HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-06; BRESSI RANCH; AS-GRADED REPORT OF MASS GRADING, PLANNING AREAS PA-4 AND PA-5, INNOVATION WAY AND A PORTION OF GATEWAY ROAD; 2004-05-25I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e-roo-o~
AS-GRADED REPORT OF MASS GRADING,
PLANNING AREAS PA-4 AND PA-5,
INNOVATION WAY AND A PORTION OF GATEWAY ROAD
CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 00-06, BRESSI RANCH, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
LENNAR COMMUNITIES
1525 Faraday Avenue, Suite 300
Carlsbad, California 92008
Project No. 971009-014
May 25, 2004
J. T. KRUER & COMPANY
----Leighton and Associates, Inc. ----
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
! I
I I
: I
I ' .
I
4
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
May 25,2004
ProjectNo. 971009-014
To: Lennar Communities
1525 FaradayAvenue, Suite 300
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Attention: Ms. Kristine Zortman
Subject: As-Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5, Innovation
Way and a Portion of Gateway Road, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, Califomia
In accordance with the request and authorization of representatives of Lennar Communities, we
have perfonned geotechnical observation and testing services during the mass grading operations
for Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 of Bressi Ranch project (Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06) located in
Carlsbad, Califomia. The accompanying report sunraiarizes our geotechnical observations, field
and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the mass grading
operations for the subject site. In addition, the accompanying report presents our geotechnical
conclusions and preliminary recommendations conceming the fine and post grading and
construction phases of site development.
The mass grading operations for Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 of the Bressi Ranch project were
performed in general accordance vwth the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A), geotechnical
recommendations made during mass grading, and the City of Carlsbad requirements. It is our
professional opinion that the subject site is suitable for its intended conunercial/industrial use
provided the recommendations included herein and in the project geotechnical reports are
incorporated into the fine grading, design and construction of the proposed development and
associated improvements. As of the date of this report, the mass grading operations for Planning
Areas PA-4 and PA-5 of the Bressi Ranch project are essentially complete.
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www.leightongeo.com
971009-014
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William D. Olson, RCE 45283
Senior Project Engineer
Randall K. WagnerPCEG 1612
Senior Associate
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(6) Sares Regis Group
Attention: Mr. Patrick Russell
4
Leighton
971009-014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section PaSi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
2.0 SUMMARY OF MASS GRADING OPERATIONS 4
2.1 SUE PREPARATION AND REMOVALS 4
2.2 STABIUTY FILL KEYS .5
2.3 FILL SLOPE KEYS ....III"" 5
2.4 SUBDRAINS 5
2.5 CUT/FILL TRAI^Srn6"N CONDnioN 6
2.6 PLACEMENT OF OVERSIZED MATERIAL 6
2.7 EXPANSIVE SOIL AT FINISH GRADE 6
2.8 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACnON 7
2.9 FIELD DENSITY TESTING 7
2.10 LABORATORY TESTING 7
2.11 GRADED SLOPES 8
2.12 SETTLEMENT MONUMENT MONTO OF DEEP FILLS 8
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY 9
3.1 AS-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDmONS 9
3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS 9
3.2.1 Fill Soils Docunnented by Others (Map Symbol-Afo) 9
3.2.2 Undocumented Fill Soils (Map Symbol - Afu) 10
3.2.3 Topsoil (Unmapped) 10
3.2.4 Alluvium/Colluvium, Undifferentiated Map Symbol (Qal/Qcol) 10
3.2.5 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Ts) 10
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 11
3.4 FAULTING AND SEISMIOTY 11
3.5 GROUNDWATER 12
3.6 EXPANSION AND SULFATE"CONTENT TESTING OF REPRESENTATIVE FINISH GRADE SOILS 13
4.0 CONCLUSIONS 14
4.1 GENERAL 14
4.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS^ 14
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 17
5.1 EARTHWORK 17
5.1.1 Site Preparation 17
5.1.2 Mitigation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions 17
5.1.3 Mitigation of High to Very High Expansive Soils at Finish Grade 18
5.1.4 Excavations 18
5.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction 19
5.2 COMMERCIAL FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 19
4
Leighton
971009-014
TABLE OF CONTENTS Tcontinued^
5.2.1 MOISTURE CONDITIONING 20
5.2.1 Moisture Conditioning 20
5.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters 21
5.2.3 Foundation Setback 21
5.2.4 Anticipated Settlement 22
5.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 23
5.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 23
5.4 FENCES AND FREESTANDING WALLS 24
5.5 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS 25
5.6 SUBDRAIN OUTLET MAINTENANCE 25
5.7 SETTLEMENT MONFTORING OF DEEP Blis 26
5.8 PREUMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 26
5.9 CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE 27
5.10 SLOPE MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 28
5.11 LANDSCAPING AND POST-CONSTRUCTION 28
5.12 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESHNG 29
6.0 LIMITATIONS 30
TABLES
TABLE 1 - PRESATURATION RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON FINISH GRADE SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL
PAGE 20
TABLE 2 - MINIMUM FOUNDATION SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPE FACES- PAGE 22
TABLE 3 - LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES - PAGE 23
TABLE 4 - PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN - PAGE 26
FIGURE
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 2
PLATES
PLATES 1 AND 2- AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL MAP - IN POCKET
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX D - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
4
Leighton
971009-014
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the request and authorization of representatives of Lennar Communities, we
have perfonned geotechnical observation and testing services during the mass grading operations
for Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 of Bressi Ranch project (Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06) located in
Carlsbad, Califomia (Figure 1). Mass grading ofPlanning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 also included the
grading of the adjacent roadways including a portion of Gateway Road and Innovation Way. This
as-graded report of mass grading summarizes our geotechnical observations, geologic mapping,
field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the mass
grading operations for the project. In addition, this report provides conclusions and preliminary
recommendations for the proposed development ofthe site.
As of this date, the mass grading operations for Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 are essentially
complete. However, the site is currently sheet-graded and will still need to be fine graded in order to
construct the planned building pads, driveways/parking areas and other anticipated site
improvements. A final as-graded report documenting the additional grading operations and
providing (if necessary) addendum and/or additional geotechnical recommendations relative to the
proposed development should be prepared upon completion of the future grading operations.
The Mass Grading Plans for Bressi Ranch project, prepared by Project Design Consultants (PDC,
2003a), were utilized as a base map to present the as-graded geotechnical conditions and
approximate locations of the field density tests. The As-graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2)
is presented in the pocket at the rear ofthe text.
4
Leighton
INNOVATION WAY
PA-4
AND PA-5
METROPOLrTAN STKEET
NORTH
SITE LOCATION MAP
Planning Area PA-4 and PA-5
Affordable Housing / Bressi Ranch
Carlsbad, California
Project No.
Scale
Engr./Geol.
Drafted By
Date
971009-014
Not to scaie
WDO/RKW
KAM
May 2004
Leighton and Associates, Inc. RoureNo i
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY ^
971009-014
1.1 Project Description
The Bressi Ranch development is located southeast of the intersection of El Camino Real
and Palomar Airport Road in the central portion of the City of Carlsbad, Califomia
(Figure 1). The site consists of an irregular-shaped piece of property bordered on the north
by Palomar Airport Road, on the west by El Camino Real, on the southwest and south by
the La Costa - The Greens property, and by the Rancho Carrillo development and Melrose
Drive to the east. Plarming Areas PA-4 and PA-5 are located in the north-central and
northeastem portion of the Bressi Ranch project along the south side of Palomar Airport
Road.
The proposed development of Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 is anticipated to consist of
commercial and light industrial buildings, driveways, parking areas, underground utilities,
minor slopes, and associated open areas or landscaped areas. It is anticipated that the
proposed commercial buildings will be a one to two-story structures on concrete slab-on-
grade foundations with concrete tilt-up construction.
-3-
Leighton
971009-014
2.0 SUMMARY OF MASS GRADING OPERATIONS
The mass grading operations for Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 and the associated streets were
performed between September 2003 and May 2004. The grading operations were performed by
Nelson and Belding while Leighton and Associates performed the geotechnical observation and
testing services. Our field technicians were on site fiill-time during the grading operations while our
field and project geologists were on site on a periodic basis. Grading of the site included: 1) the
removal of potentially compressible desiccated older fill soils, undocumented fill soils, topsoil,
colluvium, alluvium, and weathered formational material; 2) the excavation of stability fill keys; 3)
the excavation of fill slope keys; 4) preparation of areas to receive fill; 5) the placement of
subdrains in the canyon bottoms and stability fill keys; 6) excavation of fonnational material;
and 7) the placement of compacted fill soils. Up to approximately 50 feet of cut was excavated and
a maximum of approximately 70 feet of fill was placed vsdthin the limits of Planning Areas PA-4
and PA-5. The as-graded geotechnical conditions are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical
Map (Plates 1 and 2).
2.1 Site Preparation and Removals
Prior to grading, the areas of the proposed development were stripped of surface vegetation
and debris and these materials were disposed of away from the site. Removals of unsuitable
and potentially compressible soils (including desiccated documented fills, undocumented
fills, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and weathered formational material) were made to
competent material. The removals of potentially compressible material were performed in
accordance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and
geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading. Specifically, removals of
potentially compressible material included: 1) approximately 2 to 11 feet of desiccated
documented fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, and weathered formational material
on the hillsides and ridge tops; and 2) up to approximately 25 feet of alluvium and/or
colluvium in the canyons.
After the removals were made, the removal areas flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical)
were scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed to obtain a near-
optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, as
determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D1557.
The steeper natural hillsides were benched into competent material as fill was placed.
Representative bottom elevations in the removal areas are shown on the As-graded
Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2).
Leighton
971009-014
2.2 Stabilitv Fill Kevs
The stability fills were constmcted to stabilize the exposed blocky claystone/siltstone and/or
adverse geologic conditions present within the Santiago Formation. The stability fill keys
were excavated a minimum of 3 to 5 feet below the toe-of-slope, a minimum of 15 feet to
20 feet wide with the key bottom angled at least 2 percent into-the-slope. The stability fill
front cuts were excavated near vertical while the backcuts were excavated at an approximate
1:1 or less (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. The stability fills were excavated at: 1)
the north side of PA-4 at Palomar Airport Road between Station No. 125-^00 and 132+30;
2) north of Gateway Road between Station No. 49+50 and 53+25; and 3) on the west side
of El Fuerte Street between Station No. 13+50 to 15+00. The approximate locations of the
stability fill keys are presented on the As-graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2).
2.3 Fill Slope Keys
Prior to the placement of fill slopes that were placed above natural and/or cut areas on the
site, a fill slope key was constmcted. The fill slope keys were excavated at least 2 feet into
competent soil along the toe-of-slope and constmcted approximately 15 feet wide with the
key bottom angled a minimum of 2 percent into-the-slope.
2.4 Subdrains
Canyon and stability fill subdrains were placed under the observation of a representative of
Leighton and Associates during the mass grading operations for the Bressi Ranch project.
After the potentially compressible material in the canyons were removed to competent
material or when compacted fill was placed over competent material to obtain flow to a
suitable outlet location, a subdrain was installed along the canyon bottom. The canyon
subdrains consisted of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe surroimded by a minimum of 9-
cubic feet (per linear foot) of cmshed 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi HON filter fabric.
In addition to the canyon subdrains, subdrains were also installed along the bottom of the
stability fill keys. The stability fill subdrains consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe
surrounded by a minimum of 3-cubic feet (per linear foot) of clean 3/4-inch gravel wrapped
in Mirafi MON filter fabric.
The canyon and stability fill subdrains were placed with a minimum 1-percent fall (2-
percent or greater where possible) to a suitable outlet location. The location of the subdrains
placed during the mass grading operations for the project were surveyed by the project civil
engineer. The subdrain locations presented on the As-graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1
and 2).
4 -5-
Leighton
971009-014
2.5 Cut/Fill Transition Condition
The sheet-graded pads of Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 consist of both cut and fills. The
cut/fill transition conditions on the sheet-graded pads were not mitigated during the mass
grading operations. Once the site improvements on the pads of the planning areas are
determined, specific recommendations conceming the cut/fill transition conditions can be
provided. In general, the cut/fill transition conditions can be mitigated by the
overexcavation of the cut portion of the pad or by designing deep foundations that extend
through the fill.
2.6 Placement of Oversized Material
During the mass grading operations of the Bressi Ranch project, a number of well cemented
or concretionary beds where encountered within the Santiago Formation. Excavation of the
cemented/concretionary beds or zones typically resulted in rock fi-agments ranging from less
than 6 inches to greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension. In order to minimize difficult
excavation of future utility trenches or foundations excavations, recommendations were
made during the mass grading operations to place the oversized rock (generally defined as
greater than 8 inches in diameter) below a depth of 5 to 10 feet below the sheet-graded
finish grade elevation.
While the conttactor made their best effort to minimize the rock within the upper 5 to 10
feet of the sheet-graded finish grade surface, some oversized rock should be anticipated. In
addition, cemented or concretionary beds should be anticipated at or below the finish grade
surface in the cut areas and may result in the generation of additional oversized rock. Future
fine grading of the sheet-graded pads may also result in generation of oversized rock if the
existing grades are lowered more than 5 to 10 feet.
2.7 Expansive Soil at Finish Grade
Based on our geologic mapping and preliminary expansion potential testing of
representative finish grade soils of the sheet-graded pads, low to very high expansive soils
are present within Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5. The results of the expansion potential
testing, which are presented in Appendix C, indicate the expansion index of the
representative soils range from 59 to 121 based on Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC). The actual extent of expansive soils should be evaluated during fiiture
grading. Recommendations conceming these expansive soils are presented in Section 5.1.3.
4
Leighton
971009-014
2.8 Fill Placement and Compaction
After the completion of the remedial grading removals, processing of the excavated areas,
and/or installation of the subdrains, native soil was reused and placed as compacted fill. The
native soil was generally spread in 4- to 8-inch loose lifts; moisture conditioned as needed
to attain a near-optimum moisture content, and compacted. Field density test results
performed during the grading operations indicated the fill soils were compacted to at least
90 or 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method
D1557.
To mitigate post-constmction settlement, the lower portions of the deep fill areas (i.e. areas
were the fill soils are generally deeper than approximately 40 feet below the proposed finish
grade elevations of the sheet-graded pads) were placed in accordance with the geotechnical
recommendations relative to deep fills (Leighton, 2003d). In general, the fill soils below a
depth of approximately 40 from the sheet-graded pad elevations were placed and compacted
to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent relative compaction. Deep fill areas are
present in the central and eastem portions ofPlanning Area PA-5.
Compaction of the fill soils was achieved by use of heavy-duty constmction equipment
(including mbber-tire compactors and 651 scrapers and 657 scrapers). Areas of fill in which
field density tests indicated compactions less than the recommended relative compaction or
where the soils exhibited nonuniformity or had field moisture contents less than
approximately 2 to 3 percent below the laboratory optimum moisture content, were
reworked. The reworked areas were recompacted, and re-tested until the recommended
minimum 90 or 95 percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was
achieved.
2.9 Field Density Testinq
Field density testing and observations were performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method
(ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The approximate test locations are shown on the
As-graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2). The results of the field density tests are
summarized in Appendix B. The field density testing was performed in general accordance
with the applicable ASTM Standards, the cunent standard of care in the industry, and the
precision of the testing method itself Variations in relative compaction should be expected
from the results documented herein.
2.10 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory maximum dry density tests of representative on-site soils were performed in
general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Expansion potential and soluble
sulfate content tests of representative finish grade soils were also performed in accordance
4
Leighton
971009-014
with UBC 18-2 and standard geochemical methods, respectively. The test results are
presented in Appendix C and discussed in Section 3.6.
2.11 Graded Slopes
Graded and natural slopes within the developed portion of the tract are considered grossly
and surficially stable firom a geotechnical standpoint. Manufactured cut and fill slopes
within the ttact were surveyed by the civil engineer are understood to have been constmcted
with slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
2.12 Settlement Monument Monitorinq of Deep Fills
Upon completion of the mass grading operations ofPlanning Areas PA-4 and PA-5, a total
of three settlement monuments were placed in deep fill areas (i.e. fill areas generally greater
than 40 feet in depth). The settlement monuments were initially surveyed following the
installation and on a periodic basis. We recommend that the settlement monuments be
monitored weekly and the results evaluated by Leighton until it is determined that the
primary settlement is essentially complete. Preliminary review of the settlement readings
indicates that most of the anticipated settlement has occurred. However, we recommend that
the settlement monuments continue to be monitored.
4
Leighton
971009-014
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3.1 As-graded Geoioaic Conditions
The geologic or geotechnical conditions encountered during the mass grading operations of
Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 of the Bressi Ranch project were essentially as anticipated.
A comprehensive summary of the geologic conditions (including geologic units, geologic
stincture, and fauhing) is presented below. The as-graded geologic conditions are presented
on the As-graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2).
3.2 Geoioaic Units
The geologic units encountered during the mass grading operations consisted of older
desiccated documented fill soils, undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, ,
and the Santiago Formation. Due to the potentially compressible nature of the desiccated
documented fill soils, undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, , and weathered
formational material, these soils were removed to competent material during the mass
grading operations.
The approximate limits of the as-graded geologic units encountered during the grading
operations are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2) and discussed
(youngest to oldest) below.
3.2.1 Fill Soils Documented bv Others (Map Svmbol-Afo)
As observed, older documented fills, associated with the prior grading of the
Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive roadway alignments were encountered
during the grading operations. An As-Graded Geotechnical Report documenting the
fill placement and grading operations for Palomar Airport Road was not available
during grading operations; however, compaction testing and observation of the fill
soils indicated the fill soils appear to have been placed and compacted at a
90 percent relative compaction with moisture contents at or near the optimum
moisture content. The upper portion of the fill soils was found to be desiccated and
minimal removals (i.e. on the order of 1 to 3 feet) were necessary prior placement of
additional fill. The fill soils typically consisted of silty sands, silty clays, and clayey
sands that were moist and moderately well compacted. In general, the existing fill
soils left-in-place were limited to the edges of the removals along Palomar Airport
Road and along the eastem side ofPlanning Area PA-5.
4
Leighton
971009-014
3.2.2 Undocumented Fill Soils (Map Svmbol - Aful
Undocumented fill soils were observed in a number of places on the site. The
undocumented fills were generally associated with the grading of the onsite dirt
roads, retention basins, and prior farming activities. These fill soils ranged fi-om
approximately 1 to 11 feet in depth, and generally consist of dry to damp, loose or
soft sand and clay. All existing undocumented fill located vsdthin the limits of
grading (with the exception of fill soils on the north side of Innovation Way and
northwest ofPlanning Area PA-4 that will be removed at a later date) were removed
to competent formational material.
3.2.3 Topsoil (Unmapped)
A relatively thin veneer of topsoil was removed from the majority of the site. The
topsoil, as encountered, consisted predominately of a brovsoi, damp to moist, loose,
sandy clay and minor clayey to silty sand. The topsoil was generally massive,
porous, and contained scattered roots and organics. Topsoil removal thicknesses
were on the order 1 to 4 feet thick. During the grading operations, the topsoil was
observed to have been removed within the limits of grading.
3.2.4 Alluvium/Colluvium. Undifferentiated Map Svmbol fOal/Ocol)
Alluvium and colluvium was encountered during the mass grading in the canyons
and on the lower portion of the hillsides on the site. As encountered, the alluvium
and colluvium consisted of dark brown, moist, loose to stiff, clayey sand, sandy
clay, and silty sand. Where encountered, the alluvium and colluvium was removed
to competent material. Up to approximately 25 feet of alluvium and colluvium
was removed during the mass grading operations.
3.2.5 Santiaqo Formation (Map Symbol-Ts)
The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation, as encountered during the mass grading
operations, consisted primarily of massively bedded sandstones and
claystones/siltstones. The sandstone generally consisted of orange-brovsoi (iron
oxide staining) to light brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty very fine to
medium grained sandstone. The siltstones and claystones were generally olive-green
to gray (unweathered), damp to moist, stiff to hard, moderately weathered, and
occasionally fractured and moderately sheared. Several well-cemented fossiliferous
sandstone beds were encountered during the mass grading operations. High to
possibly very high expansive soils are present at the existing fmish grade elevation
of the sheet-graded pads within portions ofPlanning Areas PA-4 and PA-5.
4 -10-
Leighton
971009-014
3.3 Geologic Structure
The general stmcture of the formational material appears to be near horizontal. Based on
our geologic mapping during the mass grading operations, bedding within the Santiago
Formation generally exhibited somewhat variable bedding with strikes ranging from
northwest to northeast and dips typically 2 to 9 degrees (or less) to the southeast and
northwest. Locally, cross bedding was observed vsdth dips steeper than 15 degrees.
Jointing on-site was observed to be very variable, but predominantly trended subparallel to
the existing slopes. Jointing dips were found to be generally moderately to steeply dipping.
Jointing was mainly encountered in the upper portion of the bedrock becoming less
pronounced with depth.
Randomly oriented shears were encountered in the Santiago Formation claystone and
siltstone units. Numerous wide, diffiise zones of shearing, as well as more well-defined
zones, were encountered in the bedrock, and are thought to be the result of regional tectonic
shearing of the relatively stiff and unyielding siltstone and claystone.
3.4 Faulting and Seismicitv
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of Califomia legislation
and state policies conceming the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults.
By definition of the Califomia Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has
had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State
Geologist has defined a potentiallv active fault as any fault considered to have been active
during Quatemary time (last 1,600,000 years) but that has not been proven to be active or
inactive. This definition is used in delineating Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in
1997. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur
across the traces of active faults. Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones,
the site is not located vsdthin any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist-
Priolo Act (Hart, 1997).
San Diego, like the rest of southem Califomia, is seismically active as a result of being
located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The
principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional fault
zones such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults Zones, as well as along less
active faults such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone.
As indicated in the Supplemental Geotechnical Report for the Bressi Ranch project
(Leighton, 2001), there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site. Evidence of active faulting was not encountered during the mass grading
4 -11-
Leighton
971009-014
operations. However, several minor inactive faults were encountered but are not considered
a constiaint to development of Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5. Geologic mapping of the
onsite minor faufts, where topsoil was encountered over the faults, indicated that the faufts
did not extend into or offset the topsoil, suggesting that the faults are not active.
The nearest knovm active fault is the Rose Canyon Fauft Zone, which is considered a Type
B Seismic Source based on the 1997 Unifonn Building Code (UBC), is located
approximately 7.0 miles (11.2 kilometers) west of the site. Because of the lack of known
active faufts on the site, the potential for surface mpture at the site is considered low.
Shallow ground mpture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a
significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
Liquefaction and dynamic settiement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion
due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated,
granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settiement. Liquefaction is
typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to act
as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils
at the ground surface. The fill and formational materials underlying the site are not
considered liquefiable due to their fine-grained nature, dense physical characteristics, and
unsaturated condition.
3.5 Ground Water
Perched ground water was encountered during the rough grading operations in the alluvial
soils within the main drainages on the site. Since the alluvial soils were completely removed
during the rough grading operations and subdrains installed in the canyon bottoms,
groundwater condftions should not be a constraint to development. Based on the site-
specific as-graded geotechnical conditions and our geotechnical analysis during site grading,
the geotechnical consultant has analyzed conditions that may result in ground water seepage
and appropriate recommendations, if necessary, have been made. However, unanticipated
seepage or ground water conditions may occur after the completion of grading and
establishment of site irrigation and landscaping. If these conditions should occur, steps to
mitigate the seepage should be made on a case-by-case basis.
4 -12-
Leighton
971009-014
3.6 Expansion and Sulfate Content Testina of Representative Finish Grade Soils
Preliminary expansion potential and soluble sulfate content tests were performed on
representative finish grade soils of the sheet-graded pads. The test results indicate the
representative finish grade soils have a medium to high expansion potential and have a
negligible to severe soluble sulfate content per the UBC criteria (ICBO, 1997). However, ft
should be anticipated tiiat soils having a low to very high expansion potential are present
within Planning areas PA-4 and PA-5. The laboratory test results and procedures are
presented in Appendix C.
4
Leighton
971009-014
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 General
The mass grading operations for Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 and the associated streets
vsdthin the Bressi Ranch project were performed in general accordance with the project
geotechnical reports (Appendix A), geotechnical recommendations made during grading,
and tiie City of Carlsbad requirements, ft is our professional opinion that the subject site is
suitable for fts intended commerciaVindustrial use provided the recommendations included
herein and in the project geotechnical report are incorporated into tiie design and
constmction ofthe stmctures and associated improvements. The following is a summary of
our conclusions conceming the mass grading ofPlanning Areas PA-4 and PA-5.
4.2 Summary of Conclusions
• Geotechnical condftions encountered during mass grading were generally as anticipated.
• Site preparation and removals were geotechnically observed.
The geologic units encountered during the mass grading of the site consisted of
documented and undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and tiie Santiago
Formation.
Unsuitable undocumented fill soils, desiccated older documented fill soils, topsoil,
colluvium, alluvium, and weathered formational material were removed to competent
material within the limits of grading.
Subdrains were placed in the bottom of the canyon bottoms and along the heel of the
stability fill keys.
Stability fills were constmcted to improve the gross stability of tiie cut slopes exposing
fractured and blocky formational material and/or adverse geologic conditions on the
site. The stability fill keys were excavated in accordance with the project geotechnical
recommendations.
Fill slopes located above natural ground or cut areas were constmcted with a fill slope
key. All keys were excavated to a minimum 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent
material along the toe-of-slope with the key inclined 2 percent into the slope.
Fill soils were derived from onsite soils. Field density testing indicated that the fill soils
were placed and compacted to at least 90 or 95 percent relative compaction (based on
ASTM Test Method D1557) and near-optimum moistiire contents in accordance with
4
Leighton
971009-014
the recommendations of Leighton and Associates and the requirements of the City of
Carlsbad. The results of the field density tests are summarized in Appendix B.
• To mitigate post-constiniction settlement, deep fills (i.e. areas were the fill soils are
generally deeper than approximately 40 feet below the finish grade elevations of the
sheet-graded pads) were placed at a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent relative
compaction. Deep fill areas are present in the central portion ofPlanning Area PA-5.
• The cut/fill ttansition condftions present within Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 were not
mftigated during the mass grading operations. Cut/fill transition conditions present
within the limfts of the proposed buildings should be mitigated by the overexcavation of
the cut portion of the building pad or by special foundation design.
• Oversized rock generated during the grading operations was placed at least 5 feet below
finish grade elevations. Although, some oversize rock may be encountered with 5 feet of
fill and cut areas.
• Settlement monuments were placed within the limits of the deep fill areas of Planning
Area PA-5. The settlement monuments should be continued to be surveyed on a weekly
basis and results reviewed by Leighton and Associates to determine when the primary
settlement of the deep fill soils is essentially complete.
• Ground water seepage condftions were encountered during the mass grading operations
ofPlanning Areas PA-4 and PA-5 but are not considered constraints to development.
• No evidence of active faulting was encountered during site mass grading. However,
minor inactive faufts were encountered within Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5.
• Due to the dense nature of the onsite soils, it is our professional opinion that the
liquefaction hazard at the site is considered low.
• High and possibly very high expansive formational soils are present at or near finish
grade within Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5. Mftigation measures to minimize the
effects of expansive soils should be performed during the ftiture grading or constmction
phases of site development.
• The expansion potential of representative finish grade soils of the sheet-graded pads was
tested and found to have a medium to high expansion potential. However, low to very
high expansive soils should be anticipated. The laboratory test results are presented in
Appendix C. Once final grades are reached after the completion of the fine or precise
grading operations; the representative finish grade soils should be tested to determine
the actual expansion potential of the soils.
-15-
Leighton
971009-014
The potential for soluble sulfate attack (on Type l/II cement) of the finish grade soils
was tested and possess negligible to severe soluble sulfate contents. Once final grades
are reached, representative finish grade soils should be tested to determine the actual
potential for soluble sulfate attack of the soils. The laboratory test results are presented
in Appendix C.
It is our opinion that the slopes of the development possess a static factor of safety ofat
least 1.5 to resist deep-seated failure (under normal irrigation/precipitation pattems),
provided the recommendations in the project geotechnical reports are incorporated into
the post-grading, constmction and post-constmction phases of site development.
-16-
Leighton
971009-014
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, rough or fine
grading, utility trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall backfill, and streefdriveway
and parking area pavement section preparation and compaction. We recommend that the
earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix D,
and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements, hi case of conflict, the following
recommendations shall supersede tiiose in Appendix D. The contract between the developer
and earthwork contiactor should be worded such tiiat it is the responsibility ofthe contractor
to place the fill properiy and in accordance witii tiie recommendations ofthis report and the
specifications in Appendix D, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the
geotechnical consultant.
5.1.1 Site Preparation
During future grading, the areas to receive stmctural fill or engineered stmctures
should be cleared of surface obstmctions, potentially compressible material (such as
desiccated fill soils or weathered formational material), and stripped of vegetation.
Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off site. Holes
resulting from removal of buried obstmctions that extend below finish site grades
should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. Areas to receive fill and/or
other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches,
brought to optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557).
If the length of time between the completion of grading and the constmction of the
development is longer than six months, we recommend that the building pads be
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and, if needed, the finish grade soils on the
building pads should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-condftioned to
optimum moisture-content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl557).
5.1.2 Mitigation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions
In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement of the proposed buildings
in areas of cut/fill transitions, we recommend the entire cut portion of the building
pad be overexcavated and replaced with properiy compacted fill. The cut/fill
transition condftion overexcavation should be made a minimum of 5 feet below the
4 -17-
Leighton
971009-014
planned finish grade elevation and should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the
building perimeter or footprint. In order to minimize perched ground water in the
overexcavation, we recommend that the overexcavation bottom be tilted a minimum
of 2-percent toward tiie fill side of the building pad. Additional or revised
recommendations may be wananted based on the configuration and size of the
proposed buildings. If the majority of the proposed building is located on cut, tiie fill
soils beneath the building may be removed and recompacted to a minimum 95
percent relative compaction or a deep foundation system founded completely on
formational material may be utilized.
5.1.3 Mitigation of High to Vers/ High Expansive Soils at Finish Grade
Due to the anticipated high to very high expansion potential of the claystones and
siltstones present at finish grade within portions of the site, we recommend that the
high to very high expansive soil be removed below the planned finish grade of the
proposed buildings and other movement sensftive improvements. If these expansive
soils are removed, the removal depth should be a minimum of 5 feet below the
proposed finish grade elevation or until lower expansive sandy soils are
encountered. We also recommend that the excavation bottom be tilted a minimum
of 2-percent toward the fill side of the building pad or toward the street/driveway in
order to minimize perched ground water conditions. The resulting excavation should
be replaced with properiy compacted fill possessing a lower expansion potential.
The actual location of the claystones and siltstones at or near finish grade at the site
should be evaluated during future grading.
5.1.4 Excavations
Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will
be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum
dimensions greater than 8 inches) will be generated during futiire grading. However,
localized cemented zones within the cut areas and oversized rock placed within the
compacted fill may be encountered on the site that may require heavy ripping and/or
removal. If oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in Appendix D, hauled offsite, or placed in non-
stmctural or landscape areas.
Due to the relatively dense characteristics of the on-site soils, temporary excavations
such as utility trenches in the on-site soils should remain stable for the period
required to constmct the utility, provided they are constiaicted and monftored in
accordance with OSHA requirements.
4 -18-
Leighton
971009-014
5.1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction
The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are
free or organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in
maximum dimension. We do not recommend that high or very high expansive soils
be utilized as fill for the building pads or as retaining wall backfill.
All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content and
compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on tiie
laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift
thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type
and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill
should be performed in general accordance with Appendix D, the current City of
Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound constmction practices, and the geotechnical
recommendations presented herein.
5.2 Commercial Foundation Design Considerations
The foundations and slabs for the anticipated commercial buildings within the Bressi
Ranch project should be designed in accordance with stmctural considerations and the
following preliminary recommendations. These preliminary recommendations assume
that the soils encountered within 5 feet of finish pad grade will have a very low to low
potential for expansion per 1997 UBC Standard 18-1. If moderate or highly expansive
soils are encountered within 5 feet of the proposed finish grade elevations during site
grading; these expansive soils should be removed and replaced with very low to low
expansive soils. If replacement of the expansive soils is not feasible, additional
foundation design will be necessary.
The proposed commercial buildings may be supported by conventional, continuous or
isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the
lowest adjacent soil grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum
allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly
compacted fill soils or formational material. An allowable capacity increase of 500 psf for
every 6 inches of additional embedment may be used to a maximum of 3,500 psf The
allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short
duration such as wind or seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is
18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. Footings
should be designed in accordance with the stmctural engineer's requirements and have a
minimum reinforcement of four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom).
4 -19-
Leighton
971009-014
The slab-on-grade foundation should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No.
4 rebars 18 inches on center or No. 5 rebars at 24 inches on center, each way. All
reinforcing should be placed at mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underiain by a 2-
inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), which is in-tum underlain by a
minimum 10-mil plastic sheeting (moisture banier) and an addftional 2 inches of clean
sand. We recommend that control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate
intervals as designed by the project architect.
The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios.
The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete
in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or
equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering
is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with
stmctural considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs,
greater thicknesses and increased reinforcing may be required as determined by the
stmctural engineer.
5.2.1 Moisture Conditioning
The slab subgrade soils underlying the foundation systems of the proposed
stmctures should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented
in Table 1 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete. The
subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton
and Associates prior to slab constmction.
Table 1
Presaturation Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Soil Expansion Potential
Presaturation
Criteria
Expansion Potential (per UBC 18-I-B)
Presaturation
Criteria
Very Low
(0-20)
Low
(21-50)
Medium
(51-90)
High
(91-130)
Minimum
Presoaking Depth
(in inches)
6 12 18 24
Minimum
Recommended
Moisture Content
Near optimum
moisture
1.2 times
optimum
moisture
1.2 times
optimum
moisture
1.3 times
optimum
moisture
Presoaking or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways, but
based on our professional experience, we have found that minimizing the moisture
-20-4
Leighton
971009-014
loss of pads that have been completed (by periodic wefting to keep the upper portion
ofthe pad from drying out) and/or berming the lot and flooding if for a short period
of time (days to a few weeks) are some of the more efficient ways to meet the
presoaking requirements. If flooding is performed, a couple of days to let the upper
portion of the pad dry out and form a cmst so equipment can be utilized should be
anticipated.
5.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The site lies within Seismic Zone 4, as defined in the UBC, 1997 edition. The
nearest known active fauft is the Rose Canyon Fauft Zone, which is considered a
Type B Seismic Source (per 1997 UBC criteria), is located approximately 7.0 miles
(or 11.2 kilometers) west of the site. The closest Type A Seismic Source is the
Julian segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone, which is located approximately 23.5
miles (or 38 kilometers) east of the site.
The following data should be considered for the seismic analysis of the proposed
stmctures:
Causative Fault: Rose Canyon Fault Zone
Maximum Magnitude: 7.2
Seismic Source Type: B
Seismic Zone Factor: 0.40
Soil Profile Type: Sc
Near Source Factors: Na = 1.0/Nv = 1.0
5.2.3 Foundation Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes or
adjacent retaining walls for all stmctural foundations, footings, and other settlement-
sensitive stmctures as indicated on Table 2. This distance is measured from the
outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face and is based on the
slope height and type of soil. However, the foundation setback distance may be
revised by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis if the geotechnical
conditions are different than anticipated.
4 -21-
Leighton
971009-014
Table 2
Minimum Foundation Setback from Descending Slope Faces
Slope Height Minimum Reconimended Foundation
Setback
Less than 5 feet 5 feet
5 to 15 feet 7 feet
15 to 30 feet 10 feet
Greater than 30 feet 20 feet
Please note that the soils within the stmctural setback area possess poor lateral
stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements,
etc.) constmcted within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or
differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by
providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade beam foundation system to support
the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described
above.
5.2.4 Anticipated Settlement
Settlement is anticipated to occur at varying times over the life ofthe project. Short-
term settiement typically occurs upon application of the foundation loads and is
essentially completed within the constmction period. Long-term
(hydroconsolidation) settlement typically occurs in deep fills upon additional water
infiltration into the fill soils (even in properly compacted fill soils and even with
subdrains provided). This settlement typically occurs over many years. Long-term
settlement values and the affects on the foundations should be evaluated after the
site is graded and the actual fill thicknesses beneath the proposed foundations
known. However, for preliminary planning purposes, total future settlement is
expected to be order of 1 to 3 inches and differential settlement is estimated to be on
the order of 1/2 inch in 25 feet.
-22-4
Leighton
971009-014
5.3 Lateral Earth Pressures
The recommended lateral pressures for the onsite very low to low expansive soil (expansion
index less than 50 per UBC Table 18-I-B) or medium expansive soil (expansion index
between 51 and 90 per UBC Table 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented on
Table 3. High to very high expansive soils (having an expansion potential greater tiian 91
per UBC Table 18-I-B) should not be used as backfill soils on the site.
Table 3
Lateral Earth Pressures
Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions
Very Low to Low Expansive Soils Medium Expansive Soils
Conditions Expansion Index less than 50 Expansion Index between 51 and
90 Conditions
Level 2:1 Slope Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55 60 70
At-Rest 55 65 70 80
Passive 350 150 350 150
Embedded stmctiiral walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them.
The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can
yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil,
it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under tiie applied load, the
shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such
walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a stmcture moves toward the soils, the
resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. The above noted
passive resistance assumes an appropriate setback per Section 5.2.3.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls
founded above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low
expansion potential or medium expansion potential is provided on Table 3. The equivalent
fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those
assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures values should be provided on
an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical and stmctural
engineer should evaluate surcharge-loading effects from the adjacent stmctures. All
retaining wall stmctures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately
-23-Leighton
971009-014
waterproofed. The outiet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical wall
drainage design is illusfrated in Appendix D.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at tiie concrete and soil
interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, tiie passive pressure or the fiictional
resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. Wall footings should be designed in accordance
with stiuctural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third
when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The horizontal
distance betsveen foundation elements providing passive resistance should be minimum of
three times the depth ofthe elements to allow ftill development of these passive pressures.
The total depth of retained earth for the design of cantilever walls should be tiie vertical
distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at
the heel of the footing for overtuming and sliding. All wall backcuts should be made in
accordance vsith the cunent OSHA requirements.
The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The granular fill should extend
horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls. The
walls should be constmcted and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavations.
Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability.
Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properiy compacted fill
should be embedded at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, an
allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed.
5.4 Fences and Freestanding Walls
Footings for freestanding walls should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest
adjacent grade. To reduce tiie potential for unsightly cracks in freestanding walls, we
recommend inclusion of constmction joints at a maximum of 15-foot intervals. This spacing
may be aftered in accordance with the recommendations of the stmctural engineer, based on
wall reinforcement details.
Our experience on similar sites in older developments indicates that many walls on
shallow foundations near the top-of-slopes tend to tilt excessively over time as a resuft of
slope creep. Ifthe effects of slope creep on top-of-slope walls are not deemed acceptable,
one or a combination of the options provided in the following paragraphs should be
utilized in the design of such stmctures, based on the desired level of mitigation of creep-
related effects on them.
A relatively inexpensive option to address creep related problems in top-of-slope walls
and fences is to allow some degree of creep damage and design the stmctures so that
tilting or cracking will be less visually obvious, or such that they may be economically
4
Leighton
971009-014
repaired or replaced. If, however, a better degree of creep mitigation is desired, the walls
and fences may be provided with the deepened footings to met the foundation setback
criteria laid out in Figure 18-1-1 of the UBC, 1997 edition, or these stmctures may be
constmcted to accommodate potential movement.
Under certain circumstances, an effective solution to minimize the effects of creep on top-
of-slope walls and fences is to support these stiiictures on a pier-and-grade-beam system.
The piers normally consist of minimum 12-inch diameter cast-in-place caissons spaced at a
maximum of 8 feet on center, and connected together by a minimum 12-inch-thick grade
beam at a shallow depth. The piers are typically at least 10 feet deep for medium or high
expansive soil. The steel reinforcement for the system should be designed with
consideration of wall/fence type and loading. Walls or fences aligned essentially
perpendicular to the top of the slope are normally supported on the pier-and-grade-beam
system for at least that part of the wall that is vsithin 15 feet from the top-of-slope. Caisson
support is recommended for ail top-of-slope walls where slopes are greater than 10 feet in
height and/or the soil on and adjacent to the slope consists of high to very high expansive
soils.
5.5 Geochemical Considerations
With the exception of limited soluble sulfate content testing, geochemical screening of
the onsite soils was not performed as part of our study. However, the results of our
limited testing and our professional knowledge of similar soils in other portions of the
Bressi Ranch project, indicates that concrete in contact with the on-site soils should be
designed in accordance with the "severe" category of Table 19A-A-4 of the 2001
Califomia Building Code. In addition, the onsite soils are anticipated to have a conosive
environment for buried metal pipes or uncoated metal conduits. Laboratory testing should
be performed on the soils placed at or near finish grade after completion of site grading to
ascertain the actual conosivity characteristics.
5.6 Subdrain Outiet Maintenance
The approximate location of the subdrains and subdrain outiets constmcted during the mass
grading operations are identified on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Plates 1 and 2). All
subdrain outiets should be periodically cleared of soil cover or other potential blockage that
may have occuned since initial subdrain constmction. In open space areas, it is
recommended that the Property Owner or Management Company fiirther maintain these
outiets, as well as retaining wall drainage outiets to prevent further blockage.
4 -25- , . ,
Leighton
971009-014
5.7 Settlement Monitoring of Deep Fills
As of May 2004, settlement monuments were placed in areas of deep fills (considered to be
fills greater than 40 feet in depth). The settlement monuments were initially surveyed
shortly after installation and at approximate weekly intervals thereafter. The settlement
monuments should be continued to be surveyed on a weekly to twice-monthly basis until
the primary settlement of the deep fills is determined to be essentially complete. The results
of the survey readings should be provided to Leighton and Associates so that the settlement
values can be evaluated. Leighton and Associates will continue to evaluate the rate of
settlement to determine when the elastic portion of the anticipated primary settlement is
essentially complete.
5.8 Preliminary Pavement Design
The appropriate Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base (AB) pavement section
will depend on the type of subgrade soil, shear strength, traffic load, and planned pavement
life. Since an evaluation of the actual subgrade soils cannot be made at this time, we have
assumed an R-value of 12 and Traffic Indexes (TI) of 6.0 and 7.0. The pavement sections
presented on Table 4 are to be used for preliminary planning purposes only.
The pavement section based on a TI of 7.0 should be assumed for Gateway Road and
Innovation Way. The pavement section based on a TI of 6.0 should be assumed for the
onsite driveways and parking areas. Final pavement designs should be completed in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad design criteria after R-value tests have been performed
on the actual subgrade materials.
Table 4
Preliminary Pavement Section Designs
Traffic
Index
Assumed
R-Value Preliminary Pavement Section
6.0 12 4 inches AC over 12 inches Class 2 Aggregate Base
7.0 12 4 inches AC over 14 inches Class 2 Aggregate Base
Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base should conform to and be placed in
accordance with the latest revision of Califomia Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications. Prior to placing the pavement section, the subgrade soils should have a
relative compaction of at least 95 percent to a minimum depth of 12 inches (based on
ASTM Test Method D1557). Aggregate Base should be compacted to a minimum of 95
-26-4
Leighton
971009-014
percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) prior to placement of
the AC.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscaping areas, we recommend some
measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming
saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing, separating the landscaping area from
the pavement, extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where
heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be
designed if asphalt pavement is used for drainage of surface waters.
5.9 Control of Surface Water and Drainage
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during precise grading,
landscaping, and building constmction. Positive drainage (e.g., roof gutters, downspouts,
area drain, etc.) should be provided to direct surface water away from stmctures and
towards the street or suitable drainage devices. Ponding of water adjacent to stmctures
should be avoided; roof gutters, downspouts, and area drains should be aligned so as to
transport surface water to a minimum distance of 5 feet away from stmctures. The
performance of stmctural foundations is dependent upon maintaining adequate surface
drainage away from stmctures.
Water should be transported off the site in approved drainage devices or unobstmcted
swales. We recommend that the minimum flow gradient for the drainage be 1-percent for
area drains and paved drainage swales; and 2-percent for unpaved drainage swales. We
recommend that where stmctures will be located within 5 feet of a proposed drainage
swale, the surface drainage adjacent to the stmctures be accomplished with a gradient of
at least 3-1/2 percent away from the stmcture for a minimum horizontal distance of 3 feet.
Drainage should be further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient ofat least
1-percent for area drains and paved drainage swales and 2-percent for unpaved drainage
swales to a suitable collection device (i.e. area drain, street gutter, etc.). We also
recommend that stmctural footings within 4 feet of the drainage swale flowline be
deepened so that the bottom of the footing is at least 12 inches below the flow-line ofthe
drainage swale. In places where the prospect of maintaining the minimum recommended
gradient for the drainage swales and the constmction of additional area drains is not
feasible, provisions for specific recommendations may be necessary, outlining the
importance of maintaining positive drainage.
The impact of heavy inigation or inadequate mnoff gradient can create perched water
conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none
existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly
reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth
movements (such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of
foundation soils, which may cause distress to a stmcture or improvement), the moisture
4
Leighton
971009-014
content of the soils sunounding the stmcture should be kept as relatively constant as
possible.
All area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to fiinction
properly. Rerouting of site drainage pattems and/or installation of area drains should be
performed, if necessary. A qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect should be
consulted prior to rerouting of drainage.
5.10 Slope Maintenance Guidelines
It is the responsibility of the ovsoier to maintain the slopes, including adequate planting,
proper inigation and maintenance, and repair of faulty inigation systems. To reduce the
potential for erosion and slumping of graded slopes, all slopes should be planted with
• ground cover, shrubs, and plants that develop dense, deep root stmctures and require
minimal imgation. Slope planting should be canied out as soon as practical upon
completion of grading. Surface-water mnoff and standing water at the top-of-slopes
should be avoided. Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided during constmction
activities and landscaping. Maintenance of proper lot drainage, undertaking of property
improvements in accordance with sound engineering practices, and proper maintenance
of vegetation, including regular slope imgation, should be performed. Slope inigation
sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with minimal of
water usage and overlap. Overwatering and consequent mnoff and ground saturation
should be avoided. If automatic sprinklers systems are installed, their use must be
adjusted to account for rainfall conditions.
Trenches excavated on a slope face for any purpose should be properly backfilled and
compacted in order to obtain a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance
with ASTM Test Method D1557. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical
consultant during trench backfill is recommended. A rodent-control program should be
established and maintained. Prior to planting, recently graded slopes should be
temporarily protected against erosion resulting from rainfall, by the implementing slope
protection measures such as polymer covering, jute mesh, etc.
5.11 Landscaping and Post-Construction
Landscaping and post-constmction practices carried out by the ovsaier(s) and their
representative bodies exert significant influences on the integrity of stmctures founded on
expansive soils. Improper landscaping and post-constmction practices, which are beyond
the control of the geotechnical engineer, are frequently the primary cause of distress to these
stmctures. Recommendations for proper landscaping and post-constmction practices are
provided in the following paragraphs within this section. Adhering to these
recommendations will help in minimizing distress due to expansive soils, and in ensuring
4 -28-
Leighton
971009-014
tiiat such effects are limited to cosmetic damages, vsithout compromising the overall
integrity of stmctures.
Initial landscaping should be done on all sides adjacent to the foundation of a stmcture, and
adequate measures should be taken to ensure drainage of water away from the foundation. If
larger, shade providing trees are desired, such trees should be planted away from stmctures
(at a minimum distance equal to half the mature height of the tree) in order to prevent
penetration of the tree roots beneath the foundation of the stmcture.
Locating planters adjacent to buildings or stmctures should be avoided as much as possible.
If planters are utilized in these locations, they should be properly designed so as to prevent
fluctuations in the moisture content of subgrade soils. Planting areas at grade should be
provided vsith appropriate positive drainage. Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should
be above paved grades. Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades
unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins and drains, are made. Adequate
drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent
pavement or walks into planting areas.
Watering should be done in a uniform, systematic manner as equally as possible on all sides
of the foundation, to keep the soil moist. Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of
moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork. Overwatering and
underwatering of landscape areas must be avoided. Areas of soil that do no have ground
cover may require more moisture, as they are more susceptible to evaporation. Ponding or
trapping of water in localized areas adjacent to the foundations can cause differential
moisture levels in subsurface soils and should, therefore, not be allowed. Trees located
within a distance of 20 feet of foundations would require more water in periods of extreme
drought, and in some cases, a root injection system may be required to maintain moisture
equilibrium. During extreme hot and dry periods, close observations should be carried out
around foimdations to ensure that adequate watering is being undertaken to prevent soil
from separating or pulling back from the foundations.
5.12 Construction Observation and Testing
Constmction observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant
during the remaining grading operations, fiiture excavations and foundation or retaining wall
constmction on the graded portions of the site. Addhionally, footing excavations should be
observed and moisture determination tests of subgrade soils should be performed by the
geotechnical consultant prior to the pouring of concrete. Foundation design plans should
also be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to excavations.
4 -29-
Leighton
971009-014
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The presence of our field representative at the site was intended to provide the ovsTier with
professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based on observations of the conttactor's
work. Although the observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project
specifications, we do not guarantee the confractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor
or his subcontractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractors of their
responsibility if defects are subsequently discovered in their work. Our responsibilities did not
include any supervision or direction of the actual work procedures of the contractor, his personnel,
or subcontractors. The conclusions in this report are based on test resufts and observations of the
grading and earthwork procedures used and represent our engineering opinion as to the compliance
of the results with the project specifications.
4 -30-
Leighton
971009-014
APPENDIX A
References
Califomia Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2001, Califomia Building Code, Volume I -
Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provision, Volume II -
Stmctural Engineering Design Provision, and Volume III - Material, Testing and
Installation Provision, ICBO.
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones
Act of 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps: Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume I -
Adminisfrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions, Volume II -
Stmctural Engineering Design Provisions, and Volume III - Material, Testing and
Installation Provision, ICBO.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1997, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 4971009-002, dated July 29, 1997.
, 2001, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Mass Grading, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 971009-0015, dated March 14, 2001.
2002, Geotechnical Conclusions Conceming the Mass Grading Recommendations
Relative to Proposed Fine Grading and Review of the 40-Scale Tentative Maps,
Bressi Ranch, Carisbad, Califomia, Project No. 971009-007, dated September 12,
2002.
-, 2003a, Geotechnical Grading Plan Review of the Mass Grading Plans, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, Califomia, ProjectNo. 971009-007, dated January 17, 2003.
2003b, Possible Remedial Grading Within the Open Space/Environmental Fence
Line, Southeast Side of Planning Area PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia,
Project No. 971009-007, dated January 29, 2003.
-, 2003c, Preliminary Residential and Commercial Foundation Design
recommendations, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia, ProjectNo. 971009-007,
dated Febmary 5, 2003.
-, 2003d, Geotechnical Recommendations Conceming 95 Percent Relative Compaction
of Fills Deeper than 40 Feet, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No.
971009-007, dated Febmary 13,2003.
-, 2003e, Recommended Type of Pipe for Proposed Subdrains, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad,
Califomia, Project No. 971009-007, dated April 17, 2003.
A-l
971009-014
APPENDIX A (continued)
, 2003f, Advanced Preliminary Street Pavement Sections Based on Assumed Street
Subgrade Soil R-Values and Traffic Indexes, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia,
ProjectNo. 971009-014, dated August 8, 2003.
, 2003g, Side-Yard Drainage Recommendation Altemative, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad,
Califomia, Project No. 971009-014, dated August 28,2003.
, 2004a, Summary of the As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions and Partial Completion
of Rough and Fine Grading, Planning Areas PA-1 Through PA-5, Bressi Ranch,
Carisbad, Califomia, Project No. 971009-014, dated January 20, 2004.
, 2004b, Deep Fill Area Settlement Monitoring Recommendations, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 971009-014, dated Febmary 13, 2004, revised
Febmary 16, 2004.
, 2004c, As-Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3,
Metropolitan Street, and a Portion of Town Garden Road, Gateway Road, and
Alicante Road, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia
ProjectNo. 971009-014, dated April 15,2004.
, 2004d, Geotechnical Maps, Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad,
Califomia, ProjectNo. 971009-014, dated April 15, 2004.
Project Design Consultants, 2003a, Mass Grading and Erosion Control Plans for: Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, Califomia, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Drawing No. 400-8A; dated
January 7, 2003, revised November 24, 2003.
A-2
971009-014
APPENDIX B
Explanation of Summan,/ of Field Density Tests
Test No. Test of Test No. Test of
Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations
(none) GRADING
Natural Ground NG (SG) SUBGRADE
Original Ground OG (AB) AGGREGATE BASE
Existing Fiii EF (CB) CEMENT TREATED BASE
Compacted Fill CF (PB) PROCESSED BASE
Siope Face SF (AC) ASPHALT CONCRETE
Finish Grade FG
(S) SEWER Curb C
(SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G
(AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG
(W) DOMESTIC WATER Cross Gutter XG
(RC) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST
(SB) SUBDRAIN Sidewalk SW
(G) GAS Driveway D
(E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA
(T) TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL
(J) JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB
(I) IRRIGATION
Bedding Material B
Shading Sand S
Main M
Lateral L
Crossing X
Manhole MH
Hydrant Lateral HL
Catch Basin CB
Riser R
Inlet I
(RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION
(CW) CRIB WALL
(LW) LOFFELL WALL Moisture Content M
(SF) STRUCT FOOTING
Footing Bottom F
Backfill B
Wall Cell C
(IT) INTERIOR TRENCH
Plumbing Backfill P
Electrical Backfill E
N represents nuclear gauge tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test
Methods D2922 and D30I7.
S represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method D1556.
15 A represents first retest of Test No. 15
15B represents second retest of Test No. 15
"0" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface (e.g. finish grade or subgrade)
"-I" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken one foot below the ground surface
B-l
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test
Elev (ft)
Soil
Type
Dry Density
Field Max
Moisture (%)
Field Opt.
Relative (Vo)
Compaction Remarks
1915 8/8/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991527 6251884 301.0 10 103.5 112.5 18.7 16.0 92
1916 8/8/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991542 6251914 306.0 10 105.8 112.5 17.3 16.0 94
1917 8/8/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991588 6251895 307.0 10 102.5 112.5 19.6 16.0 91
1948 8/11/03 CF PA-4 1991905 6252742 355.0 08 105.7 117.5 16.1 14.0 90
2156 8/11/03 CF PA-4 1991958 6252788 362.0 08 106.3 117.5 14.9 14.0 90
2157 8/13/03 CF PA-4 1991995 6252855 368.0 10 102.5 112.5 16.4 16.0 90
2158 8/14/03 CF PA-4 1992072 6252875 371.0 10 103.1 112.5 16.8 16.0 90
2159 8/14/03 CF PA-4 1991790 6252750 372.0 10 104.6 112.5 17.3 16.0 92
2216 8/22/03 CF PA-4 1992068 6252982 377.0 10 105.2 112.5 16.6 16.0 95
2217 8/22/03 CF PA-4 1992034 6252924 382.0 10 102.9 112.5 17.6 16.0 92
2825 9/10/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991637 6253820 392.0 10 108.1 112.5 17.5 16.0 96
3676 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992555 6253040 389.0 09 107.3 118.0 16.1 15.0 91
3677 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992545 6253350 394.0 09 106.4 118.0 15.4 15.0 90
3678 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992565 6253120 391.5 09 106.3 118.0 17.0 15.0 90
3679 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992525 6253515 395.0 09 105.9 118.0 15.9 15.0 90
3680 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992560 6253200 393.0 09 106.6 118.0 16.4 15.0 90
3681 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992510 6253640 396.5 09 106.5 118.0 16.0 15.0 90
3682 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992540 6253415 395.5 09 107.7 118.0 14.6 15.0 91
3683 9/29/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992570 6252965 388.0 09 105.8 118.0 15.6 15.0 90
3852 10/1/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992555 6253275 406.0 08 105.6 117.5 13.9 14.0 90
3853 10/1/03 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1992550 6253540 407.0 15 100.3 112.0 19.6 15.5 90
4040 10/6/03 CF PA-4 1991730 6253885 393.0 15 104.1 112.0 16.3 15.5 94
4046 10/6/03 CF PA-4 1991760 6253940 398.0 15 102.6 112.0 16.8 15.5 92
4070 10/7/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991630 6253770 383.0 10 102.6 112.5 17.3 16.0 91
4071 10/7/03 CF PA-4 1991700 6252780 385.0 10 101.6 112.5 16.2 16.0 90
4100 10/10/0 CF PA-4 1991805 6253970 410.0 09 108.4 118.0 18.2 15.0 92
4101 10/10/0 CF PA-4 1991855 6253920 360.0 09 107.7 118.0 19.6 15.0 91
4109 10/7/03 CF PA-4 1991770 6253860 401.0 09 106.7 118.0 17.6 15.0 90
4260 10/13/0 CF Gateway Rd 1991610 6253560 385.5 09 105.7 118.0 16.8 15.0 90
4264 10/13/0 CF Gateway Rd 1991630 6253805 389.5 09 106.3 118.0 15.6 15.0 90
4270 10/13/0 CF Gateway Rd 1991550 6253070 380.0 09 105.9 118.0 17.6 15.0 90
4893 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991515 6256055 344.0 13 103.8 115.0 18.6 16.5 90
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 1 of 11
Leighton and Associates, lnc 5/25/2 2:51:56PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test Test Test Location Test Soil
0. Date Of Northing Easting Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction
4894 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991525 6256030 348.0 13 104.3 115.0 16.9 16.5 91
4895 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991520 6256065 352.0 13 104.6 115.0 15.6 16.5 91
4896 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991620 6256040 358.0 10 106.7 112.5 18.0 16.0 95
4897 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991480 6256095 351.0 10 107.2 112.5 17.3 16.0 95
4898 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991045 6256555 355.0 10 106.8 112.5 17.2 16.0 95
4899 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991640 6256040 366.0 10 107.7 112.5 16.9 16.0 96
5000 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991520 6256025 358.0 10 107.6 112.5 17.2 16.0 96
5001 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991720 6256015 376.0 10 107.3 112.5 15.4 16.0 95
5002 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991575 6256010 361.5 13 109.9 115.0 15.8 16.5 96
5003 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991520 6255980 362.0 13 108.8 115.0 16.8 16.5 95
5004 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991505 6256060 363.0 10 107.4 112.5 17.6 16.0 95
5005 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991545 6256050 365.0 10 106.7 112.5 17.3 16.0 95
5006 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991685 6256020 368.0 10 108.6 112.5 15.2 16.0 97
5007 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991605 6255985 367.0 10 106.7 112.5 16.2 16.0 95
5008 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991565 6255965 366.5 10 107.5 112.5 15.8 16.0 96
5009 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991515 6256015 670.0 10 109.5 112.5 15.0 16.0 97
5010 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991540 6256090 368.5 10 106.6 112.5 16.6 16.0 95
5011 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991530 6256100 372.0 10 106.8 112.5 17.4 16.0 95
5012 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991630 6256020 373.5 13 109.2 115.0 17.1 16.5 95
5013 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991550 6255960 374.0 10 106.4 112.5 17.7 16.0 95
5014 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991720 6256040 377.0 10 107.9 112.5 14.8 16.0 96
5015 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991640 6255975 375.0 13 108.7 115.0 16.6 16.5 95
5016 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991590 6256075 375.0 10 107.3 112.5 18.2 16.0 95
5017 11/19/0 CF PA-5 1991525 6256010 375.0 13 109.3 115.0 17.4 16.5 95
5018 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991535 6256025 376.0 15 106.3 112.0 17.3 15.5 95
5019 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991720 6256015 379.0 15 107.4 112.0 15.8 15.5 96
5020 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991530 6256105 377.0 13 105.3 115.0 18.8 16.5 92
5020A 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991535 6256105 377.0 13 109.3 115.0 17.4 16.5 95
5022 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991620 6255980 378.5 15 106.6 112.0 15.4 15.5 95
5023 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991755 6255985 380.0 18 107.1 113.0 16.7 16.0 95
5024 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991530 6255975 379.0 18 106.8 113.0 16.8 16.0 95
5025 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6256080 381.0 10 108.3 112.5 17.3 16.0 96
Remarks
RT ON 5020A
RT OF 5020
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 2 of 11
Leighton and Associates, lnc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5026 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991548 6256072 381.0 15 103.6 112.0 16.1 15.5 93 RT ON 5026A
5026A 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991555 6256080 381.0 15 106.4 112.0 16.8 15.5 95 RT OF 5026
5028 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991760 6256050 385.0 15 107.5 112.0 15.3 15.5 96
5029 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991610 6256015 382.0 15 106.5 112.0 16.7 15.5 95
5030 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991555 6256105 381.5 15 106.9 112.0 15.8 15.5 95
5031 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991550 6256010 382.0 15 107.7 112.0 15.4 15.5 96
5032 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6255970 384.5 15 106.4 112.0 16.5 15.5 95
5033 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991540 6255955 386.0 15 106.9 112.0 16.7 15.5 95
5042 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991550 6256045 383.0 18 106.9 113.0 18.2 16.0 95
5043 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991620 6256040 385.0 16 107.6 117.0 12.4 14.0 92 RT ON 5043A
5043A 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991620 6256045 385.0 16 110.8 117.0 14.9 14.0 95 RT OF 5043
5045 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6256055 • 387.0 10 107.7 112.5 16.3 16.0 96
5046 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991770 6256020 388.0 10 108.2 112.5 15.7 16.0 96
5047 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991580 6256105 386.0 18 107.8 113.0 17.3 16.0 95
5048 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991570 6255950 385.5 10 106.8 112.5 17.0 16.0 95
5049 11/20/0 CF PA-5 1991780 6255990 388.0 10 107.5 112.5 15.6 16.0 96
5050 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991545 6256120 386.0 18 109.7 113.0 16.6 16.0 97
5051 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991625 6256080 388.0 15 106.4 112.0 14.9 15.5 95
5052 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991835 6256015 392.0 15 106.7 112.0 16.8 15.5 95
5053 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991650 6254010 388.5 15 107.2 112.0 16.3 15.5 96
5054 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991570 6256040 389.0 15 107.0 112.0 15.7 15.5 96
5055 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991805 6256005 394.0 15 106.6 112.0 16.1 15.5 95
5056 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991550 6255930 390.0 15 106.8 112.0 17.5 15.5 95
5057 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991670 6255970 392.0 15 108.6 112.0 14.7 15.5 97
5058 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991565 6255995 391.0 15 101.3 112.0 12.1 15.5 90 RT ON 505 8A
5058A 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991570 6255995 391.0 15 103.3 112.0 15.9 15.5 92 RT OF 5058
5060 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991550 6255950 392.0 15 103.8 112.0 16.7 15.5 93
5061 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991730 6255990 395.5 13 104.6 115.0 18.2 16.5 91
5062 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991880 6256030 398.0 13 103.7 115.0 17.5 16.5 90
5063 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991715 6256075 392.5 10 101.6 112.5 17.5 16.0 90
5064 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991690 6256015 393.0 16 101.3 117.0 17.5 14.0 87 RT ON 5064A
5064A 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991695 6256015 393.0 16 105.1 117.0 16.8 14.0 90 RT OF 5064
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 3 of 11
Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5066 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991605 6256075 394.0 15 103.6 112.0 15.7 15.5 93
5067 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991785 6256020 397.0 10 103.1 112.5 15.5 16.0 92
5068 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991920 6256025 400.0 15 101.7 112.0 15.3 15.5 91
5069 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991600 6256040 395.5 09 107.3 118.0 15.5 15.0 91
5070 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991615 6256110 396.0 15 101.8 112.0 17.4 15.5 91
5071 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991560 6255920 393.5 15 98.3 112.0 17.6 15.5 88
5071A 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991555 6255925 393.5 15 102.4 112.0 15.9 15.5 91
5073 11/21/0 CF PA-5 1991710 6255980 394.0 15 102.2 112.0 15.8 15.5 91
5074 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991565 6256010 395.0 15 103.8 112.0 16.3 15.5 93
5075 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991550 6256140 395.5 17 103.8 114.0 15.3 14.5 91
5076 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991600 6256060 397.0 16 104.8 117.0 16.1 14.0 90
5077 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991790 6256050 399.5 16 105.3 117.0 13.8 14.0 90
5078 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991895 6256005 401.5 16 106.7 117.0 14.8 14.0 91
5079 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991815 6256045 400.0 16 105.7 117.0 15.3 14.0 90
5080 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991645 6256060 400.0 16 103.1 117.0 16.6 14.0 88
5080A 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991630 6256065 400.0 16 106.8 117.0 14.3 14.0 91
5082 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991620 6255925 398.0 16 107.3 117.0 14.2 14.0 92
5083 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991870 6255990 403.0 16 105.9 117.0 13.4 14.0 91
5084 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991635 6255960 400.5 16 107.2 117.0 14.4 14.0 92
5085 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991600 6255970 401.0 16 105.5 117.0 16.2 14.0 90
5086 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6256000 402.0 16 105.9 117.0 15.2 14.0 91
5087 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991865 6256010 404.0 16 107.1 117.0 14.1 14.0 92
5088 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991585 6256095 400.0 16 107.5 117.0 12.9 14.0 92
5089 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991740 6256080 401.0 16 106.3 117.0 15.5 14.0 91
5090 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991580 6255950 402.0 16 106.0 117.0 13.8 14.0 91
5091 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991590 6255995 401.0 16 108.0 117.0 14.4 14.0 92
5092 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991700 6255965 403.0 16 106.4 117.0 15.2 14.0 91
5093 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991840 6255985 405.0 13 105.3 115.0 16.2 16.5 92
5094 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991930 6256000 405.0 13 102.1 115.0 17.5 16.5 89
5094A 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991940 6256010 405.0 13 104.4 115.0 16.6 16.5 91
5096 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991730 6256055 403.5 16 106.4 117.0 13.7 14.0 91
5097 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991645 6256045 402.5 16 107.0 117.0 14.3 14.0 91
RTON 5071A
RT OF 5071
RT ON 5080A
RT OF 5080
RT ON 5094A
RT OF 5094
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 4 of 11 4 Leighton and Associates, lnc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5098 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991730 6256070 404.0 16 105.0 117.0 15.8 14.0 90
5099 11/24/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6256135 404.0 16 109.2 117.0 13.5 14.0 93
5200 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991570 6255500 360.0 13 104.6 115.0 17.2 16.5 91
5201 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991585 6255510 362.0 13 103.3 115.0 17.2 16.5 90
5202 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991575 6255535 365.0 13 106.3 115.0 17.4 16.5 92
5203 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991575 6255480 367.0 13 100.4 115.0 14.9 16.5 87
5203A 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991585 6255480 367.0 13 103.2 115.0 15.9 16.5 90
5205 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991600 6255535 370.0 15 103.4 112.0 16.4 15.5 92
5206 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991580 6255530 372.0 15 101.4 112.0 15.4 15.5 91
5207 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991595 6255460 374.0 15 104.1 112.0 14.8 15.5 93
5208 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991605 6255500 376.0 13 102.5 115.0 17.9 16.5 89
5208A 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991600 6255500 376.0 13 103.3 115.0 17.2 16.5 90
5210 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991615 6255540 378.0 13 106.0 115.0 15.5 16.5 92
5211 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991590 6255565 380.0 16 106.7 117.0 15.3 14.0 91
5212 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991635 6255540 381.0 13 104.1 115.0 16.4 16.5 91
5213 11/25/0 CF PA-5 1991610 6255520 383.0 15 101.5 112.0 15.6 15.5 91
5214 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991560 6255900 398.0 13 103.8 115.0 17.3 16.5 90
5215 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991620 6255445 385.0 13 106.2 115.0 16.3 16.5 92
5216 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991625 6255490 386.0 15 103.8 112.0 15.9 15.5 93
5217 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991650 6255590 387.0 13 104.6 115.0 17.1 16.5 91
5218 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991595 6255640 387.0 16 106.8 117.0 14.3 14.0 91
5219 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991595 6255865 400.0 15 102.7 112.0 14.8 15.5 92
5220 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991615 6255570 390.0 13 104.4 115.0 15.9 16.5 91
5221 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991655 6255425 392.0 15 104.6 112.0 16.8 15.5 93
5222 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991635 6255565 393.0 15 103.2 112.0 15.8 15.5 92
5223 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991640 6255475 394.5 13 101.8 115.0 15.3 16.5 89
5223A 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991640 6255480 394.5 13 104.6 115.0 16.5 16.5 91
5225 12/1/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991685 6255350 388.0 15 102.4 112.0 16.0 15.5 91
5226 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991730 6255640 395.0 15 104.0 112.0 15.4 15.5 93
5227 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991590 6255735 399.0 16 105.9 117.0 14.6 14.0 91
5228 12/1/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991675 6255570 392.0 17 103.1 114.0 15.1 14.5 90
5229 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991645 6255520 396.0 17 103.7 114.0 15.7 14.5 91
RT ON 5203A
RT OF 5203
RT ON 5208A
RT OF 5208
RT ON 5223A
RT OF 5223
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 5 of 11
Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test Test Test — Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
No. Date Of Northing Easting Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5230 12/1/03 CF Gateway Rd 1991640 6255580 399.0 10 102.4 112.5 17.3 16.0 91
5231 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991620 6256065 403.0 15 103.8 112.0 15.6 15.5 93
5232 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991785 6256040 405.0 16 105.0 117.0 15.3 14.0 90
5233 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991645 6256130 405.0 17 102.8 114.0 14.9 14.5 90
5234 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991570 6255815 406.0 15 103.8 112.0 15.7 15.5 93
5235 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991615 6255610 398.0 16 105.8 117.0 15.7 14.0 90
5236 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991740 6255975 407.0 16 102.4 117.0 15.9 14.0 88 RT ON 5236A
5236A 12/1/03 CF PA-5 1991745 6255975 407.0 16 106.7 117.0 15.1 14.0 91 RT OF 5236
5246 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991600 6256000 405.0 15 101.8 112.0 17.0 15.5 91
5247 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991560 6256200 405.0 13 103.9 115.0 19.5 16.5 90
5248 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991600 6255980 405.0 09 105.7 118.0 18.6 15.0 90
5249 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991550 6255860 406.0 04 108.5 120.5 17.0 12.5 90
5250 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991550 6255875 406.0 10 100.9 112.5 18.5 16.0 90
5251 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991600 6255800 406.0 13 104.9 115.0 16.2 16.5 91
5252 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991600 6255700 406.0 09 105.7 118.0 18.1 15.0 90
5253 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991630 6255680 406.0 10 101.3 112.5 15.8 16.0 90
5254 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991620 6255680 406.0 08 106.8 117.5 15.3 14.0 91
5255 12/2/03 CF PA-5 1991600 6255500 406.0 13 104.8 115.0 17.2 16.5 91
5283 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991620 6255460 406.0 10 101.9 112.5 15.5 16.0 91
5284 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991630 6255570 406.0 08 106.4 117.5 14.3 14.0 91
5285 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992279 6256749 410.0 10 101.3 112.5 16.3 16.0 90
5286 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992242 6256770 395.0 10 101.3 112.5 16.3 16.0 90
5287 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992220 6256738 394.0 10 103.4 112.5 16.4 16.0 92
5288 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992180 6256750 393.0 18 97.4 113.0 15.7 16.0 86 RT ON 5288A
5288A 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992180 6256750 393.0 18 104.0 113.0 17.7 16.0 92 RT OF 5288
5290 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992140 6256775 390.0 18 96.1 113.0 96.1 16.0 85 RT ON 5290A
5290A 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992140 6256775 390.0 18 102.1 113.0 17.4 16.0 90 RT OF 5290
5292 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992120 6256740 391.0 15 100.3 112.0 16.1 15.5 90
5293 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992145 6256750 391.0 15 104.8 112.0 16.7 15.5 94
5294 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992070 6256645 390.0 15 99.2 112.0 15.6 15.5 89 RT ON 5294A
5294A 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992080 6256640 390.0 15 103.6 112.0 17.5 15.5 93 RT OF 5294
5296 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992025 6256770 392.0 15 103.0 112.0 11.4 15.5 92 RT ON 5296A
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 6 of 11 4 Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5296A 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992025 6256770 392.0 15 104.2 112.0 16.1 15.5 93
5298 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991980 6256720 391.0 09 100.5 118.0 15.7 15.0 85
5298A 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991980 6256720 391.0 09 107.1 118.0 15.2 15.0 91
5400 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991925 6256655 392.0 10 101.4 112.5 17.1 16.0 90
5401 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991765 6256562 395.0 18 103.7 113.0 17.0 16.0 92
5402 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991675 6256462 396.0 08 105.2 117.5 16.6 14.0 90
5403 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992305 6256720 406.0 13 107.2 115.0 16.7 16.5 93
5404 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992275 6256762 404.0 13 105.1 115.0 17.1 16.5 91
5405 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992245 6256710 405.0 13 105.9 115.0 16.9 16.5 92
5406 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992170 6256755 403.0 13 106.3 115.0 17.0 16.5 92
5407 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992320 6256710 398.0 15 103.3 112.0 18.4 15.5 92
5408 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992105 6256780 399.0 15 102.4 112.0 17.0 15.5 91
5409 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992060 6256740 401.0 15 101.9 112.0 16.5 15.5 91
5410 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1992005 6256765 403.0 15 102.2 112.0 16.1 15.5 91
5411 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991990 6256635 405.0 13 106.9 115.0 17.2 16.5 93
5412 12/4/03 CF PA-5 1991780 6256550 406.0 15 104.5 112.0 16.4 15.5 93
5413 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992280 6256708 409.0 08 106.9 117.5 17.1 14.0 91
5414 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992290 6256745 409.0 08 106.2 117.5 18.1 14.0 90
5415 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992315 6256765 408.0 08 105.8 117.5 17.4 14.0 90
5416 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992110 6256740 406.0 20 105.4 116.0 18.7 14.0 91
5417 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992065 6256785 405.0 20 105.2 116.0 17.8 14.0 91
5418 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992010 6256715 405.0 20 105.6 116.0 18.1 14.0 91
5419 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1991788 6256572 404.0 20 105.4 116.0 16.3 14.0 91
5420 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1991788 6256520 405.0 08 106.1 117.5 16.7 14.0 90
5421 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1991680 6256510 407.0 20 105.5 116.0 16.4 14.0 91
5422 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992340 6256725 411.0 20 104.0 116.0 17.0 14.0 90
5423 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992230 6256705 413.0 20 104.7 116.0 16.5 14.0 90
5424 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992300 6256775 415.0 20 104.2 116.0 16.8 14.0 90
5425 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992280 6256750 418.0 20 105.0 116.0 17.3 14.0 91
5426 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992250 6256680 409.0 15 101.8 112.0 18.4 15.5 91
5427 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992290 6256790 411.0 15 102.1 112.0 17.9 15.5 91
5428 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1992230 6256780 413.0 15 102.6 112.0 17.3 15.5 92
RT OF 5296
RT ON 5298A
RT OF 5298
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 7 of• 4 Leighton and Associates, lnc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5429 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1991840 6256620 406.0 04 110.1 120.5 14.3 12.5 91
5430 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1991765 6256525 407.0 04 109.5 120.5 07.0 12.5 91
5431 12/5/03 CF PA-5 1991670 6256475 408.0 04 110.4 120.5 14.8 12.5 92
5447 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991625 6256385 409.0 10 101.2 112.5 19.4 16.0 90
5448 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991645 6256435 405.0 10 100.7 112.5 18.1 16.0 90
5449 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991680 6256490 480.0 10 101.5 112.5 19.1 16.0 90
5450 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991715 6256495 411.0 10 101.8 112.5 19.7 16.0 90
5451 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991755 6256500 414.0 10 100.9 112.5 18.6 16.0 90
5452 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991835 6256555 417.0 10 102.3 112.5 18.2 16.0 91
5453 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991885 6256665 419.0 10 102.1 112.5 18.5 16.0 91
5454 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992320 6256750 424.0 10 101.6 112.5 19.0 16.0 90
5455 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992240 6256725 424.0 10 103.5 112.5 19.3 16.0 92
5456 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992180 6256659 428.0 10 103.1 112.5 18.9 16.0 92
5457 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992165 6256735 427.0 10 103.4 112.5 17.2 16.0 92
5458 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992100 6256685 427.0 10 102.7 112.5 17.9 16.0 91
5459 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992045 6256685 429.0 10 103.0 112.5 17.0 16.0 92
5460 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1991780 6256525 418.0 10 101.9 112.5 19.3 16.0 91
5461 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992335 6256680 431.0 10 103.4 112.5 18.1 16.0 92
5462 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992250 6256785 431.0 10 101.0 112.5 17.6 16.0 90
5463 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992260 6256655 431.0 10 102.2 112.5 18.8 16.0 91
5464 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992240 6256790 431.0 10 101.8 112.5 17.8 16.0 90
5465 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992300 6256685 430.0 10 102.6 112.5 17.4 16.0 91
5466 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992225 6256795 430.0 10 101.5 112.5 18.2 16.0 90
5467 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992185 6256740 431.0 10 103.1 112.5 16.3 16.0 92
5468 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992120 6256720 431.0 10 102.5 112.5 16.9 16.0 91
5469 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992085 6256765 430.0 10 103.9 112.5 17.4 16.0 92
5470 12/9/03 CF PA-5 1992080 6256655 430.0 10 103.7 112.5 17.0 16.0 92
5471 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991995 6256845 432.0 16 105.9 117.0 14.6 14.0 91
5472 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1992025 6256735 432.0 17 102.8 114.0 15.8 14.5 90
5473 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991905 6256580 431.0 17 104.4 114.0 15.3 14.5 92
5474 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991800 6256522 430.0 19 105.8 118.0 15.7 15.0 90
5475 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991670 6256431 430.0 17 105.8 114.0 15.1 14.5 93
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 8 of 11
Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5476 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991633 6256252 429.5 19 106.2 118.0 16.4 15.0 90
5477 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991640 6256120 428.0 19 109.3 118.0 14.4 15.0 93
5478 12/10/0 CF PA-5 1991935 6256630 431.0 19 105.9 118.0 16.0 15.0 90
5491 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992295 6256665 435.0 10 101.2 112.5 18.1 16.0 90
5492 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992370 6256640 435.0 10 103.4 112.5 17.7 16.0 92
5493 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992065 6256595 436.0 10 102.5 112.5 18.9 16.0 91
5494 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1991975 6256565 436.0 10 101.8 112.5 17.5 16.0 90
5495 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992205 6256750 435.0 10 101.6 112.5 17.2 16.0 90
5496 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992110 6256740 436.0 10 102.6 112.5 17.6 16.0 91
5497 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992300 6256805 435.0 10 102.0 112.5 18.4 16.0 91
5498 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992130 6256815 435.0 10 102.3 112.5 18.0 16.0 91
5499 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992040 6256790 434.0 10 102.7 112.5 18.8 16.0 91
5600 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992345 6256650 436.0 10 95.6 112.5 19.7 16.0 85
5600A 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992360 6256655 436.0 10 102.6 112.5 18.9 16.0 91
5602 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992135 6256685 437.0 10 98.1 112.5 18.4 16.0 87
5602A 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992145 6256680 437.0 10 102.1 112.5 17.5 16.0 91
5604 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992250 6256760 436.0 10 103.4 112.5 19.5 16.0 92
5605 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1992065 6256730 437.0 10 102.5 112.5 19.1 16.0 91
5606 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1991935 6256565 435.0 10 102.8 112.5 18.3 16.0 91
5607 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1991875 6256570 437.0 10 103.1 112.5 18.5 16.0 92
5608 12/12/0 CF PA-5 1991805 6256585 436.0 10 103.8 112.5 17.8 16.0 92
5633 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992325 6256720 435.0 19 110.1 118.0 17.6 15.0 93
5634 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992245 6256635 435.0 19 109.7 118.0 18.1 15.0 93
5635 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992240 6256760 435.0 19 110.6 118.0 17.4 15.0 94
5636 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992170 6256560 437.5 19 109.3 118.0 17.0 15.0 93
5637 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992075 6256520 437.5 19 109.8 118.0 17.5 15.0 93
5638 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992010 6256580 437.5 19 1107 118.0 17.6 15.0 94
5639 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1991965 6256485 437.0 19 107.5 118.0 16.3 15.0 91
5640 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992160 6256715 438.0 19 108.3 118.0 17.0 15.0 92
5641 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992120 6256640 438.0 19 107.8 118.0 16.4 15.0 91
5642 12/15/0 CF PA-5 1992075 6256795 437.0 19 108.1 118.0 15.0 15.0 92
5667 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992010 6256200 428.5 15 100.4 112.0 18.0 15.5 90
RT ON 5600A
RT OF 5600
RT ON 5602A
RT OF 5602
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 9 of 11 4 Leighton and Associates, lnc 5/25/2 2:52;03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5668 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992040 6256260 428.5 15 100.8 112.0 17.3 15.5 90
5669 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991995 6256310 431.5 20 104.9 116.0 15.5 14.0 90
5670 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992080 6256440 431.5 20 105.3 116.0 16.1 14.0 91
5671 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991940 6256120 424.0 20 104.2 116.0 14.1 14.0 90
5672 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991895 6256180 424.0 20 104.9 116.0 14.5 14.0 90
5673 12/18/0 CF PA-5 I9921 10 6256230 429.0 15 101.5 112.0 17.4 15.5 91
5674 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992040 6256550 432.0 20 105.1 116.0 16.2 14.0 91
5675 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991960 6256250 424.5 20 105.8 116.0 15.8 14.0 91
5676 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991920 6256350 425.0 20 104.7 116.0 16.4 14.0 90
5677 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991865 6256215 428.0 18 102.3 113.0 16.4 16.0 91
5678 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991870 6256325 428.0 18 102.7 113.0 17.1 16.0 91
5679 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991820 6256440 430.0 18 101.7 113.0 16.9 16.0 90
5680 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991780 6256245 427.0 18 102.5 113.0 16.5 16.0 91
5681 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991750 6256390 430.0 18 102.9 113.0 17.2 16.0 91
5682 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6256335 423.0 18 101.9 113.0 18.1 16.0 90
5683 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991660 6256260 421.0 18 103.3 113.0 17.0 16.0 91
5684 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991680 6256180 418.0 18 102.6 113.0 16.1 16.0 91
5685 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991670 6256125 418.0 18 102.6 113.0 16.3 16.0 91
5686 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991685 6256040 419.0 18 102.1 113.0 17.3 16.0 90
5687 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991620 6255995 418.0 18 103.5 113.0 16.1 16.0 92
5688 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991710 6255980 420.0 18 103.1 113.0 16.6 16.0 91
5689 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991820 6256040 421.0 18 102.5 113.0 17.5 16.0 91
5690 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991880 6256015 422.0 18 97.9 113.0 17.2 16.0 87
5690A 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991885 6256020 422.0 18 102.6 113.0 16.5 16.0 91
5692 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992193 6256555 431.0 17 104.7 114.0 17.8 14.5 92
5693 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992069 6256117 431.0 17 104.1 114.0 17.3 14.5 91
5694 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992058 6256493 431.0 17 105.0 114.0 16.5 14.5 92
5695 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991986 6256391 429.0 17 103.4 114.0 16.5 14.5 91
5696 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1992033 6256298 429.0 17 103.8 114.0 16.1 14.5 91
5697 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991781 6256407 429.0 17 104.1 114.0 16.1 14.5 91
5698 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991781 6256357 427.0 17 105.6 114.0 16.0 14.5 93
5699 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991929 6256293 427.0 17 104.8 114.0 16.3 14.5 92
RT ON 5690A
RT OF 5690
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 10 of 11 4
Leighton and Associates, lnc 5/25/2 2;52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
5800 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991719 6256220 427.0 17 105.1 114.0 16.4 14.5 92
5801 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991720 6255510 414.5 10 101.4 112.5 18.8 16.0 90 5802 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991760 6255575 414.5 10 102.1 112.5 18.5 16.0 91 5803 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991675 6255645 414.5 10 101.5 112.5 19.1 16.0 90
5804 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991735 6255660 416.5 10 101.8 112.5 19.4 16.0 90
5805 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991660 6255750 416.5 10 102.5 112.5 19.0 16.0 91
5806 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991810 6255690 416.5 10 101.6 112.5 18.7 16.0 90
5807 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991745 6255780 417.5 10 104.1 112.5 19.2 16.0 93 5808 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991705 6255845 417.5 10 103.8 112.5 19.0 16.0 92
5809 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991640 6255890 417.5 10 103.3 112.5 18.7 16.0 92 5810 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991725 6255940 417.5 10 102.9 112.5 19.1 16.0 91 5811 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991715 6256100 421.0 10 102.7 112.5 18.4 16.0 91 5812 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991720 6256260 421.0 10 101.9 112.5 19.3 16.0 91 5813 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991635 6256220 421.0 10 101.4 112.5 19.1 16.0 90 5814 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991015 6256080 421.0 10 101.2 112.5 19.5 16.0 90
5815 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991755 6255600 415.0 10 102.5 112.5 18.3 16.0 91
5816 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991720 6255720 417.0 10 103.6 112.5 18.7 16.0 92 5817 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991805 6255920 418.0 10 103.1 112.5 18.5 16.0 92
5818 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991803 6255545 415.5 10 103.4 112.5 18.0 16.0 92 5819 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991840 6255610 415.5 10 103.0 112.5 17.9 16.0 92 5820 12/18/0 CF PA-5 1991875 6255905 415.5 10 102.9 112.5 18.6 16.0 91
6385 2/18/04 SF PA-5 1991933 6256782 406.0 10 103.5 112.5 14.7 16.0 92 6386 2/18/04 SF PA-5 1991950 6256658 421.0 10 101.7 112.5 13.3 16.0 90
6387 2/18/04 SF PA-5 1991818 6256628 393.0 10 104.2 112.5 15.2 16.0 93 6388 2/18/04 SF PA-5 1991720 6256508 414.0 10 100.8 112.5 13.8 16.0 90 6389 2/18/04 SF PA-5 1991642 6256370 428.0 10 101.5 112.5 14.6 16.0 90 6750 2/18/04 SF PA-5 1991608 6256158 420.0 08 106.3 117.5 15.3 14.0 90
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014G
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 11 of 11 4 Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 2:52:03PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (Vo)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
7874 3/19/04 CF PA-4 1991618 6254689 406.0 21 106.5 118.0 13.0 13.0 90
7875 3/19/04 CF PA-4 1991589 6254652 408.0 04 109.6 120.5 13.7 12.5 91
7876 3/19/04 CF PA-4 1991545 6254587 410.0 16 105.4 117.0 14.1 14.0 90
8026 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991516 6254546 406.0 16 102.7 117.0 16.6 14.0 88
8026A 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991525 6254555 406.0 16 106.4 117.0 17.0 14.0 91
8027 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991540 6254572 407.0 16 105.3 117.0 19.2 14.0 90
8028 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991500 6254500 408.0 16 106.0 117.0 16.0 14.0 91
8029 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991662 6254688 413.0 16 105.2 117.0 18.9 14.0 90 8030 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991682 6254670 414.0 15 104.1 112.0 18.8 15.5 93 8031 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991720 6254652 415.0 16 107.2 117.0 16.6 14.0 92
8040 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991484 6254433 413.0 18 104.5 113.0 16.6 16.0 92
8041 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991520 6254520 415.0 19 107.7 118.0 17.5 15.0 91
8042 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991630 6254662 418.0 16 109.2 117.0 14.7 14.0 93
8043 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991677 6254658 419.0 16 109.4 117.0 16.4 14.0 94
8044 3/20/04 CF PA-4 Stability Fill 1991760 6254627 421.0 16 105.4 117.0 14.9 14.0 90
8668 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991740 6254016 0.0 16 105.2 117.0 13.8 14.0 90
8669 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991882 6251947 0.0 20 104.7 116.0 14.7 14.0 90
8670 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991773 6253838 0.0 20 106.7 116.0 13.7 14.0 92
8671 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991683 6253512 0.0 09 107.1 118.0 16.9 15.0 91 8672 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991645 6252765 0.0 09 108.2 118.0 16.2 . 15.0 92 8673 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991822 6252812 0.0 10 101.1 112.5 16.8 16.0 90 8674 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1991968 6252932 0.0 10 101.8 112.5 17.2 16.0 90 8675 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1992020 6251775 0.0 10 102.4 112.5 15.7 16.0 91 8676 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1992100 6252960 0.0 10 104.9 112.5 15.1 16.0 93 8677 4/1/04 FG PA-4 1992515 6252765 0.0 10 102.7 112.5 16.0 16.0 91 8700 4/1/04 SF PA-4 1991514 6254495 419.0 20 104.2 116.0 12.6 14.0 90
8701 4/1/04 SF PA-4 1991567 6254580 420.0 20 106.2 116.0 12.5 14.0 92
8702 4/1/04 SF PA-4 1991600 6254675 414.0 08 110.8 117.5 13.9 14.0 94
8703 4/1/04 SF PA-4 1991729 6254650 419.0 20 105.1 116.0 13.8 14.0 91
8756 4/21/04 CF PA-5 1991791 6256110 429.0 17 102.1 114.0 13.7 14.5 90 8757 4/21/04 CF PA-5 1991902 6255978 429.0 20 104.5 116.0 16.5 14.0 90 8758 4/22/04 CF PA-5 1991906 6256308 429.0 23 107.3 119.0 18.1 13.0 90
RT ON 8026A
RT OF 8026
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014H
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 1 of3
Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 3;02:29PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (Vo)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
8759 4/22/04 CF PA-5 1991878 6256143 429.0 13 103.3 115.0 17.8 16.5 90
8760 4/22/04 CF PA-5 1991884 6255970 424.0 18 101.7 113.0 19.3 16.0 90
8761 4/22/04 CF PA-5 1991780 6256086 425.0 13 103.7 115.0 17.3 16.5 90
8762 4/22/04 CF PA-5 1991800 6256291 428.0 18 101.9 113.0 18.2 16.0 90
8852 4/9/04 CF PA-5 1991763 6255771 415.0 11 111.0 120.0 16.9 13.0 93
8853 4/9/04 CF PA-5 1991813 6255638 412.0 11 112.0 120.0 17.1 13.0 93
8854 4/9/04 CF PA-5 1991838 6255457 410.0 11 110.2 120.0 16.9 13.0 92
8855 4/20/04 CF PA-5 1991781 6255415 415.0 04 108.5 120.5 13.9 12.5 90
8856 4/20/04 CF PA-5 1991854 6255583 416.0 04 110.4 120.5 12.8 12.5 92
8857 4/20/04 CF PA-5 1991827 6255738 418.0 04 115.4 120.5 10.5 12.5 96
8858 4/20/04 CF PA-5 1991862 6255810 419.0 04 111.4 120.5 17.0 12.5 92
8981 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1992045 6255966 418.0 20 105.1 116.0 14.7 14.0 91
8982 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991818 6255783 414.0 17 102.6 114.0 12.9 14.5 90
8983 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991792 6255522 409.0 20 104.1 116.0 13.3 14.0 90
8984 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991868 6255646 412.0 20 104.9 116.0 17.0 14.0 90 8985 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991889 6256247 421.0 17 103.5 114.0 14.2 14.5 91
8986 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991820 6256026 418.0 18 102.0 113.0 15.3 16.0 90
8987 4/13/04 CF PA-5 1991848 6256143 421.0 22 111.2 124.0 16.3 12.0 90 8988 4/13/04 CF PA-5 I99I808 6255890 415.0 02 110.9 122.5 18.1 11.5 91
8989 4/13/04 CF PA-5 1991773 6255804 416.0 02 110.3 122.5 15.7 11.5 90
8990 4/13/04 CF PA-5 1991762 6255923 416.0 04 109.4 120.5 17.3 12.5 91
8991 4/13/04 CF PA-5 1991837 6255500 411.0 21 108.7 118.0 18.1 13.0 92
8992 4/13/04 CF PA-5 1991781 6255854 417.0 04 110.6 120.5 16.5 12.5 92 8993 4/13/04 CF PA-5 1991851 6255614 414.0 04 110.5 120.5 18.1 12.5 92
8994 4/14/04 CF PA-5 1991747 6255947 416.0 22 111.3 124.0 14.7 12.0 90
8995 4/14/04 CF PA-5 1991789 6255687 415.0 16 105.6 117.0 13.2 14.0 90
8996 4/14/04 CF PA-5 1991999 6256265 425.0 20 104.1 116.0 14.6 14.0 90
8997 4/14/04 CF PA-5 1991963 6256008 419.0 20 105.8 116.0 16.4 . 14.0 91
8998 4/14/04 CF PA-5 1991795 6255549 410.0 20 105.1 116.0 17.0 14.0 91
8999 4/14/04 CF PA-5 1991805 6255368 415.0 17 103.7 114.0 18.6 14.5 91
9000 4/15/04 CF PA-5 1991795 6255909 417.0 20 104.9 116.0 16.6 14.0 90 9001 4/15/04 CF PA-5 1991785 6255762 418.0 13 105.9 115.0 16.8 16.5 92
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014H
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 2 of 3 4 Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 3:02:30PM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test
Of
Location
Northing Easting
Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (Vo)
Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
9002 4/15/04 CF PA-5 1992007 6256045 421.0 13 105.3 115.0 17.2 16.5 92
9003 4/15/04 CF PA-5 1991829 6256077 420.0 20 104.7 116.0 19.2 14.0 90
9004 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991856 6256118 420.0 20 104.4 116.0 15.7 14.0 90
9005 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991749 6255718 419.0 20 104.0 116.0 16.5 14.0 90
9006 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991743 6256085 422.0 13 103.9 115.0 13.3 16.5 90
9007 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991789 6256210 423.0 13 105.8 115.0 17.0 16.5 92
9008 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991804 6256039 422.0 21 106.4 118.0 14.8 13.0 90
9009 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991769 6256065 423.0 13 105.1 115.0 16.9 16.5 91
9010 4/16/04 CF PA-5 1991818 6256349 428.0 21 106.7 118.0 18.0 13.0 90
9011 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991854 6256314 0.0 17 102.9 114.0 12.8 14.5 90
9012 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991714 6256361 0.0 16 105.4 117.0 12.2 14.0 90
9013 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991748 6256081 0.0 20 104.6 116.0 12.1 14.0 90
9014 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991635 6256130 0.0 16 105.0 117.0 107 14.0 90
9015 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991729 6255809 0.0 04 110.6 120.5 12.9 12.5 92
9016 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991809 6255789 0.0 04 109.6 120.5 10.2 12.5 91
9017 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991845 6255517 0.0 23 107.5 119.0 11.8 13.0 90
9018 5/3/04 FG PA-5 1991781 6255502 0.0 04 109.2 120.5 10.4 12.5 91
9019 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991879 6256269 425.0 17 103.1 114.0 16.1 14.5 90
9020 4/12/04 CF PA-5 1991770 6256356 426.0 17 104.9 114.0 14.8 14.5 92
Project Number:
Project Name:
Project Location:
Client:
971009014H
Bressi Ranch
0
0 Page 3 of 3
Leighton and Associates, Inc 5/25/2 3:02:30PM
971009-014
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test, UBC Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive
energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 90 percent relative
compaction. The prepared l-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent
144 psf surcharge and are inundated with distilled water until volumetric equilibrium is reach. The
results of these tests are presented in the table below:
Sample
Number
Representative
Location
Sample
Location Soil Type Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential*
E7 Northeast PA-4 PA-4 Olive brown SILT 78 Medium
E8 South Central
PA-4 PA-4 Olive brown CLAY 121 High
E9 West PA-5 PA-5 Olive brown sandy SILT 59 Medium
EIO East PA-5 PA-5 Olive brown sandy CLAY 75 Medium
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code Table 18-I-B.
C-1
971009-014
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Maximum Densitv Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils
were determined in accordance vsdth ASTM Test Method DI557. The results of these tests are
presented in the table below:
Sample
Number Sample Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
• 1 Light-brown clayey SAND (Alluvium) 125.0 ILO
2 Brown sandy silty CLAY (Alluvium) 122.5 11.5
3 Light-brown silty clayey SAND (Alluvium) 122.0 11.0
4 Olive-brown clayey SAND (Alluvium) 120.5 12.5
5 Olive brown sandy CLAY (Alluvium) 124.0 12.0
6 Red-brown sandy CLAY (Alluvium) 122.5 11.5
7 Olive light brown silty fine SAND 122.0 13.0
8 Gray Brown to Olive Brown clayey silty fine SAND 117.5 14.0
9 Light Olive-gray clayey silty SAND 118.0 15.0
10 Light brown Clayey very fine SAND 112.5 16.0
11 Brown clayey SAND (fill mix) 120.0 13.0
12 Brown clayey SAND (fill mix) 120.0 12.5
13 Dark brown sandy CLAY (Alluvium) 115.0 16.5
14 Light brown olive brown 124.0 12.0
15 Light gray brown silty very fine to fine SAND 112.0 15.5
16 Light gray fine sand 117.0 14.0
17 Light yellow-brown clayey silty SAND 114.0 14.5
18 Light olive brown silty clayey SAND 113.0 16.0
19 Yellow brown clayey silty SAND 118.0 15.0
20 Pale Olive light brown clayey silty SAND 116.0 14.0
21 Pale Olive light brown clayey silty SAND 118.0 13.0
22 Pale olive to gray brown silty sand 124.0 12.0
C-2
APPENDIX C (Continued)
971009-014
Sample
Number Sample Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
23 Pale Olive to Gray brown clayey silty SAND 119.0 13.0
24 Yellow-Brown Clayey SAND 116.0 13.5
25 Brown CLAY 104.0 19.0
26 Olive Gray CLAY 112.0 17.0
27 Yellow-Brown Clayey SAND 118.5 14.0
28 Brown Silty SAND 126.0 9.5
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample
Location Sample Description Sulfate Content
(%)
Potential Degree of
Sulfate AO:ack*
PA-4 Olive brown SILT 0.200 Severe
PA-4 Olive brown CLAY 0.021 Negligible
PA-5 Olive brown sandy SILT 0.100 Moderate
PA-5 Olive brown sandy CLAY 0.028 Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code Table 19-A-4.
C-3
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 1 of 6
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONSFOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consuhant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s)and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
and recommendationsprior to the commencementof the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perfonn the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notity the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The GeotechnicalConsultantshall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
3030.1094
Leightonand Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioningand processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Gmbbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, goveming agencies, and the GeotechnicalConsultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuingto work in that area.
As presently defmed by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
3030.1094
Leightonand Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
forthefiU.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable
to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determiningelevationsof processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultantor mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not
occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified
fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within
2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3030.1094
Leightonand Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placementand Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughlyto attain relative uniformity of materialand moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of FiH: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percentof maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to nonnal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be perfonned by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
3030.1094
Leightonand Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADINGSPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient fime should be allowed by the
Contractor tbr these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fiU-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the
conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consuhant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
3030.1094
FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED GROUND
GROUND
BENCH HEIGHT
(4' TYPICAL)
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
2 MIN.-
KEY
DEPTH
LOWEST
BENCH
(KEY)
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
BENCH HEIGHT
(4' TYPICAL)
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE
-CUT FACE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE
ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
EXISTING-
GROUND
SURFACE
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO APPROVED GROUND
CUT FACE SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT
OVERBUILD AND
TRIM BACK •REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERiAL
BENCH HEIGHT
(4" TYPICAL)
FOR SUBDRAINS SEE
STANDARD DETAIL C
2' MIN.—"
KEY
DEPTH
15' MIN.
LOWEST
BENCH
(KEY)
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1.
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET
KEYING AND BENCHING
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
FINISH GRADE
SLOPE FACE
» OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN
8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION.
* EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED
FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE
ROCK.
* BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED
OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE
VOIDS.
* DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF
FINISH GRADE.
» WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE
PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE.
GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE'
DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY
FLOODING OR JETTING.
DETAIL
-JETTED OR FLOODED - —
GRANULAR MATERIAL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
BENCHING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE--^ yy
OR #2 ROCK (9FT"3/FT) WRAPPED
IN FILTER FABRIC //
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE DETAIL BELOW
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI UON OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
4" MIN. BEDDING
COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS
SUBDRAIN DETAIL
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE
•20' MIN. 5' MIN.
NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN.
-FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI MON OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
•CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
OR #2 ROCK (9FT'^3/FT) WRAPPED
IN FILTER FABRIC
—-PERFORATED
6" 0 MIN. PIPE
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET
CANYON SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
15' MIN,
OUTLET PIPES
4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE.
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30" MAX O.C. VERTICALLY
BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
•SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
-KEY DEPTH
(2' MIN.)
KEY WIDTH
NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
(15' MIN.) 12 MIN. OVERLAP —
FROM THE TOP HOG
RING TIED EVERY
6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS
PERMEABLE OR #2
ROCK (3 FT"3/FT)
WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC
4" 0
NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE
PROVIDE POSITIVE
SEAL AT THE
JOINT
T-CONNECTION
FOR COLLECTOR
PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
6" MIN.
COVER
4" 0
PERFORATED
PIPE
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140 OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
4" MIN.
BEDDING
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdroin collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes sholl be non-perforated
pipe. The subdroin pipe shall hove ot least 8 perforotions unifornnly spoced per foot. Perforotion
sholl be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes ore used. All subdrain pipes shall hove a gradient of ot
least 2% towards the outlet.
SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe sholl be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or
ASTM D3034, SDR 23,5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plostic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe sholl be ploced in o trench no wide than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be in
soil of SE >/=30 jetted or flooded in ploce except for the outside 5 feet which sholl be native
soil backfill.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
LEIGHTON ANO ASSOCIATES
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
BASED ON ASTM D1557
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI HON OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
3/4" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL
4" (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT,
COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR
J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL INSTALLATION SHOULD BE
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS,
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE DETAIL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES