HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-17; Shelley Property; Tentative Map (CT) (6)PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
DANIEL T. SHELLEY
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
Project No. 06721-12-01
November 27, 2001
Daniel T. Shelley
Post Office Box 230985
Encinitas, California 92023
Subject: SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAl CONSUlTANTS
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Shelley:
In accordance with your authorization of our proposal (No. LG-01208) dated April20, 2001, we have
performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject property. The accompanying
report presents the results of our study and includes our conclusions and recommendations regarding
the geotechnical aspects of project development.
The presence of metamorphic rock exposed in outcrops and near-surface, will impact development of
the property. However, the site is considered suitable for the proposed residential subdivision
provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
(4) Addressee
(2) Ladwig Design Group Inc.
Attention: Mr. Bob Ladwig
W. Cannon
56468
CEG 2201
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-297 4 • Te ep one (858) 558-6900 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................. 1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 1
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2
3.1 Topsoil (unmapped) .............................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Colluvium (Qc) ..................................................................................................................... 2
3.3 Alluvium (Qal) ...................................................................................................................... 3
3.4 Santiago Formation (Ts) ........................................................................................................ 3
3.5 Santiago Peak Meta volcanics (J sp) ....................................................................................... 3
4. ROCK RIPP ABILITY ..................................................................................................................... 3
5. GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE ....................................................................................................... 4
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................. 4
6.1 Faulting and Seismicity ......................................................................................................... 4
6.2 Liquefaction .......................................................................................................................... 5
6.3 Landsliding ............................................................................................................................ 5
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 6
7.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 6
7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ...................................................................................... 6
7.3 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors ............................................................................................. 7
7.4 Subdrains ............................................................................................................................... 7
7.5 Seismic Design Criteria ......................................................................................................... 8
7.6 Grading .................................................................................................................................. 8
7.7 Slope Stability ..................................................................................................................... 10
7.8 Foundations ......................................................................................................................... 10
7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ..................................................................................... 14
7.10 Slope Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 16
7.11 Drainage .............................................................................................................................. 16
7.12 Grading and Foundation Plan Review ................................................................................ 16
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map (Map Pocket)
Figure 3, Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail
Figure 4, Subdrain Cut-Off Wall Detail
Figure 5, Subdrain Outlet Headwall Detail
Figure 6, Fill Slope Stability Analysis
Figure 7, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 -A-13, Logs of Trenches
Table A-1, Seismic Traverses
APPENDIXB
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-1, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-Ill, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
APPENDIXC
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for an approximately 81-
acre site located in Carlsbad, California. Approximately 30 acres of the total 81 acres will be
developed. The remaining area will be preserved for open space and as utility easement. Our
investigation focused on the area to be developed.
The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate surface and subsurface conditions on the property,
including rippability characteristics of the metamorphic rock underlying the site and, based on
conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertinent to the geotechnical aspects of developing
the proposed residential subdivision.
The scope of the investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of published geologic
literature pertaining to the site, and conducting a field investigation. The field investigation was
conducted on May 3 and 8, 2001, and involved the collection of seismic refraction data on 4 lines,
geologic mapping, and the excavation of 13 exploratory backhoe trenches. A summary of the field
investigation, including logs of trenches and the results of the seismic refraction data is presented in
Appendix A. The approximate locations of seismic lines and the exploratory trenches are shown on
Figure 2 (Geologic Map, map pocket).
The base map used for the geologic map was entitled Shelley Property, prepared by Ladwig Design
Group, Inc., dated January 29, 2001.
Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to
determine pertinent physical soil properties and are summarized in Appendix B.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property is located at the northern terminus of Coppercrest Road, and consists of a roughly
rectangular shaped parcel of undeveloped land in the City of Carlsbad, California. The approximate
location of the property is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The property is currently used as
pasture for cattle with residential development along the southern boundary and undeveloped land on
the north, east, and west boundaries. A 100-foot-wide SDG&E powerline easement transverses the
northern portion of the site in an east/west direction.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -1 -November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Topographically the site can be characterized as a central drainage that trends northeast to southwest.
Surface elevation ranges from a high of approximately 690 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the
northeastern comer of the property to a low of approximately 370 feet MSL along the southern
boundary. Metamorphic rock outcrops and boulders were observed across the majority of the site.
It is our understanding that area to be developed will be limited to an area south of the SDG&E
easement, west of the main, central drainage, and approximately 300 feet north of the southern
boundary. Review of the referenced map indicates that a 54-lot residential subdivision is currently
planned for the property. The map indicates that maximum cut and fill depths of approximately
25 feet and 30 feet, respectively, are proposed. All cut and fill slopes are planned at 2: 1
(horizontal:vertical) with maximum heights of roughly 30 feet and 35 feet, respectively. Grading
plans were not available at this time.
The findings and recommendation presented herein are based upon a site reconnaissance, review of
the referenced plans, conditions encountered during our field investigation, and our understanding of
the proposed development. If conditions and/or project details vary significantly from those described
above, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional recommendations and/or
analysis.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Three surficial soil types and two geologic formations were encountered during the field
investigation. The surficial soils consist of topsoil, colluvium, and alluvium. The geologic formations
consist of Santiago Formation and Santiago Peak Metavolcanics. Each of the units is described below
in order of increasing age. The approximate locations of the unit boundaries are shown on the
Geologic Map, Figure 2.
3.1 Topsoil {unmapped)
Topsoil generally covers the site and generally consists of stiff, sandy clay with abundant cobble and
boulders. The topsoil ranges between 1.5 to 4 feet thick. The topsoil is unsuitable in its present
condition for support of structural fill or foundations and will require complete removal and
compaction within areas of planned grading.
3.2 Colluvium {Qc)
Colluvial soils occur along the canyon-side slopes and the base of natural slopes. These deposits are
often indistinguishable from alluvium and thick topsoil deposits, therefore, only the thicker, or
potentially thicker, areas have been mapped separately on the Geologic Map. In general, these
Project No. 06721-12-01 -2-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
deposits consist of poorly consolidated sandy clays to clayey sands and are potentially compressible.
Development within areas underlain by colluvium will require remedial grading as recommended in
the concluding sections of this report.
3.3 Alluvium (Qal)
The alluvial deposits are typically composed of loose, porous, clayey sand to soft, sandy clay with
occasional boulders and cobbles, that have accumulated along canyon bottoms. These sediments are
generally poorly consolidated and susceptible to settlement when subject to an increase in vertical
loads as might result from the placement of fill or structures. Hence, development with areas
containing alluvial deposits will require remedial grading as discussed in the Conclusions and
Recommendations portion of this report.
3.4 Santiago Formation (Ts)
Sedimentary material associated with the Tertiary Age Santiago Formation was encountered in the
subsurface in trenches T-8 and T-9. The material consisted of stiff, laminated, green clay. Numerous
randomly-oriented, localized shear zones were observed. It is our opinion that the observed evidence
of shearing is due to differential expansion and contraction of clay rather than slope deformation.
3.5 Santiago Peak Metavolcanics (Jsp)
Metavolcanic and metasedimentary rock was exposed at the surface over the majority of the site and
was encountered all but one trench (T -8). The metavolcanic rock consists of slightly metamorphosed
andesitic rock and very dense and resistant to weathering. In general the unit is highly jointed and
fractured in the near surface and will yield dense angular cobbles and boulders up to 3-feet in
diameter. Joint and fracture frequency will decrease with depth.
Grading and improvement construction will likely generate oversize materials (rocks greater than
12 inches). Due to the limited extent of proposed fill areas, rock placement will require planning and
coordination during grading. Oversize materials should be placed in accordance with the rock
placement procedures presented in Appendix C of this report and the requirements of the City of
Carlsbad.
4. ROCK RIPPABILITY
Data for seismic refraction lines and observations during exploratory trenching located in proposed
cut areas were evaluated to estimate rock rippability characteristics. The results of the investigation
Project No. 06721-12-01 - 3 -November 27,2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
indicate that only the upper-most portions of the cut where weathering and joint and fracture
frequencies are high can be excavated with heavy effort utilizing conventional heavy-duty grading
equipment. It is estimated that the depth to which ripping may be possible is no greater than 10 feet
and may be as shallow as 3 feet as measured below existing grade. The remaining depth of cut will
require blasting.
5. GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE
No groundwater or water seepage was observed in any of the exploratory trenches at the time of the
investigation. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely impact proposed project development.
However, the geologic units encountered on the site have permeability characteristics and/or fracture
systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to groundwater seepage. Seepage may
occur within fractured rock cut slopes that can create a nuisance to adjacent improvements.
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 Faulting and Seismicity
A review of geologic literature and observations made during this investigation indicate that no active
or potentially active faults exist on-site. The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located
approximately 7.5 miles west of the site.
The distance of known faults to the site was determined from the computer program EQF AUL T
(Blake, 2000). The program estimates ground accelerations at the site for the maximum seismic
events based upon distances from the site to known California active faults that have been digitized in
an earthquake catalog.
The results of the deterministic analysis indicate that the Rose Canyon Fault and the northern off-
shore extension (Newport-Inglewood) is the dominant source of potential ground shaking at the site.
The Rose Canyon Fault is estimated to have the capability to generate a maximum earthquake
magnitude of 6.9 and an estimated peak site acceleration of 0.28 g. Table 6.1 presents maximum
magnitudes, peak site accelerations, and distance from the site of active faults most likely to subject
the site to significant ground shaking.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -4-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6.1
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED FAULTS
Fault Distance from Estimated Maximum Earthquake Event
Name Site (miles) Maximum Peak Site
Earthquake (Mag) Acceleration (g)
Rose Canyon 7.5 6.9 0.28
Newport-Inglewood 13.0 6.9 0.18
Coronado Bank 22.5 7.4 0.15
Elsinore-Julian 23.5 7.1 0.12
Elsinore-Temecula 23.7 6.8 0.10
Earthquake Valley 37.5 6.5 0.05
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of
an earthquake along any of the faults listed in Table 6.1 or other faults in the southern California/
northern Baja California region. We do not consider the site to possess a greater risk than that of the
surrounding developments. While the listing of peak accelerations is useful for comparison of the
potential effects of fault activity in the region, other considerations are important in seismic design,
including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. We
recommend that seismic design of the structures be performed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) guidelines and/or those currently adopted by the City of Carlsbad.
6.2 Liquefaction
The potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake is limited to those soils that are in a
relatively loose, unconsolidated condition and located below the water table. Due to the presence of
shallow bedrock, the lack of a permanent water table, and the recommended removal and compaction
of loose soils, the risk of seismically induced soil liquefaction occurring on the property is considered
very low.
6.3 Landsliding
No landslides were encountered during this or previous investigations and none are known to exist on
the site.
Project No. 06721-12-01 - 5 -November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude the development of
the property as planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed.
The surficial soil deposits (topsoil, colluvium, and alluvium) are considered unsuitable for
the support of fill or structural loads in their present condition and will require removal and
compaction (limits shown on Geologic Map, Figure 2).
7.1.3 Excavation for grading and/or below grade improvements should anticipate that blasting
will be necessary as discussed below.
7.1.4
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
The metamorphic rock has permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could
be susceptible under certain conditions to groundwater seepage. The presence of perched
groundwater/seepage should be considered when planning remedial grading procedures
during the winter months.
Soil and Excavation Characteristics
Based on laboratory test results and our experience in the local area, the soil conditions are
anticipated to consist of "very low" to "high" expansive, clayey sand and sandy clay
derived from excavations within both surficial soil and the weathered metamorphic rock.
The surficial soils can be excavated with light to moderate effort using conventional heavy
duty grading equipment. Heavy effort is anticipated for excavation of the uppermost
portions of the metamorphic rock. It is estimated that the proposed grading will encounter
nonrippable rock from 3 to 10 feet below surface. In some areas the fresh nonrippable
rocks are exposed at ground surface that will require surface blasting.
Undercutting utility trench locations should be considered during the grading phase of site
development. If dense rock is encountered during utility installation, linear blasting may be
necessary. Depending upon the blasting pattern and overburden thickness, the generation of
oversize rock could impact project development. Oversized rock should be placed in
accordance with Recommended Grading Specifications (Appendix C) and the requirements
of the City of Carlsbad. Since proposed fill areas and depths are relatively limited, oversize
rock may require reduction to acceptable sizes or exportation from the property. Placement
of rock within proposed underground utility areas should not be permitted.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -6-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.3
7.3.1
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2
7.4.3
Bulking and Shrinkage Factors
Estimates of embankment bulking and shrinkage factors are based on comparison of the
density of the material in situ and the density of the material when placed as fill. Bulking
and shrinkage factors roughly estimated because large variations in natural soil density and
compacted fill density are common. It is our opinion that the following bulking and
shrinkage factors should be used as a basis for roughly estimating how much the on-site
materials shrink or bulk when they are excavated from their natural state and placed as
compacted fill. For purposes of balancing the site, both maximum and minimum values of
bulking and shrinking factors should be used in calculations to provide estimated
quantities. In addition, graded volumes should be monitored to forecast balance quantities.
TABLE 7.3
BULKING AND SHRINKAGE FACTORS
Soil Unit Shrink/Bulk Factors
Surficial Soils 5 to 1 0 percent shrink
Weathered Rippable Bedrock 1 0 to 15 percent bulk
Nonrippable Bedrock 20 to 25 percent bulk
Subdrains
The geologic units encountered on the site have permeability characteristics and/or fracture
systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to groundwater seepage. The use
of canyon subdrains will be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts
associated with seepage conditions. Figure 3 depicts a typical canyon subdrain detail.
The final20-foot segment of the subdrains should consist of non-perforated drain pipe. At the
non-perforated/perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the
downslope side of the junction in accordance with Figure 4. Subdrains that discharge into a
natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall
structure in accordance with Figure 5.
The final grading plans should show the location of all proposed subdrains. Upon
completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer
should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map depicting the existing
conditions.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -7-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.5
7.5.1
7.6
7.6.1
7.6.2
7.6.3
Seismic Design Criteria
The following ta ble summarizes seismic design parameters obtained from the 1997
Code (UBC) Table 16-J for Soil Profile Types, Sc, which is prevalent on
mary of the Soil Profile Type for each lot should be provided in the final
The corresponding parameters listed in Table 7.5 should be used for
Uniform Building
this project. A sum
report of grading.
seismic design. The nearest Type A fault is the Elsinore-Julian, located approximately
he site. The nearest Type B fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located
miles from the site. The values listed below are for the more dominant
23.5 miles from t
approximately 7.5
Rose Canyon Fault
TABLE 7.5
SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
Paramet er Sc UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Facto r 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, 0.40 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, 0.56 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor, 1.0 Table 16-S
Near Source Factor, 1.0 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
Grading
All grading should be performed in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading
pendix C) and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Where the
of this section conflict with Appendix C, the recommendations of this
dence. All earthwork should be observed and all fills tested for proper
Specifications (Ap
recommendations
section take prece
compaction by Geo con Incorporated.
Prior to commenci ng grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with
loper, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in
soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time.
the owner or deve
attendance. Special
Site preparation sh ould begin with the removal of all deleterious material and vegetation.
val should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used as
ee of organic matter. Material generated during stripping and/or site
be exported from the site.
The depth of remo
fill is relatively fr
demolition should
Project No. 06721-12-01 -8-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.6.4
7.6.5
7.6.6
7.6.7
All potentially compressible surficial soils and deleterious material (topsoil, colluvium, and
alluvium) should be removed to expose formational material prior to placing fill and/or
structural loads. The depth of the removal will likely vary from 2 to 8 feet. The actual
removal depths should be determined in the field during grading. Overly wet surficial
materials, if encountered during the rainy season, will require drying and/or mixing with
drier soils to facilitate proper compaction.
The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with properly compacted fill.
In general, soils native to the site are suitable for re-use as fill if free from vegetation,
debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill placement should be no thicker than
will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, including trench and wall backfill
and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry
density at or slightly above optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with
ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-91.
To reduce the potential for differential settlement, and to facilitate the excavation of
footings and utility trenches it is recommended that cut lots that encounter hard
metavolcanic rock and cut-fill transition pads be undercut 3 feet and replaced with properly
compacted "very low" to "low" expansive fill soils. The cut portion of the undercut should
be sloped to the front or fill portion of the lot at least 1 percent to allow future drainage of
groundwater. Deeper undercutting of street areas should be considered to facilitate the
excavation of underground utilities where the streets are located in cut areas composed of
marginally-to non-rippable metavolcanic rock. If subsurface improvements or landscape
zones are planned outside these areas, consideration should be given to undercutting these
areas as well. Construction of swimming pools at the rear of the building pads should
anticipate hard rock conditions and possible blasting.
Where practical, the upper 3 feet of all building pads (cut or fill) and pavement areas
should be composed of properly compacted "very low" to "low" expansive soils. Medium
expansive soils, if encountered, should be placed in the deeper fill areas and properly
compacted. "Very low" to "low" expansive soils are defined as those soils that have an
Expansion Index of 50 or less in accordance with UBC Table 18-I-B. Rock with a
maximum dimension of 2 feet should be placed at least 2 feet below the deepest utility and
at least 3 feet below pad grade. Rock greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension should
not be placed within 3 feet of finish grade in ~uilding pad areas or within utility trench
areas. Rock greater than 2 feet will require individual placement or breakage to 2-foot-
minus for use in soil/rock fills.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -9-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.7
7.7.1
7.7.2
7.7.3
7.7.4
7.7.5
'7.8
7.8.1
Slope Stability
The results of the slope stability analysis, using soil strength parameters based on
laboratory tests and experience with similar soil materials in nearby areas indicate that the
proposed fill slopes will have calculated factors-of-safety in excess of 1.5 under static
conditions for both deep-seated and shallow sloughing conditions. The stability of the
slopes was analyzed for fill slopes constructed at proposed 2: 1 inclinations. Slope stability
calculations for surficial stability and deep-seated stability are presented on Figures 6
and 7.
Cut slopes excavated in the metavolcanic rocks do not lend themselves to conventional
stability analysis. However, the results of our field investigation, and study of the fracture
pattern, in relation with the proposed cut slopes, indicate that the proposed 2:1 cut slopes
should be stable with respect to deep-seated failure and surficial sloughage up to a
maximum height of 40 feet.
It is recommended that all cut slope excavations be observed during grading by an
engineering geologist to check that geologic conditions do not differ significantly from
those anticipated.
The fill slopes should either be overbuilt a minimum of 3 feet and cut back to final grade
or, as a minimum, backrolled with a sheepsfoot compactor at maximum 4-foot-high
intervals and track-walked by a D-8 bulldozer upon completion to achieve the required
compaction.
All slopes should be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion. Slope
planting should generally consist of drought tolerant plants having a variable root depth.
Slope watering should be kept to a minimum to just support the plant growth.
Foundations
The foundation recommendations that follow are for one-or two-story residential
structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the
underlying fill soils and on the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a
particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior
concrete slab design criteria for each Category are presented on Table 7.8.1. Specific
foundation categories for each lot will be provided upon completion of site grading and
laboratory testing.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -10-November 27,2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.8.2
7.8.3
Foundations for either Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live loads). This bearing pressure
may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
TABLE 7.8.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab Footing Depth Category (inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, one top and 6 x 6 -10/10 welded wire
one bottom mesh at slab mid-ooint
II 18 Four No. 4 bars, two top and No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
two bottom center both directions
III 24 Four No. 5 bars, two top and No.3 bars at 18 inches on
two bottom center both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 50.
Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
Notes:
1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
2. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade.
3.
4.
5.
All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least four inches thick for Categories I and II
and 5 inches thick for Category III.
All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for 5-inch-thick
slab) of clean sand or crushed rock.
All slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the
clean sand reconunended in No. 4 above.
The use of isolated footings located beyond the perimeter of the building that support
structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III. Where
this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building
foundation system with grade beams.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -11 -November 27,2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.8.4
7.8.5
7.8.6
For Foundation Category III, interior stiffening beams should be used and isolated footings
should be interconnected. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio
slabs that exceed 5 feet in width to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future
separation.
No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be maintained in a moist condition
as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3: 1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
•
•
•
•
•
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that
the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally inside the face of
the slope.
Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance
should be increased to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the
slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) slopes, H
equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion
of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of
a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforce-
ment. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives
can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry has been
determined.
For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori-
zontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at
least 7 feet horizontally inside the face of the slope, regardless of slope height.
Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the
portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed
assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation
applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For
swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height,
additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
Although other improvements that are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil move-
ment without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted
for specific recommendations.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -12-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.8.7
7.8.8
7.8.9
As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, post-tensioned
concrete slab and foundation systems may be used for support of the proposed structures.
The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in
post-tensioned slab design and familiar with design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute
(UBC Standard No. 29-4, Part II). Although this procedure was developed for expansive
soils, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential
fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters
presented on the following table entitled Post-Tensioned Foundation System Design
Parameters for the particular Foundation Category designated.
UBC Standard No. 29-4 Part II requires interior stiffener beams in its structural design
procedures. If the Structural Engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method
other than UBC Standard No. 29-4, Part II, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams
be used for Foundation Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should
be at least 12 inches for Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion Index for a particular
building pad exceeds 50 but is less than 90, the perimeter footing depth should be at least
18 inches; and where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should
be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design
parameters as required by the Structural Engineer.
The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills, or fills of
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -13-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.9
7.9.1
7.9.2
7.9.3
TABLE 7.8.2
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Foundation Category
Design Parameters I II III
1. Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
2. Clay Type -Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes
3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft.
10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in.
Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pet). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that
the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1: 1 plane extending upward
from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with
finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill
materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted
for additional recommendations.
Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than O.OOlH at the top of the
wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure
of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet)
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. A retaining wall drainage detail has been provided on Figure 6. The use of
drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended
where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent
to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular
Project No. 06721-12-01 -14-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.9.4
7.9.5
7.9.6
7.9.7
(Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific
drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional
recommendations.
Wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an
allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base
of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the foundation to the
top of a slope steeper than 3: 1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the wall at least 5 feet or three times the
height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper
12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the
design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for
resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined
with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
Cribwalls and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, including those reinforced with
geogrid, are prone to lateral movement at the top of the wall over time. This phenomenon is
the result of movement of the earth backfill and stretching of the reinforcing material, and
is necessary to develop the strength of the earth/reinforcement system. The amount of
lateral movement is dependent, in part, on the height of the wall, type of backfill material,
and adherence to specifications during construction. Where structures, concrete or asphalt
flatwork, or other brittle improvements are placed near the top of such walls, soil
movement and hence distress of the elements should be expected. Lateral separation of one
percent or more of the height of the wall is not uncommon.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -15-November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.10
7.10.1
7.11
7.11.1
7.12
7.12.1
Slope Maintenance
Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions that are difficult
to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The
instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually
does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The
occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded
by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage.
The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth,
soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a
significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to
the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or
properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to
eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be
periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the
above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will
not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a
portion of the project's slopes in the future.
Drainage
Establishing proper drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil
movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Positive measures should be taken to properly
finish grade the building pads after structures and other improvements are in place, so that
drainage water from the building pads and adjacent properties is directed to streets away
from foundations and tops of slopes. Experience has shown that even with these provisions,
a shallow groundwater or subsurface condition can and may develop in areas where no
such condition existed prior to site development. This is particularly tnie where a
substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in landscape
irrigation.
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
The geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading and
foundation plans prior to finalization to check their compliance with the recommendations
of this report and determine the necessity for additional comments, recommendations
and/or analysis.
Project No. 06721-12-01 -16-November 27,2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
2.
3.
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation.
If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the
proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be
notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification
of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of
services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out
such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or
the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of
knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by
changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied
upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 06721-12-01 November 27,2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOURCE : 2000 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WTH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS,
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS, MAPS, IT IS UNLA'IIFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, VIHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE, WTHOUT PERMISSION
GEOCON 0 INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-297 4
PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
AS/ JMW DSK/ EOOOD
XJ1552
I-- - --;T-' -, --,-t-:
~-I
(_j l
l.AIJ'"'-~-t--'--f I
~-·-
fliiOII~
t
N
\ ' I ,_
NO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 11-27-2001· PROJECT N0.06721 -12-01 FIG.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPROVED FILTER FABRIC
6" DIA. PERFORATED
SUBDRAIN PIPE
1" MAX. OPEN-GRADED
AGGREGATE 9 CUBIC FT./FT.
MINIMUM
2' MIN.
IE---------5' MIN.--------+1
NOTES:
1 ..... SUBDRAIN PIPE SHOULD BE 6-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK
WALLED SCHEDULE 40 PVC, SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM AND
CONNECTED TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR APPROVED OUTLET.
2 .... .WHERE DRAIN EXCEEDS 1000 FEET, PIPE DIAMETER SHOULD BE INCREASED
TO 8 INCHES
3 ..... FILTER FABRIC TO BE MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT
TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAIL
NO SCALE
GEOCON 0 SHELLEY PROPERTY INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-297 4
PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159
AS/TA I so /lXVIII I RSS
I I DSK/EOOOO DATE 11 -27-2001 I PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01 I FIG. 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRONT VIEW
SUBDRAIN PIPE
SIDE VIEW
CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL
6 SOLID SUBDRAIN PIPE
• 6-. •• .. •••. g..· ..
24"
----112" MIN.~ . : ·. ·.·· ·~ =-r 6"
.cr. ·~
,. .................. 7 .......... ,.. .. .
6" MIN. (TYP)
~ 6" MIN. (TYP)
MIN. (TYP).
~ .. . PERfORA~ED sQBD~IN PlrE . . : . . .... _..,-~---~::-··-...
....... i_j6" .. ·.II>.· .. MIN. (TYP)
RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL
NO SCALE
NO SCALE
0 GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE· SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121· 297 4
PHONE 858 558-6900 · FAX 858 558-6159
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
AS/TA DSK/ EOOOD DATE 11 -27-2001 PROJECT NO. 06721 -12-01 FIG. 4
RSCOW VI/IXVIIRSS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRONT VIEW
6"
SUBDRAIN
• : ·. o'. · • : ·. o'. · • ." · . . . 0
. 0
IIIIo • • • • • •••
• ." ·. o'. · • : ·. o·. '• : · .
6"
18"
. ·<>. . ----+-. · ... · ... · ... · ..
• ." ·. o. • . ·. o'. · • : ·
. 0 . . 0 . . 0
SIDE VIEW
•• •<IJ> •••• . . . I).·.. . . • . · ..
6"
SUBDRAIN
CONCRETE
HEADWALL
24"
NOTE : HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE
0
12"
NO SCALE
12"
NO SCALE
SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL
0 GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE · SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121· 297 4
PHONE 858 558·6900 · FAX 858 558·6159
AS/TA DSK/GTYPD
SOHD I VIII-IXVRSS
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 11-27-2001 PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01 FIG. 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height
Slope Inclination
H = 40 feet
2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
Total Unit Weight of Soil
Angle of Internal Friction
Apparent Cohesion
Yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot
~ = 28 degrees
C = 400 pounds per square foot
No Seepage Forces
ANALYSIS:
Yc<i> = :yH tan~ Equation (3-3), Reference 1
c
FS = ~cfu Equation (3-2), Reference 1
yH
Yc<i> = 6.9 Calculated Using Eq. (3-3)
Ncr = 25 Determined Using Figure 10, Reference 2
FS = 1.9 Factor of Safety Calculated Using Eq. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
(1) Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No. 46, 1954.
(2) Janbu, N., Discussion of J. M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS-FILL SLOPES
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height
Depth of Saturation
Slope Inclination
Slope Angle
Unit Weight of Water
Total Unit Weight of Soil
Angle of Internal Friction
Apparent Cohesion
H = Infinite
Z = 3 feet
2: 1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
i = 26.6 degrees
Yw = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
Yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot
~ = 28 degrees
C = 400 pounds per square foot
Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face.
Seepage forces parallel to slope face
ANALYSIS:
FS=
C + (y 1 -y w)Z cos2 i tan rp
y 1 Z sin i cos i
=2.8
REFERENCES:
(I)
(2)
Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc. Second International
Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62.
Skempton, A. W., and F. A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay, Proc. Fourth
International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957,2, 378-81.
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was conducted on May 3 and 8, 2001, and consisted of collection of seismic
refraction data on 4 lines, geologic mapping, and the excavation of 13 exploratory backhoe trenches ..
Bulk soil samples were obtained from the material generated during exploratory trenching. The soils
encountered were examined, visually classified, and logged. Logs of the exploratory trenches are
presented as Figures A-1 through A-13. The logs indicate the general material types encountered and
the depth at which samples were obtained. The results of the seismic refraction traverses are
presented below in Table A-I.
TABLE A-1
SEISMIC TRAVERSES
Seismic Average Velocity Average Depth
Traverse (ft./sec.) (ft.)
No.
SL-1
SL-2
SL-3
SL-4
NOTE:
vl V2 v3 Dt D2
2,350 13,150 nla 7 30+
2,900 18,700 n/a 3 30+
3,250 17,2"50 nla 9 30+
1,600 8,300 nla 4 30+
Velocity in feet per second of first layer of materials
Second layer velocities
Third layer velocities
Depth in feet to base of first layer
Depth to base of second layer
Depth to base of third layer
D3
nla
nla
nla
nla
Length of Approximate Maximum
Traverse Depth Explored
(ft.) (ft.)
100 30
100 30
100 30
100 30
For mass grading, materials with velocities of less than 4500 fps are generally rippable with a D9 Caterpillar
Tractor equipped with a single shank hydraulic ripper. Velocities of 4500 to 5500 fps indicate marginal ripping
and blasting. Velocities greater than 5500 fps generally require pre-blasting. For trenching, materials with
velocities less than 3800 fps are generally rippable depending upon the degree of fracturing and the presence or
absence of boulders. Velocities between 3800 and 4300 fps generally indicate marginal ripping, and velocities
greater than 4300 fps generally indicate non-rippable conditions. The above velocities are based on a
Kohring 505.
The reported velocities represent average velocities over the length of each traverse, and should not generally
be used for subsurface interpretation greaterthan 100 feet from a traverse.
Project No. 06721-12-01 November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0::: TRENCH T 1 >-LLJ zw""' >-"' (.!) t-Ou· t--1". LLJ~ 0 <I: DEPTH .....1 3 SOIL Hzt-H. o:::v SAMPLE 0 Cl t-<I:LL (J)LL :::ll-IN CLASS <I: t-"' z. NO. :c z ELEV. (MSL.) 528 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 0:::(1)(1) Wu t-z t-:::l (J)LLJ FEE:T H 0 (USCS) 1-H::J: Cl • HI-.....1 0::: W 00 0 >-a.. oz (.!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw.....l 0::: ....... :E:o ~o::e Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION r 0 X TOPSODJCOLL~ -Stiff, moist, reddish-brown, Sandy CLAY r
2 -0 1-
CL
-~& r
Tl-1
~ \1 I " -Contact varies 1.5 to 4 feet / 4 SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS
Slightly weathered, dark green MET A VOLCANIC
ROCK, joint N70W, 72N, and N60E90, excavates
to angular cobble size to 12 to 16 inches
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET DUE TO
REFUSAL
Figure A-1, Log of Trench T 1 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ •.. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ! ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 2 >-LLI zw"" >-"" (!) 1-Ou• I-'"' LLI~ 0 <I: DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hzt-H. a::'"' SAMPLE 0 0 1-<I:LL. (J)LL. ;:)I-IN :I: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 509 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <l:t-'-z. t-z NO. O::(J)(J) LLiu FEET 1-;::) (USCS) 1-H::I o. (J)LIJ H 0 HI-...J 0:: W(J)O >-a. Oz (!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw...J a::'"' ::E:o ~a::e 0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 ~ TOPSOIL -~ Medium dense, slightly moist, reddish-brown, 1--
~~ GC Clayey GRAVEL with SAND, rock is
2 -metamorphic, angular 1--T2-1
'--V..\\ .. SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS
Slightly weathered, dark grayish-green, very strong
MET A VOLCANIC ROCK. Refusal
REFUSAL ON ROCK AT 3.5 FEET
Figure A-2, Log of Trench T 2 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] .•• SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ .•. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... IJATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOIJN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT IJARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 3 >-w zw'""' >-"' (!) 1-Ou· I-""' w~ 0 <I: DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hz I-H. o::""' SAMPLE 0 Cl 1-<I:LL ~LL ::JI-IN :I: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 424 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <I:I-' w· 1-z NO. 0:::(/)(1) FEET 1-::J (USCS) I-H3 Cl~ oow H 0 HI-...J 0:: w 00o >-a. Oz (!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw...J o::""' :E:o ~o::e Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION r-0 ~ ~ TOPSOIL r--~ v CL Stiff, moist, red-brown, Silty CLAY c-X Vv
r-2 -/j/1 t7 ~·1'-t.-
\j \' < SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS -:..) 1'-t.-Slightly weathered, dark grayish-green, r-
\j \' < :..) 1'-t.-MET AM ORPHIC ROCK, highly jointed N32E 90,
4 -\j \' < N62E 70W, N15E 66W, N25W 60S, excavates to -:..) 1'-t.-cobble 6 inches max and gravel \j \' <
:..1,_1'-t.-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET DUE TO
REFUSAL
Figure A-3, Log of Trench T 3 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ..• SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE iJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE .J ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0::: TRENCH T 4 >-LJ.J Zw""' >-" (.!) 1-Ou• 1-.,... LJ.J~ 0 <I: DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hz I-H. a::'-' SAMPLE 0 Cl 1-<I:LL. (/)LL. ~ .... IN :::c z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 448 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 (1:1-'\. z. 1-z NO. 1-~ 0::(/)(/) LJ.Ju (J)UJ FEET H 0 (USCS) 1-H:::I o. HI-...J 0::: WcnO >-a.. Oz (.!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw...J o::'-' I:o ~o::!:! Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 ~ ~y Vi ~y CL TOPSOllJCOLL~ -~~ Firm, slightly moist, red-brown, Silty CLAY, with r-
T4-1 ~~ r: angular metamorphic rock 2 inches max
2 -[/i/ --------------------------------------~ GC Very dense, slightly moist, Clayey GRAVEL, --:~ angular metamorphic rock to 2 inches (highly 1-
~~1'-1 jointed, highly weathered metamorphic rock) /
-4 SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS
Moderately weathered, dark green, highly jointed
METASEDIMENTARY? to 3 inches max, angular
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET DUE TO
REFUSAL
Figure A-4, Log of Trench T 4 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 5 >-LU zw'"' >-'"' (.!) 1-1-,..,. LU~ 0 <I: ou. DEPTH ..J :I SOIL Hzt-H, 0::'"'
IN SAMPLE 0 0 CLASS 1-<I:LL (I)LL ::::ll-NO. ::I: z ELEV. (MSL.) 423 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <1:1-"'-Z, 1-z FI:ET 1-::::l 0:::'(/)(/) Wu oow H 0 (USCS) 1-H:::I 0, HI-..J 0:: w00 o >-a.. oz EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw..J (.!) ~O::e 0::'"' :E:o
0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 /~ v ALLUVIUM "/-
1--v-v Stiff, moist, red-brown, fine Sandy CLAY with 1-"/. v v silt
1-2 --/. 1-T5-1 ~/ .. /" CL <:ll" /" ~v. ·,/
1--/. 1-v -/
1-4 -)~ v 1-"/-
/Y
1--.-/.
~ 'r--~.-SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS \"-' Highly weathered, highly jointed, dark -1-6 \ I
\ greenish-brown MET A VOLCANIC ROCK, I
\ ___ e~~a~a~e~ ~o _3 _i~c~e~ EJ~ __________________ , I
Becomes fresh, unable to excavate
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET DUE TO
REFUSAL
Figure A-5, Log of Trench T 5 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0::: TRENCH T 6 ~ w zw'"' ~ ""' (!) 1-ou . ~ .... w~ 0 <r: DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hz I-(/). o:::v SAMPLE 0 Cl 1-<z::LL zLL ::JI-IN :c z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 404 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <r:l-'\. w· 1-z NO. 0:::(/)(/) FEET 1-::J CUSCS) 1-H::J: Cl~ (/)IJJ H 0 HI-...J 0::: I..LJ(/)0 ~a.. Oz (!) EQUIPMENT JD410 D Zw...J a::'"' Eo ~o:::!;9 Cl (.)
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1-0 ~ CL TOPSOIL -~ Stiff, moist, red-brown, Sandy CLAY I-
2 -'6. \I';:_
\1 \" < SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS -:..) I' L-Highly weathered, dark greenish-brown 1-
\1 \" < :..) I' L-MET A VOLCANIC ROCK, highly jointed
4 -\1 \" < :..) I' L-1-
'6.\l-
;-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET DUE TO
REFUSAL ON ROCK
Figure A-6, Log of Trench T 6 SHEL 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ..• SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ .•• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 7 >-LLI zw""' >-'"' (.!) 1-1-,.... LLI~ 0 <J: Ou• DEPTH _J 3 SOIL Hzl-H, o::'"'
IN SAMPLE 0 Cl CLASS 1-<J:IJ.. cniJ.. =>I-NO. ::r: z ELEV. (MSL.) 388 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <1: 1-' z. 1-z FEET 1-::::> a:::cncn LLiu cnlLI H 0 (USCS) I-H3 Cl, HI-_J 0:: LUcnO >-a.. oz (.!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw-l o::'"" Eo ~o::e Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
' 0 ~ TOPSOIL r--Stiff to very stiff, moist, brown to olive, Sandy -T7-1 ~~ CL CLAY
r-2 --
r--
--::.\I''-IV, i' < SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS
r-4 -~ I''-Highly weathered, highly fractured, light green, -'::.\~.-MET A VOLCANIC ROCK, joints filled with
1----::. i'l" 2 pistachio green clay with soapy feel -
~....\ i'r--2
r-6 -r< -T7-2 ..,) I''-v i' <
r--..,) I''--vi' < ..,) I''-
8 v i'"' <
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Figure A-7, Log of Trench T 7 SHEL 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST •••. DRIVE SAMPLE {UNDISTURBED)
~ •.. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ~ . . . CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 8 >-UJ zw""' >-..... (!) 1-Ou· I-"' UJ~ 0 <I: DEPTH ....1 :3: SOIL Hzt-H, o::'-' SAMPLE 0 Cl 1-<J:LL Ull.L ::::ll-IN :I: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 378 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <J: 1-' z, 1-:z NO. 1-::::l O:::wUl UJu Ulw FEET H 0 (USCS) 1-H::i: Cl, HI-....1 0:: UIUlO >-a.. oz (!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D zw...J o::'"' :E:o ~~~ Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1-0 ~ ALLUVIUM 1--Stiff to very moist, brown, Sandy CLAY f--
1-2 -~ f--CL
1--f--
1-4 -~ v; SANTIAGO FORMATION 1--~ Stiff, very moist, green, CLAY, fractured with f--
shiny parting surfaces with localized shearing
1-6 -f--~ CH
-
8 -~ 1-
1--~ f--
10 -~ -Becomes less weathered, less fractured t--
-~ t--
12 -~ f-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13 FEET
Figure A-8, Log of Trench T 8 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ..• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
iJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
~ TRENCH T 9 >-LLJ zw'"' >-,.., (.!) ~ Ou• ~ ....... LLJ~ 0 <I: DEPTH ...J 3 SOIL Hz~ H. ~v
IN SAMPLE 0 0 1-<I:I.i.. (/)1.1.. ::::::l~ ::r: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 382 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <I:~' z. ~z NO. ~ ::::::l ~(/)(/) Wu (/)IJJ FEET H 0 (USCS) I-H3 o. HI-...J ~ LIJ(/)0 >-a.. oz EQUIPMENT JD 410 D zw...J (.!) ~~~ a:::'"' :E:o
0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 [?;; CL TOPSOIL -~ Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY 1--
2 -'i; CL
SANTIAGO FORMATION -~ \'i'J-Stiff, moist, light green, CLAY
~\/-SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS
4 -Highly weathered, dark greenish-brown, ~\'I'/-MET A VOLCANIC ROCK, highly jointed
-~\'"'i'J-
,..-6 ~~~-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
Figure A-9, Log of Trench T 9 SHEL 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
~ TRENCH T 10 >-LLJ zw""' >-"" (.!) 1-Ou• I-" LLJ~ 0 <I: DEPTH ....J 3 SOIL Hz I-H. ~ ...... SAMPLE 0 0 1-<I:IJ... (/)IJ... ::J,_ IN :I: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 388 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <1:1-'-z. 1-z NO. 1-::J 0:::(/)(1) Wu (/)LJ.J FEET H 0 (USCS) 1-H:::::I: o. H,_ ....J ~ W(I)O >-a.. Oz (.!) EQUIPMENT JD 410 D zw....J ~v I:o ~~!:9 0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 ~ TOPSOIL r--Firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY 1-
~ CL
r-2 -1-
r--"!:.\t-v \' < SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS r-4 -:..\ 1'-L-Highly weathered, dark greenish-brown, 1-v \' < :..\ 1'-L-MET A VOLCANIC ROCK, highly jointed,
t--v \' < :..\ 1'-L-excavates to angular rock to 4 inches t-
v \' <
r-6
:..~,.:t-
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
Figure A-10, Log of Trench T 10 SHEL 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ••. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
liiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 11 >-w ZLIJ""" >-""' (.!) 1-Du· 1-'"' w~ 0 <I: DEPTH ....1 :::0:: SOIL Hz!-H. a::"'
IN SAMPLE 0 Cl 1-<I:LL CI)LL :::JI-::I: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 398 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <1:1-'\. z. 1-z NO. 0::(/)CI) L&Ju FEET 1-:::J (USCS) 1-H:::O:: o. CI)LIJ H 0 HI-....1 0:: UJC/)0 ;:.-C.. oz EQUIPMENT JD 410 D ZLIJ....J (.!) ~0::~ a::'"' :E:o
Cl u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1-0 ~~ TOPSOIL
1--Firm, moist, dark brown, CLAY, trace sand, trace -
T11-1 CL ~ small gravel
r-2 -'--
1--~\.-: SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS -\1 I" < :.,\ I' L.-High weathered, dark olive and rust,
r-4 -~ \"\'£... MET A VOLCANIC ROCK -
v.~" < -Becomes less weathered, highly jointed, excavates :.,\ I' L.-
r--v,t-< to 6 inches angular '--:.,\ I' L.-
6 ~\£... r--~\'I' L.-I-
1-~\_
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Figure A-11, Log of Trench T 11 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ..• SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
iJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----~--------------------------
PROJECT NO 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 12 >-w Zw'"' >-""' (!) 1-0 (.) . 1-,..._ w~ 0 ([ DEPTH ....1 3 SOIL Hz I-H. o::'"" SAMPLE 0 0 1-([U.. (/)u.. =>I-IN :I: z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) 430 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 ([I-' z. 1-z NO. 0::(/)(/) Wu FEET 1-:::l (USCS) 1-H::l: o. (/)w H 0 HI-....1 0:: W(/)0 >-a.. oz (!) EQUIPMENT JD 410D ZLLI...J o::'"" :E:o ~o::!:9 0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 v(./ sc TOPSOll.. -{// Loose, slightly moist, Clayey, fine SAND 1-
v.)(
2 -·://
~\;_
y i" < SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS -:..\ 'i'/.-Highly weathered, dark greenish-brown, 1-y i" <
:..\ 'i'/.-METAVOLCANIC ROCK, highly jointed,
4 ,, i" excavates to angular boulder up to 18 inch
diameter
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4 FEET DUE TO
REFUSAL
Figure A-12, Log of Trench T 12 SHEL1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ..• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
iJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---------------------------------
PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01
0:: TRENCH T 13 :>-UJ zw'"' :>-"' (.!) 1-1-,..... UJ~ 0 <I: ou.
DEPTH _J 3 SOIL H:zl-H. o::'"'
IN SAMPLE 0 0 CLASS 1-<I:LL. (J)LL. ::::ll-
NO. ::I: :z ELEV. (MSL.) 450 DATE COMPLETED 5/8/01 <C ..... " :z. 1-:z
FEET 1-::::l 0::(/)(J) UJu (J)IJ.J H 0 (USCS) I-H3 o. HI-_J 0:: LLI(J)O :>-a.. O:z EQUIPMENT JD 410 D Zw....J (.!) ~0::~ o::'""' Eo
0 u
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
t-0 ~ II ./.
TOPSODJCOLL~ IYl/ t--r / -v Dense, slightly moist, brown-red, Clayey, fine t-ll I/·
~ 1/ ~/ sc SAND with silt
t-2 -~f? 1/V t-T13-1 ~
. _1/"
1/
t--~ --------------------------------------
Very stiff, moist, greenish-brown, CLAY with
t-4 -w angular rock t-
CL
-~ t-
6 -~ rl' '-
vt-SANTIAGO PEAK META VOLCANICS -~ \' 1-Highly weathered, dark greenish-brown, t-vt-~ I' l-MET A VOLCANIC ROCK, highly jointed,
8 v"~-excavates to 8 inches max angular with clay
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Figure A-13, Log of Trench T 13 SHEL 1
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
~ ••• DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
IJ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST II ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
liiiJ ... CHUNK SAMPLE ~ .•• WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were
analyzed for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, and shear
strength characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Tables B-I through B-Ill.
Sample
No.
T5-1
Tl3-1
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91
Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Description Density Content
(pet) (% drywt.)
Dark brown, Clayey, fme SAND 121.3 12.5
Reddish brown, fine SAND with Silt 121.4 12.6
TABLE B-11
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-90
Sample No. Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
(pet) (%) (pst) Resistance (degrees)
T5-1 109.3 12.4 400 28
Soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative density at near optimum moisture content.
Sample
No.
T5-1
Tl3-1
TABLE B-Ill
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Moisture Content Dry Density Expansion Classification
Before Test(%) After Test(%) (pet) Index
11.7 24.9 104.5 11 Very Low
11.1 27.3 106.2 57 Medium
Project No. 06721-12-01 November 27, 2001
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
I
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 06721-12-01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
------------------------------------------
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
ofconflict.
Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the· purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting fim1 responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
GI rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
2.7.
3.1.
------------------------------------
Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3 .1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3 .1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
GI rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.1.
Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
GI rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2.
4.3.
Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operat!ons should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
ofthis document.
After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6: 1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer
DETAIL NOTES:
Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur
Original Ground
Finish Slope Surface
No Scale
(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 8/98
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5.
5.1.
5.2.
6.1.
After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
.disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2. fu general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM Dl557-91.
6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L_ ___
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1. 7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3 .1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the fol1owing recommendations:
6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials. greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
GI rev. 8/98
I
"
I
I
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I 6.3.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--------------------------------------,
6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3 .1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill sh~ll be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev. 8/98
'-----------------------------~-----------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
required compaction or deflection as recommend~d in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be ..
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3 .3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM Dll96-64, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
6.3 .4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
GI rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
6.3. 7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3 .3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3 .3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design· of the monitoring program shall be as
recorrunended in the Conclusions and Recorrunendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final·report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
GI rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.5.
7.6.
8.1.
8.2.
The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7 .6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-81, Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using I 0-Pound Hammer
and 18-Inch Drop. ·
7 .6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion
Index Test.
7 .6.2. Rock Fills
7 .6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard
Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent pending of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
Gl rev. 8/98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.1.
9.2.
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location, The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
The Owner is responsible for furnishing a fmal as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 8/98
ACIF:C
OCEM~
r
0 .,
1'1 z
0 -z ---1
)>
(/)
NOTES;
VICINITY MAP
· -. i I
I ', f
j \ \ . ' '
' '
' ' I
BOUNDARY IS PLOrTED FROM RECORD OF SURVEY t13655
PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BY CHICAGO TITLE CO. -
ORDER #7333296-050 DATED JULY 2. 1997
NO SOILS WORK HAS BEEN PERFOffi1ED
fOPOCRAPHY IS FROM TCWIL~ INC. DATED 9/1/00
PROJECT
LOCATION
__ _)
--··
..
'-------··-
NOTES CONTINUED:
' fHE PURPOSE OF l'HIS PREL!M!NARY PLAN FOR THE SH::LLEY PROPERTY IS TO OBTAIN
WRITTEN CCH'ENTS FROM THE CITY If CARLSBAD
ALL LOTS ARE A MINII'UH OF ~-'!2.. SQUARE FEET
SLOPES SHOWN ARE 2: 1
~ATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
SE'IIER INFORMATION AND SERVICE IS FRCt-1 LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER OISTRI~T
CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING IS R-:-40
GRADES SHOWN ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANCE DEPENDING ON THE ENCINEER
OF WORK ANALYSIS AND SOILS ENGINEER RECOMMENDATION
CURRENT AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION IS RL AND DS
MELROSE AVENUE IS SHOWN AS A ~~JOR (102' R/W) ARTERIAL.
THIS SUBDIVISION PROPOSES PUBLIC STREETS
TOTAL SITE ACREAGE~ 81.3 ACRES
ASSESSOR PARCELS: 223-06~-01 AND 02
OWNER: DANI8. T. SHELLEY -P.O. BOX 230985
ENCINITAS, CA 92023, PHONE £656) 759-2268
CSJ\ \FS\LDG\L-1 005\SHELLEi'~REUM.DWG 05-02-01 16:59•29
DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PER THE PLANNED DEVELOPI"ENT ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 21.45 OF
l'HE t1JNI C IP AL CODE)
I
i
/ ' '
HELLEY PROPERTY
I •' \
CROWTH MANAGEMENT CALCULATIONS
TOTAL OWNERSHIP AREA
AREA NORTH If l'HE SOOTH LlNE OF THE 100' SDG~E EASEI"ENT
AREA SOOTH If SOG~E EASEI-'ENT
A. 0-15X SLOPES
B. 15-25% SLOPES
C. 25-40% SLOPES
D. 40% AND GREATER SLOPES
E. AREA OF MELROSE
TOTALS -A+B+1/2 OF C 2 56.44 ACRES X 1 DU/AC
TOTAL NUM3ER OF LOTS PROPOSED ,. ~-
¥ 8!. 3! ACRES
a 20.51 ACRES
* 60.80 ACRES
* 37. 77 ACRES
" 17.83 ACRES
~ l. 68 ACRES
a 0. 16 ACRES
• 3.36 ACRES
s 56.44 UNITS ALLOWED
AREA OEVELvPED (GRADED) 3 l£·..!2. ACRES, ~~'!_ X Cf OWNERSHIP*
•THB ARM PEVELOPEll TO THB BAST BOOB
01"A"ST ANPTHBTOP01SLOPBA1TI~
REAR OF LOTS I (1.12 IS ZIU ACRES Olt ~4.7%
OFTII!TOTALOWNERSHIP. TIIB'SLQPB
ADJACENT tO TH.B i'ROPOSED OPEN SpACE
WILL BB RBVJ:.Gl!'fATED WITH NATivB
MATElUAL COMPATIBU~ WITH THB OPE:t-1 SPACB.
100
@)
0 300
~ iiiiiiiiiii~~~~iiiiiiliiiiiii'iiiiiii FE!:T
100 200
GEOCON LEGEND
QC ....... COtLUV!UM
Qa/ ... ALLUV'i-.JM
' Ts ...... ~rlAoo FoRMATIOI'i._, ..
'· Jsp ...... SANTlAOO PEAK META.VOLCAN!CS
~.>.......,~'. .. APPRO~. LOCATION OF OEOt.OOIC CONTACT
T-1) .......
. ~ .... .APPROX. ·LOCATION OF TRENCH
~ ... .APPROX. LOCATION OF SEISMIC TRAVERSE
GEOLOGIC MAP
SHELLEY PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SkEH OF ' 2
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
703 f'fllOMAA fUAPOA.T AOfll)
SUITE300
<MlSBOO. CA 92009
PHONE (760) 438-3182 FAX (760) 43a-0173
JOB L-1005