plasticity, wet
@55': Poorly graded SAND, yellow brown, slight FeO staining, dense, friable, wet
@56': SILT, yellow brown, FeO staining wisps, micaceous, wet, interbedded with poorly graded SAND
PP
PP
PP
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * 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-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
85 80
75 70
65 60
55 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
2587
3 24
50/5"
SPT-5 SP Quaternary Old Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qof), continued @60': Poorly graded SAND, grayish brown, very dense,
non-cohesive and poorly-sorted, fine to coarse SAND,
predominantly medium and coarse SAND, trace rounded
gravels up to 0.5", wet
T.D. 61.42 feet bgs
Groundwater measured at @40 feet bgs during drilling
Backfilled w/ bentonite/grout mix
Patched with cold-mix asphalt
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * 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-4
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
55 50
45 40
35 30
25 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
2588
SM
LB1 SM
@0': 4" asphalt over 3" base
Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
@7": Silty SAND, yellowish brown, predominantly fine SAND, moist
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, reddish brown, predominantly fine SAND, trace CLAY, moist
T.D. 8 feet bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Borehole converted into percolation well with 5 feet 0.020" slotted pipe and 5' solid pipe
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-2
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
115
110
105
100
95 90
85 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
2589
SM
LB1 SM
@0': 5" asphalt over 3" base
Engineered Fill (Ef): Leroy Crandal 1988
@7": Silty SAND, dark brown, predominantly fine SAND,
micaceous, moist
Quaternary Young Alluvial Fan Deposits (Qyf)
@5': Silty SAND, dark brown, predominantly fine SAND, trace coarse SAND, moist
T.D. 8 feet bgs
No groundwater encountered during drilling
Borehole converted into percolation well with 5 feet 0.020" slotted pipe and 5' solid pipe
Hole Diameter Moisture
Ground Elevation
Depth Blows Elevation Per 6 Inches

115'

BULK SAMPLE

CORE SAMPLE

GRAB SAMPLE

RING SAMPLE

SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE

TUBE SAMPLE
B
C
G
R
S
T
LFO
Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class. 12-27-21

SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
Drilling Co.

Project
Project No.

See Figure 2
SLR/ The City Dr/ Geo Exploration
12423.006
Drilling Method
8" Sample No. Feet Attitudes
SAMPLE TYPES:

Martini Drilling Co
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Content, % GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LP-3
Logged By
Date Drilled
LFO/JLH 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

SIEVE ANALYSIS

SAND EQUIVALENT

SPECIFIC GRAVITY

UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
115
110
105
100
95 90
85 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
2590

SUMMARY
OF

CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
Prepared by:

KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
5415 Industrial Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92649-1518
Office (714) 901-7270 / Fax (714) 901-7289
www.kehoetesting.com
Project:

SLR City Drive Design Exploration
Orange, CA
December 27, 2021
Prepared for:

Mr. Jeff Hull
Leighton & Associates
17781 Cowan
Irvine, CA 92614-6009
Office (800) 253-4567 / Fax (949) 250-1114
2591

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK

3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES

4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION

APPENDIX
• CPT Plots
• CPT Classification/Soil Behavior Chart
• Summary of Shear Wave Velocities
• Pore Pressure Dissipation Graphs
• CPT Data Files (sent via email)
2592

SUMMARY
OF

CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA

1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Test (CPT) program carried out for the SLR City Drive Design Exploration project located in Orange, California. The work was performed by Kehoe Testing & Engineering (KTE) on December 27, 2021. The scope of work was performed as directed by Leighton & Associates personnel.

2. SUMMARY OF FIELD WORK
The fieldwork consisted of performing CPT soundings at four locations to determine the soil lithology. A summary is provided in TABLE 2.1.

LOCATION

DEPTH OF
CPT (ft) COMMENTS/NOTES:

CPT-1 81 Refusal
CPT-2 60 Refusal
CPT-3 76 Refusal
CPT-4 90
TABLE 2.1 - Summary of CPT Soundings

3. FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
The CPT soundings were carried out by KTE using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by Vertek. The CPT soundings were performed in accordance with ASTM standards (D5778). The cone penetrometers were pushed using a 30-ton CPT rig. The cone used during the program was a 15 cm^2 cone with a cone net area ratio of 0.83. The following parameters were recorded at approximately 2.5 cm depth intervals:
• Cone Resistance (qc) • Inclination
• Sleeve Friction (fs) • Penetration Speed
• Dynamic Pore Pressure (u) • Pore Pressure Dissipation (at selected depths) At locations CPT-2 & CPT-3, shear wave measurements were obtained at approximately 5-foot intervals. The shear wave is generated using an air-actuated hammer, which is located inside the front jack of the CPT rig. The cone has a triaxial geophone, which recorded the shear wave signal generated by the air hammer.
2593
The above parameters were recorded and viewed in real time using a laptop computer. Data is stored at the KTE office for up to 2 years for future analysis and reference. A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that the cone electronics are operating properly.

4. CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
The Cone Penetration Test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix. These plots were generated using the CPeT-IT program. Penetration depths are referenced to ground surface. The soil behavior type on the CPT plots is derived from the attached CPT SBT plot (Robertson, “Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test…”, 2009) and presents major soil lithologic changes. The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone resistance (qc), sleeve friction (fs), and penetration pore pressure (u). The friction ratio (Rf), which is sleeve friction divided by cone resistance, is a calculated parameter that is used along with cone resistance to infer soil behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone resistance and generate excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands) have lower friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little (or negative) excess pore water pressures.

The CPT data files have also been provided. These files can be imported in CPeT-IT (software by GeoLogismiki) and other programs to calculate various geotechnical parameters.

It should be noted that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on qc, fs and u. In these situations, experience, judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure data should be used to infer the soil behavior type.

If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call our office at (714) 901-7270.

Sincerely,

KEHOE TESTING & ENGINEERING
Steven P. Kehoe
President
12/28/21-kk-3459
2594

APPENDIX
2595
Project: Leighton & Associates / SLR City Drive Design Exploration Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Orange, CA Total depth: 81.70 ft, Date: 12/27/2021
CPT-1
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 0 2 0 40 6 0
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/28/2021, 10:20:05 AM 1 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Orange12-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 2596
Project: Leighton & Associates / SLR City Drive Design Exploration Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Orange, CA Total depth: 60.51 ft, Date: 12/27/2021
CPT-2
Location:

Cone resistance

DRILL OUT
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction

DRILL OUT
Friction (tsf)
543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u

DRILL OUT
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 0 2 0 40 6 0
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio

DRILL OUT
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type

DRILL OUT
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay
Clay
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/28/2021, 10:20:06 AM 2 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Orange12-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 2597
Project: Leighton & Associates / SLR City Drive Design Exploration Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Orange, CA Total depth: 76.06 ft, Date: 12/27/2021
CPT-3
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 0 2 0 40 6 0
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand
Sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/28/2021, 10:20:06 AM 3 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Orange12-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 2598
Project: Leighton & Associates / SLR City Drive Design Exploration Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
[email protected]
www.kehoetesting.com
Orange, CA Total depth: 90.44 ft, Date: 12/27/2021
CPT-4
Location:

Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
1 0 00 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 00
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
-2 0 0 2 0 40 6 0
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 61 41 21 086420 1 8
Depth (ft)
9 0
85 8 0
7 5
7 0
6 5
6 0
5 5
5 0
4 5
4 0
3 5
3 0
2 5
2 0
1 5
1 0
5 0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/28/2021, 10:20:07 AM 4 Project file: C:\CPT Project Data\Leighton-Orange12-21\CPT Report\CPeT.cpt 2599
2600
Leighton & Associates
SLR City Drive Design Exploration
Orange, CA
CPT Shear Wave Measurements
S-Wave Interval
Tip Geophone Travel S-Wave Velocity S-Wave
Depth Depth Distance Arrival from Surface Velocity
Location (ft) (ft) (ft) (msec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
CPT-2 5.18 4.18 4.63 3.80 1219

10.01 9.01 9.23 11.00 839 638

15.12 14.12 14.26 18.84 757 642

20.05 19.05 19.15 27.62 694 557

25.07 24.07 24.15 35.76 675 614

30.18 29.18 29.25 44.00 665 618

35.10 34.10 34.16 50.50 676 755

40.19 39.19 39.24 56.42 696 859

45.21 44.21 44.26 62.64 707 806

50.13 49.13 49.17 68.52 718 836

55.12 54.12 54.16 75.16 721 751

60.07 59.07 59.10 81.56 725 773
CPT-3 5.09 4.09 4.55 5.58 816

10.24 9.24 9.45 13.16 718 647

15.12 14.12 14.26 21.40 666 583

20.01 19.01 19.11 29.12 656 629

25.10 24.10 24.18 36.72 659 667

30.09 29.09 29.16 43.36 672 749

35.10 34.10 34.16 50.20 680 731

40.62 39.62 39.67 57.92 685 714

45.14 44.14 44.19 63.48 696 812

50.10 49.10 49.14 70.54 697 702

54.99 53.99 54.03 76.88 703 771

60.04 59.04 59.07 83.16 710 804

65.03 64.03 64.06 88.76 722 891

70.01 69.01 69.04 94.94 727 805

75.00 74.00 74.03 98.68 750 1334
Shear Wave Source Offset - 2 ft
S-Wave Velocity from Surface = Travel Distance/S-Wave Arrival Interval S-Wave Velocity = (Travel Dist2-Travel Dist1)/(Time2-Time1) 2601
TEST ID: CPT-1

PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-3
-2
-1
0 1 DEPTH (ft)

44.789
2602
TEST ID: CPT-1

PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0 1
2 DEPTH (ft)

61.855
2603
TEST ID: CPT-3

PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-2
-1
0 1
2 3 DEPTH (ft)

42.822
2604
TEST ID: CPT-4

PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0 1 DEPTH (ft)

41.894
2605
TEST ID: CPT-4

PRESSURE
(psi)
TIME: (MINUTES)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
4 DEPTH (ft)

56.822
2606

APPENDIX B

FIELD PERCOLATION TEST DATA
2607
Project Number: 12423.003 Test Hole Number: LP-1
Project Name: SLR City Drive Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 20
Tested By: KMD Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 15 Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
30 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
*P1 started 11/24/2020; **P2 started 11/29/2020
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Percolation
Rate (min./in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
12:15 15.00 60.0
10:45 16.15 46.2
10:46 15.00 60.0
8:37 15.42 55.0
8:38 15.00 60.0
9:08 15.02 59.8
9:08 14.94 60.7
9:38 14.96 60.5
9:38 14.96 60.5
10:08 15.00 60.0
10:08 15.00 60.0
10:38 15.03 59.6
10:38 14.94 60.7
11:08 14.96 60.5
11:08 14.96 60.5
11:38 14.98 60.2
11:38 14.98 60.2
12:08 15.00 60.0
12:08 15.00 60.0
12:38 15.02 59.8
12:38 14.99 60.1
13:08 15.01 59.9
13:08 14.99 60.1
13:38 15.01 59.9
13:38 15.01 59.9
14:08 15.03 59.6
14:08 15.00 60.0
14:38 15.02 59.8
Infiltration Rate, I (Last Reading) = 0.01 in./hr.
6 30 0.2 125.00
7 30 0.2 125.00
12 30 0.2 125.00
11 30 0.2 125.00
Infiltration Rate (I) = Flow Volume/Flow Area/Δt
5 30 0.2

0.01 0.01
8 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
9 30 0.2 125.00
3 30 0.5 62.50 0.01
4 30 0.4 83.33 0.01
P2** 1311 5.0 260.12 0.00
1 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
2 30 0.2 125.00 0.01
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
11/24/2020
11/30/2020

0.00 Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Percolation Data
P1* 5670 13.8 410.87
10 30 0.2 125.00 0.01

0.01 12:15 on 11/24/2020
8:38 on 11/30/2020

0.01 125.00 0.01

0.01 2608
Project Number: 12423.003 Test Hole Number: LP-1a
Project Name: SLR City Drive Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 11
Tested By: KMD Radius of boring, r (in): 4
Diameter of casing (in): 2
Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5
Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 5.78
Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (minutes)
Depth to
Water
(feet bgs)
Water Height,
H (inches)
Cumulative
Water Volume
Delivered
(gallons)
Total Volume of Water Delivered (gallons) 897.1
Total Volume of Water Delivered (cubic inches) 207230.1 Average Water Height (inches) 65.3
Average Percolation Surface Area (cubic Inches) 1692.7
Duration of Test (minutes) 70
Duration of Test (hours) 1.17
Measured Infiltration Rate (inches per hour) = 104.9
High Flowrate Percolation Test Calculation
8 11:42 10 5.40 67.2 897.1
7 11:32 10 5.46 66.5 770.5
6 11:22 10 5.49 66.1 643.3
5 11:12 10 5.54 65.5 517.0
4 11:02 10 5.60 64.8 389.6
3 10:52 10 5.66 64.1 261.5
2 10:42 10 5.73 63.2 133.1
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
11/25/2020
11/25/2020
Field Percolation Data
1 10:32 - - - 0.0
Measured Infiltration Rate = (Total Volume)/(Test Duration)/(Surface Area) 2609
Project Number: 12423.006 Test Hole Number: LP-2
Project Name: SLR The City Dr Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 8
Tested By: LFO Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 8 25 mins Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
7:51 4.79 38.5
8:16 6.59 16.9
8:27 4.52 41.8
8:52 6.62 16.6
8:53 4.73 39.2
9:03 5.72 27.4
9:05 4.86 37.7
9:15 5.78 26.6
9:29 4.86 37.7
9:39 5.91 25.1
9:41 4.57 41.2
9:51 5.75 27.0
9:53 4.39 43.3
10:03 5.60 28.8
10:05 4.59 40.9
10:15 5.71 27.5
10:16 4.66 40.1
10:26 5.75 27.0
10:28 4.51 41.9
10:38 5.65 28.2
Measured Infiltration Rate, I (Average of Last 3 Readings) = 1.73 in./hr.

P1 25 21.6 1.36
P2 25 25.2 1.52

13.1 1.73
12/27/21 7:51 AM
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Field Percolation Data - Falling Head Test
8 10 13.7 1.73
7 10
Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
12/27/2021
12/28/2021
12/27/21 7:51 AM
2 10 11.0 1.51
1 10 11.9 1.58

1.77 4 10 14.2 1.84
3 10 12.6

14.5 1.79
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 6 10 13.4 1.74
5 10
2610
Project Number: 12423.006 Test Hole Number: LP-3
Project Name: SLR The City Dr Date Excavated:

Earth Description: Alluvium Date Tested:

Liquid Description: Tap water Depth of boring (ft): 8
Tested By: LFO Radius of boring (in): 4
Time Interval Standard Radius of casing (in): 1
Start Time for Pre-Soak: Length of slotted of casing (ft): 5 Start Time for Standard: Depth to Initial Water Depth (ft): 8 25 mins Porosity of Annulus Material, n : 0.35
10 Bentonite Plug at Bottom: No
Reading Time Time Interval,
Δt (min.)
Initial/Final
Depth to
Water (ft.)
Initial/Final
Water Height,
H0/Hf
(in.)
Total Water
Drop, Δd (in.)
Infiltration
Rate (in./hr.)
8:17 4.96 36.5
8:42 6.72 15.4
8:43 4.84 37.9
9:08 6.50 18.0
9:09 4.78 38.6
9:21 5.89 25.3
9:24 4.44 42.7
9:34 5.66 28.1
9:36 4.83 38.0
9:46 5.67 28.0
9:47 4.98 36.2
9:57 5.77 26.8
9:58 4.97 36.4
10:08 5.75 27.0
10:08 5.04 35.5
10:18 5.74 27.1
10:20 4.90 37.2
10:30 5.73 27.2
Measured Infiltration Rate, I (Average of Last 3 Readings) = 1.24 in./hr.

Boring Percolation Test Data Sheet
12/27/2021
12/28/2021
12/27/21 8:17 AM
12/27/21 8:17 AM
Standard Time Interval
Between Readings, mins:

Field Percolation Data - Falling Head Test
P1 25 21.1 1.42
P2 25 19.9 1.25
1 12 13.3 1.49
2 10 14.6 1.78
3 10 10.1 1.35
4 10 9.5 1.33
5 10 9.4 1.30
6 10 8.4 1.18
Infiltration Rate (I) = Discharge Volume/Surface Area of Test Section/Time Interval 7 11 10.0 1.30
2611

APPENDIX C

LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
2612
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 01/13/22 Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/16/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 2-5
Sample No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)

2.415

1.000
192.11

45.46 0.9643
168.37
157.67

38.36 9.0
111.9
48 0.3327
255.24
236.54

56.66 13.91
115.9
83 0.2953

2.70 62.43

0.10 0.3327 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.506 0.00 1/17/22 10:40:00 0.0 0.0 0.3176

0.25 0.3321 0.9994 0.01 0.06 0.505 0.05 1/17/22 10:40:06 0.1 0.3 0.3135

0.50 0.3291 0.9964 0.03 0.36 0.501 0.33 1/17/22 10:40:15 0.2 0.5 0.3131

1.00 0.3259 0.9932 0.06 0.68 0.497 0.62 1/17/22 10:40:30 0.5 0.7 0.3128

2.00 0.3202 0.9875 0.11 1.25 0.489 1.14 1/17/22 10:41:00 1.0 1.0 0.3124

2.00 0.3176 0.9849 0.11 1.51 0.485 1.40 1/17/22 10:42:00 2.0 1.4 0.3121

4.00 0.3098 0.9771 0.19 2.29 0.474 2.10 1/17/22 10:44:00 4.0 2.0 0.3119

8.00 0.2991 0.9664 0.33 3.36 0.460 3.03 1/17/22 10:48:00 8.0 2.8 0.3116

16.00 0.2851 0.9524 0.52 4.76 0.442 4.24 1/17/22 10:55:00 15.0 3.9 0.3113

4.00 0.2887 0.9560 0.36 4.40 0.445 4.04 1/17/22 11:10:00 30.0 5.5 0.3110

1.00 0.2924 0.9597 0.23 4.03 0.449 3.80 1/17/22 11:40:00 60.0 7.7 0.3107

0.25 0.2953 0.9626 0.17 3.74 0.452 3.57 1/17/22 12:40:00 120.0 11.0 0.3104 1/17/22 14:40:00 240.0 15.5 0.3102
1/17/22 18:40:00 480.0 21.9 0.3100
1/18/22 10:40:00 1440.0 37.9 0.3098

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-1
12423.006
LB-3
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings @ 4 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio

0.440

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

0.490

0.500

0.510

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
2613
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 LB-1 9.0 13.9 115.9
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Time Readings @ 4 ksf
111.9 0.452 48 83
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.506
Void Ratio
2-5

0.3090

0.3100

0.3110

0.3120

0.3130

0.3140

0.3150

0.3160

0.3170

0.3180

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.3090

0.3100

0.3110

0.3120

0.3130

0.3140

0.3150

0.3160

0.3170

0.3180

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2614
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 01/13/22 Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/16/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 2-5
Sample No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)

2.415

1.000
192.11

45.46 0.9643
168.37
157.67

38.36 9.0
111.9
48 0.3327
255.24
236.54

56.66 13.91
115.9
83 0.2953

2.70 62.43

0.10 0.3327 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.506 0.00 1/17/22 10:40:00 0.0 0.0 0.3176

0.25 0.3321 0.9994 0.01 0.06 0.505 0.05 1/17/22 10:40:06 0.1 0.3 0.3135

0.50 0.3291 0.9964 0.03 0.36 0.501 0.33 1/17/22 10:40:15 0.2 0.5 0.3131

1.00 0.3259 0.9932 0.06 0.68 0.497 0.62 1/17/22 10:40:30 0.5 0.7 0.3128

2.00 0.3202 0.9875 0.11 1.25 0.489 1.14 1/17/22 10:41:00 1.0 1.0 0.3124

2.00 0.3176 0.9849 0.11 1.51 0.485 1.40 1/17/22 10:42:00 2.0 1.4 0.3121

4.00 0.3098 0.9771 0.19 2.29 0.474 2.10 1/17/22 10:44:00 4.0 2.0 0.3119

8.00 0.2991 0.9664 0.33 3.36 0.460 3.03 1/17/22 10:48:00 8.0 2.8 0.3116

16.00 0.2851 0.9524 0.52 4.76 0.442 4.24 1/17/22 10:55:00 15.0 3.9 0.3113

4.00 0.2887 0.9560 0.36 4.40 0.445 4.04 1/17/22 11:10:00 30.0 5.5 0.3110

1.00 0.2924 0.9597 0.23 4.03 0.449 3.80 1/17/22 11:40:00 60.0 7.7 0.3107

0.25 0.2953 0.9626 0.17 3.74 0.452 3.57 1/17/22 12:40:00 120.0 11.0 0.3104 1/17/22 14:40:00 240.0 15.5 0.3102
1/17/22 18:40:00 480.0 21.9 0.3100
1/18/22 10:40:00 1440.0 37.9 0.3098

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-1
12423.006
LB-3
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings @ 4 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio

0.440

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

0.490

0.500

0.510

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
2615
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 LB-1 9.0 13.9 115.9
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Time Readings @ 4 ksf
111.9 0.452 48 83
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.506
Void Ratio
2-5

0.3090

0.3100

0.3110

0.3120

0.3130

0.3140

0.3150

0.3160

0.3170

0.3180

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.3090

0.3100

0.3110

0.3120

0.3130

0.3140

0.3150

0.3160

0.3170

0.3180

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2616
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/14/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 193.22
Weight of Ring (g): 59.33
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9704
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 169.80
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 140.52
Weight of Container (g): 37.73
Initial Moisture Content (%) 28.5
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 86.7
Initial Saturation (%): 81
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1428
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 258.16
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 225.28
Weight of Container (g): 66.69
Final Moisture Content (%) 33.13
Final Dry Density (pcf): 85.1
Final Saturation (%): 91
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1748
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.1433 0.9995 0.00 0.05 0.951 0.05 1/19/22 10:20:00 0.0 0.0 0.1770

0.25 0.1474 0.9955 0.03 0.46 0.944 0.43 1/19/22 10:20:06 0.1 0.3 0.1808

0.50 0.1527 0.9901 0.08 0.99 0.934 0.91 1/19/22 10:20:15 0.2 0.5 0.1813

1.00 0.1623 0.9805 0.14 1.95 0.917 1.81 1/19/22 10:20:30 0.5 0.7 0.1816

2.00 0.1703 0.9726 0.22 2.75 0.903 2.53 1/19/22 10:21:00 1.0 1.0 0.1819

4.00 0.1769 0.9660 0.31 3.41 0.892 3.10 1/19/22 10:22:00 2.0 1.4 0.1821

4.00 0.1770 0.9658 0.31 3.42 0.891 3.11 1/19/22 10:24:00 4.0 2.0 0.1824

8.00 0.1833 0.9596 0.40 4.05 0.881 3.65 1/19/22 10:28:00 8.0 2.8 0.1825

16.00 0.1910 0.9518 0.50 4.82 0.868 4.32 1/19/22 10:35:00 15.0 3.9 0.1826

4.00 0.1894 0.9535 0.41 4.66 0.869 4.25 1/19/22 10:50:00 30.0 5.5 0.1827

1.00 0.1850 0.9578 0.32 4.22 0.876 3.90 1/19/22 11:20:00 60.0 7.7 0.1828

0.25 0.1748 0.9680 0.24 3.20 0.894 2.96 1/19/22 13:00:00 160.0 12.6 0.1829 1/19/22 15:00:00 280.0 16.7 0.1830
1/19/22 18:20:00 480.0 21.9 0.1831
1/20/22 10:30:00 1450.0 38.1 0.1832
1/20/22 14:18:00 1678.0 41.0 0.1833

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
12423.006
SLR The City Dr. Orange
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Olive brown silty (CL-ML)
Time Readings @ 8.0 ksf
Elapsed
Time (min)

12.5 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
LB-3
R-5
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)

0.850

0.870

0.890

0.910

0.930

0.950

0.970

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-3, R-5 @ 12.5
2617
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 R-5 28.5 33.1 85.1
Olive brown silty (CL-ML)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Time Readings @ 8.0 ksf

86.7 0.894 81 91
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.952
Void Ratio

12.5 0.1760

0.1770

0.1780

0.1790

0.1800

0.1810

0.1820

0.1830

0.1840

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

4.00 4.50

5.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.1760

0.1770

0.1780

0.1790

0.1800

0.1810

0.1820

0.1830

0.1840

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2618
Project Name: Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/14/22
Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.):

Sample No.: Sample Type:

Soil Identification:

Sample Diameter (in.): 2.415
Sample Thickness (in.): 1.000
Weight of Sample + ring (g): 183.20
Weight of Ring (g): 39.71
Height after consol. (in.): 0.9625
Before Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 188.30
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 163.79
Weight of Container (g): 66.92
Initial Moisture Content (%) 25.3
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 95.2
Initial Saturation (%): 88
Initial Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1596
After Test
Wt. of Wet Sample+Cont. (g): 247.41
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g): 217.01
Weight of Container (g): 66.07
Final Moisture Content (%) 27.33
Final Dry Density (pcf): 96.1
Final Saturation (%): 97
Final Vertical Reading (in.) 0.1997
Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.71
Water Density (pcf): 62.43

0.10 0.1598 0.9998 0.00 0.02 0.776 0.02 1/19/22 10:15:00 0.0 0.0 0.1895

0.25 0.1624 0.9972 0.04 0.28 0.772 0.24 1/19/22 10:15:06 0.1 0.3 0.1972

0.50 0.1663 0.9934 0.09 0.67 0.766 0.58 1/19/22 10:15:15 0.2 0.5 0.1979

1.00 0.1722 0.9874 0.16 1.26 0.757 1.10 1/19/22 10:15:30 0.5 0.7 0.1982

2.00 0.1793 0.9803 0.27 1.97 0.746 1.70 1/19/22 10:16:00 1.0 1.0 0.1986

4.00 0.1892 0.9704 0.38 2.96 0.731 2.58 1/19/22 10:17:00 2.0 1.4 0.1990

4.00 0.1895 0.9701 0.38 2.99 0.730 2.61 1/19/22 10:19:00 4.0 2.0 0.1993

8.00 0.2019 0.9578 0.49 4.23 0.710 3.74 1/19/22 10:23:00 8.0 2.8 0.1996

16.00 0.2180 0.9416 0.63 5.84 0.684 5.21 1/19/22 10:30:00 15.0 3.9 0.1998

4.00 0.2131 0.9465 0.51 5.35 0.690 4.84 1/19/22 10:45:00 30.0 5.5 0.2001

1.00 0.2071 0.9525 0.37 4.75 0.699 4.38 1/19/22 11:15:00 60.0 7.7 0.2004

0.25 0.1997 0.9599 0.26 4.01 0.710 3.75 1/19/22 13:00:00 165.0 12.8 0.2009 1/19/22 15:00:00 285.0 16.9 0.2011
1/19/22 18:15:00 480.0 21.9 0.2013
1/20/22 10:30:00 1455.0 38.1 0.2018
1/20/22 14:17:00 1682.0 41.0 0.2019

22.5 Pressure
(p)
(ksf) Dial Rdgs.
(in.) Date
LB-3
R-7
Time
Corrected
Deformation (%)
PROPERTIES of SOILS
Ring
Void
Ratio
Light olive brown silt (ML)
Time Readings @ 8.0 ksf
Elapsed
Time (min)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
ASTM D 2435
12423.006
SLR The City Dr. Orange
Deformation
% of Sample
Thickness Square
Root of
Time
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)

0.680

0.700

0.720

0.740

0.760

0.780

0.800

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
Consol LB-3, R-7 @ 22.5
2619
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Soil Identification:

Time Readings @ 8.0 ksf

95.2 0.710 88 97
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.776
Void Ratio

22.5 25.3
Light olive brown silt (ML)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 R-7 27.3 96.1

0.1880

0.1900

0.1920

0.1940

0.1960

0.1980

0.2000

0.2020

0.2040

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.1880

0.1900

0.1920

0.1940

0.1960

0.1980

0.2000

0.2020

0.2040

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2620
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 01/14/22 Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 32.5
Sample No.: Sample Type: Ring
Soil Identification: Light olive brown silty sand (SM)

2.415

1.000
179.56

46.17 0.9816
624.64
566.20
137.34

13.6 97.6
51 0.2782
247.61
220.94

57.16 22.68

99.6 89

0.2563

2.70 62.43

0.10 0.2782 1.0000 0.00 0.00 0.727 0.00 1/19/22 10:00:00 0.0 0.0 0.2600

0.25 0.2770 0.9988 0.05 0.12 0.725 0.07 1/19/22 10:00:06 0.1 0.3 0.2555

0.50 0.2748 0.9966 0.11 0.34 0.722 0.23 1/19/22 10:00:15 0.2 0.5 0.2552

1.00 0.2708 0.9926 0.20 0.74 0.717 0.54 1/19/22 10:00:30 0.5 0.7 0.2551

2.00 0.2659 0.9877 0.31 1.23 0.711 0.92 1/19/22 10:01:00 1.0 1.0 0.2548

4.00 0.2602 0.9820 0.45 1.80 0.703 1.35 1/19/22 10:02:00 2.0 1.4 0.2546

4.00 0.2600 0.9818 0.45 1.83 0.703 1.38 1/19/22 10:04:00 4.0 2.0 0.2544

8.00 0.2530 0.9748 0.61 2.53 0.693 1.92 1/19/22 10:08:00 8.0 2.8 0.2543

16.00 0.2440 0.9658 0.81 3.42 0.681 2.61 1/19/22 10:15:00 15.0 3.9 0.2542

4.00 0.2481 0.9699 0.67 3.01 0.686 2.34 1/19/22 10:30:00 30.0 5.5 0.2540

1.00 0.2522 0.9740 0.49 2.60 0.690 2.11 1/19/22 11:00:00 60.0 7.7 0.2538

0.25 0.2563 0.9781 0.35 2.19 0.695 1.84 1/19/22 12:55:00 175.0 13.2 0.2535 1/19/22 14:55:00 295.0 17.2 0.2534
1/19/22 18:00:00 480.0 21.9 0.2533
1/20/22 10:25:00 1465.0 38.3 0.2530
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings @ 8 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
R-8
12423.006
LB-3

0.680

0.685

0.690

0.695

0.700

0.705

0.710

0.715

0.720

0.725

0.730

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
2621
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Time Readings @ 8 ksf

97.6 0.695 51 89
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.727
Void Ratio

32.5 13.6
Soil Identification: Light olive brown silty sand (SM)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 R-8 22.7 99.6

0.2520

0.2530

0.2540

0.2550

0.2560

0.2570

0.2580

0.2590

0.2600

0.2610

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2520

0.2530

0.2540

0.2550

0.2560

0.2570

0.2580

0.2590

0.2600

0.2610

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2622
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 01/14/22 Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 42.5
Sample No.: Sample Type: Ring
Soil Identification: Olive gray lean clay (CL)

2.415

1.000
188.76

45.53 0.9443
210.57
174.75

61.35 31.6

90.5 98

0.3121
249.67
217.82

65.85 29.92

93.7 100

0.2531

2.72 62.43

0.10 0.3119 0.9998 0.00 0.02 0.875 0.02 1/19/22 10:05:00 0.0 0.0 0.2475

0.25 0.3087 0.9966 0.03 0.34 0.870 0.31 1/19/22 10:05:06 0.1 0.3 0.2328

0.50 0.3019 0.9898 0.06 1.02 0.858 0.96 1/19/22 10:05:15 0.2 0.5 0.2318

1.00 0.2928 0.9807 0.11 1.93 0.842 1.82 1/19/22 10:05:30 0.5 0.7 0.2311

2.00 0.2815 0.9694 0.20 3.06 0.822 2.86 1/19/22 10:06:00 1.0 1.0 0.2304

4.00 0.2663 0.9542 0.33 4.58 0.796 4.25 1/19/22 10:07:00 2.0 1.4 0.2298

8.00 0.2481 0.9360 0.48 6.40 0.765 5.92 1/19/22 10:09:00 4.0 2.0 0.2292

8.00 0.2475 0.9354 0.48 6.46 0.764 5.98 1/19/22 10:13:00 8.0 2.8 0.2286

16.00 0.2242 0.9121 0.67 8.80 0.723 8.13 1/19/22 10:20:00 15.0 3.9 0.2281

4.00 0.2310 0.9189 0.50 8.11 0.733 7.61 1/19/22 10:35:00 30.0 5.5 0.2275

1.00 0.2421 0.9300 0.39 7.00 0.752 6.61 1/19/22 11:05:00 60.0 7.7 0.2269

0.25 0.2531 0.9410 0.33 5.90 0.771 5.57 1/19/22 12:55:00 170.0 13.0 0.2259 1/19/22 14:55:00 290.0 17.0 0.2254
1/19/22 18:05:00 480.0 21.9 0.2249
1/20/22 10:25:00 1460.0 38.2 0.2242

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
R-9
12423.006
LB-3
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings @ 16 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio

0.700

0.720

0.740

0.760

0.780

0.800

0.820

0.840

0.860

0.880

0.900

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
2623
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 R-9 31.6 29.9 93.7
Soil Identification: Olive gray lean clay (CL)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Time Readings @ 16 ksf

90.5 0.771 98 100
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.876
Void Ratio

42.5 0.2200

0.2250

0.2300

0.2350

0.2400

0.2450

0.2500

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2200

0.2250

0.2300

0.2350

0.2400

0.2450

0.2500

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2624
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 01/14/22 Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 52.5
Sample No.: Sample Type: Ring
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)

2.415

1.000
202.32

44.62 0.9843
619.77
545.10
201.18

21.7 107.8
100

0.3073
265.40
239.52

66.70 20.19
108.3
94 0.2879

2.76 62.43

0.10 0.3069 0.9996 0.00 0.04 0.598 0.04 1/19/22 10:10:00 0.0 0.0 0.2851

0.25 0.3047 0.9974 0.07 0.26 0.596 0.19 1/19/22 10:10:06 0.1 0.3 0.2800

0.50 0.3028 0.9955 0.13 0.45 0.594 0.32 1/19/22 10:10:15 0.2 0.5 0.2798

1.00 0.2998 0.9925 0.21 0.75 0.590 0.54 1/19/22 10:10:30 0.5 0.7 0.2796

2.00 0.2960 0.9887 0.33 1.13 0.586 0.80 1/19/22 10:11:00 1.0 1.0 0.2792

4.00 0.2913 0.9840 0.46 1.61 0.581 1.15 1/19/22 10:12:00 2.0 1.4 0.2791

8.00 0.2853 0.9780 0.64 2.20 0.574 1.56 1/19/22 10:14:00 4.0 2.0 0.2789

8.00 0.2851 0.9778 0.64 2.22 0.574 1.58 1/19/22 10:18:00 8.0 2.8 0.2787

16.00 0.2772 0.9699 0.86 3.02 0.565 2.16 1/19/22 10:25:00 15.0 3.9 0.2785

4.00 0.2813 0.9740 0.68 2.61 0.568 1.93 1/19/22 10:40:00 30.0 5.5 0.2783

1.00 0.2849 0.9776 0.50 2.24 0.571 1.74 1/19/22 11:10:00 60.0 7.7 0.2781

0.25 0.2879 0.9806 0.37 1.94 0.574 1.57 1/19/22 12:55:00 165.0 12.8 0.2778 1/19/22 14:55:00 285.0 16.9 0.2776
1/19/22 18:10:00 480.0 21.9 0.2775
1/20/22 10:27:00 1457.0 38.2 0.2772

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
R-10
12423.006
LB-3
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings @ 16 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio

0.555

0.560

0.565

0.570

0.575

0.580

0.585

0.590

0.595

0.600

0.605

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
2625
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-3 R-10 21.7 20.2 108.3
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Time Readings @ 16 ksf
107.8 0.574 100 94
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.599
Void Ratio

52.5 0.2760

0.2770

0.2780

0.2790

0.2800

0.2810

0.2820

0.2830

0.2840

0.2850

0.2860

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2760

0.2770

0.2780

0.2790

0.2800

0.2810

0.2820

0.2830

0.2840

0.2850

0.2860

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2626
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By:G. Bathala Date: 01/14/22 Project No.: Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Depth (ft.): 2-5
Sample No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)

2.415

1.000
188.87

45.48 0.9764
164.00
152.78

39.02 9.9
108.5
48 0.2938
256.35
235.98

60.22 15.64
111.0
81 0.2680

2.70 62.43

0.10 0.2935 0.9997 0.00 0.03 0.552 0.03 1/17/22 10:45:00 0.0 0.0 0.2827

0.25 0.2922 0.9984 0.05 0.16 0.551 0.11 1/17/22 10:45:06 0.1 0.3 0.2796

0.50 0.2899 0.9961 0.10 0.40 0.548 0.30 1/17/22 10:45:15 0.2 0.5 0.2793

1.00 0.2876 0.9938 0.18 0.63 0.546 0.45 1/17/22 10:45:30 0.5 0.7 0.2792

2.00 0.2837 0.9899 0.27 1.01 0.541 0.74 1/17/22 10:46:00 1.0 1.0 0.2789

2.00 0.2827 0.9889 0.27 1.11 0.540 0.84 1/17/22 10:47:00 2.0 1.4 0.2788

4.00 0.2771 0.9833 0.40 1.67 0.533 1.27 1/17/22 10:49:00 4.0 2.0 0.2785

8.00 0.2692 0.9754 0.56 2.46 0.523 1.90 1/17/22 10:53:00 8.0 2.8 0.2784

16.00 0.2573 0.9635 0.77 3.65 0.508 2.88 1/17/22 11:00:00 15.0 3.9 0.2783

4.00 0.2612 0.9674 0.54 3.26 0.511 2.72 1/17/22 11:15:00 30.0 5.5 0.2781

1.00 0.2652 0.9714 0.36 2.86 0.514 2.50 1/17/22 11:45:00 60.0 7.7 0.2779

0.25 0.2680 0.9742 0.22 2.58 0.516 2.36 1/17/22 12:45:00 120.0 11.0 0.2777 1/17/22 14:45:00 240.0 15.5 0.2775
1/17/22 18:45:00 480.0 21.9 0.2773
1/18/22 10:45:00 1440.0 37.9 0.2771
Pressure
(p)
(ksf)
Final
Reading
(in.)
Apparent
Thickness
(in.)
Load
Compliance
(%)
Deformation
% of
Sample
Thickness
Void
Ratio
Corrected
Deformation (%)
Time Readings @ 4 ksf
Date Time Elapsed
Time (min)
Square Root
of Time
Dial Rdgs.
(in.)
Sample Diameter (in.)
Sample Thickness (in.)
Wt. of Sample + Ring (g)
Weight of Ring (g)
After Test
Height after consol. (in.)
Wt.Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt.of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Before Test
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Initial Saturation (%)
Initial Vertical Reading (in.)
Wt.of Wet Sample+Cont. (g)
Wt. of Dry Sample+Cont. (g)
Weight of Container (g)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Water Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Final Saturation (%)
Final Vertical Reading (in.)
Specific Gravity (assumed)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-1
12423.006
LB-4

0.500

0.510

0.520

0.530

0.540

0.550

0.560

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.

Void Ratio
Pressure, p (ksf)
Inundate with
Tap water
2627
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final Time Readings @ 4 ksf
108.5 0.516 48 81
Degree of
Saturation (%) Dry Density (pcf)

0.553
Void Ratio
2-5 9.9
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Project No.:

SLR The City Dr. Orange
01-22
12423.006
Boring
No.

Sample
No.

Depth
(ft.)
Moisture
Content (%)

ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES of SOILS
ASTM D 2435
LB-4 LB-1 15.6 111.0

0.2760

0.2770

0.2780

0.2790

0.2800

0.2810

0.2820

0.2830

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Deformation Dial Reading (in.)
Log of Time (min.)

0.00 0.50

1.00 1.50

2.00 2.50

3.00 3.50

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00
Deformation (%)
Pressure, p (ksf)

0.2760

0.2770

0.2780

0.2790

0.2800

0.2810

0.2820

0.2830

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Square Root of Time (min.1/2)
Inundate with
Tap water
2628
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By : GEB/ACS Date: 01/18/22 Project No. : 12423.006 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22 Boring No. LB-3 LB-3 LB-4
Sample No. R-8 LB-1 LB-1
Sample Depth (ft) 32.5 2-5 2-5

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00
100.20 100.36 100.56
15 3 305
11 5 8
860 860 860
13:15/14:00 13:15/14:00 13:15/14:00
45 45 45

18.0283 18.4993 20.3972

18.0263 18.4956 20.3941

0.0020 0.0037 0.0031

82.30 152.26 127.56
82 152 128
ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15 5 15
ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 0.7 0.4 0.6
PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 100 120 80
PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 100 120 80

7.74 8.82 9.36

22.9 23.8 24.6
Moisture Content (%)
Beaker No.

CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422
Wt. of Crucible (g)
PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis
PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150
Wt. of Residue (g) (A)
Temperature °C
pH Value
Duration of Combustion (min)
Soil Identification:

Time In / Time Out
pH TEST, DOT California Test 643
Olive brown SM Olive brown SM
Furnace Temperature (°C)
Weight of Container (g)
Crucible No.

Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g)
Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Light olive
brown SM
TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT
CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS
SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II
Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g)
Weight of Soaked Soil (g)
2629
Project Name: Tested By : Date:

Project No. : Checked By: A. Santos Date:

Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :

Sample No. : R-8
Container No.

Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant
Light olive brown SM
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)

38.43 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
SLR The City Dr. Orange 01/25/22
01/25/22

32.5 12423.006
LB-3
J. Domingo

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH
5900
6000

0.00 1.00
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
5894 39.5 82 100 7.74 22.9
4 50
3 60 46.12 6000 130.10
5900
Min. Resistivity
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (%) (ppm) (ppm)
DOT CA Test 643

1.000
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm)
Moisture Content Sulfate Content
5 1
2 Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
40 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
6200
Soil Identification:*
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

30.75 6200 Wt. of Container (g)

0.00 0.00
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Specimen
No.
5850
5900
5950
6000
6050
6100
6150
6200
6250

30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
2630
Project Name: Tested By : Date:

Project No. : Checked By: A. Santos Date:

Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :

Sample No. :

Olive brown SM
30 40 30.60
Chloride Content
(ohm-cm) (%) (ppm) (ppm)
Min. Resistivity Moisture Content
5 3000

22.95 2800 Container No.

MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
4 Specimen
No.
1 2
3 15.30 3200 3200
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC)
Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
2796 23.6 152 120 8.82
DOT CA Test 643 DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH

1.000
130.70
2800
3000

0.00 1.00

23.8 Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Box Constant
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Sulfate Content
SLR The City Dr. Orange 01/25/22
01/25/22
2-5
12423.006
LB-3
J. Domingo
LB-1
Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
20 Soil Identification:*
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
*California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

0.00 0.00
2750
2800
2850
2900
2950
3000
3050
3100
3150
3200
3250

15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
2631
Project Name: Tested By : Date:

Project No. : Checked By: A. Santos Date:

Boring No.: Depth (ft.) :

Sample No. :

Olive brown SM
LB-1
SLR The City Dr. Orange 01/25/22
01/25/22
2-5
12423.006
LB-4
Soil Identification:*
J. Domingo
Specimen
No.
1 Water
Added (ml)
(Wa)
30 *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials.

1.00 Moisture Content (%) (MCi)
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

22.99 Adjusted
Moisture
Content
(MC)
Soil
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
Resistance
Reading
(ohm)
3800
3600
3800
3600
Wt. of Container (g)
Container No.
128 80 9.36 24.6

SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST
DOT CA TEST 643
pH Temp. (°C)
Soil pH

0.00 0.00

0.00 2
3 3598 31.3
(ohm-cm) (%)
Min. Resistivity Moisture Content Sulfate Content
Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt)
Box Constant 1.000

38.31 3700 3700 130.50
DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 643 (ppm) (ppm)
Chloride Content
MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100
40 50
DOT CA Test 643
4 5

30.65 3550
3600
3650
3700
3750
3800
3850

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0
Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)
Moisture Content (%)
2632
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/18/22 Project No.: 12423.006 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/21/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 2-5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
192.05 192.35 192.39

45.42 45.65 45.46
Before Shearing
168.37 168.37 168.37
157.67 157.67 157.67

38.36 38.36 38.36

0.2596 0.2193 0.0000

0.2679 0.2382 -0.0316
After Shearing
219.76 218.66 219.87
199.65 199.92 201.82

66.86 66.93 69.87

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
LB-3
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

LB-1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS LB-3, LB1 @ 2-5
2633
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006
Sample Type:
90% Remold
Olive brown silty sand (SM)

47.8 0.9917

15.1 SLR The City Dr. Orange DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

48.1 0.9684

13.7 1.000

0.836

0.726

0.0025

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

4.000

2.745

2.745

0.0025

8.000

5.212

5.033

0.0025

47.9 0.9811

14.1 Soil Identification: 8.97
112.0

8.97 111.9 112.1

1.000

2.415

8.97 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
LB-1
2-5

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, LB1 @ 2-5
2634
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: 90% Remold Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 224 32 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 179 32 Final Moisture Content (%)

2.745

2.745
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
LB-1
2-5

47.9 8.97
112.0

0.0025

8.000

5.212

5.033

0.0025

48.1 4.000

0.9684

8.97 13.7

1.000

2.415

0.9811

14.1 112.1

1.000

2.415

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.836

0.726

0.0025

8.97 111.9

2.415
Soil Identification:
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006

47.8 0.9917

1.000

15.1 SLR The City Dr. Orange

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, LB1 @ 2-5
2635
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/15/22 Project No.: 12423.006 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/19/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 7.5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
179.70 178.34 182.70

45.36 41.50 45.81
Before Shearing
193.49 193.49 193.49
187.05 187.05 187.05

56.90 56.90 56.90

0.0000 0.2589 0.2413
-0.0118 0.2742 0.2656
After Shearing
182.59 211.18 211.30
163.56 193.07 192.71

39.56 66.86 66.07

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
LB-3
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-3

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS LB-3, R-3 @ 7.5
2636
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006
Sample Type:

Ring
Olive brown silty sand (SM)

22.9 0.9882

15.3 SLR The City Dr. Orange DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

24.1 0.9757

14.7 1.000

0.780

0.679

0.0033

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

4.000

2.977

2.584

0.0033

8.000

5.272

5.231

0.0033

24.1 0.9847

14.3 Soil Identification: 4.95
108.4

4.95 106.5 108.5

1.000

2.415

4.95 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-3

7.5 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-3 @ 7.5
2637
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 245 33 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 11 33 Final Moisture Content (%)

2.977

2.584
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-3

7.5 24.1

4.95 108.4

0.0033

8.000

5.272

5.231

0.0033

24.1 4.000

0.9757

4.95 14.7

1.000

2.415

0.9847

14.3 108.5

1.000

2.415

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.780

0.679

0.0033

4.95 106.5

2.415
Soil Identification:
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006

22.9 0.9882

1.000

15.3 SLR The City Dr. Orange

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-3 @ 7.5
2638
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/18/22 Project No.: 12423.006 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 12.5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
187.07 180.28 190.78

44.60 37.62 45.50
Before Shearing
169.80 169.80 169.80
140.52 140.52 140.52

37.73 37.73 37.73

0.0000 0.2651 0.2621
-0.0129 0.3317 0.3259
After Shearing
203.28 175.57 200.28
171.10 143.35 170.19

66.07 38.35 61.48

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

LB-3
Olive brown silty clay (CL-ML)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-5
DS LB-3, R-5 @ 12.5
2639
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)

94.0 1.000

2.415

28.49 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-5

12.5 93.2

0.9334

30.7 Soil Identification: 28.49

92.3 28.49

92.2 2.326

0.0017

8.000

5.517

5.266

0.0017

1.000

0.795

0.732

0.0017

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

4.000

2.468

92.9 0.9871

30.6 SLR The City Dr. Orange DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

97.0 0.9362

27.7 01-22
Project No.: 12423.006
Sample Type:

Ring
Olive brown silty clay (CLML)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-5 @ 12.5
2640
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 0 34 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 0 33 Final Moisture Content (%)
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006

92.9 0.9871

1.000

30.6 SLR The City Dr. Orange DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.795

0.732

0.0017

28.49 92.2

2.415
Soil Identification:

0.9362

28.49 27.7

1.000

2.415

0.9334

30.7 94.0

1.000

2.415

93.2 28.49

92.3 0.0017

8.000

5.517

5.266

0.0017

97.0 4.000

2.468

2.326
Olive brown silty clay (CL-ML)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-5

12.5 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 6.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-5 @ 12.5
2641
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/15/22 Project No.: 12423.006 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/19/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: Ring
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 22.5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
198.04 188.49 188.59

61.37 43.32 34.82
Before Shearing
188.30 188.30 188.30
163.79 163.79 163.79

66.92 66.92 66.92

0.2725 0.2805 0.0000

0.2843 0.3158 -0.0916
After Shearing
202.18 208.75 209.62
176.01 178.82 181.78

66.93 69.87 63.80

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
LB-3
Light olive brown silt (ML)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

R-7

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS LB-3, R-7 @ 22.5
2642
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006
Sample Type:

Ring
Light olive brown silt (ML)

79.6 0.9882

24.0 SLR The City Dr. Orange DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
104.8

0.9084

23.6 1.000

0.827

0.751

0.0025

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

4.000

2.996

2.770

0.0025

8.000

4.697

4.543

0.0025

91.2 0.9647

27.5 Soil Identification: 25.30

96.4 25.30

90.7 102.1

1.000

2.415

25.30 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-7

22.5 0.00

1.00 2.00

3.00 4.00

5.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-7 @ 22.5
2643
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: Ring Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 474 29 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 364 28 Final Moisture Content (%)

2.996

2.770
Light olive brown silt (ML)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-3
R-7

22.5 91.2

25.30 96.4

0.0025

8.000

4.697

4.543

0.0025
104.8

4.000

0.9084

25.30 23.6

1.000

2.415

0.9647

27.5 102.1

1.000

2.415

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.827

0.751

0.0025

25.30 90.7

2.415
Soil Identification:
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006

79.6 0.9882

1.000

24.0 SLR The City Dr. Orange

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-3, R-7 @ 22.5
2644
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: G. Bathala Date: 01/17/22 Project No.: 12423.006 Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/21/22 Boring No.: Sample Type: 90% Remold
Sample No.: Depth (ft.): 2-5
Soil Identification:

2.415 2.415 2.415

1.000 1.000 1.000
188.85 189.10 189.34

45.49 45.67 45.46
Before Shearing
164.00 164.00 164.00
152.78 152.78 152.78

39.02 39.02 39.02

0.0000 0.2554 0.2633
-0.0098 0.2704 0.2976
After Shearing
210.77 206.09 202.86
189.43 186.07 184.08

61.48 57.16 55.14

2.70 2.70 2.70

62.43 62.43 62.43
LB-4
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Sample Diameter(in):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

Vertical Rdg.(in): Final
Vertical Rdg.(in): Initial
Sample Thickness(in.):

Weight of Sample + ring(gm):

LB-1

DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080
Water Density(pcf):

Specific Gravity (Assumed):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Ring(gm):

Weight of Container(gm):

Weight of Dry Sample+Cont.(gm):

Weight of Wet Sample+Cont.(gm):

DS LB-4, LB1 @ 2-5
2645
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content (%)
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006
Sample Type:
90% Remold
Olive brown silty sand (SM)

48.1 0.9902

16.7 SLR The City Dr. Orange DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

48.6 0.9657

14.6 1.000

0.839

0.701

0.0025

1.000

2.415

1.000

2.415

4.000

2.870

2.789

0.0025

8.000

5.731

5.388

0.0025

48.2 0.9850

15.5 Soil Identification: 9.86
108.6

9.86 108.5 108.9

1.000

2.415

9.86 Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-4
LB-1
2-5

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-4, LB1 @ 2-5
2646
Normal Stress (kip/ft²)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft²)
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Sample Type: 90% Remold Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Strength Parameters Dry Density (pcf)
C (psf)  (o
) Saturation (%)
Peak 114 35 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Ultimate 63 34 Final Moisture Content (%)

2.870

2.789
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Boring No.

Sample No.

Depth (ft)
LB-4
LB-1
2-5

48.2 9.86
108.6

0.0025

8.000

5.731

5.388

0.0025

48.6 4.000

0.9657

9.86 14.6

1.000

2.415

0.9850

15.5 108.9

1.000

2.415

DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080

1.000

0.839

0.701

0.0025

9.86 108.5

2.415
Soil Identification:
01-22
Project No.: 12423.006

48.1 0.9902

1.000

16.7 SLR The City Dr. Orange

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Shear Stress (ksf)
Horizontal Deformation (in.)

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 Shear Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (ksf)
DS LB-4, LB1 @ 2-5
2647
Tested By: S. Felter Date: 01/21/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/25/22
Depth (ft.):

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container No. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h 4048
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 5

1.0 0.5730
01/24/22 7:10 1.0 4108 0.5730
01/24/22 6:10 1.0
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
01/21/22 11:12 1.0 30 0.5700
10 01/21/22 10:32 1.0 0 0.5680
01/21/22 10:42 0.5680
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 50.0 72.2
Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
Total Porosity 0.302 0.305
Pore Volume (cc) 62.4 63.5
Dry Density (pcf) 117.7 117.1
Void Ratio 0.432 0.439
Moisture Content (%) 8.00 11.74
Wet Density (pcf) 127.1 130.9
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 780.30 570.88
Wt. of Container (g) 0.00 180.60
Container No. OO
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 842.70 616.70
Wt. of Mold (g) 180.60 0.00
Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0050
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 602.10 436.10
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
100.00
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
1000.00

0.00 1000.00

0.00 2-5
Sample No.: LB-1
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Project No.: 12423.006
Boring No.:

EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name:

LB-3
SLR The City Dr. Orange
2648
Tested By: A. Santos Date: 01/20/22
Checked By: G. Bathala Date: 01/21/22
Depth (ft.):

Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container No. (g)
Dry Wt. of Soil (g)
Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve
Percent Passing # 4
SPECIMEN INUNDATION in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h Project No.: 12423.006
Boring No.:

EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS
ASTM D 4829
Project Name:

LB-4
SLR The City Dr. Orange
1000.00

0.00 1000.00

0.00 2-5
Sample No.: LB-1
Soil Identification: Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Specimen Diameter (in.) 4.01 4.01
100.00
MOLDED SPECIMEN Before Test After Test
Specimen Height (in.) 1.0000 1.0000
Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 597.30 432.30
Wt. of Mold (g) 187.70 0.00
Specific Gravity (Assumed) 2.70 2.70
Container No. OO
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 824.10 620.00
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 757.40 564.17
Wt. of Container (g) 0.00 187.70
Moisture Content (%) 8.81 14.83
Wet Density (pcf) 123.6 130.4
Dry Density (pcf) 113.6 113.6
Void Ratio 0.485 0.485
Total Porosity 0.326 0.326
Pore Volume (cc) 67.6 67.6
Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 49.1 82.6
Date Time Pressure (psi) Elapsed Time
(min.)
Dial Readings
(in.)
10 01/20/22 9:35 1.0 0 0.4890
01/20/22 9:45 0.4890
Add Distilled Water to the Specimen
01/20/22 9:50 1.0 5 0.4890

1.0 0.4890
01/21/22 12:30 1.0 1605 0.4890
01/21/22 7:01 1.0 1276
Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 0 2649
Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 01/12/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/13/22
LB-3 Depth (ft.): 2-5
X Moist Rammer Weight (lb.) = 10.0
Dry #3/4 Height of Drop (in.) = 18.0
X #3/8
#4 5.2 0.03330
123456
3742 3873 3904
1850 1850 1850
1892 2023 2054
548.5 458.9 489.8
521.9 426.3 445.3

38.9 37.2 38.4

5.51 8.38 10.94
125.3 133.9 136.0
118.7 123.6 122.6
123.8 9.1
125.5 8.7
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
Corrected Dry Density (pcf)
Preparation
Method:

Dry Density (pcf)
Mechanical Ram
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Scalp Fraction (%)
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Note: Corrected dry density calculation assumes specific gravity of 2.70 and moisture content of 1.0% for oversize particles
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Corrected Moisture Content (%)
Mold Volume (ft³)
TEST NO.

Weight of Container (g)
Manual Ram
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Compaction
Method

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Weight of Mold (g)
SLR The City Dr. Orange
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
LB-1
Soil Identification:
12423.006
Project Name:

Project No.:
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.55
SP. GR. = 2.60
SP. GR. = 2.65
MX LB-3, LB1 @ 2-5
2650
Tested By: J. Gonzalez Date: 01/12/22
Checked By: A. Santos Date: 01/13/22
LB-4 Depth (ft.): 2-5
X Moist Rammer Weight (lb.) = 10.0
Dry #3/4 Height of Drop (in.) = 18.0
X #3/8
#4 5.6 0.03330
123456
3752 3842 3862
1850 1850 1850
1902 1992 2012
492.3 460.2 474.5
461.7 422.8 428.0

37.9 40.0 39.9

7.22 9.77 11.98
125.9 131.9 133.2
117.4 120.1 119.0
120.2 10.0
122.2 9.5
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
Corrected Dry Density (pcf)
Preparation
Method:

Dry Density (pcf)
Mechanical Ram
Net Weight of Soil (g)
Wet Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Boring No.:

Sample No.:

Olive brown silty sand (SM)
Scalp Fraction (%)
Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
Note: Corrected dry density calculation assumes specific gravity of 2.70 and moisture content of 1.0% for oversize particles
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
Corrected Moisture Content (%)
Mold Volume (ft³)
TEST NO.

Weight of Container (g)
Manual Ram
Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g)
Compaction
Method

MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST
ASTM D 1557
Weight of Mold (g)
SLR The City Dr. Orange
Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g)
LB-1
Soil Identification:
12423.006
Project Name:

Project No.:
105.0
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25
Dry Density (pcf)
Moisture Content (%)
SP. GR. = 2.50
SP. GR. = 2.55
SP. GR. = 2.60
MX LB-4, LB1 @ 2-5
2651
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: S. Felter Date: 01/25/22 Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 01/26/22
Boring No.: Checked By: A. Santos
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 42.5
Soil Identification:
121234
30 21 16

9.06 9.11 20.43 20.44 20.57

7.81 7.90 15.94 15.69 15.63

1.06 1.11 1.07 1.03 1.13

18.52 17.82 30.20 32.40 34.07
31 18
13 CL
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 8.03
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
Olive gray lean clay (CL)

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
12423.006
LB-3
R-9
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)

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID 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 finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2652
Project Name: Tested By: S. Felter Date: 01/25/22
Project No. : Input By: A. Santos Date: 01/26/22
Boring No.: Checked By: A. Santos
Sample No.: Depth (ft.)
Soil Identification:
121234
4 Cannot be rolled: 20.78 Cannot get more than 6 blows:

NonPlastic 16.55 NonPlastic

1.07 27.33
NP
NP
NP
NP
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) =
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
Plasticity Index
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
Olive brown silty sand (SM)
TEST
NO.

Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
SLR The City Orange
12423.006
LB-3
R-10 52.5
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 finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
19 20
21 22
23 10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2653
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange Tested By: S. Felter Date: 01/20/22 Project No. : Input By: G. Bathala Date: 01/25/22
Boring No.: Checked By: A. Santos
Sample No.: Depth (ft.) 47.5
Soil Identification:
121234
32 24 16

10.30 10.28 20.02 21.05 20.27

9.11 9.10 15.85 16.58 15.86

1.12 1.08 1.08 1.10 1.14

14.89 14.71 28.23 28.88 29.96
29 15
14 CL
PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) 6.57
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
Classification
Number of Blows [N]
Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)

PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g)
Wt. of Container (g)
Moisture Content (%) [Wn]
TEST
NO.

Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Olive clayey sand (SC)

ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTM D 4318
12423.006
LB-3
SPT-4
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 finegrained soils and finegrained fraction of coarsegrained soils "A" Line
7 4
CH or OH
CL- ML
28 29
30 31
10 100
Moisture Content (%)
Number of Blows
20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2654
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 12423.006
BORING NUMBER: LB-3 DEPTH (FT.): 2-5
SAMPLE NUMBER: LB-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown silty sand (SM) DATE COMPLETED: 1/20/2022 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 10.2 10.6 11.5
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.50 2.54 2.55
DRY DENSITY, pcf 122.2 122.0 121.8
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 325 300 200
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 399 310 135
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 12 8 0
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 19 23 32
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.50 4.80 4.95
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 80 76 67
R-VALUE CORRECTED 80 76 67
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.32 0.38 0.53
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.40 0.27 0.00

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 78
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 76
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 76

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
SLR The City Dr. Orange

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 STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
2655
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 12423.006
BORING NUMBER: LB-4 DEPTH (FT.): 2-5
SAMPLE NUMBER: LB-1 TECHNICIAN: O. Figueroa
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Olive brown silty sand (SM) DATE COMPLETED: 1/19/2022 TEST SPECIMEN a b c
MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % 10.8 11.2 12.0
HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.51 2.52 2.54
DRY DENSITY, pcf 120.2 119.8 118.3
COMPACTOR PRESSURE, psi 300 275 250
EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 355 253 123
EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 14 10 6
STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 20 24 26
TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.60 4.70 5.05
R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 79 75 72
R-VALUE CORRECTED 79 75 72
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c
GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0
TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0
STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. 0.34 0.40 0.45
EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. 0.47 0.33 0.20

EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 77
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 76
EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 76

R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
DOT CA Test 301
SLR The City Dr. Orange

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 STABILOMETER in feet
COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feet
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

R-VALUE
EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi)
2656
Project Name: SLR The City Dr. Orange
Project No.: 12423.006
Summary of Pocket Penetrometer Test Results
Tested by: A. Santos Date: 01/13/22
Prepared by: G. Bathala Date: 01/19/22
Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft.) Readings Remarks
LB-3 R-1 2.5 >4.50
R-2 7.5 N/A
R-4 10 N/A
R-6 15 2.50
LB-4 R-1 2.5 N/A
R-2 5 3.50
R-3 7.5 N/A
R-4 10 N/A
R-5 12.5 3.25
R-6 15 3.00
R-7 25.0 2.50
R-8 35 N/A
R-9 45 N/A
R-10 55 N/A
2657

APPENDIX D

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
2658

L IQUEFA C TION A NA L YS IS R E P O R T
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.30 0.63
.

G.W.T. (in-situ):

G.W.T. (earthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Project title : Leighton & Associates / SLR City Drive Design Exploration
Location : Orange, CA
Leighton & Associates
CPT file : CPT-1

39.00 ft

30.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:

Fill height:

Fill weight:

Trans. detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

MSF method:

Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
2000 600400
Depth (ft)
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 SBTn Plot CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 CRR plot
During earthq.

Qtn,cs
100806040200 120 140 160 180 200
Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.1
0 Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)

0.1 1 10
Normalized CPT penetration resistance
1 10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential FS Plot
Factor of safety

21.510.50
80 75
70 65
60 55
50 45
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 FS Plot
During earthq.

Zone A1 : Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity, brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry CLiq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/7/2022, 10:12:22 AM Project file: C:\Users\edominguez\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\7BP2FK0I\2475 yr_Ground_ck20220107b.clq 1 2659
This software is licensed to: Leighton Group, Inc CPT name: CPT-1 Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
80 78
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
0 20 40 60
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
80 78
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
80 78
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Soil Behaviour Type
Organic soil
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
CLiq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/7/2022, 10:12:22 AM 2 Project file: C:\Users\edominguez\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\7BP2FK0I\2475 yr_Ground_ck20220107b.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.30 0.63

39.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

30.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
SBT legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
2660
This software is licensed to: Leighton Group, Inc CPT name: CPT-1 Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
500 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. cone resistance
C P T b a s i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p l o t s ( n o r ma l i z e d ) Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1086420
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq

10.80.60.40.20-0.2
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
80 78
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
1817161514131211109876543210
Depth (ft)
80 78
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Organic soil
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Organic soil
Clay & silty clay Clay
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/7/2022, 10:12:22 AM 3 Project file: C:\Users\edominguez\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\7BP2FK0I\2475 yr_Ground_ck20220107b.clq SBTn legend

1. Sensitive fine grained

2. Organic material

3. Clay to silty clay

4. Clayey silt to silty
clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt

6. Clean sand to silty sand

7. Gravely sand to sand

8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.30 0.63

39.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

30.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
2661
This software is licensed to: Leighton Group, Inc CPT name: CPT-1 Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)
0 200 400 600
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Total cone resistance
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s is o v e r a l l p l o t s ( i n t e r me d i a t e r e s u l t s ) SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
1 2 3 4
Depth (ft)
80 78
76 74
72 70
68 66
64 62
60 58
56 54
52 50
48 46
44 42
40 38
36 34
32 30
28 26
24 22
20 18
16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2
0 SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc
109876543210
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
0 50 100 150 200
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.0.3.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/7/2022, 10:12:22 AM 4 Project file: C:\Users\edominguez\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\7BP2FK0I\2475 yr_Ground_ck20220107b.clq Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:

Fines correction method:

Points to test:

Earthquake magnitude Mw:

Peak ground acceleration:

Depth to water table (insitu):

NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value

7.30 0.63

39.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):

Average results interval:

Ic cut-off value:

Unit weight calculation:

Use fill:

Fill height:

30.00 ft
1 2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:

Transition detect. applied:

Kσ applied:

Clay like behavior applied:

Limit depth applied:

Limit depth:

N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes

60.00 ft
2662
This software is licensed to: Leighton Group, Inc CPT name: CPT-1 CRR plot

CRR & CSR
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
CRR plot
During earthq.

L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s FS Plot
Factor of safety
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Depth (ft)
82 80
78 76
74 72
70 68
66 64
62 60
58 56
54 52
50 48
46 44
42 40
38 36
34 32
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
FS Plot
During earthq.