Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-02; CALAVERA HILLS; GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2002-01-296t oo-^§2 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH PROPERTY, CITY OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MCMILLIN CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2727 HOOVER AVENUE NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORN(A 91950 W.O. 3098-A1 -SC JANUARY 29, 2002 ^ AUG B 2 Z002 ENGINEERING Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 January 29, 2002 W.O. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Construction, Inc. 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation ofthe Robertson Ranch Property. City of Carlsbad San Diego County, California "'>"c»u, Dear Mr. Mitchell: In accordance with your request. GeoSoils. Inc. (GSI) has completed a geotechnical evaluationo the Robertson Ranch PropertyintheCity of Carlsbad,Callforn^ of ourstudyisto evaluate the nature of earth rnaterialsunderlylng the site to de^^^^^^ feasibility of residential and commercial construction from a geotechnical viewprt Th^ report presents the findings of our work. Based on our findings TnTanaiys^ n'rZir"'?°"' preparation, earthwork and foundations^re provided fo; preliminary planning purposes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY aeofon^r '^^^^ available data (Appendix A), field exploration (Appendix C). and geologic and engineenng analysis, the proposed construction appears to be feasible from nlnn I ""^""P^'"'' P'"^'^^^ recommendations presented in the text ofthis report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: " Earth materials unsuitable for the support of structures, settlement sensitive improvements, and/or compacted fill generally consist of existing artificial fill colluvial soil, slump deposits, near-surface alluvium, and near-surface highly weathered formational earth materials (i.e., sedimentary and/or igneous bedrock) Complete to partial removals of tributary alluvium (on the order of 5 to 25 feet) should be anticipated. Partial removals within valley alluvial areas are anticipated to be on the order of approximately 5 to 6 feet, on to depths where saturated alluvial deposits are encountered. Removals on sloping areas, including colluvium and near-surface weathered formational earth materials are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 5 feet thick throughout the majority of the site. An evaluation of rock hardness and rippability indicates that moderately difficult to very difficult ripping should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations in areas undedain by metavolcanics/granitics; however localized areas of shallower practical refusal should be anticipated. Rock requiring blasting to excavate will likely be encountered below these depths. Overexcavation should be considered in dense metavolcanic/granitics in proposed pads and street areas. Overexcavation is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Analysis performed to date indicates that the existing, west-facing natural slope located above Tamarack Drive is stable (i.e., factor of safety >1.0), but does not possess a minimum (per code, which is the industry standard) factor of safety of 1.5 (static) or 1.1 (seismic), typically required by most governing agencies. Tentatively, a minimum structural setback of at least 50± feet from the top of the existing slope will remove structures from areas with a factor of safety of less than 1.5 (static), and provide appropriate mitigation. Additional work regarding natural slope stability is in progress. Other than the above, planned cut and fill slopes are considered to be generally stable, assuming that these slopes are maintained and/or constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in this report; however, west-facing cut slopes constructed in sedimentary bedrock (Santiago Formation) may require stabilization due to adverse bedding. Liquefaction analyses indicate that alluvial soils are generally susceptible to liquefaction; however, damaging deformations should be essentially mitigated by maintaining a minimum 10-to 15-feet thick, non-liquefiable soil layer beneath any proposed improvement. Groundwater was generally encountered at depths on the order of 6 to 30 feet below existing grades. Alluvial soils left in-place will settle due to the addition of foundation and fill loads. The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed above the alluvium. For preliminary planning purposes, it may be anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the primary consolidation will occur within two to five months. For fill loads on the order of 15 to 25 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 13± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 2 to 6± inches should be anticipated for this condition. For fill loads on the order of 5 to 10 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2± inches should be anticipated forthis condition. Our experience in the site vicinity indicates that alluvial soils are generally represented by an "R"-value of 12, terrace deposits by an "R"-value of 19, and volcanic/granitic bedrock by an "R"-value of 45. Soils onsite have a generally low to high expansion potential, but should generally be in the low expansive range. McMillin Construction, Inc. \N.O. 3098-A1-SC Flle:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page Two GcoSoils, Inc. Site soils are anticipated to have a negligible to moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and are considered highly corrosive (when saturated) to buried metals, based on the available data. • Conventional foundation systems may be used for very low to medium expansive soil conditions and relatively shallow fill areas (<30 feet). Post tension foundations may be used for all categories of expansive soil conditions, and are exclusively recommended for highly expansive soil conditions, deep fill areas (>30 feet), areas with fill thickness differentials exceeding a ratio of 3:1, and in areas undedain with saturated alluvial sediments left in place. The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully sub GeoSoils, Inc./^fg^ Civil Engineer, RCE Engineering Geologl^VXJ RGC/DWS/JPF/EPLVjh Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) T&B Planning Consultants, Attention: Mr. Joel Morse McMillin Construction, Inc. File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1 .geo w.o. 3098-A1-SG Page Three GcoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 SITE DESCRIPTION 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 FIELD WORK-FINDINGS 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 4 EARTH MATERIALS 4 Stockpile (Map Symbol - Stockpile) 4 Existing Fill (Map Symbol - afu) 4 Surficial Slump Deposits (Map Symbol - Ols) 5 Colluvium (Not Mapped) 5 Alluvium (Map Symbol - QaU and Oaie) 5 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) 6 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa) 6 Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr) 6 MASS WASTING 6 GROUNDWATER 7 REGIONAL SEISMICITY 7 LABORATORY TESTING 9 Classification 9 Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density 9 Expansion Index Testing 11 Direct Shear Tests 11 Consolidation Testing 11 Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Umits 11 Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity 12 SEISMIC HAZARDS 12 Liquefaction 12 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS 14 Dynamic Settlements 14 SUBSIDENCE 15 GcoSoils, Inc. ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION 15 Rock Hardness and Rippability 15 SLOPE STABILITY 16 Gross Stability ^ ^ 16 Surficial Stability 15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 General 16 RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION 17 General 17 Site Preparation 17 Removals 13 Overexcavation/Transitions 18 Fill Placement and Suitability 19 Rock Disposal 19 Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less 19 Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter. 20 Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter 20 Rock Excavation and Fill 21 Subdrains 21 Earthwork Balance 22 Shrinkage/Bulking 22 Erosion Control 22 Slope Considerations and Slope Design 22 Graded Slopes 22 Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes 22 Temporary Construction Slopes 23 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 23 General 23 RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS 23 General 23 Preliminary Foundation Design 24 Bearing Value 24 Lateral Pressure , 24 Construction 24 POST TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN 26 General 26 Subgrade Preparation 27 Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting 28 Underslab Moisture Barrier 28 McMillin Construction, Inc. " Table of Contents File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1 .geo Pagg jj GcoSoils, Inc. SETBACKS 28 SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY 29 SETTLEMENT 29 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 29 General 29 Restrained Walls 30 Cantilevered Walls 30 Wall Backfill and Drainage 31 Retaining Wall Footing Transitions 31 Top-of-Slope Walls 32 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 32 PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS 33 General 33 Subgrade 34 Base 34 Paving 34 Drainage 35 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 35 Exterior Flatwork 35 Additional Site Improvements 35 Landscape Maintenance and Planting 36 Drainage 36 Trench Backfill 36 PLAN REVIEW 37 LIMITATIONS 37 McMillin Construction, Inc. Table of Contents Flle:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page ili GcoSoils, Inc. FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map 10 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs and Test Pits Rear of Text Appendix C - Boring Logs and Test Pits (GSI, 2001 c) Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data Rear of Text Appendix E - Laboratory Data (GSI, 2001c) Rear of Text Appendix F - Slope Stability Rear of Text Appendix G - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text Plate 1 and 2 - Geotechnical Maps Rear of Text in Pocket McMillin Construction, Inc. Table of Contents File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1 .geo Page iv GcoSoils, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH PROPERTY. CITY OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CAUFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). 2. Geologic site reconnaissance. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of six (6) small diameter borings with a hollow stem auger drill rig and 44 exploratory trench excavations using a rubber tire backhoe (Appendix B). 4. " Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program (Appendix D). 5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is approximately 400 acres in size, consisting predominantly of several north to south trending ridgelines separated by intervening south flowing, alluviated drainages located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (See Site Location Map, Figure 1). Relief across ridges and the inten/ening drainages varies from approximately 40 to 50 feet within the eastern half of the property to approximately 100 to 125 feet within the western portion of the site. Overall relief throughout the site varies from an approximate elevation of 200 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) within the northwestern portion ofthe property, down to an elevation of approximately 30 feet MSL within the south central portion of the property. The largest of the drainage courses is located along the eastern boundary of the site and appears to be occupied by an ephemeral creek. The majority of the site is used for farming, primarily within alluviated drainage areas and on gentle slopes. Steeper slopes are relatively undeveloped and support native vegetation. Site drainage is directed southward toward Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on a review of the 100-scale Tentative Lotting Study, prepared by T&B Planning Consultants (TBC), Robertson Ranch will be developed as a master planned community consisting of approximately 665 residential building sites, 208 multi-family structures, 160 affordable housing units, commercial property, park/recreation property, a school site GcoSoils, Inc. 3-D TopoQuads Copyright © 1999 DcLorme Yannouth, ME (M09« Source Data: USGS Base Map: San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California—San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photorevised, 1975), by USGS, r=2000' 1/2 Scale Miles N Raproducad with parmitsion aranted by Thoma* Bros. Maps. This map Is copyrlghtad by Thomas Bros. Maps. It Is unlawful to copy or raproduca all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. W.O. 3098-A1-SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 and open space. Associated roadways and underground improvements are also planned. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated in orderto create building pads. The tentative study (TBC, 2001) indicates that cut and fills on the order of 40 and 50 feet in height, respectively, may be constructed. Fill slopes, and cut slopes exposing sedimentary bedrock, are anticipated to be constructed at gradients on the order of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 30 feet. Cut slopes exposing dense undifferentiated volcanic/granitic bedrock may be constructed at gradients on the order of 1.5:1, or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 20 feet. Maximum cut excavation appears to be on the order of 30 to 40 feet, while planned fills also appear to be on the order of 30 to 40 feet in thickness. Maximum fill thickness to be placed over areas where alluvium will be left in place appears to be on the order of 10 to 20 feet. Once remedial removals are completed in fill areas, the overall maximum fill depths may reach 40 to 60 feet. Planned grading quantities for the East Ranch area are 965,000 cubic yards (cy.) of fill and 884,000 cy. of cut over approximately 110 graded acres. Planned grading quantities for the West Ranch area are approximately 1,383,000 cy. of fill and 1,467,000 cy. of cut over approximately 160 graded acres. These quantities do not include remedial earthwork recommended in this report. FIELD WORK-FINDINGS The findings presented below are based on work completed in preparation of this report and previous work completed by this office (GSI, 2001c). This body of field work consists of field mapping, seismic survey, backhoe test pits, and hollow stem auger drill rig borings, as well as laboratory testing. Subsurface conditions were explored for this study in October, 2001, and January, 2002, by excavating six (6) exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 44 exploratory test pits with a rubber tire backhoe. A previous study (GSI, 2001 c) completed nine (9) exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 11 exploratory test pits with a backhoe. All exploratory excavations were completed in orderto determine the soil and geologic profiles, obtain samples of representative materials, and delineate soil and geologic parameters that may affect the proposed development. Boring and excavation depths ranged from 2 feet to 51 Va feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of the borings and test pits are presented in Appendix B and Appendix C. The approximate locations ofthe exploratory excavations are indicated on the attached Geotechnical Maps, Plate 1 and Plate 2. Plate 1 and Plate 2 use the 100-scale tentative lotting study prepared by TBC (2001), as a base. In addition to our subsurface exploration, field mapping of earth material and a seismic refraction survey (GSI, 2001c) was performed. A discussion of seismic refraction field procedures is presented in a later section of this report. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-A-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 Flle:e:\wp7\3000\3098a.geo Page 3 GcoSoils, Inc. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, south to Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. In the Peninsular Ranges, relatively younger sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas. Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore fault zone and the San Jacinto fault zones trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas fault zone borders the northeasteriy margin ofthe province, whereas, a fault related to the San Andreas Transform Fault System, the Newport-lnglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone exists near the western margin and Continental Borderiand geomorphic province. As discussed in a later section ofthis report, the site is located east of the Rose Canyon fault zone. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials within the site consist predominantly of stockpile soil and rock, existing soil fill, surficial landslide (slump) deposits, colluvium, alluvium. Pleistocene-age terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Eocene-age Santiago Formation and undifferentiated Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic/ granitic (igneous) bedrock. Preliminary recommendations for site preparation and treatment of the earth materials encountered are discussed in the earthwork recommendations section ofthis report. The general distribution of earth materials are shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Stockpile (Map Svmbol - Stockpile) A large stockpile of soils and rock fragments is located within the eastern portion of the property. This material is not considered suitable for foundation and/or fill support unless it is removed, moisture conditioned and placed as properly compacted fill. Existinq Fill (Map Svmbol - afu) Minor amounts of existing fill are scattered throughout the project site as small embankments for dirt roads or level pads for existing farm structures. These materials typically consist of silts and sands derived from the underiying native soils and appear to be on the order of 1 to 5 feet thick where observed. Existing fills are not considered suitable for structural support unless these materials are removed, moisture conditioned and placed compacted fill. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-A-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a.geo Page 4 GcoSoils, Inc. Surficial Slump Deposits (Map Svmbol - Qls) Slump deposits were noted throughout the site in a previous feasibility study by Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985). The presence of these features were based solely on geomorphic expression (landforms), without the benefit of subsurface exploration. Field mapping performed also noted several geomorphic features suggestive of slope instability. Where encountered in our exploratory excavations, these deposits consist of sandy clay with fi-agments of sedimentary bedrock. Based on our field mapping and additional subsurface exploration, tiiese "slump" deposits are considered to be relatively shallow (i.e., less than approximately 10 feet) and should not significantly affect site development! These soils are not considered suitable forthe support of fills and structures and should be removed and recompacted. Colluvium (Not Mapped) Where encountered, colluvium is on the order of 2 to 6 feet thick, and consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy clay. These materials are typically dry to moist, loose to medium dense (sands), stiff (clays) and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for structural support unless these soils are removed, moisture conditioned and placed as compacted fill. Expansion testing (GSI, 2001 c) and this study, indicates that tfiese soils range from very low to medium expansive. Large dessication cracks in colluvial soils are visible at the surface in some areas undedain with sedimentary bedrock (map symbol Tsa), and may indicate highly expansive soils. Alluvium (Map Svmbol - QaL and Qalp) Alluvial soils onsite appear to occur within two distinct depositional environments onsite. One is characterized as tributary alluvium (Qal/O, deposited within smaller canyons and gullies disecting slope areas, and valley alluvium (Oaie), deposited within the larger, broad flood plains located along the eastern and southern sides of the project. Where encountered, alluvial sediments consist of sandy clay and clayey/silty sand. Clayey sands are typically loose to medium dense while sandy clays are stiff. Alluvium ranges from generally damp to wet above the groundwater table, to saturated at and below the groundwater table. Tributary alluvium is anticipated to range in thickness from approximately 5 to 35 feet, while valley alluvium was encountered to the depths explored (approximately 51 feet; this study, and GSI [2001 cj). Alluvium soils above the groundwatertable is not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presence of groundwater, alluvial removals will be generally limited in depth. Complete to partial removals to saturated sediments on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within areas underiain by tributary alluvium (Qa\p). Within areas underiain by valley alluvium (Oaie), complete alluvial removals are not feasible. Minimally, the uppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be McMillin Construction, Inc. ~~~~~ W.O. 3098-A1-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 5 GcoSoils, Inc. removed and recompacted. Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Terrace Deposits (Map Svmbol - Qt) Mid- to late-Pleistocene terrace deposits encountered onsite consist of earth materials which vary from silty sand to sandy/silty clay. These sediments are typically yellowish brown to brown and olive brown, slightly moist to moist and medium dense/stiff. Terrace deposits are generally considered suitable forthe support of structures and engineered filL Bedding structure observed within these materials in road cuts along El Camino Real display a generally massive to a weakly developed subhorizontal orientation. Santiaao Formation (Map Svmbol - Tsa) Sandstone, clayey siltstone and claystone sedimentary bedrock belonging to Eocene-age Santiago Formation was encountered onsite. These deposits occur predominantly within the western half of the property. These materials are considered suitable for structural support. Bedding structure obsen/ed in ourtest pit excavations, road cuts along El Camino Real and in outcrop within canyon bottoms indicates a general northeriy trend with an westerly dip on the order of 6 to 28 degrees. Locally, bedding was obsen/ed to trend northeasteriy, dipping 2 southeast and 19 degrees northwest. Undifferentiated laneous Bedrock (Map Svmbol - Jsp/Kar) Undifferentiated igneous bedrock onsite consists of metavolcanic rock belonging to the Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics and/or granitic rock belonging to the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. Where encountered in our exploratory test pits and observed in outcrop, these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular weathered zone (up to 272 to 4 feet thick) consisting of dry, medium dense materials which excavate to silty sand and angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Seismic reft-action surveys in the area are discussed in the rock hardness and rippability section of this report. Fractures observed within this material are typically high angle (i.e., 45 degrees or steeper) and closely spaced, on the order of 1 to 30 inches. Fracture orientations appear to vary from east-northeast to northwest to north-south. MASS WASTING Field mapping and subsurface exploration performed in preparation ofthis report did not indicate the presence of any deep seated landsliding, and these features were not noted during our review of available published documents (Appendix A). A review of a previous feasibility evaluation completed by Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985) referred to several "landforms" which may be suggestive of slumps and/or small landslides. These features were generally located within the toe areas of natural slopes developed in terrace deposits McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-A1 -SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1 .geo Page 6 GcoSoils, Inc. orthe Santiago Formation. Field mapping, a review of aerial photographs and subsurface exploration completed by this office has fijrther defined the extent of these features. Our findings indicate that these features are relatively shallow (i.e., 10 feet, or less), and are not anticipated to significantiy affect site development. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in test pits and test borings completed in preparation ofthis report and in previous test borings (GSI, 2001c) within alluvial materials (map symbol - Oaie) located along the southeastern and eastern margins ofthe site, as well as within the extreme western end ofthe site. Depths to groundwater encountered within alluvium (map symbol - Qalg) ranged from approximately 6 feet to 14 feet below existing grades, with depths shallowing to the west. The presence of bedrock materials, with lower moisture content beneath the alluvium, suggest that groundwater is generally perched within the alluvial section. Groundwater was also locally encountered at depth within tributary alluvium (map symbol - Qal^. The depth to groundwater in these deposits ranged ft-om approximately 6 to 30 feet below grade; however, groundwater was not always encountered. In general, depths to groundwater are relatively shallow where tributary alluvium (Qa^ feeds, or interfingers, with valley alluvium (Qalg). with the depth increasing as the alluvial deposits extend up into each tributary drainage. These obsen/ations reflect site conditions at the time of our field evaluation and do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future from heavy irrigation or precipitation. REGIONAL SEISMICITY No known active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the site on published maps (Jennings, 1994). No evidence for active faulting was obsen/ed during field mapping; however, at least two lineaments were observed and reported in Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985). One of these lineaments was mapped within a canyon area trending northwest through the central portion ofthe property. Field mapping by this office did not encounter any faulting. This canyon, as well as many of the alluviated and/or incised drainages cutting portions ofthe site underiain bythe Santiago Formation (see Plate 1 and Plate 2) trend approximately 5 to 30 degrees west of due north. This orientation appears to be generally consistent with the trend of bedding structure, and may therefore, be controlled by bedding and not faulting. The eastern lineament was mapped (L&A, 1985) where alluvium is juxtaposed against undifferentiated igneous bedrock. Based on the general lack of geomorphic expression and the absence of faulted Holocene earth material, these features are not considered manifestations of active faulting, and are therefore not anticipated to affect site development. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1.geo Page 7 GcoSoils, Inc. There are a number of faults in the southern California area which are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source ofan earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone and the Rose Canyon- Newport-lnglewood (RCNI) fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking, at the site may be considered as approximately similarto the southern California region as a whole. The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1-sigma attenuation cun/es developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file. If afault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible") and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations fi-om an upper bound (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.31 g to 0.36g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.17g to 0.19g. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FAULT NAME MILES (KM) Catalina Escarpment 38 (61) Coronado Bank-Agua Bianca 23(37) Elsinore 22 (36) La Nacion 23 (37) Newport-lnglewood-Offshore 10(17) Rose Canyon . 7(11) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol 33 (53) The possibility of ground shaking at the site may be considered similar to the southern California region as a whole. The relationship of the site location to these major mapped McMillin Construction, Inc. W O 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File;e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 8 GcoSoils, Inc. faults is indicated on the California Fault Map (Figure 2). Our field obsen/ations and review of readily available geologic data indicate that no known active faults cross the site. A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using FRISK89 (Blake, 1997). Based on this analysis, a range of peak horizontal ground accelerations from 0.19g to 0.28g should be used for seismic design. This value was considered as It corresponds to a 1Q percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 year return period). Selection ofthis design event is important as it is the level of risk assumed by tiie Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) minimum design requirements. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of approximately 6.9. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration logs in Appendix B. Laboratorv Standard-Maximum Drv Densitv To determine 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 MAXIMUM DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) HB-1 @5'-10' 127.0 10.5 TP-26 @ 2'-3' 114.0 13.0 *TP-10@7' 120.5 13.0 *B-2 @ 5" 128.0 10.0 *B-6 @ 4' 126.0 11.0 * Location and testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 c) McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Flle;e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo w.o. 3098-Al-SC January 29, 2002 Page 9 GcoSoils, Inc. SAN FRANCiSCO SITE LOCATION (-f): Latitude - 33.1535 N Longitude - 117.2897 W calavera hills CALIFORNIA FAULT w.o. 3098-A1-SC Figure 2 Expansion Index Testina Expansion index testing was performed on representative soil samples of colluvium and terrace deposits in general accordance with Standard No. 18-2 ofthe Uniform Building Code (UBC). The test results are presented below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC. LOCATION SOIL TYPE EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL TP-1 @ 0-3" Sandy CLAY 61 Medium TP-1 @ 4'-5' Sandy SILT 25 Low TP-2 @ 3'-5' CLAY 60 Medium TP-38 @ 3'-5' SAND 4 Very Low *TM @ 1'-2' Silty SAND 1 Very Low *TP-10@7'-8' Sandy CLAY 102 High *B-2 @ 5" Sandy CLAY 32 Low *B-6 @ 4" Silty SAND 19 Very Low * Location and testing completed in preparation of GSI ( 2001c) Direct Shear Tests Shear testing was performed on a remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080. Results of shear testing (this study) are presented as Plates D-1 through D-6 in Appendix D. Testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 c) is included in this report as Appendix E. Consolidation Testina Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435. Test results (this study) are presented as Plates D-7 through D-14 in Appendix D. Testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001c) is included in this report as Appendix E, Sieve Analvsis/Atterberq Limits Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D-422. Atterberg Limits were determined in general McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo W.O. 3098-Al-SC January 29, 2002 Page 11 GcoSoils, Inc. accordance with ASTM test method D-4318. Test results (this study) are presented as Plates D-15 through D-25 in Appendix D. Testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 c) is included in this report as Appendix E. Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivitv A representative sample of soil was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and potential corrosion to ferrous metals. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results, site soils appear to have a negligible potential for corrosion to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). The results of pH testing indicates that site soils are neutral to slightly acidic Resistivity test results indicate that site soils are highly corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated. Highly corrosive soils are considered to be generally in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 ohms-cm. SEISMIC HAZARDS The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation ofthe site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, typical site development procedures, and recommendationsfor mitigation provided herein: Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Tsunami • Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any ofthe nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than fi-om those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overiying, non-saturated soil, as excess pore water dissipates. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 Flle:e;\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 12 GcoSoils, Inc. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions must exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed large amount of cementation: 2) sediments must consist mainly of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience seismic event of a sufficient duration and large enough magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. At the subject site, all of the conditions which are necessary for liquefaction to occur exist. One ofthe primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater normal effective stress acting on saturated sediments at any given depth and liquefaction susceptibility decreases with increased normal effective stress; and 2) age, cementation, and relative density of sediments generally increase with depth. Thus, as the depth to the water table increases, and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative density, and confining normal stresses increase, the less likely they are to liquefy during a seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential where groundwater is greater than 30 feet in depth and virtually unknown below 60 feet. Following an analysis of the laboratory data and boring logs, representative soil profiles were established to evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils onsite. The depth to groundwater encountered in our borings was used in the analyses (i.e., 9 to 14 feet). The liquefaction analyses were performed using a peak site acceleration of 0.28g for an upper bound event of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. A review of GSI (2001c) indicates that portions of the site underiain by alluvium have soil deposits that display a factor of safety of 1.25 or less against liquefaction (note: a factor of safety of 1.25 is recommended by Seed and Idriss, 1982). Based on our analysis ofthe liquefaction potential within alluvial areas ofthe site, and the relationships of Ishihara (1985). it is our opinion that damaging deformations should not adversely affect the proposed development provided that a minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (i.e., compacted fill plus alluvium above the water table) is provided beneath any given structure. This also assumes that the existing groundwater table does not significantly rise above its current level. Assuming that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction ofthe project, the potential for damage ft-om liquefaction should be sufficiently mitigated. The use of canyon subdrains will also aide the mitigation of the liquefaction potential onsite. McMillin Construction, Inc. ~~ ' W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1.geo Pagg .^^ GcoSoils, Inc. SETTLEMENT ANALY.qi.g GSI has estimated the potential magnitudes of total settlement, differential settlement and angular distortion for the site. The analyses were based on laboratory test results and subsurface data collected fi-om borings completed in preparation of this study and GSI (2001c). Site specific conditions affecting settlement potential include depositional environment, gram size and lithology of sediments, cementing agents, stress history moisture history, material shape, density, void ratio, etc. Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression of the left-in-place alluvium. The total amount of settlement and time over which It occurs is dependent upon various factors, including material type depth of fill depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of subsurface matenals. Compacted fills, to the thicknesses anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive settlement (on the order of V2 to 1 inch). Some post-constmction settlement of the left-in-place alluvium is expected, however, with 50 percent consolidation occurring within approximately 2 to 5 months, and 90 percent consolidation occurring within approximately 4 to 18 months after grading has been completed. The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed above the alluvium. For preliminary planning purposes, it may be anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the primary consolidation will occur within 2 to 5 montiis. For fill loads on the order of 15 to 25 feet the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 13± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 2 to 6± inches should be anticipated. For fill loads on the order of 5 to 10 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4± inches Differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2± inches should be anticipated. This settlement should be monitored and revised based on actual field data. Settlement monuments are recommended dunng construction. Monument locations would be best provided during 40-scale plan review. Work in progress will continue to delineate the magnitude ofthe settlement potential onsite. Dvnamic Settlements Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event (or by some man made means) can produce settlements in sands both above and below the groundwater table. This phenomena is commonly referred to as dynamic settlement and is most prominent in relatively clean sands, but can also occur in other soil materials. The primary factor controlling earthquake induced settlement in saturated sand, is the cyclic stress ratio In dry sands earthquake induced settlements are controlled by both cyclic shear strain and volumetric strain control. On site, the alluvial materials are loose and could generate volumetric consolidation during a seismic event. An analysis of potential dynamic settlements, due to the occurrence ofthe identified maximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, has been performed. Based on this analysis, to 1 inch of settlement could occur within alluvium during a maximum credible seismic event. McMillin Construction, Inc. ' w O -iOQR A1 c^r Robertson Ranch. Carlsbad Tanua J 2^2002 Fiie:e:\wpA3000\3098a1.geo ' Page 14 GcoSoils, Inc. SUBSIDENCE Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering ofthe ground surface occurs as a result of a number of processes. These include dynamic loading during grading, fill loading, fault activity or fault creep as well as groundwater withdrawal. An analysis of fill loading is presented in the previous section. Ground subsidence (consolidation) due to vibrations would depend on the equipment being used, the weight ofthe equipment, repetition of use and the dynamic effects ofthe equipment. Most ofthese factors cannot be determined and may be beyond ordinary estimating possibilities. However, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other that fill loading would be relatively minor (on the order of 1 inch or less, which should occur during grading), and should not significantly affect site development. The effect of fill loading on alluvial soil has been evaluated in the previous section. ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION Rock Hardness and Rippability Field mapping and subsurface exploration indicate the presence of undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock at or near the surface within the northeastern portion ofthe site. Based on previous work performed by this office (GSI, 2001 c), comparisons of seismic velocities and ripping perfonnance developed by Church (1982) and the Caterpillar Tractor Company (1983), the following conclusions regarding rock hardness and rippability are provided. 1. In general, little ripping to soft ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 2 to 3 feet of existing elevations. 2. In general, soft to medium ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations. 3. Undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock requiring extremely hard ripping or blasting to excavate may likely be encountered below depths on the order of 5 to 10 feet below existing elevations. It should be anticipated, that due to the presence of dense outcrops throughout the area, however, isolated boulders or hard spots will be encountered at any depth during grading and trenching. These hard zones will likely require specialized equipment such as rock breakers or rock saws to excavate, and blasting may not be entirely precluded in areas where it was not previously anticipated nor at any depth or location on the site. Overexcavation should be considered in dense rock in proposed street areas to approximately 1 foot below lowest utility invert in order to facilitate utility construction; however, this is not a geotechnical requirement. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 15 GcoSoils, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY Gross Stabilitv Based on available data, including a review of GSI (2001c), it appears that graded fill slopes up to approximately 50 feet in height will be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Cut slopes constructed to heights on the order of 40 feet in terrace deposits and earth materials belonging to the Santiago Formation are anticipated to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance; however, west- facing cut slopes constructed in the Santiago Formation may exhibit adverse (out of slope) bedding orientations and may require stabilization or buttressing. Cut slopes constructed to the anticipated heights in competent undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock should perform adequately at gradients of 1.5:1 (h:v) or flatter, and are considered to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Stability of the existing west and northwest facing natural slope, located in the extreme western portion of the site was evaluated. This slope varies up to approximately 100 feet in height and achieves an approximate maximum slope gradient varying ft-om approximately 1.5 to 2.5:1 to (h:v). Based on our recent analysis (Appendix F) using the available soil parameters, the slope appears to be stable; however, an Inadequate to marginal factor of safety has been determined (i.e., 1.3 to 1.5 static and 1.0 to 1.1 seismic). The results of our slope stability analysis performed in preparation ofthis report is included as Appendix F. Geologic cross sections used in our analysis of natural slope stability are included herein as Figures F-1 through F-4. Site specific analysis is recommended once grading plans have been developed. All cut slope construction will require obsen/ation during grading in order to verify the findings and conclusions presented herein and in subsequent reports. Our analysis assumes that graded slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines provided bythe City of Carisbad, the Uniform Building Code and recommendations provided by this office. Surficial Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes constructed of compacted fills and/or bedrock material. Our analysis indicates that proposed slopes exhibit an adequate factor of safety (i.e., > 1.5) against surficial faiiure, provided that the slopes are properly constructed and maintained. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed development frorri McMillin Construction, Inc. ~ " W.O 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Pagg GcoSoils, Inc. a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. Corrosion and expansion potential. Subsurface water and potential for perched water. Rock hardness. Slope stability. Liquefaction potential. Settlement potential. Regional seismicity and faulting. The recommendations presented herein considerthese as well as other aspects ofthe site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Carisbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix G, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 Flle:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 17 GcoSoils, Inc. Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Removals Alluvial soils above the groundwatertable are not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presence of groundwater within areas ofthe site underiain with alluvium, removals will be generally limited in depth bythe presence of groundwater. Removals on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within tributary canyon areas. Within areas underiain by valley alluvium, complete alluvial removals are not feasible. Minimally, the uppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be removed and recompacted. Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Typical removal depths within fill areas are also shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Stabilization of removal bottoms in valley alluvium may be necessary prior tofill placement. Tentatively, stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inches of IVz inch crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) may being considered and subsequently recommended, based on conditions exposed during grading. Removal depths on the order of 3 to 5 feet may be anticipated within areas underiain with terrace deposits (map symbol Qt), sedimentary bedrock (map symbol Tsa) and igneous bedrock (map symbol Jsp/Kgr). Deeper removal areas may occur locally and should be anticipated. Removal of slump deposits may vary on the order of 10 feet or less. Overexcavation/Transitions In orderto provide forthe uniform support of structures, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket is recommended for lots containing plan transitions. Any cut portion of the pad for the residence should be over excavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be over excavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. Maximum to minimum fill thickness within a given lot should not exceed ratio of 3:1, if conventional foundations are desired. Overexcavation is also recommended for cut lots exposing claystones and/or heterogenous material types (i.e., sand/clay) or hard rock. In pad areas underiain with undifferentiated igneous cock and alluvial soil (East Ranch area), overexcavations on the order of 10 to 15 feet should be anticipated within the hard rock portion of the pad. Overexcavation depths should be determined in the field based on site conditions. In orderto facilitate the construction of ftjture utilities within areas underlain by hard igneous rock, cut areas may be overexcavated to at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. This may be achieved by either excavating the entire right of way or line McMillin Construction, Inc. ' ~~~ W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29 2002 Flle;e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 18 GcoSoils, Inc. shooting along a particular utility alignment. This is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Overexcavation in pad areas should be sloped to drain toward streets. Fill Placement and Suitabiiity Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6 to 8± inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D-1557-91. If soil importation is planned, samples ofthe soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils should be relatively sandy and low expansive (i.e., expansion index less than 50). Rock Disposal During the course of grading, materials generated from hard rock areas (map symbol Jsp/Kgr) are anticipated to be of varying dimensions. For the purpose of this report, the materials may be described as either 8 inches or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than 36 inches. These three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be placed. Tentatively, disposal areas for oversized materials (i.e., 12 inches or greater) appear to be limited to existing canyon areas. Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less Since rock fragments along with granular materials are a major part ofthe native materials used in the grading of the site, a criteria is needed to facilitate the placement of these materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough grading, post- grading improvements, and serve as suitable compacted fill. 1. Fines and rock fragments 8 inches or less in one dimension may be placed as compacted fill cap materials within the building pads, slopes, and street areas as described below. The rock fi-agments and fines should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. The purpose for the 8-inch-diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized rock fragments into the fill under selected conditions (optimum moisture or above) surrounded with compacted fines. The 8-inch-diameter size also allows a greater volume of the rock fi-agments to be handled during grading, while staying in reasonable limits for later onsite excavation equipment (i.e., backhoes) to excavate footings and utility lines. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e;\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 19 GcoSoils, Inc. 2. Fill materials 8 inches or less in one dimension should be placed (but not limited to) within the upper 5 feet of proposed fill pads, the upper 3 feet of overexcavated cut areas on cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width. Overexcavation is discussed later in this report. Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter 1. During the process of excavation, rock fi-agments or constituents larger than 8 inches in one dimension will be generated. These oversized materials, greaterthan 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, may be incorporated into the fills utilizing a series of rock blankets. 2. Each rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension along with sufficient fines generated from the proposed cuts and overburden materials generated ft-om removal areas. The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 inches in thickness and should be placed with granular fines which are flooded into and around the rock fragments effectively, to fill all voids. 3. Rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert within the street right-of-way, 5 feet below finish grade on the proposed fill lots, and a minimum of 15 horizontal feet from any fill slope surface. 4. Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wheel rolling methods with scrapers and watertrucks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers. Equipment traffic should be routed over each lift. Given the rocky nature ofthis material, sand cone and nuclear densometer testing methods are often found to be ineffective. Where such testing methods are infeasible, the most effective means to evaluate compaction efforts by the contractor would be to excavate test pits at random locations to check those factors pertinent to performance of rock fills; moisture content, gradation of rock fragments and matrix material and presence of any apparent void spaces, 5. Each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow. Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter 1. Oversize rock greater than 36 inches in one dimension should be placed in single rock windrows. The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width apart, whichever is greatest. 2. The void spaces between rocks in windrows should be filled with the more granular soils by flooding them into place. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al -SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 Flle:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 20 GcoSoils, Inc. 3. A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock windrow should be maintained. Also, the windrows should be staggered ft-om lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be placed closer than 15 feet ft-om the face of fill slopes. 4. Larger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill or dense natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried. After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other), granular fill material should be fiooded into the trench to fill the voids. The oversize rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet at a particular elevation and at least 15 feet from any slope face. Trenches at higher elevations should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of compacted fill between the top of one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. Placement of rock into these trenches should be underthe ftjil-time inspection ofthe soils engineer. 5. ^ Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space "green belt" areas that would be designated as non-structural fills. Rock Excavation and Fill 1. If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to proposed cut slopes and structural pad areas. Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the building pads and affected cut slopes. 2. Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials which may othenrt/ise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials is produced and that sufficient fines (sands and gravel) to fill all void spaces are present. This procedure would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced. Subdrains Based on a review of Plate 1 and Plate 2, subdrains will be recommended at the base of any canyon fill. A subsequent review of 40-scale plans (when available) should be performed to determine the need for subdrainage. If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may require a subdrain system. In addition, the placement of rock blankets and windrows should also consider having a subdrain system to mitigate any perched water from collecting, and to outlet the water into a designed system, or other approved area. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 21 GcoSoils, Inc. Earthwork Balance Shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters: Existing Artificial Fill 5% to 10% shrinkage Colluvium 3% to 8% shrinkage Alluvium 10% to 15% shrinkage Terrace Deposits 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Santiago Formation 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Rock (excavated) 5% to 10% Bulk Rock (Shot) 15% to 20% Bulk It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. Erosion Control Onsite soils are considered very erosive. Use of hay bales, silt fences, and/or sand/gravel bags should be considered, as appropriate. Temporary grades should be constructed to drain at 1 to 2 percent to a suitable temporary or permanent outlet. Evaluation of cuts during grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non-cohesive matenals. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction remedial grading may be recommended; however no remedial measures are anticipated at this time. Slope Considerations and Slope Design Graded Slopes All slopes should be designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of City of Carisbad/County of San Diego, the Uniform Building Code (current edition), and the recommendations in Appendix F, Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes The construction of stabilization and/or buttress slopes may be necessary for some west facing cut slopes. Such remedial slope construction will be recommended based upon a review ofthe 40-scale grading plans and/or conditions exposed in the field during grading. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Garlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 22 GcoSoils, Inc. Temporary Construction Slopes In general, temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a minimum slope ratio of 1:1 (h:v) or flatter within alluvial soils and terrace deposits, and y^•.^ or flatter for temporary slopes exposing dense sedimentary or metavolcanic/granitic bedrock without adverse (daylighted) bedding or fracture surfaces. Excavations for removals, drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized conditions should be evaluated on an individual basis by the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance from this recommendation. Due to the nature ofthe materials anticipated, tfie engineering geologist should obsen/e all excavations and fill conditions. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate recommendations should be presented. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General ^— In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Recommendations for conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections for bedrock, or fill on bedrock areas. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing material. Foundations should be founded entirely in compacted fill or rippable bedrock, with no exposed transitions. Conventional foundations systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions, where alluvial soil is left in place or where the maximum fill thickness exceeds a ration of 3:1. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\30CX)\3098a1.geo Page 23 GcoSoils, Inc. Preliminarv Foundation Desiqn Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low to high expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition ofthe Uniform Building Code. 2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected by a ^ grade beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by Va underthe effects of temporary loading, such as seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.30 coefficient of ft-iction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. 2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials are generally in the very low to low (expansion index 0 to 50), to potentially high (expansion index 91 to 130) range. During grading ofthe site, we recommend that expansive material should not be placed within 3 feet of finish grade, if feasible. Therefore, it is anticipated that the finish grade materials will have a low (or medium) expansion potential. Conventional foundation systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions or where alluvial soil is left in place. Post-tension slab foundations are recommended for these conditions. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File;e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 24 GcoSoils, Inc. I I Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential ofthe near surface soils encountered during grading. Conventional foundation recommendations are presented in the following Table 1. TABLE 1 Conventional Perimeter Footinas. and Slabs. Robertson Ranch FOUNDATION CATEGORY MINIMUM FOOTING SIZE INTERIOR SLAB THICKNESS REINFORCING STEEL INTERIOR SLAB REINFORCEMENT UNDER- SLAB TREATMENT GARAGE SLAB REINFORCE- MENT 1 12" Wide X 12" Deep 4" Thick 1-No.4BarTop and Bottom No. 3 Bars @ 24" o.c. Both Directions 2" Sand Over 10-Mil Polyvinyl Membrane Over 2" Sand Base B'xff (10/10) WWF II 12" Wide X 18' Deep 4" Thick 2-No. 4 Bars Top and Bottom No. 3 Bars @ 18" o.c. Both Directions 2" Sand Over 10-Mil Polyvinyl Membrane Over 2" Sand Base erxff (6/6) WWF III 12" Wide X 24" Deep 4" Thick 2-No. 5 Bars Top and Bottom No. 3 Bars @ 18' o.c. Both Directions Sand Over 10-Mil Polyvinyl Membrane Over 2" Sand Base Same as Interior Slab Category Criteria Category I: Mcix. Fill Thickness is less than 20' and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50 and Differential Fill Thickness is less than 10' (see note 1). Category II: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 30' and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90 or Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and 20' (see note 1). Category III: Max. Fill Thickness exceeds 30', or Expansion Index exceeds 90 but is less than 130, or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20' (see note 1). Notes: 1. Post tension (PT) foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 30', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1, or where the expansion index exceeds 90 or in areas underlain with alluvial soil left in place. 2. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. 3. Allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 PSF. 4. Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,000 PSI McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo GcoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-AI-SC January 29, 2002 Page 25 (2,500 PSI for exterior flatwork), or adopted UBC min., at 28 days, using 5 sacks of cement. Maximum Slump shall be 5". 5. Visqueen vapor barrier not required under garage slab. However, consideration should be given to future uses of the slab area, such as room conversion and/or storage of moisture- sensitive materials. 6. Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer's recommendations (see report). 7. Sand used for base under slabs shall be very low expansive, and have SE > 30. 8. Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report. 9. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints to control cracking. Joint spacing should be in accordance with correct industry standards and reviewed by the project structural engineer. POST TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed buildings. Based on the potential differential settlement within areas of the site underiain by alluvium, post-tensioned slab foundations are recommended exclusively. General The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post- tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post- tensioned slab design during grading. The post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method. Alternatives to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlement noted for this site. Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1816, based on design specifications ofthe Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method. Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet Constant Soil Suction (pf) 3.6 McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo GcoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-AI-SC January 29, 2002 Page 26 The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst case conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided structures have gutters and downspouts and positive drainage is maintained away from structures. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners. Based on the above parameters, design values were obtained ft-om figures or tables ofthe 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1816 and presented in Table 2. These values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors (i.e. fill settlement). If astiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. TABLE 2 POST TENSION FOUNDATIONS EXPANSION POTENTIAL VERY L0WP» TO LOW EXPANSIVE (El = 0-50) MEDIUM EXPANSIVE (El =r 51-90) HIGHLY EXPANSIVE (El =91-120) em center lift 5.0 feet 5.5 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 2.5 feet 2.7 feet 3.0 feet Ym center lift 1.1 inch 2.0 inch 2.5 inch Ym edge lift 0.35 inch 0.55 inch 0.75 inch Bearing Value 1000 psf 1000 psf 1000 psf Lateral Pressure 225 psf 225 psf 225 psf Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 pci/inch 85 pci/inch 70 pci/inch Perimeter footing embedment 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be incre minimum embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional fool maximum of 2,500 psf. As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface. Foundations for very low expansive soil conditions may use the California Method ased to 1500 psf for a of embedment to a (spanability method). Subgrade Preparation The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be well moistened to at least optimum moisture content and verified by our field representative. McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad File:e:\wpA3000\3098a1 .geo GcoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-AI-SC January 29, 2002 Page 27 Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, afairiy common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil pre- wetting and construction of a perimeter cut-off wall grade beam should be employed. Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. Embedment depths are presented in Table 2 for various soil expansion conditions. The bottom ofthe deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation recommendations in the referenced report should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. Floor slab subgrade should be at, or above the soils optimum moisture content to a depth of 2^inches prior to pouring concrete, for existing soil conditions. Pre-wetting of the slab subgrade soil prior to placement of steel and concrete will likely be recommended and necessary, in order to achieve optimum moisture conditions. Soil moisture contents should be verified at least 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. Underslab Moisture Barrier A visqueen vapor barrier, a minimum 6 mils thick, should be placed underneath the slab in accordance with recommendations presented in the conventional foundation section of this report. This vapor barrier should be lapped adequately to provide a continuous waterproof barrier under the entire slab. Moisture barrier placement beneath the garage slab is optional. However, ftjture uses ofthe garage slab area (room conversion, storage of moisture sensitive material) should be considered. SETBACKS All footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) ft-om the base of the footing to the descending slope face of no less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches belowthe invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel ofthe wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 28 GcoSoils, Inc. SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY Based on our experience in the vicinity, the majority of site soils are anticipated to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). Clay soils located in the vicinity of test pits TP-1 through TP-8 (this study) may present a moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and require the use of Type li cement. Site soils are also anticipated to be mildly corrosive to buried metal, but become highly corrosive when saturated. SETTLEMENT In addition to designing slab systems (PT or other) for the soil expansion conditions described herein, the estimated total and differential settlement values that an individual structure could be subject to should be evaluated by a structural engineer, and utilized in the foundation design. The levels of angular distortion may be evaluated on a 40-foot length assumed as minimum dimension of buildings; if. ft-om a structural standpoint, a decreased or increased length over which the differential is assumed to occur is justified, this change should be incorporated into the design. Please refer to the previous section on settlement for a discussion of preliminary values to be used. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS General The following parameters are provided for conventional retaining walls only. Design parameters for special walls (i.e., crib, geogrid, Loffelstein, etc.) will be provided based on site specific conditions. The equivalent fluid pressure parameters provide for the use of low expansive select granular backflll to be utilized behind the proposed walls. The low expansive granular backfill, should be provided behind the wall at a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the heel ofthe foundation system. Low expansive fill is Class 3 aggregate baserock or Class 2 permeable rock. Wall backfilling should be performed with relatively light equipment within the same 1:1 projection (i.e., hand tampers, walk behind compactors). Highly expansive soils should not be used to backfill any proposed walls. During construction, materials should not be stockpiled behind nor in front of walls for a distance of 2H where H is the height ofthe wall. Foundation systems for any proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Foundation Design section ofthis report. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. All walls should be properly designed in accordance with the recommendations presented below and seismically resistant per the UBC (1997). McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 Fiie;e:\wpA3000\3098a1.geo Page 29 GcoSoils, Inc. Some movement ofthe walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking depending upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce the potential for wall cracking, walls should be internally grouted and reinforced with steel. To mitigate this effect, the use of vertical crack control joints and expansion joints, spaced at 20 feet or less along the walls should be employed. Vertical expansion control joints should be infilled with aflexible grout Wall footings should be keyed or doweled across vertical expansion joints. Walls should be intemally grouted and reinforced with steel. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures (EFP) of 65 pcf. plus any applicable surcharge loading. This restrained-wall, earth pressure value is for select backfill material only. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade or greater than 2 feet in height should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The wall should be drained as indicated in the following section. A seismic increment of 10H (uniform pressure) should be considered on walls for level backfill, and 20H for sloping backfill of 2:1, where H is defined as the height of retained material behind the wall. For structural footing loads within the 1:1 zone of influence behind wall backfill, refer to the following section. Cantilevered Walls These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 15 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top ofthe wall is not restrained from minor deflections. 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 of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, expansive soils, or adverse geologic conditions. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\vi^7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 30 GcoSoils, Inc. SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED MATERIAL (horizontal to vertical) EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT FOR SELECT (Very low to low expansive) NATIVE SOIL* Level** 2 to 1 45 60 *To be increased by traffic, structural surcharge and seismic loading as needed. **Level walls are those where grades behind the wall are level for a distance of 2H Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrain and outlet system (a minimum two outiets per wall and no greater than 100 feet apart), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. The very low expansive granular backfill should be provided behind the wall at a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the heel of the foundation element. Drain pipe should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe embedded in gravel. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of %- to 1 -inch clean crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) and 12 inches thick behind the wall. Where the void to be fitted is constrained by lot lines or property boundaries, the use of panel drains (Miradrain 5000 or equivalent) may be considered with the approval of the project geotechnical engineer. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Weeping ofthe walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet or less in height, weepholes should be no greater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. A paved drainage channel (v-ditch or substitute), either concrete or asphaltic concrete, behind the top ofthe walls with sloping backfill should be considered to reduce the potential for surface water penetration. For level backfill, the grade should be sloped such that drainage is toward a suitable outlet at 1 to 2 percent. Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition ftrom formational bedrock to select fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: a) If transitions fi-om native soil to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum 3-foot overexcavation for a distance of two times the height ofthe wall and increase overexcavation until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Fiie:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo GcoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC January 29, 2002 Page 31 b) Increase ofthe amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H (where H=wall height in feet) on either side ofthe transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into a homogeneous fill. Top-of-Siope Walls The geotechnical parameters previously provided may be utilized for top-of-slope sound walls, if planned, which are founded in either competent bedrock or compacted fill materials. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. Additional design recommendations by the corrosion specialist should be followed. The placing of joints (expansion and crack control) should be incorporated into the wall layout. These expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center and should be reviewed bythe civil engineer and structural engineer of record. GSI anticipates distortions on the order of Vz to 1 ± inch in 50 feet for these walls located at the tops of low to medium expansive fill/cut slopes. To reduce this potential, the footings may be deepened and/or the use of piers may be employed. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on the "R"-value data (to be verified by specific "R"-value testing at completion of grading) from a representative sample taken from the project area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City of Carlsbad. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented on the following table. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-A1-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\w^p7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 32 GcoSoils, Inc. The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums If thinner or highly vanable pavement sections are constructed, increased maim^ZS a.^^ rS Z prem"enrse"2r ""^'"'^ ^ «fo^ Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance w^h the rea,mmendat,ons presented below, and the minimum subgrade (upper'^ ncn WSTM^ISI??T,^,H! 'Tr'r P^^^«"' "'^^ maximum dr^dens^ (ASTM D-1557). If adverse conditions I.e., saturated ground, etc) are encountered ri, irinn preparation ot subgrade, special constmction methyls may need^o be emXy^ ' These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further "R"-value testina anri pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of graZg for Te ste PAVEMENT GRADING RFroMMENnATinuc General Ail section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered McMillin Construction, Inc. Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo GcoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-AI-SC January 29, 2002 Page 33 Subgrade Within street areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test method D-1557. Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be obsen/ed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. Base Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent ofthe maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM test method D-1557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition. Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all ofthe following conditions are met: 1. The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or subbase course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. 3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. 4. The base is free of dirt and debris. If constmction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 34 GcoSoils, Inc. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards the area swale, curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Exterior Flatwork Non-vehicular pavements (i.e., utility pads, sidewalks, etc.) using concrete slab on grade construction, should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria. 1. ^ Slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness. 2. Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content. 3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ofthe best ways to control this movement are; 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab, and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5- to 8-foot centers or tiie smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least. 4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. 5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping should be graded to drain into the street, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. 6. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be sealed with flexible mastic. Additional Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This includes but is not limited to McMillin Construction. Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 35 GcoSoils, Inc. appurtenant structures (i.e.. utility support pads). This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Landscape Maintenance and Piantinq Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away ft-om graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided. Onsite soil materials should be maintained in a solid to semisolid state. Brushed native and graded slopes (constructed within and utilizing onsite materials) would be potentially erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of sun/iving the prevailing climate. It order to minimize erosion on the slope face, an erosion control fabric (or other suitable method) should be considered. From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Moisture sensors, embedded into fill slopes, should be considered to reduce the potential of ovenwatering ft-om automatic landscape watering systems. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away fi-om foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Landscaping should be graded to drain into the street, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. Drainage behind top of walls should be accomplished along the length ofthe wall with a paved channel drainage v-ditch or substitute. Trench Backfill All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Exterior trenches should not be excavated below a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the bottom of any adjacent foundation system. If excavated, these trenches would undermine support for the foundation system potentially creating adverse conditions. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Pagg 35 GcoSoils, Inc. 1. All utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas and beneath hardscape features should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Obsen/ations, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a representative ofthis office to verify compactive efforts of the contractor. 2. Soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent (ASTM D-1557) if not removed from the site. 3. Jetting of backfill is not recommended. 4. The use of pipe jacking to place utilities is not recommended on this site. 5. Bottoms of utility trenches should be sloped away from structures. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork constmction performed on the site should be obsen/ed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered atthattime. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site grading and construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein 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, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. McMillin Construction. Inc. W.O. 3098-Al -SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 Fiie:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 37 GcoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 1997, EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISK 89, computer programs. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y.. 1994. Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, volume III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293. Frankel, Arthur D., Perkins, David M., and Mueller, Charies S., 1996. Preliminary and working versions of draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United States showing peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response at 0.3 and 1.0- second site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years) for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program ^ (NEHRP): U.S. Geological Survey, Denver. Colorado. GeoSoils, Inc.. 2001a, Preliminary Findings ofthe Geotechnical Evaluation, Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carisbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31. , 2001 b. Alluvial settlement potential in the viinity of a planned box culvert and existing sewer line, intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, Calavera Hills, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, Califomia, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated March 7. , 2001c, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carisbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24. , 1998a, Addendum to feasibility of 1:1 cut slope in lieu of approved crib wall, station n. 29-1-00 to 31 -1-50. College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carisbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated May 4. , 1998b, Feasibility of 1:1 Cut Slope in lieu of Approved Cribwall, Station No. 29+00 to 31 -1-50, College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carisbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated April 10. , 1998c, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and "T," City of Carisbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. GcoSoils, Inc. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Departmentof Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: A.A. Balkena Publishers. Rotterdam, Netheriands, Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Leighton and Associates, 1985, Geotechnical feasibility evaluation, 403.3 acres at east corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, Carisbad, California, Project No. 4850555-03, dated November 15. Lindvall, S.C, Rockwell, T.K., and Undivall, E.C, 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6-1- Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, jn Roquemore, G., ed.. Proceedings, workshop on "the seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M.. 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", jn Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics 11, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Watenways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. T&B Planning Consultants, 2001,Tentative Lotting Study, Robertson Ranch,2 Sheets, J.N. 533-002, dated November 13, Revised December 5. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic maps ofthe northwestern part of San Diego County, California, plate 2, geologic map ofthe Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' quadrangles, San Diego County, California, scale 1:24,000, DMG Open-File Report 96-02. McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix A File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 2 GcoSoils, Inc. Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone southern California, published by the California Department of Consen/ation, Division of Mines and Geology DMG Ooen- File Report 93-02. . 1984. The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis, published by the California Department of Consen/ation, Division of Mines and Geology cooperative agreement EMF-83-k-0148. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953) Black and white aerial photographs AXN- 8M-76 and AXN-8M-77. an, Weber, F.H., 1982. Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion ofthe San Luis Rey and ^ Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis University of California, Riverside. McMillin Construction, Inc. ~ " Appendix A Fiie:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Pagg 3 GcoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS AND TEST PITS w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE IfeDEPTHif mymm MOISTURE FIELD DRY : DENSITY m§{pcn:i-y DESCRIPTION TP-1 0'-3' CL 0'-3' bulk COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft. TP-1 3'-4' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDY CLAY, orange brown to brown, moist, medium stiff. TP-1 4'-5' 4'-5' bulk SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY SILTSTONE. olive gray, damp, stiff; highly fractured. TP-1 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-1 W.O.309B-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-2 0'-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft; rootiets. TP-2 2'-3' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE. liqht olive gray, moist, medium stiff. TP-2 3'-5' ring@3' bulk(5)3'.5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYSTONE. olive gray, moist, stiff to very stiff. TP-2 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-2 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE mymmy FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-3 0'-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft; rootlets. TP-3 3'-4' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE, dark olive brown, moist, medium stiff. TP-3 4'-6' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE. olive gray, moist, stiff. TP-3 Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-3 W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23. 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-4 0'-2'/2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft; rootlets. TP-4 WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE TO SANDY CLAYSTONE. olive gray, moist, medium dense to medium stiff; orange iron oxide staining. TP-4 3y2'-8* SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE. olive gray, moist, stiff. TP-4 Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-4 t LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS W.O. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-5 0'-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SAND CUY, brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 2'-4' CL SAND CUY, dark brown, moist, medium stiff; caliche. 4'-6' CL UNDSLIDE DEPOSITS: SAND CUY. brown to light brown, moist, medium stiff; rip up clasts of sedimentary bedrock. 6'-7' ring@7' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CUYSTONE, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-5 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS W.O. 309d-Ai-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-6 0'-2' SC COLLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. TP-6 2'-5' ring@3' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive gray, moist, dense; orange Iron oxide. TP-6 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-6 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE yyymyy FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-7 0'-2' SC COLLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; rootiets. 2'-3' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: CUYEY SANDSTONE, olive gray to light brown, moist, medium dense; orange iron oxide. 3'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-7 w.o. 309B.A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-8 o'-2y2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, dry. loose; rootiets. TP-8 2V2'-5' UNDIFFERENTIATED VOLCANICS AND GRANITES: 2V2'-5' light brown to orange brown, moist, dense; granite floaters 6-12 inches. 5' GRUDES INTO METAMORPHIC AND VOLCANIC ROCK, orange brown, dry. very dense; randomly fractured. Practical Refusal @ 5' with 41 OD Backhoe No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-8 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) : MOISTURE yy^:{%)'m:^': FIELD DRY DENSITY DESCRIPTION TP-9 0'-3' SC COLLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3'-9' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, moist, medium dense. 9'-10' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY CUYSTONE, olive gray, moist, medium stiff. 10'-l 2' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY CUYSTONE, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth = 12" No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-9 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH yymm:- MOISTURE «fe(%)sS.|- FIELD DRY DENSITY f •my{pcrym: DESCRIPTION TP-10 0'-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY. brown, moist, soft. TP-10 3'-5' ring@3y2' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, moist, dense. TP-10 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-10 W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH, (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-11 0'-6' SM 0'-3' bulk COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootiets. TP-11 6'-12' SM 6'-8' bulk ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense. TP-11 12'-13' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CUY. olive gray, moist, medium dense to dense. TP-11 Total Depth = 13' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-11 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-12 O'-l' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY, dark brown, moist, soft; TP-12 O'-l' CL rootiets. 1'-5' CL WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CUY, 1'-5' CL light brown, wet, medium stiff. 5'-7' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray to gray. 5'-7' SM moist, dense. Total Depth = T No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-12 w.o. 309fl-Ai-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE' DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE . (%) FIELD DRY , DENSITY • (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-13 0'-5' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY. dark brown, moist, soft: rootlets. TP-13 5'-13' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liaht brown, moist, medium dense. TP-13 13'-14' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY CUY olive arav. moist, stiff. TP-13 Total Depth = 14' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-13 W.O.309B-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE. DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-14 0'-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY. dark brown, moist, soft; rootiets. TP-14 3'-7' CL ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown to light brown, wet, medium stiff. TP-14 7'-10' SC TERRACE DEPOSITS: CUY, olive grav. wet, stiff. TP-14 Total Depth = 10' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilied 1/10/02 PUTE B-14 W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23.2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY: (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-15 0'-4' SC COLLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, brown to dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 4'-5' SC ALLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, brown to light brown, moist, medium dense. 5'-6' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CUY. olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth= 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-15 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH: (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY , DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTiON TP-16 0'-3' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootiets. TP-16 3'-5' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. TP-16 5'-7' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: CUYEY SAND, olive brown, wet, dense. TP-16 Total Depth = T No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-16 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH yym" MOISTURE M;i%)»P FIELD DRY DENSITY ymipcf) DESCRIPTION rp-17 0'-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY, dark brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. 2'-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-17 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE m:yi%)mm FIELD DRY DENSITY ym'ipcnm^:. DESCRIPTION TP-18 0'-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY. dark brown, moist, loose; rootiets. TP-18 3'-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND TO CUY, olive brown to brown, moist, dense to stiff. TP-18 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-18 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23. 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-19 0'-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY. dark brown, moist, soft; roots, rootiets. TP-19 3'-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, dense. TP-19 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PUTE B-19 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23. 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-20 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liaht brown, dn/. loose: rootlets. 2'-4' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liaht brown, dn/. medium dense. 4'-5' SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, iight brown, damp, dense. 5'-6' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, liaht brown, damo. very dense. Practical Refusal = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-20 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 23.2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE ym:^m-'y^' FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-21 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. TP-21 2'-3' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense. TP-21 3'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. TP-21 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled 1/11/02 PUTE B-21 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23. 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-22 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; TP-22 0'-2' SM rootiets. 2'-4' SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND. 2'-4' SM brown, damp, medium dense. 4'-6' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive brown. 4'-6' SM damp, dense to very dense with depth. Practical Refusal = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-22 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17. 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE nmfmmmy. FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-23 0'-3' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; rootlets. TP-23 3'-4' SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, brown to light brown, damp to moist, medium dense. TP-23 4'-6' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense to dense with depth. TP-23 Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-23 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL isAMPLil DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-24 0'-3' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, damp, loose; rootiets. 3'-4' WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, damp, medium dense. 4'-5' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense to dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-24 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE mymms FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-25 0'-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY, dark brown, moist, soft. TP-25 2'-5' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY CUYSTONE, olive gray, wet, stiff. TP-25 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-25 W.O.3098.A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17.2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE at^q%)^5pft' FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-26 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootiets. TP-26 2'-4' SM 3'-4' bulk ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose; friable sands. TP-26 4'-12' SM SILTY SAND, light brown, moist to wet. loose to medium dense. TP-26 12' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive gray to gray. wet. medium dense to dense. TP-26 Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-26 W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUPll SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH •«ifl.)«* MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY • {pcnmy DESCRIPTION TP-27 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootiets. 2'-10' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 10'-11' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive gray, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth = 11' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-27 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17.2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-28 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootiets. TP-28 2'-8' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet. loose to medium dense. TP-28 8'-12' SM SILTY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense. TP-28 12'-13' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, medium dense. TP-28 13'-14' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive gray, moist, dense. TP-28 r Total Deptii = 14' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-28 W.O.3098-Ai-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-29 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. TP-29 2*-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense to dense. TP-29 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-29 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH mymm.' MOISTURE yyym^yy FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-30 O'-r SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. TP-30 i'-3y2' SM SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose. TP-30 3y2'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, medium dense to dense. TP-30 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-30 w.o. 3098-A1-5C McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE mmmmy FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-31 0'-3' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense with depth. TP-31 3'-4' ring@4' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. TP-31 Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-31 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS W.O. 309B-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17.2002 TP-32 0'-2' 2'-4' SM ring@3' FIELD DRY DENSITY DESCRIPTION COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense; rootiets. SANTIAGO FORMATION; SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-32 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE mym-m^- FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-33 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. TP-33 2'-4' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. TP-33 Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-33 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17.2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH yymy^- MOISTURE •««W-(%)»P FIELD DRY DENSITY W'^^tpcn'-^^'y DESCRIPTION TP-34 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; roots and rootlets. 2'-14' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 14' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown to olive gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 14' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-34 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-35 0'-2' COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose; rootiets. 2'-7' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist to wet. medium dense. 7'-8' ring@8' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, liqht brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 8' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilied 1/11/02 PUTE B-35 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-36 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose: rootlets. TP-36 2'-9' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense. TP-36 9'-10' SANTIAGO FORMATION: CUY SANDSTONE, arav to light brown, very moist, medium dense. TP-36 Total Depth = 10' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-36 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-37 0'-3' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose: rootlets. TP-37 3'-10' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist loo5?fi tn medium dense. TP-37 10'-12' SANTIAGO FORMATION: CUYEY SANDSTONE nray to light brown, very moist, medium dense. TP-37 Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-37 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE : DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) ' FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-38 O'-r SC COLLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, loose; porous, some organics. r-4' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, yellowish gray to light yellowish brown, wet. soft to medium dense; massive. 4'-6' 4' SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, moist, medium dense; wearly cemented, massive to weakly bedded (N26W, 10SW; N13W, 21SW; N80W, 6SW). Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-38 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-39 0'-6' SC/CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CUY. ven/ dark arav brown, moist, soft; dessicated, porous. 6'-7' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, liaht vellowish brown, damp, medium dense; weakly cemented, massive. 7-8' T SANDSTONE/CUYSTONE, yellowish brown and olive gray, moist, medium dense to stiff; interbedded bedding N13W, 9SW. 8'-10' SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, damp, dense; cemented, bedding N25W, 11SW. r Total Depth = 10' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-39 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17.2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-40 O'-r COLLUVIUM: CUY SAND, brown, moist, loose. TP-40 r-4' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, vellowish gray, damp, medium dense; bedding N14W, 10SW; N30W, 7SW, cemented. TP-40 Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-40 w.o. 3098-Ai-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-41 0'-5' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, ven/ dark arav brown, moist, loose. TP-41 5'-10' SM SILTY SAND, very dark gray brown, loose, wet; seepage at &-6V2. TP-41 io'-ir SM SILTY SAND, very dark gray brown, loose, wet; groundwater at 10'. TP-41 Total Depth = ir Perched Groundwater @ 10' Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-41 w.o. 3098-AI-SC McMillin Companies January 17. 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-42 0'-3' SC COLLUVIUM: CUYEY SAND, brown, dry, loose; porous. 3'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, moist, medium dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-42 w.o. 3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17,2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE wmy(%im:m FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-43 0'-4' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND,brown, moist, loose. TP-43 4'-9' SM SILTY SAND,brown, moist, loose, becomes wet. TP-43 9'-10' SM SILTY SAND,brown, becomes saturated, groundwater encountered. TP-43 Total Depth = 10' Groundwater Encountered @ 9' Backfilled 1/11/02 PUTE B-43 w.o. 309B-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-44 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. TP-44 2'-3' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense. TP-44 3'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. TP-44 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B.44 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-A1-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-1 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 10F 2 10-2-01 Sample 33 m c * a d s s o S I a eo SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Psnetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample ^ Wate.'Seepage into/lote Description of Material SM COLUVIUMn'OPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, dry, loose; blocky. 15 SM ALLUVIUM @ 4' SANDY SILT, light brown, moist, stiff. 19 CL @ 10' SILTY CUY, brown, wet, very stiff. 15- 20- 25 SM 34 @ 11' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet medium dense. @ 13' GOUNDWATER. 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturate and dense. @ 20" NO RECOVERY SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose. 10 125' SILTY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B^5 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 3098-AI-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-1 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 2 OF 2 10-2-01 £ a. s Sample if 3 2 3 (0 It c 3 £• O c s CO ^ @ 30' SILTY CUY, light brown, saturated, stiff. SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40' DROP Standard PenetrBSon Test Undistuibed, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage mto l)ole Description of Material 35- 40- 11 CL 18 CL I @ 35" SILTY CUY, light brown, saturated, very stiff. 45- 20 CL WEATHERED SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS @ 40' SILTY CUY, olive, saturated, very stiff; highly weathered. 70 UNDIFFERENTIATED IGNEOUS BEDROCK @ 45' METAVOLCANIC AND GRANTIC ROCK,wet, very dense. 50- 55- McMiilin, Robertson Ranch Total Depth = 46.5' Groundwater @ 13.0' Backfilled on 10/02/01 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-48 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG PROJECT: BORING HB-2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch Sample il 33 C02 " 1 CO >. 3 CO as ( c -3 £> O e I o c I DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP W.O. 309a-A1-SC SHEET IQF 2 10-2-01 Ster)darcf ftnetrsfon Tesf Urtdisturbed, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage mto Aolle Description of Material SM COLUVIUM/TOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; roots and rootlets, blocky. 10^^ 15- 20 25- 13 SM 13 17 17 ALLUVIUM 3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. ! 5' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, moist, medium dense. @ 10' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; GROUNDWATER. 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. @ 20' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. @ 25' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose. McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-47 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 3098-AI-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 2 OF 2 10-2-01 o Q Sample 51 co2 ^ 1 CO S. 3 CO Q e 3 s o S & 2 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test Undisturtjed, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage ^to/x)fe Description of Material 12 SM 35-28 SM 40 45- 50- 55- ! 30' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. @ 35' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. UNDIFFERENTIATED IGNEOUS BEDROCK ^@40' METAVOLCANICS AND GRANITIC ROCK, verv dense Total Depth = 40.5' Groundwater© 10' Backfilled 10/02/01 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-48 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3098-AI-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-3 McMillin. Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 10F 1 10-2-01 coE m 3 CO It c >— 3 O "E s o o B a CO SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test UrKSsturtied, Ring Sample ^ Wafer Seepage into/lofo Description of Material SM COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, loose. SM ALLUVIUM @ 3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. @ 5' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist to wet loose; coarse sands with silt 34 CL 43 @ 10' SANDY CUY, dark grey, moist to wet, very stiff; oxidized minerl ization. WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 15' SILTY SANDSTONE with metavolcanic and granitics, dense; oxidization. 20- 25- SANTIAGO FORMATION 18' SILTY SANDSTONE, dense. Total Depth = 18.5' Groundwater @ 10' Backfilled on 10/02/01 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B^9 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG W.O. 3098-AI-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-4 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET IQF 1 10-3-01 CO.S 3 CO 3 D S I o s 3 n CO SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test Urtdisturtied, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage into Aofe Description of Material SM COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. 10- SM ALLUVIUM @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense. 30 WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 10' CUYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist medium dense. 15- 20- 25- 28 SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 14' CUYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown to reddish brown, moist \medium dense. ^ Practical Refusal @ 14.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-50 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098rA1-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-S McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 10F 2 10-3-01 S Q. Sample •a col CO 3 CO It 3 a S « O S 2 SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard PenetaHon Test Undisturtjed, Ring Sample ^ Wafer Seepage into hob Description of Material SM COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry to moist loose. 15- 20 25 23 CL 27 29 I ALLUVIUM @ 5' SANDY CUY, brown, moist very stiff. @ 6' GROUNDWATER. 10' SANDY CUY. brown, wet very stiff. ©SANDY CUY, greenish brown to brown, wet very stiff. ! 20* SANDY CUY, light brown, saturated, medium stiff. 13 SM @ 25' SILTY SANDY CUY, light brown, saturated, stiff. McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-51 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 3098-AI-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-5 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 2 OF 2 10-3-01 O. Sampia il 33 w >. 3 CO 3 s 2 JO o I CO SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage into/>o/e Description of Material 15 SM 35-14 40 @ 30' SILTY SANO, olive brown, saturated, medium dense: orange iron oxide. @ 35' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. 12 45 50 WEATHERED SATIAGO FORMATION @ 40' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. 56 SATIAGO FORMATION @ 50' CUYEY SILTSTONE, olive, dry to damp, hard. 55- Total Depth = 51.5" Groundwater @ 6' Backfilled on 10/03/01 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-52 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 3098^1-50 PROJECT: McMillin, Robertson Ranch BORING HB-6 DATE EXCAVATED SHEET iQP 2 10-3-01 t Sample 53 coi 3 CO s a. c ^ 3 O e I o S c o B a 'S CO SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40' DROP Standard Penetration Test ^ Undisturbed, Ring Sampfe ^ Water Seepage mto hole Description of Material 5- 20 25- SM 19 39 25 24 19 McMillin, Robertson Ranch COLLUVIUMn-QPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. ! 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist loose. ! 5' SILTY SAND, brown, moist medium dense. @ 10' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist dense. 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet medium dense. ! 20' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet medium dense. @ 25' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet medium dense. GeoSoils, Inc. PL>^TE B-53 GeoSoils, inc. BORING LOG w.o. 3098-AI-SC PROJECT: McMillin, Robertson Ranch BORING HB-6 DATE EXCAVATED SHEET 2 OF 2 10-3-01 Q. O o Sample JS 53 i s m2 (0 3 CO It c ^ 3 £• O e 3 JS o S c ? a CO SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test ^ Undisturtted, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage inio Imie Description of Material 17 SM 35 ! 30' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. 45 SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, green, wet dense. 40 45 50- 55- McMillin, Robertson Ranch Total Depth = 36.5' Groundwater @ 30' Backfilled 10/02/01 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-54 APPENDIX C BORING LOGS AND TEST PITS (GSI, 20010) i •— 6 14 Jl u 1' u o 8 » 3 o u e S 8| •31 ST S 9 8 |8g * a CW CP Well-sntied gnvels ud pmvel- sand mixtures. Uttle or no ones Poorly gnded gnvels and gnvel-sand mmures. little or no fines JS 0 JS U in •i-S 5.- , lis 3=^ s Highly Organic Soils CM CC Silty gnvels. gnvel-tand-silt mixtures Clayey gmels. gnvet-4and.clay nuxtures SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH Weil-gnded sands and gnvelly lancli, little or no fines Pooriy gnded sands and gnvelly sands, little or no &ies Silty sands, sand-sik mixtures Clayey sands, sand-day nuxtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, mdc flour, silty or dayey fine sands Inorganic days aflow to medium plastidty. gnvelly days, sandy dqrs. silty dqrs. lew days Organic silts lad organic silty d^ of low plastieity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomeoBona fine sands or silts, dastiesihs Inorganie days of bigh plasticity, fatcbys Organic days of medium to hi^ plasticity PT Peat, muck, and odaer highly organic soilt Standard Penetration Teet Penciration Resisuncs N (blows/fi) Reiaiive Density 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 >50 Verj- loose Loose Mediuin Dense Very dense Standard Peaetration Test Penetrauon Unconfined Compressive Resistance N Strength (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft*) <2 Very soft <0.25 2-4 Sofl 0.25-0.50 4-8 Meditim 0.50-LOO 8-15 Stiff 1.00-2.00 lS-30 Very stiff 2.00-4.00 >30 Hard >4.00 1 J' y^' "4 *I0 •40 tt 200 U.S. Slondord sieve Unified Cobbles Grovel 1 - Sand SIH or Clay 1 soil elossif. Cobbles coarse j Hne | coarse | medium fine SIH or Clay 1 MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry abaenea of aalet: duaty, dry to ttw touch Sllgtttly boloM optloMi Mletura eontant Molet for conpaction Moi at naer optlaua aolatura content Very aolat atMvo optiaua aolatura eontant Net Vlalble free M«tar, balow water table MATERAIL QUANTITY tracoi, 0 - S S few 9 -10 X tittle 10 -29 X 29 -49 X OTHER SYMBOLS C Cora aaaele S SPT aaimla B Bulk aanpla JC, Qroundwatar BASIC LOQ FORMAT: Qroup naaa, Qroup eyabol, (Grain alae). Color. Molature, Conalatancy or relative aenalty Additional coaMnea: odor, preeance of roota. aiea, gypauai, coarae grairwd oartlelae.ete. E:( AMPLE: Sand (SP), fina to aadlua grained, brown, aolat. looaa. traca ailt. Httle fina gravel few cobblaa up to 4- in aize, eoawi hair roota and rootleta BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALMEHA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-1 Sample •o n a n •a L c 3 D 4- •»-\ w 3 O Q u e (A a 3 IA 3 L • • 2: L +-» IA DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib Hanr>mer 30" drop SHEET 1 OF 2 4-13-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed. Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage into hale Description of Material 10- 10 16 CL CL 104.1 106.6 19.9 18.4 89.3 88.3 i ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff; roots and rootlets. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff, fine to medium grained well-sorted sand fraction. 15 w.. 17 SC 111.9 18.4 99 /A @ 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular sands. @ 14', Groundwater encountered. 20 25 w CiaH 12 SP 13 No Rjcovery 19 SP @ 15', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. @ 20' No recovery. @ 25', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; medium to coarse grained, well sorted, little fines. 1 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC mOJfCT.-CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-1 Q. 0 a Sample •o w o a •o L c a 3+- M-\ ID 3 O o IA J3 U E IA 3 3 IA a L O o I* L 3 •I-(• DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib Hammer 30" drop SHEET_2_pF 2 4-13-00 2^ Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 35 11 No R scove y •/•/-. vy '/A @ 30', No recovery. 40 11 sc @ 35', CLAYEY SAND,light brown to tan, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. @ 40', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; fine grained. 45 y.y& 15 SP 60 15 SC SC @ 45', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained. A/ '/A @ 50', CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, loose; fine to medium grained. 55 Total Depth = 51 1/2'^ Groundwater encountered @ 14' Backfilled 04-13-00 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-2 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALMEHA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-2 0. a Sample I "O n o — u •D t. C 3 3 +- \ ID 3 O O IA S> U E IA 31 3 IA 3> L a o It L 3 +• « D/tTf EXCA V/l TfD SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop SHC£T 1 OF 2 4-13-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material A IO- IS- 20 25 14 10 SC SC 107.4 97.4 14.0 6.5 68 24.6 yy A> /A 1 18 CL 108.6 17.7 89.9 i 11 11 CL 1 14 CL 101.2 24.0 100 •///.' i ALLUVIUM ~ @ 0'. CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. @ 2 1/2', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet. medium dense; fine to coarse grained. @ 5', CLAYEY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense; fine to coarse grained. @ 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, stiff. @ 14', Groundwater encountered. @ 15', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff; orange iron oxide staining. xAii- 27 GW ,0 BEDROCK -J c @ 25', METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish brown, saturated, medium dense; weathered. o O College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE C-3 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-2 a. a Sample III a - i3 TI L C 3 3 -1- M-\ in 3 0 o IA n o E IA J> 3 IA L Q O z: It L 3 •t- IA DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-1 3-00 Standard Penetration Test ^ Undisturbed. Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material ?x>0/5.l> ; 0 t> Ol @ 30', METAVOLCONIC BEDROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish brown, wet, very dense. 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 14' Backfilled 04-13-00 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-4 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PR0J£CT:CAIAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-3 JZ +• 0. a • Sample I TJ 0) - XI -D L C 3 3 -t- \ III 3 O 14 o IA a u 6 IA a 3 CO sc a L a 109.0 o 10.2 It L 3 •t- a M 52 i DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30" drop SHEET 1 OF 2 4-13-00 ^ Standard Penetration Test ^ Undisturbed, Ring Sample Warer Seepage into hole Description of Material ALLUVIUM @ C, CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose. @ 2 1/2', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense; fine to coasre. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff. 10- 5:1 15 12 CL 96.7 25.2 94 I 18 CL 108.4 18.5 93 @ 10'. SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff. ll @ 14', Groundwater encountered. 20- 25 10 SC 10 No Rijcove y i y yA Wy d y. y.. A.A V4 @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose. @ 20', No recovery, loose. 25 GW BEDROCK @ 25', METAVOLCANIC ROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish brown, saturated, medium dense. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-5 GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING LOG W.O. 2863-A-SC BORING B-3 a o • 35- 40 45 50 55 Sample -D a 01 _ D - -D L C 3 10 3 -t- m ID 3 O 59 o IA a u E IA a 3 IA a L a 0 i: c o It L 3 ^- M IA X7 DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-1 3-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material @ 30', METAVOLCANIC ROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish brown, saturated, dense. Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered at 14' Backfilled 04-13-00 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-6 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING 8-4 a. a o Sample I -D III tl - JQ -D L C 3 3 V \ O IA Sl O E IA a 3 IA • O II L 3 •t- a vt DATEfXCAVATeO SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b hammer 30"drop m SHEET 1 OE 2 4-14-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 5- 10- 15- 20- 25 TT.. 15 15 CL CL 108.9 96.7 12.4 25.6 63.3 94 m. CL No R jcove y 13 CL 108.4 15 CL 18.5 100 w "A. AA/, yA AA i 4 '//A vy ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, damp to moist, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff; fine to medium grained, well sorted. @ 9', Groundwater encountered. @ 10', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, soft. @ 15', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. 28 SC @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; medium to coarse grained, no recovery. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-7 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-4 .c •t-a. a • Sample I Tl in HI Tl L C 3 3 -t- \ 10 3 O o IA n U E IA a 3 IA a L • 0 T. It (. 3 •t- It IA DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b hammer 30"drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-14-00 m Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 35 40 45 m 23 m 14 1 14 CL CL CL vAv M AA i i Av fc @ 30', SANDY CLAY, olive green, saturated, very stiff; orange iron oxide staining. @ 35', SANDY CLAY, olive green to brown, saturated, stiff. @ 40', SANDY CLAY, light brown to olive green, saturated, stiff. 50- 55- 5«J Log 19 ML BEDROCK @ 45', CLAYSTONE, light brown to olive gray, saturated, \very stiff. Total Depth = 46 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 I College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hiils GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE C-8 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-5 X •»-a a o Sample I -D » a - n V L C 3 3 -t- \ U 3 0 O IA St (J E a 3 C/1 a L a It L 3 •1- It IA DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30"drop SHEET 1 OF 2 4-14-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 10 15 '"Mm SP SP zz. 15 ALLUVIUM @ 0', SAND, light brown, moist, loose. @ 2 1/2', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse grained. @ 5', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse grained. @ 9', Groundwater encountered. @ 10', No recovery. 20- 25 21 SC 27 SC ^y 28 SC @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to coarse grained. AA /A A @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained. @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-9 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2a63-A-SC PROJECT: CAIAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-5 a a a Sample H-\ III 3 O O V) Si U E IA a 3 10 a L a OATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-14-00 Standard Penetration Test V// Undisturbed, Ring Sample f.^^ Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 35 SC BEDROCK @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, dense. 35- 40- 45 50 55 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE c-10 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-6 0. o a Sample I -D in o il •a L C 3 3 -t- \ in 3 O o CO n U E (o a 3 CO a (. a DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop SHEET 1 OF 2 4-17-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 6/5" CL m m 'i ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, medium stiff; roots and rootlets, no recovery. St 10 5 SM @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, wet, loose, no recovery. @ 9', groundwater encountered. 15 20- 25- 12 CL CL sc sc Wv i i ii @ 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, stiff, fine to medium grained, orange iron oxide staining. @ 15', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, medium stiff. n @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; medium to coarse grained. VAX / v. 'A:V yy. 'y.y @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; orange iron oxide staining. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-11 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-6 a e Q Sample I -0 in 01 u •n I. c 3 3 -1- 4-\ a 3 0 o CO S) O E IA a 3 CO a L a It L 3 •t- It CO OATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-17-00 m Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 30 sc 35 40 45- 50- 55 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to brown, \saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining. BEDROCK Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 y GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-12 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2a63-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-7 Sample V n 01 Sl M L C 3 3 -1- \ IA 3 O o 10 Sl U E IA a 3 CO a L a o z: It L 3 it to DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop SHEET 1 OF 1 4-17-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 10 48 30 CL i m //.'•.A, y A// i ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, hard. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff; Calcium carbonate and orange iron oxide. @ 9', groundwater encountered. 15 ¥/y. 17 SC V-Ay z/ @ 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense, manganese oxide staining. 20 25 16 CL 17 @ 15', Groundwater encountered. @ 15', SANDY CLAY, brown, saturated, stiff. ////. # i ill zy// yy^ @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, very stiff. y'y-80 sc yy. BEDROCK @ 25', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to olive green, \saturated, very dense. r Total Depth = 26 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 15' Backfilled 04-17-00 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE c-13 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-8 a. » a Sample •D in o - XJ Tl L C 3 3->- «t-\ in 3 O o IA Sl U E to a 3 eo 3 •I- 1 a L a o •c » L 3 •t- II CO OATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30" drop SHEET 1 OF 2 4-17-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage into hole Description of Material i 31 CL 119.8 11.1 77 P '/A' ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry to damp, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp to moist, very stiff, fine to coarse grained, well sorted, sub-angular. 10 y sc @ 5', CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist to wet, medium stiff. v.y-y^ Wz f Wz '//A/ Wz Wy VV V fc m AA- 15^^ 20 25 23 CL 109.2 16.8 86 @ 10', SANDY CLAY, brown to olive gray, wet, very stiff; contact between sand and clay @ 11'. WA. >.y. vv/. 18 CL @ 15', Groundwater encountered. @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, very stiff. CL 18 CL @ 20', SANDY CLAY, olive gray to light brown, saturated, stiff. y.. m AA fc vZ// m ii AA @ 25', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, very stiff. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-14 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills W.O. 2863-A-SC BORING B-8 a o a Sample I -D in o - Sl U L C 3 3 4- N in 3 O o CO il u e IA a 3 eo a L O 0 OATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-17-00 yyy Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample % Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 19 SC 35- 40- 45 50 55 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive gray, saturated, medium \dense; fine grained, orange iron oxide. /- BEDROCK Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 15' Backfilled 04-17-00 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-15 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hiils BORING B-9 1- £ •t-Q. O Q Sample I Tl in o - Sl •O L C 3 3 -H <*- \ n 3 O o eo il u E 10 a 3 to a L a o z: It L 3 •(- a eo DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30" drop SHEET 1 OF 2 4-17-00 Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Wafer Seepage into hole Description of Material 10 15 20 25- m. 65 GC GC 129.1 7.0 65 AVA. SC V<y. SC SC A i /A yy /v te k'/>i . - / ALLUVIUM @ 0', CLAYEY GRAVEL, brown, dry to damp, loose. @ 2 1/2', CLAYEY GRAVEL, brown, damp to moist, very dense; coarse grained sand, moderately sorted, sub-angular gravels and sands. @ 5', CLAYEY GRAVEL, dark brown, wet, loose; coarse grained gravels. @ 10', CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, wet, loose. @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, very loose. @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, very loose. m 11 CL College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills /.'/. vvv\ zyy. yyy^ @ 25', CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff; calcium carbonate stains. GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-16 GeoSoils, Inc. BORING LOG w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills BORING B-9 a. a a Sample I Tl M O - il •D L C 3 3 -1- \ U 3 O O 10 il U E IA a 3 to a L a o z: « L 3 +- a eo DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD: 140lb Hammer 30" drop SHEET 2 OF 2 4-17-00 Standard Penetration Test iyy<i Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole Description of Material 35- 40- 45 50- 55- 10 CL 15 CL m 8 CL CL 16 CL @ 30', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff; calcium carbonate stains. @ 35', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. @ 40', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. @ 45', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. @ 50', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. Total Depth = 51 1/2'^ Groundwater encountered @ 1 5' Backfilled 04-1 7-00 College 81 Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-17 w.o. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hiils II, LLC May 12. 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-8 0-4 CL BULK® 0-1' COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry to damp, stiff; porous, roots and rootlets, blocky. 4-8 CL WEATHERED BEDROCK: CLAYEY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium dense; angular gravel to cobbles, orange iron oxide staining, caliche. 8-9 CL SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist to wet, medium dense; some angular gravels and cobbles, orange iron oxide, few boulders. 9 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC ROCK. gray. dry. very dense. Practical Refusal @ 4' Total Depth = 9' No groundwater encountered RankfillfirinR.1P-0n c-18 w.o. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hilis II. LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-9 0-4 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, drv. loose: roots and rootlets, blocky 4-10 SC ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, liaht brown, damp, medium dense; fine to coarse grained, well sorted, laminated clay and sand lenses, orange iron oxide, rounded. 10 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK, olive aray. damp to moist, dense; fractured. r Practical Refusal @ 10' Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered Bankfiiifiri ns.i?-nn 0-19 w.o. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II. LLC May 12. 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL : SAMPLE ;DEPTH (ft.) - MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-10 0-2 SC COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, damo to moist, loose; roots and rootlets. 2-4 SC CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine to coarse, well sorted, rounded, caliche 4-7 ML TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY SILT liaht vellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained, well sorted; massive 7-10 ML BULK @ 7-8 SANDY CLAY. gray, moist, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining, massive. t Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered Backfilled 05-12-00 c-20 w.o. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hilis II, LLC May 12. 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH y.:mi§ GROUP SYMBOL . SAMPLE , DEPTH - (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD :ii:DRYlii. DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-11 0-2V2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liaht to reddish brown, dry to damp, loose; roots and rootlets. 2y2-3V2 SC/SM CLAYEY SILT SAND, olive gray, moist, medium dense; roots and rootlets. 3V2-7 SM BULK @ 4-5' SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium dense; abundant roots and rootlets, manganese, orange iron oxide. 7-10 BULK @ 7-8' BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK light yellowish brown, damp, dense; fractured, breaks to silty sand and angular gravel upon excavation. Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered Rackfilleri nfi-i?-nn 0-21 w.o. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.) MOISTURE (%) FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION TP-12 O-V2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium arav. drv. loose: many roots, blocky. open dessication cracks, fine grained. V2-VY2 SW SAND, dry, medium dense; few dessication cracks, fine to medium grained, some silt. 1V2-2V2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, sliahtiv moist, brown, medium dense; weathered, few dessication cracks, fine grained, massive 2V2-8 SM SILTY SAND, yellow brown to olive brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained, massive to weak subhorizontal bedding Total Depth = 8' No groundwater encountered Rar^kfiiiArin.R-ip-nn c-22 w.o. 2a63-A-SC Calavera Hilis II. LLC May 12. 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO. DEPTH (ft.) GROUP SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH fm:myy MOISTURE |||J:{%)|||| FIELD :iii:DRY:-i:" DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTiON TP-13 0-2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium arav. drv. loose: manv roots, blocky, open dessication cracks, fine grained. 2-4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, sliahtiv moist, medium dense; weathered, few dessication cracks, fine grained, massive. Total Depth = 4' No groundwater encountered Rflnkfiiiefinfi-ip.nn c-23 APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA 6.000 5,000 4.000 O z IU cc t- (0 cc < 111 X CO 3.000 2,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C • TP-02 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1608 20 • TP-02 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1345 20 Note: Sample 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 Figure: D-1 6,000 5,000 4.000 X z LU cc ^ 3,000 2,000 1,000 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 • TP-10 3.5 Primary Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 531 29 • TP-10 3.5 Residual Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 514 29 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-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-2 6,000 5,000 4,000 O z UJ cc 5 3.000 X V) 2,000 1,000 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 4 • TP-26 3.0 Primary Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 130 31 • TP-26 3.0 Residual Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 98 31 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 Figure: D-3 6,000 5,000 4,000 O z UJ cc cc < Ul X CO 2,000 1,000 1 ,—jZ^y^ 1 1 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Ya MC% c • TP-32 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturised 101.2 9.8 464 35 • TP-32 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturiied 101.2 9.8 361 36 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-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 4 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% c • TP-35 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturiied 99.0 13.3 250 27 • TP-35 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 208 28 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 5 6.000 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5.000 6.000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C • TP-39 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 3189 48 • TP-39 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 1007 29 Note: Sample Innundated priorto testing GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad. CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 6 z m 10 11 100 1,000 10,000 10' STRESS, psf s i ea d 3 in IS z Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-1 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 105.7 20.5 17.3 250 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-A1-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 7 -1 I- (0 10 \ 1ll_ 100 1,000 10,000 10' STRESS, psf e CO Ci i m 3 a. o Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-1 15.0 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) 107.7 19.5 18.7 720 z O o GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 8 I- 10 11 100 1,000 10.000 10' STRESS, psf o o a. IS Sample Depth/El. Visual Classirication Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-2 10.0 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) 100.9 20.8 18.3 250 z I-in _j O in z o a GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 9 z I- 10 11 100 1,000 10.000 10' STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MG Initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 5.0 Silty Sand 100.6 9.5 18.0 2000 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-10 z I-co 10 11 100 \ \ \ 1,000 10,000 10' STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 10.0 Sandy Clay 121.7 13.6 13.6 2500 GeoSoils, Inc. « 5741 Palmer Way 'tmu Carisbad. CA 92008 I" Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-11 -1 I-eo 10 1ll_ 100 1,000 10,000 10' STRESS, psf 0. O Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-5 15.0 102.7 23.3 20.8 250 1- deoSol z o o GeoSoils, Inc. ^ 5741 Palmer Way me. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^ Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-12 z" I-CO 1,000 10,000 STRESS, psf e oo o ts ID 3 a. <3 Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-6 5.0 Sandy Clay 107.5 12.5 16.9 2000 z I -J o tn z GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad. CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-13 z (0 \ \ \ \ \ o \ \ \ \ 10 11 100 1,000 10,000 10' STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-6 15.0 106.7 11.7 16.3 2500 o ts z o o GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-14 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 H65 g UJ60 ^55 DC ^50 LE 1-45 z lii o40 cc UJ 0.35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 * 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 8IP14I6 20 30 40 50 60 100,40200 HYDROMETER TW 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine cxiarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu HB-1 10.0 SANDY LBAfi CLAY(CL) 36 15 21 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO %Gravel %Sand %Silt "/oClay HB-1 10.0 0.094 0.006 0.0 46.4 24.0 29.6 lie GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad. CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-15 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 H65 52 UJ60 § ^55 OC ^50 ul K45 z UJ o40 cc LU 0-35 30 25 20 15 10 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS 6 * 3 2 1,5 1 3/4 1/23/8 ^ ^ 6 8^0 ,^16 20 30 40 50 gp 100,^200 HYDROMETER T 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu HB-1 15.0 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) NP NP NP 1.33 3.55 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay HB-1 15.0 4.75 0.657 0.402 0.185 0.0 95.4 4.6 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-16 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 ^65 g LU60 ^55 oc ^50 ^45 z LU O40 Ol D-35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I 6 * 3 2 1 5 1 3/4 1/23/g 3 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 6 slO 1416 20 30 40 50 100 200 HYDROMETER 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine cxiarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample • HB-1 Depth 3o.o Classification SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) LL 49 PL 20 PI 29 Cc Cu Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO %Gravel %Sand VoSilt %Clay HB-1 30.0 4.75 0.025 0.0 30.3 20.3 49.4 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-17 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 £65 LU 60 ^55 oc ^50 45 z LU O40 CC Ui 0-35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 6 ^3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 8" 20 30 40 ^0 go 100,4o200 I I 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu • HB-2 10.0 POORLY GRADED SAND witti SILT(SP-SM) NP NP NP 1.10 2.84 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO %Gravel VeSand %Silt %Clay HB-2 10.0 0.609 0.379 0.214 0.0 93.7 5.8 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-18 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 * 3 2 1 5 1 3/4 1/23^8 3 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I g10„16 20 30 40 50 go 100,4o200 HYDROMETER 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 H65 O 60 ml m oc 55 z UJ O' DC ill 0L35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample • HB-2 Depth 25.0 Classification CLAYEY SAND{SC) LL 32 PL 16 PI 16 Cc Cu Sample Depth DIDO D60 DSO DIO -%Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay HB-2 25.0 4.75 0.169 0.025 0.0 58.3 19.2 22.5 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D-19 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 £65 52 UJ 60 ^55 OC m5o 45 z LU O40 DC UJ 0L35 6 * 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23« 3 ^ 6 30 40 50 gg 100,4o200 \ 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine exiarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification PL PI Cc Cu HB-5 15.0 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO D10 "/oGravel %Sand %Silt %Clay HB-5 15.0 4.75 0.081 0.0 41.4 18.4 40.2 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Mc Cartsbad, CA 92008 A Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-A1-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 20 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 ^65 g UJ60 $ ^55 OC m50 iZ H45 z LU O40 cc lil Q-35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 '* 3 2 1 5 1 3/4 1/2 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 3 4 6 BIO14I6 20 30 40 50 go 100„o200 HYDROMETER T~T 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES cxiarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu HB-5 25.0 CLAYEY SAND(SC) 36 15 21 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO %Gravel %Sand %Silt VoClay HB-5 25.0 9.423 0.266 0.037 0.8 63.2 13.0 23.0 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 21 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 H65 O UJ 60 $ ^55 cc 45 z LU O40 DC LU 0-35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 6 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/2g« 3 4 6 g^O 14I6 20 30 40 50 go 100,^0200 TT 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine cxjarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu HB-6 15.0 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO %Gravel %Sand VoSilt %Clay HB-6 15.0 9.423 0.231 0.056 0.4 67.5 13.1 19.1 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 22 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 ^^65 52 UJ60 ^55 CC iL H45 z LU O40 CC Ul 0.35 6^3 2 1.S 13/4 '"23/8 3 U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I 8l0„16 20 30 40 50 60 100,40200 HYDROMETER \ 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu HB-6 25.0 Sample Depth D100 D60 DSO DIO VoGravel VoSand %Silt %Clay HB-6 25.0 4.75 0.167 0.051 0.0 64.5 16.7 18.8 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 23 o z o Q. , CL CH / / Z / / y y / / / y A y / / • ML MH CL-fi^L ML MH i ML MH LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL PI Fines Classification • HB-1 10.0 36 15 21 54 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-1 15.0 NP NP NP 5 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) • HB-1 30.0 49 20 29 70 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-2 10.0 NP NP NP 6 POORLY GRADED SAND wilh SILT{SP-SM) • HB-2 25.0 32 16 16 42 CLAYEY SAND{SC) O HB-5 25.0 36 15 21 36 CLAYEY SAND(SC) GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 24 60 50 Q Z o I- Q. 20 10 CL CH / Z / Z / / z y / ^/ / % / / y / / / ML MH CL-^L ML MH n ML MH LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL PI Fines Classification TP-01 0.0 51 15 36 TP-02 3.0 43 25 18 Clay e oo O O GeoSoils, Inc. ^ 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 *• Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-AI-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 25 APPENDIX E LABORATORY DATA (GSi, 2001C) r SIEUE ANALYSIS «60 «100 »200 60 50 \ A \ H IA IA <£ CL Ul u a: Ul 40 CL 30 20 10 10 1 0.1 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0. 001 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarsa f 1 na coarsa med1um fine SILT CLAY EXPLORATION DEPTH • B-01 15. 0 • B-ei 20. 0 • B-02 10. 0 • B-02 20. 0 LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION GaoSoi Is, Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 W.0.: 2a63-SC p. Figure E-1 r SIEVE ANALYSIS 3 100 3/4" 3/B" #4 #10 ?0 80 73 60 50 40 30 20 10 H IA IA <C a. Ul u Ul a. 10 1 0.1 e.01 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0. 001 GRAUEL SAND SILT CLAY f i na med i um SILT CLAY coarsa f i na coarse med i um f 1 ne CLAY EXPLORATION DEPTH LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION • B-03 25. 0 37 21 SC CLAYEY SAND • B-04 la. 0 A B-04 20. 0 36 19 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY # B-0S 5. 0 GaoSo ils, Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN Augus-t- 2000 U.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-2 r SIEV/E ANALYSIS 3 100 70 80 70 CD Z 60 H IA IA <C CL 50 t-Z Ul o a Ul 40 CL 30 20 10 10 1 0.1 0.01 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0. 001 GRAUEL SAND SILT CLAY f i ne mad i um f i na SILT CLAY coarse f i ne coarse mad i um f i na EXPLORATION DEPTH • B-05 25. 0 • B-06 15.0 • B-06 25. 0 • B-07 10. 0 LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION GeoSoIls, Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 U.0.: 28G3-SC Figure E-3 r 3" 100 SIEUE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/S" »4 *10 #20 «40»60 #100 #200 0. 01 0. 001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAUEL SAND SILT CLAY coar;sa fine coarse med i um •f i ne SILT CLAY EXPLORATION OEPTH • 8-07 25. 0 • B-ea 15. 0 • B-09 10.0 • B-09 30. 0 LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION GeoSo ils. Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 W.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-4 60 50 40 X Ul Q z 30 z Z / CH y z CL z • / A y y MH • - a 4 ML ML-CL / a 4 ML 5 1 0 1 a 4 ML >-t-H U H t- IA 10 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) EXPLORATION • B-03 • B-04 DEPTH Cft) 25. 0 20. 0 LL PL PI 37 16 21 36 16 19 GeoSolIs, Inc. ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.0.: 2a63-SC Figure E-5 J r 3000 2500 2000 IA Q. X H eo z Ul <c UJ X e/l 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-Bl Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: % Pr i mary 2500 3000 Test Method: Undisturbed Ring Sample Innundated Prior To Testing Res i duaI ResuIts: Cohesion (psf): B35 Friction Angle: 22 Cohesion (psf): 598 Friction Angle: 21 GeoSoIls. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 U.0.: 2863-50 Figure E-6 j r 3000 2500 2000 U. IA a. X H ID UJ « Ul X in 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-02 Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: % Pr i maru 2500 3000 Test Method: Remolded to 90X of 128.0 pcf 9 10.0X Sample Innundated Prior To Tasting Res Idua I ResuIts: Cohesion (psf): 623 Friction Angle: 23 Cohesion (psf): 612 Friction Angle: 23 GeoSo ils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 U.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-7 r 3000 2500 2000 U. IA IL X t-CO z UJ QC H lA OC <c UJ X IA 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-03 Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: # Primary 2500 3000 Test Method: Undisturbed Ring Sampia Innundated Prior To Testing Res i duaI ResuIts: Cohesion (psf): 811 FrIct i on AngIe: 12 Cohesion (psf); 805 Fr1ctI on Ang I e: 12 GeoSo ils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.0.: 28G3-SC Figure E-8 j r 3000 2500 2000 U. IA 0. X I-CO z Ul I- lA QC UJ X IA 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-03 Depth (ft): 10.0 Legend: 9 Pr i mary 2500 3000 Test Method; Undisturbed Ring Sample Innundated Prior To Tasting Res i duaI ResuIts: Cohesion (psf): 684 Friction Angle; 22 Cohesion (psf): 685 Friction Angle; 22 GeoSo ils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 Ul. 0. : 2B63-SC Figure E-9 r 3000 2500 2000 U. e/l 0. CD z UJ oc QC <c Ul X IA 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-04 Depth (ft): 5.0 Lagand; % Pr i mary Test Method; Undisturbed Ring Sampia Innundated Prior To Testing Res IduaI 2500 ResuIts: Cohes i on (psf) Fr i ct i on AngIe Cohes1 on (psf) Fr i ct i on AngIe 3000 169 28 123 29 GeoSo ils. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 Ul. 0. : 2a63-SC Figure E-10 r 3000 2500 2000 IA 0. CD Z Ul oc QC <t UJ X IA 1500 1000 500 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 2500 3000 Exploration: B-06 Depth (ft): 4.0 Test Method: Remolded to 90X of 126.5 Pcf 9 W.'iv. Sample Innundated Prior To Testing Legend: # Pr i maru • Residual Resu tts; Cohesion (psf): 431 Friction Angle: 25 Cohesion (psf): 481 Friction Angle: 24 GaoSo ils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 U.0.: 2B63-SC Figure E-11 J -1 QC z Ul ej oc UJ 0. _L 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: B-01 Depth: 5.0" Undisturbed Ring Sample Dru Density (pcf): 107.5 Watar Content (x): 18.4 Sample Innundated 9 750 psf GeoSo ils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Figure E-12 QC Z UJ u QC UJ Q. 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration; B-01 Depth; 10.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dru Density (pcf): 111.1 Uater Content (X): 18.4 Sample Innundated 9 1250 psf GaoSo ila, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 U.0.: 2a63-SC Figure E-13 z H « CC y- lA Z UJ u QC UJ 0. 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-02 Depth: 10.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Densitu (pcf): 109.6 Watar Content (X): 17.7 Sample Innundated 9 1250 psf GaoSoIls, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 U.0.: 2a63-SC Figure E-14 r z H <t QC Z Ul u QC Ul 0. 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: B-03 Depth: 5.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dru Densitu (pcf): 96.8 Watar Content (5C): 25.2 Sample Innundated 9 750 psf GaoSoIls. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.; 2a63-SC Figure E-15 r -1 4 QC UJ ^ s III Q. 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: B-03 Depth: 10.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 108.5 Water Content (X); 18.5 Sample Innundated 9 1250 psf GeoSo ils, Inc, CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-16 r oc z Ul u QC UJ Q. 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: B-04 Depth: 5.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 105.7 Water Content (X): 19.4 Sample Innundated 9 750 psf GeoSo ils. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Figure E-18 r <c QC z Ul a QC Ul 0. 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: B-04 Depth; 15.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dru Densitu (pcf): 106.0 Water Content (X): 21.9 Sample Innundated 9 2000 psf GeoSo ils. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2B63-SC Figure E-17 r -1 « 0! J-l/l H Z Ul u QC UJ Q. \ \ -V < \ < \ \ 9 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: 8-07 Depth: 5.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dru Densitu (pcf): 118.1 Watar Content (X); 14.3 Sample Innundated 9 750 psf GeoSo ils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2B63-SC Figure E-19 r QC I- lA Z Ul u QC Ul 0. —9— \ 9 100 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) 10000 Exploration: 8-08 Depth: 10.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dru Densitu (pcf): 114.5 Water Content (X): 11.1 Sample Innundated 9 1250 psf GeoSo ils. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN August 2000 W.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-20 j APPENDIX F SLOPE STABILITY A' 200 -PROPOSED GRADE Ul UJ EXISTING GRADE © 100 - Ui UJ Tsa "^Qal 0 -Tsa 200 -100 NB6E Afu QalB Tsa LEGEND Artificial fill, undocumented Quaternary valley flood plain alluvium Tertiary Santiago Formation Approximate location of geologic contact Bedding ^-^1 y<yi GeaiSottsilnc. LOS ANGELES CO. RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' WiO3^098-A1-SC DATE 1/02 SCALE 1"=100- Figure F-1 B 200 - Ul UJ z 2 100 UJ UJ TP-40 EXISTING GRADE 0 - TP-38 PROPOSED GRADE -^Qal Tsa Tsa PROPOSED GRADE N80W Tsa B' - 200 100 - 0 Tl (O' c -n I ro LOS ANGELES CO. RIVERSIDE CO ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO. GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' w.o. 3098-AI-SC DATE 1/02 SCALE r=100 EXISTING GRADE* I PROPOSED GRADE 200 - UJ UJ z o i UJ _J UJ - 200 100 - Tsa 0- - 100 - 0 N49W Ge^CfilSfliic. LOS ANGELES CO. RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE CO. SAN DIEGO CO GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTiON C-C V^3098^^^D^^/0^SCA^j^j100' Figure F-3 D' 300-- 300 UJ UJ 200- PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE Ui .J UJ 100 -Tsa Tsa 0 - - 100 - 0 N42W LOS ANGELES CO. RIVERSIDE CO ORANGE CO SAN DIEGO CO GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION D-D' >J^a309^A^^D^^/O^SCALEr=100" Figure F-4 350 MC MILLIN PROJECT SECTION A-A", STATIC, 5 TO 10 DEG.OUTSLP C:\STEDWIN\MCMILAAB.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:11AM 300 - 250 200 Soil Desc. Soil Total Type Unit Wt No. (pcf) BEDROCK 1 120.0 FILL 2 120.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. UnitWt. Intercept Angie Surface (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 150 100 - STED GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.33 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method ID c (0 I 350 300 250 200 MC MILLIN PROJECT SECTION A-A', STATIC, MASSIVE BEDROCK C:\STEDW1N\MCMILAA.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 10:52AM 150 100 STED CQ c Tl I o> 150 200 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.70 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 550 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 MC MILLIN PROJECT SECTION A-A", SEISMIC, MASSIVE BEDROCK C:\STEDWIN\MCMILAA.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 10:53AM Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desc. Type UnitWt. UnitWt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 FILL 2 120.0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 Load Value Horiz Eqk 0.150 g< 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 •n c STED GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.19 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 600 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION B-B', STATIC WITH CLAY SEAM C:\STEDWIN\MCMILBB.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:14AM 500 400 300 200 100 Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 CLAYLR 2 120.0 120.0 100.0 12.0 0 FILL 3 120.0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 (5' C I 00 STED GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.43 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 280 240 200 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION C-C, STATIC ,MASSIVE BEDROCK C:\STEDWIN\MCMILCC.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:21AM Soii Desc. Soil Total Type Unit Wt, No. (pcf) BEDROCK 1 120.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. UnitWt. intercept Angie Surface (pcO (psO (deg) No. 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 160 - 120 - 440 STED GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.43 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method (Q c Tl I (0 280 240 200 160 120 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION C-C, STATIC ,5 TO 10 DEG OUTSL C:\STEDWIN\MCMILCC.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:25AM FS 1.14 1.25 1.30 1.33 1.37 1.42 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 Soil Desc. Soil Total Type Unit Wt. No. (pcf) BEDROCK 1 120.0 I I =F= Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. UnitWt Intercept Angle Surface (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 80 40 STED ua (p Tl I 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.14 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method 280 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION C-C, SEISMIC ,5 TO 10 DEG OUTSL C:\STEDWIN\MCMILCC.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:27AM 240 - 200 160 120 FS 0.86 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.99 1.06 1.07 1.13 1.15 1.15 =F =F =F Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt Unit WL Intercept Angie Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 Load Horiz Eqk Value 0.150 g< 80 40 ta c STED 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=0.86 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method 300 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION D-D'-STATIC, MASSIVE C:\STEDWIN\MCMiLDD.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:35AM 250 200 150 100 50 I 1 I Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psO (deg) No. BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 T 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 (O c I ro STED GSTABL7 V.2 FSmin=1.72 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 300 250 - 200 150 100 50 (O (D Tl I Ci STED MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION D-D'-STATIC, 5 TO 10 DEG. OUTSLO C:\STEDWIN\MCMILDD.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 12:38PM # FS 1 1 Soil h- Soil Total 1 Saturated Cohesion Friction \ 1 Piez. a 1.38 Desc. Type UnitWt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface b 1.41 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psO (deg) No. c 1.44 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 d 1.47 e 1.75 f 1.79 g 1.80 h 1.82 i 1.84 j 1.84 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.38 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method 300 250 200 150 100 50 Tl (5* C (P Tl STED MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION D-D'-SEISMIC, 5 TO 10 DEG. OUTSL C:\STEDWIN\MCMILDDE.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 12:42PM Soil Soil Total Desc. Type UnitWt. No. (pcf) BEDROCK 1 120.0 Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. UnitWL Intercept Angle Surface (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 Load Horiz Eqk Value' 0.150 g< 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 GSTABL7V.2 FSmin=1.04 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method APPENDIX G GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, Including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, Installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part ofthe earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter In the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines orthe recommendations contained In the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible forthe satisfactory completion of all earthwork In accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration ofthe project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work Is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It Is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for obsen/ation. Laboratorv 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- 1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed In accordance with test method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill 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. GeoSoils, Inc. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted bythe contractor, with obsen/ation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval bythe governing agencies, as applicable. It Isthe contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It Is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork In accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided bythe contractor with due consideration forthe fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion ofthe 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 safisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation. Including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located priorto grading are to be removed or treated In a manner recommended bythe soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or othenwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G File;e:\wpA3000\3098a1.geo Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground Is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, It may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material In lifts restricted to about 6 inches In compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free ft-om ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would Inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), 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 soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key Is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended othenwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to V2 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 toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until 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 determined to be suitable bythe soil engineer. These materials should be ft'ee of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 3 GcoSoils, Inc. characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived ft-om benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result In the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 Inches should not be buried or placed In fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer In areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To fi^cilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, ftjture utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If Import material Is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested Is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis ofthis material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed In areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing Indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shoLild be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as othen/vise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 4 GcoSoils, Inc. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed In an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill Is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing ofthe finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recojTimended. 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 consisting 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. 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-rolllng. 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 operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G Fiie:e:\wpA3000\3098a1.geo Page 5 GcoSoils, Inc. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances ofthe controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation ofthe soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be Installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re-filling 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 othenwise approved, the cut portion ofthe slope should be obsen/ed bythe engineering geologist priorto placement of materials for construction ofthe fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should obsen/e all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless othenwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors 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 of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 6 GcoSoils, Inc. COMPLETION Obsen/ation, testing and consultation bythe geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded In accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their obsen/ations ofthe work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following Is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and obsen/ation, the following precautions are to be implemented forthe safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other Is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 7 GcoSoils, Inc. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, 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 obsen/es 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 technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supen/isor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation ofthe pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil ^chnicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form 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 condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front ofthe 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 decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test locafion. 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 operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion ofthe fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter ofthe fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any ofthe above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted In an effort to effect a solution. However, in the McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1 .geo Page 8 GcoSoils, Inc. interim, no further testing will be performed unfil the situafion is rectified. Any fill place 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 brings this to his/her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils 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 rocKpr 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. ifthe contractorfails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supen/isor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect 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 excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities. McMillin Construction, Inc. ' ~ Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 9 GcoSoils, Inc.