The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGPA 13-02; Robertson Ranch West Village; General Plan Amendment (GPA) (3)Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad. California 92010 • (760) 438 3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com May 29, 2013 W.O. 6145-A1-SC Shapell Homes 22800 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite 200 Verba Linda, California 92887 Attention: Mr. Darius Fatakia, Director of Engineering Subject: Geotechnical Update, Rancho Costera, Carlsbad, California References: 1. 'Vesting Tentative Map for Rancho Costera," 40-scale plans, sheets 1 through 23, Job No. 101307, dated February 2013, by O'Day Consultants, Inc. 2. "Supplement to the Updated Geotechnical Investigation for Rancho Costera (Formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 6145-A1 -SC, dated June 6, 2011, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Mr. Fatakia: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has reviewed the referenced plans by O'Day Consultants, Inc, and GSI's supplemental report for the site. The scope of our services has included a review ofthe referenced documents, analysis of data, and preparation of this summary update letter. Unless specifically superceded herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in the referenced report remain pertinent and valid, and should be appropriately implemented during planning, design, and construction. GSI is currently conducting an additional geotechnical investigation for the site, based on the referenced 40-scale plans. Any supplemental recommendations based on the current work will be provided in an addendum to the referenced GSI report. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this letter or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office^ Respectfully submitte GeoSoils, Inc. p. Frank! ngineering Geologist^ Andrew T. Guatelli Geotechnical Engineer, GE 232C JPF/ATG/jh Distribution: (2) Addressee (3) O'Day Consultants, Inc., Attention: George O'Day (2 wet signed) Geotechnical * Geologic • Coastal • Environmental SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR RANCHO COSTERA (FORMERLY ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE) CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR SHAPELL HOMES 8383 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 700 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90211 W.O. 6145-A1 -SC JUNE 6, 2011 Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal * Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 June 6, 2011 W.O. 6145-A1-SC Shapell Homes 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Beverly Hills, California 90211 Attention: Mr. John Buller Subject: Supplement to the Updated Geotechnical Investigation for Rancho Costera (Formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Buller: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this supplement to the geotechnical investigation (GSI, 2010) for Rancho Costera. The purpose of our supplemental site work is to update the body of work presented in GSI (2010), and to further evaluate geotechnical recommendations such as shrinkage/bulking, overexcavation, the current version ofthe proposed grading plan, slope stability, wick drain feasibility in Area PA-1, storm water infiltration rates, erosion in PA-23C, near PA-11 in the vicinity of the existing 5:1 (h:v) fill slope, a discussion of earthwork within PA-13, and to update our report with respect to current standards of geotechnical practice, including the 2010 California Building Code ([CBC], California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2010, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Unless specifically superceded in the text of this report the conclusions and recommendations presented in GSI (2010) remain valid and applicable. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review ofthe available data (Appendix A), field exploration (Appendix B), and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed construction appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction ofthe project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: Site exploration was generally completed in order to provide additional information regarding earthwork balance (i.e., shrinkage and bulking), and bedrock structure with respect to slope stability of proposed cut slopes. Earth materials were evaluated with 19 supplemental test pit excavations, exposing existing fill (both agricultural and engineered), colluvium and underlying formational soils. Groundwater was not encountered within test pit excavations completed in preparation of this supplemental investigation. Our review indicates that regional groundwater should not significantly affect site development provided that the recommendations presented in GSI (2010) are implemented. However, deeper utilities in areas of higher groundwater within PA-1 may require dewatering to place the pipes. In general, based on a review ofthe data obtained to date, groundwater in the general vicinity of Planning area PA-1 may be anticipated to occur at elevations on the order of 42 to 45 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), or approximately 7 to 10 feet below existing surface grades. In the general vicinity ofthe "land bridge" between Planning Areas PA-8 and PA-10, groundwater may be anticipated to occur at elevations on the order of 36 to 40 feet MSL, or approximately 16 to 20 feet below existing surface grades. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting permeabilities, discontinuities, or fill lifts, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Perched groundwater should be anticipated to occur after development, and may require additional mitigation when it manifests itself. • It is our understanding that the controlling authorities are requiring onsite Best Management Practices (BMP's) to clarify and filter onsite storm water run-off within the project to comply with code. Currentiy, it is unknown what type of BMP will be utilized for the project (i.e., bio-swales, detention/infiltration basins, sand filters, etc.), however; detention/infiltration basin BMP's are generally utilized for residential developments to clarify and filter onsite storm water during rain events. Three (3) infiltration tests were conducted to generally evaluate site soils with respect to anticipated BMP's onsite. One (1) infiltration test was conducted within previously compacted fill materials onsite (depth of approximately ±3 feet) to generally characterize fill soils, and two (2) infiltration tests were conducted within formational soils, to generally characterize "cut" materials. A discussion of the test data are presented in a later section of this report. • Our analysis of planned cut slopes, both in-tract, and along El Camino Real, indicates that these slopes are grossly stable (i.e., static and seismic factor-of-safety [FOS] > 1.5 and 1.1, respectively). Graded slopes are generally anticipated to be stable, assuming proper construction, maintenance, and normal climatic conditions. However, owing to the potential for seepage to develop at the face of both plan cut slopes, and fill over cut slopes, stabilization fills are recommended for all such slopes, unless otherwise noted herein. Perched groundwater conditions, not observed in GSI's current and past subsurface studies in these areas (Appendix A) was incorporated into the slope stability evaluation to account for potential for this condition to develop after the residential/commercial buildings are completed. Stabilization fill slope drains and toe drains (cut slopes) are recommended. The Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. approximate location of stabilization fills, drains, and toe drains are shown on Plate 3. • Earthwork balance (shrinkage and bulking) was further evaluated in this supplemental investigation. The results of this analysis are presented in a later section of this report. Owing to the potential for non-uniform soil conditions (i.e., sand and clay), inclined bedding, and the potential for perched water, overexcavation of transition lots (i.e., cut/fill lots) and all cut lots is recommended. The depth of the overexcavation is minimally recommended at 3 to 4 feet (sloped to street). The maximum to minimum (ratio) fill thickness within the limits of the proposed buildings is recommended to be 3 to 1. Based on the current, preliminary grading plan prepared by O'Day Consultants ([ODC] 2011a), a preliminary assessment of subdrain, toe drain, fill slope keyways, and stability fill slopes was provided. The results of this assessment are shown on the "Schematic Grading Exhibit" included in this report as Plate 3. It should be noted that this exhibit does not indicate terrace drains, as required per code. This should be reviewed by the project civil engineer (GSI, 2011b). In the vicinity of planned residential development within PA-1, existing alluvial soils are anticipated to be on the order of up to 10 feet in thickness (GSI, 2008b). With groundwater likely present at depths as shallow as 3 feet below the surface, up to approximately 7 feet of alluvial soils may be left in place. Given this relatively shallow thickness of potentially left in place alluvium, and planned fill thicknesses on the order of 3 to 5 feet, wick drains are not considered effective, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Graded removals and stabilization ofthe removal bottom (rock blankets, geotextiles, etc.) is recommended in this area. Re-use of the existing remediated soils is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint, not withstanding the recommendations herein. PA-13 is currently sheet graded, transition (cut/fill) pad (GSI, 2008b). The western portion of the pad consists of engineered fill overlying up to 45 feet of alluvial soil left in place, while the eastern, cut portion exposes Quaternary-age terrace deposits consisting of highly expansive clays. A discussion of alluvial settlement potential, transition mitigation, and expansive soil conditions is presented in a later section of this report. Erosion within the habitat slope located within the eastern portion of PA-11 was evaluated to generally be the results of sparse vegetative cover, and the presence of surface obstructions, such as fiber rolls, and/or other surface irregularities, etc., that tend to concentrate surface flow on the slope. A detailed discussion, including mitigative recommendations are presented in a later section of this report and in GSI (2011c). Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. • Foundation systems may be designed and constructed in accordance with GSI (2010), and the current edition of the CBC (CBSC, 2010). Please note that GSI (2010) referenced the 2007 Code; however, while some sections numbers have changed from the 2007 Code to the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010), the geotechnical design parameters are considered the same from a geotechnical standpoint, unless specifically superceded herein. However, the application of those same parameters may change the resultant design by others, based on the current code. The application of a higher probabilistic horizontal acceleration (PHSA) of 2 percent in 50 years should now be considered in the design of improvements onsite. The revised PHSA has previously been provided (GSI, 2010). Recommendations for conventional, segmental, and top of slope walls/fences are presented in GSI (2010) and are considered valid unless specifically superceded in the text of this report. Recommendations for additional wall/shoring systems are provided in the following sections with respect to site conditions that may be more suited to shoring wall, and/or soil nail wall design, especially in the vicinity of the planned ingress/egress points at Glasgow and Edinburgh Streets, along the north side of the project. • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitte; GeoSoils, Inc. /Andrew T. Guatelli Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320 Paul L. McClay Vice President, C RGC/ATG/PMC/jh Distribution: (3) Addressee (CD also) (2) Planning Systems, Attention: Paul Klukas (3) O'Day Consultants, Attention: George O'Day (2 wet signed, CD also) Shapell Homes File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt W.O. 6145-A1-SC Page Four GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2 PREVIOUS WORK 2 SITE EXPLORATION 4 SITE EARTH MATERIALS 4 GROUNDWATER 5 LABORATORY TESTING 5 General 5 Classification 6 Field Moisture and Density 6 Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density 6 Direct Shear Tests 7 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 7 General 7 Gross Stability 7 Surficial Stability 8 Planned Fill Over Cut Slopes 9 INFILTRATION TESTING 9 General 9 Double-Ring Infiltration Test Procedure 10 Conclusions and Recommendations-Infiltration 11 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 General 12 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION 13 General 13 Geotechnical Grading Exhibit 13 Earthwork Balance (Shrinkage/Bulking) 13 Slope Considerations and Slope Design 17 Graded Slopes 17 Cut Slopes 17 Planned Fill Over Cut Slopes 17 Stabilization Fill Slopes 18 Subdrains 18 GeoSoils, Inc. Toe Drains 18 Wick Drains (PA-1) 18 SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PA-13 18 As-Built Conditions 19 Proposed Additional Grading 19 Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium 20 Preliminary Earthwork Recommendations, PA-13 20 Preliminary Foundation Design 21 SLOPE EROSION WITH A PORTION OF PA-11 21 Background 21 Observation Summary 21 Conclusions and Recommendations (PA-11) 22 RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS 23 RETAINING WALLS 23 General 23 Earthquake Loads (Seismic Surcharge) 23 TEMPORARY/PERMANENT SHORING SYSTEMS 24 Lateral Pressure 27 Tiebacks and Lateral Pier Loads 28 Open Excavations 28 Excavation Observation (All Excavations) 28 Observation 29 Monitoring Existing, Offsite Improvements 29 SOIL NAIL WALLS 29 General 29 Preliminary Design and Construction 30 Anchor (Bonded) Zone, (Qt) Terrace Deposits, or (Tsa) Santiago Formation 30 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS 30 PLAN REVIEW 31 LIMITATIONS 31 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2 Figure 2a - Lateral Earth Pressures for Temporary Shoring Systems 25 Figure 2b - Lateral Earth Pressures for Permanent Shoring Systems 26 Shapell Homes Table of Contents File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.att Page ii GeoSoils, Inc. ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs Rear of Text Appendix C - Laboratory Data Rear of Text Appendix D - Slope Stability and Engineering Analysis Rear of Text Appendix E - Infiltration Test Data Rear of Text Appendix F - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Rear of Text in Folder Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections E-E,' F-F,' H-H,' l-l', J-J', K-K' Rear of Text in Folder Plate 3 - Schematic Grading Exhibit Rear of Text in Folder Shapell Homes Table of Contents File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.att Page Hi GeoSoils, Inc. SUPPLEMENT TO THE UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR RANCHO COSTERA (FORMERLY ROBERTSON RANCH WEST VILLAGE) CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CAUFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of available soils and geologic data (Appendix A), including the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in previous geotechnical reports for the site and vicinity (GSI; 2011 a, 2011 b, 2011 c, 2010, 2008a, 2008b, 2004a, 2002, 2001a, and 2001b). 2. Geologic reconnaissance and field mapping. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of 19 exploratory test pits completed with a rubber tire backhoe was performed for this supplemental evaluation (see Appendix B). 4. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our supplemental subsurface exploration program, and/or used in our slope stability analysis from the body of existing site work completed by this office (text and Appendix C). 5. Slope stability and engineering analysis (Appendix D). 6. Infiltration testing on representative samples of existing fill and formational soil (Appendix E). 7. Additional evaluation of earthwork shrinkage/bulking, subdrains, fill keys, undercuts, etc. 8. A review of wick drain feasibility within PA-1. 9. Additional retaining wall design/construction evaluations. 10. A discussion of as-built, and planned construction within Planning Area 13, including settlement, expansive soils, and foundation design. 11. An evaluation of surficial erosion within an existing, graded portion of PA-11. 12. Engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this appropriately illustrated geotechnical report. GeoSoils, Inc. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Rancho Costera (formerly Robertson Ranch West Village) is a planned residential community consisting of several "Planning Areas" (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). These planning areas are anticipated to consist of single family residential (Planning Areas [PA] PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, and PA-10), mulfi-family residenfial (PA-1, PA-7, and PA-8), and non-residenfial RV storage (PA-2), park site (PA-4), and open space (PA-23A/23B). PA-11 is a planned commercial area and has been partially graded (GSI, 2008a). PA-13 is planned for future residenfial development and is presently sheet graded, with geotechnical observafion and testing services provided by GSI (2008b). The distribution of Planning Areas and preliminary grading (limits, cut/fill, etc.) are shown on Plate 1 (Geotechnical Map), and Plate 3 (Schematic Grading Exhibit). Plates 1 and 3 have been adapted from the 100-scale topographic plan, prepared by O'Day Consultants ([ODC] 2011a), as a base. Based on a review ofthe 100-scale "Preliminary Grading Plan" (ODC, 2011a), it appears that proposed earthwork construction will consist of modifying the exisfing grades to achieve plan grades for single family residenfial building lots, sheet-graded pads, and associated roadways. The sheet-graded pads will likely be re-graded at a later date to accommodate mulfi-family residenfial, commercial, recreational development, and single family residenfial development within PA-13, as well as open space areas. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anficlpated in order to achieve the design grades shown on Plate 1 with maximum planned cut and fill thicknesses on the order of 34 feet (PA-3), and 54 to 56 feet (PA-10, PA-3), respecfively. It appears that grade differenfials will be accommodated by the construcfion of engineered cut and fill slopes, with maximum heights on the order of 42 and 52 feet, respecfively. Furthermore, along the north side of El Camino Real right-of-way, cut slopes, and fill over cut slopes to approximately 90 feet in height are also planned adjacent to the project. ODC (2011 a, and Plate 1) indicates that the gradients of engineered slopes will be 2:1 (h:v) orfiatter, however, the required terrace drains are not shown at this time. GSI anficipates that proposed single- and mulfi-family residenfial structures will consist of wood frames with concrete slab-on-grade floors. Specific building loads are currently unknown but are assumed to be typically light for this type of mixed-use development. Sewage disposal is anticipated to be fied into the City of Carlsbad municipal system. The need for import soils is currently unknown. PREVIOUS WORK The findings presented in this report are based on work completed in preparation of this supplemental report and previous work performed by this office for the Robertson Ranch project (GSI; 2010,201 la). The GSI report for the current project (GSI, 2010), summarized and updated several previous reports (GSI; 2004a, 2002,2001 b), regarding the proposed development of the Rancho Costera Project (formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 stt Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California - San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current 1999. Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co., Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, pages 1106 and 1107. Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros Maps It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All nghts reserved. GeoSoils. Inc* W.O. 6145-APSC W.O. 6145-APSC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 while GSI (2011a) provided an evaluation of improvements along the north side of El Camino Real, adjacent to the southern boundary of Rancho Costera. This supplemental report should be used in conjuncfion with GSI (2010 and 2011 a) for any subsequent review and/or geotechnical discussion of this project. PA-11 is a planned commercial area and has been partially graded (GSI, 2008a). PA-12/13 is designated as a community use site (park, school, etc.) and has also been sheet graded, with geotechnical observafion and tesfing sen/ices provided by GSI (2008b). The remaining areas of the project are either currently under culfivafion, or consist of natural open space. SITE EXPLORATION Surface observafions and subsurface explorations were performed by GSI on April 13,14, and 15,2011, by a representative of this office. A survey of line and grade for the subject site was not conducted by this firm at the fime of our site reconnaissance. Near-surface soil and geologic condifions were explored with 19 exploratory test pits with a rubber fire backhoe. The approximate locafions of the exploratory test pits for this study are shown on the attached Geotechnical Map (see Plate 1). Previous GSI test pits and borings are included on Plate 1 for convenience. SITE EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials evaluated for this supplemental investigation are generally consistent with those evaluated and discussed in GSI (2008a, 2008b, and 2010). Earth materials encountered during this supplemental investigation consisted of surficial deposits of agricultural fill (i.e., reprocessed colluvium), engineered fill, colluvium, and underlying deposits of Eocene-age sedimentary bedrock (Sanfiago Formation). Quaternary-age terrace deposits also occur on the project, but were not encountered during this evaluafion, nor were volcanic and/or granitic rocks previously identified in GSI (2010). A detailed discussion of these earth materials are presented in GSI (2008a, 2008b, and 2010). Preliminary recommendafions for site preparation and treatment of the earth materials encountered, are presented in GSI (2010, 2011a), and as discussed in the "Earthwork Recommendafions" secfion of this report. The general distribufion of earth materials are shown on Plates 1 and 3. Geologic cross sections, showing the spafial relationships of onsite soils/bedrock, are presented herein on Plate 2. Based on a review of GSI (2010), bedding structure observed within the Pleistocene terrace deposits display generally massive to thickly bedded sediments, and poorly developed sub-horizontal orientafion. Within the Sanfiago Formafion, bedding varies from thin to thickly bedded, with a general, regional trend of northerly to northeasterly, and westerly to northwesterly with slight inclinations, ranging from near horizontal to about 8 to 9 degrees. Cross bedding within the Santiago Formation was generally thickly bedded, Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SG Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 Rle:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. and was observed locally, trending northerly to northeasterly, with westerly to northwesterly slight to moderate inclinations, on the order of 10 to 28 degrees, and localized cross beds inclined 2 degrees southeasterly. Jointing within the Santiago Formation was typically highly inclined (65 to 89 degrees), predominately trending north to northwest, and to a lesser extent highly inclined to the northeast. Apparent dips of regional bedding relative to the planned cut slopes were evaluated in this supplemental investigation, and in GSI (2010), and have been considered in our slope stability analysis. Undifferentiated igneous bedrock (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr) occurs near the existing ground surface, south of Planning Area 10, within a designated open space area. The type of bedrock generally occurs below approximate elevation of 90 feet MSL, with outcrops generally ascending in elevation offsite to the east, within the adjacent Robertson Ranch East Village. Based on the distribufion of earth materials, and an evaluafion of topography within Rancho Costera, it is esfimated that igneous rock does not occur closer than 60 to 70 feet to planned surface grades within PA 9, and no closer than approximately 20 to 50 feet to planned surface grades in the vicinity of Planning Area 10. An evaluafion of rock hardness is presented in GSI (2010) and GSI, 2004a). Supplemental field studies, consisting of seismic refracfion surveys, could be used to further constrain this depth. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pit excavations completed in preparafion of this report. However, deeper ufilities in areas of higher groundwater within PA-1 may require dewatering to place the pipes. In general, based on a review of the data obtained to date, groundwater in the general vicinity of Planning Area PA-1 may be anticipated to occur at elevations on the order of 42 to 45 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL), or approximately 7 to 10 feet below existing surface grades. In the general vicinity of the "land bridge" between Planning Areas PA-8 and PA-10, groundwater may be anticipated to occur at elevations on the order of 36 to 40 feet MSL, or approximately 16 to 20 feet below existing surface grades. Groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations in rainfall and temperature. A summary discussion of groundwater occurrence and treatment is presented in GSI (2010). Discussion of groundwater influence on slope stability is included in the slope stability section of this report. LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials collected for the present geotechnical investigation, in order to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties with respect to anticipated site development. The test procedures used and subsequent results are presented below. Previous testing Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. performed in preparation of GSI (2008b, 2010, 2011a) was reviewed and utilized in our supplemental slope stability and settlement analyses. Results used in this supplemental investigation are presented in Appendix C. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classificafion of onsite soils is provided in the Test Pit Logs in Appendix B. Field Moisture and Density Field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for relatively "undisturbed" samples of earth materials obtained from GSI's exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937, in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the field moisture content was evaluated as a percentage of the dry weight. Water contents were measured in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. Results of these tests are summarized on the Test Pit Logs (see Appendix B), and in the "Earthwork Balance" section of this report. Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density To evaluate the compaction characteristics of representative samples of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. Test results are presented in the following table: LOCATION SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) TP-201 @ 0-3' Gray, Silty Sand 118.0 11.5 TP-203 @ 0-3' Gray, Sandy Clay 117.0 13.5 TP-206 @ 0-4' Gray, Clay w/Sand 104.5 23.5 TP-208 @ 0-3' Gray Brown, Silty Sand 125.0 12.0 TP-209 @ 0-3 Light Gray, Silty Sand 116.0 12.5 TP-212 @ 0-2' Gray Brown, Sandy Clay 114.0 15.0 TP-213 @ 0-3' Yellowish Brown, Silty Sand 120.0 13.0 TP-216@0-4' Brown, Silty Clay 107.0 21.0 TP-217@0-5' Brown, Sandy Silt w/Clay 118.0 13.5 Shapell Homes Rancho Costera, Carisbad File: e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6145-A1-SC June 6, 2011 Page 6 Direct Shear Tests Shear testing performed in preparation of GSI (2010,201 la) was reviewed and utilized in our supplemental slope stability analysis. Results used in this supplemental investigation are presented in Appendix C. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES General GSI performed a slope stability evaluation utilizing the geologic conditions, observed in the subsurface explorations completed in preparation of this study, and in GSI (2010,201 la), for planned cut slopes within the project. Laboratory test data obtained in preparation of GSI (2010, and 201 la) was also utilized in our analysis. Analyses have been performed utilizing the two-dimensional slope stability computer program "GSTABL7 v.2.004" (see Appendix D). The program calculates the factor-of-safety (FOS) for specified surfaces or searches for the block, or irregular slip surface having the minimum FOS using the Janbu (non-circular block) method. Addifional informafion regrading the methodology ufilized in this program is included in Appendix D. Shear strength parameters used are provided in Appendix D. Representafive cross sections (Secfions E-E,' F-F,' H-H,' l-l', J-J') were prepared for analysis (see Plate 2) forthis supplemental study. Previous analysis of Cross Secfions A-A' through D-D' were provided in GSI (2010). Our analysis ufilized data from the current, and previous studies (GSI; 201 la, 2010, 2004a, 2004b, 2002), with respect to the anficlpated site grading as shown on Plate 1. The approximate locations of all secfions are shown on Platel. Gross Stability Slopes reviewed for this study were cut into natural ground. No keyways or benches were included in our evaluafion unless the cut was less than the required FOS. Fill over cut slopes will require keyways and mid-slope benches will be included in the final design, which should improve gross stability. Groundwater was evaluated based on anficlpated future levels. The development will likely not raise the regional water significantly. Rather, perched groundwater will be on the less permeable layers as depicted in our analyses (Appendix D). Based on the available data, including a review of GSI (2010 and 201 la), it appears that graded fill slopes will be generally stable assuming proper construcfion and maintenance. Cut slopes, constructed in terrace deposits and earth materials belonging to the Sanfiago Formafion, are anticipated to be generally stable assuming proper construcfion and maintenance. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6l00\6l45a1.stt Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. In order to assess the long-term gross slope stability of the planned cut slopes, five (5) geologic cross-secfions (E-E,' F-F,' H-H', l-l', J-J') were prepared (see Plate 2). Secfions E-E', F-F' and H-H' were evaluated in preparafion of GSI (2011a), with the remaining Secfions 1-1' and J-J' evaluated herein. The purpose ofthe cross-secfions was to analyze the relationship ofthe planned, preliminary graded configurafions shown on Plate 1, and the geologic condifions observed at the surface, and at depth. The stability of the planned cut slope and fill over cut slope configurations along the southern edge of the project was evaluated (GSI, 2011a). These slopes vary up to approximately 90 feet in height and achieve maximum slope gradients of 2:1 (h:v). Based on a review of GSI (201 la), and our current analysis (Appendix D), using the available soil parameters, the slopes appear to be stable, possessing an adequate FOS (greater than 1.5 static and 1.1 seismic). The results of our slope stability analysis performed in preparafion of GSI (201 la) has been included as Appendix D. Two in-tract cut slopes were also evaluated (Secfions l-l' and J-J', this study). These slopes vary up to approximately 42 feet in height and achieve maximum slope gradients of 2:1 (h:v). Based on our current analysis (GSI, 2011a; and Appendix D), using the available soil parameters, the slopes appear to be stable, possessing an adequate FOS (greater than 1.5 stafic and 1.1 seismic). The results of our slope stability analysis performed in preparafion of this report is included as Appendix D. All cut slope construction will require observafion during grading in order to evaluate the findings and conclusions presented herein and in subsequent reports. Our analysis assumes that graded slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines provided by the City, the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010), the 2009 "Greenbook," and recommendations provided by this office. These slopes are generally anticipated to be stable, assuming proper construcfion, maintenance, and normal climafic condifions. Temporary backcuts for construction slopes and keyways, are anticipated to be 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) or flatter, and are anficlpated to have a static FOS of 1.2. Should perched groundwater or other unexpected conditions be exposed during excavafion, the project geotechnical consultant should review the condifions and revise recommendafions as needed. Fill slopes are also planned up to heights on the order of 50 to 60 feet (in the fill-over-cut slope), at gradients of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter, and are considered grossly stable (i.e., FOS >1.5). Graded fill slopes are generally anticipated to be stable, assuming proper construcfion, maintenance, and normal climafic condifions. Surficial Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes constructed of compacted fills and/or formafional soil (see Appendix D). Our analysis indicates that proposed slopes Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. exhibit an adequate FOS (i.e., >.1.5) against surficial failure, provided that the slopes are properly constructed and maintained, under normal rainfall. Terrace deposits and Santiago Formafion bedrock contain granular, sandy soil. If sandy soils with a cohesion of less than 200 psf are used on slope faces derived from these deposits, the slopes may have surilcial stability/erosion issues and perhaps a FOS against surficial instability of less than 1.5. Planting and management of surficial drainage is imperafive to the surficial performance of slopes. Typically, similar to coastal bluff retreat, a surficial erosion rate (average) of about V/i inches/year for natural and unprotected sandy slopes may be assumed. Foot traffic and other activifies that exacerbate surficial erosion should not be allowed to occur on slopes. Failure to adhere to these conditions may drasfically increase and localize surficial erosion, requiring mifigafion, so that headward erosion does not result, and impact roadways, pads, and other improvements. Planned Fill Over Cut Slopes Fill over cut slopes shown on Plates 1 and 3 are generally considered to be grossly stable. However, the cut/fill transifion that daylights at the slope face represents a permeability contrast that will accumulate water (i.e., perched groundwater), resulfing in seepage at the slope face. Such seepage will saturate near surface soils, resulfing in loss of soil strength and an increased potenfial for surficial slope failure(s). In order to mifigate this condition, as well as the potential for perched groundwater up-gradient, fill over cut slopes should be reconstructed as a stabilization fill slopes. In the case ofthe larger fill (up to approximately 45 feet) over cut slope above El Camino Real (see Plate 2, Cross Secfion F-F') the fill key may be provided with a subdrain/backdrain as recommended in Appendix F. As stated previously, the backcut was considered stable for Cross Section F-F' due the anticipated 2:1 inclinafion (Plate 2). Furthermore, the face cuts and backcuts up to 1.5:1 (h:v) are considered stable (FOS > 1.2) INFILTRATION TESTING General It is our understanding that the controlling authorifies are requiring onsite Best Management Practices (BMP's) to clarify and filter onsite storm water run-off within the project. Currently, it is unknown what type of BMP will be utilized for the project (i.e., bio-swales, detention/infiltration basins, sand filters, etc.), however; detention/infiltration basin BMP's are generally ufilized for residenfial developments to clarify and filter onsite storm water during rain events. Three (3) infiltration tests were conducted to evaluate site soils with respect to anficlpated BMP's onsite. One (1) infiltration test was conducted within previously compacted fill materials onsite (depth of approximately ±3 feet) and two (2) infiltration tests were Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. conducted within the bedrock materials onsite (depth of approximately ±3 feet). Infiltration testing was performed to evaluate potential site conditions with respect to the anticipated detention/infiltration systems and/or other BMP's to retain and filter onsite storm water. Infiltration testing was performed in general conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation D 3385 guidelines, by an engineering geologist fi-om our firm. The field infiltration test data is provided in Appendix E. Procedures for tesfing are outlined briefly below: Double-Ring Infiltration Test Procedure 1. An approximate area of 4 feet by 4 feet was cleared and excavated to a depth of approximately ±3 feet to evaluate the onsite compacted fill and bedrock materials, and a level surface prepared. 2. The outer (annular) ring of the double-ring infiltrometer test apparatus was driven into the exposed earth materials, approximately ±2 to ±3 inches in depth, utilizing a wooden block and heavy sledge hammer. 3. The inner ring ofthe double-ring infiltrometer test apparatus was also driven into the exposed earth materials, approximately ±2to ±3 inches in depth, ufilizing the same block and sledge hammer technique. Both rings were leveled prior to infiltration tesfing. 4. Measurement depth gages were installed in both the inner and outer ring, and water poured into both rings to same depth within each ring. 5. The graduated mariotte tubes were connected to both the inner and outer rings and filled with clear water for the infiltration testing. 6. After equalization of the inner and outer rings, a periodic flow was started from the graduated mariotte tubes. When the fluid level became constant within the inner and outer rings, measurements from the graduated mariotte tubes, to the nearest millimeter began. Testing: Both ground and water temperatures were recorded during tesfing. The volume of liquid ufilized was measured from the graduated mariotte tubes at intervals of 30 minutes based on the infiltration rate achieved. Due to the relatively low infiltration rates obtained during tesfing within the artificial fill and bedrock materials, the testing was suspended after 2 hours at each location. Locations: The locafions of the infiltrometer tests were chosen to give a general representation ofthe anficlpated infiltration rate ofthe Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. onsite earth materials in relation the anticipated detention/infiltrafion systems and/or other BMP's selected by design engineer. The approximate locations ofthe infiltrafion tests conducted are provided on the enclosed Plate 1. Accuracy: All measurements within the inner and outer ring were read to the nearest 1/16 inch. All test measurements within the graduated mariotte tubes were read to the nearest millimeter. Test Results: The calculated rates from the double-ring infiltrafion tesfing performed during this study are 0.18,0.16, and 0.06 inch/hour for Infiltrafion Test IT-1, IT-2, and IT-3, respectively. The relafively low infiltration rates obtained are likely due to clay content of the artificial fill (IT-1) and the relafive density and indurated nature of the bedrock materials (lT-2 and IT-3) onsite. As indicated previously, the field test data is provided in Appendix E. Conclusions and Recommendations-Infiltration As indicated above, the calculated infiltration rate of 0.18 inch/hour for the artificial fill and between 0.16 and 0.06 inch/hour for the bedrock materials, obtained at a depth of approximately ±3 feet, may be ufilized for design ofthe proposed detenfion systems. In addition to the above, an appropriate factor of safety, per the controlling authorities requirements, should also be incorporated into the design calculations. The following comments and/or recommendations should also be considered during design (structural and civil) and implementation ofthe proposed detention/infiltration and/or other BMP systems onsite: • As with any BMP detenfion/infiltration device, localized ponding and groundwater seepage should be anticipated. • Similarly, as with any BMP detenfion/infiltrafion device, proper maintenance and care will need to provided. Best management maintenance practices should be followed at all fimes, especially during inclement weather. Should regular inspecfion and/or required maintenance not be performed, the potential for malfunctioning of the detention/infiltration systems will increase. Provisions forthe maintenance of any siltafion, debris, and/or overgrown vegetation (i.e., root systems) should be considered. An appropriate inspection and maintenance schedule will need to adopted and provided to all interested/affected parties. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1 -SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. Any proposed utility backfill materials located within the proposed area ofthe BMP may become saturated. This is due to the potential for piping, water migration, and/or seepage along the ufility trench line backfill. If ufility trenches cross and/or are proposed near the detention/infiltrafion systems, cut-ofl' walls or other water barriers will likely need to be installed to mitigate the potential for piping and excess water entering the utility backfill materials. Any proposed foofings and/or foundafions should maintain a minimum of 1:1 horizontal to vertical (h:v) distance from the base of the foofing and/or foundation to any adjacent detention/infiltration system. If a 1:1 (h:v) distance cannot be maintained, a deepened foofing and/or foundation will be required. The landscape architect should be nofified of the locafion of the proposed detention/infiltrafion system(s). If landscaping is proposed over the detention/infiltration system, consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon subsurface improvements (i.e., some trees/shrubs will have an effect on subsurface improvements with their extensive root systems). The potenfial for surface flooding, in the case of detenfion/infiltrafion system blockage, should be evaluated by the design engineer. As the infiltrafion testing conducted for this study is specific to the anficlpated nature of the artificial fill and bedrock materials encountered onsite, any changes to the design of the BMP's and/or estimated size or depth of the system, should be reviewed by this office. Depending upon the nature of any changes, proposed depth of the systems, and the requirements of the reviewing entity, additional infiltration testing may be warranted. Final grading and improvement plans, as well as structural foundafion plans, should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the preliminary recommendations presented herein. If project designs are found to differ substantially from those stated herein, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The addifional recommendations presented herein consider the additional information and findings obtained during this supplemental evaluafion and the conclusions and recommendations presented in GSI (2010). Unless specifically superceded in the test of this report, the conclusions and recommendafions presented in GSI (2010) remain valid and applicable. This report should be utilized on conjunction with GSI (2010) when Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carisbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 12 reviewing the geotechnical aspects of site development for this project. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendafions contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in wrifing by this office. Foundafion design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION General All earthwork should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2010 CBC, the 2009 "Greenbook," the City of Carlsbad, and as recommended herein as Appendix F (this report), except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. When code references or guidance documents are not equivalent, the more stringent code should be followed. During earthwork construcfion, all site preparafion and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected condifions are exposed in thefield, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or addifional recommendafions will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and nafional construcfion and general industry safety orders, the Occupafional Safety and Health Act, and the Construcfion Safety Act should be met. Geotechnical Grading Exhibit A schematic exhibit indicating the approximate location of subdrains, fill slope keyways, limits of removals, and plan cut/fill transifions is presented in this report as Plate 3. Earthwork Balance (Shrinkage/Bulking) The volume change of excavated materials upon compacfion as engineered fill is anficlpated to vary with material type and location. SHRINKAGE/BULKING EVALUATION TEST pit SAMPLE TYPE*') DEPTH (tt) SOIL TYPE/ (JSCS SOIL MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (PCF) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY^' SHRINKAGE/ BULKING {%)P) TP-201 ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 8.2 103.0 125.0 10.4 TP-201 ND 1 Ts/SP 15.9 107.6 118.0 0.9 TP-201 ND 2 Ts/SP 13.3 102.6 118.0 5.5 TP-201 R 3 Ts/SP 7.5 103.4 118.0 4.8 Shapell Homes Rancho Costera, Carlsbad File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6145-AI-SC June 6, 2011 Page 13 SHRINKAGE/BULKING EVALUATION TEST PIT SAMPLE TYPE<'^ DEPTH (ft) SOIL TYPE/ USCS SOIL MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (PCF) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY'^' SHRINKAGE/ BULKING (%ft TP-zoa'"' ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 8.2 103.8 125.0 9.7 TP-zoa'"' ND 1 Ag Fill/SC 11.2 94.0 118.0 13.4 TP-zoa'"' ND 2 Ag Fill/SC 17.2 108.9 118.0 (0.3) TP-zoa'"' R 3 Ts/SP 12.1 108.5 118.0 0.1 TP-203 ND 0 Ag Fiil/CL 15.8 102.9 117.0 4.4 TP-203 ND 1 Ag Fill/CL 19.9 100,3 117.0 6.8 TP-203 R 2 Qsw/CL 22.1 97.4 117.0 9.5 TP-203 ND 3 Ts/SP 15.2 94.3 118.0 13.1 TP-203 ND 4 Ts/SP 17.0 106.2 118.0 2.2 TP-203 ND 5 Ts/SP 19.5 111.0 118.0 (2.2) TP-204'''> ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 9.8 115.6 125.0 (0.5) TP-204'''> ND 1 Ts/SP 13.6 109.9 125.0 4.4 TP-204'''> R 2 Ts/SP 9.1 105.0 125.0 8.7 TP-204'''> ND 3 Ts/SP 14.7 107.2 125.0 6.8 TP-aos'"' ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 11.4 108.8 125.0 5.4 TP-aos'"' R 1 Ts/SC 14.6 103.6 116.0 2.9 TP-aos'"' ND 2 Ts/SC 18.7 106.1 116.0 0.6 TP-aos'"' ND 3 Ts/SC 18.1 110.6 116.0 (3.6) TP-206 ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 17.9 87.1 125.0 24.3 TP-206 ND 1 Ts/CL 21.2 97.6 117.0 9.3 TP-206 ND 2 Ts/CL 22.6 87.1 117.0 19.1 TP-206 ND 3 Ts/CL 24.0 93.5 117.0 13.1 TP-206 R 4 Ts/CL 21.0 96.2 117.0 10.6 TP-207''" ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 10.4 93.9 125.0 18.3 TP-207''" ND 1 Ts/SP 14.4 115.2 125.0 (0.2) TP-207''" R 2 Ts/SP 19.0 101.7 125.0 11.6 TP-207''" ND 3 Ts/SP-CL 18.3 108.7 125.0 5.5 TP-208 ND 0 Ag Fill/CL 12.0 103.0 125.0 10.4 TP-208 ND 1 Ag Fill/CL 20.6 107.6 116.0 (0.8) TP-208 ND 2 Qsw/SC 22.0 101.0 116.0 5.4 TP-208 ND 3 Ts/SP 20.0 91.6 116.0 14.2 TP-208 R 472 Ts/SP 11.6 104.2 116.0 2.4 Shapefl Homes Rancho Costera, Carlsbad Fil6:e;\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 6145-AI-SC June 6, 2011 Page 14 SHRINKAGE/BULKING EVALUATION ••-TCST.:;-"'. '//:.mfy' SAMPLE TYPE'" DEPTH (ft) SOIL TYPE/ USCS SOIL MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (PCR MAXIMUM DRY DENSlTYl^' SHRINKAGE/ BULKING (%)P' TP-209 ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 14.8 106.1 125.0 7.7 TP-209 R 1 Ts/SP 12.8 105.8 116.0 0.9 TP-209 ND 2 Ts/SP 13.9 105.3 116.0 1.3 TP-209 ND 3 Ts/SP 14.7 105.8 116.0 0.9 TP-210'''' ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 12.0 108.1 125.0 6.0 TP-210'''' ND 1 Ts/SP 18.7 110.8 116.0 (3.8) TP-210'''' ND 2 Ts/SP 15.5 110.9 116.0 (3.9) TP-210'''' R (Dist.) 3 Ts/CL 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 TP-211<'" ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 14.1 105.5 125.0 8.3 TP-211<'" ND 1 Ts/SP 14.0 104.8 118.0 3.5 TP-211<'" R 2 Ts/SP 12.6 94.7 118.0 12.8 TP-211<'" ND 3 Ts/SP 14.5 106.2 118.0 2.2 TP-212 ND 0 Ag Fill/SM 8.1 109.9 125.0 4.4 TP-212 ND 1 Ts/SC 24.6 103.8 114.0 1.0 TP-212 R 2 Ts/SC 12.6 111.7 114.0 (6.5) TP-212 ND 3 Ts/SC 26.0 102.9 114.0 1.9 TP-213 ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 14.7 112.0 125.0 2.6 TP-213 R 1 Ts/SC 15.9 100.4 120.0 9.1 TP-213 ND 2 Ts/SC 26.3 98.5 120.0 10.8 TP-213 ND 3 Ts/SC 24.3 95.9 120.0 13.1 TP-214<'" ND 0 Ag Fiil/CL 15.4 102.3 117.0 5.0 TP-214<'" ND 1 Ts/CL 28.3 91.5 104.5 4.8 TP-214<'" R 2 Ts/CL 29.9 88.5 104.5 7.9 TP-214<'" ND 3 Ts/CL 34.0 85.1 104.5 11.5 TP-214<'" ND 4 Ts/CL 35.1 85.0 104.5 11.6 TP-215''" ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 13.0 101.6 125.0 11.7 TP-215''" R 1 Ts/SP 16.4 105.2 118.0 3.1 TP-215''" ND 2 Ts/SP 15.8 113.9 118.0 (4.9) TP-215''" ND 3 Ts/SP 18.3 107.9 118.0 0.6 Shapell Homes Rancho Costera, Carlsbad File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt W.O. 6145-AI-SC June 6, 2011 Page 15 SHRINKAGE/BULKING EVALUATION TEST PIT SAMPLE TYPE'" f DEPTH (ft) SOIL TYPE/ USCS SOIL MOISTURE {%V FIELbDRY DENSITY (PCF) MAXIMUM DRV DENSITY'^ SHRINKAGE/ BULKING TP-216 ND 0 Ag Fill-Qsw/SC 10.2 88.9 117.0 17.4 TP-216 ND 1 Ts/SC 17.9 87.0 107.0 11.6 TP-216 ND 2 Ts/SC 18.2 91.9 107.0 6.6 TP-216 ND 3 Ts/SC 19.0 93.7 107.0 4.8 TP-216 ND 4 Ts/CL 22.1 95.2 107.0 3.3 TP-216 ND 5 Ts/CL 22.4 99.8 107.0 (1.4) TP-216 ND 6 Ts/CL 24.9 100.2 107.0 (1.8) TP-217 ND 0 Qal/SC 12.4 117.8 125.0 (2.4) TP-217 ND 1 Qal/SC 11.5 105.8 118.0 2.5 TP-217 ND 2 Qal/SC 12.5 100.4 118.0 7.5 TP-217 ND 3 Qal/SC 11.1 103.3 118.0 4.8 TP-217 ND 4 Qal/SC 12.5 101.3 118.0 6.7 TP-217 ND 5 Qal/SC 15.6 93.3 118.0 14.1 TP-218'''' ND 0 Ag Fill/SC 14.4 110.4 125.0 4.0 TP-218'''' ND 1 Ag Fill/SC 18.9 96.5 125.0 16.1 TP-218'''' ND 2 Ag Fill/SC 14.2 114.2 125.0 0.7 TP-218'''' ND 3 Qsw/SC 13.2 114.2 118.0 (5.2) TP-218'''' ND 4 Qsw/SC 18.0 107.4 118.0 1.1 TP-218'''' ND 5 Qsw/SC 20.2 106.1 118.0 2.3 '"ND = Nuclear Density Gauge, R = Ring Sample. Dry density per ASTM D-1557 (see laboratory testing section). '^' Positive number indicates percent shrinkage, Number in paren indicates percent swell, or bulking. '"' Estimated maximum dry density based on soil type comparisons. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters: Existing Artificial Fill nominal Agricultural fill (0-1 foot) 20% to 25% shrinkage Agricultural Fill (1 -2 foot) 15% to 20% shrinkage Agricultural Fill/Colluvium (2-3 foot) 5% to 10% shrinkage Colluvium/weathered formation (3-4 foot) 3% to 8% shrinkage Colluvium/weathered formation (4-5 foot) 1% to 6% shrinkage Colluvium/weathered formafion (5-6 foot) 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Alluvium 10% to 15% shrinkage Terrace Deposits 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Santiago Formation 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Shapell Homes Rancho Costera, Carlsbad File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt W.O. 6145-AI-SC June 6, 2011 Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Alluvium may achieve higher shrinkage if organics or clay content is higher than anticipated. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. Slope Considerations and Slope Design Graded Slopes All slopes should be designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of City/County, the 2010 CBC (CBSC, 2010), the 2009 "Greenbook," and the recommendations in Appendix F. Slopes constructed with sand fractions within the terrace deposits or Santiago Formations are anticipated to have erosion and surficial instability issues if left unplanted, and without engineered surface drainage control, and as such, will require periodic and regular maintenance above and beyond what is normally performed for slopes in general. Cut Slopes Cut slopes shown on Plates 1 and 3 are generally considered to be grossly stable. However, the hetrogeneous nature ofthe formafional material (i.e., clay/sand) represents a permeability contrast that will accumulate water (i.e., perched groundwater), resulting in seepage at the slope face. Such seepage will saturate near surface soils, resulting in loss of soil strength and an increased potential for surficial slope failures. In order to mitigate this condition, fill over cut slopes should be reconstructed as a stabilization fill slopes for their enfire length. The perimeter cut slope, located along the northern edge of PA-9 does not provide for adequate space to construct a stability fill due to property line restrictions. For this slope, a toe drain is recommended along the toe of slope. Planned Fill Over Cut Slopes Fill over cut slopes shown on Plate 3 are generally considered to be grossly stable. However, the cut/fill transifions that daylight at the slope face represents a permeability contrast that will accumulate water (i.e., perched groundwater), resulfing in seepage at the slope face. Such seepage will saturate near surface soils, resulting in loss of soil strength and an increased potential for surficial slope failures. In order to mifigate this condifion, fill over cut slopes should be reconstructed as stabilization fill slopes for their entire length (see below). In the case ofthe larger fill over cut slope above El Camino Real (see Plate 2, Cross Section F-F') the fill key may be provided with a subdrain/backdrain as recommended in Appendix F. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1 -SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. stabilization Fill Slopes The construction of stabilization fill slopes will be necessary for fill over cut slopes, and in-tract cut slopes. The construction of stabilization fills will also be necessary for some fill over cut slopes, in order to mitigate the potential for water seepage at the slope face. Such remedial slope construction is indicated schematically on Plate 3 on a preliminary basis. Additional stabilization fills may be recommended based on the configuration of any ftjture plan revisions, and/or condifions exposed in the field during grading. General stabilizafion fill slope design and construcfion is presented in Appendix F. Subdrains Subdrains will be recommended at the base of any canyon fill and within the keyway for some perimeter fill slopes. Preliminary subdrain locafions are shown on Plate 3. Subdrains will also be recommended within stabilization fill keyways, as shown on Plate 3. If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along joinfing patterns of the bedrock may require a subdrain system. Subdrains are recommended for the fill slope keyway for the fill over cut slope located above El Camino real (see Plate 3). The need for addifional subdrain within perimeter fill slope keyways will be evaluated during grading. Typical subdrain design and construcfion details are presented in Appendix F. Toe Drains In-tract cut slopes should be provided with a "toe drain" as discussed in GSI (2010). Preliminary toe drain locations are shown on Plate 3. Wick Drains (PA-1) In order to accelerate the consolidation and settlement of saturated alluvial soils to be left in place, a vertical wick drain system is typically considered as one of the methods that may be considered. In the vicinity of planned residential development within PA-1, existing alluvial soils are anticipated to be on the order of up to 10 feet in thickness. With groundwater likely present locally, at depths as shallow as 3 feet below the surface, up to approximately 7 feet of alluvial soils may be left in place. Given this relatively shallow thickness of potentially left in place alluvium, and planned fill thicknesses on the order of 3 to 5 feet, wick drains are not considered effective, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Removals and stabilization of the removal bottom (rock blankets, geotextiles, etc.) is recommended in this area. SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PA-13 Planning Area 13 generally consists of a sheet graded "super pad." Earthwork commenced on, or about, February, 2008, and was generally completed in May, 2008 with Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. observation and tesfing services provided by GSI. A summary of these observation and testing services is provided in GSI (2008b). A summary of as-built conditions is presented in the following discussion. As-Built Conditions As-built soil conditions to be considered in future earthwork, foundation design and construction are as follows: • During mass grading of the site, a designed cut/fill transition was graded without any additional mitigafion, such as overexcavafion of the cut, since the locafion of settlement sensitive structures was not known. A fault was encountered during mass grading of PA-13 (GSI, 2008b). This fault was evaluated to be pre-Holocene in nature, based on CGS guidelines. Accordingly, recommendations for mitigation of faulting (i.e., structural setbacks), are not warranted. The presence of this pre-Holocene fault in the cut pad, where different soil types may be juxtaposed against each other, creating non-uniformity, will necessitate overexcavation. GSI's review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a high to very high expansion potential (E.I. greater than 90), and a plasticity index (P.l.) greater than 42. As-built fill thicknesses range from approximately 1 SVa to 30 feet for areas with left in-place saturated alluvium, and approximately 0 to 24y2 feet thick in areas underlain by terrace deposits. Proposed Additional Grading Currently proposed additional grading appears to consist of raising grades up to approximately 3 feet along the top of the existing fill slope, along the west side of PA-13, constructing building pads near exisfing grades along the southern edge of PA-13, and filling up to approximately 10 feet to achieved proposed grades within the interior, and northern edge of PA-13. Based on a review of Plates 1 and 3, proposed fill in areas underlain by existing alluvial soil is anticipated to be on the order of 3 feet, or less, in total thickness. When considering expansive soils in this area, options including, but not limited to: non- selective VS selective grading, and select soil import, may be considered in order to achieve a less onerous foundation design. While foundations can be designed for expansive soils, the construction of typical exterior flatwork and pavement may be problematic on medium to very highly expansive soils. Preliminary recommendations for the treatment of expansive subgrades underlying concrete flatwork, driveways, etc. are presented in GSI (2010). Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium As discussed in GSI (2008b) alluvial materials were left in place, primarily within the western portion of PA-13. During mass grading of PA-13 (GSI, 2008b), the areas underlain by alluvial soil, the material were removed to saturated conditions (i.e., ±1 foot above regional ground water level) and recompacted. The approximate thickness of the left in place alluvium varies from near zero, to approximately 50 feet along the toe of the existing, northwest and west facing fill slope shown on Plates 1, 2 (Section K-K'), and 3. Where these materials are left in-place, settlement of the underlying saturated alluvium is anticipated due to the weight of added planned fills. The magnitude of this settlement will vary with the proposed fill heights (i.e., measured from exisfing grades), and the thickness, texture, and compressibility ofthe underlying, left-in-place saturated alluvium. Due to the predominantiy fine grained texture ofthe alluvial soils onsite, settlement ofthe alluvial soil will occur over fime, as evaluated in GSI (2008b). A review of GSI (2008b) indicates that previously calculated total settlements on the order of 3 to 8 inches should be anticipated in these areas. Calculafions were performed for total settlements for fill thicknesses of 15, 20, and 30 feet within alluvial areas. Based on our evaluation, calculated total settlements were estimated to be on the order of 4, 5.5, and 7.8 inches, respectively. With an estimated one-quarter of these computed settlements to have occurred during grading, and the remainder constituting the post grading component ofthe total settlement. Per GSI (2008b), the anticipated post grade differential settlement is expected to be about one-half of the remaining total settlement over a horizontal distance of 40 feet. Waiting periods were estimated to be on the order of at least 18 months, to allow for an adequate amount of settlement to occur prior to construction of settlement-sensitive improvements. A monitoring program was subsequentiy established in areas were left-in-place alluvium occurred. Given the amount of time passing since the completion of mass grading (at least 36 months), and the proposed placement of not more than approximately 3 feet of additional fill, areas underlain by alluvial soils left-in-place should be designed to withstand an overall total settlement of 2 inches, or less, and a differenfial settlement of approximately 1 inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads. Due to the predominantly clayey nature of the underlying wet alluvium, the magnitude of seismic settlement will be less than that due to static loading condifions. The seismic differential settlement for design should be minimally about IVa inches over a horizontal span of 40 feet. Post-construction settlement monitoring should be incorporated into grading plans for this area to monitor fills for a period of up to 90 days following grading to establish the settlement impact of new fills. Preliminarv Earthwork Recommendations, PA-13 Based on the duration of fime following rough grading, the removal and recompaction of near surface soils in fill areas is recommended. Based on our review, the upper 2 to 3 feet Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e;\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. is anticipated to require removal and recompaction. The presence of cut/fill transitions within the sheet graded pad will also require remediation where planned additional fill are less than approximately 4 feet, or the rafio of maximum to minimum fill thickness within a given lots is greater than 3 to 1. Removals/overexcavafion should be completed for a minimum lateral distance beyond the improvement, equal to the depth of the removal/overexcavation. Recommendations for the mitigation of transitions, overexcavation, etc. are presented in GSI (2010). Preliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing within the general area indicates that onsite soils mav have a high to very high expansion potential. The preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented in GSI (2010) are considered valid and applicable. It should be noted that the importation (or selective grading) of lower expansive soils could potentially make the foundation design in a given area less onerous, relative to existing soil conditions. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of precise grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. If low expansive soils are used as capping material in areas underfain with higher expansive soil, the underlying soils will sfill influence design to some extent. However, this buffer of lower expansive soil will provide for a higher level of performance for flatwork and pavement. SLOPE EROSION WITH A PORTION OF PA-11 Background The 5:1 slope was constructed during the mass grading phase of development for a portion of Planning Area 11. Earthwork commenced on, or about, April 7, 2008, and was generally completed on June 9, 2008. Mass grading was generally performed in accordance with the approved plans, prepared by ODC (2006). A summary of observation and testing services provided by this office during the placement of these materials is presented in GSI (2008). Observation Summary Based on our recent field review (this study) and a review of GSI (2008), surficial soils generally consist of engineered artificial fill, consisfing of a light brown to dark brown, clayey sand and sandy clay/clay. Erosion of the slope face appears to consist primarily of rills and small gullies developed within the lower reaches ofthe slope. Where observed, the largest gullies were up to 1 to 2 feet in depth (please note that engineered fills in the area are on the order of 7 to 15 feet thick). Detrital soils washed out ofthe rilled and gullied areas was also noted to be deposited along the base of the slope. An existing irrigation system was observed across the slope face, and does not appear to be active, with several Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 Flle:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. broken, and/or missing sprinkler heads noted. Vegetation across the slope appeared relatively sparse, consisting of scattered grasses, weeds, and small shrubs. The percent of vegetative ground cover is estimated at approximately 50 percent. Fiber rolls were also noted across the slope face locally. The two main erosive agents affecting a landscape are wind and water (Toy, et al., 2002; Morgan, 2005). The process of erosion is typically a function of the amount and rate of rainfall, or wind speed, the slope gradient, plant cover, and soil type. Of these two erosive agents, the activity of water (rainfall) is considered to be significantly more erosive. Observafions ofthe slope area indicate the presence of erosional features such as rills and gullies, predominantly developed with the lower reaches of the slope. A combination of raindrop impact on the slope face, and overland flow (sheet flow) would be the predominant erosional mechanisms affecting the slope face, especially in the case of prolonged rainfall, once the infiltration capacity ofthe soil is exceeded. Overland flow is typically characterized as a mass of anastomosing water courses with no pronounced channels (Morgan, 2005). The flow is locally broken up by irregularities on the slope surface such as pebbles, stones, vegetation cover, and man made "drainage control" such as fiber rolls. Fiber rolls are significant in that they tend to pond and/or channelize water on the upslope side ofthe roll to a point where water breaches, and/or undermines the obstacle (fiber roll) causing more erosion down slope. As overland flow is concentrated, rills and gullies tend to develop, resulfing in the observed erosion. Conclusions and Recommendations (PA-11) Based on our observations, the lower reaches ofthe slope appear to have eroded locally due to sparse vegetafive cover, and the presence of surface obstrucfions, such as fiber rolls, and/or other surface irregularifies, etc., that tend to concentrate surface flow on the slope. Portions of the slope with little or no vegetative cover can be expected to continue to erode, absent mitigation. The use of slope protecfion fabrics, or erosion control blankets/products, such as jute, etc. may be considered as a short-term method of reducing erosion until a suitable vegetative cover is established. Hydraulically applied, stabilized fiber matrix, spray on polymer, etc. may also be utilized. These surficial "cover" products are not intended for long-term erosion control. Exisfing gullies should be filled with engineered-compacted earth materials, and re- vegetated. To reduce disturbance of the surrounding area, repair work using hand equipment may perform better than heavy equipment. The exisfing irrigafion system should also be repaired in order to facilitate vigorous plant grovirth. Pressure testing of the system should also be performed, so as to eliminate the potential for leaks to exacerbate erosion, and sprinkler heads adjusted per the landscape architect. The irrigation system should also be properly adjusted to provide only the amount of water necessary to sustain Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 22 GeoSoils, Inc. plant growth. All planting and irrigation should be reviewed by the project landscape architect for comment and design modifications, as needed. RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with current standards of practice, the guidelines contained within the 2010 CBC, the 2009 "Greenbook," the ACI (2008), and the design parameters presented in GSI (2010). Please note that GSI (2010) referenced the 2007 Code; however, while some secfions numbers have changed from the 2007 Code to the 2010 CBC (CBSC, (2010), the geotechnical foundation design parameters (post-tension design, etc.) are the same. RETAINING WALLS General Recommendations for conventional, segmental, and top of slope walls/fences are presented in GSI (2010) and are considered valid unless specifically superceded in the text of this report. Recommendations for additional wall/shoring systems are provided in the following sections with respect to site conditions that may be more suited to shoring wall, and/or soil nail wall design, especially in the vicinity ofthe planned ingress/egress points at Glasgow and Edinburgh Streets, along the north side ofthe project. Where 2010 CBC values of equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) exceed those herein, those values should be used in preliminary design unfil onsite graded condifions are complete. Earthquake Loads (Seismic Surcharge) In accordance with 2010 CBC, and given the granular nature of the site soils and the anticipated level of potential earthquake shaking evaluated herein, GSI recommends that for walls that retain more than, or equal to, 6 feet of retained soil and are 6 feet or less from structures, or may inhibit ingress/egress for the site roads or lots, or critical access pathways (i.e., collector streets, fire access roads, etc.), a seismic surcharge (increment) of 14H should be used where H is the height ofthe wall and the surcharge is applied as a uniform pressure for restrained walls. For cantilever walls, this distribufion may be taken as an inverted triangular distribufion. This complies with a Probabilisfic Horizontal Site Accelerafion (PHSA), as previously noted in this report. The resulfing wall design should be safe from seismic induced overturning with a minimum FOS of 1.1 to 1.3 should be considered and is dependant on the backfill condifions and the potenfial consequences of seismic induced deformafions/failure. Basement walls or utility vaults, if proposed, will need to be evaluated as retaining walls, as well as part of the wall design from a seismic standpoint per the 2010 CBC. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carisbad June 6, 2011 Flle:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. TEMPORARY/PERMANENT SHORING SYSTEMS A permanent shoring wall may be considered as an alternative to the construction of a typical, cantilevered retaining wall. The following recommendations are forthe shoring of excavations up to approximately 20 feet, or less, in height. We recommend that permanent slopes may be retained by a cantilever shoring system deriving passive support from cast-in-place soldier piles lagged with either pre-cast concrete or wood lagging (H-pile and lagging-shoring system). Based on our experience with similar projects in the San Diego area, if lateral movement ofthe shoring system on the order of 1 inch (permanent shoring) and 2 inches (temporary shoring) cannot be designed for or tolerated, we recommend the utillzafion of an internal bracing/raked shoring system, or a stiffer shoring system to limit deflection to less than 1 inch. Terzaghi and Peck (1967) suggested that shoring for excavations up to 20 feet in depth should consider settlement on the order of 0.65 percent in the backfill, or retained material, as backfill settlement. This would imply less than 1 inch of backfill or retained material settlement for a shored system retaining up to 20 feet. This is likely a conservative estimate given the depth of the formation below the surface. Locally, 0.2 percent is used for soils which would indicate approximately inch of settlement. However, settlement on the order of Va to 1 inches should be evaluated for improvements near the rear of the wall. Anticipated deflection ofthe soldier beams should be evaluated by the structural consultant. GSI should review the anticipated deflection from the structural consultant and revisit the settlement behind the shored excavation. Shoring of excavations of this size is typically performed by specialty contractors with knowledge of the San Diego County area soil conditions. We recommend that shoring contractors provide the excavation shoring design. However, for the shoring design parameters, we provide the lateral earth pressures in Figures 2a and 2b, for both temporary and permanent shoring conditions. The use of soil anchors (tie-backs) may not be feasible on this site due to the location of adjacent residential property, or other easements, if desired, additional anchor recommendations will be provided. Since design of retaining systems is sensitive to surcharge pressures behind the excavation, we recommend that this office be consulted if unusual load conditions are anticipated. Care should be exercised when excavating into the on-site soils since caving or sloughing of these materials is possible. Observation of soldier pile excavations should be performed during construction. As an alternative to a tieback wall, a cantilever H-pile and lagging may be used. If the same system is used without tiebacks, the wall may be cost prohibitive for cantilever walls over 15 feet. Therefore, walls up to 15 feet in height may be used with a sloping backfill up to 5 feet in height, in order to achieve the same elevation of backfill. This sloping backfill should not exceed 1:1 (h:v). Earth pressures for inclined backfill up to 1:1 (h:v) are provided herein for import soils. Shoring of the excavafion is the responsibility of the contractor. Extreme caution should be used to reduce offsite damage to existing pavement and utilities caused by settlement or reducfion of lateral support. Accordingly, we recommend that adjacent improvements be surveyed prior to and during construction to evaluate the effects of shoring on these structures. Photodocumentation of pre-construction conditions is also advised. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-A1-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 Flle:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 24 GeoSoils, Inc. Cantilever Shoring System xH — Surcharge Pressure P (psf) Une Load O ^(pounds) H (feet) zdlbdibdibd D (feet) BUbdll 400 D (pa!) Tie-Back Shoring System Y (feet) X 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 Y 0.6H 0.6H 0.56H 0.48H 0.35 P (psf) X R <0.4 0.55 >0.4 /0.64 Q, /0.64 Resistance behirKJ tNs line BTBTB D (feet) Surcharge Pressure P (psf) " Line Load O|^(pounds) H (feet) (2) Tie Back = 1200 psf @Bond Stress Y (feet) Minimum T depth for supporting piers 400 D (psf) ^ 27 H (psf) 0.35 P (psf) NOTES (T) Include groundwater effects below groundwater level. (2) Include water effects bebw groundwater level. (3) Grouted length greater than 7 feet; field test anchor strength. (4) Ne^ect passive pressure below base of excavation to a depth of one pier diameter. RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY SHORING SYSTEMS FIGURE 2a W.O. 6145-AI-SC DATE 6/11 SCALE None Cantilever Shoring System xH Surcharge Pressure P (psf) Line Load Q ^(pounds) H (feet) 300 D (psf) Tie-Back Shoring System R- Y (feet) X 0.1 0.3 Y 0.6H 0.6H 0.5 0.56H 0.7 0.48H Resistance behind this line 0.35 P (psf) Surcharge Pressure P (psf) — Line Load 0|^(pound8) X R <0.4 0.55 >0.4 /0.64 Q /0.64 (2/\ Tie Back = ^ 1000 psf (3) Bond Stress Y (feet) 300 D(psf)^ 35 H (psf) Minimum 7 depth for supporting piers 0.35 P (psf) NOTES (T) Include groundwater effects betow groundwater level. (2) Include water effects bebw groundwater level. (5) Grouted length greater than 7 feet; field test anchor strength [4] Neglect passive pressure below base of excavation to a depth of one pier diameter. RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR PERMANENT SHORING SYSTEMS FIGURE 2b W.O. 6145-AI-SC DATE 6/11 SCALE None Lateral Pressure 1. The active pressure to be ufilized for trench wall shoring design may be computed by the rectangular active pressure (psf) as shown in GSI (2010). 2. Passive pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a given density shown in Figures 2a and 2b. The passive pressure neair the bottom of the shored excavation to a depth equal to 1- to r/a-pile diameters, should be reduced or ignored due to potential disturbance if the soldier beams are not embedded into formafion. 3. The lateral pressures indicated in Figures 2a and 2b assume that hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to build up behind excavation walls. If water is allowed to accumulate behind walls, an additional hydrostafic pressure surcharge should be added. 4. These recommendations are for excavation of temporary/permanent shoring walls up to approximately 20 feet high. Acfive earth pressure may be used for trench wall design, provided the wall is not restrained from minor deflecfions. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients ofthe retained material: these do oot include other superimposed loading condifions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, expansive soils or adverse geologic condifions. 5. For excavafion shoring walls that are to be present for more than 8 months and greater than 6 feet in height, a seismic increment of 14H (uniform pressure) may be considered for level excavation. For walls, these seismic loads should be applied at 0.6H up fi-om the bottom of the wall to the height of retained earth materials. 6. Due to the effects of soil movements on nearby improvements, including underground ufilifies, shoring lagging should be designed using a value of 0.5 and a maximum value of 300 pounds per lineal foot. 7. The annulus between soil and lagging should be filled with either Vz to % inch gravel, or 1 - to 2-sack slurry, due to the potenfial for sloughing surficial soils on this project, gravel, if used, will need to be separated from soil with a geotextile filter fabric to reduce the potenfial for piping, or migration of fines. 8. If wood lagging is used, the permanent shoring wall will likely require an addifional layer of steel reinforcement with panel drains using a shotcrete facing. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI -SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 27 GeoSoils, Inc. 9. Permanent shoring walls using tiebacks should use corrosion protection for all tendons, anchors, and anchor hardware. Refer to the structural engineer and corrosion consultant for corrosion protection recommendafions. Tiebacks and Lateral Pier Loads The piers will gain their lateral support primarily from the underlying terrace deposits. The lateral pier deflection under static soil and structural loads is estimated at 1-inch, or less. To reduce the potential for distress on the improvements above the wall, tiebacks may be added to the piers. The tiebacks will reduce the deflection of the foundation piers to less than VA inch. Tiebacks should have a bonded length embedded into the formation (Santiago or terrace deposits) a minimum of 25 feet. For this project location, tie-backs should have a minimum batter of 20 degrees from the horizontal (2.75:1 [h:v]). It is anticipated that the tiebacks will be mounted through the monolithically placed concrete piers and/or grade beams. The depth below the top of pier for this tieback connection is anticipated to be 1 - to 3-pier diameters. Tieback spacing is not anticipated to be more than 10 feet laterally. Given the assumed tieback loads of 60 to 180 kips, tieback diameters are anticipated to vary based on the load but should be considered as 4 to 8 inches. Tieback static loads are assumed to be 60 to 180 kips, and the allowance for 25 percent increase for transient seismic or wind loads should be included in the seismic design ofthe tiebacks. Select tiebacks should be tested to a minimum of 80 percent of the design ultimate strength. Creep of the selected tiebacks should be monitored for at least 24 hours. All production tiebacks should be proof tested. All tiebacks will consist of DYWIDAG system international (DSI) anchors with Type C double-corrosion protection. Open Excavations Construcfion materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within "H" feet ofthe top of any temporary slope or trench wall (where "H" equals the slope or wall height). Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary excavafions. It is the responsibility of the general contractor and his subcontractor to provide a safe working environment and to protect site improvements as well as adjacent exisfing improvements during construction. Excavation Observation (All Excavations) Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of both the existing structures and the shoring and/or bracing. Locations and type of the monitoring devices should be selected as soon as the total shoring system is designed and approved. The program of monitoring should be agreed upon between the project team, the site surveyor and the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, prior to excavation. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 28 GcoSoils, Inc. Reference points on the existing structures should be placed as low as possible on the exterior walls of buildings adjacent to the excavation. Exact locations may be dictated by critical points within the structure, such as bearing walls or columns for buildings; and surface points on roadways and sidewalks near the top of the excavation. The points on the shoring should be placed under or very near the points on the structures. For a survey monitoring system, an accuracy of a least 0.01 foot should be required. Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavafion. The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the backfill has been brought up to final grade. The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom and at critical times during the installation of shoring or support. The reading should be plotted by the Surveyor and then reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the Geotechnical Engineer and the Contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing structures both before and after construction. The inspection should be directed toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement. Notes should be made and pictures should be taken where necessary. Observation It is recommended that all excavations be observed by the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Any fill which is placed should be approved, tested, and evaluated if ufilized for engineered purposes. Temporary trench excavafions should be observed by the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. Should the observation reveal any unforseen hazard, the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer will recommend treatment. Please inform us at least 24 hours prior to any required site observation. Monitoring Existing, Offsite Improvements It is recommended that existing, offsite improvement be inspected prior to the start of earthwork and be monitored during and at the conclusion of grading to evaluate if earthwork, or shoring at the site has influenced these improvements. SOIL NAIL WALLS General Soil nails are a passive reinforcement, usually in the form of a bar or rod of solid or hollow cross secfion, installed into the ground, usually at a sub horizontal angle (15 to Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 29 GeoSoils, Inc. 25 degrees) to enhance the stability ofthe reinforced ground mass primarily by mobilizing the axial tensile strength of the soil nail. As an alternafive to a typical canfilevered retaining wall, a soil nail wall may be constructed. Soil nailing may be performed by the process of drilling and groufing, where the nail is inserted into a pre-drilled hole and then grouted into position. A bearing plate is then connected to the head ofthe soil nail to transfer a component of load directly to the ground surface. Each bearing plate would then be tied together with a structural concrete facing (soil nail wall). Preliminary Design and Construction The following soil parameters may be used in soil nail reinforcement design. Anchor (Bonded) Zone, (Qt) Terrace Deposits, or (Tsa) Santiago Formation Angle of Internal Friction: 28 degrees Soil Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Bond Stress 1,000 psf Soil nails may be installed at a maximum spacing of 5 feet on center, both vertically and laterally across the affected area of the slope, and embedded at least 30 feet into the slope. This assumes an unbonded length of approximately 10 feet for walls up to 20 feet in exposed height. The angle of soil nail installation shall be 20 degrees from horizontal. The tendon diameter shall be at least 1 inch, with a grouted nail diameter of at least 6 inches. All soil nails will consist of DYWIDAG system international (DSI) anchors. If deemed necessary by the structural consultant, corrosion engineer, or reviewer, Type C double-corrosion protection should be provided for the DYWIDAG bar(s). Additional parameters regarding seismic design are presented in a previous section. These recommendations are meant as minimums. Soil nail design should be reviewed by the soil nail designer and modified as necessary. Final soil nail construcfion plans should be reviewed by this office for compliance with the intent of this report. The construction and installafion of soil nails should also be observed by this office. Soil nail walls should be completed using a panel drain(s) and a shotcrete facing to improve long-term performance. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendafions into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria forthe design of foundafions and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI-SC Rancho Costera, Carlsbad June 6, 2011 File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 30 GcoSoils, Inc. not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interacfion and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires fijrther assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. PLAN REVIEW Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office, prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Should grading plans change, additional review and/or investigation may be necessary. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative ofthe area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outiined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this project. Shapell Homes W.O. 6145-AI -SC Rancho Costera, Carisbad June 6, 2011 File:e;\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 31 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003, New development and redevelopment handbook, infiltration basin design considerations. No. TC-11, dated January. California Building Standards Commission, 2010, California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2009 International Building Code, 2010 California Historical Building Code, Titie 24, Part 8; 2010 California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10. California Code Of Regulations, 1996, CAL-OSHA State of California Construction and Safety Orders, dated July 1. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California: California Geological Sun/ey Special Publication 117A (revised 2008), 102 p. Carlsbad, City of, 1993, Standards for design and construction of public works improvements in the City of Carlsbad. GeoSoils, Inc., 2011a, Geotechnical investigation for the planned improvement of El Camino Real, between Cannon Road and Tamarack Avenue, Rancho Costera (Formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-E-SC, dated May 11. , 2011b, Slopes, drainage, retaining walls, remedial removals, and pavement conditions, Rancho Costera and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A3-SC, dated April 28. , 2011c, Soil texture and groundwater evaluation. Planning Area 23C (Wetland/Habitat Area), Rancho Costera, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California., W.O. 6145-A2-SC, dated April 22. , 2011 d, Geotechnical review of surficial erosion, portion of Planning Area 11, Rancho Costera (Robertson Ranch West Village), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-AI-SC, dated April 21. , 2010, Updated geotechnical invesfigafion for Robertson Ranch West Village, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A-SC, dated October 10. , 2008a, Report of mass grading. Planning Area 11, Robertson Ranch habitat corridor and widening of El Camino Real at Cannon Road, Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92010, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Applicafion No. SUP 06-12/HDP 06-04, W.O. 5247-B2-SC, dated July 16. GeoSoils, Inc. , 2008b, Report of mass grading. Planning Area 12 (13.44 Acres), and Planning Area 13 (6.92 Acres), Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92010, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Application No. SUP 06-12/HDP 06-04, W.O. 5247-B1-SC, dated June 5. , 2007, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation. Planning Area 12 (13.44 Acres), and Planning Area 13 (6.92 Acres), Robertson Ranch West, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California 92010, City of Carlsbad Planning Department Applicafion No. SUP 06-12/HDP 06-04, W.O. 5247-A-SC, dated January 31. , 2004a, Updated geotechnical evaluafion of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20. , 2004b, Unpublished large diameter bucket auger boring logs (including laboratory testing), Robertson Ranch, West Village, W.O. 3098-A2-SC. , 2002, Geotechnical evaluation ofthe Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A1-SC, dated January 29. , 2001a, Preliminary findings of the geotechnical evaluation, Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31. , 2001 b. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24. Gregory, G.H., 2003, GSTABL7 with STEDwin, slope stability analysis system; Version 2.004. Krinitzsky, E.L., Gould, J.P., and Edinger, P.H., 1993, Fundamentals of earthquake resistant construction: John H. Wiley & Sons, Inc., 299 p. Morgan, R.P.C., 2005, Soil Erosion and Conservation, Third Edition, Blackwell Publishing Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics design manual 7.01, Change 1 September: U.S. Navy. , 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, design manual 7.02, Change 1 September: U.S. Navy. O'Day Consultants, 2011a, Composite grading plan, 100-scale, 1 sheet, Job No. 1007, dated May 11. , 2011 b. Grading and storm drain plan for: EL Camino Real, Rancho Costera, Sheets 7 through 15, 40-scale, dated January. Shapell Homes Appendix A File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. , 2008, Settlement points for Planning areas 12 and 13, J.N. 061172-4, dated August 14. , 2006, Grading plans for Robertson Ranch Future PA 12 and PA 13, Sheet 1 through 6, Job no. 01-1014, dated October. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2009, "Greenbook" standard specifications for public works construction, 2009 edition (and any supplements). Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. Taniguchi, E., and Sasaki, Y., 1986, Back analysis of landslide due to Naganoken Seibu Earthquake of September 14, 1984; Proceedings, XI ISSMFE Conference, Session 7B, San Francisco, California. Rolla, MO: University of Missouri. Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice: John Wiley and Sons, New York, Second Edifion. Toy, T.J., Foster, G.R., and Renard, K.G., 2002, Soil Erosion, processes, predicfion, measurement, and control, John Wiley & Sons, pub. Shapell Homes Appendix A File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS (This Study; GSI; 2010, 2007, and 2004b) UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA o o M 6 O 2 W c T3 O 1-° m o o c ID O o a ° o 5ll S o 10 *— CD ^ •- " § 3 <D Z OT — 2 m (D ca CD ^ O (0 i 8 S o jn <D > ffi O GW Well-graded gravels and gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test GP Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GM Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures SW 5 -2 Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Penetration Resistance N (blo//s/ft) Relative Density 0-4 Very loose 4-10 Loose 10-30 Medium 30-50 Dense > 50 Very dense SP Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines 10 TJ c CS m SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures 01 c SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures ML Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands Standard Penetration Test (D > 'to o o m (M OT §_ 1S 1- CO O CL 0) <D .£ o u- E o o 1-E S O M S —' lO OT CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity "S £ "Il ±i _1 to OT £ MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Penetration Resistance N (blowfs/ft) Consistency Unconfined Compressive Strength (tons/ft^ <2 Very Soft <0.25 2-4 Soft 0.25 - .050 4-8 Medium 0.50 -1.00 8-15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00 15-30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00 >30 Hard >4.00 Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly organic soils 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve Unified Soil Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Classification Cobbles coarse fine coarse medium fine Silt or Clay MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry Absence of moisture; dusty, dry to the touch Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction Moist Near optimum moisture content Very Moist Above optimum moisture content Wet Visible free water; below water table MATERIAL QUANTITY trace 0 - 5 % few 5-10% little 10-25% some 25 - 45 % OTHER SYMBOLS C Core Sample S SPT Sample B Bulk Sample • Groundwater Qp Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group name. Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc. EXAMPLE: Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets. File.Mgr: c;\SoilClassif-wpd PLATE B-1 W.O. 6145-A1-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft-) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE {%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-201 88 O-Vz SC Bag @ 0-3 8.2 103.0 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. liqht olive qrav, moist, loose. TP-201 88 72-1 SP 15.9 107.6 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine qrained. liqht qrav. moist, soft; poorly cemented to friable, moderately weathered and fractured, massive. TP-201 88 1-2 13.3 102.6 Becomes medium dense. TP-201 88 2-372 Ring @ 3 7.5 103.4 With iron oxide staining. TP-201 Total Depth = 372' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-202 156 0-272 sc Bag @ 0-3 8.2 11.2 17.2 103.8 94.0 108.9 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. olive qrav. moist, loose. TP-202 156 272-372 SP Ring @ 3 12.1 108.5 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine qrained, liqht qrav. verv moist, loose; friable, moderately weathered and fractured, massive. TP-202 Total Depth = 372 No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-2 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-203 174 0-72 CL Bag (a) 0-3 15.8 102.9 AGRICULTURAL FILL: SANDY CLAY, fine qrained. qravish brown, slightly moist to moist, soft. 72-172 19.9 100.3 moist to very moist 172-3 CL Ring @ 2 22.1 97.4 COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, fine qrained, qravish brown, sliqhtlv moist to moist, soft. 3-5 SP 15.2 17.0 19.5 94.3 106.2 111.0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine to medium qrained, liqht gray, moist, medium dense; moderately cemented, slightly weathered and fractured, massive. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-204 163 0-74 SC Bag @ 0-3 9.8 115.6 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. qravish brown, moist, loose. 74-3 SP Ring @ 2 13.6 9.1 14.7 109.9 105.0 107.2 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine qrained. liqht brownish gray, moist, loose to medium dense; poorly cemented to friable, moderately weathered and fractured, massive to weakly sub-horizontal bedding, N17°W, 3°SW. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-3 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-205 198 0-1 SC Bag @ 0 Ring @ 1 11.4 108.1 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. brownish orav. moist, loose. 1-3 sc 14.6 18.7 18.1 103.6 106.1 110.6 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, fine orained. lioht orav. moist, soft; poorly cemented to friable, weathered and fractured, massive. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-206 175 0-72 sc Bag® 0-4 17.9 87.1 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CU\YEY SAND, fine orained. brownish orav. moist, loose. 72-2 CL 21.2 97.6 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE. fine orained. lioht orav to light olive, moist, soft; poorly cemented, slightly weathered, massive to poorly bedded. 2-472 CL Ring @ 4 22.6 24.0 21.0 87.1 93.5 96.2 CLAYSTONE, mottled light gray and dark olive, moist, medium stiff; moderately cemented, poorly bedded. Bedding: N3°E, 14°NW. Total Depth = 472 No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-4 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-207 220 0-72 SC Bag® 0-3 10.4 93.9 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine orained. lioht qrav. moist, very loose. 72-2 SP Ring @ 2 14.9 19.0 115.2 101.7 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine to medium orained. lioht olive gray, moist, medium dense; moderately cemented, slightly weathered, moderately fractured with red and olive mottled CLAYSTONE in east half of pit. 2-3 SP/CL 18.3 108.7 SANDSTONE/CLAYSTONE thinly bedded to massive. Bedding: N16°E, irSE. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-5 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-208 152 0-1 CL Bag ® 0-4 12.0 103.0 AGRICULTURAL FILL: SANDY CLAY, fine qrained. brownish qrav. moist, soft. TP-208 152 1-272 CL 20.6 107.6 very moist, with plastic debris. TP-208 152 272-4 SC 22.0 101.0 COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained, brownish qrav, very moist, loose; bore holes. TP-208 152 4-5 SP Ring @ 472 20.0 11.6 91.6 104.2 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, liqht qrav. moist, loose to medium dense; poorly cemented to friable, moderately weathered, massive. TP-208 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-209 173 0-72 SC Bag @ 0-3 14.8 106.1 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained, brownish qrav. moist, loose. TP-209 173 72-3 SP Ring @ 1 12.8 13.9 14.7 105.8 105.3 105.8 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine qrained. liqht qrav. moist, loose to medium dense; friable, weathered, moderately fractured, massive to poorly bedded. Bedding: N82°E, 10°SE. TP-209 Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-6 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-210 182 0-72 SC Bag® 0-3 12.0 108.1 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. qravish brown, moist, loose. 72-3 SP 18.7 15.5 110.8 110.9 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine qrained. olive qrav. moist, soft; friable, massive to poorly bedded, weathered, fractured. 3-372 CL Ring @ 3 13.3 — CLAYSTONE, mottled reddish brown and olive, moist, medium dense; moderately to well cemented, fractured, slightly weathered, thickly bedded. Bedding: N70°W, 7°SW. Total Depth = 372 No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-211 211 0-72 SC Bag® 0-3 14.1 105.5 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CU\YEYSAND. fine qrained. brown, moist, loose. 72-172 SP 14.0 104.8 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, white to Dale yellowish qrav. moist, medium dense; poorly cemented, massive to poorly bedded, slightly weathered, slightly fractured, oxide staining. 172-3 SP Ring @ 2 12.6 14.5 94.7 106.2 Dense; moderately cemented, sub-horizontal bedding. Bedding: N35°E, 4''SE. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-7 W.0.6145-A1-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-212 154 0-72 SM Bag® 0-3 8.1 109.9 AGRICULTURAL FILL: SILTY SAND, fine to medium qrained. qravish brown, slightly moist, loose. 72-1 72 SC 24.6 103.8 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, fine qrained. liqht qrav, moist, loose; poorly cemented, slightly weathered, fractured, weakly bedded to massive, sub-horizontal bedding. 172-3 SC Ring @ 2 12.6 26.0 111.7 102.9 Becomes olive gray. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-213 138 0-72 SC Bag @ 0-3 14.7 112.0 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. qravish brown, moist, loose. 72-3 SC Ring @ 1 15.9 26.3 24.3 100.4 98.5 95.9 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, fine qrained. mottled gray and olive brown, very moist, loose; poorly cemented, moderately weathered and fractured, poorly bedded to massive. Bedding: N50°W, 6°SW. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-8 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-214 116 0-1 CL Bag ® 0-4 15.4 102.3 AGRICULTURAL FILL: SANDY CLAY, fine qrained. olive brown, moist, soft. 1-4 CL Ring @ 2 28.3 29.9 34.0 35.1 91.5 88.5 85.1 85.0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYSTONE. olive orav. verv moist, soft: moderately cemented, highly weathered and fractured, thickly bedded, heavy oxide staining, trace gypsum. Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-215 210 0-72 SC Bag® 0-3 13.0 101.6 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine orained. brownish qray. slightly moist, loose. 72-3 SP Ring @ 1 16.4 15.8 18.3 105.2 113.9 107.9 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, fine qrained. light gray, moist, loose to medium dense; poorly cemented, massive to poorly bedded, moderately weathered and fractured. Bedding: N66°W, 6°SW. Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-9 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-216 124 0-1 SC Bag® 0-4 10.2 88.9 AGRICULTURAL FILL/COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. brownish gray, moist, loose. TP-216 124 1-4 sc 17.9 18.2 19.0 87.0 91.9 93.7 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, fine qrained. liqht qrav, moist, loose; poorly cemented, highly weathered and fractured. TP-216 124 4-6 CL 22.1 22.4 24.9 95.2 99.8 100.2 CLAYSTONE, light gray to olive gray, moist, hard; moderately cemented, poorly bedded, sub-horizontal. TP-216 Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-217 76 0-1 SC Bag® 0-5 12.4 117.8 ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, fine qrained. dark qravish brown, moist, loose to medium dense. TP-217 76 1-2 SC 11.5 105.8 Becomes brown. TP-217 76 2-5 SC 12.5 11.1 12.5 15.6 100.4 103.3 101.3 93.3 Becomes grayish brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense. TP-217 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-10 W.O. 6145-AI-SC Shapell Homes Rancho Costera Logged By: SHW April 13, 2011 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. ELEV. (ft.) DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-218 118 0-1 SC Bag® 0-5 14.4 110.4 AGRICULTURAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, fine orained. brownish qray. moist, loose. TP-218 118 1-2 sc 18.9 96.5 Becomes very moist. TP-218 118 2-3 sc 19.2 114.2 Plastic debris. TP-218 118 3-6 sc Ring ® 3 13.2 18.0 20.2 114.2 107.4 106.1 SLOPEWASH: CLAYEY SAND, brown, verv moist, medium den.se: oxide stringers, and porous. TP-218 118 6-772 sc SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown, very moist, soft; poorly cemented, weathered, massive, fine grained. TP-218 Total Depth = 772' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 TP-219 96 0-1 SC/CL ARTIFICIAL FILL: CLAYEY SAND, oray brown, sliohtlv moi.st. medium dense to loose. TP-219 96 1-3 SC/CL Becomes moist, medium dense. TP-219 Total Depth = 3' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 4-13-2011 PLATE B-11 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST PA-13 W.O. 5247-A BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 2 DATE EXCAVATED 1-3-07 LOGGED BY: Sample 5 o CD o Sl E >. CO CO o CO 3 c Q o SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Lb. Hamrner @ 30" Drop Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation:' IMSL S Groundwater Description of Material 1 2 3 4H 5 6 7H 8 9H 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18-1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ALLUVIUM: @ 0' SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT, brown, ciamp, loose/soft. 85 40 37 40 CL 109.2 107.8 55 132.4 33 16.0 18.8 20.3 19.6 82.5 @ lYt' SANDY CLAY, dark gray, wet, hard. I 5' As per 2!4', dark brown. 100.4 TVi' As per 5', stiff. @10'As per 714', hard. @ 10' Groundwater encountered. 17.9 100.3 15' As per 10". 22.6 ! 20' As per 15', hard; scattered gravel, sandy. 22' Scattered rocks. 38 CL 113.0 18.0 102.6 % I 25' SANDY CLAY, brown, saturated, very stiff. GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-12 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: ROBERTSON RANCH WEST PA-13 W.O. 5247-A BORING B-1 SHEET 2 OF 2 DATE EXCAVATED 1-3-07 LOGGED SV:- Q Sample s o CD E >. CO CO o CO a. 3 to SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Lb. Hammer @ 30" IJrop Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation:' MSL S Groundwater Description of Material 31- 32- 33 34- 35- 36- 37- 38- 39- 40- 41- 42 43 44- 45 46 47 48- 49- 50- 51- 52- 53- 54- 55- 56- 57- 58 59- 30 SC 24.5 ALLUVIUM (continued): @ 30" CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, medium dense. 28 CL 100.6 24.4 100.4 35' SANDY CLAY, gray-red brown, saturated, very stiff. 46 sc 22.2 @ 40' CLAYEY SAND, gray-red brown, saturated, dense; scattered gravel. 43 106.2 21.3 101.0 @ 45' As per 40', medium dense. 43 SM 20.9 SANTIAGO FORMATION: @ 50' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, dense. Total Depth = 51/2' Groundwater Encountered @ 10' Backfilled w/Bentonite 1-3-2007 GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-13 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG W.O. 6145-A PROJECT SHAPELL HOMES Robertson Ranch West BORING BA-101 SHEET 1 OF 3 DATE EXCAVATED 6-10-10 LOGGED BY: RBB CL Q Sample o CD CO CO o to Z) 3 Q SAMPLE METHOD: Modifieti Cal Sampler, 140 lbs @ 30" Drop Approx. Elevation: 142' MSL Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material 1 2- 3 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12 13- 14- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21- 22- 23- 24 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- CL TOPSOIL: @ 0' SANDY CLAY, dark grayish brown, moist, stiff. SM/CL SM 5-9" 121.6 13.3 97.7 7-10" 122.7 10.2 77.4 WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: @ 2' Interbedded SILTY fine SANDSTONE and SANDY CU\YSTONE, yellowish brown to brownish gray, moist, medium dense/stiff; highly fractured (infilled). TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: @ 2Vi' SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown to buff, moist, dense; fine grained. @ S'/z' Bedding: N30°W/5°SW. Fracture: N42°W/84°NE @ 5' As per 2V5', saturated; trace infilled fractures. @ T Bedding: N19°W/12°SW. @ 12VS' Low angle cross-bedding. @ 13' Bedding: N40°E/2°NW. @ 14>4' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray; fine- to coarse-grained. @ 15' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray to light brown, wet, medium dense; fine-grained. @ 15!4' Bedding: N33°E/5°NW. @ ^6y^^ Caliche infilled fracture: N40°W/6rSW. @ 17' Sub-horizontal bedding. @ 18' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray; fine grained. I 20' Cross bedding (low angle). I 21' SILTY SANDSTONE, gray, moist, dense. 1 23' Bedding: N70°W/7°SW. 4-12" 8-15" SM/SC 116.4 113.0 11.5 12.1 72.5 69.3 ML SM @ 25' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, moist, medium dense; fine grained to CLAYEY SANDSTONE, grayish brown, moist, medium dense. @ 26' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, grayish brown, moist, dense. @ 26V5' SILTSTONE, gray to reddish yellow; slick ped surfaces. Bedding: N76°E/13°NW. @ 27' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray; fine grained. @ 28' As per IG'A'. Bedding: N42''E/7''NW. Robertson Ranch West GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-14 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT SHAPELL HOMES Robertson Ranch West W.O. 6145-A BORING BA-101 SHEET 2 QF 3 DATE EXCAVATED 6-10-10 LOGGED BY: RBB 0) Sample 5 o m CO CO O to Z3 CL 13 3 ra CO SAMPLE METHOD: Mtxlifietj Cal Sampler, 140 lbs @ 30" Drop Standard Penetration Test Undisturtied, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation: AA^ MSL 2. Groundwater Description of Material 31- 32- 33- 34- 35- 36- 37- 38- 39- 40- 41- 42- 43- 44- 45- 46- 47- 48- 49- 50- 51- 52- 53- 54- 55- 56- 57- 58- 59- SM 16-13' 16-14' 16-11' 122.0 123.5 1187 11.9 88.8 7.5 58.8 9.0 60.5 @ 30' As per le'A'. @ 31' SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown to light gray. Fault: N6°WA/ert. Bedding: N12°W/13°NE. @ 33" Concretion @ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, medium dense; fine grained, near vertical fracture. @ 38' Bedding: N30°W/4°SW. @ 39' Fault: NTEA/ert. @ 42' Fault: N15°W/68''SW offsets SILTY fine SANDSTONE and SILTY fine- to coarse-grained SANDSTONE. @ 45' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, moist, dense; fine grained, trace coarse grains. 1 55' SILTY SANDSTONE, buff, moist, dense; fine grained. \ 58' Bedding: N7°E/4''NW. 1 59' Bedding: N30°E/15°NW. Robertson Ranch West GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-15 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: SHAPELL HOMES Robertson Ranch West W.O. 6145-A BORING BA-101 SHEET 3 OF 3 DATE EXCAVATED 6-10-10 LOGGED BY: RBB Sample s o CD O e >< CO CO o CO 3 CL 3 a SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler, 140 lbs @ 30" Drop Approx. Elevation: 142* MSL Standard Penetration Test S Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material 61 62 63 64 65 66- 67 68- 69- 70 71- 72- 73 74 75 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 82- 83- 84- 85- 86- 87- 88- 89- SM 24-12' 108.5 8.2 41.4 26-11' 115.3 7.9 48.4 @ 65' SILTY SANDSTONE, buff to yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine grained. Bedding: NICW/ICNE. @ 66' Cross bedding: N20°W/10''SW. ! 73' Bedding: N5rE/10°NW. @ 75' SILTY SANDSTONE, buff to yellowish brown, damp, dense; fine to medium grained. @ 76' Bedding: NICE/IQ-NW. 24-12' SW 118.3 11.6 77.3 @ 85' SILTY SANDSTONE, light gray, wet, dense; fine to coarse \ grained. Total Depth = 86' No Groundwater/Caving Encountered Backfilled 6-10-2010 0-35' - 3 Kelly Weights; 35-65' - 2 Kelly Weights (Inner); 65-86' -1 Kelly Weight (Innermost) Robertson Ranch West GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-16 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: OALMERA HILLS II, LLC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad W.O. 3098-A2 BORING BA-1 SHEET 1 OF 3 DATE EXCAVATED 9-14-04 LOGGED ev^' a Sample CO CO o CO Z) c Q CO SAMPLE METHOD: 0-27' 3,500 lbs; 27-55' 2,400 lbs; 55-85' 1,500 lbs standard Penetration Test Undisturt>ed, Ring Sa/npfe Approx. Elevation: 165' MSL S- Groundwater Description of Material 1- 2 3 4H 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14-^ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23H 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 SC SC 114.0 14.6 85.9 COLLIMUM: @ 0' CLAYEY SAND, dark grayish brown to grayish brown, dry, loose; few roots. SANTIAGO FORMATION: @ 2' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, brown, dry, loose to medium dense; randomly fractured, caliche common along fractures (N70E, 85NW; N40E, 80SE; N32W, 76SW), fine grained. @ 5' Caliche less common. SM 125.8 10.6 88.8 119.9 11.7 81.8 106.2 19.5 69.1 @ 7' SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown, dry, dense; massive, caliche generally absent. 12' Becomes moist. 20' Bedding attitude: N30E, 2NW. 91.0 Z. SC 106.4 19.1 @ 25' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, brown to olive brown, slightly moist, dense; fractured (N76W, 18NE; N20E, 44SE; N40W, 60SW; N5W, 22NE). SM SC 109.3 17.2 88.8 Z @ 29' SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown, slightly moist, dense; \ massive, fine grained. @ 30' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, dense. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-17 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT CALAVERA HILLS 11, LLC Rot)ertson Ranch, Carlsbad W.O. 3098-A2 BORING BA-1 SHEET 2 OF 3 DATE EXCAVATED 9-14-04 LOGGED ev;- Q Sample 5 o CD to CO O CO c D SAMPLE METHOD: 0-27" 3,500 lbs; 27-55' 2,400 tos; 55-85' 1,500 Bas Approx. Elevation: Ij^' MSL Standard Penetration Test ^ Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material 36- 37- 38- 39 40 41 42 10 SC 116.3 14.3 89.4 SM SP 17 127.4 8.8 78.3 @ 36' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown to gray brown, moist, dense; indurated, massive. @ 39' Basal contact: N10E, 4NW. @ 39' SANDSTONE, grayish brown, moist, dense; massive, fine to medium grained. 43 44 45 46 47-1 48 49 50 51 52 53 H 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67- 68- 69 13 120.4 8.8 62.0 20 122.9 8.3 63.2 SM 12 119.3 12.8 87.7 @ 52' SILTY SANDSTONE, gray brown, moist, dense; cross-bedded (N40W, 12SW; N8W, 8SW), fine grained. SC SM 30 116.6 12.9 78.2 @ 57' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, dense; bedding: \ N10E,8NW, finegrained. @ 58' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, dense; massive. @ 60' As per 58'. SC SM 30 117.7 9.6 62,7 @ 62' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, dense; bedding: N12E, 11NW. @ 63' 1" CLAYSTONE interbed, N5W, 7SW. @ 63' 1" CLAYSTONE interbed, NSW, 7SW. @ 63' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, slight moist, dense; bedding: N30E, 6NW. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-18 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad W.O. 3098-A2 BORING BA-1 SHEET 3 QF 3 DATE EXCAVATED 9-14-04 LOGGED BY: Sample o m CO CO o CO 13 3 Q CO SAMPLE METHOD: 0-27* 3,500 lbs; 27-55' 2,400 lbs; 55-85' 1,500 bs Approx. Elevation: 165' MSL Standard Penetration Test 2 Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material 71- 72- 73- 74 75- 76- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 82- 83- 84- 85- 86- 87- 88- 89- 90- 91- 92- 93- 94- 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 100- 101- 102- 103- 104- 30 SM 115.9 8.1 50.5 30 114.8 8.0 48.3 70' As per 63'. @ 75" As per 70', cross-bedding in SANDSTONE: N5E, 4NW, basal contact: N40E, 5SE. SC 77' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, grayish brown, moist, dense. SM 30 116.3 12.6 78.9 30 118.7 12.8 86.1 @ 79' SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown to grayish brown, moist, dense; bedding: N20E, 5NW @ 80' As per 79'. 85' As per 80'. Total Depth = 86' No Groundwater En(X)untered Backfilled 9-14-2004 With Bentonite Chips Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-19 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch IV. O. 3098-A1 BORING HB-5 SHEET 1 OF 2 Q. D Sample E to CO o CO 3 a. c Q ra CO DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 LOGGED BY:_ SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation:' MSL S Groundwater Description of Material 2- 3- 4- SM COLLUyiUMTTOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry to moist, loose. 12 13 14 is- le 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- 23 27 29 13 CL ALLUVIUM @ 5' SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, very stiff. @ 6' GROUNDWATER. 10' SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff. 15' SANDY CLAY, greenish brown to brown, wet, very stiff. 1 20' SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, medium stiff. I 25' SANDY CL^Y w/SILT, light brown, saturated, stiff. McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-20 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT; CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch W.O. 3098-A1 BORING DATE EXCAVATED HB-5 SHEET 2 QF 2 10-3-01 LOGGED BY: Sample 5 o CD CO CO O CO 3 D to SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation:' MSL 2 Groundwater Description of Material 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47- 48- 49- 50- 61- 52- 53- 64- 55- 56- 67- 58- 59- 15 SM 14 @ 30' SILTY SAND, olive brown, saturated, medium dense: orange iron oxide. @ 35' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. 12 SM WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 40' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. 56 ML SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 50' CLAYEY SILTSTONE, olive, dry to damp, hard. Total Depth = 51.5* Groundwater @ 6' Backfilled on 10/03/01 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-21 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: SHAPELL HOMES Rancho Costera, El Camino Real W.O. 6145-E BORING B-201 SHEET 1 OF 2 Sample 5 o CQ o .Q E >. CO CO o to a. c £-D DATE EXCAVATED 3-28-11 LOGGED BY: RGC SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation: 114' MSL 2 Groundwater Description of Material 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 CL COLLUVIUM: @ 0' SANDY CLAY, dark olive brown, wet, soft. SC TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qtl: @ 3" SILTY SAND w/CLAY, brown, moist, loose. 50 SM 110.1 10.7 56.5 @ 5' Becomes SILTY SAND, brown, moist, dense; weakly developed, sub-horizontal bedding. 47 SM/SC 98.0 23.7 91.3 50+ 106.7 17.6 84.8 50-^ 107.8 16.8 83.1 i 10' As per 5', CLAYEY SAND interbeds. @ 15' As per 10' SILTY SAND w/CLAYEY SAND interbeds, mottled olive brown and brown, moist, dense; sub-horizontal bedding. i i @ 20'As per 15'. 50+ SC/SP 108.7 11.3 57.2 @ 25' Interbedded CLAYEY SAND and fine to medium grained SAND, olive brown to brown, slightly moist to moist, dense. Rancho Costera, El Camino Real GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-22 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT; SHAPELL HOMES Rancho Costera, El Camino Real W.O. 6145-E BORING B-201 SHEET 2 OF 2 DATE EXCAVATED 3-28-11 LOGGED BY;-RGC a. a Sample CD to to o to 3 3 D SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx. Elevation: 114' MSL S Groundwater Description of Material 31- 32 33 34- 35 36- 37- 38- 39- 40- 41- 42- 43- 44- 45- 46- 47- 48- 49- 50- 51- 52- 53- 54- 55- 56- 57- 58- 59- 45/ 50^" SP 94.7 109.8 6.2 10.3 22.0 53.9 50-6" SC >Jo Recover! 30' SAND w/CLAY, moist, dense; medium grained, poorly sorted. 35' CLAYEY SAND, brown to olive browm, moist, dense. 50-4" SC/SP 96.6 6.1 22.5 50-4" ! 40' SAND and CLAYEY SAND interbeds, sub-horizontal bedding. ! 45' As per 40'. Total Depth = 46' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 3-28-2011 Rancho Costera, El Camino Real GeoSoils, Inc. Plate B-23 APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA (This Study; GSI, 2010 and 2004b) E.ODO 5.CTO 4,000 H-ca z K 3.DD0 w al s 2,000 1,000 V > < X t 3 1,000 2,000 3,000 NORtJlAL PRESSURE;, psf 4,000 5,000^ e.OOD Sample DeptWEI. Range Classification Primary/Residual Sampfe Type MC% C 4- S HA-1 25.0 CIsyey Sand Pritnary Shear Undisturbed 112.9 12.1 473 40 O HA-1 25.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 112.9 12.1 393 30 /3A-fOi Note; Sampfe rnnundated pnonio testing GeoSoils, Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 •^W^^-'M. Tel^hone; (760)438-3155 Fax: (ySO) 931-0915 • DIRECT SHEAR TEST GeoSoils, Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 •^W^^-'M. Tel^hone; (760)438-3155 Fax: (ySO) 931-0915 • Project BLUESTONE COMMIJNITIES Wumfaer 6081-A-SC Date: July 02 2010 Plate C-1 6,000 5,000 4.D0Q a: o C 3,000 03 CC 2,000 1,000 i 1.000 2,000 3,000 4,000 NORMAL FRESSQRE; psf 5,000 B.OOO Sample Deptli/a. Range Classlficatiori Prima ry/Rasidual Sample Type \ IVIC% C e HA-1 85.0 Clayey Sand Primary Shear Undisturbed 113,4 11.6 1202 36 D HA-i 85.0 Residual Shear Undislurbed 113.4 , 11.5 315 35 V. . /S'A -/O i Note: Sampfe Innundated priorto iesfing GeoSoils, Ina .jnqa . 5741 Palmer Way GSoSoab^ISc, Carisbad, CA 92008 '^i-''^>-*!i. telephone: (76D).43B-3155 Fax: (750). 931-091 !3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project BLUESTONE COMMUNITIES Numben 6081-A-SC Date: July 02-2010 Plate C-2 3,5KI 3,00Q 2,500 X 2 Ul a: >-w X CO 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 € > 1 S \ i i 500 1,000 1.S00' 2,000 2.500 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf 3,000 3.500 Sample Depth/El-Primary/Residual Sfiear ' Sample Typ^ \ NIC% C BA^1 25.0 Prirriary Shear Undisturbed 104.3 19.1 2273 15 s 8A-1 25.0 Residual Shear Updisturijed 104.3 19.1 53B 33 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GepSoils, liic. 5741 Palmer Way I (Seo&TlSpiit. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' "-i^^W'^^M^ telephone: {760)438-3155 F3x: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Prrjject MCMILLIN Nurnber 3098TA1-SC Date: September 2004 Plate C-3 3,500. 3,000 2,500 CO z •uu EC !- ro < m I CO 2,000' 1,500 1,000 500 / / s / / 1 / i / 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 NORMAL PPlESSURE, psf 3,000 3,500 Sample Deptb/B. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type \ MC% C BA-1 45.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 120.0 315 46 BA-1 45.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 120.0 B.B 573 22 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GepSoils, Inc. .^.-,^1 .-TT^.^^, 5741 Palmer Wajf e^So'iife^IiBc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^^fiP^^W-^ telephone: (760)438.3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project MCMILLIN Number: 3098-A1-SC Date: September 2004 Plate C-4 3,500 3,QD0 2,500 C2 UJ 2,000 to ce. 1,500 1,000 500 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 NORftflAL PRESSURE, psf 3.000 3,500 Sample Depth/EI. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Td MC% C & BA-1 63.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 103.5 20.1 1265 21 S3 BA-1 63.0 Residual Shear Undisturijed 103,5 20.1 1180 21 Note- Sample Innundated prior to tesfing GeoSoils, Inc. , 5741; Palmer Way eiis^Bm^Xmc. Carisbad, CA 9Z008 ! ^^^P^5s^^ Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)9314)915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number i3098-Ai-SC Date:. September 20d4 Plate C-5 3,500 3,000 2,500 a m 2,000 cc I-to cc 1,500 1,000 500 ( i i A 500 1,000 1,500 2,b00 2,500 NORr/lAL PRESSURE, psf 3;000 3,500 Sample DepfWEI. Prirnary/Residual Shear Sample Type \ WiCVr, C <!' ® BA-1 75.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 114.5 B.O 141 41 BA:-1 75.0 Residua! Shear Undisturbed 114.5 8.0 297 32 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing 4. GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way ©eaSdiii^Sfe. Carlsbad, CA 92008 '"^^^m Telephone: (760)438-3155 .Fax; (760) 931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project MCMILLIN Number: 3098-A1-SC Date; September 2004 Plate C-6 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 Q. x" H O z a 2,000 I-to X CO 1,500 1,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Range Classification Primary/Residual Sample Type Yd MC% C <t> • B- 201 10.0 Clay w/ Sand Primary Shear Undisturbed 98.1 23.7 1118 20 • B- 201 10.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 98.1 23.7 1187 18 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: SHAPELL HOMES Number: 6145-E-SC Date: June 2011 Plate: C - 7 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 X H O z LU an H CO < LU X tn 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Range Classification Primary/Residual Sample Type Yd MC% C • B- 201 30.0 Clayey Sand Primary Shear Undisturbed 96.2 6.2 377 33 • B-201 30.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 96.2 6.2 356 33 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way GeoSoils, Inc Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: SHAPELL HOMES Number: 6145-E-SC Date: June 2011 Plate: C - 8 6,000 5,000 4,000 z Ul tc Ul EC < Ul X CO 3,000 2,000 1,000 1 I 1 1,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf 5,000 6,000 Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C k TP-02 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1608 20 TP-02 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1345 20 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-A1-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-9 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION OF GSTABL7 v.2 COMPUTER PROGRAM Introduction GSTABL7 v.2 is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer to develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single program. The slope analysis portion of GSTABL7 v.2 uses a modified version of the popular STABL program, originally developed at Purdue University. GSTABL7 v.2 performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the factor of safety (FOS) for a layered slope using the simplified Bishop or Janbu methods. This program can be used to search forthe most critical surface or the FOS may be determined for specific surfaces. GSTABL7, Version 2, is programmed to handle: 1. Heterogenous soil systems 2. Anisotropic soil strength properties 3. Reinforced slopes 4. Nonlinear Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope 5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using: a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces b. Pore pressure grid c. R factor d. Constant pore water pressure 6. Pseudo-static earthquake loading 7. Surcharge boundary loads 8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular and block-shaped failure surfaces 9. Analysis of right-facing slopes 10. Both SI and Imperial units General information If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the following publications may be consulted initially: 1. The Stability of Slopes, by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and Hall, N.Y., 411 pages, ISBN 412 01061 5, 1992. 2. Rock Slope Engineering, by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Inst, of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNBO 900488 573, 1981. 3. Landslides: Analysis and Control, by R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors), Special Report 178, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 234 pages, ISBN 0 309 02804 3, 1978. GeoSoils, Inc. GSTABL7 v.2 Features The present version of GSTABL7 v.2 contains the following features: 1. Allows user to calculate FOS for static stability and seismic stability evaluations. 2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes. 3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding FOS. 4. Allows user to readily review on-screen the input slope geometry. 5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze defined numbers of circular, non-circular and block-shaped failure surfaces (i.e., bedding plane, slide plane, etc.). Input Data Input data includes the following items: 1. Unit weight, residual cohesion, residual friction angle, peak cohesion, and peak friction angle of fill material, bedding plane, and bedrock, respectively. Residual cohesion and friction angle is used for static stability analysis, where as peak cohesion and friction angle is for dynamic stability analysis. 2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads. 3. Apparent dip of bedding plane can be modeled in an anisotropic angular range (i.e., from 0 to 90 degrees. 4. Pseudo-static earthquake loading (an earthquake loading of 0.15 / was used in the analysis). 5. A 20 percent (20%) increase in soil strengths to model transient seismic loading of the slope, as is customary in geotechnical practice, was used in these analyses. Seismic Discussion Seismic stability analyses were approximated using a pseudo-static approach. The major difficulty in the pseudo-static approach arises from the appropriate selection ofthe seismic coefficient used in the analysis. The use of a static inertia force equal to this acceleration during an earthquake (rigid-body response) would be extremely conservative for several reasons including: (1) only low height, stiff/dense embankments or embankments in confined areas may respond essentially as rigid structures; (2) an earthquake's inertia force is enacted on a mass for a short time period. Therefore, replacing a transient force by a Shapell Homes Appendix D File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 2 GeoSoilSf Inc, pseudo-static force representing the maximum acceleration may be considered overly conservative; (3) assuming that total pseudo-static loading is applied evenly throughout the embankment for an extended period of time is an incorrect assumption, as the length of the failure surface analyzed is usually much greater than the wave length of seismic waves generated by earthquakes; and (4) the seismic waves would place portions of the mass in compression and some in tension, resulting in only a limited portion ofthe failure surface analyzed moving in a downslope direction, at any one instant of earthquake loading. The coefficients usually suggested by regulating agencies, counties and municipalities are in the range of 0.05/ to 0.25/. For example, past regulatory guidelines within the city and county of Los Angeles indicated that the slope stability pseudostatic coefficient = 0.1/ to 0. 15.. The method developed by Krinitzsky, Gould, and Edinger (1993) which was in turn based on Taniguchi and Sasaki (1986), was referenced. This method is based on empirical data and the performance of existing earth embankments during seismic loading. Our review of "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California" (California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2008) indicates the State of California recommends using pseudo-static coefficient of 0.15 for design earthquakes of M 8.25 or greater and using 0.1 for earthquake parameter M 6.5. Therefore, for reasonable conservatism, a seismic coefficient of 0.15/ was used in our analysis for an M„6.9 event. Output Information Output information includes: 1. All input data. 2. FOS for the 10 most critical surfaces for static and pseudo-static stability situation. 3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the critical surfaces and the FOS. 4. Note, that in the analyses, 100 to 1,000 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section for either static or pseudo-static analyses. Results of Slope Stability Calculation Attached are the soil parameters and computer print out sheets from our analyses of the existing bluff slope stability for Sections E-E', F-F', H-H', 1-1', and J-J' at the site. Both static and psuedo static analysis were used to evaluate the stability of the existing slopes. The results in ail cases reviewed indicated a minimum FOS of >1.5 for static and >1.1 for psuedo static (seismic) conditions. Shapell Homes Appendix D File;e.\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE D-1 - SOIL PARAMETERS USED SOIL MATERIALS SOIL UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) STATIC SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS SEISMIC SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS SOIL MATERIALS Moist Saturated Cross':-.:'',; Bedding Parallel Bedding ']•/•,. ,:Cross.:V^ Bedding Parallel Bedding SOIL MATERIALS Moist Saturated •CrC:'::' (psf) (degrees) (degrees) :.':c/: (psf) (degrees) (psf) * (degrees) Section H-H' Afu 110 125 100 22 --120 25 - - Section H-H' Qt SP/SM/Qtj 105 125 100 33 - -120 37 - - Section H-H' Qt SM/SC/Qt, 120 135 1,000 18 500 18 1,200 21 600 21 Section H-H' QtSM 105 125 100 30 - -120 34 - - Section H-H' QtSC 120 135 300 33 - -360 37 -- Section E-E'/F-F l-l'/H-H' TsaSMa 125 135 100 34 100 28 120 38 120 32 Section E-E'/F-F'/J-J' Tsa SMJSM 125 135 300 34 200 28 360 38 240 32 Section E-E'/J-J' Tsa SM/SC 125 135 500 30 200 28 600 34 240 32 Section E-E'/l-l' TsaCL 125 135 1,000 21 200 18 1,200 24 240 21 Section F-F' Ate 115 125 100 31 - -120 35 - ~ Section l-l' TsaSM 125 135 300 32 200 28 360 36 240 32 TABLE D-2 LOCATION DESCRIPTION FACTOR OF SAFETY (FOS) WITH PLANNED SLOPE CONDITION METHOD LOCATION DESCRIPTION STATIC SEISMIC METHOD Section E-E' 2 Block, Perched Hp 1.9 1.5 Janbu Section E-E' 3 Block, Perched H^O 1.8 1.3 Janbu Section F-F' 2 Block, Perched H^O 2.1 1.6 Janbu Section F-F' 3 Block, Perched 1.8 1.4 Janbu Section F-F' 2 Block, Perched H^O in Fill 2.2 1.6 Janbu Section F-F' 3 Block, Perched Hp Below Keyway 2.1 1.6 Janbu Shapell Homes File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Appendix D Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. LOCATION DESCRIPTION FACTOR OF SAFETY (FOS) WITH PLANNED SLOPE CONDITION METHOD LOCATION DESCRIPTION STATIC SEISMIC METHOD Section H-H' 2 Block, Perched HjO 2.1 1.8 Janbu Section H-H' 3 Block, Perched H2O 2.0 1.7 Janbu Section I-i' 2 Block. Perched H2O 3.1 2.4 Janbu Section I-i' 3 Block, Perched HjO 2.1 1.6 Janbu Section J-J' 2 Block, Perched Hp 2.1 1.8 Janbu Section J-J' 3 Block, Perched Hp 1.7 1.3 Janbu TABLE D-3 MATERIAL FACTOR OF SAFETY (FOS) SURFICIAL STABILITY SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS MATERIAL FACTOR OF SAFETY (FOS) SURFICIAL STABILITY (t> (degrees) C(psf) Artificial Fill (Qt/Qal) 1.6 31 180 Santiago Fm. (Tsa, SM) 2.6 34 300 Santiago Fm. (Tsa, SM/SC) 2.6 32 300 Terrace Deposits (Qt) 1.7 30 200 I Shapell Homes File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Appendix D Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. Shapell WO 6145 Sec E- E' Static Natural /Proposed Cut W/o Key X •ishared\word perfect data.carlsbad\6IC0\614S shapell-rcho costera irob rch)V6145-e\stope stability\static'i9Si1 static ee 2 prop stiapell cut may 2C11 v.^ater perched pl2 Run By: ATG GSl SlS/ZO^ 1 C4:17P».< 500 400 300 100 9 OSTABL7i FS 1.959 1 959 2 081 2.096 2.118 2 124 2124 I 2.130 Soil De«c Soil Total Type Unit Vvl Saturated Cohesior Friction UnUVVl Intercept Angle Pore Pressure Piez Pressure Constant Surface No ipCf ipc* Pa ram .psf^ No Afu 1 1100 125 0 100 0 220 0 00 00 ,M Tsa-sm3 2 125 C 135 0 Aniso -^r >: 0 OC 00 Wl 'sa-sm2 3 125.0 135 0 An ISO -r ?: ooc 00 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125 0 135 0 "nisc 000 00 Wl Tsa-cl 5 1250 135 0 Aniso Aniso 000 0.0 .'. 1 Load Value u L2 i:::?:f 200 300 400 500 600 700 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.959 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6U5 Sec E- E' Seismic Natural /Proposed Cut W/o Key <:\snared\vvord perfect data\carlsbadv61CCi614£ shapel-rcho costera irob rch;\6145-e\stepe stability'^eismicigsil seismic ee 2 prop shapell cul may 2011 water perched p 12 Run By ATG.GSI 6/6/2011 04:22 500 400 Soil Desc Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Fnction Pore Pressure Piez Type Unit 'M Unit Vrt. If>tercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No (pcf) (P»f) (deg> Param (psf) Nc, Afu 1 110.0 125 0 120,0 25 0 0 00 00 /;1 Tsa-sm3 2 1250 135.0 Aniso 000 0.0 Wl Tsa-sm2 3 125.0 135.0 Antso An so 0.00 0.0 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125 0 135.0 Aniso Aniso 000 c c Wl Tsa-cl 5 125.0 135 0 Aniso Anoo 000 0.0 Wl Load Ll U L3 Pealt<Ay kh Coef kv Coef. Vakie i:::?if 0.450(g) 0 150»g/< 0 10C(gy\ 2 S3. o M GSTABLTi GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.540 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec E- E' Static Natural /Proposed Cut W/o Key areo AIXC c-erfect data carlsbad«100 ei4f s^apeW-rctto costefa (roto rchi ei45 ai sicpe itacility firals finals itati - e-e 3511 statice« 2 prop shapell cut may 2011 ivater high 3 Clot* pl2 Rur By ATG GSI 6 3.2011 i 9 GSTABL7i Ul GSTABL7V.2 FSmin-1.831 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec E- E' Seismic Natural /Proposed Cut W/o Key '0 .vc-'o c^'fectoata.csrt^ade 100 €• "if 5^3c«ll-rcro costefa iroc rch.i 814f 3-slope nablht/firalsfi ^IB-ic €€ I r-cc s^aceH a.t n-s^ 23 '' svat*'••igr 3 cici* cl2 Rur By ATG GSI eeZO^ 0' 500 400 300 200 -FS a 1.396 b 1 396 c 1 429 d 1 429 e 1 430 f 1 430 9 1 446 b 1 446 1.477 100 5 ip O I I I Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Fnction Pore Pressure Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt Unit m. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. 'PCt (pcf) Param ipsf No Afu 1 nc c 125.0 120.0 25 0 0 00 00 Wl Tsa-sm3 2 125 0 135 0 Aniso Aniso 0 00 00 Wl Tsa-sm2 3 125 C 135.0 Aniso -r:'5C 0 00 0 0 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125 0 135 0 Aniso Anso 000 0.0 Wl Tsa-cl 5 125 C 135.0 Aniso Anso 0 00 0.0 Wl Load Ll U U PeaMA) kh Coef kv Coef Value i:;: KCDpsf 0450(g> 0 150(g>< 0 100{g>A t 2 100 200 500 G$TABi7i 300 400 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.396 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 600 700 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Static Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 .shared'wvcrd perfect Oata\car1sbad'.610C"*145 shapeil-rchc costera irob rch:v5145-e\slop€ stab«y\static\gsi1 static ff 2 prop shapell fa june 2011 perched v/ater 3 btock pG Run By ATG.GSI 6/8/2011 09:Si 500 400 300 200 100 FS 2.133 2 133 2 152 2232 2.237 2 237 2 271 2 271 2 277 Sol Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Ptez. Desc. Type Unit m Unit SVt Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surfa Nc .pcf) (pcf) icsf lOeg Param ipsH No. Afu 1 1100 125 C 1O0.0 220 0 00 0.0 Wl "33-3m2 2 125 C 135 0 Aniso Anise OCC 0.0 Wl AFe 115 0 125 0 100.0 31.0 0 00 0.0 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125 0 135 C Anise An so 000 0.0 .VI Tsa-sm3 5 125.0 135 0 Aniso Aniso 000 0.0 Wl Load LI L: u ICCCpsf i:::?if 100 200 300 400 500 700 O GSTABL?^ GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=2.133 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Seismic Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 r €1 c-srfecJ 33t3 la'licac f 100 5'-aoell-fC^c costera {rob rct-i51^5-e sloce stacilit, ieis^^izgsi'- seismcff 2 prop shapell CeIcA -e - fill 20 ' 1 c^e^c^ea .vate 3 bIccJcr pl2 Run By ATG.GSI f 8 13*' 500 400 ff FS a 1.659 b 1 659 c 1 700 d 1 733 e 1 754 f 1 754 g 1 770 1 1 798 300 200 Soi Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez Desc Type Unit Wt Unit Vrt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No (pcf) (pcf) ^psf ideg'i Param ipsfi No Afu 1 1100 125 0 120.0 25 0 0 00 00 Wl Tsa-sm2 2 125 0 135 0 Aniso Anise 0 00 00 Wl AFe 3 115.0 125.0 1000 35 0 0.00 0.0 Wl 'sa-sc 4 1250 135.0 Aniso An«o 0 00 0.0 Wl Tsa-sm3 e 125 0 135 0 Aniso Aniso 000 0.0 Wl Load Ll L: u PeakiA- khCoef kv Coef Value l»Opsf IDWpif 0 450<9) 0 150(fl>« 0 100(g)/>. 2 O Ol 200 300 400 600 700 GSTABL 7 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.659 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Static Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 shared\»vcrd perfect aata\cartsbad'-eiCC'i6145 shapeB-rchc costera irob rch;\6145-e\stope stab*ty'.static\gsil static ff 2 prop shapell cut may 2C11 perched water 3 block pC Run By: ATG.GSI 6/6/2011 Cf 21 500 400 ff FS a 1.848 b 1 858 c 1 358 d 1.865 e 1,868 f 1 868 9 1 881 i 1.890 300 200 100 3 OA o Soil Cesc SoH "^otal 'ype Unit Wt Saturated Cohesion Fnctwn UnitWt Intercept Angle Pore Pressure Piez Pressure Constant Surface No. ICC' ESf Param No Afu 1 1100 125 0 IOC c 220 0 00 00 W1 Tsa-sm2 2 125 0 135 0 Aniso OCO 00 .•; 1 AFe 3 115.0 1250 100 0 31 0 OOO 0.0 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125.0 135.0 Anise Anise 000 00 /.•I Tsa-sm3 5 125.0 135.0 Aniso Anrse COO c c .•;1 Lead Ll L: L3 Value i:::;if vt - - 100 200 400 500 600 700 GSTABl 7i GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.848 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Seismic Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 <:\sharetfiworo perfect data\carlsbad\6100\6145 shapel-rcho costera irob rch>\6145--e\stope stability\seismic\gsit seismic ff 2 prop shapell cut may 2011 perched ivater pC Run By ATG,GSl 6/6/2011 C5 3: 500 —— 400 300 200 FS 1.456 1 45« 1 457 1 471 1 471 1 474 1 477 I 1 489 Sol Soil "^otal Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez Desc Type Unit m Unit Wt Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No 'CCf ipcf: -psf • deg Param ipsf! No, Afu 1 110,0 125 0 120 0 25 0 0 00 0 0 Al Tsa-sntd 2 125.0 135 0 Aniso Antso 0 00 00 Wl AFe 3 115.0 125 0 120 0 35 0 0 00 00 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125 C 135.0 Aniso Aniso 000 0.0 Wl Tsa-sm3 e 125.0 135.0 Aniso An«o 000 00 Wl I Load Ll L2 U Peak(A', kh Coef K. :crf Value 0 450(g) 0 150(g>< 0 100(gV\ 2 ta tS D 09 GSTABi 7i GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.456 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Static Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 X s'-areo woTOpeffeaoala csflsta<:?lD0«146sh«>ell-rc^cocstera |roefchrei4E--e3l&p6>taDility rtater 3 dec* pl2 Rur By ATG GSI 68 2011 10 0 500 400 = FS a 2.217 b 2217 c 2254 d 2 262 e 2.274 f 2 333 9 2 378 h ' • 1 2.389 Soil Soil 'ctal Saturated Cohesion Fnctwn Pore Pressure Piez Desc. ^ype Unit'*Vt Unit .Vt Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface '.c (pcf/ (pcf) .psf. idegi Param ipsf^ No Afu 1 1100 125 0 100 0 220 0 00 0 0 /.'I Tsa-sm2 2 125.0 135 0 Aniso Aniso 0 CO 00 Wl AFe 3 115.0 125-0 100,0 31 0 000 0 0 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125.0 135.0 Anise Anso 000 0 0 Wl Tsa-sm3 5 125.0 135 0 Anise An«o 0 00 C C Wl Load Vakie Ll S'Cpsf U 1^00 psf 100 200 300 400 600 g GSTABLT^ GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.217 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Seismic Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 .5^areO'«va«^ perfect oais csfl5C3c: f ' DO ? '-if 5h5cell-fc^c cc-stefa Ircc -cr, e "-f-e-slcpe stacility seismc.gsii seisrrlcff 2 proc shapell Ir fill fray 2D11 perched wate 3 DIOOT CI2 Rur By ATG GSI 6'8/2011 10 0* 500 400 300 ff FS a 1.685 b 1 685 • 1 766 1 767 •-1 794 1 805 S 1 837 J 337 1 £r= Sod Desc Soil Total Type Unit m Saturated Cohesion Fricbon UntM, Intercept Angle Pore Pressure P>e2 Pressure Constant Surface No pcf (pcf, • psf idegi Param (psf) No Afu 1 HOC 125 0 120 0 250 0 00 00 Wl T3a-sm2 2 125.G 135-0 Anise Aneso 000 0.0 Wl AFe 3 115.0 125 0 10CC 350 0 00 0.0 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125.0 135 0 Aniso 0.00 00 Wl Tsa-sm3 e 125.0 135 0 A.nao Aniso oco 0.0 .•,'1 t • Load Ll U U PeaktA) kh Coef k: Cref Vakie fCCpsf 0450(9) 0 150(g>< 0.100(g)/\ 2 ' to 2 GSTABL7 o 100 300 400 500 600 700 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.685 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Static Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 x:\sharedV»vcrd perfect data\carisbaff.61CC'£ 145 shapell-rcho costera irob rch;'vei45-e\s^ static ff 2 prop shapell cut may 2011 h^h water pE Run By ATG.GSI 6.'6>2C11 05;26Pf.f 500 400 FS a 2.126 b 2 126 c 2 159 d 2.159 e 2244 f 2 244 9 2248 h 2 250 1 2250 200 100 0 Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Desc. Type unit m Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface '.c •pcf (pcf/ 'PSf (d€g,» Param (psfi No Afu 1 11C.C 1250 100.0 22 0 0 00 00 Wl Tsa-sm2 2 125 0 135 0 Aniso Antso OOC 0.0 Wl --e 115.0 1250 1000 31 0 0 00 00 Wl 'sa-sc 4 12E C 135 0 Anise An«e 000 0.0 .VI "^sa-sm3 e 125.0 135.0 Aniso Antso 000 0.0 Wl Load Ll U u value ICCOpif 1 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 o i GSTABL7i GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=2.126 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec F-F" Seismic Natural /Proposed Cut w/ Key and hi H20 X \shar«j\wcrd perfect data\carlsbad^61CC\6145 shapelt-rche costera i reb rch i\6145-e''.stepe stability*3eismic\gsil seismc ff 2 prep shapefl cut may 2011 high water p(2 Run By: ATG.GSi 6-^'2C11 05:42Pt.! 500 400 300 200 FS a 1.661 t 1 661 1 678 1 ?7c 1 715 • 1 715 1 732 1 738 Son Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Desc Type unit Vi/t Unit Wt Intercept Angle Pore Pressure Piez Pressure Constant Surface No ipCf ipc^ psf ideg) Param Ipsf No. Afu 1 nc c 125 0 120.0 25 0 0 00 00 Wl Tsa-3m2 2 126 C 135 C Aniso -^r:s.: CCC 0 0 .•;1 AFe 3 115.0 125 C 1200 350 COO 00 Wl Tsa-sc 4 125 0 135 0 Anise Aniso 0.00 0.0 Wl Tsa-sm3 e 125 C 135.0 Anise Aniso 0 00 0,0 ,-.'1 I Load Ll L2 U PeaMA) khC<»f kv Coef Vabe lOCCpsf 0.450<g) 0 15C(g>< 0 ICCig^A g— :- -0 GSTABLTi 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.661 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 260 230 200 170 140 110 80 50 W.O. 6145-E-SC Sec H-H* w/o H20 - Static xi^shared^viord perfect aata\carfebad^-610C^i6145 shapell-rcho costera irob rcli)\6145-e^5lcpe stabiM>''section hh with new cut stabc pl2 Run By ATG.GSI 6/6/2011 05;53PW ?? FS a 2 .168 b 2 168 c 2 168 d 2 266 e 2.266 f 2 266 2 288 9 h 2 28S , 2?IC Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez Desc. Type Unit 'M UriT Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surfa No (pcf) • psf (deg) Param Ipsf No Afu 1 11G C 125 0 ICOC 220 0 00 00 Wl 2 1C5-C 125 0 10C.C 33.0 COO 0-0 Wl Qt-snv'sc 3 120.0 135C Anise Aniso 0.00 0,0 Wl Qt-sm 4 1C5C 125 C 100.0 30-0 0 00 0,0 Wl Qt-sc 5 120 C 1350 3O00 330 000 00 Wl Tsa 6 125 0 1350 Anise Anso OOC 00 Wl I Lead Ll Vak>e m 1 -^y^ 4 4 2 ta O ^ GSTABLTi 30 120 150 180 210 240 270 9 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=2.168 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method W.O. 6145-E-SC Sec H-H' w/o H20 - Seismic x \sfiaretf\word perfect data',carlsbarfi£ 100^*6145 shapei-rcho costera i rob rch)\6145-e\sk3pe stability'^esmicisectKjn hh v/4h nevy cut seismic p!2 Run By ATG.GSI 6l2J2Q\ 1 1 LSOAf^l 260 230 200 170 140 110 80 50 —1 Soil Soil 1— 1 Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore 1- Pressure Piez Desc Type Unit m Unit m Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surfat No ipCf (pcfi (pst) «ieg) Param ipsf No. Afu 1 11CC 1250 120 0 25 0 OOC 0.0 Wl Qt-sp/sm 2 105.0 125 C 120.0 37-0 0-00 0.0 Wl Qt-srrv'sc •s 120.0 135.0 Aniso Anise OOC 0.0 Wl 4 105.0 125 C 120 0 340 0-00 0.0 Wl Qt-sc 5 120.0 1350 360 0 370 OCO 0.0 Wl Tsa 6 125 0 135,0 Aniso Antso ooo 0.0 Wl Load Ll PeakiA) kh Coef kv Coef Value 0 450(9) 0 1S0(g>< 0 10C(g>A X r^n 1 -1-^ 3 II 3 2 GSTABL?^ 30 150 180 210 240 270 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.868 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method X \shared\word 260 W.O. 6145-E-SC Sec H-H' w/o H20 - Static perfect data\carlsbad\6100\6145 shapell-rcho costera irob rch)\6145-e\stope stabilityvsection hh wth new cut static 3 btock pI2 Run By: ATG.GSI 6/6/2011 05 57PM 230 200 170 140 80 50 2 ta Soi Sort 'ctal Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez Desc Type Unit Wt Unit intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No (PCf; (pcf) ipsf i.deg Param ipsf' No Afu 1 1100 125 0 100 0 22 0 0 00 00 Wl Qt-sp/sm 2 105.0 125-0 1000 33.0 000 0-0 1 Qt-snVsc 3 1200 135 0 Anise Anise 0 00 CO Wl Qt-sm 4 105.0 125.0 100.0 300 0 00 0.0 Wl Qt-sc 1200 135 0 300 0 330 0 00 00 Wl Tsa 6 125.0 135-0 Aniso Aniso 000 0.0 Wl Load Ll Vakie 11 .--V 3 # 1 2 m 30 60 90 120 150 210 240 270 300 GSTABLTi GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=2.075 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method W.O. 6145-E-SC Sec H-H' w/o H20 - Seismic x \shared\wordp€rfeddata\carlsbad\6100\6145shape^rcho costera frobrch)\6U5-e\sk)oestabilrty\se»snw;\sectionhh with new Run By ATG.GSI 6/6/2011 05;59PM 260 230 200 170 Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez Desc. Type Unit Wt Unit Wt. kitercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (per, -psf (deg) Param ipsf. No Afu 1 110.0 125 0 120.0 250 0 00 0.0 Wl Qt-sp/sm 2 105.0 125.0 120.0 37.0 COO 0.0 Wl Qt-snVsc 3 120.0 135 0 Antso Antso 0 00 0.0 Wl Qt-sm 4 105.0 125-0 120.0 34.0 000 0.0 Wl Qt-sc 5 1200 135.0 360.0 370 0 00 00 Wl 'id 6 125.0 135-0 Aniso Anso 0.00 0.0 Wl Load Ll PeakiA. kh Coef kv Coef Value 0450(g) 0 150(g>< 0,100(g)A 2 ta n O Ol GSTABL 7i GSTABL7V.2 FSmin-1.750 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method Shapell WO 6145 Sec l-l' Static Proposed Cut W/o Key x:\shared\word perfect data'.carlsbad"i6100"'i5145 shapeB-rcho costera irob rch)\6145 a1\sfepe stability^5tatic\gsi1 static ii shapell cut water hIgh.pC Run By: ATG,GSI 5r31/2011 11:52AM 3 ta m O GSTABL7i GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=3.148 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec l-l' Seismic Proposed Cut W/o Key x:\shared\v/ord perfect data\cartsbad\6100'i6145 shapeB-rcho costera I.rob rch )"v6145 a 1\sk3pe slability'se seismic ii shapell cut water high pl2 Run By ATG GSI 5/31/2011 12 02Pf.l 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 Soil Desc Tsa CL Tsa-sm Tsa-sm Soil Total Type Unit Wt- No, (pcf) 1 125.0 2 125.C 3 125 0 I Saturated Cohesion Fnction Unitm Intercept Angle (per; (psf) (deg) 1350 Aniso Aniso 136 0 Aniso Aniso 135 0 Anise Aniso Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface Param, (psf) No, 0 00 0.0 Wl 0-00 0.0 Wl 0 00 0.0 '.M Load Ll PeakiA) kh Coef kv Coef Value ICOC'pif 0,450(9) 0 150(g>< 0.100(g)A 2 ta D 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=2.487 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 xAshared\wero perfect 275 Shapell WO 6145 Sec l-l' Static Proposed Cut W/o Key data\carlsbad\6t00\614S shapell-rcho costera (rob rch )\6145 a1\slope 3tabil*y\static^.gsi1 static R shape! cut water high 3 bksck pC Run By: ATG.GSI 5/31/2011 11:33AM 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 FS 2.175 2.327 2 327 2.478 2643 2 643 2700 2 702 2 702 Soil Desc Tsa CL Tsa-sm Tsa-sm Soil Total Type Unit m No. (pcf: 1 125.C 2 125.C 3 125.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction UnitWt, Intercept Angle i.pcf.- (psf) (deg) 135 0 Aniso Aniso 1350 Aniso Anise 135 0 Aniso Aniso Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface Param (psO No, 0 00 0.0 Wl 0.00 0.0 Wl 0 00 0.0 Wl Lead Value Ll I WO pi.' 10 2 to 25 50 75 100 125 175 200 225 250 GSTABL 7, 9 GSTABL7 V.2 FSmin=2.175 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec I-i' Seismic Proposed Cut W/o Key XAshared\v^ord perfect data\carlsbad\6100\6145 shapeB-rchc costera (rob rch)^i6145 a1\sk3pe stabWy\seismic\section i-Agsi1 sesmicit shapel cut water high 3 btock,pt2 Run By ATG.GSI 5/31/2011 11 56A 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 Soil Desc Tsa CL Tsa-sm Tsa-sm Soil Total Type Unit m. No. (pcf: 1 125,0 2 125.0 3 125 0 Saturated Cohesion Fnction UnitWt Intercept Angle (pcf) (psf) (deg) 135.0 Aniso Aniso 135 0 Anise Anise 135-0 Aniso Anise Pore Pressure Piez Pressure Constant Surface Param, (psf> No. 0 00 0.0 Wl 0.00 0.0 Wl 0-00 0.0 V.'l Load Ll Peak(A) kh Coef. kv Coef. Vakie 1000 pif 0 450(g) 0 15Cig •• C 100(g)A ta S CSTABL7, 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.648 Safety Factors Are Calculated By Tfie Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec J-J' Static Proposed Cut W/o Key x:\shared\word perfect data\carlsbad\6100\6145 shapel-rcho costera irob rch)\6145 a1\skDpe stabilib/'>static\gsi1 static j j shapefl cut water high.pl2 Run By: ATG.GSI 6/1/2011 03:28PI,1 305 265 105 65 25 FS 2.169 2169 2216 2223 2.226 2238 2.253 I 2.254 3 ta n O rb -* GSTABL7i I Soil Desc Soil Total Type Unit Wt No. I.pcf? Tsasmsc 1 I25C Tsa-sm 2 125.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction UnitV*^ kitercept Angle (pcf) (psf) (deg) 135.0 Aniso Antso 135.0 Aniso Aniso Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface Param (psf) No. 0 00 0.0 Wl 0.00 0.0 Wl Load Ll Value 40 80 120 160 240 280 320 360 400 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.169 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec J-J' Seismic Proposed Cut W/o Key x:'5hared\werd perfect data\carlsbao'\61C0\6145 shapel-rcho costera irob rch)\6145 a1\sk3pe stability\seismic\secticn )-j\gsil seismicj i shapefl cut v/ater high.pC Run By ATG.GSI 6/1/2011 03:32PM 305 265 225 65 25 = FS a 1,881 b 1 881 c 1 912 d 1.916 e 1 916 f 1 918 1.921 1 928 1 1 932 S GSTABL7 =F Soil Soil Total Desc. Type Unit Vvt No. ipcf) Tsa smsc 1 125.0 Tsa-sm 2 125.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction UnitWt. kitercept Angle (pcf) (psf) (deg) 135 0 Aniso Antso 135.0 Aniso Anso I — Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface Param (psf) No. 0 00 0.0 Wl 0.00 0.0 Wl Load Ll Peak(A) kh Coef kv Coef Vakie lOOCpif 0.450(g) 0 150(g>< C.100ig>A 80 120 160 200 280 320 360 400 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.881 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 X \shared\Viford perfect 305 Shapell WO 6145 Sec J-J'Static Proposed Cut W/o Key data\cartsbad\6100\6145 shapell-rcho costera irob rch)\6145 a P^lope stab«>'\static\gsil static j j shapefl cut water high 3 btock.pJ2 Run By: ATG.GSI 5.'b2011 03:26P1.1 265 225 185 2 ta o 25 Soil Soil Total Desc, Type unit Wt No. (pen Tsasmsc 1 125 0 Tsa-sm 2 125.0 Saturated Cohesion Fricbon UnilWt, htercept Angle (pcf) (psf; (deg) 135 0 Anise Anise 135.0 Aniso Antso Pore Pressure Piez, Pressure Constant Surface Param (psf) No. 0 00 0.0 Wl 0.00 0.0 Wl Load Ll Vabe i:;:pii 40 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 GSTABI 7i 9 GSTABL7 V.2 FSmin=1.702 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 Shapell WO 6145 Sec J-J' Seismic Proposed Cut W/o Key x:\shared\word perfect data\carlsbad\6l00V6145 shapel-rcho costera (rob rch)\6145 a1\stope 3tabihty\seismic\section h^gsil seismic j j shapefl cut water high 3 bk5Ck.pl2 Run By: ATG.GSI 6/1/2011 03:2S 305 265 225 185 145 105 65 ?5 ^ G$TABL7i Soil Soil Total Desc Type unit Wt No. (pcf) Tsasmsc 1 125 C Tsa-sm 2 125.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction UtMVA kitercept Angle (pcf) (psf) (deg) 1350 Aniso Anise 135.C Aniso Aniso Pore Pressure Piez Pressure Constant Surface Param (psff No. 000 0,0 Wl 0.00 0.0 .VI Load Ll PeaMA;. kh Coef kv Coef Value IC-OOpi.' 0,450(g) 0 150(g>< 0.100ig.iA 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.392 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Tract/Project: Material Type: Shapell Homes Artificial Fill (Qt/Qal) Depth of Saturation (z) 4 feet Slope Angle (i) (for 2:1 slopes) 76 degrees Unit Weight of Water (7*) 62.4 Ib/ft^ Saturated Unit Weight of Soil {ysad 125 lb/ft' Apparent Angle of Internal Friction ((b) 31 degrees Apparent Cohesion (C) 180 \bin^ Fs = static Safety Factor = z (Vsafl'w) Cos^(i) Tan {^) + C 2 (Ysat) Sin (i) Cos (i) DEPTH OF SATURATION SLOPE FACTOR OF SAFETY 4 FEET 2:1 1.61 W.O. 6145-AI-SC SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY 2:1 SLOPE Plate D-25 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Tract/Project". Material Type: Shapell Homes Santiago Formation (Tsa/SM) Depth of Saturation (z) 4 feet Slope Angle (i) (for 2:1 slopes) 76 degrees Unit Weight of Water (yj 62.4 Ib/ft^ Saturated Unit Weight of Soil (y^) 125 Ib/ft^ Apparent Angle of Internal Friction (<])) 34 degrees Apparent Cohesion (C) 300 \blff Fs = Static Safety Factor = z (y„t-y^) Cos'(i) Tan {^) + C z (Ysat) Sin (i) Cos (i) DEPTH OF SATURATION SLOPE FACTOR OF SAFETY 4 FEET 2:1 2.64 W.O. 6145-AI-SC SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY 2:1 SLOPE Plate D-26 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Tract/Project: Material Type: Shapell Homes Santiago Formation (Tsa/SM and SC) Depth of Saturatksn (z) 4 feet Slope Angle (i) (for 2:1 slopes) 76 degrees Unit Weight of Water (r«) 62.4 Ib/ft^ Saturated Unit Weight of Soil (vsat) 125 Ib/ft^ Apparent Angle of Intemal Friction {<!)) 32 degrees Apparent Cohesion (C) 300 Ib/ft^ Fs = Static Safety Factor = z (Vsat-Yw) Cos''(i) Tan + C z (Tsat) Sin (i) Cos (i) DEPTH OF SATURATION SLOPE FACTOR OF SAFETY 4 FEET 2:1 2.63 W.O. 6145-A1-SC SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY 2:1 SLOPE Plate 0-27 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Tract/Project: Material Type: Shapell Homes Terrace Deposits (Qt) Depth of Saturation (z) 4 feet Slope Angle (i) (for 2:1 slopes) 76 degrees Unit Weight of Water (y^) 62.4 \bllf Saturated Unit Weight of Soil (ysat) 125 Ib/ft^ Apparent Angle of Internal Friction (4)) 30 degrees Apparent Cohesion (C) 200 \blff Fs = Static Safety Factor = z(ysanw) CosYOTanW-fC z (Ysat) Sin (i) Cos (i) DEPTH OF SATURATION SLOPE FACTOR OF SAFETY 4 FEET 2:1 1.78 W.O. 6145-AI-SC SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY 2:1 SLOPE Plate D-28 APPENDIX E INFILTRATION TEST DATA Test Location: Robertson Ranch, IT-1 - Test Plt-219 RINGS MARRIOrrE TUBES Penetration of Rings: Inner: 3 in. Outer: 3 in. Constraints: Area (cm^) Deoth of Liouid (cm) Liauid Cont.# Vol./ Ah (emblem) W.O. No.: 6145-AI-SC Inner Ring: 729.7 3" (7.6) 1 62.427 Client: Shapell Homes Annular Space: 2189.0 3" (7.6) 2 183.633 Date: 4/14/11 Tested By: TAG Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Flow Readings Liquid Temp.('F) Inner Infiltration Rate Inner Infiltration Rate Remarks Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Inner Ring Annular Space Liquid Temp.('F) Inner Annular Inner /Annular Remarks Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Reading cm Flow cm' Reading cm Flow cm^ Liquid Temp.('F) cm/hr cm/hr In/hr in/hr Remarks 1 S 8:45 30 46.0 393 43 1947 48 1.08 1.78 0.42 0.70 Soil @ 48° 1 E 9:15 30 39.7 393 32.4 1947 48 1.08 1.78 0.42 0.70 Soil @ 48° 2 S 9:15 30 39.7 206 32.4 1506 48 0.56 1.38 0.22 0.54 Soil @ 50° 2 E 9:45 60 36.4 206 24.2 1506 48 0.56 1.38 0.22 0.54 Soil @ 50° 3 S 9:45 30 36.4 169 24,2 1359 48 0.46 1.24 0.18 0.49 Soil @ 50° 3 E 10:15 90 33.7 169 16.8 1359 50 0.46 1.24 0.18 0.49 Soil @ 50° 4 S 10:15 30 33.7 181 16.8 1047 50 0.50 0.96 0.20 0.38 Soil @ 50° 4 E 10:45 120 30.8 181 11.1 1047 50 0.50 0.96 0.20 0.38 Soil @ 50° 5 S 5 E 6 S 6 E 7 S 7 E 8 8 8 E 9 S 9 E 10 S 10 E •n IQ' c m Infiltration Test No.1 - Test Pit-219 •Annular Space: •Inner Ring: C C 0) ro DC c o ro k. *-> ro *^ c 0) E k-o c 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 Elapsed Time in Min. Figure E2 Test Location: Robertson Ranch, IT-2 - Test Pit-212 RINGS MARRIOTTE TUBES Penetration of Rings: Inner: 2 in. Outer: 2 in. Constraints: Area (cm^) Depth of Liauid (cm) Liguid Cont.# Vol./Ah (cm^/cm) W.O. No.: 6145-AI-SC Inner Ring: 729.7 3" (7.6) 1 62.427 Client: Shapell Homes Annular Space: 2189.0 3" (7.6) 2 183.633 Date: 4/14/11 Tested By: TAG 1 Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Flow Readings Liquid Temp.(°F) Inner Infiltration Rate Inner Infiltration Rate Remarks 1 Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Inner Ring Annular Space Liquid Temp.(°F) Inner Annular Inner Annular Remarks 1 Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Reading cm Flow cm' Reading cm Flow cm' Liquid Temp.(°F) cm/hr cm/hr in/hr in/hr Remarks 1 S 11:45 30 46.4 325 45.8 422 60 0.89 0.39 0.35 0.15 Soil @ 54° 1 E 12:15 30 41.2 325 43.5 422 60 0.89 0.39 0.35 0.15 Soil @ 54° 2 S 12:15 30 41.2 150 43.5 459 60 0.41 0.42 0.16 0.17 Soil @ 54° 2 E 12:45 60 38.8 150 41 459 60 0.41 0.42 0.16 0.17 Soil @ 54° 3 S 12:45 30 38.8 156 41 422 60 0.43 0.39 0.17 0.15 Soil @ 54° 3 E 1:15 90 36.3 156 38.7 422 60 0.43 0.39 0.17 0.15 Soil @ 54° 4 S 1:15 30 36.3 169 38.7 367 60 0.46 0.34 0.18 0.13 Soil @ 54° 4 E 1:45 120 33.6 169 36.7 367 63 0.46 0.34 0.18 0.13 Soil @ 54° 5 S 5 E 6 S 6 E 7 8 7 E 8 8 8 E 9 S 9 E 10 8 10 E C (D m w Infiltration Test No.2 - Test Pit-212 'Annular Space: •Inner Ring; 0) ro tXL c o ro 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 Elapsed Time in Min. Figure E4 Test Location: Robertson Ranch, IT-3 -TestPit-210 RINGS MARRIOTTE TUBES Constraints: Area (cm^) Depth of Liauid (cm) Liauid Cont.# Vol./ Ah (cm^/cm) W.O. No.: 6145-AI-SC Inner Ring: 729.7 3" (7.6) 1 62.427 Client: Shapell Homes Annular Space: 2189.0 3"(7.6) 2 183.633 Date: 4/14/11 Tested By: TAG Penetration of Rings: Inner: 2 In. Outer: 2 in. Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Flow Readings Liquid Temp.(°F) Inner Infilfration Rate Inner Infiltration Rate Remarks Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Inner Ring Annular Space Liquid Temp.(°F) Inner Annular Inner Annular Remarks Reading Start/Elapsed Time (hrs/min) Interval Elapsed Time A/Total (min.) Reading cm Flow cm' Reading cm Flow cm' Liquid Temp.(°F) cm/hr cm/hr in/hr in/hr Remarks 1 8 3:00 30 44.8 281 46 367 48 0.77 0.34 0.30 0.13 Soil @ 53° 1 E 3:30 30 40.3 281 44 367 48 0.77 0.34 0.30 0.13 Soil @ 53° 2 S 3:30 30 40.3 100 44 239 48 0.27 0.22 0.11 0.09 Soil @ 53° 2 E 4:00 60 38.7 100 42.7 239 48 0.27 0.22 0.11 0.09 Soil @ 53° 3 8 4:00 30 38.7 62 42.7 202 48 0.17 0.18 0.07 0.07 Soil @ 61° 3 E 4:30 90 37.7 62 41.6 202 50 0.17 0.18 0.07 0.07 Soil @ 61° 4 S 4:30 30 37.7 56 41.6 202 50 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.07 Soil @ 60° 4 E 5:00 120 36.8 56 40.5 202 50 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.07 Soil @ 60° 5 S 5 E 6 S 6 E 7 8 7 E 8 8 8 E 9 8 9 E 10 S 10 E C 3 m Ol Infiltration Test No.3 - Test Pit-210 •Annular Space: •Inner Ring: 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 Elapsed Time in Min. Figure E6 APPENDIX F EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK. GRADING GUIDELINES. AND PRELIMINARY CRITERIA General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, excavations, and appurtenant structures or flatwork. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of these earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. Generalized details follow this text. The contractor is responsible forthe satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions ofthe project plans and specifications and latest adopted code. In the case of conflict, the most onerous provisions shall prevail. The project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), and/or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Priorto the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations ofthe geotechnical report(s), the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that an evaluation may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D 1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation D 1556, D 2937 or D 2922, and D 3017, GeoSoils, Inc. at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the geotechnical consultant, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations ofthe geotechnical consultant. The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the geotechnical consultant. Notwithstanding the services provided by the geotechnical consultant, it is the sole responsibility ofthe contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in strict accordance with applicable grading guidelines, latest adopted codes or agency ordinances, geotechnical report(s), and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construcfion, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such fime as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetafion, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. In-place exisfing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the geotechnical consultant. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Soft, dry, spongy, Shape!! Homes Appendix F File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condifion, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the geotechnical consultant before compaction and filling operafions confinue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture condifioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compacfion as specified in these guidelines. Exisfing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified (ripped) to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the geotechnical consultant. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not safisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site geotechnical consultant. Scarificafion, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should confinue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, mounds, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the geotechnical consultant. In fill-over-cut slope condifions, the recommended minimum width ofthe lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the geotechnical consultant, the minimum width of fill keys should be equal to the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted unfil design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been evaluated to be suitable by the geotechnical consultant. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, Shapell Homes Appendix F File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the geotechnical consultant. Soils of poor gradafion, undesirable expansion potenfial, or substandard strength characterisfics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operafions should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operafions should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the geotechnical consultant. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendafions ofthe geotechnical consultant in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. GSI anficipates that soils to be utilized as fill material for the subject project may contain some rock. Appropriately, the need for rock disposal may be necessary during grading operafions on the site. From a geotechnical standpoint, the depth of any rocks, rock fills, or rock blankets, should be a sufficient distance from finish grade. This depth is generally the same as any overexcavation due to cut-fill transifions in hard rock areas, and generally facilitates the excavafion of structural footings and substructures. Should deeper excavafions be proposed (i.e., deepened foofings, ufility trenching, swimming pools, spas, etc.), the developer may consider increasing the hold-down depth of any rocky fills to be placed, as appropriate. In addifion, some agencies/jurisdicfions mandate a specific hold-down depth for oversize materials placed in fills. The hold-down depth, and potential to encounter oversize rock, both within fills, and occurring in cut or natural areas, would need to be disclosed to all interested/affected parties. Once approved by the governing agency, the hold-down depth for oversized rock (i.e., greater than 12 inches) in fills on this project is provided as 10 feet, unless specified differently in the text of this report. The governing agency may require that these materials need to be deeper, crushed, or reduced to less than 12 inches in maximum dimension, at their discrefion. To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material), should not be placed within the hold-down depth feet from finish grade, the range of foundafion excavations, future utilifies, or underground construcfion unless specifically approved by the governing agency, the geotechnical consultant, and/or the developer's representafive. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical consultant to evaluate it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite. Such testing should be performed three (3) days prior to importation. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the geotechnical consultant as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The Shapell Homes Appendix F File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1.stt Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. geotechnical consultant may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compacfion is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than opfimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarificafion, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condifioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should confinue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, opfimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture condifioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent ofthe maximum density as evaluated by ASTM test designafion D 1557, or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Compacfion equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compacfion, or of proven reliability to efllciently achieve the specified degree of compacfion. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked unfil the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No addifional fill shall be placed in an area unfil the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the geotechnical consultant. In general, per the 1997 UBC and/or latest adopted version ofthe California Building Code (CBC), fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compacfion of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configurafion. Tesfing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final evaluation of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compacfion, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisfing of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. Shapell Homes Appendix F File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operafions. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed condifions. The locafion of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be recorded/surveyed by the project civil engineer. Drainage at the subdrain outiets should be provided by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the geotechnical consultant. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion ofthe slope should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The geotechnical consultant should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavafion of cut slopes commence. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the geotechnical consultant should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut Shapell Homes Appendix F Flle:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluafion by the geotechnical consultant, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in geotechnical and geological report(s), no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Addifionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances ofthe controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations ofthe geotechnical consultant. COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading, and after the geotechnical consultant has finished observations of the work, final reports should be submitted, and may be subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavafion orfilling should be undertaken without prior notification ofthe geotechnical consultant or approved plans. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specificafions and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protecfion and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as pracfical after complefion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerafions for use by all employees on mulfi-employer construcfion sites. On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construcfion activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperafion between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observafion, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Shapell Homes Appendix F File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meefings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all fimes, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct excavafion of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condifion. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter ofthe fill in Shapell Homes Appendix F File:e:\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. a highly visible locafion, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any ofthe above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attenfion and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with Cal/OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavafion, we have a legal obligafion to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situafion. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligafion to notify Cal/OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorifies. Shapell Homes Appendix F Rle:e;\wp9\6100\6145a1 .stt Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. TYPE A Natural grade Proposed grade Colluvium and alluvium (remove) Bedrock or approved native material See Alternate Details TYPE B Natural grade Proposed grade Colluvium and alluvium (remove)^ P"^^'^^ Bedrock or approved native material w Typical benching See Alternate Details Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdrains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate F-1 6-inch minimum 6-inch minimum r 12-inch minimum 6-Inch minimum 6-incn rTWwmm B-1 J" RIter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe. Perforated pipe- 6-inch-cliameter ABS or PVC pipe or approved substitute with minimum 8 perforations ()^-inch diameter) per lineal foot in bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40). For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use 8-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40). ALTERNATE 1= PERFORATED PIPE AND RLTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL Sieve Size Percent Passina 1 inch 100 % inch 90-100 % inch 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 6-inch minimum 6 inch minimum / 6-inch minimum Filter fabric 6-inch minimum 6-Inch minimum RIter fabric 6-inch minimum B-2 Gravel Materiah 9 cubic feet per lineal foot. Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1 Graveh Clean %-inch rock or approved substitute. Filter Fabric: Mirafi 140 or approved substitute. ALTERNATE 2= PERI=ORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND RLTER FABRIC CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate F-2 Original ground surface to be restored with compacted fill Toe of slope as shown on grading plan Compacted. Fill V \ ^ Original ground surface D - Anticipated removal of unsuitable material (depth per geotechnical engineer) 1 Back-cut varies. For deep removals, backcut should be made no steeper than 11 (H:V), or flatter as necessary for safety considerations. Provide a 11 (H:V) minimum projection from toe of slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended removal depth. Slope height, site conditions, and/or local conditions could dictate flatter projections. FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL Plate F-3 Proposed grade Previously placed, temporary compacted fill for drainage only Unsuitable rnaterial. (to. be removed) Bedrock or approved native material To be removed before placing additional compacted fill REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL Plate F-4 Design finish slope Blanket fill (if recommended by the geotechnical consultant) Drainage per design civil engineer T 1 to 2 foot 15-foot typical drain spacing 2-foot minimum • depth key I 1 "^Toe •^\| 2-Percenf Grpriipnt- 15-foot minimum -or H/2 where H Is the slope height Typical benching (4-foot minimum) V ^— Bedrock or approved native material Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant Typical benching 4-inch-diameter non-perforated outlet pipe and backdrain (see detail Plate F-6). Outlets to be spaced at 100-foot maximum intervals and shall extend 2 feet beyond the face of slope at time of rough grading completion. At the completion of rough grading, the design civil engineer should provide recommendations to convey any outlet's discharge to a suitable conveyance, utilizing a non-erosive device. TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate F-5 4-inch minimunl pipe ^ 2-foot ^ minimum i-inch 1 linimum—' 2-foot minimum 4' mimi pipe 2-inch minimum J Filter Material: Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench. Alternative in Lieu of Filter Material: Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric. Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12 inches in all joints. Minimum 4-lnch-Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1527 Schedule 40, PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected to subdrain pipe with tee or elbow. Notes: 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil. 2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Filter Material shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. Gravel shall be of the following specificafion or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size Percent Passinq Sieve Size Percent Passinq 1 inch 100 1^2 inch 100 % inch 90-100 No. 4 50 % inch 40-100 No. 200 8 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate F-6 Toe of slope as shown on grading plan Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill Proposed grade Backcut varies 2-foot minimum in bedrock or rapproved earth material Bedrock or approved native material Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be provided by the geotechnical consultant. 2. The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon exposed conditions. FILL OVER NATURAL (SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate F-7 Cut/fill contact as shown on grading plan Proposed grade H - height of slope 15-foot minimum or H/2 where H is — I the slope height Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant Bedrock or approved native material NOTE: The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to construction of the fill portion. FILL OVER CUT DETAIL Plate F-8 Natural slope Proposed finish grade Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Compacted stablization fill Bedrock or other approved native material If recommended by the geotechnical consultant, the remaining cut portion of the slope may require removal and replacement with compacted fill. Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. Subdrains may be required as specified by the geotechnical consultant. 2 W shall be equipment width (15 feet) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. At no time, shall W be less than H/2, where H is the height of the slope. GeoSoilS} Inc, STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL Plate F-9 Proposed finish grade Natural grade H - height of slope t '^^'^'^'^'^-^^j- I ^'P^^^-»'-"nrnr|ii-||| . nimum ' ,^ . \ -^^^^^^^ 2-foot minimum key depth Bedrock or approved native material Typical benching (4-foot minimum) 15-foot minimum key widtfi or H/2 if H>30 feet Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. 15-foot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to backcut. 2. The need and disposition of drains will be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. 3. Pad overexcavafion and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the geotechnical consultant. SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL Plate F-10 Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 21 or flatter (may increase or decrease pad area) Overexcavate and recompact replacement Back-cut varies Natural grade Proposed finish grade Avoid and/or clean up spillage of materials on the natural slope 2-foot minimum I key width Bedrock or approved native material Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. Subdrain and key width requirements will be evaluated based on exposed subsurface conditions and thickness of overburden. 2. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical consultant. DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL Plate F-11 Natural grade Subgrade at 2 percent gradient, draining toward street Bedrock or approved native material 3- to 7-foot minimum* overexcavate and recompact per text of report Typical benching CUT LOT OR MATERIAL-TYPE TRANSITION Proposed pad grade Natural grade Typical benching Bedrock or approved native material overexcavate and recompact per text of report * Deeper overexcavation may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant in steep cut-fill transition areas, such that the underlying topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) (4-foot minimum) CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate F-1 2 VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE Proposed finish grade (E)- (E) Hold-down depth I (A) cO-« 15-foot- \ ) minii J5-foo^ minimum <oco (B) (D) •mmmmmmmm'' Bedrock or approved native material VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE Proposed finish grade (C) 5-foot minimum Bedrock or approved native material NOTES: A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows). B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow shall be no greater than 100 feet. C. tf approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed direclty on competent material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction. D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended. E. Clear area for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools; Hold-down depth as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction or as recommended. G. After fill between windrows is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate F-1 3 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS Fill lifts compacted over rock after embedment I Compacted Fill Granular material 1 I Size of excavation to I be commensurate | with rock size | ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding Layer one rock high Proposed finish grade PRORLE ALONG LAYER • Hold-down depth »* Clear zone TOP VIEW Layer one rock high • Hold-down depth or below lowest utility as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, and swimming pools, as specified in text of report. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate F-1 4 5-foot-high impact/debris wall METHOD 1 Pad grade 5-foot-high impact/debris wall METHOD 2 Pad grade Existing grade 5-foot-wide catchment area 5-foot-high impact/debris wall METHODS Pad grade Existing grade 2-1 (h:v) slope 2-1 (h-v) slope METHOD 4 Pad grade NOT TO SCALE GwSoils, Inc, DEBRIS DEVICE CONTROL METHODS DETAIL Plate F-1 5 Rock-filled gabion basket Filter fabric mmmm 11 5-foot tranhnjm or aa recommended by geotechnical cori»Jtant Proposed grade Drain rock Compacted fill Gabion impact or diversion wall should be constructed at the base of the ascending slope subject to rock fall. Walls need to be constructed with high segments that sustain impact and mitigate potential for overtopping, and low segment that provides channelization of sediments and debris to desired depositional area for subsequent clean-out. Additional subdrain may be recommended by geotechnical consultant. From C3SA 1987 G^'^igii&i'llnc. ROCK FALL MITIGATION DETAIL Plate F-1 6 I 5 feet I 2 feet / Ifoot \ . I u_ - 5 feet I I I 2-foot X 2-foot X )4~inch steel plate Standard %-inch pipe nipple welded to top of plate %-inch X 5-foot galvanized pipe, standard pipe threads top and bottom; extensions threaded on both ends and added in 5-foot increments 3-inch schedule 40 PVC pipe sleeve, add in 5-foot increments with glue joints Proposed finish grade 5 feet •/- Pro — Bottom of cleanout Provide a minimum 1-foot bedding of compacted sand NOTES= 1. Locations of settlement plates should be clearly marked and readily visible (red flagged) to equipment operators. 2. Contractor should maintain clearance of a 5-foot radius of plate base and withiin 5 feet (vertical) for heavy equipment. Fill within clearance area should be hand compacted to project specifications or compacted by alternative approved method by the geotechnical consultant (in writing, prior to construction). 3. After 5 feet (vertical) of fill is in place, contractor should maintain a 5-foot radius equipment clearance from riser. 4. Place and mechanically hand compact initial 2 feet of fill prior to establishing the initial reading. 5. In the event of damage to the settlement plate or extension resulting from equipment operating within the specified clearance area, contractor should immediately notify the geotechnical consultant and should be responsible for restoring the settlement plates to working order. 6. An alternate design and method of installation may be provided at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. GeoSaiiSfJnc, SETTLEMENT PUTE AND RISER DETAIL Plate F-1 8 Finish grade %-inch-diameter X 6-inch-long carriage bolt or equivalent 6-inch diameter X 3)2-inch-long hole Concrete backfill TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT Plate F-1 9 SIDE VIEW Test pit TOP VIEW Flag -50 feet r Spoil pile j^^^ Flag Vehicle 50 feet- -100 feet- G^^Sii^^^c. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM Plate F-20