Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 07-03; ROBERTSON RANCH PA 14; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2007-01-15
',''. ',: .' or'. . , .~ ~ '. ",' . ·~t "'-C' • f ,~,,,,-• :; 1 " .,'. ~ • .~:. : ~',~ . .; ;\{. '>, >.' JAN -t' 4,2009 CITY OF CAR LSBAO " PLANNING DEPT ' . , , • I,' " ,J.., • .~ .. ,,' " ',' : ~ ! ." ~ . '. '. : '" .,,! . ~. '-, \'". :", , . :'''r' .:. ,1 .'"~, \ ~,~,~~. '" ' .. ~ ;" ;:" -. " .. ,'.~. '. : ',' , ~', .. ;" ", ',',~ ""~" 'ut' ":r", ,(.) "Z '.<C' ;.a, a." ~eot~chnic"~I:. t,1~o'iQgiQ '''C9,siai ~ ,~oYlrc),"'m~6f~r " , ' , . . ,,' .;-. ' .. . "~\ .' . ':~ .,;' ,; " ~ ' .... " '. ' .. ~ ". , .j ~ " .. " .J :'1~'~-:: ".. . , ,\ -~'. " :' , . UPOATi;b G~PT~QH.NIC~~ ~.4LuA~i~N··.·9F.:r}iii:(,.· .. :.: ' . Fi9BE8TSPN·R~~QH~:~~;rr:\li~I(AG.J;j~~\l~.t.~.p:Nf~ttr,·.>·: ,'.'::.-'(~, ';:< ..... :.(. './-: .: .' i . ~ , '. , .cARLSaJul tRAC-r-,b2,;:ftnb'RAWlNG~~~3;'[6· . .' ~i :. ':< .. ' '.l': ':'.' ~ .. '::: . ' . •••• , •• -••••• ~'.~~' _'.'>, __ ~ ':~ ;_ •. ,--~.~ ... "..:? .... : .:.;.t';t,,,-.,.~,~"C;.~:.,:,,;.:.~ ... -;'1."" ~.~ ',,' ... : '. .... .'-' , ,.,,' '"' , C,ARLSBAD." ~A:.~·IlIE;GO·9Qu..N.:rrd?A4U~q·f,f~Uk~ :':.: .. ::; <; :'.:." : '::.:':' ,.. "'.':: ,,"; ,,:, ,;." ,; . ... .~~w~~~"t:':i,~~";~~l;i;~~~t~t~~::;, ':: SAN BlEGO'CAllr:flRNIA·92'10S·;-'· . ", ", ",··d· ... ··: : "':" ':-':':' . -' ""'" -',;;:: :.~/ ~': ," ::,' ", .' ,~<;;:).:: /;'" '-:, . '.~' .; :.~:' . --.' -...: ' ~ ,,,.7, .. 1 . i' f': _f ~-::"~:~' ~ .".' ~ ;. " , .". ~ . /; " :-::' .;", .' ': ",;,: ','.:' , . .' .. : .... ; ::i .;~t:'l~gl~.~~~JNG .. ~i ;'; ! ,;'. :; ~:.-".':c·:'. ':::~-' .. , .' .• .,."< ;'.' '-,' KiJQ;JiriRTMENt" ., .,. .:.,'" ',' .;~ ':~ ;,',: .:~'~.:~:' :.; .. J: :" .; ;0 ;.i?,-: , ... : .. ' . ":.'~.; " • 1 • ~ ~.A .\.,~:;<:, .. ~,.:>:.';..; ... ;. :" .'f, ~ :.-; ..•• : '-': '::;"::':'D"~/' " " " ,~"\ .' • 'I' ...... -':--: : .. ' : .. , .. ~ :,-~..:~. ~.: :.·t;::, ~' .. ~ . " '. ;', " -; ,.;: :' : ~ '. ';r::-'., :. J I .::.~. -• ,', • .;' :1. .' "'.. ~ •• ': ~ ""," ,'" ' <'...-: y':' ',.'.;;. " . .', ~ '". '.' ~ . I , '-'-~-~;." ,<,j '~",- ; , • :'. : j,.~ " ..... : .' ":. ; •• ' :.~ • "f. ) · .:::' } '. . .'~ . -" ~ . · ,:i.;:.." ..•. :~.;::'~'~ •. ~.r': ... <~ ... _~ '".'~ •• • ,~. " •• -<' ". '.~., ,.',:, .:<,<,",', ;:'.'-'.,'... - / . '. . '" :'> :" .. / .... ~':-' ~'" "_~ r" , -; , . ". " .~ ~, ' ." .... :.. " \" ... ~, .:~~.~ ~;' ~::.: .:- ' .... , .: .J '~:}/ ~ -< : (~ ... -~ ;-::.~\ ' 'f:-':.~ .. -:'~:';+'.~"'-' '~ ",; .. :: ',: <-.. ; {:~ .. : '. ; '-·,:,'A.! ~'; ,,: .~; .;~, '::"'~ " ~ 1-; .:; :;'.. ~~:. ~:',;~'.;' . i-'-·t': .. ",~, ~~", ~ " , .• ~._ ,f : ,~.::,~ > ~.: { : '.; :.,;' ~": 'J~:' •• ~1 • _ • < -"~ ,. ","f?-,'!/ _~ ..... : .~ ,": :., . > ',. ,; -, ,'.,,:",' ,.' .' : ...... ~ ;:' < f .. t ' , ' .":: : ',' ',' . " ." ~~ ":; :.' ~~. : '.' Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 Calavera Hills, LLC 2750 Womble Road San Diego, California 92106 Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell January 15, 2007 W.O~ 5353-A-SC Subject: Updated Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch, East Village Development, Carlsbad Tract 02-16, Drawing 433-6, Carlsb,ad, San Diego County, California , Dear Mr. Mitchell: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has reviewed site conditions. and our existing geotechnical reports (see Appendix A) in order to update the existing geotechnical evaluation (GSI, 2004a) ofthe East Village portion of the Robertson Ranch Property. The purpose of our current evaluation is to update the existing report with respect to Gurrent standards of geotechnical practice. This report summarizes the findings of our work. Based on our findings and analyses, recommendations for site preparation, earthwork, and foundations are provided for design and planning purposes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review ofthe available data (AppendixA), field exploration (Appendix B), and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed construction appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction ofthe project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: • Earth materials unsuitable for the support of structures, settlement-sensitive improvements, and/or compacted fill generally consist of existing artificial fill, colluvial soil, near-surface alluvium, and near-surface highly weathered formational, or bedrock, earth materials (Le., sedimentary and/or metavolcanic/igneous rock). Complete removals of tributary alluvium (on the order of 5 to 25 feet) should be anticipated. Complete removals are desired within valley alluvial areas, but may be limited due to the presence of a shallow groundwater table. In this case, removals should minimally be completed to depths on the order of approximately 5 to 6 feet, and settlement monitoring would likely be necessary. Removals on sloping areas, • • • • including colluvium and near-surface weathered formational earth materials, are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 5 feet thick throughout the majority of the site. Existing engineered fill, located northwest of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, has been observed and tested by this office, and is considered suitable for its intended use. Since placement of this fill, additional "undocumented" fill stockpiles have been placed throughout the area. Undocumented fill stockpiles are not suitable for use in their present condition and will require removal and recompaction. An evaluation of rock hardness and rippabi/ity indicates that moderately difficult to very difficult ripping should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations in areas underlain by metavolcanics/granitics; however, localized areas of shallower practical refusal should be anticipated. Rock requiring blasting to excavate will likely be encountered below these depths. Overexcavatidn should be considered in dense metavolcanic/granitics in proposed pads and street areas. Overexcavation is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Planned cut and fill slopes are considered to be generally stable, assuming that these slopes are maintained and/or constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in this report. Natural slopes, to remain about the perimeter of the project, are also anticipated to be generally stable. Liquefaction analyses indicate that some alluvial soils are generally susceptible to liquefaction; however, damaging deformations should be essentially mitigated by maintaining a minimum 10-to 15-foot thick, non-liquefiable soi/layer beneath any proposed improvement, provided our recommendations are implemented. Groundwater was generally encountered at depths on the order of 6 to 30 feet below existing grades. Planned fills and underlying alluvial soil will provide for at least 20 to 25 feet of non-liquefiable material above the groundwater table, and should effectively mitigate adverse surface effects due to liquefaction. • Alluvial soils left in-place will settle due to the addition of foundation and fill loads. • The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed above the alluvium. A settlement analysis is presented in the body of this report. Our experience in the site vicinity indicates that alluvial soils are generally represented by an R-value of 12, terrace deposits by an R-value of 19, and metavolcanic/granitic bedrock by an R-value of 45. Soilsonsite typically have a very low to high expansion potential, but after grading should generally be in the very low to low expansive range. Site soils are anticipated to have a negligible to moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and are considered highly corrosive (when saturated) to buried metals, based on the available data. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. Calavera Hills, LLC Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC Page Two • Conventional foundation systems may be used for very low to low expansive soil conditions (where the Plasticity Index [PI] of the soil is 15, or less), and relatively shallow fill areas «30 feet). Similarly, conventional foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18 ofthe Uniform Building Code/California BUilding Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001), may be used for low through medium expansive soil conditions (where the PI is 15, or greater, and the Expansion Index [E.I.] is less than 90). Post-tension foundations may be used for all categories of expansive soil conditions, and are exclusively recommended for highly expansive soil conditions, deep fill areas (>30 feet), areas with fill thickness differentials exceeding a ratio of 3: 1, and in areas underlain with saturated alluvial sediments left-in-place, or within' their influeoce. • Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site. • Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility Were not encountered in our geotechnical evaluation. • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to (. contact any of the undersigned. GeoSoils, Inc. RGC/DWS/JPF/jk Distribution: (6) Addressee ---, Calave'ra Hills, LLC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a,uge W.O. 5353-A-SC Page Three TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................. 3 FIELD WORK FINDINGS .................................................. 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................... 4 EARTH MATERIALS ...................................................... 4 Engineered Stockpile (Map Symbol -AfT) ............................... 5 Engineered Fill (Map Symbols -AfBTD) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ' ••••• 5 Undocumented Stockpile (Map Symbol-Stockpile) ...................... 6, Existing Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol -Afu) ......................... 6 Colluvium (Not Mapped) .........................................•.. 6 Alluvium (Map Symbol -QalA and QalB) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Qt) ....................... ',' .......... 7 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Tsa) ................................ 7 ie Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol -Jsp/Kgr) ................. 7 MASS WASTING ........................................................ 8 GROUNDWATER ......................................................... 9 REGIONAL FAULTING/SEISMICITY ........................................ 10 Regional Faulting ................................................. 10 Local Faulting '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Seismicity .................................... .,.................. 10 Seismic Shaking Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LABORATORYTESTING ................................................. 13 Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Laboratory Standard -Maximum Dry Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Expansion Index Testing ........................................... 14 Direct Shear Tests ................................................ 14 Consolidation Testing ............................................. 15 Sieve Analysis/ Atterberg Limits ...................................... 15 Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity ...................................... 15 SEISMIC HAZARDS ..................................................... 1,5 Liquefaction ..................................................... 16 Seismically Induced Lateral Spread ................................... 17 Seismically Induced Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 SETfLEMENT ANALYSIS ................................................ 17 Post-Grading Settlement of Compacted Fill ..................... ;...... 18 Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium .................................. 18 General ................................................... 18 Alluvium Underlying "Engineered Stockpile" ...................... 18 Tributary Alluvium (Map Symbol -Qalp) ............................... 18 Valley Alluvium (Map Symbol -QaIB) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , • • • 18 Monitoring ................................................. 19 Dynamic Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Settlement Due to Structural Loads .................................... 20 Summary of Settlement Analysis ..................................... 20 SUBSIDENCE ........................................ , ................ 21 ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION ................................... " ....... 21 Rock Hardness and Rippability ...................................... 21 Blasting ......................................... : .............. " .. 22" SLOPE STABILITY ...................................................... 22 Gross Stability .................................................... 22 Surficial Stability ............................................ 23 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 23 RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION ....................... 24 General ........................................................... 24 Site Preparation .................................................. 24 Removals ....................................................... 24 Overexcavation!T ransitions ......................................... 25 84 Inch Storm Drain Line ........................................... 25 Wick Drains ..... " ................................................. 26 Drain Spacing and Depth ..................................... 26 Ground Preparation .......................................... 26 Drainage ................................................. ". 27 Subdrains ........................... : ........................... 27 Fill Placement and Suitability ........................................ 28 Rock Disposal . : .................................................. 28 Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less ........................... 28 Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter . 29 Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter ..................... 30 Rock Excavation and Fill ........................................... 30 Earthwork Balance ................................................ 31 Shrinkage/Bulking ........................................... 31 Slope Considerations and Slope Design .............................. 31 Graded Slopes ........ : .................................... 31 Cal avera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Table of Contents Pageii (. (. Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................ 31 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 32 RECOMMENDATIONS -CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS ..................... $2 General ....................................................... , . 32 Preliminary Foundation Design .................................... ,. 32 Bearing Value .............................................. 33 Lateral Pressure ............................................. 33 Construction ............................................ : .... '.' ... 33 POST-TENSIONED Su\B DESiGN ......................................... 35 General ......................................................... "35 Subgrade Preparation ...........................................•. 36 Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting .................................. 36 MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION ............................ 37 Very Low to Low Expansive Soils .................................... 37 Medium Expansive Soils ........................................... 37 Highly Expansive Soils ............................................. 38 Other Considerations .............................................. 38 SETBACKS ............................................................ 38 SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESiSTiViTY ........................................ 39 SETTLEMENT ........................................................ ". 39 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................ 39 Conventional Retaining Walls ....................................... 39 Restrained Walls ............................................ 39 Cantilevered Walls ........................................... 40 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ........................•......... 40 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ..................•............ 41 TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS ......... · ................. .41 POOUSPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ......................•.......... 42 DRIVEWAY, Fu\TWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ............. ' ...... : ... 44 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ....................................... 46 Cal avera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Table of Contents Page iii PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 48 General ......................................................... 48 Subgrade ....................................................... 48 J3ase .......................................,. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Paving .......................................................... 49 , Drainage ........................................................ 49 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ............................................ : .. 50 Slope Deformation ................................................. 50 General ................................................... 50 Slope Creep ............................ ' .................... 50 Lateral Fill Extension (LFE) .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Summary .................................................. 51 Slope Maintenance and Planting ..................................... 51 Drainage ........................................................ 51 Toe of Slope Drains/T oe Drains ...................................... 52 Erosion Control ................................................... 53 Landscape Maintenance ........................................... 53 Subsurface and Surface Water ...................................... 53 Tile Flooring ..................................................... 56 Site Improvements ................................................ 56 Additional Grading ................................................ 56 Footing Trench Excavation ......................................... 56 Trenching ....................................................... 57 Utility Trench Backfill .............................................. 57 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING ........................................................ 57 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS ....................•..... 58 HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ............................ 59 PLAN REVIEW ......................................................... 59 LIMITATIONS .......................................................... 59 Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Table of Contents Page iv FIGURES: Rgure 1 -Site Location Map ......................................... 2 Figure 2 -California Fault Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Detail 1 -Schematic Toe Drain Detail ................................. !;i4 Detail 2 -Toedrain Along Retaining Wall Detail .......................... 55 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A -References .................................... Rear of Text Appendix B -Test Pit and Boring Logs ........................ Rear of Text Appendix C -Laboratory Data ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text Appendix D -Liquefaction Analysis ........................... Rear of Text Appendix E -Settlement Analysis ............................ Rear of Text Appendix F- General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ......................... Rear of Text Plates 1 and 13 -Geotechnical Maps ................. Rear of Text in Folder Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Table of Contents Pag~v • UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH, EAST VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CARLSBAD TRACT 02-16, DRAWING 433-6 CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). 2. Geologic site reconnaissance. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of six small diameter borings with a hollow stem auger drill rig, and 44 exploratory trench excavations using a rubber tire backhoe (completed in preparation of GSI, 2001a and 2002b). 4. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface 'exploration program (completed in preparation of GSI [2001 a and 2002b]). 5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is approximately 175 acres in size, consisting predominantly of several north to south trending ridgelines separated by intervening south flowing, alluviated drainages located in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (see Site Location Map,' Figure 1). Relief across ridges and the intervening drainages varies from approximately 40 to 50 feet across the site. Overall relief throughout the site varies from an approximate elevation of 160 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) , within the northern portion of the property, down to an elevation of approximately 40 feet MSL within the southwestern portion of the property. The largest of the drainage courses is located along the eastern boundary ofthe site, and appears to be occupied by an ephemeral creek (Calavera Creek). The majority of the site has been used for farming, primarily within alluviated drainage areas and on gentle slopes. Steeper slopes are relatively undeveloped and support native vegetation. Site drainage is directed southward toward Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon. Since GSI'(2002b), earthwork operations have been completed onsiteforthe construction of onsite portions of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, between EI Camino Real and the adjacent Calavera Hills 1/ development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters generated up gradientfrom the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road (GSI, 2006). Additionally, a structural "stockpile" has been placed within an • • Base Map: TOPO!® @2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California •• San Diego Co., 7.S Minute, dated 1997, current 1999 . Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co., Street Guide and Directory, 200SEdition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, pages 1106 and 1107. Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps This map Is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It I. unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof. whether for personal use or resale. without permission. All right. re.erved • N w.o. e. 5353-A-SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 • alluviated area bounded by College Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road the south, and upland areas to the west. The preparation of existing ground and the placement of structural fills located within this "triangle" area, formed by the aforementioned boundary conditions, was observed and tested by this office. Site preparation and fill placement was performed in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI' (2001 c) and in the field by this office. Presently, engineered fills are on the order of 10 to 15 feet in thickness. A compaction report of rough grading for these engineered fills will be prepared at the completion of a forthcoming phase of grading. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Robertson Ranch East Village will be developed as a master planned community consisting of, but not necessarily limited to: residential building sites, multi-family structures, affordable housing units, commercial property, park/recre~tion property, a school site, and open space. Associated roadways and underground improvements ate also planned. Based on a review of the 40-scale grading plans, prepared by O'Day Consultants (~OC, 2007), the site will be mass, or sheet, graded as several large lots, or super pads. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated on approximately 90 acres of the 175 total acres in order to create building pads. A review of DOC (2007) indicates that maximum cuts and fills, on the order of 35 feet in depth (cut and fill), are planned. Fill slopes, and cut slopes exposing sedimentary bedrock/formational soils, are (. anticipated to be constructed at gradients on the order of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), ~-or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 30 feet. Cut slopes exposing dense undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock may be constructed at gradients on the order of 1 Y2:1 (h:v), or flatter, to the maximum planned heights of approximately 30 feet. The aforementioned "triangle" area, located within the East Ranch area, appears to have been rough graded to require additional fills on the order of 2 to 5 feet, or less, in thickness, per the current plan. FIELD WORK FINDINGS The findings presented below are based on work completed in preparation of this report and previous work completed by this office (GSI, 2004a, 2002b, and 2001 c). The body of field work completed to date consists offield mapping, seismic survey, backhoe test pits, and hollow stem auger drill rig borings, as well as laboratory testing. Overall site conditions were reviewed by this office during January 2007. Based on our field review, site conditions are essentially the same as previously encountered. Subsurface conditions were explored in October 2001 and January 2002, by excavating six exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 44 exploratory test pits with a rubber tire backhoe, throughout the larger Robertson Ranch property (East and West Vii/ages). A previous study (GSI, 2001 c) completed nine exploratory small diameter hollow Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A~SC January 15, 2007 Page 3 • stem auger borings and 11 exploratory test pits with a backhoe. All exploratory excavations were completed in order to determine the soil and geologic profiles, obtain samples of representative materials, and delineate soil and geologic parameters that may affect the proposed development. Boring and excavation depths ranged -from 2 feet to 511h feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of applicable borings and test pits are presented in Appendix 8. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are indicated on the attached Geotechnical Maps, Plate 1 through Plate 13. Plate 1 through Plate 13 use the 40-scale grading plans prepared by ODC (2007) as a base. In addition to our subsurface exploration, field mapping of earth material and a seismic refraction survey (GSI, 2001 c) was performed. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic.' units in western North America. It extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin south to Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California, and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. In the Peninsular Ranges, relatively younger sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas. Based on our work performed to date, the site appears to be underlain at depth, and in outcrop, by Eocene age sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Santiago Formation, non-conformably deposited over older, undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock. Younger, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits have been deposited unconformably on th~se older formational materials within the eastern and western portions of the site, while recent alluvial deposits have been deposited within active drainage courses. ' Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore and the San Jacinto fault zones trend northwest-southeast, and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province, whereas, a fault related to the San Andreas Transform Fault System, the Newport-Inglewood -Rose Canyon fault zone exists near the western margin and Continental Borderland geomorphic province. As discussed in a later section ofthis report, the site is located east of the Rose Canyon fault zone. EARTH MATERIALS , Earth materials within the site consist predominantly of engineered stockpile, engineered fill, stockpile soil and rock, eXisting undocumented soil fill, surficial slump deposits, colluvium, alluvium, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock belonging to Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fife:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 4 • the Eocene-age Santiago Formation, and undifferentiated Jurassic-to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic/granitic (igneous) bedrock.. Preliminary recommendations for site preparation and treatment of the earth materials encountered are discussed in the Earthwork Recommendations section of this report. The general distribution of earth materials are shown on Plates 1 through 13. Engineered Stockpile (Map Symbol -AfTl Engineered stockpile has been placed within a triangular area bounded by College Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road the south, and upland areas ofthe East Ranch to the west. The preparation of existing ground and the placement of structural fills located within the "triangle" area, formed by the aforementioned boundary conditions, was observed and tested by this office. Site preparation and fill placement was performed during grading operations, by this office, in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2001 c and 2002b), and in the field by this office. Field testing services provided by this office indicate that fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and bedrock in the vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately 10 to 15 feet in thickness loca.lly. A compaction report of rough grading for these engineered fills is forthcoming. Future earthwork in this area will require the removal and recompaction of loose surficial stockpiles, and the processing ofthe near surface layer of compacted fill. The approximate limits of engineered stockpile is shown on the attached geotechnical maps. Some surficial reprocessing will be necessary prior to placing any new fill. Engineere~ Fill {Map Symbols -AfBTDl Since the completion of GSI (2002b), earthwork operations have been completed for the those portions of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, located within the Robertson Ranch property, between EI Camino Real and the adjacent Calavera Hills" development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters generated up gradient from the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Site preparation and fill placement were performed during grading operations, by this office, in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2002a and 2002b), and in the field by this office. Field testing services provided by this office indicate that fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and bedrock in the vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately 30 feet in thickness locally. A summary of observation and testing services is presented in GSI (2006e). Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 5 Undocumented Stockpile (Map Symbol-Stockpile) A large stockpile of soils and rock fragments is located within the eastern portion of the property. This material is not considered suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill support unless it is removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as properly compacted fill. Existing Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol -Afu) Minor amounts of eXisting fill are scattered throughout the project site as small embankments for dirt roads or level pads for existing farm structures. These materials typically consist of silts and sands derived from the underlying native soils and appear to be on the order of 1 to 5 feet thick where observed. Existing fills are not considered suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill support unless these materials are removed, moisture conditioned and placed compacted fill. Colluvium (Not Mapped) Where encountered, colluvium is on the order of 2 to 6 feet thick, and consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy clay. These soils are typically dry to moist, loose to medium dense (sands), stiff (clays), and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for support of settlement-sensitive improvements, unless these soils are removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as compacted fill. Expansion testing (GSI, 2001 c) ,and this study indicates that these soils range from very low to medium expansive. Large dessication cracks in colluvial soils are visible at the surface in some areas underlain with sedimentary bedrock (Map Symbol-Tsa), and may indicate highly expansive soils. Alluvium (Map Symbol -QalA and Qalsl Alluvial soils onsite appear to occur within two distinct depositional environments onsite. One is characterized as tributary alluvium (Qalp), deposited within smaller canyons and gullies dissecting slope areas, and valley alluvium (Q?'B)' deposited ~ithin tt19larger, lJroad flood plains located along the eastern and southern sides of the project. Where encountered, alluvial sediments consist of sandy clay and clayey/silty sand. Clayey sands are typically loose to medium dense, while sandy clays are stiff. Alluvium ranges from generally damp to wet above the groundwater table, to saturated near, at, and below the groundwater table. Tributary alluvium is anticipated to range in thickness from approximately 5 to 35 feet (5 to 25 feet within planned development areas), while valley alluvium was encountered to the depths explored (approximately 51 feet; GSI [2002b], and GSI [2001 c]). Alluvium above the groundwater table is not considered suitable for structural support and . should be removed and recompacted. Due to the presence of groundwater, alluvial removals could be limited in depth. Complete to partial removals to saturated sediments, (. on the order of 5 to 25 feet, are anticipated within some areas underlain by alluvium. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A..:SC January 15, 2007 Page 6 Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials, including general removal depths, is shown on Plates 1 through 13. Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Qt) Mid-to late-Pleistocene terrace deposits encountered onsite vary from silty sand to sandy/silty clay. These sediments are typically yellowish brown to brown and olive brown, slightly moist to moist, and medium dense/stiff. Unweathered terrace deposits are generally considered suitable for the support of structures and engineered fill. Bedding structure observed within these materials in road cuts along EI Camino Real, Cannon Road, and other outcrop exposures in the vicinity, display a generally massive to a weakly developed subhorizontal orientation. Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tsa) Sandstone, clayey siltstone, and claystone sedimentary bedrock, belonging to Eocene-age Santiago Formation, was encountered at depth in our exploratory borings, and are not anticipated to be encountered during site grading. While the Santiago formation occurs at the surface to the west, and east of the site, it was encountered at depth in some of our exploratory borings, beneath younger terrace and alluvial deposits onsite. The general limits ofthe Santiago Formation, where buried, are shown on the attached Plate 1 throUgh Plate 11. Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol -Jsp/Kgr) Undifferentiated igneous bedrock onsite consists of metavolcanic rock belonging to the Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics, and/or granitic rock belonging to the Peninstllar Ranges Batholith. Where encountered in our exploratory test pits and observed in outcrop, these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular weathered zone (up to 2% to 4 feet thick), consisting of dry, medium dense materials which generally decompose to silty sand and angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Seismic refraction surveys in the area are discussed in the Rock Hardness and Rippability section of this report. Fractures observed within the bedrock are typically high angle (Le., 45 degrees or steeper) and closely spaced, on the order of 1 to 30 inches. Fracture orientations appear to vary from east-northeast to northwest to north-south. Igneous bedrock was encountered at depth in some of ou(exploratory borings, beneath younger terrace and alluvial deposits. The general limits of igneous bedrock, both near the surface and where buried, are shown on the attached Plates 1 through 13. Calavera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page? • MASS WASTING Field mapping and subsurface exploration performed in preparation of this report did not indicate the presence of any deep seated landsliding, and these features were not noted during our review of available published documents (Appendix A). A review of a previous feasibility evaluation completed by leighton and Associates (l&A, 1985) referred to several "landforms," which may be suggestive of slumps and/or small landslides. These features were generally located within the toe areas of natural slopes developed in terrace deposits or the Santiago Formation (west of the site). Field mapping, 'a review of aerial photographs, and subsurface exploration, completed by this office, has further defined the extent of these features. Our findings indicate that these features are relatively shallow (Le., 10 feet, or less), and are not anticipated to significantly affect site development, provided our recommendations are implemented. The features mapped by (l&A, 1985) were based on visual reconnaissance and photographic review. Our review of their information, including test pit data, further constrained the location of these features. Of the four features identified .in GSI (2002b), . only one feature was evaluated with a subsurface exploration (Test Pit [TP] -5), and located within the Robertson Ranch West property (offsite). The absence of subsurface exploration within the remaining features was primarily due to access issueswith respectto the current use ofthe site (agriculture) and the steepness of slope(s) involved. Based on the relative size of these features, it was determined that these deposits were surficial in nature and should readily be mitigated with typical site grading, whether they exist or not. The area containing one of the features, located within the southwest portion of Robertson Ranch East (GSI, 2002b) has been re-evaluated as terrace deposits (Map Symbol -Qt) anq tributary alluvium (Map Symbol -Qalp). It has been postulated by others (Geopacifica, 2004) that earth materials, presently mapped as terrace deposits, may actually be a large landslide deposit, especially in the vicinity of TP-12 and TP-18. Based on a review of test, pit data obtained to date (Appendix B), and recent grading operations in the vicinity of TP-12 and TP-18, areas of the site mapped as "Qt" are underlain by relatively fine grained, sub-horizontally bedded mixtures of sand and clay. Internal structure is visible in outcrop along EI Camino Real, a recently constructed road cut for Cannon Road, and along the eastern limits ofthe project. The basal, depositional contact along the underlying igneous bedrock is exposed along the eastern portion of Robertson Ranch East, and within a canyon side slope near the boundary between Robertson Ranch West and Robertson Ranch East. Evidence of shearing was not observed along this contact. Furthermore, a back scarp/head scarp, or source area, does not appear to be present, based on the observed geomorphology ofthe terrain located up slope from the terrace deposits. Based on the general lack of chaotic" internal structure, the relatively uniform and fine grained texture of earth materials, absence of shearing along the basal contact, sub-horizontal bedding, and general absence ofother defining geomorphic characteristics indicative of a large landslide, it is our opinion that earth materials mapped as terrace deposits onsite are the result of ancient fluvict/ depositional processes, and not the result of mass wasting. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 8 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in test pits and test borings completed in preparation ofthis report and in previous test borings (GSI, 2001c and 2002b) within alluvial materials (Map Symbol -Qals) located along the southeastern and eastern margins of the site, as well as within the extreme western end of the site. Depths to groundwater encountered within alluvium (Map Symbol -Qals) ranged from approximately 6 feet to 14 feet below eXisting grades, with depths shallowing to the west. The presence of bedrock materials, with lower moisture content beneath the alluvium, suggests that groundwater is generally perched within the alluvial section. Groundwater was also locally encountered at depth within tributary alluvium (Map Symbol -Qal,J. The depth to groundwater in these deposits ranged from approximately 6 to 30 feet below grade; however, groundwater was not always encountered. In general, depths to groundwater are relatively shallow where tributary alluvium (Map Symbol -Qal,J feeds, or interfingers, with valley alluvium (Map Symbol -Qals), with the depth increasing as the alluvial deposits extend up into each tributary drainage. The local groundwater gradient is estimated to vary following surface drainage patterns, from a south to southwesterly direction towards Calavera Creek. The regional gradient is estimated to be in a similar direction towards Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Surface signs of water wells were not observed onsite during our site reconnaissance. In addition, there are no water wells reported within the site, as listed in a March 1998 United States Geological Survey database and the California Department of Water Resources (2002). State of California regional groundwater maps from 1967 indicate no permitted water wells existing within the subject site; therefore, a discussion of historic groundwater levels is not available. However, based on the relatively close proximity to relatively constant water levels associated with the coastline and adjacent lagoon, and relative low soil permeabilities, groundwater levels are considered to have remained relatively constant, from a historic perspective. Furthermore, observation of groundwater levels within borings completed at different times during the evaluation of the site appear to have remained relatively constant, given a margin for error associated 'with boring locations and the determination of elevation. It should also be noted that a wick drain system was constructed beneath those portions of College and Cannon Roads underlain with alluvial soils left-in-place. These structures should also aide in controlling groundwater levels. While not noted during this study, "perched" groundwater, where relatively impermeable fill and/or sediments underlie relatively permeable fill and/or sediments filled with water, may be encountered at shallower depths onsite, especially during the rainy season. This should not adversely affect site development provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our field evaluation and do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future from heavy irrigation or precipitation. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 9 REGIONAL FAUL TING/SEISMICITY Regional Faulting There are a number of faults in the southern California area which are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault; the San Jacinto fault; the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone; and the Rose Canyon -Newport-Inglewood (RCNI) fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking, at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The general distribution of the major faults relative to the site is shown on Figure 2. Local Faulting No known active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the site on published maps (Jennings, 1994). No evidence for active faulting was observed during field mapping; however, at least two lineaments were observed and reported in leighton and Associates (l&A, 1985). One of these lineaments, referred to as the western lineament, was mapped within a canyon area trending northwest, outside of the western edge of the project. Observation and mapping of continuous, relatively uniform bedding across the canyon bottom, did not indicate the presence of any active faulting. Based on our evaluation, this lineament appears to be generally consistent with the trend of bedding structure within the Santiago Formation (offsite), and is, therefore, likely controlled by bedding, and not faulting. The eastern lineament was mapped (l&A, 1985) where alluvium is in contact with undifferentiated igneous bedrock. Based on the general lack of geomorphic expres$ion and the absence of faulted Holocene earth material, these features are not considered manifestations of active faulting, and are therefore not anticipated to affect site development. Subsequent grading operations were completed across the eastern lineament during the construction of College Boulevard. Observations of removal bottoms exposed during this phase of grading indicated that the lineament represented a depositional contact between younger alluvium and the older, underlying bedrock. The relatively low sinuosity of this lineament is likely attributed to bedrock fracture patterns controlling deposition and erosion along this side of the valley, further corroborating the un-faulted nature of this contact. Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982a and 1982b), Campbell .and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, et al. (198?) have been incqrporatedinto EQFAUlT (Blake,2000a). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1-sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982a and 1982b), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fife:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 . Page10 • et al. (1987). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a u$er-specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound C'maximum credible!') . and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Bas~d on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.31 g to 0.36g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.17g to 0.19g. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ~{~;~r'~il~,J~~I?~! {lifll;;: 1~~I~~~{'li:~~il~ t,:~~lI'l~t;: . Catalina Escarpment 38 (61) Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 10 (17) Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca 23 (37) Rose Canyon 7 (11) Elsinore 22 (36) San DieQo Trough-Bahia Sol 33 (53 La Nacion 23 (37) The possibility of ground shaking at the site may be considered similar to the southern California region as a whole. The relationship of the site location to these major mapped faults is indicated on the California Fault Map (Figure 2). Our field observations and review of readily available geologic data indicate that no known active faults cross the site. A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000b). Based on this analysis, a range of peak horizontal ground accelerations up to 0.28g should be used for seismic design. This value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475-year return period). Selection of this design event is important as it is the level of risk assumed by the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001) minimum design requirements. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of approximately M6.9. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001) seismic parameters are provided in the following table: Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 11 • (. CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 5353 1100~----------------------------------------------~ 1000 900 800 700 600 300 200 100 o -100~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -400 -300 -200 -100 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 w.o. 5353-A-SC FDre2 (. j :.::.' .... ,.:. .. ::.: .. ;: .'. '1'997 UBC CHAPTER 16.TJ\BLE ·NO·:··:·::.:·:: >;··;':;·':·:'''·:: .. ::':,ci'·j···>·.:SEISM·i·c.PARAMETERS'·::.·:·:j •• :. " ••••• ',' ". "" .' : ". • .;. ". •••• • • " •• :-;: • J',. ;.' •••• :',W. ',' :.= .J" • .~" •• .' • .,. • • ,'~ I+} Seismic Zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) So Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16-0*) O.44Na Seismic Coefficient Cy (per Table 16-R*) 0.64Ny Near Source Factor Na (per Table 16-S*) 1.0 Near Source Factor Ny (per Table 16-T*) 1.0 Distance to Seismic Source 7 mi (11 km) Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-Inglewood fault) Mw 6.9 PHSA 10percent probably in 50 Years (475-year return period) 0.28g I * Figure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) I LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. All testing completed for the Robertson Ranch Project (East and West Villages [GSI, 2004a]) is considered valid and applicable to the current East Village project. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration logs in Appendix B. laboratorY Standard -Maximum Dry Density To determine the compaction characteristics of representative samples of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method 0-1557. Test results are presented in the following table: Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 13 HB-1 @ 5'-10' 127.0 10.5 TP-26 @ 2'-3' 114.0 13.0 *TP-10 @ 7' 120.5 13.0 *B-2@5' 128.0 10.0 *B-6@4' 126.0 11.0 * Location and testing completed in preparation ofGSI (2001c and 2002b) Expansion Index Testing Expansion Index (E.I.) testing was performed on representative soil samples of colluvium and terrace deposits in general accordance with Standard No. 18-2 of the USC/CSC (ICSO, 1997 and 2001). The test results are presented be/ow as well as the expansion classification according to USC/CSC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). /::/;:[:: LobATioN ' ;.",: •• : .... , "', • ",1 ::!:.~ .. ','·:·.1 ::=-:,:'~:.'~q,(,I~:!:y~~,::; \>\: 1'-';;' :::)L~;k:;~:i§J;;::1 ;i.;.'~x~~~~{q~:.:~PJg~f.~A.~XI TP-1 @0-3' SANDY CLAY 61 Medium TP-1 @4'-5' SANDY SILT 25 Low TP-2@3'-5' CLAY 60 Medium TP-38 @ 3'-5' SAND 4 Very Low *TP-1 @1'-2' SILTY SAND 1 Very Low *TP-10 @ 7'-8' SANDY CLAY 102 High *B-2@5' SANDY CLAY 32 Low *B-6@4' SILTY SAND 19 Very Low I * Location and testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 c and 2002b) I Direct Shear Tests Shear testing was performed on a remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method 0-3080. Results of shear testing (GSI, 2001 c and 2002b) are presented as Plates C-1 through C-12 in Appendix C. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 14 c. Consolidation Testing Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Testing waS performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435. Test results (GSI, 2002b and 2001 c) are presented as Plates C-13 through C-29 in Appendix C. Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Limits Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D-422. Atterberg limits were determined in general accordance with ASTM test method 0-4318. Test results (GSI, 20D1c and 2002b) are presented as Plates C-30 through C-45 in Appendix C. Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity A representative sample of soil was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and potential corrosion to ferrous metals. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results, site soils appear to have a negligible potential for corrosion to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the UBC/CBC (IGBO, 1997 and 2001). The results of pH testing indicates that site soils are neutral to slightly acidic. Resistivity test results indicate that site soils are highly corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated. Highly corrosive soils are considered to be generally in the range of 1 ,000 to 2,000 ohms-cm. SEISMIC HAZARDS The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, typical site development procedures, and recommendations for mitigation provided herein: • Surface Fault R~pture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Tsunami • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure{s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other eXisting structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 15 Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionles8 soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil, as excess pore water dissipates. . Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions must exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed large amount of cementation; 2) sediments must consist mainly of medium to . fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience seismic event of a sufficient duration and large enough magnitude, to induce stra.ining of soil particles. At the subject site, all of the conditions which are necessary for liquefaction to occur exist. One ofthe primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater normal effective stress acting on saturated sediments at any given depth and liquefaction susceptibility decreases with increased normal effective stress; and 2) age, cementation, and relative density of sediments generally increase with depth. Thus, as th~ depth to the water table increases, and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative density, and confining normal stresses increase, the less likely they are to liquefy during a seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential where groundWater is greater than 30 feet in depth and virtually unknown below 60 feet. Following an analysis of the laboratory data and boring logs, representative soil profiles were established to evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soil~ onsite. The depth to groundwater encountered in our borings was used in the analyses (Le., 9 to 14 feet). The liquefaction analyses were performed using a peak site acceleration ofO.28g for an upper bound event of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon fault zone. A review of GSI (2001 c) indicates that portions of the site underlain by alluvium have soil deposits that display a factor of safety of 1.25, or less, against liquefaction (Note: a factor of safety of 1.25 is recommended by Seed and Idriss, 1982). Based on. our analysis of the liquefaction potential within alluvial areas of the site, and the relationships of Ishihara (1985), it is our opinion that damaging deformations should not adversely affect the proposed development provided that a minimum 10-to"15 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (Le., compacted fill plus alluvium above the water table) is Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fife:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A~SC January 15, 2007 Page 16 provided beneath any given structure. This also assumes that the existing groundwater table does not significantly rise above its current level. Assuming that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project, the potential for surface damage from liquefaction should be mitigated. The use of canyon subdrains and "wick drains," discussed in a later section of this report, will also aide in the mitigation of the liquefaction potential onsite. Printouts of the liquefaction analysis performed are presented in this report as Appendix D. Seismically Induced Lateral Spread The procedure used for the analyses of seismically-induced lateral spread is pased on Bartlett and Youd (1992 and 1995). Lateral spread phenomenon is described as the lateral movement of stiff, surficial, mostly intact blocks of sediment displaced downslope towards a free face along a shear zone that has formed within the liquefied sediment. The resulting ground deformation typically has extensional fissures at the head of the failure, shear deformations along the side margins, and compression or buckling of the soil at the toe. The extent of lateral displacement typically ranges from half an inch to several feet. Two types of lateral spread can occur: 1) lateral spread towards a free face (e.g., drainage canal or embankment); and 2) lateral spread down a ground slope where a free face is absent. Factors such as earthquake magnitude, distance from the seismic energy source, thickness of the liquefiable layers, and the fines content and particle size of those sediments also correlated with ground displacement. C. In order for the free-face type of lateral spread to occur, a continuous liquefiable layer must , exist at or above the base of a free-face. The potentially liquifiable layers occuring within alluvial soils onsite are located at depth. Therefore, seismically-induced lateral spread, in our opinion, is not likely. Seismically Induced Settlement Please refer to the discussion on dynamic settlement presented in the following section. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS GSI has estimated the potential magnitudes oftotal settlement, differential settlement, and angular distortion for the site. The analyses were based on laboratory tesiresults and subsurface data collected from borings completed in preparation of this study and GSI (2001c and 2002b). Site specific conditions affecting settlement potential include depositional environment, grain size and lithology of sediments, cementing agents, stress history, moisture history, material shape, density, void ratio, etc. Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression of the left-in-place alluvium and compacted fills. The total amount of settlement, and time over which it occurs, is dependent upon various factors, including Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 17 • c. material type, depth offill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of subsurface materials. Current analysis is included in Appendix E and GSI (2006d). Post-Grading Settlement of Compacted Fill Compacted fills, to the thicknesses anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive settlement. Based on our analysis, total settlements, on the order of 1h ,inch, or less, should be anticipated. Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium General Where these materials are left in place, settlement of the underlying saturated alluvium is anticipated due to the weight of added planned fills. The magnitude of this settlement will vary with the proposed fill heights (Le., measured from existing grades), and the thickness, texture, and compressibility ofthe underlying, left-in-place saturated alluvium. Due to the predominantly fine grained texture of the alluvial soils onsite, settlement of the alluvial soil will occur over time. Alluvium Underlying "Engineered Stockpile" Within the "triangle" area, referred to in this report, approximately 10 to 15 feet of compacted fill has been placed to within approximately 2 to 5 feet of planned grade. During interim fill placement and the subsequent waiting period (approximately 40 months. as ofthe date ofthis report), our evaluation indicates that a majority ofthe total settlements have occurred. The remaining total post-grading settlement is estimated to be on the order of 2 inches total, and 1 inch differential, or less, over a 40 foot span (GSI, 2006d) .. Tributary Alluvium (Map Symbol -QalJ. In areas underlain by tributary alluvial soil, complete removal and recompaction of alluvium is anticipated. Please refer to our previous discussion regarding th~ "post grading settlement of compacted fill." Valley Alluvium (Map Symbol -Qalsl Based on the currently proposed grading, depths to groundwater, and the overall thickness of valley alluvium, alluvial soils will likely be left in place within portions of superpads Lots 1 , 2, and 3, also know as planning areas PA-15 (multi-family), PA-20 (water treatment site), PA-21 (residential) and PA-22 (no currently proposed development). A general characterization of alluvial soil conditions within these areas is as follows: Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 1'8 • • PA-20 (offsite) will likely be underlain with a nominal amount of alluvium (less than approximately 10 feet), isolated within the extreme southwest corner. • PA-22 (Lot 3) will likely be underlain with up to approximately 15 to 25 feet of alluvial soil, with planned fills varying up to approximately 5 to 10 feet. • PA-15 (Lot 1) will likely be underlain with plan fill and suitable formational soils (northern part), however, up to 20 feet of engineered fill and up to 15 feet of alluvium left in place is anticipated within the southern part. The suggested waiting period is discussed below. • The southwest corner of PA-21 (Lot 2, adjacent to PA-15) will likely be underlain with up to 15 feet of alluvial soil anticipated to be left in place. At present, this condition appears to only affect two to four lots, and should not impact design, if the area is adequately phased (Le., built after time required for adequate settlement of alluvium) during construction. The desired magnitude of differential settlement for typical post-tension design is up to 1 inch in a 40-foot span, but post-tension design may adequately accommodate differential settlements up to 2 inches. Based on our current analysis (GSI, 2006d), the time necessary (wait time) to allow for settlement of alluvial soils to occur to a point Where these differentials can be applied, is on the order of 120 to 180 days after the completion of grading (GSI, 2006d). The use of wick drains would generally reduce this "wait" time by approximately 60 to 70 percent, for a "wait time" on the order of 45 to 65 days after the completion of grading (2006d). Ifthe necessary post-grading "wait" times (no wick drains) are not compatible with respect to planned building schedules, then wick drains may be considered for structures within the southern portion of PA-15, the southwest corner of PA-21 , and those portions of PA-22 where settlement-sensitive improvements are planned. Monitoring ofindividual fill pads would be required after grading is compl.eted in order to verify that settlement has essentially been completed. The general distribution of alluvial soil to remain in place, and potential wick drain areas is shown· schematically in GSI (2006d). Monitoring Areas where alluvial soil is left-in-place should be monitored and the settlement values revised based on actual field data, Settlement monuments are recommended during construction. Monument locations would be best provided during 40-scale plan review. Dynamic Settlements Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event (or by some man made means) can produce settlements in sands, both above and below the groundwater table. This Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 19 • phenomena is commonly referred to as dynamic settlement and is most prominent in relatively clean sands, but can also occur in other soil materials. The primary factor controlling earthquake induced settlement in saturated sand, is the cyclic stress ratio. In dry sands earthquake, induced settlements are controlled by both cyclic shear strain arid volumetric strain control. On site, the alluvial materials are loose and could generate volumetric consolidation during a seismic event. An analysis of potential dynamic settlements, due to the occurrence of the identified m.aximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault zone, has been performed. Based on this analysis, approximately 1 % inches of settlement could occur during a maximum credible seismic event. Current analysis is included in Appendix E. Settlement Due to Structural Loads The settlement of the structures supported on strip and/or spread footings founded on compacted fill will depend on the actual footing dimensions, the thickness and compressibility of compacted fill below the bottom of the footing, and the imposed structural loads. Provided the the thickness of compacted fill below the bottom of the footing is at least equal to the width of the footing, and based on a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (pst), provided in this report, total settlement of less than Y2 inch should be anticipated. Summary of Settlement Analysis The design of structures are typically controlled by differential settlement, and not the total settlement. In order to evaluate differential settlement, data on the relative position and dimensions of adjacent footings, structural loads on the footing, and the nature and thickness of compressible soils below each footing may be assumed to be on the order of one-half of the total settlement. In areas where structures will be founded on formational or bedrock, and/or compacted . fills, and not underlain with saturated alluvium, total settlement is anticipated to be less than 1 Y2 inches, with a differential settlement on the order of % inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads Areas underlain by alluvial soils left in place, Le., the "triangle" area, should be designed to withstand an overall total settlement, on the order of 2 inches, or less, and a differential settlement of up to approXimately 1 inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads, and as further evaluated by settlement monitoring. Other areas underlain by alluvium left in place (Le., PA-15, PA-21 , and PA-22) may also be minimally designed for a differential settlement of up to 1 inch in a 40 foot span, provided that the area(s) are allowed to adjust (over time) to the new loading conditions. The "wait" time necessary to achieve the recommended design differential settlement may be significantly reducedwith the use of "wick drains," as indicated previously. Calavera HiIIs,LLC Robertson Ranch, East Vii/age File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January l5, 2007 Page 20 • Due to, the predominantly clayey nature of the underlying wet alluvium, the magnitude of seismic settlement will be less than that due to static loading conditions. The maximum seismic differential settlement for design should be taken as less than 1% inches over a horizontal span of 40 feet. Current analysis is included in Appendix E. SUBSIDENCE Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering ofthe ground surface occurs as a result of a number of processes. These include dynamic loading during grading, till loading, fault activity, or fault creep, as well as groundwater withdrawal. An analysis of fill loading is presented in the previous section. Ground subsidence (consolidation), due to vibrations, would depend on the equipment being used, the weight of the equipment, repetition of use, and the dynamic effects of the equipment. Most of these factors cannot be determined and may be beyond ordinary estimating possibilities. However, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other that till loading would be relatively minor (on the order of 1 inch, or less, which should occur during grading), and should not significantly affect site development. The effect of fill loading on alluvial soil has been evaluated in the previous section. ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION Rock Hardness and Rippability The majority of the site is underlain with medium dense to dense terrace deposits and older sedimentary bedrock. These materials were observed to be readily excavated with a backhoe, and producing no oversize material. Field mapping and subsurface exploration indicate the presence of undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock at or near the surface along the northern boundary of Robertson Ranch East (see Geotechnical Maps). Based on previous work performed by this office (GSI, 2001 c), comparisons of seismic velocities and ripping performance developed by Church (1982) and the Caterpillar Tractor Company (2002), the following conclusions regarding rock hardness and rippabiJity are provided. 1. In general, little ripping to soft ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 2 to 3 feet of existing elevations. 2. In general, soft to medium ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be' anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 21 • 3. Undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock, requiring extremely hard ripping or blasting to excavate, may likely be encountered below depths on the order of 5 to 10 feet below existing elevations. It should be anticipated that due to the presence of dense outcrops throughout the area, however, isolated boulders or hard spots will be encountered at any depth during grading and trenching. These hard zones will likely require specialized equipment, such as roqk breakers or rock saws, to excavate, and blasting may not be entirely precluded in areas· ·where it was not previously anticipated, nor at any depth or location on the site. Overexcavation should be considered in dense rock in proposed street areas to approximately 1 foot below lowest utility invert in order to facilitate utility construction; however, this is not a geotechnical requirement. Blasting Blasting operations will likely be necessary to excavate the deeper cuts, and for utility construction along the northern margin on Robertson Ranch East, where dense metavolcanic/granitic bedrock occurs near the surface. A blasting contractor should be consulted regarding the current standards of practice when preparing an area for blasting, the blasting itself, and any associated monitoring. If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to proposed cut slopes and structural pad areas. Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions, Which could require remedial grading to stabilize the building pads and affected cut slopes. Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials, which may otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized, it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials are produced and that sufficient fines (sands and gravel); to fill all void spaces, are present. This procedure would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced. SLOPE STABILITY Gross Stability Based on available data, including a review of GSI (2004a, 2002b, and 2001 c), it appears that graded fill slopes will be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Cut slopes, constructed in terrace deposits are anticipated to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance, under normal rainfall conditions. Cut slopes constructed to the anticipated heights in competent undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock should perform adequately at gradients of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter, and are considered to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 22 • All cut slope construction will require observation during grading in order to verify the findings and conclusions presented herein and in subsequent reports. Our analysis assumes that graded slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines provided by the City, the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001), and recommendations provided by this office. Surficial Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes constructed of compacted fills and/or bedrock material. Our analysis (GSI, 2004d, 2002b, and 2001 c) indicates that proposed slopes exhibit an adequate factor of safety (Le., > 1.5) against surficial failure, provided that the slopes are properly constructed and maintained, under conditions of normal rainfall. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: • Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. • Slope stability. • Corrosion and expansion potential. • Subsurface water and potential for perched water. • Rock hardness. • Settlement potential. • Liquefaction potential. • Regional seismicity and faulting. The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. Calavera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 23 • RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter AS30f the USC, the requirements of the City, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix G, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review t~e earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations' will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area priorto the start of construction. Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Removals Alluvial soils above the groundwater table are not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presence of groundwater within areas of the site underlain with alluvium, removals will be generally limited in depth by the presence of groundwater. Removals on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within tributary canyon areas. Within areas underlain by valley alluvium, complete alluvial removals is desired, but may not be feasible. Minimally, the uppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be removed and recompacted. Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plates 1 through 13. Typical removal depths within fill areas are also shown on Plates 1 through 13. Stabilization of removal bottoms in valley alluvium may be necessary prior to fill placement. Tentatively, stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inch thick layer, of %-to 1 "'h-inch-diameter crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x, or equivalent) may being considered and subsequently recommended, based on conditions exposed during Cal avera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15,2007 Page 24 (. grading. Previous earthwork in nearby deposits of valley alluvium did not require bottom stabilization using rock blankets, however, the use of rock blankets cannot be precluded, based on the conditions exposed during grading. Removal depths on the order of 3 to 5 feet may be anticipated within areas underlain with terrace deposits (Map Symbol -at), and metavolcanic/ igneous bedrock (Map Symbol-Jsp/Kgr). Deeper removal areas may occur locally and should be anticipated. Removal of slump deposits will likely be required (if encountered) and may vary, on the order of 10 feet, or less. Overexcavation/Transitions In order to provide for the uniform support of structures, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket is recommended for lots containing plan transitions. Any cut portion of the pad for the residence should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be over excavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. Maximum to minimum fill thickness within a given lot should not exceed ratio of 3:1, if conventional foundations are desired, As such, deeper over excavation will be necessary for fill lots with maximum fills in excess of approximately 9 feet. Overexcavation is also recommended for cut lots exposing claystones and/or heterogenous material types (Le., sand/clay) or hard rock (if encountered). Overexcavation is also recommended for cut lots in order to mitigate the potential adverse effects from perched water. Final overexcavation depths should be determined in the field based on site conditions. In order to facilitate the construction of future utilities within areas underlain by.hard rock, cut areas may be overexcavated to at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. This may be achieved by either excavating the entire right of way or line shooting along a particular utility alignment. This is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Overexcavation in pad areas should be sloped to drain toward streets. Sheet grading areas into large "superpads" as indicated on ODe· (2007) will require particular attention to overexcavation depths so that future fine, or finish grading does not compromise the minimum undercut recommended for a given lot. As such, locally deeper undercuts may be recommended in some area in order to accommodate potential future grade adjustments. 84 Inch Storm Drain Line Based on our review of GSI, (2006c) and O'Day (2006), the following recommendations are provided : • Removals are anticipated to be no more than 5 to 6 feet below grade within un- improved areas, located beyond the limits of the existing fill embankment supporting Cannon Road.' However, dependant on the current groundwater elevation, and the relative saturation of native soils above the groundwater table, Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 25 • • our experience with previous grading in the area has indicated that removals could be as little as 1 to 3 feet. Stabilization of removal bottoms (due to yielding ground) may be necessary prior to fill placement. Stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inches of 1% inch crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) placed around the rock layer, may be considered and subsequently recommended, based on conditions exposed during grading. . The stabilization of soil subgrades immediately below the storm drain may also be necessary. Stabilization should minimally consist of over-excavating' the bottom of the trench to at least 24 inches below the bottom of the pipe, placing a layer of geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) overthe exposed bottom, then filling to pipe grade with 1% inch crushed rock. This method of stabilization would best.be completed during trenching operations, and not during mass grading. Wick Drains In order to accelerate the consolidation and settlement of saturated alluvial soils to be left in place, a vertical wick drain system may be considered as an alternative to fill surcharge. Based on the current plan (O'Day, 2007), and our evaluation (GSI, 2004a and 2006d) wick drains may be considered within portions of Lots 1,2, and 3 (super pads), i.e., Planning Areas PA-15, PA-21, and PA-22. The general distribution of the potential wick drain fields . are shown in GSI (2006d). Drain Spacing and Depth For saturated alluvial soils (valley alluvium, Map Symbol-QaIB) up to approximately 30 feet in total remaining thickness (i.e., after remedial earthwork), wick drains should be installed in a triangular pattern on 10-foot centers. For alluvial soils greater than 30 feet thick, the spacing should be reduced to 8 feet on center. The depth of an individual wick drain should be at least 80 percent of the total alluvial thickness at that location. For example, a 40-foot thick column of alluvial soil will require a wick drain installed to a depth of 32 feel.. Wick drains are not required where the remaining saturated alluvial thickness (after remedial grading) is less than 10 feet. Based on the recommended spacing and depth pattern, the required time for 90 percent consolidation will be reduced by approximately 60 to 70 percent, or 45 to 65 days after the completion of grading. Ground Preparation Remedial earthwork should be performed in accordance with recommendations.presented herein. Prior to drain installation, a relatively flatlying, uniformly sloping, working platform' should be constructed. The platform should be sheet graded to provide a minimum fall of at least 2 percent toward the approved wick drain outlet(s). Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-ABC January 15, 2007 Page 26 • Drainage A gravity driven drainage system is recommended in order to de-water the wick drains. Drainage alternatives are presented as follows: • The drainage system may consist of a permeable sand/rock blanket (SE >30), at least 3 feet thick and connecting to a gravel subdrain(s). The use of open graded material (Le., crushed rock) will require the use of filter fabric to provide separation between the rock and soil, both above and below. • The drainage system may consist of horizontal wick drains connected to thevertical drains and tied into a gravel subdrain(s) system. • Gravel subdrains should consist of a perforated 4-inch diameter PVC pipe, embedded in %-inch crushed rock, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, or equivalent). The subdrain trench should be at least 12 inches in width by 24 inches in depth. Drains should be constructed with a minimum fall of 2 percent. • Subdrains may be outletted into available storm drain systems, or onto surface grades within approved areas. Subdrains outletted onto surface grades should be constructed no closer than 20 feet from grade and outletted to the surface via a solid pipe' This office should be provided with wick drain plans/layouts and subdrain plans/layouts as they become available in order in minimize any misunderstandings between the plans the intent of this report. Subdrains Subdrains will be required within the larger tributary drainage cleanou~s, where the as-built fill thickness (including removal/recompact) is greater than approximately 10 feet. Preliminary subdrain locations are shown on Plates 1 through 13. If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden. materials, or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may require a subdrain system. In addition, the placement of rock blankets and windrows should also consider having a subdrain system to mitigate any perched waterfrom collecting, and to outletthe water into a designed system, or other approved area. Typical subdrain design and construction details are presented in Appendix F. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o.. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 27 .' Fill Placement and Suitability Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6 to +8 inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard ASTM test method D-1557 -9,1. If soil importation is planned, samples of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils should be relatively sandy and very low to low expansive (i.e., E.1. less than 50). Rock Disposal During the course of grading, materials generated from hard rock areas (Map Symbol -Jsp/Kgr) are anticipated to be of varying dimensions. For the purpose of this report, the materials may be described as either 8 inches, or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than 36 inches. These three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be placed . Tentatively, disposal areas for oversized materials (i.e., 12 inches, or greater) appear to be limited to existing canyon areas. Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less Since rock fragments along with granular materials are a major part ofthe native materials' 'used in the grading of the site, a criteria is needed to facilitate the placement of these materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough grading, post-grading improvements, and serve as suitable compacted fill. 1. Fines and rock fragments 8 inches, or less, in one dimension may be placed as compacted fill cap materials within the building pads, slopes, and street areas as described below. The rock fragments and fines should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 2. The purpose for the 8-inch-diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized rock fragments into the fill under selected conditions (optimum moisture or above) surrounded with compacted fines. The 8-inch-diameter size also allows a greater volume of the rock fragments to be handled during grading, while staying in reasonable limits for later onsite excavation equipment (Le., backhoes) to excavate footings and utility lines. Fill materials 8 inches, or less, in one dimension should be placed (but not limited to) within a hold-down distance in the upper 5 to 10 feet of proposed fill pads, the Calavera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 28 upper 3 feet of overexcavated cut areas on cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width. The building official/agencyreviewer will need to approve any variance from the 10 feet hold-down distance, if oversize materials are plated within 10 feet from finish grade, prior to grading. Overexcavation is discussed in a previous section of this report. Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter 1 . During the process of excavation, rock fragments or constituents larger than 8 inches in one dimension will be generated. These oversized materials, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, may be incorporated into the fills utilizing a series of rock blankets. If rock blankets are not an acceptable means of disposal, then materials may either be placed in rock windrows as described in the following section, or broken down to 12 inch minus material and incorpor&ted into soil fill. 2. 3. If constructed, each rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, along with suffiCient fines generated from the proposed cuts and overburden materials generated from removal areas. The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 inches in thickness and should be placed with granular fines which are flooded into and around themck fragments effectively, to fill all voids. If constructed, rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert within the street right-of-way, 10 feet beloyv finish grade on the proposed fill lots, and a minimum of.20 horizontal feet (unless approved by the governing agency) from any fill slope surface. Shallower depths to the top of oversize materials may be considered, dependant upon approval by the controlling authorities for the project. 4. Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wh~el rolling methods with scrapers and water trucks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers. Equipment traffic should be routed over each lift. Given the rocky nature of this material, sand-cone and nuclear (densometer) testing methods are often found to be ineffective. Where such testing methods are infeasible, the most effective means to evaluate compaction efforts by the contractor would be to excavate test pits at random locations to check those factors pertinent to performance of rock fills; moisture content, gradation of rock fragments and matrix material and presence of any apparent void spaces. 5. If constructed, each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 1-5; 2007 Page 29 (. Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Oversize rock, greater than 36 inches in one dimension, should be placed in single rock windrows. The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width apart, whichever is greatest. The void spaces between rocks in windrows should be filled with the more granular soils by flooding them into place. A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock windrow should be maintained. Also, the windrows should be staggered from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be placed closer than 15 feet from the face of fill slopes. Larger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated intoJhe compacted fill or dense natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried. After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other), granular fill material should be flooded into the trench to fililhe voids. The oversize rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet at a particular elevation and at least 15 feet from any slope face. Trenches at higher elevations should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of compacted fill between the top of one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. Placement of rock into these trenches should be under the full-time inspection of the soils engineer. Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space "green bele areas that would be designated as non-structural fills. Rock Excavation and Fill 1. If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to' proposed. cut slopes and structural pad areas. Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the building pads and affected cut slopes. 2. Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials which may otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials is produced and that sufficient fines (sands and gravel) to fill all void spaces are present. This procedure would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Vii/age File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, '2007 Page 30 • Earthwork Balance Shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated materials upon compactio~ as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters: Existing Artificial Fill ... '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5% to 10% shrinkage Colluvium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3% to 8% shrinkage Alluvium ............................................. 10% to 15% shrinkage Terrace Deposits .................................. 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Rock (Excavated) .................... '.' . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5% shrinkage to 10% Bulk Rock (Shot) ............................................... 15% to 20% Bulk It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. Slope Considerations and Slope Design (. Graded Slopes Onsite'soils are considered erosive. All slopes should be designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of City/County, the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001), and the recommendations in Appendix F. Stabilization/Buttress Fill Siopes The construction of stabilization and/or buttress slopes may be necessary for some west facing cut slopes. Such remedial slope construction may be recommended, as necessary, based upon conditions exposed in the field during grading. Temporary Construction Slopes In general, temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a minimum slope ratio of 1:1 (h:v) , or flatter, within alluvial soils and terrace deppsits, and %:1, or flatter, for temporary slopes exposing dense sedimentary or metavolcanic/granitic bedrock without adverse (daylighted) bedding or fracture surfaces. Excavations for removals, drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized conditions snould be evaluated on an individual basis by' the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance from this recommendation. Due to the nature ofthe materials anticipated, the engineering geologist should observe all excavations and fill conditions. The geotechnical engineer should be Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 31 • notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate recommendations should be presented. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS In the eventthat information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, qr any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. RECOMMENDATIONS -CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Recommendations for conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections for bedrock, or fill (less than 30 feet thick) on bedrock areas. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing·material. Foundations should be founded entirely in compacted fill or rippable bedrock, with no exposed transitions. Conventional foundations may be used for very low to low expansive soil subgrades, where the soils plasticity index (PI) is 15, or less. For low to medium expansive soil conditions where the PI is greater than 15, conventional foundations may be used, provided that they are designed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Section 1815) ofthe UBC (ICBO, 1997). Typically, when the PI is greater than 15, Code may require the use of more onerous foundations (Le., post-tension, mat, etc.). Conventional foundations systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions, Where alluvial soil is left in place, where the maximum fill thickness is greater than 30 feet, or post- tensioned foundations may be used for all soil conditions, or where the maximum fill thickness within a given building pad exceeds a ratio of 3:1. In these areas, a post tensioned slab design is recommended. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supercede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Preliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low to high expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and (. construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15,2007 Page 32 • at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at fini~h grade. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected by a grade beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 3,000 pst. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third under the effects of temporary loading, such as seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pst. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Construction The' following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials generally range from very low (E.1. less than 20), to potentially high (E.1. 91 to 130) range. During grading of the site, we recommend that highly expansive material should not be placed within 7 feet of finish grade, if feasible. Conventional foundation systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions or where alluvial soil is left in place. Post-tension slab foundations may be used for all soil conditions. Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Conventional foundation recommendations are presented in the following Table 1, followed by an explanation by the "Foundation Category," and other criteria. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village , File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a,uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 33 • • TABLE 1 Conventional Perimeter Footings, and Slabs, Robertson Ranch East Village " '" 12'Widex 12' Deep 12'Widex 18' Deep 12'Widex 24'Deep 4" Thick 4" Thick 5'Thick 1-No. 4 Bar Top and Bottom 2-No. 4 Bars Top and Bottom 2-No. 5 Bars Top and Bottom No.3 Bars@ 18' D.C. Both Directions No.3 Bars@ 18' D.C. Both Directions No.3 Bars@ 18' D.C. Both Directions 2'Sand Over 10-Milvapor retarder Over 2' Sand Base 2'Sand Over 10/15-Mil vapor retarder Over2'Sand Base (15-mil for medium expansive soils only) 2'Sand Over 15-Mil vapor retarder Over3'Sand Base (highly expansive soils only) 6"x6" (10/10) welded wire fabric (WWF) 6"x6" (SIS) WWF. or NO.3 Bars @ 18' o.c. Both Directions for Low Same as Interior Slab None 6"xS' 10x10WWF S'x6' (6/6)WWF Category Criteria Category I: Category II: Category III: Notes: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Max. Fill Thickness is less than 20' and E.!. is less than, or equal to, 50 (PI <15) and Differenti&1 Fill Thickness is less than 10' (see Note 1). Max. Fill Thickness is less than 30' and E.!. is less than, or equal to, 90 or Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and 20' (see Note 1). Presoaking required. Max. Fill Thickness exceeds 30', or E.!. exceeds 90 but is less than 130, or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20' (see Note 1)_ Presoaking required. Conventional foundations shall also be designed per Section 1815, Chapter 18 of the USO (lOBO, 1997) where the PI (Plasticity Index) is 15, or greater. Post-tension foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 30~, or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1, or where the E.1. exceeds 90, or in areas underlain with alluvial soil left in place. Differential settlements discussed in the body of the report should be incorporated into foundation design by the structural engineer/slab designer. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent compacted/suitable subgrade. The allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 pst. Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi at 28 days. The maximum slump shall be5 inches. The water/cement ratio of concrete shall not be more than 0.5 for soils with an EI > 90. The vapor retarder is not required under garage slabs. However, consideration should be given to future uses of the slab area, such as room conversion and/or storage of moisture-sensitive nl.aterials and disclosure. All vapor retarders should be placed in accordance with ASTM E 1643, and the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer's recommendations (see report), Sand used for base under slabs shall be a "clean" granular material, and have SE >30. "Pea" gravel may be substituted for the basal sand layer in order to improve water transmission mitigation. Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints to control cracking. Joint spacing should be ih accordance with correct industry standards and reviewed by the project structural engineer. Pre-wetting is recommended for all soil conditions as follows: very low to low expansive (at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches, medium expansive (at least 2-3% over optimum to a depth of 18 inches). highly to very highly expansive (at least 4-5% Over optimum to a depth of 24 inches). Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fife:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge WoO. 5353-A-SC January 15,2007 Page 34 • • POST·TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed buildings. Based on the potential differential settlement within areas ofthe site underlain by alluvium, . post-tensioned slab foundations are recommended exclusively. General The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post-tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post-tenSioned slab design during grading. The post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method. Alternatives to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlement noted for this site. Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 UBCSection 1816 (IGBO, 1997), based on design specifications of the PTI . The fol/owing table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the PTI design method. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 teet Constant Soil Suction (pt) 3.6 The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to reptesent worst case conditions such as over-irrigation, adverse drainage, and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided positive drainage is maintained away from structures, for a distance of at least 3 feet. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and -effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners and/or interested parties. Based on the above parameters, design values were obtained from figures or tables of the 1997 UBC Section 1816 and presented in Table 2. These values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors (Le., fill C. settlement). If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 35 • (. TABLE 2 POST-TENSION FOUNDATIONS em center lift 5.0 feet 5.5 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 3.5 feet 4.0 feet 4.5 feet Ym center lift 1.7 inches 2.7 inches 3.5 inches Ym edge lift 0.75 inch 0.75 inch 1.2 inches Bearing Value (1) 1000 psf 1000 psf 1000 psf Lateral Pressure 250 pst 250 psf 250 psf Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 pci/inch 85 pci/inch 70 pci/inch Perimeter Footing Embedment (2) 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches (1) Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be increased to 2,000 psf for a minimum embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 3,000 pst. (2) As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface. (3) Foundations for very low expansive soil conditions may use the California Method (spanability method). Note: The use of open bottomed raised planters adjacent to foundations will require more onerous design parameters. Subgrade Preparation The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned in accordance with the following discussion. Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing fa,ctdrtodistress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing alldishingll or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil pre-wetting and construction of a perimeter cut-off wall grade beam should be employed. Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. Embedment depths are presented in Table 2 for various soil expansion conditions~ The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 36 • • or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation recommendations in the referenced report should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. Floor slab subgrade should be at, or above the soils optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches prior to pouring concrete, for very low to low expansive soils, at least 2 to 3 percent over optimum for medium expansive soils to a depth of 18 inches, and at least 4 to S percent over optimum for highly to very highly expansive soils to a depth of 24 inches. Pre-wetting of the slab subgrade soil prior to placement of steel and concrete will likely be recommended and necessary, in order to achieve optimum moisture conditions. Soil moisture contents should be verified at least 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. If pre-wetting of the slab subgrade is completed prior to footing excavation, the pad area may require period wetting in order to keep to soil from drying out. MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION The following methodologies for vapor transmission mitigation are provided with respect to the Robertson Ranch, East Village Project. These recommendations are also presented in Table 1. The following alternatives have been developed in accordance with the expansive character of the building pad subgrade within 7 feet of finish grade . Very Low to Low Expansive Soils For floor slabs bearing on very low to low expansive soil subgrades (E.I. of 50, or less), the floor slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand, over a 10-mil polyvinyl membran~ (vapor retarder), over a 2-inch sand base. Sand used should have a minimum sand equivalent of 30. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be 2,SOO psi. (upgraded from the prior recommendation). All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E 1643 and the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). Medium Expansive Soils For floor slabs bearing on medium expansive soil subgrades (E.1. between 5fand 90), the slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand (SE >30), over a 1S-mil vapor retarder, over a minimum 2-inch sand (SE >30) base. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be at least 2,500 psi. All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E-1643 and the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). A 2-inch layer of "pea" gravel may be SUbstituted for the sand layer used beneath the vapor retarder if it is desired to further mitigate water/water vapor transmission. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 200? Page3? (. Highly Expansive Soils Based on our preliminary information, soils with an E.1. greater than 90 (Le., highly expansive soils) are not anticipated to occur in significant quantities that Will, influence foundation design. However, should these soils occur, recommendations would be provided on a lot by lot basis and will need to be carefully monitored during grading. On a preliminary basis, Alternative #3 would include similar criteria as indicated for Alternative #2, and a water/cement ratio of not more that 0.5 for concrete; however, the underlayment thickness would increase below the vapor retarder to a minimum of 3 inches (per ASTM E 1643). Other Considerations Regardless of the soils expansion potential, an additional improvement to moisture protection would be to extend the vapor retarder/membrane beneath all foundation elements and grade beams. In addition, because it has been shown that the .Iateral migration of water from foundation edges may contribute significantly to excess moisture transmission, the vapor retarder/membrane could extend slightly above soils grade around the slab/foundation perimeter and the exposed foundation face could be painted with a latex sealer prior to color coat. Recognizing that these measures go beyond the current standard of care, we recommend that the developer evaluate the con~truction issues and costs associated with the additional measures above and determine the feasibility of implementing them. While these methods are considered to be overall improvements to the existing recommendations for this project (GSI, 2004a), they will only minimize the transmission of water vapor through the slab, and may not completely mitigate it. Floor slab sealants m;;ly also be used for a particular flooring product, if necessary. The use of concrete additive~ that reduce the overall permeability (water reducers) of the concrete may also be considered. SETBACKS All footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face of no less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in 'the retaining wall section of this report. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 38 • SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY Based on our experience in the vicinity, the majority of site soils are anticipated to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Site soils are also anticipated to be mildly corrosive to buried metal, but may become highly corrosive when saturated. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. SETTLEMENT In addition to designing slab systems (post-tension or other) for the soil expansion conditions described herein, the estimated total and differential settlement valUes that an individual structure could be subject to should be evaluated by a structural engineer, and utilized in the foundation design. The levels of angular distortion may be evaluated on a 40-foot length assumed as minimum dimension of buildings; if, from a structural standpoint, a decreased or increased length over which the differential is assumed to occur is justified, this change should be incorporated into the design. Please refer to the previous sections regarding "settlement analysis" for a discussion of preliminary deSign values to be used. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filte~ material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native materials (up to and including an E.1. of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (Le., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report regarding conventional foundation design, as· appropriate. The bottom of footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Recommendations for specialty walls (Le., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfiII material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fife:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 39 • Cantilevered Walls • • The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained materic;!'!' These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or. adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. ,;}.?/,~,y'~,F.A:C.~'::~,~~?'~:$.;:PE;:::i':":~:~ :::;}tt;~·,::,g9:Q~Y.A'~~~,rr+~:~:::, \if;~;~lF.~c9'P.JV:~~~'~i~:';J~::f: ,~~~::\:;:,~,~r.~}J,~~(PH",;MV)" -,f.T~fl!eht2'::~':. :"J{, S~UE,ILPE':''JIC'' 'T"'~·BI~A, .. f,lC,,;rK,)Fl.':;~I':CL"·::L~~·~} ,;if.(·~N:~AJTgl,:v;'!IE}~BI~Av,!:fcJK"~F~'I~-L~l':~:~~; ·.::':~:.~~;.~.'::.:·::·~ .. t5·' :: :'~:'~/:<'.:::J;".~'~\'.:.::.;. ;.~~. . '. ,'.. '. ,,"J::;': ':':.)1 ." .. :. "~" ;J!': I ~e~e~* I ;~ I :~ I * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly !=1rained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall . Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel'wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 'lh-inch to %-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter f~bric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For loW expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials, or 'lh-inch to %-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) should be used behind the wall as backfill within the active zone, defined as the area above a 1:1 projection up from the base ofthe wall stem. This material should be continuous (Le., full height) behind the wall. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to' 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed. Materials with an E.1. potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. Any wall drainage plan should be reviewed by this office for approval prior to construction . Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Vii/age File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 'Page 40 • Weeping of the walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet, or less, in height, weepholes should be no greater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater th~n + 1 00 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of only weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.1. «90). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Proper surface drainage should also be provided in order to reduce the potential for surface water penetration. Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (Le., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or nottransition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink !;]rout .. c) Embed ·the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation lIall (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. TOP~OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS Due to the potential for slope creep (see the "Development Criteria" section for a discussion) for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To mitigate the tilting of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on deepened foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansion Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 41 • index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, or a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than 50, comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account.,. Recommendations for grade beam and caisson foundations can be provided upon request. Deepened. foundations should minimally provide for a lateral distance of 7 feet from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the face of slope. POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. The following recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, etc., that may perform such work. Final recommendations will be based on as-built conditions. 1 . The pool system should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition ofthe IBC. The pool shell should be embedded entirely into properly compacted fill, or suitable native soil. 2. The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool design should be 62 pcf for pool walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2: 1 (h:v) sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool walls subjacent to slopes. 3. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcf, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pst. 4. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. 5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be red,-:!ced by one-third. 6. The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and flatwork design prior to construction. Recommendations for pool flatwork are presented in a following section. A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions, per the UBC/CBC. 7. All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, inCluding during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill, prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete. 8. Where pools are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be incorporated into design and construction by the pool designer. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 42 • (. 9. All pool walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support per Section 1806.5.4, Chapter 18 of the UBC (lCBO, 1997). 10. The pool structure should be set back from any adjacent descending slope in accordance with the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). 11. The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool bottom, the cut portion should be overexcavated te;> a minimum depth of 24 inches, and replaced with compacted fill. The fill should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, at over-optimum moisture conditions. The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pool bottom, and attendant potential for shoring and/or slot excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool planning, design, and construction .If pool subgrade conditions are wet, or saturated, provisions for drying back overexcavated soils, or importing/mixing with drier soils may be necessary. 12. Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should qe incorporated into the pool and spa designs. A pool under-drain system should also be considered, with an appropriate outlet for discharge, depending on pool location. 13. All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa, should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials. 14. An elastic expansion/shrinkage joint (waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. 15. Reinforced grade beams should be placed around skimmer inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. 16. Pool decking/flatwork should be pre-wet!pre-soaked perthe Foundation Section of this report. 17. Regardless ofthe methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Vii/age File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 43 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distres~ to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To reduce the likelihood ·of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1 . The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. If very low to low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. For medium, or higher expansive soils, the subgrade should be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade elevation. The moisture content of the subgrade should be verified within 72 hours prior to pouring' concrete. 2. 3. 4. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted arid level prior to pouring concrete. If very low to low expansive soils are present, the rock, or gravel or sand is not required. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. When driveways are ~Iaced over rock, gravel or clean sand, driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge which isolates the bedding material from any adjacent· landscape area, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, exterior slabs may .be reinforced as indicated in Table 1. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, % to 3/a inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations arid sidewalks with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 44 • • 5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to a structure should be separated from the structure with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions . 11 . Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide for an adequate fall to the street, per the design civil engineer. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 12. Air conditioning (NC) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation, or constructed on an isolated rigid slab with flexible couplings, for plumbing and electrical lines. NC waste water lines should be drained to a suitable outlet. 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and Guring practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. ' Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a,uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 45 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on the R-value data (to be verified by specific R-value testing at completion of grading) from a representative sample taken from the project area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented on the following table. :;ti·:~·;()',}:S::·! ::;\;r;;··:j:·:·'~)1!l~::'~ :';: ::;'.::.~,: .::~,';P:;::::~;~·\A~·~~~~ t,9,·~9~,~~~t~:;>R~Y~~§~t~:b;:}i,~:i:'.!::'::::;~:A{;t}~gn,:t;::::::~;i::~;i;~;J:J:~M·:t!;W .~·riii~} ;~~j~;ilil~I~~~~lrjl~l~f~'iif Cui De 4.5 12 (Qal) 4.0 5.0 Sac 4.5 19 (Qt or Tsa) 4.0 4.0 4.5 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Local 5.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 6.0 Street 5.0 19 (Qt or Tsa) 4.0 5.0 5.0 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Collector 6.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 12.0 6.0 19 (Qt orTsa) 4.0 11.0 6.0 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 . 6.0 (1)Denotes standard Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base R >78, SE >22). (2)TI values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the di3sign team during future plan development. (3) Qal = Alluvium, Qt = Terrace Deposits, Tsa = Santiago Formation, Jsp/Kgr = Igneous Bedrock In addition to the construction of new roadways within Robertson Ranch East, the eXisting alignments of Cannon Road arid College Boulevard, in proximity to the project, are to be improved (widened). An evaluation(s) of pavement design were prepared by this office for portions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road (GSI, 2004b, 2004c). The recommended pavement sections evaluated are presented in the following tables. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 20D7 Page 46 • (. COLLEGE BOULEVARD College Boulevard 8.5 17 Sta 101+12 to 106+§!! College Boulevard 8.5 13 Sta 1 06+§!! to 111 +.QQ College Boulevard 8.5 26 Sta 111 +.QQ to 114+.QQ College Boulevard 8.5 21 Sta 114+.QQ to 118+1Q (1) City of Carlsbad minimum (2) Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base ® >78, SE >25) CANNON ROAD Cannon Road 8.5 28 Stations 125+§!! to 130+§!! Cannon Road 8.5 27 Stations 130+§!! to 135 +§!! Cannon Road 8.5 6 Stations 135+§!! to 140+§!! Cannon Road 8.5 5 Stations 140+§!! to 145+§Q Cannon Road 8.5 6 Stations 145+§Q to 150+§!! Cannon Road 8.5 6 Stations 150+§Q to 164 +§!! (1) City minimum (2) Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R >78, SE >25) * Caltrans requirements Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0* 6.0* 6.0* 6.0* 16.0 18.0 14.0 15.0 13.0 13.0 20.0* 20.0* 20.0* 20.0* w.o. 5353-A-SC January 1'5, 2D07 Page 47 • As noted in the table above, some of the R-values reported are less than 1,2. Per Carlsbad (1996) soil subgrades with R-values less than, or equal to 12, shall be tested for lime stabilization. However, for the existing sections of Cannon Road noted, it is our understanding that this requirement was waived by the City. This should be verified by the developer prior to construction. The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. Uthinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. Ifthe ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the maximum'dry density (ASTM D-1557). If adverse conditions (Le., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further R-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for the site. PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS General All section changes should be properlytransitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. Subgrade Within street areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test method D-1557. Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. Calavera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Vii/age File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge GeoSoilst) Ine. W.O. 5353,-'A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 48 Ie Base Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined . by ASTM test method D-1557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition. Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1 . The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or subbase course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. 3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4. The base is free of dirt and debris. If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet ~pecifications as directed by the soil engineer. Orainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards the area swale, curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures sho.uld be taken tb minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement.section. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 49 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Deformation General Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for, gross Of surficial stability, and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications, should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination with differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension (LFE). Slope Creep Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (Le., separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal distance of approximately 15 feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outside) edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The actual width of the zone affected is generally dependant upon: 1) the height ofthe slope; 2) the amount of irrigation/rainfall the slope receives; and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope. This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the creep zone. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential for distress due to lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or CBC); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening and deepening of foundations. Per Section 1806.5.3 of the UBC, a horizontal setback (measured from the slope face to the outside bottom edge of the building footing) of H/3 is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill slope in feet and H/3 need not be greater than 40 feet. Alternatively, in consideration ofthe discussion presented above"site conditions and Section 1806.5.6 ofthe UBC, H/3 generally need not be greaterthal'l20 feet for the development. As an alternative to a deepened footing, where the adjacent slope is greater than 45 feet in height and the building/footing is within 20 feet from the slope face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch (additional) may be applied to the design of that portion of the structure{s). Any settlement-sensitive improvements (Le., walls ,spas., flatwork, etc.) should consider the above. Lateral Fill Extension (LFE) LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Based on the generally very low expansive character of on site soils, Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page5Q • • the potential component of slope deformation due to LFE is considered minor, but may not be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expeGted, long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content. Summary It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LFE. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the UBC and/or CBC [ICBO, 1997 and 2001]); positive structural separations (Le., joints) between improvements; stiffening; and, deepening of foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements and minimizing the placement of "dry" fills. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage, away from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face offill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate . .Jute-type matting, or otherfibroi.Js·covers, may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc. to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not· recommended. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance offoundations, hardscape, a~d slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water Cal avera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Vii/age File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC . January 15, 2007 Page 51 Ie should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 3 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure~ We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and wheneVer possible, $hould b~ above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of raised planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area{s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized < to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a minimum of 3 feet from structures or into an alternate, approved area, such as a drainage system . swale. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop; recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down the slope allows for some seepage into the subsurface materials, sometimes creating conditions causing or contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe of slope/toe drains may be beneficial in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows: • Is there a source of irrigation above or on the slope that could contribute to saturation of soil at the base of the slope? • Are the slopes hard rock and/or impermeable, or relatively permeable, or; do the slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., stabilization fills, etc.)? • Was the lot at the base of the slope overexcavated or is it proposed to be overexcavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope could accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap. • Are the slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently prevailing seasonal storm tracks. • What is the slope height? It has been our experience that slopes with heights in excess of approximately 10 feet tend to have more problems due to storm runoff and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height. • Do the slopes "toe out" into a residential lot or a lot where perched or ponded water may adversely impact its proposed use? Cal avera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 52 Based on these general criteria, the construction of toe drains may be considered by the design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining walls hi slopes, descending to the rear of such lots. Following are Detail 1 (Schematic Toe Drain Detail) and Detail 2 (Toe Drain Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may be warranted due to unforeseen conditions, homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains. are constructed during grading, including subdrains, the locations/elevations of such drains should be surveyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is recommended that the above be disclosed to all interested parties, including homeowners and any homeowners association. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Oosite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales. and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. .' . Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to proposed structures be restricted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom .type raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be. installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If raised box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (Le., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical 'standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should Calavera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o: 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 53 SCHEMATIC·TOE DRAIN DETAIL DrainPipe Drain May Be Constructed into, or at. the Toe of Slop~ ! ' I ~ f'*-12." -I'"": 12" Minimum 2.4" Mmimum NOTf:S~: 1.) Soil cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relathte CQrtipac.tion. 2..) Permeable lIifat~riaJ May Be Gravel\Nrctpped in Fil.ter Fabric (Mlraff'toWN c>r Eq!,l.IVa[~n:t). :q 4-4nch Diatlleter Perforated Pipe (SDR-3S or· Eqtli\laJ~ni~ with Perforations Down. tir.} Pipe-to Maintain I,t Minimum. '1 Percent Fall. 5.) Concrete C~toff W~II to be Pro'll'idedat transition w Solid Outiet P~pe. 6.) Sollq Outlet Pi pe .tD Drain to Approved A~a. 1.). Cleanouts are Recomlllended at ji;ach Pn)perty Litle. RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN l)IEGO CO. TOE DRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL Petail1 W.O. 5353-A-SC DATE 01/07 SCALENTS • TOPOFWI\LL RIITAININGWALL • 2::'1 SLOPE (TYPICAq BACKFIU. Wm-t COMPACTeo NOTES: NATIVEOOIl.S IMII':-'''--DRAIN' ~UBPR.81N 8L,ONG RETAINING WALL OETAlL N.QTTQ~q/;i,l;' 1.) Soil Cap Cumpacted to 90 P~rceilt Relativ~ COll1paeti(m~ 2.) Permeable Material May Be Gravel . Wrapp~. irt FjlterFabric (Mi~afi 1'40N or EqtJivaltint). 3.) 4;.frich Oiam~ter Perforated Pipe {SO~,,;J5: or Equivalent} W{tiJ . Peqm'i;ttions Down. 4.) Pipe to,Mai!l~ln a Minimum 1- Pe(O(!tit F<lll. 5.} Clilncr~te Cutoff WaU:ta be P.(mi'j.d~d at Ttaf'l;sitron to 'Solid OuUeE Pipe. 6.) Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to Approved Area. . 7.} Cleaf'!outs.at~ R~e()mmend~d at Each PrQpert;Y Line. s.) C()mpacted Effort,Should B~ Applied to Draln Rock. RlVERSIDE co. ORANGE co. SAN DlEGO co. TOE DRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL Detail 2 W.O. 5353-A-SC DATE 01/07 SCALENTS • perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl crack isolation membrane, or other approved method by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design anq construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This include~ any grading, utility trench, and retaining. wall backfills. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrq.ding of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction ofthe subgrade materials would be recommended atthattime. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Calavera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 'Page56 :.." • Trenching • Considering the nature ofthe onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and selective testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1: 1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Selective compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading/recertification. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Cal avera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 57 • • • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing . steel, capillary break (Le., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (Le., visqueen, etc.), as necessary. • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches., and retaining wall backfill, as necessary. • During slope construction/repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, ·spas;. pools, walls, etc., are constructed. • A report of geotechnical observation and testing and/or field testing reports, should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages as necessary, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. • GSI should review project sales' documents to homeowners/homeowners associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. Atthat stage, GSI will provide homeowners maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by expliCit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimUni design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applica.ble to the project. These criteria should not be considered as SUbstitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible' that other influences will also have to be considered: The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein Cal avera Hills, llC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.o. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 58 as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. Ifthe structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or, improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and de$ign criteria specified herein. HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS It is recommended that the developer should notify, and/or make available the.findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report to any homeowners or homeowners association in order to minimize any misunderstandings regarding the design and performance of earth structures, and the design and performance of existing and/or future improvements. PLAN REVIEW Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office, prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative ofthe area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion ofthe project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the Client, in writing. Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 59 AP,PENDIXA, REFEfn~Ndes' ,. .;., ,': " .. -:' . ,< .J. '. ,-.... '-'- .:-'-:~. ~ -, '. ;--'. ' ";-. .' .. : ,,' -, 'J ... 1,.' :-t '~ '.'~ '.'. .~ .... ;. -', : ,4 , - • APPENDIX A REFERENCES Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T.L., 1995, Empirical prediction of liquefaction-induced lateral spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol 121, No.4, April. __ , 1992, Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement generated by liquefaction induced lateral spreads, Tech. Rept. NCEER 92-0021, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, updated to September, 2004. __ , 2000b, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources; Windows 95/98 version, updated to September, 2004. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California, DMG Open-File Report 96-08. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluation and mitigating seismic hazards in California, CDMG Special Publication 117. California Department of Water Resources, 2002, Water Data Library {www.well.water.ca.govD· Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-s0tJrge atten~ation of peak. horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293. Caterpillar Tractor Company, 2002, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 33, CAT Publications, October. Church, W., 1982, Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill. Frankel, Arthur D., Perkins, David M., and Mueller, Charles S., 1996, Preliminary and working versions of draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United States showing peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response at 0.3 and 1.0-second site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years) for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. • c. Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultants, 2004, Geotechnical review -EIR 03-03, Robertson Ranch master plan, Carlsbad, California, No job no., dated June 19. GeoSoils, Inc., 2006a, Supplemental recommendations regarding pier supported bridge abutments, Robertson Ranch East Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 30. __ , 2006b, Memorandum: update of the geotechnical report with respect to site grading and the current grading plan, Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 15. __ , 2006c, Memorandum: discussion of earthwork recommendations in the vicinity of a planned 84-inch storm drain, Cannon Road, Stations 127+20 to 136+32, Improvements for Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated July 28. __ , 2006d, Supplementto the update geotechnical evaluation regarding the distribution of wick drains, Robertson Ranch East, Carlsbad, San Diego County, Califomia, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated June 9. --, 2006e, Report of rough grading, Cal avera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District No.4 (B&TD), ~arlsbad Tract 00-02, Drawing 390-9A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-B2-SC, dated January 27. __ , 2004a, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20. __ , 2004b, Third revision of pavement design report, Calavera Hills II, Cannon Road Stations 125+50 to 164+5°, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4030-E-SC, dated May 14. __ , 2004c, Revised pavement design report, College Boulevard, Stations 101 +75 to 118+1°, Reach B, Cal avera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4029-E-SC, dated March 17, revised April 23. --,2002a, Geotechnical recommendations forthe use of "Wick Drains," Cannon Road (Stations 152+50 to 163+5°), College Avenue (Stations 108+50 to 116+5°), and "Disposal Areas" (Robertson Ranch, Planning Areas 10a, 13a, and 16b), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated-July 24. --, 2002b, Geotechnical evaluation ofthe Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A1-SC, dated January 29. __ , 2001 a, Preliminary findings of the geotechnical evaluation, Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31 . Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge . Appendix A Page 2. 1,. __ , 2001 b, Alluvial settlement potential in the vicinity of a planned box culvert and existing sewer line, Intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, Cctlavera Hills, District NO.4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated March 7. __ ,2001 c, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District NO.4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24. __ , 1998a, Addendum to feasibility of 1: 1 cut slope in lieu of approved crib wall, Station No. 29+00 to 31 +50, College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated May 4. __ , 1998b, Feasibility of 1:1 Cut slope in lieu of approved cribwall, Station No. 29+00 to 31 +§Q, Col/ege Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated April 10. --, 1998c, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and "T," City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A, 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. __ ,1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1,2, and 3. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: AA. Balkena Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map sheet no. 6, scale 1 :750,000. Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A, Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F.: AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18,1994. __ , 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-977, 16p. Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Appendix A Page 3 • Leighton ahd Associates, 1985, Geotechnical feasibility evaluation, 403.3 acres at east corner of EI Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, California, Project no. 4850555-03, dated November 15. Undvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Undivall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on lithe seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system. O'Day Consultants, 2007, Grading plans for: Robertson Ranch, East Viflage, 40 scale, City project no. C.T. 02-16, Drawing No. 433-6, Job No. 01-1014, print dated January 11. __ ,2006, Storm drain plans for Cannon Road, C.T. 02-16, Drawing. No. 433-6, Project no. C.T. 02-16, O'Day Job No. 0114, dated July 7. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table offault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Seed, H. B.. and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. State of California, 1967, Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 106-2, Groundwater occurrence and quality: San Diego Region, Vol. II: plates, dated June. T & B Planning Consultants, 2001, Tentative lotting study, Robertson Ranch, 2 sheets, J.N. 533-002, dated November 13, Revised December 5. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic maps ofthe northwestern part of San Diego County, California, plate 2, geologic map ofthe Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' quadrangles, ·San Diego County, California, scale 1 :24,000, DMG Open~File Report 96-02. Calavera Hills II, llC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Appendix A Pag~4 Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone southern California, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 93-02. --, 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, cooperative agreement EMF-83-k-0148. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953) Black and white aerial photographs, AXN-8M-70 and AXN-8M-71, and AXN-8M-100 to 102. Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and. Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, University of California, Riverside. Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Appendix A PageS : .-' o , tl=ST PIT AND BOF{IN~ lo.:G;$ ,',. .,' ~. " ,:'" . '.' , , "'-, ."." , ~ ..... • TP-10 0'-3' CL 3'-5' ring@31f2' ·' W.O.~8-A1-SC McMillin Compa~ies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SIL TV SANDSTONE, orange brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-1. ·-~ • TP-11 . 0'-6' SM 0'-3' bulk 6'-12' SM 6'-8' bulk 12'-13' CL e\ W.AB,.Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth = 13' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-2. ------- • TP-12 0'-1' CL 1'-5' CL 5'-7' SM .• : .--. W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SIL TV SAND, olive gray to gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-3. • TP-13 0'-5' CL 5'-13' SM 13'-14' CL ." .' W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. . . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY CLAY, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth = 14' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8·4 • TP-14 01-31 CL 31-1' CL 1'-101 SC ·' W.A9S-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. ALLUVIUM: SIL TV SAND, brown to light brown, wet, medium stiff. TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAY, olive gray, wet, stiff. Total Depth = 101 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-5 (----." • TP-15 0'-4' SC 4'-5' SC 5'-6' CL .~ e\ W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to light brown, moist, medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth= 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-6: ~ .' LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS w.o.a-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 "', PIT. NO .... ·.:· . .DEBTH .... ; . ".·.GROUEt..,.,., ·.,:.,DER.TH-·"", .. ,·MOISJU.AE",,: .. ;~.:,.: ..• D.EN.Srn~.;,: .. '::·" .. ,·,3".: ...... ,: ....... ,.::.·.:·: ... ,.,.,,~;.,,;~DESCRIPTION.: .. ·, .. ·· ... ',"",,' ",". :"'''''\ ':' .. ':, ,,,:,,:,"" '::: .?,,: .. :::.;; ,':' :.:';": ... :; .. :.:: ';':':.:.:".' ··(ftS'~:;,', .. :::';,~ :"::':::S;YM'Ek)L:".:·: :/j;::'~.(ft~W:<:~:.\ }·::::;:t3!:~{%)\>:}7;C:' ?{:!~/~;'{pcf)T}~:;:;:;.~} :::.(i~·::·::':\>,"~,:;::::'.~\f.;:;:;~:.:·'V):7~ ~,.</.< ::::?:.'.:' ::))'.:.:: ~?:".:;:.:~'; ;:::: .": .... :';): :.':S<:··; .. \.'. ::':~:: >;.;.::~ ::: TP-16 01-31 SM 31-51 SM 51-71 CL COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAYEY SAND, olive brown, wet, dense. Total Depth = 71 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-7 • TP-17 0'-2' CL 2'-5' SM ~ e\ W.A~-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 . PLATE 8·8 • TP-18 01_31 CL 31_51 SM ·'; W .• ~8-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND TO CLAY, olive brown to brown, moist, dense to stiff. Total Depth = 51 No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-9 • TP-19 0'-3' CL 3'-5' SM -- ·" W .• 98-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; roots, rootlets. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8·10 S :5 Co Q) 0 25 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch Sample 'U '0 ..e, -0 .0 ~ Q) E -e >- il !E en 'E '" en :> "" 'Ci ;;; U c:-:s c 0 en m :> in :> 0 SM SM 10 34 CL 43 McMillin, Robertson Ranch BORING LOG w. 0 30Sl3-A 1-SC . . ---='=":':-=-':":~=------1 BORING HB-3 SHEET_ OF~ DATE EXCAVATED 10-2-01 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER DROP :-Y:"" ... ; ..... : . ;..r .. Standard Penetration Test "5l-Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material COLLUVlUMlTOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, loose. ALLUVIUM @ 3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. @ 5' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist to wet, loose; coarse sands with silt. @ 10' SANDY CLAY, dark grey, moistto wet, very stiff; oxidized minerlization. WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 15' SilTY SANDSTONE with metavolcanic and granitics, dense; oxidization. Groundwater @ 10' Backfilled on 10/02101 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-11 • :E- :5 c. (J) 0 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch Sample 'U <5 8 "0 .c ~ (J) E -e >- .3 ~ CI) ~ U) CI) ::J ~ '0 ~ 0 e=-"5 c: CI) In ::J co ::J 0 SM ~ ~ c: 0 e .3 tU CI) BORING LOG W.O. ___ 309~8-A'".,-·1-_S_C_--l BORING HB-4 SHEET_1_· OF ~ DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP m ~ '-(" :..r-. :-:':'" ..;r.. '<"'. :->,:,0 .;.,. '-" 0: .'-(". .J.. ~ . ..;r.. V'. ,.,..-. "..r... •• '-r :...,..:... ~. ---v--. ~. Standard Penetration Test :;z. Groundwater UndisturlJed, Ring Sample Description of Material COLLUVlUMlTOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. ALLUVIUM @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense. WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 1 0' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive broWn, moist medium dense. [{} SANTIAGO FORMATION [{{ @ 14' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown to reddish brown, I---P"oaq.---'~I---I-----f----l----P"""h\ moist. medium dense. ,r rlCl\.U\.c:1I Refusal @ 14.5' No Groundwater Encouf)Lcl cd Backfilled GeoSoi/s, Inc. PLATE 8-12 · GeoSoils, Inc. g ~ Ol 0 20 PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch Sample 'U 0 .9: ." .c ~ Ol E -e >. ~ C/) -~ '2 U) C/) ::> ~ =a == 0 c:-:; c: 0 C/) m ::> jjj ::> 0 SM 23 CL 27 29 7 13 CL McMillin, Robertson Ranch ....... ~ c: 0 ~ ~ C/) BORING LOG w.o. __ 3_0~98-,:....:A_1_-S~C_----, BORING HB-5 SHEET_ OF.-L DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP m ~ :.r-. :J:"" -.:-- '-<". :-":" -.:--' '-r :...,,:.... ~. 0 Standard Penetration Test 'S].. Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material COLLUVlUMITOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry to moist, loose. ALLUVIUM @ 5' SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, very stiff. @ 6' GROUNDWATER. @ 10' SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff. @ 15' SANDY CLAY, greenish brown to brown, wet, very stiff. @ 20' SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, medium stiff. @ 25' SILTY SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. GeoSoils, Inc. 8-13 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. , PLATE 8-14 ( ~ ~ ~ Q) Cl GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch Sample 'i3 '0 .9: "t:I ..c ~ Q) E -e >. .a ~ en 'E In ~ en ::J .><: '6 () ~ ::; c: en In ::J iii ::J Cl SM 19 SM 39 25 24 McMillin, Robertson Ranch BORING LOG VII. O. _----=3.:..09~8:...:.-A.:..1_-S:...:C::____I BORING HB-6 SHEET_ OF~ DATE EXCAVATED 10~3-01 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER DROP ...:.,r...' ~. V-. V-. V-.' -r-. ...r.-', '-r. :...r.. ~. '-r-. Standard Penetration Test ¥ Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material , dry, loose . @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. ALLUVIUM: @ 5' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. @ 1 0' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, dense. @ 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. @ 20' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. @ 25' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-15 • GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC McMillin. Robertson Ranch Sample '5' '0 ,e, "C .c ~ Q) E S -e ~ ~ -~ c :5 CIJ ::J c. .><: :a § u ?:-(J) '3 c CIJ 0 III ::J iIi ::J 0 ~ 17 SM - - - - 35 ~ 45 SM • - - 40- - - - - 45- - - - 50- - - - - 55- -le - McMillin. RQbertson Ranch ~ ~ c 0 ~ .a a:I CIJ BORING LOG W.O. 3098-A1-SC BORING HB-6 SHEET 2. OF 2. DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP III ~ '"" .:..r.' :-:':"', ..;,.. .~.' .~. '~'. ~ .~. '~'. '-(" '"" .~.' . ~. standard Penetration Test 'Sl.. Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material @ 30' SILTY SAND. light brown, saturated, medium dense.- SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE. green, wet, dense . Total Depth = 36.5' Groundwater @ 3D' Backfilled 10102/01 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-16 • TP-13 0-2 8M 2-4 8M r • • • W.O. 2863-A-SC Cal avera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS 'ur.~,",FUPTION TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, slightly moist, medium dense; weathered, rew dessication cracks, fine grained, massive. Total Depth = 4' No groundwater encountered Plate 8-20. • TP-12 O-Y2 SM %-1% SW 1%-2% SM 2%-8 SM • ~! • W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS .- ON SAND, dry, medium dense; few dessication cracks, fine to medium arained. some silt. TERRACE DEPOSITS: SIL TV SAND, slightly moist, brown, medium dense; weathered, few dessication cracks, fine massive SILTY SAND, yellow brown to olive brown, moist, medium' dense: fine arained. massive to weak subhorizontal Total Depth = 8' No groundwater encountered Plate 8-19 TP-10 0-2 SC 2-4 SC 4-7 ML 7-10 ML r • ", '\ '. ~ •~ • .~' w.o. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS BULK@7-8 COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, damp to moist, -roots and rootlets. CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine to coarse. well sorted. rounded. caliche TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY SILT,light yellowish brown, moist. medium dense: fine arained. well sorted: massive SANDY CLAY, gray, moist, medium dense; orange iron oxide stainina. massive. Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered Backfilled 05-12·00 Plate .8-18, • TP-9 0-4 CL 4-10 SC 10 r . tf .' W.O. 2863-A-SC Cal avera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS DESCRIPJ"ION' . COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, dry, loose; roots and rootlets - ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense; fine to co~rse grained, well sorted, laminated clay and sand lenses. oranae iron oxide. ·rounded. Plate 8-17. GeoSoilsl Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills ,... Sample ~ ,... 'V of-~ :I 'V I: of-0 'I-0\-of-aJ 'I-.-,... L 0\- '\. 1:'1-:I 111 .c rn 0 :J 0 of-L 0\-X. 3 111.0 a. rn :I a. 0 us ))'-' of- aJ :I III)) L 0 111 a III a:l :Jill a 1: III 10 CL 104.1 5 16 CL 106.6 18.4 88.3 BORING LOG W. O. _--=2::.;. 8:..:6:..:3:....:-A:..:--=S-=C~_ BORING 8-1 SHEET~OF 2 DATE EXCA VA TED _____ 4.;..-.-:.1-=3-=-O:.:O~ ___ _ SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Jb Hammer 30" drop m Standard Penetration Test ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample 1'% Water Seepage into hole Description of Material ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff.; roots and rootlets. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff, fine to medium grained well-sorted sand fraction. 104--4~+-~~~+-~~~~~~~~~~-1~0~'~,~C=L-A~Y~E=y~~~~~~--------------m-e-d~i-u~m----~ dense; fine to medium gra , well sorted, sLib-a·ngular . sands. @ 14', Groundwater encountered. 151--~~~~~~------+--r----r.~r-~~~~~~~~-~~~~--------~--~--------SP 15', SAND, wish brown, saturated, 13 No 19 SP College & Cannon Road/CaJavera Hills dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. @ 20' No recovery. @ 25', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; medium to coarse grained, well sorted, little fines. GeoSoilsl Inc. PLAT~ B-1~_ BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w. O. _---=2:,...8_6_3.....;-A-'--_S-'-C __ PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 8-1 SHEET .2:....0F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED _____ 4..:...-...:.1-=.3-.:0:.::0 ____ _ .... Sample ~ .... v SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib Hammer 30" drop +-~ . :I '-' C +-0 'I-+-'"' 01 c'l-L +- ::I III .c 0 ::l0 +-L +-!>! (1).0 a. IJI ::I a. UE JI'-' +- 01 ::I (l)JI L 0 III 0 III ::l(l) 0 I: CI) Description of Material P.il Standard Penetration Test ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample !\J Water Seepage into hole No 30!, No recovery. SC , CLAYEY brown to tan, saturated, urn dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. 40', yellowish brown, saturated, dense; fine grained. 454--+,~~~~S~C~------+---~---+~T7~~~,'C~L~A~Y7.E~Y~~~~~~b~r-o-w-n-,-s-a~t-u-ra~t-e~d-,--~u~m=-~--~ dense; fine to medium ed. 8 SC 55 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills @ 50', CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, loose; fine to medium grained. Total = 51 1 Groundwater encountered @ 14' Backfilled 04-13-00 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-19 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills ,... Sample X . '"' ..., ..-l-: :I "" C +-0 'I-..-..-01 'I-,... L ..- "-c> j IG IJJ 0 ::Jtl + L 3 CI.J.Q D. IJJ j 0 u e JI"" +- Cl.JJI L 0 IG III ::JCI.J 0 l: CI.J 8 SP 7 SP 15 SC 27 SC 25 28 SC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING LOG W.O. __ 2:...:8...:.6...::.3...::."A...:.-S~C __ BORING 8-5 SHEET~OF 2 DA TE EXCAVATED ____ ...:.4...:..1.:..4.:..-0~O=--___ ~ SAMPLE METHOD: 140Jb Hammer 30"drop mI Standard Penetration Test ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ Water Seepage into 'hole. Description of Material @ 2 1/2', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse grained. @ 5', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse grained. @ 9', Groundwater encountered. @ 10', No recovery. , medium @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained. @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. GeoSoils, Inc. BORING lOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING 8·5 SHEET~OF 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCA VA TED 4-14-00 Sample ,..., SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30"drop ~ . ,... v ,.. + l-: m :I v c Standard Penetration Test + 0 't-+ + QI - V <f-,..., L + ~ Water Seepage into hole 1"0 "--',> :l t1I ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample .c IIIjJJ III a :::J 0 + L + ~ .-.0 :3 CI).o a. III :J a. -"OL a U E Jl v .-+ QI :l C :l -Cl)Jl L a t1I Description of Material 0 III :::J+ III :::JCI) 0 I:: CI) m: 35 SC ~ BEDROCK « @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, denSe. ;~ .. Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 ..... 35 j 40 - 45- - - - - 5Q- - " - -, 1 ! -, 55- - - - -I College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-21 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT;CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills ,.." Sample ~ ,.." '-" ,.." +-~ :3: '-" C +-0 <f-+ + ,.." QJ <f-'c> L + 1"0 " ::l III .c UI 0 :J 0 +-L +-3 CI).Q a. UI ::l a. 0 ue JI'-" +- QJ Cl)JI L 0 III CI !II :JCI) CI 1: CI) 15 7 CL 25 6 SC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING LOG w. O. _-:2:..:8c.;:6-".:3...:.-A..:....-=..SC=--_ BORING 8-6 SHEET~OF 2 DATE EXCAVATED _____ 4..:...-...:.1..:...7--=-0:.:0 ___ _ SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30" drop ~ Standard Penetration Test ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ Water Seepage into hale :.r.. :....r. Description of Material ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, medium stiff; roots and rootlets, no recovery. brown, wet, loose, no recovery. ~: @ 9', groundwater encountered. 10', , dark brown, rated, stiff, to medium grained, orange iron oxide staining. @ 15'. SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, medium stiff .. @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; orange iron oxide staining. GeoSoils, Inc. PLAtE 8-22 BORING LOG • GeoSotls, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING 8-6 SHEET~OF 2 -- College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-17-00 Sample ,.., SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30" drop ~ ,.., >J ,.., + x m ::I '-' C Standard Penetration Test + 0 .... + + QJ .-f\:J Water Seepage into hole >J .... ,.., L + 1"0 "--c .... ::I 111 ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample J: 111111 (/) 0 :J 0 + L + >t. .-.c 3 en.c a. (/) ::I a. -"OL 0 U E J)>J .-+ III ::I C::I -en:n L 0 111 Description of Material 0 10 :J+ 10 :Jen 0 1: en m 30 SC ~ BEDROCK -,. .z @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining~ -' Total Depth = 31 112' -Groundwater encountered @ 9' ~ Backfilled 04-14-00 - 35- - -I ( •• - 40- - 45 - 50 ~ I 55- - - - GeoSoils, Inc. . College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills PLATE 8-23 • ( GeoSoiIs, Inc . PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills ,.... Sample ~ . ,.... v + ~ ::I .., C + 0 Cf-+ + QJ Cf-.-,.... L + "-cCf-::J 111 .c: UJ 0 :J 0 +-I- + :£ 3 1Il.D Q. UJ ::J Q. 0 U E JI'"' +- QJ ::J IIlJl I-0 111 Cl III III :Jill Cl 1: III 48 CL 5 30 20 17 BORING LOG W.O. __ 2;:..:8::..c:6:..:3::..c:-A...:.-...:;S:..::C __ BORING 8-7 SHEET_1_0F 1 DATE EXCAVATED ____ -.:4_-1:...:7_-0;:..:0=--___ _ SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hamm(;lr 30" drop m Standard Penetration Test ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ Wat~r Seepage into hole Description of Material DY CLAY, 'light brown, dry, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, hard. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff; Calcium carbonate and orange iron oxide. @ g', groundwater encountered .. dense, @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, very stiff. 25+--hw+~~~~-----+---+--~77rn~nn~------------------------~----------, 15' College & Cannon RoadfCalavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-24· APP'EN,DIX~ C " , .. ~ ,.', >. -', .h , .~- "' .... " -I. ' ,~ .' , " .... " [. ~, .' , ~" . , .... ' . .' • IL. (I) n. :z: 300 0 2500 2000 1500 • ~ ~I I-m z IIJ Ik: I-(I) Ik: <t IIJ :z: (I) l/ ~ ~ ....... / ~. 1000 500 o o 500 1000 1500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-01 Depth (i't): 5.0 Lesend: • Primary Test Method: Undisturbed Rins • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testins GeoSo i I s. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN 2000 2500 300-0 Results: Cohesion (psT) : 635 Friction Ans'!e: 22 Cohesion (psT): 598 Friction Ansle: 21 Ausust 2000 101'. 0.: 2863-SC Plate C,..1 • 3121121121 25121121 -2121121121 lL. f/) n. ..... J: I-~a~ V' 15121121 I!) Z W 0::: l- f/) ~ ~ \ ~: 0::: <t W J: f/) ~ V 1121121121 ~ ~ 5121121 121 5121121 1121121121 15121121 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-1212 Depth (""t): 5.121 Legend: • Primary Test Method: Remolded to 9121X 0"" 128.121 pc"" @ 1121.I2IX • Res i dual Sam~ie Innundated Prior To Testing GeeSo i Is. Inc. DIRECT SHE.AR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN 2121121121 25121121 300121 Results: Cohesion (ps",,): 623 Friction flngle: 23 Cohesion (ps",,): 612 Friction Angle: 23 Au,gust 201210 W.O.: 2863-SC Plat~ C-2 ~ (. ,... 1.1.. (J) II.. :J: I- (!) z IJJ D!: I-(J) D!: ([ IJJ :J: (J) 3000 2500 2000 ..... 1500 ~ ~ 1000 ~ ~ .. 500 o o Exploration: B-03 Test Method: Undisturbed Ring 500 1000 1500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: • Primary • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSoi Is, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN ~.~ 2000 ---=: I~ 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (psf): 8.11 Fri ct i,on Angle: 12 Cohesion (psf,) : 805 Friction Angle: 12 August 2000 W.O.: ,286·3-SC Plate C-3 • ,.., u. II) D.. J: 300 0 2500 2000 ~ /- lii 1500 Z W DC l- II) V ~. DC ([ W J: II) 1000 ~ ~ 500 o o 500 / 1000 1500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-03 Depth (-Ft): 10.0 Legend: • Primary Test Method: Undisturbed Ring • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing GeoSo i Is. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN 2000 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (ps'T) : 684 Fric:tion Angle: 22 Cohesion (psT): 685 Friction Angle: 22 August 2000 W.O .• : 2863-SC Plate C-4 • • LL. II) 11. :x: I-ID Z W ~ l-II) 300 iii 2500 2000 1500 /' ~ <J: W :x: II) 1000 / V .,' V ~ / V ~ 500 o o Exploration: 6-04 Test Method: Undisturbed Rins 500 1000 1500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: • Primar~ • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testins GeeSe i Is. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN 2000 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (psi') : 169 Friction Angl e: 28 Cohesion (psi'): 123 Friction Angle: 29 August 2000 W.O.: 28S3-SC Plate C-5 • • " 11. en a. ::I: l- t!) 300 0 2500 2000 1500 ~ v~ . . Z W ~ I-III ~ <C W ::I: en ~ v ~ 1000 v ~ ~ 500 7 o o Exploration: B-06 Test Method: 500 , 1000 1500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Depth (i't): 4.0 Legend: • Primary Remolded to 90X oi' 126.5 pci' @ 11.0Y. Sample Innundated Prior To Testing • Residual GeoSo i Is. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN 2000 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (psi') : 431 Friction Angle:· 25 Cohesion (pST): 481 Friction Angle: 24 August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC • c. l:l ~ -~ 6,000 5,000 : 4,000 "-~ ~ UI Co ~ :i G -~ z w a: I-3,000 en v--~ a: « w ~ J: en ~ I 2,000 ~ ~ ~ I 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/EI. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 'Yct MC% c c\» • TP-02 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1608 20 • TP-02 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1345 20 Note: Sample Inn undated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 'est 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~llJ Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate· C-7 6,000 • 5;000 4,000 V ~ -I/) Co :i" t5 / z W 0::: f-3,000 CJ) / 0::: « V w J: CJ) ~ '2,000 V Y 1,000 .d / 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Oepth/EI. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 1d MC% c , • TP-10 3.5 Primary Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 531 29 ~ • TP-10 3.5 Residual Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 514 29 ~ b " Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST leSI-5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ;~~,. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Number: 3098-A 1-SC "'~d# Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-8 -. 6,000 • 5,000 4,000 ~ -/ In a. :C G z w P 0: ~ 3,000 V 0: « w J: / CI) 2,000 / r- / 1,000 V / 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, pst Sample Oepth/EI. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 1d MC% c 4> • TP-26 3.0 Primary Shear Remolded 10'2.6 13.0 130 31 '" 51 • TP-26 3.0 Residual Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 98 31 en Sl 6 (!) al Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST !est-5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN " ," Carlsbad, CA 92008 yJ Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-9 6,000 • 5,000 V V 4,000 ~ .... I/) c. :C ~ z / w 0:: ~ 3,000 V 0:: « w :c / C/) 2,000 V ~ 1,000 ~ V ~ 6 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/EI. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 'Yci MC% c cfJ· • TP-32 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 464 35 N Q • TP-32 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 361 36 co N ~ Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TeST " 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ;{,~ Carlsbad, CA 92008 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Pla.teC,..10 .. N e ~ ~ en ::J ~ _. CJ) <Xl ~ .• ; :r: en ~ 0:: 15 rn ::J 6,000 5,000 4,000 -III a. :i ~ ~ ~ z w 0::: I-3,000 (J) V--0::: V L5 ::c (J) / 2,000 V / / 1,000 ~ / 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/E!. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 'Yct MC% c 4» • TP-35 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 250 27 • TP-35 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 208 28 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 'est-5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN . Carlsbad, CA 92008 4 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-11 .' • 6,000 / '/ 5,000 / V /' /. / 4,000 V V -V III Co :i ~ z w / 0:: l-3,000 en / 0:: « w :c V en • I ,./ 2,000 V V • 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/EI. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type 'Y.t MC% c cP • TP-39 B.O Primary Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 3189 48 N -g • TP-39 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14;3 1007 29 '" ~ b Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 'esf 5741 PalmerWay Project: MCMILLIN , • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~) Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-12 • C. • ~ ..., z ..... H <[ Q: I-CIl I- Z W U Q: w n. 1 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 -- 2 -~ ~ t-~ I- ---r---.... t--- 4 6 Exploration: 6-01 Depth: 5.0' I'~ )~ \ ~ -\ 1\ t-... 1\ ~ ~ r--1\ -I-H~ 1000 Z 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Undisturbed Rins Sample Dry Density (pcf): 107.5 Water content (%): 18.4 Sample Innundated @ 750 psf GeoSe i Is. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN Ausust 2000 W.O.: Z863-SC Plate C-13 • " :-: '-' z ..... H <I: D: I-III I-Z l.LJ 0' D: (. l.LJ a. 1 --I---~ ~ ", '" 1 '11 ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 2 4 ~ Ih. l- 6 Exploration: 8-01 Depth: 10.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 111.1 Water Content (Yo): 18.4 ~ 1\ '\ 1\ ~ ~ '1\ 1\ I-~ \ t--1\ -t- "'11" 1000 2 4 6 10000 STRESS (PSF) Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf 2 .~----------------~--~ CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS SeoSo i Is, Inc. McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-14 Ce • " x v Z ....... H <C ~ f-II) f- Z W (J ~ w a. 1 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 -... 2 --~ ~ l- 4~ I- 4 6 t--... I"--h ~ -'~ t---I"--I---r--... -------. ------ 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-02 Depth: 10.0' "'" ~~ 1\. f\ r---I--i---~ I-- 4 6 10000 2 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pci): 109.6 Water Content (X): 17.7 Samp I e Innu.ndated @ 125.0 psi GeoSo i I s, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN AugusT 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-15 • (. ..... ~ v ~ "' <[ D! I-m I-z III 0 D! III a. 1 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 --- 2 r---~ ~ I"---, 4~ "'- 4 6 ~ NI. ~ \ ""r--. "-~ '1 ~ 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-03 Depth: 5.0' 1\ \ 4 ~ \ 1\ \ 1\ I---i\ I---t---t--- 4 6 10000 2 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (peT): 96.8 Water Content (Yo): 25.2 Sample Innundated @ 750 PST GeoSo i I s, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN Augu!?t 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-16. • (. • " x z ...... H <[ ~ l-I/) I-Z W U ~ w 0. 1 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 .--- 2 !---~ ~ l'--- ~~ '" 4 6 "h ~ '1\ '" "-t-." ~'4 ~ 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-0~ Depth: 10.0' 1\ 1~ 1\ 1\' r--1\ ---r-Nt --- 4 6 10000 2 Und I sturbed Ring S.amp I e Dry Density (peT): 108.5 Water Content (Yo): 18.5 Sample Innundated. 1250 PST GeoSoi Is, Ine. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 212l12l0 W.o.: 2863-SC • :. '. ,.., ~ ...., z .... H <[ ~ f- (J) f- Z W U ~ w a. 1 o 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 100 ---- 2 r----N ~ r---. ---r-- 4 s II --,... .' "". '\ \ ~ \ J--I--I-~ ~ 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-04 Depth: 5.0' \ \ ~ \ i\ 1\ r--\ -.., 4 6 10000 2 Undisturbed Rins Sample Dr~ Densit~ (peT): 105.9 Water Content (Yo): 19.4 Sample Innundated @ 750 PST GeoSo i Is. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN Ausust 2000 ,W. O. : 2863-SC ,Plate C-18 ( • ,... ~ '"' z .,.,. H <t I:t: I-en I-Z lLI U I:t: lLI 0.. 1 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 100 ......... 2 t----I'i ~ t---., th ~ 4 6 l"'-f'-.. ~~ \. \ \ I--l--i-t------. ~ 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-04 Depth: 15.0' 1\ ~ ~ \ 1\ 1\ l-t--t--I-~~ 4 6 10000 2 Undisturbed Rins Sample Dry Density (pcf): 106.0 Water Content (x): 21.9 Sample Innundated @ 2000 psf GeoSo i I s, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN Ausust 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-19 .-I (. " ~ z .... H ([ 0:: I-r.n I-Z W 0 0:: W Q. 1 Cil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 100 2 --t-~ .~ f"-- 4 6 ~~ .~ ~ "'I'-~ I.. ---- 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploratlo~: 8-07 Depth: 5.0' 1\ I ~ \ 1\ 1\ I--\ r--t--~~ t-- 4 6 10000 .2 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcT): 11S.1 Water Content (Yo): 14.3 Sample Innundated @ 750 pST GeoSoi Is. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN AU'sust2000 W.O.:.2S6~-SC • • (. '" ~ z ...... H cr a:: I-(J) I-Z l1J U a:: l1J D.. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100 -- 2 ~ ~ f- 4~ l- 4 6 1'--"'11 ~ ~ ~ I-~ 1-,----. 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-08 Depth: 10.0' "" I~ ~ ~ "" i'-, 4 6 10000 2 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pc¥): 114.5 Water Content (Yo): 11.1 Sample Innundated @ 1250 ps' SeoSo i I s, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-21 -1 0 e.....: ~ il ~ 1 1'-.1', ~~ 2 \; 3 \ 4 \ *' ~ z ~ 5 \ I-en 1\ 6 \ 7 ). '\ • 8 I~ t---r-. 1\ 9 r----I----t"--1 It- 10 I-r---:. 11 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/EI. Visual Classification 1d MC MC H2O Initial Initial Final N • HB-1 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 105.7 20.5 17.3 250 ~ 5 C! to :5 U1 ::J ..., GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST ~ 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ". Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-22 • • '" ~ ~ b (!) ai :5 en ::l 0: ...J o en Z o (J en ::l -1 0 .. I--J-. ~. , 1 ... ~ ~ 2 ~" ~ '" ~~ '" i"- 3 ~ r--1'-" t--i'. -- 4 ?ft. Z ~ 5 I-en 6 7 8 9 10 11 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/EI. Visual Classification 'Y.i MC MC H2O Initial Initial Final • HB-1 15.0 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) 107.7 19.5 18.7 720 .. GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TESt lesf 5741 PalmerWay Project: MCMILLIN ~ • Carlsbad, CA 92008 2fj; Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-23 .. -1 0 --N ~ 1--1-~~ 1 ~ I'l ~ 2 I'--~~ , 3 '" -S. 4 *' Z ~ 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/EI. Visual Classification 'Y.s MC MC H2O Initial Initial .. Final ~ • HB-2 10.0 POORl Y GRADED SAND with Sll T{SP-SM) 100.9 20.8 . 18.3 250 S Ei C! co :5 III . GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST lest-5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN , Carlsbad, CA 92008 ;;j~ Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-24 • • '" ~ ~ b C! m S en ::J ~ C!) to m 0 .., (.~ , I-en ..J fil z 8 en ::J - -1 0 1 2 3 4 ?fl. Z ~ 5 I-C/) 6 7 8 9 10 11 100 Sample • HB-3 !'t l'~ eft; .- .. r:-:== N ..... , i--t--t--~~ .. ~ '-.. '4~ " "'-.. ,\ 1\ n--"" .\. 1,000 10,000 .. 105 STRESS, psf Depth/EI. Visual Classification 'Yci MC MC H2O Initial Initial Final 5.0 Silty Sand 100.6 9.5 18.0 2000 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 . Plate· C-25 - N ~ ~ 0 l- t!) 5 en :::> ~ t!) co '" o ej ..J o en Z 8 ~ - -1 0 --I--r--, ..... 1-1--- 1 f1~ ~ j-, 2 \ - ~ 3 '\ [\ I'). 4 1\ cf. r\ Z ~t-t-~ 5 --h l-I--- en ~ t-- 6 7 8 9 10 " 11 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/EI. Visual Classification 'Yci MC MC H2O Initial Initial Final- • HB-3 10.0 Sandy Clay 121.7 13;6 13.6 2500 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST lest. 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-26 -- ~ co ~ I- ..J a en 8 en ::> -1 ° 1 2 3 4 "if!. Z ~ 5 b) 6 7 8 9 10 11 100 Sample • HB-5 lit-'---N ~ '-..1'--. • i"'-1\ \, .. \ \. \ \ \ \ \ 1\ Ii ~ \ ""-i'-i' r---"" \ ~ ~ \ "l ~ '-..... '-..r---. N 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Oepth/EI. Visual Classification id. MC MC H~O Initial Initial Final 15.0 102.7 23.3 20.8 250 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-27 -1 0 ---r----h ~ i'-j---.. I' 1 ~~ "-2 ~ '" 3 ') ~ 4 1\ ~ 1\ z ~ 5 I-1\ CIJ ~ 6 !\ \ 7 4h 1--__ 8 ----\ '--------. ........ l-I--9 c-.c.... -. 10 11 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/EI. Visual Classification Y.t Me Me H2O Initial Initial Final '" • HB-6 5.0 Sandy Clay 107.5 12.5 16.9 2000 Q ~ b (!) ai :5 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST e q .. ~ 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN -; "..-Iii Carlsbad, CA 92008 P'~~~ 'f" Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-2~ • • N Q ~ b (!) :5 en ::l ii: (!) CD '" o (. i -1 0 1 2 3 4 * z ~ 5 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 100 Sample • HB-6 --1,.-. t-t-t-h ~ '1 It 4-. 1\ \ 1\ 1\ 1\ 4. 1\ 1\ \ 4~ i'-"r--"-~ \ -----1--1 k '""-~. 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Depth/EI. Visual Classification 'Y.t MC MC H2O initial Initial Final 15.0 106.7 11.7 16.3 2500 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-29 • • Co. 3" 0 9 0 8 0 7 0 ~ 60 H til til <t D.. I- Z W U ~ 50 ~ 40 30 20 10 o -~ SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 -. ,... • r-~ K -.-~ IIF-I~ i'-. r\ ----~ I)f\ \ 1\ 1\ ~ . " ). ~~ 1\ \ \ ~ t'!k-~ ~ 1\ [\ ~ \ 10 1 0.1 PARTICLE SI2E IN MILLIMETERS r---.- Ir-. 1"-~ ."Ii ~ ~ It ft r--.. f ... "I'll--1'--1'----"'-. h ~' ~ , 0.01 0.001 1 GRAVEL I SAND SILT CLAY coarse I Tine Icoarsel med i um I 'T i ne EXPLORATION DEPTH • 6-01 15.0 • 6-01 20.0 ... 6-02 10.0 • 6-02 20.0' GeoSo i I s, Inc. LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C .. 30 (. (!) z H III III <I: 0- I-Z UJ 0 ~ UJ 0- C. SIEVE ANALYSIS 3" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 - 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 iii 1121 l GRAVEL I coarse I fine EXPLORATION DEPTH • B-12I3 25.0 • 8-1214 1121..121 A B-12I4 2121.0 • 8-1215 5.121 GeoSoils. Inc. ~ \ ~ • ------l\ '" 1\ '\ \ ~,\ \ \\ 1\ [\ \ \ .. \ \ \ \ 1'1 ~ ~ 1\ ""- \ " l'~ \ coarsel LL 37 36 ,\ , 1\ • I"-i\ ~ re I--a - ~. -----I 1 121.1 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND SILT medium I fine PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION 21 . SC CLAYEY SAND 19 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN A ...... ') ~ ~ - 121.1211 CLAY August 201210 W.O.: 2B63-SC Plate C-3.1 -. .. 0.001 \ •" , • ( 3" 10 0 90 80 70 ~ 60 H (I) (I) <C Q. ..... Z lJJ U ~ 50 ~ 40 30 20 10 o 3/4" 3/8" -... - 10 GRAVEL coarse I fine EXPLORATION DEPTH • B-05 25.0 • B-06 15.0 A B-06 25.0 • B-:-07 10.0 SeoSo i Is. Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 ----. f\ f---~ ~ ~, ~I. 1\ '\ 1\ I. \I~ \ 1\ 1\ Il 1\ 1\ \\ • \ 1\ II \ l-II ~ I. If=; ill I;.- ~ r--1--_ \ -- i'-.. ""'-. 1 0.1 0.01 0.00 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND T 1 1 ,SILT CLAY coarseJ LL medium Tine . PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 '1.1. 0.: 2863-SC Plate C-32 • • SIEVE ANALYSIS 3" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 10 0 9 0 80 70 ~ 60 H (1.1 (1.1 <C a.. I-Z W U ~ 50 If 40 30 20 10 -1\ \ '\ - 10 GRAVEL coar:se I fine EXPLORATION DEPTH • B-07 25.0 • 8-08 15.0 A 8-09 10.0 • 8-09 30.0- GeoSo i I s. Inc. 1\ -• 1""'""-I--) ~ '1= ~ ~. \ ~ '" \ 1\ \ • I') I~ It ~ '\ \ \ t\ ~ \ "-'\ ~ ~~ • \ tAI~ r-- -----'r--. )l. 1''' I'e '\ '""--:.i It 1\ \ ~ ]~ r-.. ~. I'a. ~ '" ~ ~ •• ". ,.. re ~ -I r---.-1'1 -[lIt- ~ r-.. r-. r--.. 14 1--11 I"-1'1 ~ r-. 1 0.1 121.1211 121.1211211 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS . - SAND I SILT CLAY coarsel medium fine LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION PARTICLE SIZt:. DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C..,33 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 I , II , , I I' , , I , , r--~ I I , , , , , , , , I 95 :\ , , , , I , , I 90 , , , , , I , , I , , , I I ~ I I , , , , 85 \ , I I I I , I I I I 80 , , , , , , , , , \ , , , , I , , , I , , 75 ~ , , , , , , , , , , 70 , , , , , , , , \ , , , , , , 1-65 , , , , , :r: , , , , \ , C> I , , , , iii 60 , , , , , , , , , 5: , , , , , ~55 , , , , , , , , , c:: , , , , 'I\, W50 , z , , , , , i\ ~45 , , , , , , , , , , I). z , , , , , \ w , , , I I () 41:) I I , , , ~ 0:: , , I , I W I , I , I ""-0..35 "-, , , , , , , I I I I 30 I I , I I -~ I I I , I 25 I I , I I "-, I , , I • , , , , , 20 , , I I I I I I I I 15 , I I , , , , , I I , , I I I 10 , I I I I I I I I I 5 , I , I I I , I I , 0 , , , I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 . 0.001 GRA1N SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND J SILT OR CLAY I I coarse I fine I coarse medium fine I Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu •• HB-1 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLA Y(CL) 36 15 . 21 Sample Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I .%Clay ~. HB-1 10.0 2 0.094 0.006 0.0 46.4 . 24;0 29.6 • GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION '·eSf 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-34 U:S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 .4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140200 • 100 I I II I I I II I I II I I 1 I I I ~~ I I I I 95 I I I ~ I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I 1\ I 85 I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I 75 I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 I I I I I I I I I I ~65 I I I I I II I I I I I .~ C!> I I I I I • jjj 60 I I I I I I I ~~ ~ I I I I I 1ri 55 I I I I I I I I I I "I 0:: I I I I I w50 I I I I Z I I I I I t'--___ ~45 I I I I I ~ I I I I I Z I I I I I ~. ~40 I I I I I I I I I I 0:: I I I I I W I I I I I 0..35 I I I I I I I I I I 30 I I I I I I I I I I 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20 I I I I I I I I I I • 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I 5 I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND I I I I fine I coarse medium, I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine ,Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • HB-1 30.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 49 20 29 Sample Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay "'. HB-1 30.0 4.75 0.025 0.0 30.3 20:3 49.4 GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTiON ~ 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN • Carlsbad, CA 92008 & Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-36 • • u.s. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES u.s. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4. 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 I II I: I II I I I 1'--J.... : I I I I I 95~~-+--~~~+-~~--+H++~-+-4---4+H~~4-~---H~~+-~+---+H++++-+~---; I I I I 90~_4--+_---H~+4~~~~:--_+~~*:4-4--+----~+4~~~~---4+¥.~~~--+----+HH+-~-+--~--4 I I I I 85~~~---H*H4-~-4~~+H44H-+-4---+H+++tt~-+--~~~+-~+---#+~~H-~--~ I I I I 80~-+--~--~~++~~-1~: ---+HH~~:~~-+----H+++~r-~~---++*Hr~-1--+-~-H~~-+-+~r---1 I I I I 75~-r-+---+~+++-+-~--~~~~~r-~~HH~~~---H~rr+-r-+---+H++~~~---; I I I I I I 70~_4--+_---H~:~+-r-r-~:---+rHrrr.:+-+--+----~++~r-r-4-~-++*,rr~~--+---~HH~-+-+--r-~, I I I I I I I I ~65~_+--~---H~1~+-r-r-~, --_+rHrr~I+-+--+----~++~r-r-4---~~,rr~~--+---~HH~-+~~r---, C!) I I I I w60~_+--~---H~I+++_r-r_~1 --_+HH4_r.+-+--+----H+++~r-r-+----+~rr~-+--+----H1+~-+-+--r---; $: ::: I l ~55r+-+--r----H~,+++-r-r-~Ir---+H~~I+-+--+----H+~"r-r-+----+~,rr~,.~~--+----H1+~-+-+~r-__; 0:: : I I I "-~50~-+--~---H~:~+-r-r-~: ---+HH~~:+-+--+----H+++~~r-4----4~:~~-4~~+a----~+44-+-~~---4 ~45~-+--~---H~1+++-r-r-~1 --_+HH4_~I+_+__+----H+++"r_r_4_--_+rm'Hr~_+--+~~~~+++_r_r__r--_4 z I I I " I I I I II. ~40~-+--+----H+:~+-r-r-~:---+THHrr.:+-+--+----rK++~:r-r-4----++*:rr~~--+----+HH;9kT~-.+ .• --r_--, W I I I I I ~ ~35~-+~----~+++1-+--w_--+H++,,~r_+_--~HHHr~r_~--_H~r++_+__r--_+H+~_r~~~_; ---. 30~-+--~---H~1+++-r-r-~, --_+rH_rr.I+-+--+----H+++~,r-r-+----+~,Hr~-+--+----H1+~-+-+--r---, I I I I 1 25~_+--~---H~1+++_r_r_~' --_+HH_r~I+_+__+----H+++~Ir_r_+_--_+nm'Hr~_+--+_--_H1+~_+_+--r_--, I I 20~_+--+----H~I~+-r-r-~I---+rHrrr.I+-+--+----rK++~Ir-r--r---++b,rr~~--+----+HH~-+-+--r---; I I I I I 15~-+--~---H~I+++-r-r-4rI---+HH~~I+-+--+----H+++~'~r-4----+~'~~-4--+----HH4~-+-+~r---, I I 10~_+--~---H~1+++-r-r-~, --_+HH~~I+-+--+----H+++~Ir-r-4----+~,~~-4--+----H4+~-+-+--r---, I I I I I 5~_+--~--4+~1+++_r-r_1r' --_+HH+_~I+_+__+----H++++.Ir_r_+_--_+~'Hr~_+--+_--_H1+~_+_+~r___; I I I I I I I I 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I I 0~~~ __ ~±W~~~~ __ ~~~w-~~--~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~w-~~~~ 100 10 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND SILT OR CLAY J coarse medium fine I I COBBLES I GRAVEL -' coarse fine Sample Depth Classification , LL PL PI Cc Cu • HB-5 15.0 Sample Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay 15.0 0.081 0.0 41.4 ~. HB-5 ~.-+----------+--------r---------+---------+----------r---------+------~--------r---------------~ 18.4 40:2 4.75 5.-+----------+--------r---------+---------;----------r---------+-------+--------r---------------~ ~'.-~--------~--------L---------~---------L---------L--------~------~~------L-~------------~ ~.-----------------------------------------------.-------------------------------~------~------~ (. ~ GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ~ cfi'~ .~.. 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN 'Plate C-39 tI) ';" ,'_ • Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ )!:' "Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A1-SC ~ Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 ~IL. ______________________ ~ ________________________________________________________________ --~ • • U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 I : II I: I : I I : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0.1 I COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND fine I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine medium coarse Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • HB-5 25.0 CLAYEY SAND(SC) 36 15 21 Sample Depth 0100 060 030 010 % Gravel %Sand %Silt I ~IoClay 0.037 0.8 ~. HB-5 ~~+----------+--------~--------+---------~---------r---------+-------1----~--~------------~~ ;:: 63.2 13.0 23.0 25.0 9.423 0.266 b~+----------+--------~--------+---------~--------~---------+------~--------~--------------~ (!) ~!~+----------+--------+---------+---------~---------+---------+-------1~--~--+---------------~ ~~~ ________ ~ ________ L-________ ~ ________ -L ________ -L ________ ~ ______ ~L-______ L-______________ ~ ~~----------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------~ • ~ GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION ~~ GIS'" ',1J=-!0,",!-5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ,> Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A1-SC ~ Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 ~'~=-----------------------------------~------~--------------------------------------------~ Plate C-40 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2 B 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140200 100 I I II I I I I ~~ I I I I I I I I I 95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1\ 1 I 85 I I I I I I 1 I I~ 1 I 1 1 1 80 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I 75 1 I I I I I I I i\ I I 1 I 1 70 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 ~65 1 1 1 I 1\ I I I I 1 1,\ I (!) 1 1 1 I I iij 60 1 I I I I 1 I \ 1 3: I I 1 I 1 >-55 1 I 1 1 1 III 1 I I 1 1 0:: 1 I 1 1 1\ I w50 I z 1 1 I 1 ': 1 ~45 1 I I I I I I I I I. Z 1 I I I '\ 1 ~40 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I \ I 0:: I 1 1 1 1 ~35 I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I ~ 30 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I r. '-a 25 I 1 1 I I ; 1 1 1 1 ... ~ 1 1 I I 1 20 I I 1 1 I r-1 I I I I '-t r---. 1 I I 1 I r--... 15 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 10 I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 5 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 0 1 I 1 1 I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND I I· I I I coarse I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine medium fine Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • HB-6 15.0 Sample Depth 0100 060 030 010 %Gravel O/OSand O/OSiit I -%Clay ~. HB-6· 15.0 9.423 0.231 0.056 0.4 67.5 13.1 19.1 '" ~ 6 GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION leSt· 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate {;-41 • I b Cl ~ I/) ::J 0: Cl ce: U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 Ii 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 I I II I I I " I ~~ I I I I I I I I I I 95 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 90 I I I I I I I I ~I\ I I I I I 85 I I I I I I I \ I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I , I I I I 75 I I I I I I I I \ I I , I 70 I I ". I I I I I I !i: 65 I I I I I I \ C) I I I . i jjj 60 I I I I I \ I ~ I I I I >-55 I I I I III I I I \ I 0:: I I I I w50 I I Z I I I I \ I ~45 I I I I I I I I I I Z I I I I \ I ~40 I I I I I I I I I I I 0:: I I I I I W I I I I 0..35 I I I I I I I I I I \ 30 I I I I I I I I I I ~ 25 I I I I I ...... I I I I I "t I I I I I '---e-. 20 I I I I I I I I I I "- 15 I I I I I 'l. I I I I I .......... ~ I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I 5 I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY I I coarse I fine -coarse medium fine I Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu •• HB-6 25.0 Sample Depth 0100 D60 D30 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I -%Clay • HB-6 25.0 4.75 0.167 0.051 0.0 64.5 16.7 18.8 GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION i 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ", Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ . Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A 1-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-42 • 6 121 5121 ,...- ~ 4121 v x w o Z H >-I- H U H I-(I) ..... 3121 5 2121 n. 1121 121 121 ML-CL 1121 2121 EXPLORATION • B-12I3 • B-12I4 GeoSo i 15. Inc. CH V,/ / / CL / // / • / • 1/ / v 7 ML 3121 4121 5121 6121 7121 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) DEPTH (oft) 25.121 2121.0 LL 37 36 PL 16 16 PI 21 19 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS McMILLIN MH 8121 V / 90 100 11111 August 2121121121 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-43 60 V~ ;/ " CL CH / 50 /. // V / / ./ (J) 40 / 0 / V z / / ~ / ~ 30 A / ~ . / 0-/. ./ 20 / V / • 10 V / / V CL-ML / ML MH Q, I 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT • Sample Depth/EI. LL PL PI Fines Classification • HB-1 10.0 36 15 21 54 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-1 15.0 NP NP NP 5 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) A HB-1 30.0 49 20 29 70 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-2 10.0 NP NP NP 6 POORLY GRADED SAND with SIL T(SP-SM) • HB-2 25.0 32 16 16 42 CLAYEY SAND(SC) o(lo HB-5 25.0 36 15 21 36 CLAYEY SAND(SC) , I I- GeoSoils, Inc. ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESUL TS est 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN . c. Carlsbad, CA 92008 1:,' Number: 3098-A 1-SC Q\ Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-44 (e (. b C! S UJ ::> 0: C! '" (Xl o 60 50 ~ 40 ·0 6 ?: ~ 30 ~ ....I a. 20 10 0 0 Sample • TP-01 •. TP-02 / / V / CL-ML ./ I 20 Depth/EI. LL 0.0 51 3.0 43 1/ v V CL CH / / ",7 V / / / / / V / • / / / V / / '" / ~ /' ML MH 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT PL PI Fines Classification 15 36 25 18 Clay ~ . ~I~-----------------------------------'------------------------~--------~ (e. ::::; ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS . GeoSoils, Inc. ffi "',~ 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ~ "'. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ 41. Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-A1-SC ~ Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 ::>.~------------------------=----------*----------~----------------------~ Plate C-45 " .,! • ~'., . .... : ":' , :' .. r .,-... "-, "-, ~ .. ' . : .- ," ... ' '. :.,.5 (. -,\.- -.. ~, , , -'~, ,- ',', • -,> . ,,~ . ", ",. " ~ -", , :" ~ : ,-. , : ::r' ,"; "-" =-.~ . .'. .. r:,· .,.~, ._. ,,,,.,, :: .. 'f .... ' ~", .: ...... " . . ~., : ...... , ~. ~.~ , . "- ~ .... -- "::'f'," .~ .. -- SOIL PROFILE NAME: 2863B9 LAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD N # (ft) (blows/ft) -------------------------- 1 10.0 5.0 -------------------------- 2 12.5 5.0 -------------------------- 3 17.5 4.0 -------------------------- 4 22.5 4.0 -------------------------- 5 27.5 11.0 -_ ........ ---------------------- 6 32.5 10.0 -------------------------- 7 37.5 15.0 -- ------------------------ 8 42.5 8.0 -------------------------- 9 47.5 9.0 .---------------------- 52.5 16.0, -----------------.-- - - - - --- ************************ * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * * ************************ LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 138.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0 ) 130.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0 ) 125.0' -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0 ) 125.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 -------------------------- UNSUSr::EPTIBLE (0) 125.0 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 -------------------------- FINES D ~mm) DEPTH OF %<#200 50 SPT (ft) ------.... ------------- 10.0 ;1. 000 5.25 -------------------- 43.7 0.150 10.25 -------------------- 40.0 0.150 15.25 -------------------- 40.0 0.150 20.25 -- --_.--------------- 45.0 0.100 25.25 -------------------- 70.6 0.060 30.25 ---,----------------- 70.0 0.0,60 35.25 -------------------- :]0.0 0.060 40.25 -------------------- 70.0 0.060 45.25 -------------------- 70.0 0.060 50.25 -------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------~--- Plate D-1 ******************* * * • * L I QUE F Y 2 * * * * Version 1.30 * * * ***~*************** EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B9 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 ~ITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) . • LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Plate D-2 •---------------- ER [1996] Method ---------------- PAGE 1 CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQU~. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS' SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%-) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+-~----+--,---- @ @ @ 1 0.25 0.017 0.017 5 40 1 0.75 0.052 0'.052 5 40 1 1.25 0.086 0.086 5 40 1 1.75, 0.121 0.121 5 40 1 2.25 0.155 0.155 5 40 1 2.75 0.190 0.190 5 40 1 3.25 0.224 0.224 5 4'0 1 3.75 0.259 0.259 5 40 1 4.25 0.293 0.293 5 40 1 4.75 0.328 0.328 5 40 1 5.25 0.362 0.362 5 40 1 5.75 0.397 0.397 5 40 1 6.25 0.431 0.431 5 40 1 6.75 0.466 0.466 5 40 1 7.25 0.500 0.500 5 40 1 7.75 0.535 0.535 5 40 1 8.25 0.569 0.569 5 40 1 ' 8.75 0.604 0.604 5 40 1 9.25 0.638 0.630 5 40 1 9.75 0.673 0.649 5 40 2 10.25 0.706 0.667 5 • 10.75 0.739 0.684 5 11.25 0.771 0.701 5 11.75 0.804 0.718 5 2 12.25 0.836 0.735 5 3 12.75 0.868 0.751 4 3 13.25 0.899 0.767 4 3 13.75 0.931 0.782 4 3 14.25 , 0.962 0.798 4 3 14.75 0.993 0.'814 4 3 15.25 1.024 0.829 4 3 15.75 1.056 0.845 4 3 16.25 1.087 ,0.861 4 3 16.75 1.118 0.876 4 3 17.25 1.149 0.892 4 4 17,.75 1.181 0.908 4 4 18.25 1.212 0.923 4 4 18.75 1.243 0.939 4 4 19.25 1.274 0.955 4 4 19.75 1.306 0.970 4 4 20.25 1.337 0.986 4 4 20.75 1.368 1.002 4 4 21. 25 1.399 1.017 4 4 21.75 1.431 1.033 4 4 22.25 1.462 1. 049 4 5 22.75 1.493 1.064 11 CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) ( %-) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @? 1.709 7.6 0.086 1.709 7.6 0.086 CORR. LIQUE. r C (N1) 60 RESIST N (B/ft) RATIO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.958 0.955 r d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'cgl @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.143 0.60 0.146 0.59 Plate D-3 PAGE 2 INDUC. LIQUE. STRESS SAFETY RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 5 5 •• 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7" 7 7 7 7 8 8 • 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 23.25 23'.75 24.25 24.75 25.25 25.75 26.25 26.75 27.25 27.75 28.25 28.75 29.25 29.75 30.25 30.75 31.25 31.75 32.25 32.75 33.25 33.75 34.25 34.75 35.25 35.75 36.25 36.75 37.25 37.75 38.25 38.75 39.25 39.75 40.25 40.75 41.25 41.75 42.25 42.75 43.25 43.75 44.25 44.75 45.25 45.75 46.25 46.75 . 47.25 47.75 48.25 48.75 49.25 1.524 1. 556 1. 587 1.618 1. 649 1.681 1. 712 1.743 1.774 1. 806 1. 837 1. 868 1. 899 1.931 1. 962 1. 993 2.024 2.056 2.087 2.118 2.149 2.181 2.212 2.243 2.274 2.306 2.337 2.368 2.399· 2.431 2.462 2.493 2.524 2.556 2.587 2.618 2.649 2.681 2.712 2.743 2.774 2.806 2.837 2.868 2.899 2.931 2.962 2.993 3.024 3.056 3.087 3.118 3.149 NC~ER [1996] Method 1. 080 1. 095 1.111 1.127 1.142 1.158 1.174 1.189 1.205 1.221 1.236 1.252 1.268 1. 283 1,299 1.315 1.330 1.346 1.362 1.377 1.393 1.408 1.424 1.440 1.455 1.471 1.487 1.502 1.518 1. 534 1.549 1.565 1.581 1. 596 1. 612 1. 628 1.643 1.659 1. 675 1. 690 1. 706 1.721 1.737 1.753 1. 768 1. 784 1. 800 1.815 1. 831 1. 847 1.862 1. 878 1.894 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 '8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 PAGE 3 . r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (%) N (B/ft) RA'J;'IO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------T------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 10 49.75 3.181 1.909 16 -~ --10 50.25 3.212 1.925 16 ..Plat D-=.4. 10 50.75 3.243 1.941 16 --- ,10 10 10 51.25 51.75 52".25 3.274 3.306 3.337 1. 956 1.972 1. 988 16 16 16 PIClte 0-5 • SOIL PROFILE NAME: 2863Bl LAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD N # (ft) (blows/ft) --------------------------- 1 7.5 7.0 ----------"---------------- 2 12.5 9.0 -------------------------- 3 17.5 12.0 ----------------- - ----"---- 4 22.5 7.0 -------------------------- 5 27.5 19.0 -------------------------- 6 32.5 6.0 -------------------------- 7 37.5 11. 0 -------------------------- 8 42.5 15.0 -------------------------- 9 47.5 15.0 ~.~ --------------------- 51. 5 8.0 --------------------- ************************ * * * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * ************************ LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pef) -------------------------..:.. SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 132.5 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1 ) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 --------------------------SUSCEPTIBLE (1 ) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE .( 1) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 -------------------------- FINES %<#200 D 5mm) DEPTH OF 50 8PT (ft) ------ 30.0 0.160 ' 5.25 ------ 30.0 10.25 ------ 32.5 0.160 15.25 ------ 25.0 0.200 20.25 ------ 25.0 0.200 25.25 -------'-- --~ ~- 25.0 0.200 ------ 25.0 0.150 35.2"5 ------ 25 .. 0 0.150 40.25 ------ 25.0 o . 150 . :45.2·,5 ------ 25.0 0.150 50.25 ------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------~-------- • Plate 0-6 • ******************* * * * L I QUE F Y 2 * * * * Version 1.30 * * * ******************* EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B1 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 ~ITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 F~D SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) . • LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Plate D-7 •---------------R [1996] Method PAGE 1 -~----------------- CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL -DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%-) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 0.75 0.047 0.047 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.25 0.078 0.078 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1. 75 0.109 0.109 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.25 0.141 0.141 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @@ 1 2.75 0.172 0.172 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.25 0.203 0.203 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ '@ @ 1 3.75 0.234 0.234 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.25 0.266 0.266 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ,4.75 0.297 0.297 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.25 0.328 0.328 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ -@ @ 1 5.75 0.359 0.359 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 6.25 0.391 0.391 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @@ 1 6.75 0.422 0.422 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @- 1 7.25 0.453 -0.453 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 7.75 0.485 0.485 9 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 8.25 0.518 0.518 9 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 8.7!) 0.552 0.552 9 49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 9.25 0.585 0.577 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.958 0.143 1.12 2 9.75 0.618 0.594 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.16'0 0.955 0.147 1.09 • 10.25 0.651 0.612 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.953 0.150 1.07 10.75 0.684 0.630 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.951 0.i53 1.05 11.25 0.717 0.647 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.949 0.155 1.03 2 11.75 0.750 0.665 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.946 0.158 1.02 2 12.2.5 0.783 0.682 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.944 0.160 1.00 3 12.75 0.816 0.699 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.942 0.162 1.19 3 13.25 0.847 0.714 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0,939 0.165 1.18 3 13.75 0.878 0.730 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.937 0.167 1.16 3 14.25 0.909 0.746 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.935 0.169 1.15 3 14.75 0.941 0.761 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 o .933 ' 0.170 1.14 3 15.25 0.972 0.777 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.930 0.17.2 1.12 3 15.75 1.003 0.793 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.928 0.174 1.11 3 16.25 1.034 0.808 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.926 0.175 1.11 3 16.75 1.066 0.824 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.923 0.177 1.10 3 17.25 1.097 0.840 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.921-. 0.178 1'.09 4 17.75 1.128 0.855 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.919 0.179 0.69 4 18.25 1.159 0.871 7 40 1.065 11.4 .0.124 0.917 0.180 0.69 4 18.75 1.191 0.886 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.-914 0.181 0,.69 4 19.25 1.222 0.902 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.912 0.183 0.68 4 19.75 1. 253 0.918 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.910 0.184 0.68 4 20.25 1.284 0.933 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.907 0.185 0.67 4 20.75 1. 316 0.949 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.905 0.185 0.67 4 21.25 1.347 0.965 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.903 0 .. 186 0.67 4 21.75 1. 378 0.980 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.901 0.187 0.66 4 22.25 1.409 0.996 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.898 0.188 0.66 5 22.75 1.441 1. 012 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.896 0.189 1.32 •---------------~ R [1996] Method PAGE 2 -~----------------- Plate 0-8 '-CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%-) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+---~-+------+------22.6 0.248 0.894 0.189 1.31 5 23.25 1.472 1.027 19 64 5 23".75 1. 503 1.043 19 64 itt 24.25 1. 534 1.059 19 64 24.75 1.566 1.074 19 64 25.25 1. 597 1. 090 19 64 5 25.75 1. 628 1.106 19 64 5 26.25 1. 65·9 1.121 19 64 5 26.75 1.691 1.137 19 64 5 27.25 1.722 1.153 19 64 6 27.75 1.753 1.168 6 35 6 28.25 1. 784 1.184 6 35 6 28.75 1.816 1.199 6 35 6 29.25 1. 847 1. 215 6 35 6 29.75 1. 878 1. 231 6 35 6 30.25 1. 909 1.246 6 35 6 30.75 1. 941 1.262 6 35 6 31.25 1. 972 1.278 6 35 6 31.75 2.003 1.293 6 35 6 32.25 2.034 1.309 6 35 7 32.75 2.066 1.325 11 45 7 33.25 2.097 1.340 11 45 7 33.75 2.128 1.356 11 45 7 34.25 2.159 1.372 11 45 7 34.75 2.191 1.387 11 45 7 35.25 2.222 1.403 11 45 7 35.75 2.253 1.419 11 45 7 36.25 2.284 1.434 11 45 7 36.75 2.316 1.450 11 45 7 37.25 2.347 1.466 11 45 8 37.75 2.378 1.481 15 52 8 38.25 2.409 1.497 15 52 \. 38.75 2.441 1.512 15 52 39.25 2.472 1.528 15 52 39.75 2.503 1.544 15 52 8 40.25 2.534 1.559 15 52 8 40.75 2.566 1.575 15 52 8 41.25 2.597 1.591 15 52 8 41.75 2.628 1.606 15 52 8 42.25 2.659 1. 622 15 52 9 42.75 2.691 1.638 15 50 9 43.25 2.722 1. 653 15 50 9 43.75 2.753 1.669 15 50 9 44.25 2.784 1.685 15 50 9 44.75 2.816 . 1.700 15 50 9 45.25 2.847 1.716 15 50 9 45.75 2.878 1.732 15 50 9 46.25 2.909 1.747 15 50 9 46.75 2.941 1.763 15 50 9 47.25 2.972 1.779 15 50 10 47.75 3.003 1.794 8 36 10 48.25 3.034 1. 810 8 36 10 48.75 3.066 1.825 8 36 10 49.25 3.097 1. 841 8 36 NCEER [1996] M~thod r NO. (%) ----+------+------+------+------+------ 10 49.75 3.128 1.857 8 36 10 50.25 3.159 1.872 8 36 10 50.75 3.191 1.888 8 36 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0'.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.921 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.868 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.824 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.752 0.752 0.752 0.752 C N 0.752 0.752 0.752 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 22.6 0.248 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 10.2 0.109 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 14.2 0.149 17.0 0.175 17.0 0.175 17.0 0.175. 17.0 0.175 17'.0 0.175 17.0 0.175 17.0 0.175 17.0 0.175 17.0 0.175 17.0 0.175 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 16.5 0.167 10.7 0.107 10.7 0.107 10.7 0.107 10.7 0.107 (N1)60 RESIST (B/ft) RATIO 0.891 0.190 1.31 0.889 0.190 1.30 0.887 0.191 1.30 0.885 0.192 1.30 0.882 0.192 1.29 0.880 0.192 1.29 0.878 0.193 1.29 0.875 0.193 1.28 0.873 0.194 0.56 0.871 0.194 0.56 0.869 0.194 0.56 0.866 0.195 0.56 0.864 0.195 0.56 0.862 0.195 0.56 0.859 0.195 0.56 0.857 0.195 0.56 0.855 0.196 0.56 0.853 0.196 0.56 0.850 0.196 0.76 0.848 0.196 0.76 0.846 0.196 0.76 0.843 0.196 0.76 0.841 0.196 0.76 0.839 0.196 0.76 0.837 0.196 0.76 0.834 0.196 0.76 0.832 0.196 0.76 0.830 0.196 0.76 0.827 0.196 0.89 0.825 0.196 0.89 0.823 0.196 0.8'9 0.821 0.196 0.89 0.818 0.196 . 0.89 0.816 0.196 0.89 0.814 0.196 0.89 o .8l1 0.196 0.89 0.809 0.196 0.90 0.807 0.195 0.90· 0.805 0.195 0.85 0.802 0.195 0.85 0.80b 0.195 0.85 0.798 ' 0.19)5 0.86 0.795 0.195 0.86 0.793 0.194 0.86 0.791 0.194 0.86 0.789 0.194 0.86 . 0.786 0.194 0.86 0.784 0.194 ' 0.86 0.782 0.193 '0,55 0.779 .0.193 0.55 0.777 0.193 0.56 0.775 0.193 0.5.6 PAGE 3 . r STREBS SAFETY d RATIO FACTOR ------+------+-----+-----~+------ 10.7 0.107 0.773 0.192 0.56 10.7 0.107 0.770 0.192' 0.56 10.7 0.107 0.768 0.192 0.56 Plate D-9 • SOIL PROFILE NAME: 2863B2 LAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N # (ft) (blows/ft) -------------------------- 1 10.0 6.0 -------------------------- 2 12.5 10.0 -------------------------- 3 17.5 6.0 -------------------------- 4 25.0 8.0 -------------------------- 5 30.0 27.0 - ------------------------- ************************ * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * * ************************ LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pef) -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1) 112.0 --------------------------UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0 ) 127.5 -------------------------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0 ) 125.0 -------------------------- SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1) 125.5 --------------------------SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.5 -------------------------- FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF %<#200 50 SPT (ft) -------------------- 25.0 0.150 5.25 --------------.:;. --...;.'--- 41.8 0.140 10.25 ------------,-------- 35.0 0.1;30 15.25 -------------~------ 35.0 0.150 20.25 -------------------- 35.0 0.150 25.25 --------------------- -----------------~~---------------------~-------------------------------------- • Plate D-10 ******************* * * * L I QUE F Y 2 * * * * Version 1.30 * * * ******************* EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: w.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B2 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: .1.00 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: l.OO ~ITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Plate D-11 -.---------------( R [1996] Method ------------------ PAGE :J.. CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUe. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (Nl)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (% ) N (B/ft) RATIO d AATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------@ @ @ 1 0.25 0.014 0.014 6 45 @ 1 0.75 0.042 0.042 6 45 @ 1 1. 25 0.070 0.070 6 45 @ 1 1.75 0.098 0.098 6 45 @ 1 2.25 0.126 0.126 6 45 @ 1 2.75 0.154 0.154 6 45 @ 1 3.25 0.182 0.182 6 45 @ 1 3.75 0.210 0.210 6 45 @ 1 4.25 0.238 0.238 6 45 @ 1 4.75 0.266 0.266 6 45 @ 1 5.25 0.294 0.294 6 45 @ 1 5.75 0.322 0.322 6 45 @ 1 6.25 0.350 0.350 6 45 @ 1 6.75 0.378 0.378 6 45 @ 1 7.25 0.406 0.406 6 45 @ 1 7.75 0.434 0.434 6 45 @ 1 8.25 0.462 0.462 6 45 @ 1 '8.75 0.490 0.490 6 45 @ .1 9.25 0.518 0.510 6 45 1.897 1 9.75 0.546 0.523 6 45 1.897 2 10.25 0.576 0.537 10 (' 10.75 0.608 0.553 10 11. 25 0.640 0.570 10 11. 75 0.672 0.586 10 2 12.25 0.703 0.602 10 3 12.75 0.735 0.618 6 3 13.25 0.766 0.634 6 3 13.75 0.798 0.649 6 3 14.25 0.829 0.665 6 3 14.75 0.860 0.681 6 3 15.25 0.891 0.696 6 3 15.75 0.923 0.712 6 3 16.25 0.954 0.728 6 3 16.75 0.985 0.743 6 '3 17.25 1.016 0.759 6 4 17.75 1. 048 0.775 8 44 1.113 4 18.25 1.079 0.790 8 44 1.113 4 18.75 1.110 0.806 8 44 1.113 4 19.25 1.142 0.822 8 44 . 1.113 4 19.75 1.173 0.838 8 44 1.113 4 20.25 1.204 0.853 8 44 1.113 4 20.75 1. 23"6 0.869 8 44 1:.113 4 21.25 1.267 -0.885 8 44 1.113 4 21.75 1.299 0.901 8 44 1.113 4 22.25 1.330 0.917 8 44 1.113 4 22.75 1.361 0.932 8 44 1.113 -jllb--------------~~~-~~~~~~-~~~~~~ CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%) N @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13.2 0.144 13.2 0.144 15,0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 15.0 0.164 -CORR. LIQUE. (N1)60 RESIST (B/ft) RATIO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.958 0'.144 1.00 0.955 0.148 0.98 ...;- 0.919 0.184 0.89 0.917 0.185 0.89 0.914 0.186 0.88 0.912 0.187 0.87 0.~10 0.188 0.87 0.907 0.189 0.86 0.905 0.190 0.86 0.903 0.191 0.86 o . 901· . 0.192 0.85 0.898 0.896 r d 0.193 0.85 0.193 0.85 PAGE 2 Plate D-12 INDue. LIQUE. STRESS SAFETY RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 4 23.25 1.393 0.948 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.894 0.194 0.84 4 23:75 1.424 0.964 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.891 0.195 0.84 4 24.25 1.455 0.980 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.889 0.195 0.84 • 24.75 1.487 0.995 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.887 0.196 0.84 25.25 1.518 1.011 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.885 0.196 NonLiq 5 25.75 1.550 1.027 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.882 0.197 NonLiq 5 26.25 1.581 1.043 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.880 0.197 NonLiq 5 26.75 1.612 1.059 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.878 0.198 NonLiq 5 27.25 1.644 1.074 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.875 0.198 NonLiq 5 27.75 1.675 1.090 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.873 0.198 NonLiq 5 28.25 1.706 1.106 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin' 0.871 0.199 NonLiq 5 28.75 1.738 1.122 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.869 0.199 NonLiq 5 29.251.769 1.137 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.866 0.199 NonLiq 5 29.75 1.801 1.153 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.864 0.199 NonLiq ________________________ ~ ________________ ~ __________________________________ N __ • (. Plate D-13 ************************ * * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * ************************ SOIL PROFILE NAME: 2863B4 LAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D ( mm) DEPTH OF # (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pef) %-<#200 50 SPT (ft) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 7.5 8.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (O) 122.0 66.0 0.050 5.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 12.5 4.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (O~ 120.0 60.0 0.050 10.25 ------------------------------------------------------..:.-----...;..----------- 3 17.5 7.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0 ) 128.0 55.0 0.050 15.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 22.5 15.0 tJNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 20.25 ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------- 5 27.5 15.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 30.0 0.100 25.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 32.5 23.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 55.0 0.050 30'.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 37.5 14.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 3,£.25 -----___ -0; ______ --------------------------------------------------------- 8 42.5 14.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.05,0 40.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 47.5 19.0 UNSUS~EPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 45.25 7..------------------------------------------------------ --------------~ ---------------------------------------------~----------------------------- Plate D-14 • ******************* * * * L I QUE F Y 2 * * * * Version 1.30 * * * ******************* EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hilis LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B4 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 ~.ITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 F D SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE. RODS NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Plate 0-15 -=-----------------PAGE 1 e 8R [1996] Method ---------------- CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N· r C (N1)60 RESIST r' STRESS "SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (% ) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 1 0.25 0.015 0.015 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 0.75 0.046 0.046 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.25 0.07.6 0.076 8 @ @ @ @ @ '@ @ 1 1.75 0.107 0.107 8 @ @ @ @. @ @ @ 1 2.25 0.137 0.137 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 2.75 0.168 0.168 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.25 0:198 0.198 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.75 0.229 0.229 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.25 0.259 0.259 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.75 0.290 0.290 8 @ @ @ '@ @ @ @ 1 5.25 0.320 0.320 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.75 0.351 0.351 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 6.25 0.381 0.381 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 6.75 0.412 0.412 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 7.25 0.442 0.442 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 7.75 0.473 0..473 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 8.25 0.503 0.503 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 8.75 0.533 0.533 4 -@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 9.25 0.563 0.555 4 2 9.75 0.593 0.569 4 2 10.25 0.623 0.584 4 • 10.75 0.653 0.598 4 11.25 0.683 0.612 4 11.75 0.713 0.627 4 2 12.25 0.743 0.641 4 3 12.75 0.774 0.657 7 3 13.25 0.806 0.673 7 3 13.75 0.838 0.689 7 3 14.25 0.870 0.706 7 3 14.75 0.902 0.722 7 3 15.25 0.934 0.739 7 3 15.75 0.966 0.755 7 3 16.25 0.998 0.771 7 3 16.75 1. 030 0.788 7. 3 17.25 1. 062 0.804 7 4 17.75 1. 093 0.820 15 4 18.25 1.124 0.836 15 4 18.75 1.156 0.851 15 4 19.25 1.187 0.867 15 4 19.75 1. 218 0.883 15 4 20.25 1.249 0.898 15 4 20.75 1.281 0.914 15 4 21.25 1.312 0.930 15 4 21.75 1. 343 0.945 15 4 22.25 1. 374 0.961 15 ;... 5 22.75 1.406 0.977 15 ----_._-------------PAGE 2 ~." [1996] Method -' --------------Plate D-16 CALC .. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CaRR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1) 60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (% ) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 5 23.25 1.437 0.992 15 5 23'.75 1.468 1.008 15 • 24.25 1.499 1.024 15 24.75 1.531 1.039 15 25.25 1.562 1.055 15 5 25.75 1. 593 1.071 15 -- 5 26.25 1.624 1.086 15 5 26.75 1.656 1.102 15 5 27.25 1.687 1.118 15 6 27.75 1.718 1.133 '23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.873 0.196 1.83 6 28.25 1.749 1.149 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.871 0.196 1.83 6 28.75 1. 781 1.164 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.869 0.196 1.82 6 29.25 1.812 1.180 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.866 0.197 1.82 6 29.75 1. 843 1.196 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.864 0~197 1.82 6 30.25 1.874 1.211 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.862 0.197 1.82 6 30.75 1.906 1.227 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.859 0:197 1.81 6 31.25 1. 937 ,1.243 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.857 0.197 1.81 6 31.75 1. 968 1.258 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.855 0.198 1.81 6 32.25 1.999 1.274 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.853 0.198 1.81 7 32.75 2.031 1.290 14 -'- 7 33.25 2.062 1.305 14 - 7 33.75 2.093 1.321 14 7 34.25 2.124 1.337 14 7 34.75 2.156 1.352 14 7 35.25 2.187 1.368 14 7 35.75 2.218 1.384 14 - 7 36.25 2.249 1.399 14 - 7 36.75 2.281 1.415 14 7 37.25 2.312 1.431 14 8 37.75 2.343 1.446 14 8 38.25 2.374 1.462 14 , 38.75 2.406 1.477 14 '39.25 2.437 1.493 14 39.75 2-.468 1.509 14 40.25 2.499 1.524 14 8 40.75 2.531 1.540 14 8 41:25 2.562 1.556 14 8 41. 75 2.593 1.571 14 8 42.25 2.624 1.587 14 9 42.75 2.656 1.603 19 9 43.25 2.687 1.618 19 9 43.75 2.718 1.634 19 9 44.25 2.749 1.650 19 '- 9 44.75 2.781 1.665 19 9 45.25 2.812 1.681 19 -. 9 45.75 2.843 1.697 19 9 46.25 2.874 1.712 19 9 46.75 2.906 1.728 19 9 47.25 2.937 1.744 19 ----------------------------------------~--------------~-----------------.------ • Plate D-17 ***************************** * * * * * L I QUE F Y 2 Version 1. 50 * * * * * ***************************** EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: SC3098 DATE: 08-11-2004 JOB NAME: MCMILLIN SOIL-PROFILE NAME: MCMILIN.LDW BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 10.00 ft CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 10.00 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 Mw SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15 SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press) Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.238 rd-CORRECTION METHOD: NCEER (1997) FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6 Plate D-18 • (. ----------------------------- NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1 ----------------------------- File Name: MCMILIN.OUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I INDUC. I LIQUE . rl STRESS I SAFETY d I RATIO 1 FACTOR I CORR.ILIQUE.I C I (N1) 60 I RESIST I N I (B/ft) 1 RATIO 1 I CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. IFIELD I FC I SOILI DEPTH I STRESS I STRESS I N I DELTA I NO. I (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1_60 I ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ * I * 1 * 1 * I * I * I * I * / * I * / * I * / * I * I * / * I * / ** 1 I 0.2510.01510.0151 1 I 0.7510.04510.0451 1 I 1. 251 0.0751 0.0751 1 I 1.751 0.1051 0.1051 1 I 2.251 0.1351 0.1351 1 I 2.751 0.1651 0.1651 1 I 3.251 0.1951 0.195 1 1 I 3.751 0.2251 0.2251 1 1 4.251 0.2551 0.2551 1 1 4.751 0.2851 0.2851 1 I 5.251 0.3151 0.3151 1 1 5.751 0.3451 0.3451 2 I 6.251 0.3751 0.3751 2 I 6.751 0.4051 0.4051 2 I 7.2510.43510.4351 2 1 7.751 0.4651 0.4651 2 I 8.251 0.4951 0.4951 2 I 8.751 0.5251 0.5251 2 1 9.251 0.5551 0.5551 2 I 9.751 0.5851 0.5851 2 I 10.251 0.6151 0.6071 2 I 10.751 0.6451 0.6221 2 I 11.251 0.6751 0.63 6 1 2 1 11.751 0.7051 0.6501 2 I 12.251 0.7351 0.6651 2 I 12.751 0.7651 0.6791 2 I 13.251 0.7951 0.6941 2 I 13.751 0.8251 0.7081 3 1 14.251 0.8551 0.7221 3 1 14.751 0.8851 0.7371 3 I 15.251 0.9151 0.7511 3 I 15.751 0.9451 0.7661 3 I 16.251 0.9751 0.7801 3 1 16.751 1.0051 0.7941 3 I 17.251 1.035 1 0.8091 3 1 17.751 1.0651 0.8231 3118.2511.09510.8381 3 I 18.751 1.1251 0.8521 4 I 19.251 1.1551 0.8661 4 1 19.751 1.1851 0.8811 4 I 20.251 1.2151 0.8951 4 1 20.751 1.2451 0.9101 4 I 21.251 1.2751 0.9241 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 I 7.451 * 1 I 7.451 * I 1 7.451 * I I 7.451 * I I 7.4"51 * 1 1 7.451 * I I 7.45 1 * I I 7.451 * 1 I 7.451 * I I 7.451 * "I I 7.451 * 1 I 7.451 * I I I * 1 I 1 * I 1 I * 1 I I * 1 I I * I 1 1 * I 1 I * 1 I 1 * 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 17.7611.1851 1 7.7611. 1851 17.7611.1851 I 7.7611. 1851 17.7611.1851 I 7.7611.185 1 1 7.7611.185 1 I 7.7611.1851 I 7.7611.185 1 I 7.7611.1851 I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 * I * I * I * 1 * I * 1 * I * I * I * I * I * 1 * 1 * 1 * I * I * I * 1 * 1 * I * I * I * I" * I * 1 * * I * I * * I * 1 * * I * I * * 1 * I * * I * 1 * * I * I * * 1 * I * * 1 * I * * I * I * * I * 1 * * 1 -I 1 -I I -1 1 -I / - / I - / 1 -I I -1 I I 21.9 I 0.25010.9121 21.9 I 0.25010.907 1 21.9 I 0.2501 0 .903 1 21.9 I 0.2501 0 .899 1 21.9 I 0.250/0.895 1 21.9 I 0.25010.891/ 21.9 / 0.25010.887 1 21.9 I 0.2501 0 .883 1 21.9 I 0.25010.879 1 21.9 I 0.2501 0 .875 1 -I I I -I I I I I I -I I 1 -I I I * * * * * * 0.178 0.1791 0.1791 0.1801 0.1801 0.1801 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.1821 I I I I I ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **" ** ** ** ** "** ** ** ** ** ** 1. 74 1. 73 1. 73 1.12 1.72 1.72 1. 71 1.71 1. 71 1. 70 Plate D-19 • • • ------------------------------------------------ NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 ------------------------------------------------ File Name: MCMILIN.OUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ / CALC. / TOTAL/ EFF. /FIELD / FC / SOIL/ DEPTH/STRESS/STRESS/ N /DELTA/ NO. / (ft) / (tsf) / (tsf) / (B/ft) /N1_60 / / CORR./LIQUE./ C / (Nl)60/RESIST/ N I (B/ft) I RATIO I 1 INDUC. / LIQUE . r 1 STRESS/SAFETY d 1 RATIO 1 FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ / I I I 1. 3411. 0061 I 1. 3411. 006/ I 1. 3411. 0061 I 1. 3411. 006/ I 1. 3411. 0061 I 1.3411.006/ I 1. 3411. 0061 / 1. 3411. 006/ 1 1 .34 /1.006/ I 1.3411.0061 / 1.34/1.0061 I 1.3411.0061 I 1. 3411. 0061 11.3411.0061 1 5.661°.942 1 I 5.66/0.942 1 I 5.661°.942 1 I 5.6610.9421 I 5.661°.942 1 I 5.661 0 .942 1 I 5.66/0.942 1 I 5.661 0 .942 1 1 5.66/0.942 1 I 5.661°·9421 -/ / / / 4 I 21.751 1.3051 0.9381 5 I 22.251 1.3351 0.9531 5 I 22.751 1.3651 0.9671 5 I 23.251 1.3951 0.9821 5 I 23.751 1.4251 0.9961 5 I 24.251 1.4551 1.0101 5 I 24.75/ 1.4851 1.0251 5 I 25.251 1.5151 1.0391 5 I 25.751 1.5451 1.0541 5 I 26.251 1.5751 1.0681 5 I 26.751 1.6051 1.0821 5 I 27.251 1.6351 1.0971 5 I 27.751 1.6651 1.1111 5 I 28.251 1.6951 1.1261 5 / 28.75/ 1.725/ 1.1401 6 / 29.251 1.7551 1.1541 6 I 29.751 1.7851 1.1691 6 / 30.25/ 1.8151 1.1831 6 I 30.751 1.8451 1.1981 6 I 31.25/ 1.8751 1.212/ 6 I 31.751 1.9051 1.2261 6 I 32.25/ 1.935/ 1.2411 6 / 32.751 1.9651 1.2551 6 / 33.251 1.9951 1.2701 6 I 33.751 2.0251 1.2841 7 I 34.251 2.0551 1.2981 7 I 34.751 2.0851 1.3131 7 I 35.25/ 2.1151 1.3271 7 I 35.751 2.1451 1.3421 7 I 36.25/ 2.175/ 1.3561 7 I 36.751 2.2051 1.3701 7 I 37.251 2.2351 1.3851 7 I 37.751 2.2651 1.3991 7 I 38.251 2.2951 1.4141 7 I 38.751 2.3251 1.4281 8 I 39.251 2.3551 1.4421 8 I 39.75/ 2.3851 1.4571 8 I 40.251 2.4151 1.4711 8 I 40.751 2.4451 1.4861 8 I 41.25/ 2.4751 1.5001 8 I 41.751 2.5051 1.5141 8 I 42.251 2.5351 1.5291 8 / 42.751 2.5651 1.5431 8 I 43.251 2.595/ 1.5581 13 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I / I I I I I I I I I I 1 5.961°.844 1 I 5.961°·8441 I 5.961 0 .844 1 / 5.961°.844 / 1 5.96/0.844 1 I 5'.961 ° . 8441 I 5.961°.844 1 I 5.961 0 .844 1 1 5.961°.844 1 23.0 I 0.2541 0 .846 1 23.0 I 0.25410.942/ 23.0 I 0.2541 0 .838 1 23.0 I 0.25410.834/ 23.0 / 0.2541 0 .830 1 23.0 I 0.25410.8261 23.0 1 0.25410.822 1 23. ° I 0.254/ 0.8181 23. ° I 0.254/0.814/ 23.0 I 0.254/0.810 1 23.0 I 0.2541°.806 1 23.0 I 0.254/0.802 1 23.0 1 0.2541°.798 1 23.0 1 0.25410.7941 17.6 / 0.187 1°.7891 17.6 1 0.187/0.7851 17.6 I 0.187/0.781 1 17.6 I 0.18710.7771 17.6 I 0.18710.7731 17.6 I 0.1871 0 .769 1 17.6 1 0.1871 0 .7651 17.6 I 0.187/0.761/ 17.6 I 0.1871°.757 1 17.6 I 0.18710.7531 -/ I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I / / 1 1 / I / 1 1 I I I 1 / 1 20.5 I 0.2111 0 .708 1 20.5 / 0.2111 0 .704 / 20.5 I 0.2111 0 .700 1 20.5 I 0.211/0.6961 20.5 I 0.21110.6921 20.5 I 0.211/0.6881 20.5 / 0.21110.6841 20.5 1 0.21110.6801 20.5 I 0.21110.676 1 0.1831 0.183/ 0.1831 0.1831 0.183 1 0.1831 0.1831 0.183/ 0.1831 0.183/ 0.1831 0.1831 0.1831 0.182/ 0.1821 0.182/ 0.1821 0.182/ 0.1811 0.1811 0.1811 0.181/ 0.1801 0.180/ I 1 1 / I -'I I I / 0.1751 0.175/ 0.1751 0.174'1 0.173/ 0.173/ 0.172/ 0.1721 0.1711 1.72 1. 72 1. 72 1. 72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.2'9 1.49 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.51 1.51 1.52 1.52 1.53 Plate 0-20 (. ------------------------------------------------ NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3 ------------------------------------------------ File Name: MCMILIN.OUT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I CALC. I TOTAL I EFF. 1 FIELD I FC 1 I COR,R. I LIQUE. I I INDUC. I LIQUE. SOIL I DEPTH I STRESS I STRESS I N I DELTA/ C I (N1)60IRESISTI r I STRESS I SAFETY No·1 (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1_60 1 N I (B/ft) I RATIO I d'i RATIO I FACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------ 8 I 43.751 2.6251 1.5721 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.211 10.671 1 0.1711 1.53 9 I 44.25 1 2.6551 1. 5861 15 I -I -I -I I I -I 9 I 44.751 2.6851 1. 6011 15 I -I I -I I / -I 9 I 45.251 2.7151 1. 615/ 15 / -I -I -I I 1 -I 9 / 45.751 2.7451 1. 630 I 15 I -I I -I I I -I 9 I 46.251 2.7751 1. 644/ 15 / -I / -1 I I -I 9 1 46.751 2.8051 1. 658/ 15 I -I I -I I I -1 9 1 47.251 2.835/ 1. 673/ 15 / -/ -/ -/ 1 1 -1 9 I 47.751 2.8651 1. 6871 15 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 9 1 48.25/ 2.895/ 1. 7021 15 1 -I -1 -1 I 1 -1 9 / 48.751 2.9251 1. 7161 15 1 I / I I 1 .:. I 9 / 49.25/ 2.9551 1. 730 1 15 1 -/ -/ -1 I I -1 • 9 I 49.751 2.9851 1. 7451 15 1 -I 1 -1 1 I -1 9 1 SO .,25 / 3.0151 1. 759/ 15 / -1 -1 -1 I I -I 9 1 50.751 3.0451 1. 7741 15 1 -1 I -1 1 1 -I 9 1 51. 251 3.0751 1. 7881 15 1 -1 -1 -1 I 1 -1 9 1 51. 751 3.1051 1. 8021 15 1 -I 1 -1 1 1 -'I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~- PlateD-21 APPE;NDIX. E : SETTLEMENT ,ANALYSiS '.:, .f', : ~ • > , . ' -~ -,' , .. ... . '. "I :' • • •. " , I -"I" .. . ~ i • : ~. ~ -" ,'., , .. " '-~ .: : .. . ., .. . , . :;-:r: : '. ' ~. ,. • ,~ ,r : .... , . '-,-: " ::: ~, " " .. ~ -' '. * _·1. , ... -"" .. " -: .:, y ; .:, • . . , .,.~ ': - < : I' • -, t~ • • ~.: .: , .~ \ • I ~ • . ~ ,,' -' . .' ~ , '. ~ '., ~ .... ~ ~', ,-,l , , < - .' ~ , . • -• 1 ' ..... -.' ~ . 1-, ,J . .' < .-,' " , , . -~ .. " . , " -:.. ' . .' ' -' .. ' : . , . " .,- ,', ,. . 1., "tJ a; .... C'D m I ..... • H Yd W D Y Dw q O'm Clc Clr tp t Ct pI O pIc .top P If Sp Sp Sp Ss Stot • SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL CASE 1.. CASE 2. CASE 3. INPUT PARAMETERS THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(PCF) AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT ~OR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(%) DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(FT) AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH-(PCF) DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER-(FT) PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER RECOMPRESSION RATIO ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER-(YEARS) POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE-(IN YEARS) SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATIONS INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CHANGE IN LOAD FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)-NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( pIO=plc ) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)-PRECONSOLIDATED (PIC> POI P'f <= PIC) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)-PRECONSOLIDATED (PIC> POI pl f > PIC) SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) .' MCMILLIN B-2 H 1.1.5 20 20 1.20 1.2 1.0 1.000 0.09 0.050 3 50 :'.:,-.:' -':'>O·~ O:0.~5: .. '.::·,:,-,.:· : 1.900.8 2900.8 1.200 31.00.8 2.69 0.42 3.10 -a i" .... (I) m I I\) • H Yd W D Y Dw q O'm Clc Clr tp t Ct P I a pi c .6.P pl f Sp Sp Sp Ss Stot • SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL CASE l.. CASE 2. CASE 3. INPUT PARAMETERS THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) AVERAGE DRY UNIT NT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(PCF) AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(%) DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(FT) AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT NT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH-(PCF) DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER-(FT) PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER RECOMPRESSION RATIO ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER-(YEARS) POST CONSTRU~TION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE-(IN YEARS) SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATIONS INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CHANGE IN LOAD FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( pIO=pI C ) PRECONSOLIDATED {P I c> POI pi f <= PIC} PRECONSOLIDATED (P Ie> POI pi f > PIc) SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) • MCMILLIN :i:l-3 20 ~~5 20 l.6 ~20 l.2 l.5 l.000 0.09 0.050 3 50 :,' :,~:· ... :·;:O'.;;·;9.0:i?.· . ~670.4 2670.4 l.800 3470.4 4.90 0.44 5.34 "tJ m .... (I) rn I ~ • H Yd CI) D Y Dw q O'm CIC Clr tp t Ct pl O pI C Ml P If Sp Sp Sp Ss Stot • SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL CASE 1. CASE 2. CASE 3. INPUT PARAMETERS THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(PCF) AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(%) DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(FT) AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH-(PCF) DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER-(FT) PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =O) COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER RECOMPRESSION RATIO ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER-(YEARS) POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE-(IN YEARS) SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATIONS INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CHANGE IN LOAD FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( pI o=P I c ) PRECONSOLIDATED (P' c> Po' P' f <= P I c) PRECONSOLIDATED (PIC > Po' P' f > pIC) SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) • MCMILLIN B":4 PAD AREA 30 115 20 21 120 12 15 1000 0.09 0.050 3 50 :: ::;-.;' .: .:.: .... (j .;:o~~ri5·;::,:··-::.y 1958.4 2958.4 1800 3758.4 6.59 0.66 7.25 "tJ i" .... (1) m I .a::.. • H Yd W D Y Dw q O'm C'c C'r tp t Ct P I a pi c LlP Plf Sp Sp S~ Ss Stot • SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADD'ED FILL CASE 1. CASE 2. CASE 3. INPUT PARAMETERS THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(PCF) AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(%) DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER-(FT) AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH-(PCF) DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER-(FT) PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER RECOMPRESSION RATIO ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER-(YEARS) POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE-(IN YEARS) SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATIONS INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CHANGE IN LOAD FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P I o=P Ie) PRECONSOLIDATED (P I c> POI pi f <= P I c) PRECONSOLIDATED (P Ie> POI pI f > PiC;) SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) • MCMILLIN B-1 25 115 20 20 120 12 18 1000 0.08 0.030 3 50 ::,::' :: .. "; :, 9' "<¥.~:;~,5:;',,> :::;' .. 1900.8 2900.8 2160 4060.8 4.94 0.55 5.49 TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT (in) = l..25 IN ACCORDANCE WITH "SEED & TOKIMATSU" METHODOLOGY AS RECOMMENDED BY SPECIAL PUBLICATION 117 Plate E-5 • APPENDIX .. F· . \ ' ""' ~ , . ." ~ . , " i G~NERAL EARTHWO,RK AN,P,G'f.(ADJN~$UI,p~tJNJ;S,', ,', : " ,~, .' , " . ," " -',' , " -., " ~. . ~.' ".":' . ' :: .:., . -~. " . '. " .-, , , , ... ,-~ . " , -~. , , , -", " '~~ " .. '. , . , , _:. "'_,' .' t ,T, ........ ,~. . , . . ,.' , , . t, . . ... , ,,' • GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading' as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, -and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the conSUltant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), or their ~epresentatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration ofthe project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING (. Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation 0-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation 0-1556, 0-2937 or 0-2922, and 0-3017, • • • at intervals of approximately +2 feet offill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly Calavera Hills, llC Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC Page 2 • fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the matetial in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (hbtizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act asa key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to % the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until d~sign grades (elevations) are attained. Calavera Hills, llC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. $353-J.\-SC Page 3 • • COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a ·maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Per the UBC/CBC, oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from the governing agency) . To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized materia/) should not be placed within 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative. : If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. Calavera Hills, LLC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O: 5353-A-SC Page 4 • • After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation D-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift offill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. In general, per the UBC/CBC, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2: 1 (h :v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 1 0 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1 . An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shan ked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) +2 to ±B feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to Calavera Hills, LLC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC Page 5 • • 5. 6. achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation ofthe soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be. performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse g~ologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Calavera Hills, LLC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.o. 5353-A-SC Page 6 • • Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmeDtal agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be qonducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering .geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after compl~tion of grading. . JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company·s safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintaineO. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Cal avera Hills, LLC Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.o. 5353~A-SC Page? • • Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor"s representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician"svehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. ' This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend, approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. Calavera Hills, LLC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a,uge w.o. 5353-A-SC Page 8 • • The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion ofthe fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any ofthe above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other estqblished safety guid.elines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician~s attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect asolution. All backfill nottested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subjectto reprocessing arid/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. Cal avera Hills, LLC Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge w.o. 5353-A-SC Page 9 • CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL • TYPE B I ----------..... -----------------------.... - PROPOSED COMPACtED FILL . NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG-1 • • ,CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE'DE'TAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL A-1 FILTER MATERIAl: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.' , ~ ., •••• ':. /LINEAR FT. 6-~ ASS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED :::. "~::_ SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (114· «) PERFS .:.: .• :. ~ LINEAR FT. TN BOTTOM HALF OF' PIPit . ••••• , •• ; ASTM 02751, SDR 35 OR ASTM 01527, SCHD,. 40 ASTM 03034. SDR 35 OR ASTM 01785. SCHD, 40 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FT. USE 8 -i PIPE; ',FILTER MATERIAL, ' SIEVE SIZE ,PERCENT PASSING, . i . 1 INCH ' 100 ' '3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-=-100 NO.4 25-40: NO.8 18-33 ,NO. 30 :5-15' -NO. 50 ,0-7' NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC ~NIMUM OVERLAP .::.":':.:.,. 6· MINIMUM COVER 6-MINIMUM OVER~~I -.. :.~. I 4· MINIMUM BEDDING :/, A-2 ' GRAVEL 'MATERIAL 9 FP/LINEAR FT. PERFORA TED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/4 INCH, ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG-2 • • • O.ETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT· ON FLAT ALLUVIA TED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN . 1 COMPACT~D FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE ~ RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL _ ~:G:~:~U':A~ BACKCUT ~ VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. /...~~ ,"' /.:.~ r BACKCUT :t~SHOULD BE MADE NO /...$-~ STEEPER 'THA~:1 OR AS NECESSARY <~~ ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY . ....l~,CONSIDERATIONS~ / 1 ...:::.", DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. ~~I // . ~~/'t I'\~ 1/1~\l~PROVIDEA 1:1 MINIMUM -;;;o~-m;N7R;;-T~ ;;; SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS . REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTI.NG FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL -----------~------ PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE,; . ~" TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL ~ --- }" FOR DRAINAGE ONLY ___ --- "7' ~ Oaf J(o' Qaf / Qal (TO BE REMOVED) IEXISTING COMPACTED FILL! ~"" 5..... ~~'\.~~"~\ k~-~rrm LEGEND ~\ Y \\ TO BE REMOVED BEFORE . Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Qal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG-3 -0' r » -I m rn G) I I .t--- • • 1 •' T.YPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL 15' TYPICAL 1-2' ...... '-'-"., ~..". 'II \. (;,,::u G. OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS, AND SHALL EXTEND 12" BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY TH E SOIL ENGINEER 14 ~I 15' MINIMUM DESIGN FINISH SLOPE ~ W\\Vi/mib--~--- L-:i ·\t ;;1\,\ ~ . ---~ 4· DIAMETER NON-PERFORAtED OUTLET PIPE .--I AND BACKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES) 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH ,,--..., • • ' • TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL 4" MINIMUM 2" MINIMUM PIPE 4· MINIMUM -u r » -I m m Q I I U1 ::E :;:) ::E Z ::E N 2" MINIMUM FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE FP/LINEAR Ft OF PIPr;; OR FOUR FP/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLA,CED IN SQUARE FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF CUT TRENCH. ' THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU ·OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE O'R AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: ENCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12" ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 4· DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM 0-2751, SDR 35 OR ASTM 0.-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM 0-3034, SDR 35 OR ASTM 0-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1.000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORM LY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2% TO OUTLET PIPE. .OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO v SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. 2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE, LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE , LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER ANDIOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO.8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 280 0-3 GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2 INCH 100 NO.4 50 NQ.200 8 'SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50 • • • Fill OVER NATURAL DETAil SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL MAINTAIN MINIMUM 1S' WIDTH TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT NATURAL SLOPE TO BE RESTORED WITH ~ 4' MINIMUM ~ -u r » -I m m Q I en BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY ""7 J ~ MINIMUM. t!QI.S.;, 1, WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE 15' MINIMUM KEY WIDTH 2'X 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH 2' MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL. DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPE,CIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE . . PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION.OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON ,.EXPOSED CONDITIONS. -0 r » -I m m Q I ........:J • H • ." FILL OVER CUT DETAIL CUT/FILL CONTACT MAINTAIN M1NIMUM 15' FILL SECTION FROM 1. AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE~ _______ _ 2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPH Y COMPACTED FILL BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY 15' MINIMUM OR H/2 NOT~: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION. -0 r » -I m m G> I 00 • • .' STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT ·SLOPE NATURAL SLOPE REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL /' ,/ 't .d§"': I "~I "'twI .... """ • It ... ,,.,.,, .a-_ yRADE i ~~-._,..,-< OR APPROVED MATERIAL REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL ...... Nt COMPACTED STABILIZATION FILL (,(, n.th.tti'·· W1 REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. NOTE: 1. SUBDRAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER ANDIOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, 2. ·W· SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15') FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER' THAN 25 FEET ·W· SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND lOR ENGINEERING' GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL ~W· BE LESS THAN H/2. -u r » ..., m m G.> I <.0 /" • .' S,KIN FILL OF N,ATURAL GROUND 15' MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FAC!; TO BACKCUT .'\, ORIGINAL SLOPE ~ NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS' ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 2. PAD OVERgXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. -0 r » --I rn m G> I ~ C> ~ • • • DAYLI·GHT CUT LOT DETAIL ~.~ RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER (MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREAL OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT --~ REPLACEMENT FILL AVOID AND lOR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE ~ / / NOTE: 1. SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETER.MINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. 2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORt:-1ED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY . . THE SOILS (::NGINEER ANDIOR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. • • 5' SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER O.ET AIL 2'X 2'X 114-STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/4-PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. ~~---I--3/4-X S' GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE TH READS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADD IN S'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE I I / / i I I --'-"r --r"r I MAINTAIN S' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. -1-.IV-MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2' VERTICAL -r'\r LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND 'V- L -5' I 111-__ ... 1 ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. -S' .. -I I I I I I / / ~I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' " VERTICAL WITHIN A S' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. " / " " " " . •• • c;:. =.;::.~=::::;=::3. .. • .. .. ......0.. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . ... . .... BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT PROVIDE A MINIMUM l' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A S' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN s' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER s' (VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE, CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A S'RADIUS EQUiPMENT CLEARANCE. FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. . . S. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFiED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS' ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. . 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLb.TION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-14 • • TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUM'ENT· FINISH GRADE j~ --~-- I-----:-----. 3/8-DIAMETER X 6-LENGTH - CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT I.. . ~6-DIAMETER X 3 112' LENGTH HOLE ~ 3'-6- -CONCRETE BACKFILL - , .....;L PLATE EG~15 i i TEST PIT -SA-FETY DIAGRAM • SIDE VIEW ( NOT TO SCA~ ) • TOP VIEW 50 F1:ET -50 FEET -----.... FLA~. SPOiL_ PILE ( NOT to SCALE ) ~' • OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM (El 00 c;t:J 00 00 ~ 1S' MINIMUM (A) (B) 00 cr .ce aD 20' MINIMUM (G) 00 OCI Oc::) D 00 00 oo(F) VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM lEI JJOO' MAXIMUM (B~ 1S'MINIMUM CXlOO:~ ~ 15' MINIMUM /'/ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15' FEET. . eBl HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT, LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 1 DO' MAXIMUM. eCl IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDRD.CK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE 'IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION, (O) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARy'BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF ,WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (EI CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. IF) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. IG) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PLATE RO-1 • • ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT .---.... ----- I I " GRANULAR MATERIAL I -----I -------, I : COMPACTED FILL I I I I I SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO HE COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS I I I I I I GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. ~ f COMPACTED FILL DENSIFIED BY FLOODING __ ------....... _--. ".... LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH \.100L.Jr:1D\: ......... ........ ---._------------ PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM OR" HELOW LOWEST UTILIT . ---------------:--... 20' PROFILE ALONG LAYER ..... OVERSIZE LAYER { ................ ~~~OC~~~~~~~aoOO ............... ..... ..... CGCC~~~~OO~~~cc~~~~y~ ........... ~'MINIMUM 1 ICLEAR ZONE 20' MINIMUM ~~~~~~~~I~~~ L.AYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD-2 • • TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MA TERfAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE _ .,.-.~-- --------~----------- PAD GRADE COMPACTED FILL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) PAD GRADE 3' M'NIMUM* NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY TH.E SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS • PLATE EG~1'l 5 i , , / / , / • /.-. ... ', .. x 34.1l SEE SHEET No. 16 . \ x 37.3 \ \ x 37.3 \ x 35.1l x SEE PERIIISSION TO 1fII~~Ai~Y Qi:'IIlIING ~--....;:: DATED FOR IN~~~~~~ :/,~;t:::.2 STORM DRAIN {PER I!SW; ~~~ 110£ lDEl. stiRf'ACl.' MEASURED ~ 81" PIPE Palms LOT 8 ----::=~~~~~1d 2.18 AC. GROSS x 3M 0.74 AC. NET '" , I , 8 x J5.0 \ \\ ',,--. x J3.5 Pipe SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCAilONS ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 13 of 13 W.O. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' ; I ' I / / / ! -/:, I. /x 11f.9 Iii, I j' 1-' / . . -, ,( 45.1l I l ' I / ! x 43.2 ,. ". ........~ :, Bridge ... -'':'''--.. ~ . -' .. -"'-,-~----. ... -..-...., x J4.9 NOTES: . I. 1!1 SEE SHEET 2 FOR EXISTING EASOIfNT INFtJlNA 1ION. .--©_2_0,-06---:0:-'D...:.oY_Co_n_sU.,...lto_n_ts_, _In_c,..-_'--______ ---. BENCHMARK: DESIGNED BY: J.J, . DATE: MAR. 2005 DRAWN BY: e'G: B.B. M,P, SCALE: 1" = 4Q' PROJECT MGR.· K H, JOB NO.' 01-1014 DESaIPIION: STANOARiJ AI-tO STREET CENTERIJN£ lfEZI. AlONllJIfNT LOOA1Df: CfNTERf.IN(OF £L CAAIINO IiEAI. 1----_"""-_____ """-_'--_--1 AT £l{fJlNEEH'S STA710N .(5#92 2710 LoIcIr Awn .. Well CIvIl EII ......... _IIIIfI"". ENGINEER .01" WORK: PER R.S 1800-1 SUIt. 100 PIa ... .. ICaIfI ..... C.'oullo 12010 Proelll'" RECORD FROM:. COUNTY BENCH tnfI.S (No. COIINTY lOT. L_~~7~eo-n~~'~-~"~00~~SuI=: ='.,=IIn:. __ L1~I~~====~t::J~d CQNTROI. DATA) ..' rCIIC 7eo-N1-ee80 ElEYA1IOtI: 68.~79 01.11111: NVGIJ OF/9» L-------; x 45.1l x 45.3 x 43.4 x 37.3 x 37.4 x 37.4 x 43.7 .. . -->:'--" ----~-. -'-'-"-~ .. -._-.,~ ." . t 10' 40' -----20' 80' SCAlE: 1· = 40' . 111'1 CITY OF CARLSBAD ~ . ENGINEERING DEPARTMENI' 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE AlP. M .. nT c.r. 02,16 AiiPROVEi) ~ ROE "'EXPiRES . ~ , Ii\, , ~~: I PROJECT NO. I o;;~NG6~t M1E IIIW. M1E IIIW. M1E IIIW. _1EEoI f1F WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION GIllER IWIIfNIL em .v1l1CWAL RVWD ii-i c.r. 02 16 , 1 9 , , Palms x .16'.8 SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND / / /" I I I I / / / I / / ////// '/ , / 1/ .. /// / ' / N . /. //~"!I/ , / / . ;' -/ / / -/.~ , /, / '. /.-1-/11 I / /1' ' / / i / / /' // / /' / /' I ," ./ / /' . / ;' ,I .1 / / ,/ / // ,.-'/// .. / / / / / // / / / ,/ /' / / / / / / /' / I / ./ / ,/ / /' I I ' / .' 111,11; //lll'l' 1// /1//// '1/,/ ///1,1 " .' I I ;' 1/ / // !'/I -l. --/ . / .. - / ..... I. ! /. ,-' '{ (I . ,; f i I I I ! \ ',o~scLREd I I I I I II I'! 1111' \ \ . \ I I I i I I ,1 11 \\, I,., \ \ ' \ ., " \ ,\ , , \.. I I \\"\\1' \\\'<5\\\ \1\', \"\. \ I \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i \ .'-,\\ \\ ',I" \\';\\\" ,'.' "\ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ . '\ \" \ ' \ ' I' '. \ .... \ , " i '\ \ \ \\\\'\\'\ ill. '\ \"\ \\\', I' \." \\\'\,\\\\ \ " ..... 1\, \\\' , \ . \ -'\ " \ '\ \ \ \ \, '\ '\ . \ \ \. \ '\ \ \ \ " \,\I\\\\.\ \\\\\\\\. \'\'.\\'. \ \. \ \ ,I' \ \ \ .' , \ , \ \ \. '-. '. \ \'\"\' \ \ \ \, \ . \ \ ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. .y-IPnln'~ GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 12 of 13 W.O. 5353-A-SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' i< 14. 5 -" '\ \ . . x 420 \ \. \ x .J7..1 Qals x .17..1 NOTEs: 1. I@)££ SHEET 2 FOR EXlSTlHe EAS£IIENT INFOINATION. x 58.0 / / 2. TIE fARTH SWALE TO AC SP/tLWA I: FLOIlUNE TO BE FLUSH WTH AC SPILLWAY SEE SHEET No. 15 SEE SHEET No. 17 ,-©_2_0_06_' . -:O::;-'D....:.oy_Co_n_su_lto_n __ ts_. _In_Cr' -'--____ --'-___ ---. BEN CHMAR1: DESIGNED BY: J,J. DAlE: MAR. 2005 DRAWN BY: erE .. 8 Brr M.P,' SCAlE: r:: 49' . PROJECT MGR.· K.H. JOB NO.' 01-1014 2710 ..., AYlnue weat CIvIl D .. _1ng ENGINEER OF WORK: iIESCRf lION: STANOARAI-fO STREET CENT£R/JNE /lEU. Alau£NT UICA1IOH: CENTERI.f OF B. CAJIINO HEAl. AT £NQ/fR'S STATIQN 45#92 PER H.Sroo-t Qals . om: INIIW. ICorIIIbad, c.ro,,:-n:.ro ==.. . RECORD FROM: COfINTY 1IQ{ LEVElS (Na COIINTY 1f'Hr. 711O-N1-7700 Sum1lnI '. CON1HOIATA). ,--_FtIXl_7_IO-_N_1-_I_III_O _____ --L..:.:::::::.:....::.:....:.::.::::::::!...-___ ..::::::::!-~~ EllVA1ION: . 68.479 OA.71111: NVfJD OF 1929 __ O!f WORK WA Y 1J£IJICA1lON R\ . REVISION DESCRIPTION I ," ,. ~) )"' ,10: j'""" 40' -----·!'O·· I 80' " ;?\" sooit:1" = 40' [ill CITY OF CARLSBAD ISH3SS1 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT . . GRAVING PlANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE UP. 02-OJ c.r. 02 16 ~ .v . ~ ~ 33081"iXPiiiES ~ .,-, \lUI IIIW. !WI IIIW. DWN B'(: I PROoJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. CHKD BY; Cr. 02 16 0IItEIt "..."N. art II. RIi'OIL RYWD B'(; 4JJ 6A . , .... •. -./ .... _.810-• .-••••••••••• I I / / / / 1\ '.1 / I , I f i I ' , ! I ! ,I ! ; i /~~1.1i / ;/ , x x 4.J.4 x 4.J.0 - x 47.1 I / / I !44.8 I I / I I I x 4.9.0 x 45..5 'HB-5 .. ~. x .50..9 . PEH QalB x 47.1 SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE .:t. o ~ " ........... ". RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO • . SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 11 of 13 W.O. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' \ \ \ . . • I ......... ~-... \ \ -.. ,/UIQJ,1fPD1.INE . \ , ©2006 O'Oay Consultants, Inc. ~~ CON S U L TNT S 2710 LobI' __ Welt CMI~'. SuIte 100 PIal .... c.tlhll. CoIfomlo 82010 Pro; • '" . 7e0-e31-7700 SUMyIne FoIl: 7eo-N1-eeeo SEE SHEET No. 14 SEE SHEET No. J 6 DESIGNED BY: J ~. DATE: MAR, ~QQ~ DRAWN BY: C.F. 8.8., M,P, SCALE: 1" = 4g' PROJECT MGR.· ~ H . JOB NO.: 2J 12J4 ENGINEER OF WORK: DATE: KEITH W, HANSEN ReE: 60223 BENCHMARK: OESQIFIION: LOCA1ION: STANlJAHO ",,10 STREET CEN1EHlINE 'ENT II£JJ. "0NIJJf. CENlERIJN£ AT ENfJIJ PEH R.S t CF ElCAlJINO RfAt W£tl(S STATKIN :/5#92 '8tlJ-1 RECORD FROM: COUNTY a I£NCH W£I.S (NO. COUNTY 1fRT. CONTROl. DA rAJ . EI.EVA1IOII: . 68.~79 OATtIII: NlfJI) OF 19» Qt " .. ,- .' -._.' ... D\1I IIIIM. ..... orWOllK . . - I !J\. REVISION DESCRIPTION . x .5.J. (J . . .. -IIIIM. D\1I IIIIM. OIlIER N'PRCWAL em NllltItIIL , ~ I CITY OF CARLSBAD II15s l . ENGINEERING OEPARl'NENT GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE M.p. 02-03 c.r. 02 16 ~. .I~ 1iATE" ~D~:· I PROoIECf NO. I DRAWING NO. c,1. 02 16 RIJWI) BY: 4336A Z:~ .... \DJO\&3U .... (Rd,e 1N.)\aae:t-A I'IIIIe ""''' 02. 1OO7a1Opm . Xr* 011" 0114111/oP: O1l4BS1ll; ~ 011..... 011~ 011_ 0I148U1l; 01141p-f; 0114M1A1'1 011"","" 0114IIImIT .. ~--.--------.. ~-~~~ \ \ \ \ 'Qt' \\.\ \ \ \ ) \ \ \ --;,., /' ~ . I . -: Jr' Af'7~ , ~~, ! /" V-; ! SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCAllONS ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 3 of 13 w.o. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1 "=40' • • ':/l ' :r ~ }8.7 • '"_.-? • • x 76:7 x Scattered Stockpiles ofAfu x·75.2 • --_._-........ x 7.5. 'x76.J· x 74.6 Lor5 . 73.45 AC. GROSS 67.06 AC. N£T' AfT, , x 76.5 x 6'9.0 x 71.2 x 71.0 '\ AfT . __ .1.. ';.'?2.J . ~-~.- HOlf$: 1. [l) SEE SHEET 2 I'M £XISlINS EASEN£NT IturRl/AllON. SEE SHEET No. 6 x 76.7 x 77.2' x 7~7 x 7~6' x 76:4 x 76:6 x 74.6' x 6'9.2/ x 6'9.0 x 68.6' SEE SHEET No. 8 ©2006 a'Day Consultants, Inc. DATE: MAR. 2005 DESIGNED BY: J.J. DESCRi'iMl: STANOARlJ II.4iJ STREET C£NlERlINE HElL IIfJ'11J11E1!T DRAWN BY: C.F 8 8" M.P SCALE: ' 1" = 40' PROJECT "'GR.' K H JOB NO,' OH 014 , IDCA1ION: CENTEHLINE or El. CAlI/NO REAl. 1-___________ -/ AT EN61NfER'$STA1ION 454+92 2710·LoMr Awn .. WIlt CIvIl (1 ...... _l1li_ . ., ENGINEER OF WORK: PER R.S 1800-1 , x 7J.J @a~. ICorIIIIIoII, ~ ~~ ,=. RECORD FROM: COUNTY 8£NQllEIflS (NO. COUNTY ~r. 710-111-7700 s..v.,II" emma. DATA) DAl! "'iiii£ '--_FCIIIl_._'7_eo-_H_'-.... II ..... 1I .... 0_"'--___ ...L..:.:.:::.::.:...:;::..:.::.~-:-~ ______________ 1~.;:::.. __ ~~."..~":.JEI1VAlION: 68.479. 0/"1111: NVfJO OF 1929 EIIGIIEiIC OF WUIIC Gate x 524 . . ! /1\ MIl HIIM. DAl! HIIM. REVISION DESCRIPTION cma /lWAfNM. em ,. FIWOJiL x 6'8.4 x 58.9 .-.-----.-~,- / x 8818 x 70.9 \ \\ \ . . \ \ \/\ \ " \. / )'. i \\ , ;\ -----50' I SHf' II, CIT.I .. QF·. CA~LSBAD I SH3S S I GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE UP. 02-03 c.r. 02-16 ~ ~DATE ~ .3.30l!1 "EXPiRES ~;-' PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. C.r. 02 16 4336A _-",,;;1. ..... _,-"-c:.-: --- ---- )\ , \ \ C!s·~"', .. -.,-., .. ___ .. _.,,_.,\\·_ 'l---1t--,--~~ '2:~1I LOT _L,-,----,--,---;~ .. ,~, -=--~-.-J--...-~ .,,--. ' .. ~ ..:..~ :~~. .-.... .-.-."-_ . \I SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATlONS ARE APPROXIMATE . C'I. RIVERSIDE CO • ORANGE CO •. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 7 of 13 W.O. 5353-A-SC' DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"-40' fO?? ---I Qals ------- SEE SHEET No. 10 , . I , --- I \ ~ , x 51.2 6 x 1)5.0 SEE SHEET No. 12 'I I ( . ©2006 O'Oay Consultants, Inc. DESIGNED BY: J.J. DATE: MAR. 2005 DESClllF1ION: STANDARD 1I-10SlREET CENTERl/N£ DRAWN BY: C F. B B M,P, SCALE: ,. = 4p' II!I.I. NONUAIENT I ::.:PROJ=EC::T..:M::G:R.~. ~K~H:::.:JO:8:..:N:O:.' :0:1-:10::1:4 jLOCA1lON: CENTERl/N£ Of Ii. CAAIINO HEAl. I-AT ENf§NEER'S Sf A "ON <151+92 2710 Loker Awn. w.t eM! £11l1li"" .......... l1li11 ENGINEER OF WORK: PER H.S 1800-1 SUlIe 100 PlannIng ICarilW. Clrlll •• 12010 ..... 1...... RECORD FROM: CfJi/NTY BENCH In£I.S (NO. COUNTY I£RT. . 7to-N1-7700 SUrw,Int , CONTROl. DATA) '--_Fi_0ICl_._7_to-N __ '-_If8O ______ ....L....:.::::,;,;,,:,..,;,::...;;:,;=:....... ___ =:.....:~~ MAllON: 68.~79DAlTJJI: NVGO OF 1929 I-------'\.--~·-- x 86.8 CX:l ~ --.... "" --- --~ -I--.. ,/ ~ ~ - ----~ V) •••••••••••••••• ----- ". -.... x 85.0 x 84.5 11111 CIT~N~NGC~~~AD II SH!5S I GRAOING PLANS fOR: ROB£RTSON RANCH £AST VILLAG£ . UP. 02-0J c.T. 02-16 . ~ ~ 'ReE EiCPiRES ~ li\ . g:D~: I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. IWE III\IoL !WI III\IoL IWE III\IoL 1I1G111ELt· OF _ REVISION DESCRIPTION ona 1IfIRfNM. c:nY IIFFIIIML RVWD BY: c.r. 02~16 433-6A l .. - / , I \ ,., n Ii "Ii jj , I' F l: ! \ \ , } i, . , . -' .-" ..... --.. , .... --,_ ... - .'--' ,_ .. .-_. ---'-.. ------. .-,--" ... ,-- SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS .ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 9 of 13 W.O. 5353-A-SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' \ \ "- ,,\ '- \ \ "-\ '. --~ --. , "-\ \ -\ \ \ \ \ J NOlFS: 1. 0 Sf£ SHEET 2 FOH £»STlNG £ASEII£NT 1NF0000AllON. / I '/ ..... j. I I I / I I / QalA . x 74.8 SEE SHEET No. J 4 DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: etE PROJECT NGR.· J.J, DATE:' MAR, 2005' B Btl M.P, -SCAlE: r = 49' K H JOB NO.' OH 014 . :'UlC_tt ~ . lIME 11M. DIQIIItiJt OF WOIIIC x 128..5 =13.J CF$.:.--. ·-iffIiJ FPS x IZ~:li PERSlJHSf) 0-40 . . REVISION DESCRIPTION x 131.0 I . 0/I1E 11M. 0IItEIt II"PRfNIL .... ,. oz. ., 1:07pm 0I141P-F1 0I148GIXT: 0I14A1W' . ~ 11M. art IIPPIIII'IIIL . ---- HAlF HAR.'OUNJ.:~"", Qt --~--so' 11311 CITY OF CARLSBAD"~UjSI ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3 5 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MP. 02-03 c.T. 02 16 IRCE330a_ ~ I=~£ I PROJECT' NO. I DRAWING NO. c.r. 02-16 4JJ-6A , ,I , ./ "- .-. / 1----I. SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ~ .. -----------._._ .. ----- I / / I .... _/ / I ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DmGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 10 of 13 W.O. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' ©2006 O'Oay Consultants, Inc. SEE SHEET No.!J I / / I •• • • • • • • • • SEE SHEET No. ! 5 DESIGNED BY: J.J. DATE: . MAR. 2005 DRAWN BY: e,F" 8.8" M,P. SCAlE: -J" = 40' I-...,.....;;...,~=,:.,....,....,,,.......,.-b.,......,_-PROJECT IAGR.' K.H: JOB NO: 01-1014 STANOAHf) 1.1-10 STR(£T CEN1ERfJNE HElL IIOM1HENT CENTERlINE OF EL CAlllNO REAL AT ENGlNm's STA"ON -151+92 2710 loW "-Welt CIvIl DIgIn...... ENGINEER 01" WORK: PER H.S I8fJO-1 SlIt. 100 PIaI.lln, ICCIrIIIbad. CoIIomIa 82010 ""mJlltO. RECORD fROM: COUNTY 8fNCH I.El£J.S (No.ClJlJNTY I£RT. L--.!~~7eo-~H~'-~77~00~.-..:s..:':~=""'~_b~!J~E:===~~~j CCWTROlDATA)' . Fox: 71O-H1-8AO ;-,=,.... El1VA1IOH:68.479 DATIHI: NWIJ fF 1929 . If\. 11m IIIW. II'."" til WOIIC Qt x x 9 8 124.8 Qt --- X /YVo,J \--.... ----~ 10' 40' -----.--- ---20' 50' SCALE: 1· .. 40' I s~w I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHaiS I 14 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE . ~ c.r. 02-16 ~ ~ ~ OWN BY: I PRO.JECf NO. I DRAWING NO. Ilo\1l IIIW. Ilo\1l IIIW. CHKD BY: REVISION DESCRIPTION tmtat IWt/lNIL CIIY API'IICIIML RVWD BY: C.T. 02-16 : 4JJ-6A , \ "-~ . \ x 101.0 . , ,. : \ 109.J-~. / ; ; i \ /!o / ! , ! f ujC x !20. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE •.. , '. ~ ;,. 1'1 ..•. ; •. ..,. RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGECO •. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 1 of 13 W.O. 5353·A·SC DATE 01107 SCALE 1"=40' x IJ9.0 x 70.7 x IJI..5 9 . x 75.0 , \ 1 ( \t f x x 75.0 x 73.6 • 74.9 .x 74..5 x 74.6 x 73.7 NOlA PART . ", x 73.J . PRtPOSEl /NUNDA" . x 73.1 PEN &1 OTA LV?'>'/J . #f.==75..5 40.46 38. NOTES: I \ \ \ \ x 75."· LJ oLP x x 71.J x 7aJ .><71.2 x 72.6 £XISTlNC RElCGETAHON AREA' j!LLA~~:--------"-J IXISHNG STOR", WAlDf -------. /NlVNDAlltN £AS£NENT TO . TIE (;frr (F CARtSA4 R!f),FJ(2KiflflS TO ec A8AN/JONEO NOf6 A PARlo x 71..5 __ --------~·--·--~swcn~z~ ________ '" __ ~o___ '., (SEE'fll/f'fJ'%ffAltS) '. . .' I I I I / / SEE SHEET No. 6 .J'--~___ . , . -,... '. --_. I --- 20' TRAIL EASt x /70. I , ~ 7a J >l'£HJJ1NAl '" 'CTD2-16 I I I \ \ .xfi<1fi \ ---J.:" -' -T--_ ,. r~ . "')7aJ . \\ . \ 'XJ;QQ. 1. @I SEE SHEFT 2 FeR EXlSHNG EAS£IIfNT INFaWAH(1{. . r-©_2_0_06~O~'D~ay_C_o_n~su_lta_n_ts~,_ln_C'r-________ ~ ______ ~BENCHMARK: DESIGNED BY: J.J. DRAWN BY: C F. B B PROJECTMGR.· KH. 2710 ..... __ w.t CIvIl EllgInnrtng ENGINEER OF WORK: DATE: MAR. 2005 . Uf.SUIIFIION: M.P. SCAI E. J U ~ 4Q~ JOB NO.' 01-1014 . LOCA1ION: STANOAHD "'-10 SlREET CENTERIJN( . IIEI.L ",ONIIAIENT' . CENlERllN£ OF El CAUIA? HEAl. AT ENGINEER's STAHON M+12 PER H.S 18(1)-1 . lecnlllCllf. C II$I:-,JV: =. RECORD FROM: COUNTY BENCH IEVEZS (;\11 COUNTY IDiT. L_~~'~eo-N~~1:-'~'~W~--=SurI=.="'=fll\I:' _-.-:ll~!:::t§!~====~t]~~r:J·· CONTROl. DATA) , FIIIC 7eo-N1-8eIO :-El£VAlION: 68.~79 DATlIAI: NWIJ IF 1921 . R<.. DAlE 11M. IIIQIIIUII fJIF IIIlIIIC AfBTD 'Afu QalB Qt Tsa ,·Jsp/Kgr .".-.-... . / ". '. " .. . I . • "$Ii 75 HB-6 "'~"'" 8-9 . TP-44 ~ TP-13 ~ • 9' 10' ffl' -----80' 20' SCALE: 1'. = 40' . . . .. I I _. QIII! HIW. 11m LEGEND Artificial fill -engineered stockpile, circled where buried Artificial fill -engineered placed within the College/Canyon right-of-way' . Artificial fin -undocumej'lted . Ouaternary alluvium -tribituary canyon . Ouaternary alluvium -ve.lley floodplain, circled where buried . Quaternary terrace deposits, circled where burleel .. . Tertiary Santiago Formation, circled where burled Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics and Cretaceous granitics - undifferentiated, circled where buried Approximate location of geologic contac~ dotted where buried Attitude of bedding Horizontal attitude of bedding Vertical attitude of joint, Appoximate location of exploratory boring (OSI, 2002) . Approximate location of exploratory boring (OSI, 2001) Approimate location of exploratory test pit (OSI, 2002) . ."' -. Approximate location of exploratory test pit (OSI, 2001) Approximate depth of proposed remedial removal (in feet) ISHSEr II CITY OF CARLSBAD "SHEEIS I ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 3 5 CRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE M.P. 02-03 c.r. 02-16 ~ ~ ~ lint&. ~~: PROJECT NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION GnIP Nft.fNJL em.......,.., RVWD BY: I C.T. 02 /6 I DRAWING NO. 4JJ 6A . . I : ! SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO •. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 2 of 13 w.o. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' .' ~~OfESS/~ ~:\~'lI.~~ CI)~ ~ (; NO •. 60223 ~ . \\I. ElCP.6/30/oa !:J * * ~~.CIVII. J9.~~ OF'CA\.W""; SEE SHE£TNo. 5 , I / 6 / , \ \ x 69.6 NOTA P x 69.4 x 68.2 x 68.3' 1)),1 / I \ \ I f ii lJ · \ If 111 I ; ')' ," \ \1 I I --~ I 7 I I 1 i I '0 j /1 ,i' .. v .... r~· ~ rmr4--- L l I .,! I r . r . r I , r I ! 1 r-, ... I r \ \. \ x 67.6 , . ' FEJlA Fl()(J{) (j,W-;;~~!:fflY-Jf.-:t~.J..-. x&,' (SEE LEfJ£NfJ .' 0''7.6 IJUA/J.S) \ LOT 9: 40.46 AC. GROSS 38.74 AC. NET . EXlSTlNG loA Ifl} ACCESS ROAD PER. DiiGl~. i< 67.0 . HAlP HARt.'lINi;:f::\ I . --~J8"RfP. . J!1iD·"'NOTA P A x x 66'.7 /\ x 66'.2 x 65. I . f l. I I r i/ j (I r, [ ( . I I I I I/" J , II /I J. r tJ ./, II ! , 11 l r (' " 'I I II' I i r .1 . iI.l ~ '. i I! I I I I . / V ;I /; II J ;' 4 " J / I J //1/1/ l/ 1/ 11 / / I' // JI· ! .I, ;i I - . . I I I I I 1 I / I ., j :OBSI~URED~ ( NOTES: SEE SHEET No. 1 1. 1iQIS£E SHEEr 2 RR EXlSllNQ £AS£NENT INFORIIA TION. ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. r---:----::-..:....--------'T------~ BENCHMARK: " DESIGNED BY: J.J, DATE: ~~_I __ -DDCIII'IION: STANDARD 1/-,10 STH£ET ClNTERJJN£ DRAWN BY: CF, 88M P SCALE: .J....;~_I II£Ll. JI(1(UNEN( ... PROJECT NGR.· K.H, JOB LOCA1ION: ClNTEHlIN£ OfEl CAlIfNO REAl. AT DI(JfN(£R'$STAlION 15#92 2710 ..... "-... w..t CIvIl £ngIIinrlng ENGINEER OF WORK: PER R.S IQOO-f ICGdIlKMf. c~~~ . '=" RECORD fROM: .COIJNT'IBfNCli££lfl.S (Na CfA/NTY lfRT. L~~~7eo-~n~'~-7~700~~ .... ==,.= .... =__11~]J~~==~EEt:]2md CONTROl. DATAl .' . Fax: ElLVA1ION: 68.-179. DA11#f: NVGO OF 1129 . IIoQE II1W. INIIIIIIII OIF.WORK 'I I , ' . " . /f\ om; II1W. IIoQE lil'iiii. REVISION DESCRIPTION CIIIIEIt I#f'ftfNIL CIIY-..&. . I ,... /..J././ x 723 I I x 71.7 I /' /' X 7a8 " x 7as .'. x 7a7 , . ,) I ' ! I I I \ J ~ \ \ ~\ \ ~ '\ ~ , , -\ , \ \ \ • J I I I I / , f , I I ! , ' . , I I I , i I I I 1 I \ I \ I i I \ I \ , I , \ \ \"'--'~'..\\'---'-\ ".; ','" , SCAI.E: I" = 40' .. -_.:y-, \ . , \ , , , , I • I , I I • f , ! I ! , \ ,\ , I,EU\ICITY OF CARLSBADII~35SI ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE ~ c.r. 02-16 E! "5 ~ ~ Dwr.. BY' I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. CHKD rff: RVWO BY: C.T. 02-16 : 4JJ-6A ~-----------------~~~~- -,. ' .. - / / ./ " x 75.ti SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE '1'''.·.··111' .. -1: .... , ........ " RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 4 of 13 W.O. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' I SEE SHEET No. 7 x 5.9. , x 57. x 57.1 / '~.'V~' /' / .. ' ' <?,; , A, x 55.g NOlES: 1. I!I SEE SHEET 2 FOH £XlSllNG £A$OIENT INFOHIIA TION. . .. . 11\ DQE IIIW. ...... CWWOlllC ~ REVISION DESCRIPTION r_~_C_2_00_6~O,'D_a~y_'_Co_n_s_ul_ta~n~ts~,~I~nc~'r-~ ______________ ~ __ __ F,.... BENCHMARK: '. O/C)"-? ~::E~:~:f. H'S M'p. =:M;.~.=2~1: aRI'11OH: ~=:iiJ,~SlfETC£NTERtJNE CON S U L T WT S ...... PR_OJ_E ..... CT_M_GR.... _" _K-"H_, __ J_O_B _N_O,_' _Ol_-_10_14~ LOCA1IOH: ' ' C£NlfRtINE OF El. WINO HEAL , AT ENflIN£fR'S STAlIN 45#92 2710 Lobr ~ w.t ClCMI:':IIl:1"IrM •• ",,1ng1g ENGINEER OFWORI<: FER R.S 1800-1, ' sun. 100 PIal....' CaM_ad. Callfomla 82010 PrDD ,,'.. RECORD FROM: COUNTY BENCH III6 (Mrl' COUNTY VERT. 7to-N1-7700 $UrV¥.. caimot DAlJ" '. • Fax: 7to-n1-111O . 'V . '--...:..:::..;,:::..:====~ _______ -L.!!:!!!!.!:~~ ______ ~~~~JElEVA1IOH: 68.179' DATfJlI: IW OF 1929 " .. x --'-., .. ' --_.---_ .. -------- x tiati x tiati xoa7 x 8Qe 0' 10' 40' -----20 80' SCAlE: I" = 40' . I stili CITY OF· CARLSBAD II SHUISI ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE ~' C.T. 02 16 ~ ~ ~ ~ , lIME IIIW. MIE IIIW. OWN BY: I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. CHKD BY: c.r. 02 16 CIIIIIK AF.Ilc:NAL CII'I APPItOII\L RVM) BY: 4JJ 6A LOT! 4.72 AC. GROSS NET x 4.5.5 , \ \ (0 i ~~~~~=t="/~- I 7f1 ='"=-.-.~ I :;:';;'lfvdfA Y TO IJ£ .~ __ H.'r - 1.8 .-. ---.,.-THICK .. -. - ---. __ f ---.... ----7-7--;---;.~- -.... ,.-' \ -,< \ :\ x 47.~ \ , .-, \ , t._ ......• x 47.J )( ~.. 0-75 TYPE 7/' [ BHOWOITCH . (J I.OX AltN. 4< , ~ [!J - x ! i x 47.8 SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCAllONS ARE APPROXIMATE RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 8 of 13 W.O. 5353·A·SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' X 46.8 - . NOTES: x SEE SHEET No. 11 --' --:-,--------------- /. / I .. ' .' ------- / / "'----.------,-- ~/ --·--------1 ~-. )( 47.J x 47.5 x 02.5 .---., .. - x 0.5.0 ~~ ~~ ... ~.c< ... ,.11 LOT J _·£NIfJ~ON"~;WTAL/FENC£ 5.50 At. GROSS 4.37 AC. NET £iJSTlNG TREES -~~-.... li TO /J£ RDlOVEl) QalB ------ -- QalB x 6 - ~. I ~ I \ \ \. \ \ \ \ , 1 J>-l,.I I '. ", I ,-; J ~:. ,~ '---t-j-. . I .' )( ........ ---~ ... ,-1 .. ...:.. -.. -i< 46:8 -~-,. ....... ~_'« -'. '. -..,. ~ - 1'----1 r J . ! r-·-·'·--·-~-----L I I - 48.' ---' /----\. ~ \ ( \ -='- ...... x 4g.5 ...... x 84.5 x ~~f:::-=-:'; .-~ ----. ~':: -~-~' --".' . . < .J J~i:lIB x 5.J.2 /~-., ~---.-"""-------l tO~ 40t ,------20 50' ---- - \ . SCALE: 1· , '\ • =40 / CQ ~ h.... ~ ~ ~ Vi 1. [l] SEE SHEET 2 flR EXlSllNGEASOIENT INflRAIA llON. f----1-~+_---------t-_+_~~_4____4[jLH CITJ~N~NG ~~~AD 1Llr] t;RADING PLANS FOR: ..--©_2_00_6_0'.;.-Do..:..Y_C_o-,-ns_u_lto_n_ts_, _In_c.r-· __ ---'-_~ ____ _. BEN CHMARK: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE DESIGNEO BY: J.J. DATE: . MAR. 2005 DRAWN BY: c.r. B B M P SCAlE: 1" = 40' DESC:Rf1lON: f:.t.NOt'!:u~~ STREET CENTERl./N£ , PROJECT MGR .... ; .IloK.,u.H. __ JOB NO." 01-1014 LOC:A1ION: CEN1EHJ.III£ OF B. CAJIINO REAl. f-------------I AT ENflINJER's $TAllON /5#92 2710 Lokw .t.v.n ... w..t CIvIl Eng __ *_IIfI--Ir1.. ENGINEER OF WORK: Pm H.S '800-1 ~~~~~~~§~~~~~~~~~~ SuIt. 100 .... W.1I11 ' . ICorIIIbCId. c .'0"'" 12010 !'Nelillng REWRD FROM: COUNT'(; Cl:NCH I£lfZS (No. COUNTY VERT. hQQl=-+";:;IIIW.=--I4~~------------+=:-I-===-+-:=--+=:-I PROJECf NO. I DRAWING NO. 7eo-N.-7700 SUMyII" CONTNOI. DATA) . . REVISION DESCRIPTION QVI IIIW. om IIIW. C T. Q)/) 16 43.' -. C A '--_Fax:_7_eo-n __ '-_aeao.-....-'--_~ __ --Jl,..;.;.;;;;;;.;...;.;.:..:.::.:;;;::.:::.. ___ --.:=~=::-.JElf.VA1ION: 68.479 DATW: NIW OF 1929 EIIQIIIUIi or WORK 0IHEIt M'PRO'IAL CIIY RPIIOYII. .. :L -. J-Ut1 Af.p. 02-03 c.T. 02-16 ". . ....