The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 07-04; BRESSI RANCH MEDICAL PLAZA; PAVEMENT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS; 2008-03-06• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SOUTHERN March 6/ 2008 CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Urban West Strategies A Clllifornia Carpam/ioll 936 East Santa Ana Boulevard Santa Ana/ California 92701 Attention: Kimberly Hutchings Vice President -Development Project No: 07G158-6 Subject: Gentlemen: Pavement Design Recommendations -Heavy Duty Pavement Proposed Bressi Ranch Medical Plaza Bressi Ranch Lot 1/ Planning Area 1 I J Carlsbad, California G T 07--0 I In accordance with the request of Mr. Zubin Patrawala of Fuscoe Engineering/ R-Value testing has been completed on a representative soil sample obtained from the site. the purpose of this testing was to determine the pavement sections for the "heavy duty" areas of the site. Based on several Communications with Fuscoe Engineering, it is our understanding that the design Traffic Index (ll) for a "heavy dutyll section at the site is 5.0. Results of the'J~t,ent laboratory testing are as follows: ,--", Sample Identification Rl Sample Location Central Portion of Site " , it-Value 30 Based on the recently completed R-Value testing, 'the new pavement sections should be ba~ed , on an R-Value of 30. Based on these design criteria we have calculated an equivalent structural section comprised of asphaltic concrete and aggregate base, as well as a full depth Portland cement concrete section. Based on conversations with Fuscoe Engineering, there are no minimum asphaltic concrete thickness requirements for this site. These design sections are provided for new "heavy dutyll pavement areas. -. , , -. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materia',s Thickness (inches) Heavy Duty Pavement Section eTI = 5.0) . Asphalt Concrete 3 Aggregate Base 6 Compacted Subgrade 12 (90% minimum compaction) 22885 East Savi Ranch Parkway T Suite E T Yorba Linda/ CA 92887-4624 voice: (714) 685-1115 T fax: (714) 685-1118 T www.socalgeo.com ~ c.,. Q1 p.Q L{ l • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a r:ecycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the "Green book" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. "--.<. - PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT$ Thickness (inches) ~ Materials -, , -- Heavy Duty Pavement Section '(11 = 5.0) " _ Asphalt Concrete 5 -- Compacted Subgrade 12 (95% minimum compaction) , - The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 pSi. Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid- height in the slab. In areas underlain by expansive soils, the reinfbrcemeht should be increased to No. 4 bars at 18 inches on center. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. We appreCiate the opportunity of providing geotechnical services on this project. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact our office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, RN CALIFORNIA OTECHNICAL, INC. '\ \ )2 Robert G. Trazo, M.Sc., GE 2 55 , Senior Engineer Distribution: (2) Addressee (1) Fuscoe Engineering SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA --G-EOTECHNTcTL Proposed Bressi Meaical BUilding,-Carlsbad, CA Project No. 07G158-6 Page 2 • . , .... ; -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • February 25, 2008 Urban West Strategies 936 East Santa Ana Boulevard Santa Ana, California 92701 Attention: Kimberly Hutchings Vice President -Development Proposal No.: 07G158-3 Subject: Grading Plan Review and Response to City of Carlsbad Red Line Comment Proposed Bressi Ranch Medical Building SEC of Garden Road and EI Camino Real Carlsbad, California . SOUTHERN· CALIFO RNIA . G EOTECHNI CAL A Califomill Carpot.llion Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Industrial Building, SEC of .Garden Road and EI Camino Real. Carlsbad, California, SCG Project No. 05G301-1, dated January 23, 2006. Gentlemen: As requested by Mr. Zubin Patrawala of Fuscoe Engineering, this report has been prepared to address the plan review comment made by the city of Carlsbad and to serve as a review of the grading plans for the proposed development. These plans were prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, and consist of two sheets dated January 11, 2008. These plans were reViewed for conformance with the assumptions, conclusions and recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical report. Grading Plan Review Comments generated during our review of these plans as well as any items requiring correction are presented below: • Based on a review of the precise grading plan, and conversations with Fuscoe Engineering, the proposed bioswales located east of the building will be constructed with an impermeable layer consisting of 10 mil visqueen, or eqUivalent, completely separating the bioswales from the surrounding soil. Therefore, no water is expected to infiltrate into the adjacent slope. Our review of the grading plans submitted to our office indicates that they have been prepared in general accordance with the recommendations of the above referenced geotechnical report. It should be noted that our review was limited to the geotechnical aspects of the project and no representations as to the suitability of the civil design are intended. 22885 East Savi Ranch Parkway T Suite E T Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4624 voice: (714) 685-1115 T fax: (714) 685-1118 T www.socalgeo.com • .~ ~ ,.,... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ . .....:.., Response to City of Carlsbad Red Line Comment Comment Response Report must address & provide recommendations for suitability of on-site water quality infiltration areas Infiltration rate of native/select import Proximity to slope Other pertinent factors We have reviewed a recently prepared bioswale detail prepared by Fuscoe Engineering (FE) indicating that all earthen bioswales on the project will be underlain by 3 inches of planting soil, fabric or 8 inches of hemic peat, 16 inches of sand, and a 6-inch-diameter perforated PVC pipe (surrounded and bedded by 8 inches of washed bank-run gravel and wrapped in filter fabric). Based on conversations with Mr. Zubin Patrawala of FE, it is our understanding that the bioswales are designed to essentially convey all surface water into nearby storm drains. We also understand that the swale/drain system will be completely enclosed by impervious fabric. Based on the fact that the bioswales are designed to convey all surface water into nearby storm drains and on the fact that a secondary system comprised of the 6 inch diameter drain/impervious fabric system is in place to convey seepage water into ne?lrby storm drains, it is our opinion that the bioswales will have a minimal effect on the stability of the adjacent slopes. We recommend that the bioswales and underlying drain system be regularly maintained. Please note that in general the introduction of water into slopes may reduce the strength of the soils and may increase driving forces. We Sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If there are any. questions concerning this matter, please contact our office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, HERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1 . ~ Robert G. Trazo, M.Sc., GE 65 Senior Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee (8) Fuscoe Engineering SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL Proposed Bressi Ranch Medical Building":" Carlsbadl CA Project No. 07G158-3 Page 2 · " • ~. ," ,'!} • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '\;:' GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGADON PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING Bressi Ranch Lot 1 Planning Area 1 Carlsbad, California for St. Croix Capital Southern Califor. ia Geotechnical St. Croix Capital 4350 Executive Drive, Suite 301 San Diego California 92121 Attention: Mr. Mike Card Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Industrial Building Gentlemen: Bressi Ranch lot 1, Planning Area 1 SEC of Garden Road and EI Camino Real Carlsbad, California January 23, 2006 Project No. 05G301-1 In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, ~alHomla Geotechnical. Inc. \ ~ Robert G. Trazo, Senior Engineer minara, CEG 2125 ologist n' (5) Addressee 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807-1951 • (714) 777-0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398 • ' .• ,- "..,.J • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .T • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description 3.2 Proposed Development 3.3 Previous Studies 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 4.3 Geologic Conditions 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations . 6.4 Construction Considerations 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 6.7 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations 6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 7.0. GENERAL COMMENTS APPENDICES A Plate 1: Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan B Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results DGrading Guide Specifications E UBCSEIS Computer Program Output 1 3 4 4 4 5 9 9 9 10 11 13 1"3 15 17 20 21 23 23 25 29 Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 .. • • 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Site Preparation • No significant topsoil or vegetation was present at the site at the time of the subsurface exploration. Any vegetation that develops prior to site grading should be stripped and removed from the site. • The site is underlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils extend to depths of up to 12± feet outside the footprint of the proposed building. • In order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help mitigate the variable support conditions due to the potential geologic transitions, it is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the proposed building pad area. • The building pad area underlain by shallow bedrock should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade. The depth of overexcavation should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations. • Following completion of the recommended overexcavation, exposed soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. After the subgrade soils have been approved by the geotechnical engineer, the resulting soils may be replaced as compacted structural fill. • A precise grading plan review is recommended subsequent to preparation of the plan in order to confirm the recommendations contained herein. Building Foundations • Shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill. • 2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No.5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to the medium expansive potential of the near surface soils. Building Floor Slab • Slab-on-Grade, at least 5 inches thick. • Minimum slab reinforcement: NO.3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G30H Page 1 • le .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • T Pavements ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materials Thickness (inches) Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate (TI =4.0) Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (TI = 5.0) (TI = 6.0) (TI =7.0) Asphalt Concrete 3 3 3Y2 4 Aggregate Base 6 9 11 13 Compacted Subgrade (90% 12 12 12 12 minimum compaction) PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Materials Automobile Parking and Drive Areas PCC 5 Compacted Subgrade 12 (95% minimum compaction) Thickness (inches) Light T:ruck Traffic Moderate Truck Traffic (TI:: 6.0) (TI = 7.0) 5Y2 7 12 12 Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No .. 05G301-1 Page? 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 05P442 , dated December 14, 2005. The scope of services included review of previous reports, a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing design of the building foundations, building floor slab, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301·1 Page 3 .' ,1: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '. , { '. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description The subject site is located within the recently mass graded Bressi Ranch Industrial Park which is located south of Palomar Airport Road in the city of Carlsbad, California. The. specific site is a portion of Planning Area 1 or Lot 1 and consists of 2± acres located southeast of the intersection of Garden Road and EI Camino Real. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate 1 in App'endix A of this report. . The subject site is an irregularly-shaped parcel, approximately 2± acres in site. Graded ascending slopes ranging in height from 6 to 9± feet border the site to the northeast and west. A graded descending slope ranging in height from 4 to 6± feet borders the site to ' the south. One desilting basin was located in the eastern portion of the site. The desilting basin was approximately 4 to 6± feet deep. At the time of the subsurface exploration, ground surface cover consisted of exposed soil with negligible to sparse grass and weed growth. Detailed topographic information was not available at the' time of this report. Visually, with the exception of the aforementioned slopes, the remainder of the site consists of gently sloping terrain dipping downward to the southwest. With the exception of the aforementioned slopes and the desilting basin, there was estimated to be "ess than 2 to 3± feet of elevation differential across the site. 3.2 Proposed Development Preliminary information regarding the proposed development was obtained from the site plan prep'ared by Smith Consulting Architects. This plan has been provided to our office by the client and indicates that the new development will consist of one (1) building with a footprint of 18,000± ft2. Detailed structural information is not currently available. It is, however, qssumed that the building will be of concrete tilt-up construction, typically supported on a conventional shallow foundation system and concrete slab on grade. Based on the ,assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the ,order of 60 kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 4 3.3 Previous Studies As part of our investigation of the overall site, including Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, we were provided with several geotechnical reports. The geotechnical reports provided to us consist of preliminary and supplemental geotechnical investigations, a summary report of mass grading, and as graded reports of mass grading. The subject site has been recently rough graded to its current configuration under the purview of Leighton and Associates, Inc. The reports which are applicable to the entire site, including all of the Planning Areas, are summarized below: • Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch Corporate Center. Planning Areas 1 through 5, SEC of Palomar Airport Road and EI Camino Real, Carlsbad, California; prepared for Sares Regis Group by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., dated May 3,2004, Project No. 03G259-2. This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of Planning Areas 1 through 5 subsequent to the mass grading. Subsurface exploration performed as part of this geotechnical investigation included twenty (20) borings advanced to depths of 5 to 19Y2± feet below currently existing site grades. The maximum depth of the borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Based on the subsurface conditions, the site is underlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils extend to ·depths of up to 90± feet and were placed under the purview of a geotechnical engineer. The existing fill soils and bedrock possesses relatively high strengths, and highly variable expansive potentials. Based on the variable expansive potentials and differing strengths of the engineered fill and bedrock, and in order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help mitigate the potential cut/fill transitions, it was recommended that remedial grading be performed within the proposed building pad areas. The building pad areas were recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 4 feet below proposed pad grade. The depth of overexcavation should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations. • Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Mass Grading, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Homes by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated March 14, 2001, Project No. 971009-005. This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical investigation to update their earlier preliminary geotechnical report prepared in 1997. Subsurface exploration performed as part of the supplemental geotechnical investigation included eight (8) Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 5 • '1 • . ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • large diameter borings and fifty-six (56) exploratory trenches. Logs of these supplemental borings and trenches as well as previous work by Leighton and others is -included in the report and summarized on the Geotechnical Map included therein. Based on the presented information, the subject site is primarily underlain. by sandstone bedrock. The bedrock is indicated to consist of the Tertiary age Santiago ,formation, which is oescribed as massively bedded sandstone with some zones of claystone and siltstone. Some minor areas of shallow undocumented fill, terrace deposits~ and alluvial/colluvial soils were also mapped within the boundaries of the' subject site. Although the majority of the mapped, larger ancient landslides are located outside the boundaries of the subject site, two (2) small ancient landslides were mapped on the' subject site, east of PA-1 and PA-2. Due to their small scale, they were recommended to be removed ,in their entirety and replaced as, compacted fill. Remedic~tI grading recommendations contained in this report indicate that all undocumented fill and alluvial/colluvial soils should be completely remO\~ed to competent material. • Supplemental Geotechnical Landslide Investigation. Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-10 through PA-12. Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 12, 2003, Project No. 971009-007. This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation for specific portions of the site. Subsurface exploration performed as part of the supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation included nine (9) large diameter borings and five (5) exploratory trenches in the areas of the previously mapped ancient landslides. Logs of these additional borings and trenches as well as revised cross sections are included in the report. The area of the subject site addressed by this report includes the east~rn, portion of planning areas PA-1 and PA-2 where several nested ancient landslides were mapped. Cross Sections E-E' and p.p' depict the mapped geologic, conditions and the recommended remedial grading, which consisted of complete removal of the landslides and replacement as engineered fill. This report restates the previo'us remedial grading recommendations and provides slope stability calculations to justify the proposed grading configurations. • Geotechnical Recommendations Concerning ,95 Percent Relative Compaction of Fill Deeper than 40 Feet, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared' for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 19, 2003, Project No. 971009-007. This report addresses the settlement potential of deep fill areas and provides recommendations to reduce the time period for the majority of the settlement to occur. In several areas of the overall project, fills up to 40 to 50± feet in thickness· were planned to achieve the design grades. Deep fill areas on the subject site a~e located .in Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA , Project No, 05G301-1 Page 6 the eastern portion of PA-2, and two small areas within PA-3 and PA-5. The report recommends that all structural fills below a depth of 40 feet from finish grade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density, and estimates that the time period for the majority of the settlement to occur will be reduced from 6 to 12 months to 3 to 8+ months. Near surface settlement monuments were recommended to be installed immediately after rough grading, with survey intervals of once a week for the first month, then twice a month for 3 months, and then monthly to determine completion primary settlement of deep fills. The recommended locations of the near surface settlement monuments are indicated to be contained on an index map within this report, however, the copy provided to us does not contain this plan. • Summary of the As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions and Partial Completion of Rough and Fine Grading, Planning Areas PA-1 Through PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated January 20,2004, Project No. 971009-014. This summary report indicates that grading of Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-3 is essentially complete, and that grading is ongoing in Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5. Grading operations were reportedly performed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in Leighton's previous geotechnical reports. Geotechnical issues presented in this summary report which were not discussed in the previous reports include the presence of inactive faults within PA-4 and PA-5, perched groundwater within the overexcavated tributary canyons on the east side of PA-1 and PA-2, oversize materials within the engineered fills, high to very high expansive soils at or near finish grade, and some severe sulfate concentrations which would require the use of specialized concrete mix designs. • As Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-1! PA-2. and PA-3, Metropolitan Street. and a Portion of Town Garden Road. Gateway Road, and Alicante Road, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April 15,2004, Project No. 971009-014 This report documents the mass grading of Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 as well as a portion of the interior streets. Most of the information contained in this report was presented in the January 20, 2004 summary report. The conclusions and recommendations are also similar to the previous report. With respect to the deep fills on this portion of the site, Leighton concluded that most of the anticipated settlement is complete, but the seven settlement monuments should be continued to be monitored. Soluble sulfate test results range from negligible to severe, and expansion index test results range from low (EI = 46) to very high (EI = 163). Preliminary pavement sections are presented and are based on assumed R-value of 12. Maximum cuts and fills within Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 are documented as 25 and 90 feet, respectively. Fill soils below a depth of 40 feet were compacted to at least 95% of ASTM 1557 maximum dry density. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301·1 Page 7 • ". • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • e! e i • .1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Addendum to As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion of Settlement Monitoring. Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5, Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and. Associates, Inc., dated October 11,2004, Project No. 97100~-014 This report presents the data' collected from the settlement monitoring program for the deep fill (greater than 40 feet) areas of the entire site. The settlement monitoring data was collected over a period of 5 to 6 months. Based on the collected data, Leighton. concludes that the primary settlement of the fill soils 'is essentially complete, and that construction of improvements within Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5 may begin. Secondary consolidation settlement of deep fills' is estimated to be less than 1 to 3 inches depending on the depth of fill. Differential settlements are estimated to be on the order of % inch in 25 feet. Proposed Industrial Building -, Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 8 , 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of six (6) borings advanced to depths of 15 to 19%± feet below currently existing site grades. The maximum depth of our borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (OEH). All of the borings were logged during excavation by a member of our staff. Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler" containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± Inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method 0-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM 0-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were taken at periodic locations in the trenches. The bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate location of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as some of the results of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions Presented below is a generalized summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. More detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered are illustrated on the Boring Logs, included in Appendix B. Artificial Fill Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at boring B-6. These fill soils extend to a maximum depth of 12± feet below existing grade. As previously discussed, the fill soils within PA-1 are documented to have maximum depths of 90± feet. The fill soils encountered in the borings generally consist of medium dense to very dense fine sands, clayey fine sands and hard fine sandy clays. The fill soils possess moderately Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 9 • -Ir>.,: .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • high strengths, moisture contents near or above optimum' and bas~d on their color mottling and 'composition, appeared to be well mixed. Bedrock , ' '"" Bedrock was encountered at or near ground surface or beneath the fill soils at all of the boring locations. The bedrock ,encountered at this site consists of Tertiary age Santiago form~tion, which is comprised of dense to very dense sandstone wi~h so.m~ ,zone~ of claystone and siltstone. Bedding within the Santiago formation on $ite is, generally massive with no significant planes of weakness or discontinuities. The sandstone uhitis typically light gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of weakly cemented silty fine sand. The siltstone unit is typically light gray to gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of fine :sandy silt. The claystone unit is typically dark gray to gray green in color, contains -some shell: fragments, gypsum veins, and is comprised of silts and clays. Groundwater Based on the water level measurements, and the moisture, contents, of the recovered soil samples, the static groundwater table is consider~d to have existed at a depth' in excess of 20± feet at the time of the subsurface explorati0n. Further, based on the conditions documented in the mass grading report by Leighton, no groundwater was encountered during grading. Therefore, groundwater' is expected to beat depths greater than the extent of the fill soils, which are 90± feet thick within PA .. 1. 4.3 GeologiC Conditions Geologic research indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone mapped as the Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa) with nearly horizontal, bedding attitudes. The primary available reference applicable to the subject site is DMG Open-File Report 96.- 02, Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of Sail Diego County, California, by California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996. . , Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, it is ,our opinion the site is underlain by sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock consisting of the Santi;:lgo formation (Map Symbol Tsa). The bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings and observed at ,the ground surface is generally massively bedded and the structure is comprised of nearly horizontal bedding with some moderately developed joints in'the upper, less weathered portions of the bedrock. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA , , Project'No.05G30'1-1 Page 10 " 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM 0-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. In-situ Oensity and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM 0-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM 0-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM 0-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C of this report. Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4-inch diameter, 1-in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to 50 ± 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301~1 Page 11 • I • . ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24":hour period. The results of the EI testing are as follows: Sample Identification 8-1 @ 0 to 5 feet Soluble Sulfates Expansion Index 58 Expansive Potential Medium Representative samples of the near-surface soils have been. submitted to· a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the soluble sulfate testing are presented below are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Sample Identification 8-4 @ 0 to 5 feet Soluble Sulfate (%) 0.014 UBC Chlssification . Negligible Proposed Industrial Building -C?rlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 12 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. Following completion of the recommended grading and foundation construction procedures, the subject site is considered suitable for its intended use. 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. The completion of a site specific seismic hazards analysis is beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. However, it should be noted that numerous faults capable of producing Significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Faulting and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. Seismic Design Parameters The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or the California Building Code (CBC), whichever is applicable. The UBC/CBC proviqes procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301·1 Page 13 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O""'-_____________________________ ~_~~ ____ ~ ___ ______.J • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • The 1997 UBC/2001 CBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents. the largest design values presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the· following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: • Nearest Type A Fault: • Nearest Type B Fault: • Soil Profile Type: • Seismic Zone Factor (Z): • Seismic Coefficient (Ca): • Seismic Coefficient (Cv): • Near-Source Factor (Na) • Near-Source Factor (Nv) Elsinore-Julian (36 km) Rose Canyon (11 km) So 0.40 0.44 0.64 1.0 1.0 The design procedures presented by the UBC and, eBC are intended' to pr0tect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of more conservative seismic design parameters would provide increased safety and a lower potential 'for cosmetic damage and economic loss during a large seismic event. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the proposed structure. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated sons when the p.ore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic .event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may. impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed andldriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those' soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to liquefaction. These conditions consist of structural fill soils underlain by high strength Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 14 sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock, neither of which are susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Based on the subsurface conditions, liquefaction is not considered to be a significant design concern for this project. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations General The subject site is underlain by fill soils and by sandstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils, extending to a maximum depth of 12± within the subject site generally consist of moderate to high strength sands, clayey sands, and sandy clays. The proposed grading to establish the new finished floor elevations is expected to result in the formation of one geologic contact transition between sandstone and claystone within the proposed building pad. The resultant subsurface profile is expected to provide variable support characteristics for the foundations of the proposed structures. Based on these considerations, it is recommended that remedial grading be performed within the new building area in order to provide a subgrade suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures. The primary geotechnical design consideration that will impact the proposed development is the fact that the proposed grading will create geologic transitions within the proposed building area. This is discussed in detail in the following sections of this report. Grading and Foundation Plan Review The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the preliminary plans provided to our office. No grading plans were available at the time of this report. Once preliminary grading plans become available, it is recommended that they be provided to our office for review with regard to the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. In addition, a foundation plan was not available at the time of this report. It is recommended that preliminary foundation plans be provided to our office once they become available. Depending on the results of our review, some modifications to the recommendations contained in this report may be warranted. Settlement Provided that the recommendations contained within this report are implemented in the structural design and construction of the proposed buildings, the post-construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Following completion of the recommended grading, the post-construction static settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 15 .' le • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -: .' • • ·1 -I :1 .1 • • • • • • • -• • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Geologic Transitions The proposed building is closely underlain by dense bedrock. Based on our observations, we have included geologic contact lines on our Plate 2 Boring Location Plan separating areas of near"surface sandstone and claystone. It appears that sandstone/claystone transitions exist within the proposed building area. This geologic contact transition condition at bearing grade raises the potential for additional differential settlement due to the differential expansion potential for claystone and sandstone. This report contains recommendations for additional remedial grading within the building pad to remove this geologic transition. It should be noted that the extent of areas that will require overexcavation to mitigate geologic transitions will depend upon the final' grades that are established ttlroughout the site. Therefore, the extent of this remedial grading may change, following our review of the preliminary grading plan. Expansion Most of the on-site soils consist of medium expansive soils and bedrock (EI = 58). Based on the presence of expansive soils, special care should be taken to prop·erly moisture condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all. subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils. The foundation and floor slab design recommenqations contained within this report are made in consideration of the expansion index test results. It is expected that Significant blending of the on"site soils will occur during precise grading procedures, and that the resulting building pad subgrade soils will possess medium expansion potentials. It is recommended that additional expansion index testing be conducted at the completion of precise grading to verify the expansion potential of the as-graded building pads. Shrinkage/Subsidence Based on our experience with the on-site soils and rock materials, removal and recompaction of the existing near-surface engineered fill soils is estimated to result in average shrinkage or bulking of less than 5 percent. Where the eXisting bedrock is overexcavated and replaced as structural fill, bulking on the order of 0 to 5 percent is expected. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal <;Jue to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.1 feet. These estimates may be used for grading in areas that are underlain by existing engineered fill soils. No significant subsidence will occur in areas that are immediately underlain by sandstone bedrock. These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence i~ expected to Proposed Industri~1 Building -Carlsbad. CA ProjectNb. 05G301-1 Page 16 be variable and will be dependant on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use, and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely. Setbacks In accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements, all footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3, where H equals the slope height, measured from the outside face of the footing to any descending slope face. This setback should not be less than 7 feet, nor need it be greater than 40 feet. 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site specific recommendations presented below. Site Stripping and Demolition Initial site preparation should include stripping of any vegetation and organic debris. Based on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, no significant stripping of vegetation or topsoil is expected to be necessary. However, if vegetation develops subsequent to the date of our reconnaissance, it should be removed off site. Removal of the existing desilting basin in the eastern portion of the site is also recommended. Initial grading operations should also include abandonment of the existing desilting basin, located in the northeast portion of the site. Any softened soils, silt deposits, water, or other unsuitable materials should be removed from the detention basin. Removals should extend to a depth of suitable structural compacted fill soils or bedrock. Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pad As discussed above, remedial grading will be necessary in the building area to mitigate potential variable support conditions due to differential geologic conditions that will exist at or near the proposed foundation bearing grade. Remedial grading should be performed within the area of the building to remove and replace a portion of the dense bedrock as engineered fill. The existing bedrock should be overexcavated to provide for a new layer of compacted structural fill, extending to a depth of 3 feet below the proposed building pad subgrade elevation, and to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade, throughout the building area. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, it is expected that such overexcavation will be required throughout the building. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 17 • ..• ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .; .1 .1 I • • • • • • .1 • .' • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • In general, the overexcavations should extend at least 5 feet -beyond the building perimeter. If the proposed structure incorporate any exterior columns (such,as for a canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas. Following completion of the overexcavations, the subgrade soils (or bedrock) within the building area should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy rubber-tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous, or low density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation. The exposed subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls underlain by less than 2 feet of existing engineered fill soils should be over~xcavated to a depth of 2 feet below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill, as discussed above for the proposed building pad. Subgrade soils in areas of non-retaining site, walls should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below proposed bearing grade, if not underlain by at lest 1 foot of existing engineered fill soils. _ In ,both cases, the overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils. In areas where unsuitable fill soils are encQuntered at foundation subgrade level, additional overexcavation or deepened footings will be necessary. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. - Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking and Drive Areas Overexcavation of the existing fill soils in the new parking and drive area~ is -generally not considered warranted, with the exception of any areas where lower strength sbils are identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading. Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of completion of cuts where required. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of unsuitable soils. Based on conditions observed at the site at the time of drilling, no significant overexcavationis expected to be necessary within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4± percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maxim~m dry density. Depending upon the actual finished grades, which have not -yet been established, portions of the parking lot subgrades may be immediately underlain by bedrock. These materials may be used for direct pavement subgrade support. However, the owner Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 18 and/or developer of the project should understand that minor amounts of reflective cracking and/or minor differential movements should be expected to occur near the location of the transitions between these bedrock materials and the adjacent engineered fill. If such cracking or minor differential movements within the pavements is not considered acceptable, additional overexcavation should be performed within the cut portions of the parking areas. Fill Placement • Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. • On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris or oversized materials to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. • All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the grading code of the City of Carlsbad. • All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. • Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of low expansive (EI < 30), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix O. Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and flooded in place. Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Carlsbad. Materials used to backfill trenches should consist of well graded granular soils with a maximum particle size of 3 inches. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 19 •• ' , ,I. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a. 1 h:1 v plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Sand or pea gravel backfill, unless it is similar to the native soils, should not be used for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Moisture Sensitive Subgrade Soils Some of the near surface soils possess appreCiable silt and clay content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, the. on-site soils .will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations, ' Excavation Considerations Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, the bedrock that underlies the subject site possesses a dense to very dense relative density, but is somewhat friable. It is expected that it will be feasible to utilize conventional grading equipment within the depths that were explored by the borings. However, some difficulty may be encountered during excavation, possibly requiring large single shank-equipped bulldozers, excavators, etc. The grading contractor should verify the need for special excavation equipment prior to bidding the project. Based on the presence of moderately granular soils throughout the development area, minor to moderate caving of shallow excavations may occur. Flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. Temporary excavation slopes should be no steeper than 1 h:1v. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA r.egulations. Expansive Soils As previously discussed, the on site soils have been determined to possess a medium expansion potential. Therefore, care should be given to proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 p~rcent above the Modified Proctor optimum during site grading. All imported fill soils should have low to medium expansive characteristics. In addition to adequately moisture'· conditioning the subgrade soils and fill soils during grading, special care must be taken to maintain the moisture content of these soils at 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum. This will require the contractor to frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the grading process, unless grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather~ Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No .. 05G301-1 Page 20 ----------~~-----~----------......,.-...,., Due to the presence of expansive soils at this site, provisions should be made to limit the potential for surface water to penetrate the soils immediately adjacent to the structures. These provisions should include directing surface runoff into rain gutters and area drains, reducing the extent of landscaped areas around the structures, and sloping the ground surface away from the buildings. Where possible, it is recommended that landscaped planters not be located immediately adjacent to the proposed buildings. If landscaped planters around the buildings are necessary, it is recommended that drought tolerant plants or a drip irrigation system be utilized, to minimize the potential for deep moisture penetration around the structure. Other provisions, as determined by the civil engineer may also be appropriate. Groundwater Free water was not encountered within the depths explored py the borings drilled for this project. These borings extended to a maximum depth of 20± feet below existing grade. Based on this information, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed grading or foundation construction activities. 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding preliminary grading recommendations, it is assumed that the new building pad will be immediately underlain by existing or newly placed structural fill soils extending to depths of at least 3± feet below foundation bearing grade. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structure may be supported on conventional shallow foundation systems. Foundation Design Parameters New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: • Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 Ibs/fe. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. • Minimum wali/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches • Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No.5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to medium expansive potential of near surface soils. • Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 21 .-J.", -, .; • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • It is recommended that the perimeter foundations be continuous acros~ all exterior doorways. Flatwork adjacent to exterior doors should be doweled into the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structur;31 engineer. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above' is based on geotechnical 'considerations. Additional reinforcement may be, necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determi.ned by the structural engineer.' . Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnic;al engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable bearing materials should be removed to a 'depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to, 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below bearing grade. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post-construction total and differential settlements induced by the foundation loads of the new structures are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively, for shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. The differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than Q~002 inches per inch. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination. of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: • Passive Earth Pressure: 250 Ibs/fe • Friction Coefficient: 0.25 These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining fric~.ion and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by ooe-third. Proposed Industrial Building '"7' Carlsbad, CA . Project No:,05G30t~1 Page 22 These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable compacted structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2500 Ibs/ff. 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the new structure may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on newly placed structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be designed as follows: • Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches • Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions. • Slab underlayment: 10-mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and 2-inch layer of sand may be eliminated. • Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches. • Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. 6.7 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations It is expected that some small retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below. Retaining Wall Design Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill: on-site soils consisting of sandy silts, silty sands and sandy clays; and imported select granular material. In order to use the design parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the base of the retaining wall upwards at a 59 degree angle of inclination. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301~1 Page 23 • •• . ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS" Soil T~pe Design Parameter Imported On..:Site Aggregate Base Soils Internal Friction Angle (~) 380 280 Unit Weight 130lbs/fe 1251bs/fe Active Cond ition 31 Ibs/fe 451bs/ft3 -(level backfill) Equivalent Fluid Active Condition 441bs/ft3 791bs/ft3 Pressure: (2h: 1 v backfill) At-Rest Condition 481bs/ft3 661bs/ft3 (level backfill) - Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using" a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.25 and an equivalent passive pressure of 2S0 Ibs/ft3. The active earth pressures may be used for the design of retaining walls which do not directly support structures or support soils which in turn support structures and which wUl be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressures should be used fQr walls which will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation be"aring soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hardll surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. " Retaining Wall Foundation Design Retaining walls should be supported within newly placed structural fill monitored during placement by the geotechnical engineer. Where retaining walls are also serving as building walls, they should be graded in accordance with the recommendatibns presented in Section 6.3 of this report for the proposed building pad areas. Foufldations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the g~neral Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed .against the face of the retaining walls. This material should be approved by the "geotechnical. engineer. A suitable geotextile should be used to separate the layer of free draining granular Southern California Geotechnical C.O' Proposed Industrial Building -'-Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301*1 Page 24 material from the backfill soils. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM 01557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Drainage As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either: • A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate" 8-foot on-center spacing. The weep holes should include a minimum 2 cubic foot gravel pocket surrounded by an appropriate geotextile fabric at each weep hole location. • A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the retaining wall, above the footing. The gravel drain should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. 6.8 Pavement Design Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent preliminary pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CAL TRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. These preliminary designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the 20-year pavement service life. Pavement Subgrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 25 .': J. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • recompacted native materials and/or fill soils. The on-site soils generally consist of sandy clays and sandy clays. These soils are' considered to possess fair pavement support characteristics with R-values of 10 to 20. Since R-value testing was not included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is based upon an assumed R-value of 15. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under ,engineering controlled conditions. It is recommended that R-value testing be performed after completion of -rough grading. D.epending upon the results of theR-value testing, it may be feasible to use thinner pavement sections in some areas of the site. Asphaltic Concrete The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI's) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these TI's are -re,presentative' of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will' exceed those recommended herein, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices e'quate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5 operational traffic days per week: Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Day 4.0 0 5.0 1 6.0 3 7.0 11 For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defin~d as a 5-axle tractor- trailer unit, with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1000 automobiles per day. Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be noted that the TI = 5.0 section only allows for 1 truck per day. Therefore, all significant heavy truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used; othelWise premature pavement distress may occur. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 26 ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Thickness (inches) Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate Asphalt Conc rete Aggregate B ase ade (90% Compacted Subgr minimum comp action) (TI = 4.0) 3 6 12 Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic (TI = 5.0) (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0) 3 3Y2 4 9 11 13 12 12 12 e course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-The aggregate bas 1557 maximum dry percent of the M aggregate base c miscellaneous bas The gradation, R- should comply wi "Greenbook" Stan density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 arshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The ourse may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed e (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material. Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB Or CMB th appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the dard Sl2ecifications for Public Works Construction. Portland Cement C oncrete of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be The preparation performed as pre significant portion perimeters of the will be located, th existing or newly pavement subgra Portland Cement C viously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. Since s of the granitic bedrock are expected to be removed around the proposed structures where the Portland cement concrete pavements e pavement design presented below is based on the presence of placed compacted structural fill immediately beneath the proposed de elevation. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the oncrete pavement sections are as follows: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS Thickness (Inches) Materials Automobile Parking Light Truck Traffic Moderate Truck Traffic and Drive Areas (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0) PCC 5 5% 7 bgrade Compacted Su (95% minimum co 12 12 12 mpaction) ould have a 28~day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. The concrete sh Reinforcing within (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab. In areas underlain by ... • & .L .. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 27 • . ~.' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ---- •• •• • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • expansive soils, the reinforcement should be increased to No; 4 bar~ at 18 inches on center. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad. CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 28 -------~--- 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary Significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. Proposed Industrial Building -Carlsbad, CA Project No. 05G301-1 Page 29 ,. '. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .; .: • • • • • • • • • .: • • • • • .-• • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX A SITE LOCADON MAP BORING LOCATION PLAN SOURCE; SAN DIEGO COUNTY THOMAS GUIDE. 2004 PLATE 1 SEEW HZ I PASD) AIl'tIAA l PMEO ew.s 3 !',utO CiMHTO 4mWUSIlLAA S PASIOPICM'Q Ii IWQOI'OST,I, lPASroVALlt I PJKID IlUM , PM£OSN.llO) 1260 North Hancock Street. Suite 101 Anaheim. California 92807 Phone: (714) 777"()333 Fax: 777-0398 .' .• ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I j I I I I I I I~ tl I I I I~ <:t> l' ; ! I I t t i. l 1 l r r .--------------------'-- Afe _ engIneered An ,\sa • Santiago formation (sandston, TSsss _ santiago FormatiOn (ClaystOO e , <:II _ _ _ Gso\09\C contact .. ~_....,atlD1 .1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SYMBOL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AUGER CORE GRAB CS NSR SPT SH VANE COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS DEPTH: SAMPLE: BLOW COUNT: POCKET PEN.: GRAPHIC LOG: DRY DENSITY: MOISTURE CONTENT: LIqUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT: PASSING #200 SIEVE: UNCONFINED SHEAR: SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTIINGS, NO FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH, (DISTURBED) ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A OIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK. SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED) CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH 1.0. SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1·INCH HIGH BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED) NO RECOVER: THE SAMPLING ATIEMPT DID NOT ReSULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL, DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) SHEBLY TUBE: TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED, (UNDISTURBED) VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE, TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. Distance in feet below the ground suliace, Sample Type as depicted above, Number of blow required to advance the sampler 12 Inches using a 140 Ib hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the' weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 Inches or more .. Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by pocket penetrometer. Graphic Soil Symbol as depleted on the following page, Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample, Moisture content of a soli sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. The moisture content above which a soli behaves as a liquid, The moisture content above which a soli behaves as a plastic, The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve, The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state, • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' • Southern California 1i8IJtl8Cnnll1:8 BORING NO. B .. 1 • • • • • JOB NO.: 05G301 DRILLING DATE: 12/30lO5 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 18 feet LOCATION: C~rlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Daniel Nielsen READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS ~ • • • • • • • • • • • ~ I-Z' t!) ~ * e 0 ........ Z 9 WLl.. ~ ;:) W DESCRIPTION w'-" w w a.. CJ) ~g I:-0 0 0:;1-(!)iij W li:i Z ;:)Z 0 ~it . 0 z w z-W J: . ~. ~ B£i:' a.. 0 ....... I-~ 0 t;;1-(i)CJ) '8L5 :E Ii: -I- ~ ~ >-LI.. !!2z ;:)-~~ CJ)8 :E w ~ 0(1) SURFACE ELEVATION: ---MSL 0:;0 00 O~ ~~ ZJ: 0 0 III ,a.. t.., (!) oe:. ~o :J,:::; 0..:::; , ;:) CJ) \ u SANTIAGO FORMA TIQN BEDROCK: Light Gray fine Sandy R 50/5" Siltstone, some Iron oxide staining, very dense-damp to moist 103 12 F---" ~ I SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty fine 50/3" Sandstone, trace to little Iron oxide staining, very dense-damp 111 11 F---' to moist 5 ~ 50/4" 103 15 F---' B SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty 50/3" 4.5+ Sandstone with Yellow fine Sandy Claystone, very dense to 113 12 hard-damp to moist • • ~ 50/3" 4.5+ 111 . 12 10-F---" • • • • SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray to Orange fine Sandstone, trace Silt, abundant Iron oxide staining, very X ~5/11' dense-~amp to moist 14 15 '---' , • • • ~~ I SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Siltstone, ~ 65 trace fine Sand, trace Clay, some Iron oxide staining, very 18 dense-moist • • Boring Terminated at 19%' • • '. • • • ~ • '" ~ • 6 C) 0 • w C) ..J i3 • 0 (J) .., • Q. C) ~ • ~ • ..J ~ • TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1 • ~ 8 lil 5 ~ ji (!l I ...I f:!! JOB NO.: 05G301 DRILLING DATE: 12/30/05 PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Daniel Nielsen FIELD RESUL TS (!) ~ !z ffi g W ::::I 0. DESCRIPTION I:-w 0 Iii u iE ...J U :E 0. ~ ~ ....... ~ 0. ~ uu. W ~ ...J ~g SURFACE ELEVATION: --MSL C aJ (!) SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK; Light Gray fine Sandy ~ 50/4" 4.5+ Claystone, hard-damp to moist F--' ~ 5014" 4.5+ F--' 5 ~ 50/5" 4.5+ r---' ~ ~ ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty 60 4.5+ Sandstone interbedded with Yellow fine Sandy Claystone, very ~ dense to hard-damp to moist 8 SANTIAGO FQRMA TION BEDROQK: Light Gray fine 50 Sandstone, trace Silt, very dense-damp to moist 10-t.......: l>< 72 15 ~ X 85 Boring Terminated at 19'12' TEST BORING LOG BORING NO. B·2 WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 17 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS ...... ~ .-. ~ 8u:-'* ~ ~ (/) w'"" (!)~ ~g ffi ~!z u Z ~~ C 1;;1-z-z~ W Cu:--(/) 8Lfi ~ -I-(/)0 ~~ !!2z ::::1-::5~ (/)0 ~ 00 O~ ~~ Z:I: 0 ..... ~u ::;::; 0.::; ::::I(/) U 111 14 108 16 113 15 107 16 99 26 10 9 PLATE B-2 • ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .' BORING·NO. • B-3 . • • • • • • • • • JOB NO.: 05G301 DRILLING DATE: 12/30/05 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 17 feet LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Daniel Nielsen READING TAKEN: At Cpmpletion FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS' --. ~ !z z (!) ~ ...... :oIi! 0 ...... 0 ~ ~ UJ DESCRIPTION wu.. ~ UJ :::l a. ..J CI) w~ w zCI) u.. 0 Ijj u Z 0::1-U (!).(ij u:::t:. ..... UJ u :r: UJ ~.~ UJ ~ ..J 0 ~~ z-'Zo:: a. ~ lII:: ...... a. 0 ...... -I-en(/) 8~ ':!E ~ uu.. ~ )-ou.. :::l-'CI) 0 :!E UJ ..J ~g SURFACE ELEVATION: ~~~ MSL o::U 0.0 o:e ~~ z:t: 8 0 Ql (!) oe:. :!Ee.> :::i:::i a.:::i :::lCl) SANTIAGO FORM~TION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty • • ~ 70 Sandstone, very dense-damp to moist 13 r--: • • R 84 @ 3% to 5 feet, some Iron oxide staining and nodules 13 5 I'--' • • -A 57 13 '---' • • • • R ~0/11' I SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone, damp to moist 13 10-I'----' . SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Orange to Light Gray • • • Silty Sandstone, abundant Iron oxide staining in top 6" inches, - R 50/5" some Iron oxide staining throughout, damp to moist 12 15 '---' • • • [X 130/11' 13 • • Boring Terminated at 19%' • • • • , • ~ • <'l ~ • b C> 0 • w ,C> ~ • 0 '" -. • Q. C> 0 '" • C> \!l ..J • ~ • TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3 • JOB NO.: 05G301 DRILLING DATE: 12(30(05 PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Daniel Nielsen FIELD RESULTS t; I-Z (!) Z g w DESCRIPTION w :J 0. !:!:. ~ 0 ~ u u I ~ ~ 0. ~--0. ~ uUo ~ w ~~ SURFACE ELEVATION: ---MSL a txI (!) 1;2ANTIAGQ FQRM8TIOt:i BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty tx 66 Sandstone, Iron oxide staining, very dense-damp to moist f--' R 66 5 r----' tx 82 r----' ~ tx 172/11' I S8NTIAGQ FQBMATION BEDROCK: Light Yellow to Light Gray Silty Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining. very dense-damp to moist 10-I'--' SANTI8GO FORMATION BEDROCK: Gray Silty Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, very dense-damp to moist tx 72 15 f-- R 87 ~ Boring Terminated at 19%' i f-a t!) ci w ~ 5 0 en ~ t!) ~ t!) '" 0 -' ~ TEST BORING LOG • BORING 'NO. . •• ' B-4 .; • WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 17 feet READING TAKEN: At Completion LABORATORY RESULTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .1 ~ ,..., ::Ia 0 W w ...... iii 0::1-:Jz au:: I-~ a 3!:: ~u ~z 00 o:e aE!:. :eu :::J:::J 10 9 10 10 13 16 ~ (!)~ U z-~I--C/) ~8 ::s~ Q1:~ o.:::J @u:: ~ ~~ Zo:: w :E 8L5 :e ZJ: 0 :J(I) u .1 ., .; .1 .i .' • .! .1 • • .i • • • • PLATE B4 • • • .'-• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .0 ~ · ~ · ~ JOB NO.: 05G301 DRILLING DATE: 12/30/05 PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Daniel Nielsen FIELD RESULTS I=' !z z (!) 9 w w DESCRIPTION W ::l 0. LL 0 0 .,..., W 0 Iii ':E :r: ..J 0. ~ ~ii:' 0. I-0. ~I o(/) ~ w ~t:. SURFACE ELEVATION: --MSL 0 CD (!) I SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray fine X 14 4,25 Claystone, very stiff to hard-damp to moist f-- tx I SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Red Orange to Light 25 4.0 Gray Silty Claystone, very stiff to hard-moist 5 iL--' tx SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Yeflowto Light 51 Gray Silty Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, very dense-damp to moist iL--' X 72 10-'---' rx 90 15 f-- I SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Orange to Light Yellow to Light Gray Clayey Sandstone, some Iron oxide IX 50/5" staining, very dense-damp to moist Boring Terminated at 191'2' • TEST BORING LOG • BO.RING NO. , B-5 WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 16 feet READING TP;>KEN: ,At Completion. ' LABORATORY RESUL TS ,... ~ ;g ~ filu::-~ 0 (/). ,~ w'-' W ~,~ l-0::1-(!).~ Z w ::>z Q w I-'W 91-z-zo:: 0 ...... '@I--(/) 8t1i :E !:2~ (/)0 >u. ::l-:5:'; (/)0 :E 0::0 00 a:! ~~ z:t: 0 oQ::. :E,o :::;:::; 0.:::; ::lCl) () 14 E'I = 58 @ 0 to 5' 22 11 9 9 14 .,PLATE B-5 Southarn California •• -.. ~.-.... BORING NO. B·6 JOB NO.: 05G301 DRilLING DATE: 12/30/05 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: Bressi Ranch lot 1. PA 1 DRilLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 13.5 feet lOCATION: Carlsbad. California lOGGED BY: Daniel Nielsen READING TAKEN: At Completion FIELD RESUL TS LABORATORY RESULTS ~ I-Z C9 ~ ,..., ~ au:-Z 9 *' ~ W :::l w DESCRIPTION w....., C9~ ~~ !:!::.. 0 a. U V'J 0::1-W tu z U t ...J U :t w ~z a ~I-z-~o:: w ~ au::-~~ -V'J :liE a. ::t:u::-a. -I-V'J o 8Lri ~ UV'J ~ ~u :::l_ ~~ V'J o :liE w ...J l(f::. SURFACE ELEVATION: ---MSL 00 O:IiE 8:~ ZJ: 8 a m C9 c~ :liEU :::i:::i a.:::i :::lV'J : Fill: Orange Brown to Light Gray, some Yellow, Silty fine , . ~ ". Sand, trace Iron oxide staining. medium dense-damp to moist 29 100 11 F-' ~ 30 ~ Fill: Mottled Red Brown. Brown and Light Brown Clayey fine 109 17 ~ Sand. some Silt. some Iron oxide staining, medium dense-damo to moist ..- 5 ~ 50 4.5+ I Fill: Mottled Red Brown to Brown Clayey fine Sand to fine 115 16 Sandy Clay. very dense to hard-damp to moist F-' ~ 35 ~ Fill: Orange to Light Gray Clayey fine Sand, dense-damp to 110 15 ~ moist F-' ~ 30 ~ FILL: Light Brown Clayey fine "Sand , trace Iron oxide staining. 101 14 dense-damp to moist 10-I'--' ~ ~ SANTIAGO FORM8 TION BEDROCIS: Light Orange Brown to Gray Clayey fine Sandstone. some Iron oxide staining. very dense-damp to moist ~ 80 4.5+ 114 12 Boring Terminated at 15' .., D- C; -I III TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8·6 .:,' .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • APPEN·OIX C LABORATORY TEsnNI Consolidation/Collapse Test Results 4 ..... l:l! ~ c ~ (I) c 6 0 i 'I::t :g III C 8 8 • .'" :: ' , • '. ~ -,:;. r' • • • . . ' :.:.~ .... ', .'.".,' ,",: .. ' .. :;,' ;.:,;; ..... , :-', ... :, ..... , .. -:. ,., ," ',.:.... . ,-~ ,.'.~"::' :." ~ ~:!:~:.<,~::~.:.:,~:::~ ..... ::.:.::' ., .... , 10 ' .... , .. '(;.. ,:'. " ... : 12+------L---L~~~-L~~-----L __ -L~--~~~~--~~~-L~~~~~ 0.1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Sandy Claystone Boring Number: Sample Number: Depth (ft) Specimen Diameter (in) Specimen Thickness (in) Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 Carlsbad, California Project No. 05G301 PLATE C .. 1 L...-____________ ~----------_ B-2 1 to 2 2.4 1.0 Initial Moisture Content (%) 14 Final Moisture Content (%) 19 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 108.7 Final Dry Density (pcf) 113.1 Percent Collapse (%) 0.05 11I ...... J~ 1280 North H.noook Slr •• t, Suite 101 An.h.lm, C.llfornl. 92807 Phon.: (714) 777.0333 FIX: (714) 777·0388 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 4 ....... :.e a -c 'e .... en c 6 0 i :2 '0 UI c 0 (.) 8 10 ',' .... ,: ',:.: .. ':' t " :. I M 0.1 Consolidation/Collapse Test Results ' ... : ,,', ;;-.,', .. ,' :: , " Load (ksf) 10 ,.' ': , : ,-: 100 Classification: SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Sandy Claystone Boring Number: Sample Number: Depth (ft) Specimen Diameter (in) $pecimen Thickness (in) Bressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 Carlsbad, California Project No. 05G301 PLATE C-2 B-2 3 to4 2.4 1.0 Initial Moisture Content (%) 1.5 Final Moisture Content (%) 18, Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.2 Final Dry Density (pcf) 114.7 Percent Collapse (%) 0.06 Southern California· Geotechnical •. 3S 1260 North Hanoook Slr.,I, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: 1714) 777-0333 Fax: 1714) 777-0398 .-~ ..- I: j en I: 0 ;; "' :E! '0 1/1 C 0 0 ConsolidatIon/Collapse Test Results o;:~:~~-::~ ... ~.'r,-.-.,-.-r.~,,~ .. ~--~.~.!r..,~ .. -.. -r~.;~.~~ .. ~~Mr~::~.,.-.~~,..~.--r-~r--r~'-rT~ '~~~L': :.:" .. ., .... ':;( .. :,;'.":. :.': :.:. 2 4 6 8 , :': :. ; .. :' " 0"': . " • i .1, " r ~.J' " 1-, ••••••• .. ... . / 0.1 10 100 Load (ksf) Classification: SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Sandy Claystone Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 15 Sample Number: Final Moisture Content (%) 18 Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 110.9 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 117.1 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.07 IBressi Ranch Lot 1, PA 1 Carlsbad, California Project No. 05G301 ".IiBh.a ..... 1280 North Hlnaoak Str •• t, Sulta 101 Anaheim, Callrornla &2807 PLATE c-3 Phon.: 11141 111·0333 Fax: 17141177·0398 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .1 1 ., .1 .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Consolidation/Collapse Test Results : .' , .. ;. ~ :'. , ,,' . " . : ~... . " .~.. . .::;.:. ~ " 12~ ____ ~ __ ~~~~~·~~;c~:~+.,_.',_',~):_.~::.;~~~~:~:.'~"~:':~;'~:'~':'~··~;:~""~"~'~';~\r~~::-:'~;--~"~"~'~'~~~~~~ .. ',' 0.1 10 100 L.oadlksf) Classification: SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray Silty Sandstone Boring Number: B-2 Initial Moisture Content (%) 13 Sample Number: Final Moisture Content (%) 19 Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pet) 109.8 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pet) 113.6 Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.09 Bressi Ranch Lot 1! PA 1 Carlsbad, California Project No. 05G301 PLATEC-4 Southern California Geotechnical • 1280 North Hancock St,..,t, Suite 101 AnaheIm, CaUfoml1 92807 Phone: (7141777·0333 FIX: 171417?7.o39a APPENDIX 0 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICAnONS I ' .. ---------------~~.....-" • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Grading Guide Speolflcatlons Page 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are Intended to provide typical· procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommenqatlons contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommen~atlons in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General • The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for the satisfactory completion of aU earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and In a~cOrdance with city, county, and Uniform Building Codet! .. • The Geotechnical Engineer Is the repr~sentatlve of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not Intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor Is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equIpment or personnel employed by the Contractor. " • The Earthwork Contrac;tor is requited to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone If personnel have not been scheduled In advance. • The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job- site" to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the ~mount of fill being placed to the specified compaction. In addltlon, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines In. this report. ~ Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed grounQ to recelve flll~key excavations, subdralns and benches should be observed by ~lie Geot~chnlcal Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor'sresponslblUty to notlfythe Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for Inspection. . • excavation, filling, t:lnd subgrade preparation should be performed In a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and propet control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage"water encountered shall be pumped or'drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be Informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures andfor Installation of subdralns. Site preparation • The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project In accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. ,. If any materials or areas are encount~red by the EarthworkCOtitractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contaml~atlon, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified Immediately. • "Major vegetation should be" stripped and disposed of off-site, This Includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnlc.al Engineer. Grading Guide SpeCifications Page 2 • Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septiC disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the Inspection of the Gaota.chnlcal engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or city. county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnloal Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be fonnulated. • Any topsoil. slopewash. colluvium. alluvium and rock materials whloh are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. • Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, Irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compaoted fill. • Subsequent to clearing and removals,.areas to receive fill should be scarlfled to a depth of 10 to 12 Inches, moisture conditioned and compacted • The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slighUy above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing andtor dlsolng. Compacted Fills • Soli materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material· has been determined to be suitable In the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fltl materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result In the material being classified as ·contamlnated,· and shall be low to non-expanslve with a maximum expansion Index (EI) of 50. The top 12 Inches ofthecompactedflll should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted flll material a maximum 6- Inch particle size, except as noted below. • All salls should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradatlon or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or seleotive placement andfor mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer .. • Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 Inches should be taken off-site or placed In accordance with recommendations and In areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically Include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the ~nge of exoavatlon for foundatlon~, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet) to faoilltate compaction near the slope. • Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed In areas previously prepared tQ receive fill and In evenly placed. near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 Inches In loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture cOl')tent, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density In compliance with ASTM 0-1557 unless otherwise Indicated. • Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnloal Engineer at random Intervals and looations as determined by the Geot~chnloa' Engineer. These tests are Intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, •• e' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -. . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Grading Guide Specifications ~age3 equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. • After compacted fills have been \ested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, the contractor should moisture condition the solis ,as necessary to maintain the compacted moisture content. Compacted fill solis that are allowed to become ovetty dry or desiccated may reql!lre removal and/or scarification, moisture condKlonlng and replacement. Solis with medium to high expansion Indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy salls that are allowed to dry can also lose density. • Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompactlon prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor'should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his Intent so that an evaluation can be .made: • Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to.1 Inclination (horlzontal~to-vertlcal) or steeper should be benched Into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are Illustrated on Plates G·2, G-4; and G-5. • CutlflU transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated'to a'depth ofat least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. • All cut lots should be Inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a <tepth of3 feet !3nd rebuilt with a uniform. more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. • Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth'ofS feet and rebuilt with uniform. more cohesive compactecf'filUo impede moisture penetration. . • Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that , excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used In the design. Foundations • The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a % horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:1) inclination. • Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, It should be conducted so as to encompass the,entire foundation influence zone, as described above. • Compacted' fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 Inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted flll within the Interior of struotures should e~end to the floor subgrade elevation, Fill Slopes • The placement and compaction of flit desoribed above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, Including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core. • Slope compaction may also be achieved by backroiling the slope adequately every 2 to 4- vertical feet during the filling process as well as requ1rlng the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 slope face should be compacted with a 8heepsfoot connected to a side boom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used If approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. • Sandy salls lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. • All flll slopes should be keyed Into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and Inclined at 2 percent Into the Ilope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5). • All flll keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to ge.oteohnlcallnspectlon and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and govemmental agencies prior to filling. • The cut portion of flll over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The flll portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial solis and Into bedrock or suitable material. Salls should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2). Cut Slopes • All cut slopes should be Inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization.· The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical engineer when slope cutting Is In progress at Intervals of 1 0 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result In a delay In recommendations. • Cut slopes exposing loose, coheslonless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. • All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical Inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail Is shown on Plate G-5. • Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdralns. Typical subdraln details are shown on Plates G-6. Sybdralns • Subdralns may be required In canyons and swales where fill placement Is proposed. Typical subdraln details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdralns should be Installed after approval of removals and before filling, ·as determined by the Salls Engineer. • Plastic pipe may be used for subdralns provided It Is Sohedule 40 or SOR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement In a square-cut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. . ~ Filter material for subdralns should conform to CAL TRANS SpeCification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean %-Inch orushed rock may be used provided It Is wrapped In an acceptable filter oloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 Inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 Inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-Inch diameter pipe may be used In buttress and stabilization fills. .~ -. • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ---- : .. ' ....... ':;:. "'. ;...~. '. . ~ ... : .... :. .,.< • .\ '.' i:'! ". " -- CUT LOT -- COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER CUTIFILL LOT (TRANSITION) COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PLATE 0·1 ---- 3'MIN. t DEEPER OVEREXCAVATlON MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THI; SOIL ENGiNEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS 1260 North HlInooc:kStreet, SUite 101 Anaheim, C.UfOlt!la 92807 m.oS33 Fax: --------------------------------------------,., COMPETENT MATERIAL NEW COMPACTED FILL7 CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON wAS-BUILT" NATURAL GRADE ~ -- CUT SLOPE -- CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL ON GAAoING PLAN BEDROCK OR APPROVED COMPETENT MATERIAL KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAl. MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR M RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. KEYWAYMAYNOTSE REQUIRED IF FILL SI.OPE IS LESS THAN 5 FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. '7'-:,........-- MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL . GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DMWN:JM CHKD:GI<M PLATEQ·2 1260 North Hanoook Strie~ S~lte 101 Anaheim, C8l1fomla 92a07 . Phone: (71<4) n7.o333 Fax: (714) 177.0398 ~ .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,.' .\: ...... ", .': t4~TURAL.'9~QUND1·· :. /"" ... . . ."... . ..... ":' .. " ," .. ' ", '1: . ' .. " : .. :' . .,Y :.' '. <, ': ,." .. ': .. ' ' .. ': .;:,; '.:" ": .> ' ." ... ::,', :::. " ' , • • .,' \. • '. • 1 • • • : .. :COM~~CTED'A~ ~. • •••. • .:, • '. '. '.' : .\:" . ,: , .' ':.' '. '."'.. '." " .. :" . " 1:: .'. .. • • •• ~ .' to to .' • '.:', \.... '. """"':'" .. y '.' . .' . , . " ---' . •• !.t.. •••• • ./" • . . .. . -" .. / .' ...... : .... • • ~ '.:.: • '~" ' • .': •• ' .' t ! . ::' . :-'. '.' ~ .. .........:...... .... "'" ....... . .. . .,' : . ": . ,.,~: ...., ./~Le~'ou,.ExriA~Al1PN" ", .'. ':', .~. =--...: . ',. • . :.' .. ~" ~!~: ........ '~ ....... , ...... : ........ ::-f.: ...... ': :- ". <t 4 .. ..' '. .' I' . . . ' , .. .'. : .. :;~ .. ~ :(:~.:~~ .. >.;. ' .. ' \.... ., .. .~: ... ~. ~~: .. ~ :," > .4" FIRM NATIVE SOIUBEOROCK ~.: :~. ': :.<! .. f \-":.:. ~ 24" MIN. :""'~ · ..... ·"4·~ 1S"LM1N ' ;<Li;x~~;:~: ""~&'l:01;~~~~,e~,f~Y v:~. ,~ .. : .. ~.: '. :. CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL 1--18" MIN'~ 4" MIN. S" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE· MINIMUM 1 % SLOPE PIPE MATERIAL ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE) TRANSITE UNDERORAIN PVC OR ASS: SOR 35 SDR21 DEPTH OF FILL OVER SUBDRAIN 8 20 35 100 SCHEMATIC ONLY No1rOSCALE CANYON SUBDR.«\IN·CETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTOSCILE DRAWN: JM CHI<D: GI<M PLATEG4 1260 North liancoQ( Streel, SuKs 101 Anaheim, Calfomla 82807 Phone: (11~) m-0333 . Fax: (114) m-0398 FINISHED SLOPE FACE OVERFILl.. REQUIREMENTS PER PLATE NO.4 TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT (1:1 MAX.) NEW COMPACTED FILL COMPETENT MATERIAL J / .... ~ .... ; .... ,.. ..... : .. 1.' ' .. ,'.: .. /: ........ /: ".;"';:":: .' :,,,:~,,:' ...... >:': ~. ".' •• 1 •• :. t, ", I .... ' .... :" ," . ::",,'" "".~ :."1, .. " .~ ..... ' \: '\ .~ .. '0 .... ~ /'. ... .' 00 ... ·' "" ,'0 't 0, • .......-:;. •• ,\ •• ~~:,g~~~EBACKFILl: \ /. ~ ••.. :.; ....... :! :'" : '> .... .: .... :>: ... ~: :;.'.: : .... ,' .~ BACKCUT-VARIES .... ~ \ <: .... : .:. :.'> ~." .:~.::..;:.~ .-::-::. '.':0< ":'. ~". 4'MIN. . . ..• --.---." • . VAAIABtr.e· .. / ..,. ". :IN'-1El\IM-:~. " • • • • .... ... : -' .. ~. . i ~ ~ , 'c':A~'JE ottSU\"~~ ." .' . .. , __ --I.. --. ~. /~"'I!' '~" .. ' '" ' __ 't~':.: : '. :' ': :.,: s.:· ~ 1 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES --" •.... " ...••. ' ~' •. ' ". . ~ IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED ----II ('.~M& :j' 6YTHEGEOTECHNICALENGINEER L MINIMUM l' TILT BACK 2' MINIMUM • OR2% SLOPE KEY DEPTH (WHICHEVER IS GREATE~) KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL. MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. NOTE: BENCHING SHAlL BE REQUIRED WHEN NATURAl SLOPES ARE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1 OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY THe GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE ORAWN:JM CHKD:GKM PLATI!O-.4 1260 North HemlOck Slree!, Suite 101 Anaheim, CaHfomla 92807 Phone: (71") 771-0333 Fax: (71") 771-0396 '. ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • • • • • ·1 -e. • • ., • • • • • • • • • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE ro11iCSOILENGINEER \ FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE 3'TYPICAL BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER VARIABLE ' ...... ~~~---t-MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES ---'---t"" .. ::::; ;::'~'j, ::::} <::\. ~ IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAl ENGINEER 'II ~~~&,M~I'lLMINIMUM1'TILTBACK 2' MINIMUM .. ~ OR 2% SLOPE KEY DEPn; KeYwAY WIDTH, AS SPECIFIED ' (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOTTOSOALE DRAWN:JM CHKO:OKM PLATEO-S 1260 North Hancock Smt, Suite 101 AnaheIm, California iI2807 Phone: (714) m.Q333 FSle (714) 777-<l398 DESIGN FINISH SLOPE OUTlETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING CONSTRUCTION. B.UITRESSOR SIOEHILLFILL ~ •••• "f I 2'CLEAR , ," .. "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 4·INCH DIAMETER NON·PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMASTO. PLAN 323) "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE 1" PERCENTAGE PASSING 3'4" 3t6" NO.4 NO.8 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON· NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE L WITH TEE OR ELBOW 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 16-33 5-15 0·7 0-3 .-------1 ~--.---.. MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 11a" 100 NO.4 50 00.200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT I: MINIMUM OF 50 IL TER MATERIAL· MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE ABove FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION. ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES ON ALL JOINTS. ~ MINIMUM 4·INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR35 WITH DETAIL "A" NOTES: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON·SITE SOIL. A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS, WIlli A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOITOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE. SLOPE FILL SUB DRAINS GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOno 80ALE DRAWN:JM cttKD: I3l<M PLATEG.e 1260 North Hanoook SInIet, Sulle 101 Anaheim, Callfomll 92801 Phone: (714) 77Nl333 Fax: (714) 711.0398 .j~ • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • " , • • • • • • • • • • • .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF LOW PERMEABLILITY SOIL IF NOT COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE . ,',. . " ' ' ..... . t".:,of " , ", w • ''': .o. • , "';. '<: ... "FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION MINIMUM ONE FOOT'WIDE LAYER OF FREE DRAINING MATERIAL (lESS THAN 5% PAS$ING THE #200 SIEVE) ILTER MATERIAL· MINIMUM OF lWO CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION • ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL 'TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAYBE'ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. see BELOW foR GRAVEL SPECIFICATION. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MlRAFI140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES ON AU. JOINTS. MINIMUM 4·INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 ORABS CLASs,SOR 35 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1.000 POUNDS, WITH AMINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PI~E. PROVIDE eM' AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO ounET PIPE. <! " 4 ' " "A4'" ' "GRAVEL· TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATioN OR OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO SMA STD, PLAN 323) M'PROVED EQUIVALENT: . SIEVE SIZE 1" 3/4" 31S" NO.4 NO.8 NO. 30 NO. 50 NO. 200 PERCENTAGE'PASSING 100 90·100 40·100 25-40 18·33 5·15 0-7 0-3 MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1.112" 100 NO.4 50 NO.200· '8 SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 50 RETAINING WALL BACKDRAINS GRADI G GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS NOT TO SCALE DRAWN: JAS CHKD:GKM PLATEG·7 12BO NoM HancoQ( Slree .. Suite 101 Anthtlm, Calamia 92807 Phone: (714) m~3 FIX: (7104) 177-0398 APPENDIX E U8CSEISCOMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT .' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ·1 • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM ....-.... 0> 2.50 2.25 2.00 ~ 1.75 o ~ 1.50 s-a> 03 1.25 (.) (.) « 1.00 co l:i 0.75 (.) a> c. 0.50 C/) 0.25 0.00 Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SD f-f- f- I-- I----- --- r- ~ i"- f- I-- ---- '--- 1--\ r-\ r- " ~ ... ... i.-~ ~ I-- I--. ~ I-- I---I->- Hili I I I I I I I I I 1.1 I . I I ·11 I I I I. . I I I 1 I I ·1 I I I 1 I. I I I I 0.0 0~5 1.0 1.5 2.0. 2.5 3.0.3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Period Seconds • JOB NUMBER: 05G301 *********************** * * * * * U B C S E I S Version 1.03 * * * * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS DATE: 01-18-2006 JOB NAME: St. Croix Capital, Bressi Ranch, Lot 1, Carlsbad, California FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: SITE LONGITUDE: UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 33.1232 117.2658 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 36.8 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 11.0 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.0 Nv: 1.0 Ca: 0.44 Cv: 0.64 Ts: 0.582 To: 0.116 ******************************************************************** * CAUTION: * * * * * * The digitized data points used to model faults are limited in number and have been digitized from small- scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. * * * * * * * ******************************************************************** , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .1 .i .: .' • • • • • .1 .i .1 • • .' •• :.J. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , APPROX.lsOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED 'DISTANCE' TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A, B, C), (Mw) I (rnm/yr) I (SS, DS, BT) ==============================;::::;=== I ======== I ==:::==== I ====== I ========= I :::==.======= ROSE CANYON I 11.0, B I 6.9 I 1.50 I 5S NEWRORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 15.6 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS ,CORONADO BANK I 36.1 I B I 7.4 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE-JULIAN I 36.8 I A I 7.1 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-TEMECULA I 36.8 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I 88 ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 58.3 I B I 6.8, 5.00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY , 64.1 I B I 6.5 I 2.00 I 5S PALOS VERDES I 65.0 I B I 7.1 I ,3.00 ISS, SAN JACINTO-ANZA I 73.6' A I 7.2 I 12.00 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 75.9 I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I 88 SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 79.7 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 81.4' B I 6.9 11.00 I SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 82.0 I B I 6.7 I 1.00 I DS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 86.0 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 88.3 I B I 6.8 I 2.50 I SS SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO '99.4 / B I 6.7' 12.00 I S8 SAN JACINTO -BORREGO , 100 . 2 I B I 6 . 6 I 4 . 00' SS SAN ANDREAS -Southern , 104.8 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 I SS SAN JOSE , 115.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS PINTO MOUNTAIN I 115.6 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I SS CUCAMONGA I 118.9 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I DB SIERRA MADRE (Central) I 119.6 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I DS BURNT MTN. I 123.3 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) '125.7 I B I 7.0 I 1.00 I DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) I 126.0 I B I 6.6 I 5.00 I SS EUREKA PEAK I 127.8 I B I 6.5 I 0'.60, SS CLEGHORN , 128.0 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ELMORE RANCH I 131.9 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 132.1 I B I 6.7 I O.~O I DS SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 133.5 I B , 6.6 I 4.00 I ss , SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture ,134.3 I A I 7.8 [ 34.00 I S8 RAYMOND I 134.9 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 135.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 136.3 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I SS VERDUGO 139.3 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS LANDERS 140.1 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS HOLLYWOOD 142.6 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS HELENDALE -S. LOCKHARDT 143.5 I B I 7.1' 0.60 I SS BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 147.3 I B I /6.5 I 25.00 I SS LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 148.9 I B I 7.3, 0.60 I SS SANTA MONICA 150.6 I B I 6.6 I 1.00 I DS EMERSON So. -COPPER MTN: 152.7 I B I 6.9 I 0.60 I SS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 153.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS MALIBU COAST 155.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 I .os IMPERIAL 159.7 I A I 7.0 I 20.00 I SS SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 160.2 I B I 6.7 I 2.00 I D8 • ,:>: • • ---------------------------• SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS • --------------------------- Page 2 • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------• , APPROX. I SOURCE , MAX. SLIP FAULT • ABBREVIATED 'DISTANCE' TYPE , MAG. RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME , (kIn) ,(A,B,C)I (Mw) (mm!yr) I (SS,DS,BT) • ==================================1========1=======1====== =========1========== • PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I 162.5 1 B 1 7.1 0.60 I SS SAN GABRIEL I 163.0 1 B , 7.0 1. 00 I SS • ANACAPA-DUME I 164.0 1 B , 7.3 3.00 I DS • CALICO -HIDALGO I 166.1 1 B 1 7.1 0.60 , SS SANTA SUSANA I 175.9 , B , 6.6 5.00 I DS • HOLSER I 184.8 I B , 6.5 0.40 I DS • SIMI-SANTA ROSA , 192 .9 , B I 6.7 1. 00 , DS OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 193.5 , B , 6.9 4.00 , DS • GRAVEL HILLS -HARPER LAKE , 197.2 I B I 6.9 0.60 , SS SAN CAYETANO I 201. 8 I B I 6.8 6.00 I DS • BLACKWATER 212.6 , B I 6.9 0.60 I SS • VENTURA -PITAS POINT 221.3 , B I 6.8 1. 00 I DS SANTA YNEZ (East) 221.6 , B , 7.0 2.00 , SS • SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 230.6 I B I 6.8 1. 00 , DS • M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 231.8 I B I 6.7 0.40 I DS RED MOUNTAIN 235.4 I B 6.8 2.00 , DS • GARLOCK (West) 236.8 A 7.1 6.00 , SS PLEITO THRUST 242.8 B 6.8 2.00 I DS • BIG PINE 248.9 B 6.7 0.80 , SS • GARLOCK (East) 250.5 A 7.3 7.00 , SS WHITE WOLF 262.8 B 7.2 2.00 , DS • SANTA ROSA ISLAND 265.5 B 6.9 1.00 , DS • SANTA YNEZ (West) 267.4 B 6.9 2.00 I SS So. SIERRA NEVADA 274.7 B 7.1 0.10 , DS • OWL LAKE 278.5 B 6.5 , 2.00 I SS PANAMINT VALLEY 278.7 B 7.2' , 2.50 I SS • LITTLE LAKE 278.8 B 6.7 , 0.70 I SS • TANK CANYON 280.0 B 6.5 I 1. 00 I DS DEATH VALLEY (South) 286.9 B 6.9 , 4.00 I SS • LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 309.8 B 6.8 , 0.70 , DS • LIONS HEAD 327.3 B 6.6 I 0.02 , DS DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 328.8 B 6.9 I 4.00 , DS • SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 336.8 B 7.0 , 0.20 , DS • SAN JUAN 337.1 B 7.0 , 1. 00 , SS CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 345.3 B 6.5 , 0.25 , DS • OWENS VALLEY 347.6 B 7.6 , 1. 50 I SS LOS OSOS 366.8 B 6.8 , 0.50 , DS • HOSGRI 373.1 B 7.3 I 2.50 I SS • HUNTER MTN. -SALINE VALLEY 373.2 B 7.0 I 2.50 I SS DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 382.4 A 7.2 I 5.00 I SS • INDEPENDENCE 383.5 B 6.9 I 0.20 , DS • RINCONADA 387.6 B 7.3 I 1. 00 I SS BIRCH CREEK 439.9 B 6.5 I 0.70 , DS • SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 443.4 B 5.0 I 34.00 I SS • WHITE MOUNTAINS 444.3 B 7.1 I 1. 00 I SS DEEP SPRINGS 462.6 B 6.6 I 0.80 1 DS • • • • • ., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~--I APPROX. I SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (kIn) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (rtun/yr) USS,DS,BT) ==================================1========1=======1======1=========1========== DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 467.4 I A I 7.0 I 5.00 I ss ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) I 475.1 I B I 6.8 I 1. 00 I DS FISH SLOUGH I 482.8 I B I 6.6 I 0.20 I DS HILTON CREEK I 501.3 I B I 6.7 I 2.50 I DS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 525.7 I B I 6.6 I 0.50 I DS ORTIGALITA I 527.5 I B ! 6.9 I 1. 00 I SS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I 533.3 I B I 6.2 I 15.00 I· Ss. MONTEREY BAY -TULARCITOS I 536.2 I B I 7.1 I 0.50 I DS PALO COLORADO -SUR I 537.4 I B I 7.0 I 3.00 I SS QUIEN SABE I 546.5 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS MONO LAKE I 561.7 I B I 6.6 I 2.50 I DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES I 565.1 I B I 6.8 I 0.10 I SS SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 570.3 I A I 7.9 I 24.00 I SS SARGENT I 570.4 I B I 6.8 I 3.00 I SS ROBINSON CREEK I 593.0 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS SAN GREGORIO I 611.6 I A I 7.3 I 5.00 I SS GREENVILLE I 619.9 I B I 6.9 I 2.00 I SS MONTE VISTA -SHANNON I 620.5 I B I 6.5 I 0.40 I DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 620.5 I B I 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 633.4 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS HAYWARD (Total Length) I 640.2 I A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) I 640.2 I B I 6.8 I 6.00 J SS GENOA I 658.9 I B I 6.9 I 1.00 I DS CONCORD -GREEN VALLEY I 687.8 I B I 6.9 I . 6.00 I SS RODGERS CREEK I 726.6 I A I 7.0 I 9.00 I SS WEST NAPA I 727.5 I B I 6.5 I 1.00 I SS POINT REYES I 745.7 I B I 6.8 I 0.30 I DS HUNTING CREEK -BERRYESSA I 749.8 I B I 6.9 I 6.00 I SS MAACAMA (South) I 789.3 I B I 6.9 I 9.00 I SS COLLAYOMI I 806.1 I B I 6.5 0.60 I SS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 809.5 I A I 7.1 6.00 I 88 MAACAMA (Central) I 830.9 I A I 7.1 9.00 I 88 MAACAMA (North) I 890.4 I A I 7.1 9.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 896.4 I B I 6.8 6.00 I SS BATTLE CREEK I 919.3 I B I 6.5 0.50 I DS LAKE MOUNTAIN I 954.9 I B I 6.7 6.00 I Ss GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I 972.1 I B I 6.9 9.00 I SS MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE I 1028.5 I A I 7.4 35.00 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) I 1035.0 I A I 7.0 5.00 I DS MAD RIVER I 1037.7 I B I 7.1 0.70 I DS CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE I 1042.2 I A I 8.3 35.00 I DS McKINLEYVILLE I 1048.1 I B I 7.0 0.60 I DS TRINIDAD I 1049.6 I B I 7.3 2.50 I DS FICKLE HILL I 1050.1 I B I 6.9 0.60 I DS TABLE BLUFF I 1055.6 I B I 7.0 0.60 I DS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) I 1068.9 I B I 7.1 1.00 I DS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS Page 4 1 APPROX. 'SOURCE' MAX. I SLIP FAULT ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE 1 TYPE 'MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME 1 (kIn) 1 (AlBIC) 1 (Mw) 1 (nun/yr) I (SS/DS,BT) ==================================1========1=======1======1=========1========== BIG LAGOON -BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE ,1086.5 I B 1 7.3 I 0.50' DS ******************************************************************************* It • • • • • • • • • e • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .i .: .' • • e • • • • • e, • • • • • = ? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , " .. o o o '" 00 00 STA 10 00.00 \ ~TER UN 'PI _C'rl,'" 7, /::<0 IflIrrr Tf"\\ ,"-If"'AOr .11001"'\ L INSTALL 1-EA. 12X12X1 FL TEE WIT.B 1 EA. 8" FLxPJ GJ Irr. IrT"'r. v,,,.,. 1 ')"O\lr h-n f --1--'I"~" --. ~" 286.50 TP 'V..>, SEE DW~. 400-(r-- ""'0 "'" 3.0' COVER, ~~~,~~~~+---~------+----~~ -/~ J ~~ __ ~ __ -++-~~~ ••• ~ST~A~1F.J+~5~4~.2 ~ I • 2"AR.V ?Ql C;i7 TP DEF.l-=3°1~'34" &TB. . ~ VtKllLALtltNI VVIIH \ Il0~eJ ;;:OQ. 29200 TP 0 :!! L~O uu r~ ~TA 10+ 74.24 I <:: ~ ---jJL---+------..--t---+----t--+----+---h\ _ HOR; . DEFLE( J~ ~ ;:c rOUPL~ G L 12° 3'3(' .!;g 0 ....... ....... o o LBOW ~ T.B. ) Z~O 791.76 P 294.66 S y ......, \ -L o / ~ \ ! / 29080 TP w o o 8" P IIC FIRE ERVICE \ ~~--~~~~r_r--~-_+--_Hlr-/-+_-_r-_+--~-~-_+-~--+_-~ )I STA 11+67. 1 \ ....... ....... '" 00 00 I 8" P C FIRE C ERVICE 1\ '"'0(\ 77 TO I \ STA 1 + 71 VAT. LIN "N =ST 1 O+OC wAf. LI -JE "B" 90° LBOW ~ T.B. 290.173 TP 294.38 FS " S EE RI(~H·r w o o RECEIVED APR 11 2008 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •