Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 02-16; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2007-01-15
ç1cv 2/1,,fr7 I çot'tt,' - II Z 4 --IRIS - 1 UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL'EVALUATIONOF..THE . . I ROBERTSON RANCH, EAST VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT URI CARLSBAD TRACT 021.-16, DRAWING 433-6 CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0. U) A FOR I CALAVERA HILLS, LLC I. 1 2750 WOMBLE ROAD J SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92106 1 .1 .............................k1 W.0. 5353-A-SC JANUARY 15, 2007 71 f . . WRUNG I 'JAN 28 2008 ENGINEERING -' *t . DEPARIIV k1%IT aw .( H ir I Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental I, .1• . ,...: 01 I Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 FAX (760) 931-0915 I S -, January 15, 2007 I W.O. Calavera Hills, LLC I 2750 Womble Road San Diego, California 92106 1 Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell '. I Subject: Updated Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch, East Village Development, Carlsbad Tract 02-16, Drawing 4336, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California I . Dear Mr. Mitchell: I In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) has reviewed site conditions and our existing geotechnical reports (see Appendix A) in orderto update the existing geotechnical evaluation (GSl, 2004a) of the East Village portion of the Robertson Ranch Property. The I purpose'of our current evaluation is to update the existing report with. respect to current 'standards of geotechnical practice. This report summarizes the findings of ourwork. Based on ourfindings and analyses, rebommendátions for site preparation, earthwork, and. I foundations are provided for design and planning purposes. ' I ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, I .Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A) field exploration (Appendix B), and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed construction appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this I report are properly, incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significait elements of this study are summarized below: S ', I • Earth materials unsuitable for the support of structures, settlément-sénsitive improvements, and/or compacted fill generally consist of existing artificial fill, colluvial soil, near-surface alluvium, and near-surface highly weathered formational, I or bedrock, earth rnaterials'(i.e., sedimentary, and/or metavolcanic/igneous rock). Complete removals of tributary alluvium (on the order of 5 to 25 feet) should be, I .anticipated. Complete removals are desired within valley alluvial areas, but may be limited. due to the presence ofashallow groundwater table. In this case, removals should minimally be completed to depths on the order of approximately 5 to 6 feet, and settlement monitoring would likely be necessary. Removals on sloping areas, I including colluvium and near-surface weathered formational earth materials, are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 5 feet thick throughout the majority of the site I Existing engineered fill, located northwest of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, has been observed and tested by this office, and is considered I suitable for its intended use Since placement of this fill, additional "undocumented" fill stockpiles have been placed throughout the area. Undocumented fill stockpiles are not suitable for use in their present condition and I will require removal and recompaction An evaluation of rock hardness and rippability indicates that moderately difficult to I very difficult ripping should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 ,feet of - existing elevations in areas underlain by metavolcanics/granitics, however, localized I areas of shallower practical refusal should be anticipated Rock requiring blasting to excavate will likely be encountered below these depths Overexcavation should be considered in dense metavolcanic/granitics in proposed pads and street areas I Overexcavation is not a geotechnical requirement however. -. Planned cut and fill slopes are considered to be generally stable, assuming that I , these slopes are maintained and/or constructed in accordance with recommendations presented inthis report Natural slopes, to remain about the I perimeter of the project, are also anticipated to be generally stable. Liquefaction analyses indicate that some alluvial soils are generally susceptible to liquefaction; however, damaging defórmations should be essentially mitigatë'd by I maintaining a minimum 107 t015-foot thick, non-liquefiable soil layer beneath any proposed improvement, provided our* recommendations are implemented Groundwater was generally encountered at depths on the order of 6 to 30 feet I - below existing grades Planned fills and underlying alluvial soil will provide for at least 20 to 25 feet of non-liquefiable material above the groundwater table, and I should effectively mitigate adverse surface effects due to liquefaction Alluvial soils left in-place will settle due to the addition of foundation and fill loads I The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed above the alluvium A settlement analysis is presented in the body of this report I . Our experience in the site vicinity indicates that alluvial soils are generally represented by an R-value of 12, terrace deposits by an R-value of 19, and metavolcan ic/g ran itic bedrock by an R-value of 45 Soils onsite typically have a very I low to high expansion potential but after grading should generally be in the very low to low expansive range Site soils are anticipated to have a negligible to moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and are considered highly corrosive (when I • saturated) to buried metals, based on the available data. Consultation with a - corrosion engineer should be considered. • I I Calavera Hills, LLC 'W .O. 5353 -A-SC I File:e:\wp9\5306\5353auge - - Page Two oSos, Inc. 1 • Conventional foundation systems may be usedfor Very low to low 'expansive soil. conditions (where the Plasticity Index [Pi] of the soil is 15, or less), and relatively I .shallow fill areas (<30 feet). Similarly, conventional foundations designed in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of'Buiiding Officials [lCBO], 1997 and 2001), I .: may be used for low through medium expansive soil conditions (where the P1 is - 15, or ,greater, and the Expansion Index [E.l.] is less than '90): .Post-tension foundations may be used for all categories of expansive soil conditions, and are I exclusively recommended for highly'expansive soil conditions, deep fill areas (>30 feet), areas with fill thickness differentials exceeding a ratio of 3:1 , and in areas I . underlain with saturated alluvial sediments left-in-place, or, within their influence. Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not encountered in our geotechnical evaluation. I ' • The geotechnical'design parameters provided herein should be considered during4 . construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. 1 I The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have an. questions concerning this report. or iVwe may. be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to. contact any of the undersigned. - . .'•. SA- Certified cc Np- 7 .-. N .1934 4 Engineering Robert G:Crisman OpC,\' , ' Dávid'W. Skelly ' I Engineering Geologist, 34' Civil Engineer, RCE 47-8 OF RGC/DWS/JPF/jk • ' • • -. Distribution: (6) Addressee - • . I I - I . • Caiavera Hills, LLC ' W.O. 5353-A-SC FiIe:e:\wp9\53oo5353a.uge . ' • - - Page Three I OS9 I r " ' I 'TABLE OF CONTENTS I SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................1 I SITE DESCRIPTION .........................................................1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT..................................................3 I . FIELD WORK FINDINGS ......................................................3 I REGIONAL GEOLOGY .........................................................4 EARTH MATERIALS.. ................................................. —4 I 'Engineered Stockpile (Map Symbol - AfT) ......................... .........5 Engineered Fill (Map Symbols - AfBTh) .........................................5. Undocumented Stockpile (Map Symbol - Stockpile) .......................6' I . Existing Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) .........................6 Colluvium (Not Mapped) ................................................6 I . Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA and QaIB) ................................6 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt).... .. ............ ..................... 7 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa) .....................................7 i . Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr) .................. 7 MASS WASTING ....... ...... .........8 I . GROUNDWATER ................................................................. 1 . ' REGIONAL FAULTING/SEISMICITY .............................................10 Regional Faulting .....................................................10 Local Faulting ..........................................................10' I Seismicity ...................... ..................................... 10 Seismic Shaking Parameters ...........................................11' I LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................13 Classification .........................................................13 I Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density ..............................13 Expansion Index Testing ...................................................14 Direct Shear Tests . .: .....14 Consolidation Testing ................ ......... ........................ 15 I Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Limits ...........................................15 Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity ........................................15 I . SEISMIC HAZARDS ........................................................15 Liquefaction ...........................................................16 I ' ' Seismically Induced Lateral Spread .......................................' 17 Seismically Induced Settlement' ............................................17 GèooL, Z I I SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS . 17 ' Post-Grading Settlement of Compacted Fill .................. .18 Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium ...... .............................. 18 I General ........................................................18. Alluvium Underlying "Engineered Stockpile" ............................18 Tributary Alluvium(Map Symbol - QaIA) .....................................18 I Valley Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalB) .......................' .............18. Monitoring ........................................................19 I , Dynamic Settlements ....................................................19 Settlement Due to Structural Loads ........................................20 Summary of Settlement Analysis .......... I .................................... 20 I SUBSIDENCE ........................................... ................21 .I ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION ......................................:.........21 Rock Hardness and Rippability .................................................21 I Blasting.................. .................................... .......... ...22, SLOPE STABILITY ............................................................... . 22 I . Gross Stability .....................................................'.. Surficial Stability 22 23' ............ ..'... I .PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................23 RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION ....................... .. 24 I . General .........................................................24 Site Preparation 24 Removals ..............................................................24 I Overexcavation/Transitions ................ ........................ .-1.. 25 84 Inch Storm Drain Line . Wick Drains . ....26 I , Drain Spacing and Depth ........................................26 Ground Preparation ................................. ............. 26 Drainage .........................................................27 I ' Subdrains ..........................................................27 Fill Placement and Suitability ............................................ 28 I Rock Disposal ...............................................' ..............'28 Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less . ' .......................28 Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter. 29 Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter ......................30 Rock Excavation and Fill .............................30 Earthwork- Balance ...... ................................. .................... ..:31 I Shrinkage/Bulking .............................................31 Slope Considerations and Slope Design ...............................31 Graded Slopes .......... ........................................ .31 I .. . ..,. ,.. . Calavera Hills II, LLC . . .. . Table of Contents I FiIe:e:wp9\5353\5353a.uge . , , ' . Page ii .. Sils, Iw0 ., . I I' . Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes . 31 Temporary Construction Slopes . ................................31 I FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................32 RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS ......................32 I General .' ......32 Preliminary Foundation Design .........................................32 Bearing Value ......................................................33 I Lateral Pressure ................. ........ 33 . Construction ..........................................33 I POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN ............................................35 General................................................................35 I Subgrade Preparation ................................................36 Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting .....................................36 I . MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION ....................................37 Very Low to Low Expansive Soils ......................................... 37 I . Medium Expansive Soils ...............................................37 Highly Expansive Sails .................................................38 'Other Considerations .....................................................38 I SETBACKS .................................................................38 I . SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY .................................................39 SETTLEMENT ..................................................................39 I WALL , DESIGN PARAMETERS ... ..39 Conventional Retaining Walls ...................................... ..... ... .39 I Restrained Walls . ' ........................39 Cantilevered Walls .......40 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ................................... '.....40 I . Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ...................................41 TOPOFSLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS...................... ....... 41 POOLJSPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . ..........42 .' I . DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS........................ 44 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................... 46 Calavera Hills II, LLC Table of Contents I, File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge .. . . Page GeoSodc, Inc. iii I. I PAVEMENTGRADING RECOMMENDATIONS . 48 General ....................................48 Subgrade ........................................................48 1 Base ......... .......................................................... 49 Paving................................................................49 I Drainage ............................................................49 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ..........................so Slope Deformation ...................................................50 I General.............................................................50 Slope Creep ......................................................50 I Lateral Fill Extension (LFE) ...........................................50 Summary ......................... ................................51 Slope Maintenance and Planting ... ..................................... 51 I Drainage ..................................................................51 Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains ..........................................52 I . Erosion Control ..........................................................53 Landscape Maintenance .............................................. 53 Subsurface and Surface Water .. . ...................................53 I Tile Flooring ......................................................56 Site Improvements ....................................................56 Additional Grading •. .................................................56 I Footing Trench Excavation ...............................................56 Trenching.............................................................57 Utility Trench Backfill .................................................57 I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING .............................................................57 I OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS ............................. . 58 I HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS .............................59 I PLAN REVIEW .................................................................. LIMITATIONS ............. . .. 59 I' I I I I Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge 1 H FIGURES: S Figure 1 - Site Location Map . .2 ' Figure 2 - California Fault Map . .' .....................................12 I Detail 1 - Schematic Toe Drain Detail.................................... .. 54 Detail 2 - Toedrain Along Retaining Wall Detail ............................55 I ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References .....................................Rear of Text I . Appendix B - Test Pit and Boring Logs ...........................Rear of Text Appendix C - Laboratory Data ......................................Rear of Text Appendix D - Liquefaction Analysis ...............................Rear of Text I . Appendix E - Settlement Analysis ........................... .....Rear of Text Appendix F - . . General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ............................Rear of Text I . Plates 1 and 13 - Geotechnical Maps ...................Rear of Text in Folder 1. . . S. . S I S .. I S . S 55 •55 S I S S iS S S. 1 .S, Calavera Hills II, LLC . . Table of Contents S S I. FiIe:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge S S S S GoSs, Inc. . Page v . I I , UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH, EAST VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CARLSBAD TRACT 02-16, DRAWING 433-6 1 CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES I The scope of our services has included the following: I i fleiew'of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). 2 Geologic site reconnaissance Subsurface exploration consisting of six small diameter borings with a hollow stem auger drill rig, and 44 exploratory trench excavations using a rubber tire backhoe I (completed in preparation of GSI, 2001a and 2002b). Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface I exploration program (completed in preparation of,GSl [2001a and 2002b]). Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation I of this report I .SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is approximately 175 acres in size, consisting predominantly of several I 'north to south trending ridgelines separated by intervening south flowing, aJluviated drainages' located in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). Relief across ridges and the intervening drainages varies from approximately' 40 to 50 feet across the site. Overall 'relief throughout the site varies from an approximate elevation of 160 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), within the northern portion of the property, down to an elevation of approximately 40 feet MSL within the southwestern I portion of the property. The largest of the drainage courses is located along the eastern' boundary of the site, and appears to be occupied by an ephemeral creek (Calavera Creek). I The majority of the site has been used for farming, primarily within alluviated, drainage' areas and on gentle slopes. Steeper slopes are relatively undeveloped and support native vegetation. Site drainage is directed southward toward Agua Hedionda Creek and I Lagoon. Since GSl (2002b), earthwork operations have been completed onsite for the construction of onsite portions of Cannon Road and College'Boulevard, between El Camino Real and the adjacent Calavera Hills Il development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters generated up gradientfrom the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon I Road (GSl, 2006). Additionally, a structural "stockpile" has been placed within an I Go-Soils, I I . I I *H iH SITE M ( )) W . °.'•-O _1OFEE) -< --'-rm. j. . . . . . .. Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current 1999. . I i: : '1 '-:;:' . I Tm E N'S 21 It 41 jA 1 14 Ijr * - \ j n, I 1000 FM - Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co., Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, pages 1106 and 1107. Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. - Maps This map to copyrighted by Thomas Bran. - Maps. It in unlowtut to copy or reproduce all or any I part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. I . afluviated area bounded by College Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road the south, and upland areas to the west. The preparation of existing ground and the placement of structural fills located within this "triangle" area, formed by the aforementioned boundary conditions, was observed and tested by this office. Site preparation and fill placement was performed in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2001 c) and in 'the field by this office. Presently, engineered fills are on the order of 10 to 15 feet in thickness. A compaction report of rough grading for these engineered fills will be prepared at the completion of .a forthcoming phase of grading. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Robertson Ranch East Villae will be developed as a master planned community, consisting of, but not necessarily limited to: residential building sites, multi-family structures, affordable housing units, commercial proprty, park/recreation property, 'a school site, and open space. Associated roadways and underground improvements are also planned. Based on. a review of the 40-6cale grading plans, prepared by O'Day Consultants (ODC, 2007), the site will be mass, or sheet, graded as several large lots, or super pads. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated on approximately 90 acres of the 175 total acres in order to create building pads. A review of ODC (2007) indicates that maximum cuts and fills, on the order of 35 feet in depth (cut and fill), are planned. Fill slopes, and cut slopes exposing sedimentary bedrock/formational soils, are , anticipated to be constructed at gradients on the order of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 30 feet. Cut slopes exposing dense undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock may be constructed at gradients on the order of 11/2:.1 (h:v), or flatter, to the riiaximum planned heights of approximately 30 feet. The aforementioned "triangle" area, located within the East Ranch area, appears to have been rough graded to require additional fills on the order of 2 to 5 feet, or less, in thickness, per the current plan. - FIELD WORK FINDINGS The findings presented below are based on work completed in preparation of this report and previous work completed by this office (GSI, 2004a, 2002b, and 2001 c). The body of field work completed to date consists'of field mapping, seismic survey,backhoe test pits, and hollow stern auger drill rig borings, as well as laboratory testing. Overall site conditions were reviewed by this office during January 2007. Based on our field review, site conditions are essentially the same as previously encountered. Subsurface conditions were explored in October-2001 and January 2002, by excavating six exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 44 exploratory test pits with• - a rubber tire backhoe, throughout the larger Robertson Ranch properly (East and West Villages). A previous study (GSI, 2001 c) completed nine eploratory small diameter hollow Caiavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East. Village January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 3 GoSois, Inc . : I I stem auger borings and 11 exploratory test pits with a backhoe. All exploratory excavations were completed in order to determine the soil and geologic profiles, obtain I samples of representative materials, and delineate soil and geologic parameters that may affect the proposed development. Boring and excavation depths ranged from 2' feet to 511/2 feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of applicable borings and test pits are I presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are indicated on the attached Geotechnical Maps, Plate I through Plate 13. Plate 1. through Plate 13 use the 40-scale grading plans prepared by ODC (2007) as a base. In addition -. to our subsu,face exploration, field mapping. of earth material and a seismic refraction 'survey (GSI, 2001c) was performed. I REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and I .the Los Angeles Basin south to Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south bythe Gulf of California, and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are I .essentially aséries of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. In the Peninsular Ranges, relatively younger sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine I - sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas. Based on our work performed to date,,the site appears to be underlain at depth, and in outcrop, by Eocene age sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Santiago Formation,.. I non-conformably deposited over older, undifferentiated metavolcan ic/g ran itic bedrock. Younger, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits have been deposited unconformably on these older formational materials within the eastern and western portions of the site, while recent I alluvial deposits have been deposited within active drainage courses. Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are foUnd in this province. The Elsinore and the San Jacinto fault zones trend northwest-southeast, and are found near, the middle of the province: The San Andreas fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province, whereas, a fault related to the San Andreas Transform Fault System, the Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone exists near the western margin and Continental Borderland geomorphic province. As discussed in a later section of this report, " the site is located east of the Rose Canyon fault zone. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials within the site consist predominantly of engineered stockpile, engineered fill, stockpile soil and rock, existing undocumented soil fill, 'surlicial slump deposits, colluviUm, alluvium, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock belonging to Calavera Hills, LLC . . W.O. 5353-A-SC Rob?rtson Ranch, East Village' , JanUary 15, 2007 ' Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' . Page 4 GeoSoils, I the Eocene-age Santiago Formation, and undifferentiated Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic/granitic (igneous) bedrock; Preliminary recommendations for site preparation and treatment of the earth materials encountered are discussed in the Earthwork Recommendations section of this report. The general distribution of earth materials are shown on Plates 1 through 13. Engineered Stockpile (Map Symbol - AfT Engineered stockpile has been placed within .a triangular area bounded by College Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road the south, and upland areas of the East Ranch to the west. The preparation of existing ground and the placement of structural fills located within the "triangle" area, formed by the aforementioned boundary conditions, was observed and tested by this office. Site preparation and fill placement was performed during grading operations, by this office, in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2001c and 2002b), and in the field by this office. Field testing services provided by this office indicate that fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and bedrock in the vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately, 10 to 15 feet in thickness locally. A compaction report of rough grading for these engineered fills is forthcoming. Future earthwork in this area will require the removal and recompaction of loose surlicial stockpiles, and the processing of the near surface layer of compacted fill. The approximate limits of engineered stockpile is shown on the attached geotechnical maps. Some surficial reprocessing will be necessary prior to placing any new fill. Engineered Fill (Map Symbols - AfBTD1 Since the, completion of GSI (20020), earthwork operations have been completed for the those portions of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, located within the Robertson Ranch property, between El Camino Real and the adjacent Cälavera Hills II development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters generated up gradient from the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Site preparation and fill placement were performed during grading operations, by this office, in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2002a and 2002b), and in the field by this office. Field testing services provided 'by this office indicate that fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and bedrock in the vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately 30 feet in thickness locally. A summary of observation and testing services is presented in GSI (2006e). I I , I I I I I I I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 I File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Geo&fts, Inc. Page - Undocumented Stockpile (Map Symbol - Stockpile) A large stockpile of soils and rock fragments is located within the eastern portion of the property. This material is not considered suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill support unless it is removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as properly compacted fill. Existing Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) Minor amounts of existing fill are scattered throughout the project site as small embankments for dirt roads or level pads for existing farm structures. These materials typically consist of si!ts and sands derived from the underlying native soils and appear to be on the order of 1 to 5 feet thick where observed. Existing fills are not considered suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill, support unless these materials are I removed, moisture conditioned and placed compacted fill. Colluvium (Not Mapped) Where encountered, colluviurn is on the order of 2 to 6 feet thick; and consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy clay. These soils are typically dry to moist, loose to medium dense (sands), stiff (clays), and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for support of settlement-sensitive improvements, unless these soils are removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as compacted fill. Expansion testing (GSI, 2001 c),and this study indicates that these soils range from very,lowtomedium expansive. Large dessication cracks in colluvial soils are visible at the surface in some areas underlain with sedimentary bedrock (Map Symbol - isa), and may indicate highly expansive soils. 4 Alluvium (Map Symbol- QalA and Qa1BJ Alluvial soils onsite appear to occur within two distinct depositional environments onsite. One is characterized as tributary alluvium(QalA), deposited within smaller canyons and gullies dissecting slope areas, and valley alluvium (QaIB), deposited within thelarger, broad flood plains located along the eastern and southern sides of the . .project. Where. encountered, alluvial sediments consist of sandy clay and clayey/silty sand. Clayey sands are typically loose to medium dense, while sandy clays are stiff. Alluvium ranges from generally damp to wet above the groundwater table, to saturated near, at, and below the groundwater table. Tributary alluvium is anticipated to range in thickness .from approximately 5 to 35 feet (5 to 25 feet within planned development areas), while valley alluvium was encountered to the depths explored (approximately 51 feet; GSI [2002b], and GSI [2001 c]). ... -. Alluvium above the groundwater table is not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and recdmpacted. Due to the presence of groundwater; alluvial removals could be limited in depth., Complete to partial removals to saturated sediments, on the order of 5 to 25 feet, are anticipated within some areas underlain by alluvium. Calavera Hills, LLC . W.0.5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 6 Go$oiL, Inc. I I . I . I. .1 I I: L I I I X I i ) Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials, including general removal depths, is shown on Plates 1 through 13 I Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Mid- to late-Pleistocene terrace deposits encountered onsite vary from silty sand to I '. sandy/silty clay. These sediments are typically yellowish brown to brown and olive brown, slightly moist to moist, and medium dense/stiff. Unweathered terrace deposits are generally considered suitable for the support of structures and engineered fill Bedding I structure observed within these materials in road cuts along El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and other outcrop exposures in the vicinity, display a generally massive to a weakly developed subhorizontal orientation I Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa) Sandstone, clayey siltstone, and claystone sedimentary bedrock; belonging to Eocene-age Santiago Formation, was encountered at depth in our exploratory borings, and are not anticipated to be encountered during site grading. While the Santiago formation occurs at the surface to the west, and east of the site, it was encountered at depth in some of our exploratory borings, beneath younger terrace and alluvial deposits onsite The general limits of the Santiago Formation, where buried, are shown on the attached Plate 1 through (I Platell. Undifferentiated lqneous Bedrock (MaD.Svrnbol - JsDIKar Undifferentiated igneous bedrock onsite'consists of metavolcanic rock belonging to the. Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics, and/or granitic rock belonging to the Peninsular Ranges Batholith Where encountered in our exploratory test pits and observed in outcrop, these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular weathered zone (up to 21/2 to 4 feet thick), consisting of dry, medium dense materials which generally decompose to silty sand and'-angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Seismic refraction surveys in the area are discussed in the Rock Hardness and Rippability section of.this report. Fractures observed within the bedrock are typically high angle (i.e, 45degrees or steeper) and closely spaced on the order of 1 to 30 inches. Fracture orientations appear to vary from east-northeast to northwest to north-south Igneous bedrock was encountered at depth in some of our exploratbr' borings, beneath younger terrace and alluvial deposits The general limits of igneous bedrock, both near the surface and where buried, are shown on the attached Plates 1 through 13. Caiavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-ASC January 15, 2007 Page 7 MASS WASTING Field mapping and subsurface exploration performed in preparation of this report did not I indicate the presence of any deep seated landsliding, and these features were not noted during our review of available published documents (Appendix A). A review of a previous feasibility evaluation completed by Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985) referred to several I "Iandforms," which may be suggestive of slumps and/or small landslides. These features were generally located within the toe areas of natural slopes developed in terrace deposits I or the Santiago Formation (west of the site). Field mapping, a review of aerial photographs, and subsurface exploration, completed by this office, has further defined the extent of these features; Our findings indicate that these features are relatively shallow I (i.e., 10 feet, or less), and are not anticipated to significantly affect site development, provided our recommendations are implemented. I The features mapped by (L&A, 1985) were based on visual reconnaissance and photographic review Our review of their information, including test pit data, further constrained the location of these features. Of the four features identified in GSI (2002b), I only one featurewas evaluated with asubsurface exploration (Test Pit [TP]-5), and located within the Robertson Ranch West property (offsite). The absence of subsurface exploration within the remaining features was primarily due to access issues with respect to the current use of the site (agriculture) and the steepness of slope(s) involved. Based on the relative size of these features, it was determined that these deposits were surficial in nature and I should readily be mitigated with typical site grading, whether they exist or not. The area containing one of the features, located within the southwest portion of Robertson Ranch East (GSl, 2002b) has been re-evaluated as terrace deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) and I ' tributary alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA). It has been postulated by others (Geopacifica, 2004) that earth materials, presently I .mapped as terrace deposits, may actually be a large landslide deposit, especially in the vicinity'of TP-12 and TP-18. Based on a review of test, pit data obtained to date (Appendix B), and recent grading operations in the vicinity of TP-12 and TP-18, areas of I .the site mapped as "Qt" are underlain by relatively fine grained, sub-horizontally bedded mixtures of sand and clay. Internal structure is visible in outcrop along El Camino Real, a recently constructed road cut for Cannon Road, and along the eastern limits of the project. The basal, depositional contact along the underlying igneous bedrock is exposed along the eastern portion of Robertson Ranch East, and within a canyon side slope near the boundary between Robertson Ranch West and. Robertson Ranch East. Evidence of I shearing was not observed along this contact. Furthermore, a back scarp/head scarp, or source area, does not appear to be present, based on the observed geomorphology of the I terrain located up slope from the terrace deposits. Based on the general lack of chaotic, . internal structure, the relatively uniform and fine grained texture of earth materials, absence of shearing along the basal contact, sub-horizontal bedding, and general absence of other I defining geomorphic characteristics indicative of a large landslide, it is our opinion that earth materials mapped as terrace deposits onsite are the result of ancient fluvial depositional processes, and not the result of mass wasting. I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 I FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . . . Page 8 Go5oUs Inc. I I GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in test pits and test borings completed in preparation of this I report and in previous test borings (GSl, 2001c and 2002b) within alluvial materials (Map Symbol - QaIB) located along the southeastern and eastern margins of the site, as well as I . within the extreme western, end of the site. Depths to groundwater encountered within alluvium (Map Symbol - QaIB) ranged from approximately 6 feet to 14 feet below existing grades, with depths shallowing to the west. The presence of bedrock materials, with lower I moisture content beneath the alluvium, suggests that groundwater is generally perched within the alluvial section. Groundwater was also locally encountered at depth within tributary alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal,J. The depth to groundwater in these deposits ranged from approximately 6 to 30 feet below grade; however, groundwater was not always encountered. In general, depths to groundwater are relatively shallow where' tributary alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA) feeds, or interlingers, with valley alluvium (Map. . Symbol - QaIB), with the depth increasing as the alluvial deposits extend up into each tributary drainage. The local groundwater gradient is estimated to vary following surface drainage patterns, from a south to southwesterly direction towards Calavera Creek. The I regional gradient is estimated to be in a similar direction towards Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Surface signs of water wells were not observed onsite during our site reconnaissance. In addition, there are no water wells reported within the site, as listed in a March 1998 United States Geological Survey database and the California Department of Water Resources (2002). State of California regional groundwater maps from 1967 indicate no permitted water wells existing within the subject site; therefore, a discussion of historic groundwater levels is not available. However, based on the relatively close proximity to relatively constant water levels associated with the coastline and adjacent lagoon, and relative low soil permeabilities, groundwater levels are considered to have remained relatively constant, from a historic perspective. Furthermore, observation of groundwater levels within borings completed at different times during the evaluation of the site appear to have remained relatively constant, given a margin for error associated with boring locations and the determination of elevation. It should also be noted that a. wick drain system was constructed beneath those portions of College and Cannon Roads underlain with alluvial soils left-in-place. These structures should also aide in controlling groundwater levels. While not noted during this study, "perched" groundwater, where relatively impermeable fill and/or sediments underlie relatively permeable fill and/or sediments filled with water, may be encountered at shallower depths onsite, especially during the rainy season. This should not adversely affect site development provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our field evaluation and do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future froñi heavy irrigation or precipitation. Calavera Hills, LLC . . - W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village 'January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' . Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. REGIONAL FAULTING/SEISMICITY Regional Faulting . . There are a number of faults in the southern California area which are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault; the San Jacinto fault; the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone;, and the Rose Canyon -'Newport-Inglewood (RCNI) fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking, at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The general distribution of the major faults relative to the site is shown on Figure 2. Local Faulting . 1 No known active or pôtentiallyactive faults are shown crossing the site on published maps (Jennings, 1994) No evidence for active faulting was observed during field mapping, I however, at least two lineaments were observed and reported in Leighton and' Associates (L&A, 1985): One of these lineaments, referred to as the western lineament, I was mapped within a canyon area trending. northwest, outside of the western edge of the project. Observation and mapping of continuous, relatively uniform bedding across the canyon bottom, did not ,indicate the presence of any active faulting. Based on our I evaluation, this lineament appears to be generally consistent with the trend of bedding structure within the Santiago Formation (offsite), and is, therefore, likely controlled by bedding, and not faulting I The eastern lineament was mapped (L&A, 1985) where alluvium. is in contact with undifferentiated igneous bedrock Based on the general lack of geomorphic expression 1 . and the absence of faulted Holocene earth material, these features are not cnsidered manifestations of active faulting,, and are therefore not anticipated to affect site development. Subsequent grading operations were completed across the eastern I lineament during the construction.of College Boulevard. Observations of removal bottoms exposed-during this 'phase of"grading indicated that the lineament represented a depositional contact between younger alluvium 'and the older, underlying bedrock. The I relatively low sinuosity of this lineament is likely attributed to bedrock fracture patterns controlling deposition and erosion along this side of the valley, further corroborating the I .un-faulted nature of this contact. - Seismicity I The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982a and 1982b), Campbell : and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, et al. (1.987) have been incorporated into EQFAULT I (Blake, 2000a) For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1-sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982a and 1982b), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, I Caiavera'Hiiis, LLC ' ' ' W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . , January 15, 2007 I . File: e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' ' . ' . Page 10 GoSos, Inc. . . et al. (1987) These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in. EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (2000a) ,'which performs deterministic I t seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources The proram estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file.., I If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal' 'groiind acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible"), and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by I any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak 'ho'rizontal'ground accelerations from. an upper - . - bound. (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.31g to 0.36g, and a maximum, I .. probable event may be on the order of 0.17g to 0.19g. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site. should they experience significant activity.. '.APPROX. . . APPROX. ABBREVIATED . DiSTANCE N. ABBREVIATED DiSTANCE FAULT NAME MILES (KM).• .: FAULT NAME MILES (KM) Catalina Escarpment 38 (61) Nèwport-ingiewood-Offshore 10 (17) Coronado Bank-Agua Bianc ' 23 (37) •' Rose'Canyon . 7 (11) Elsinore 22 (36) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol 33 (53 I La Nacion . 23 37 The possibility of ground shaking at the site may be considered similar to the southern California region asa whole. The relationship of the. site location to these major mapped I faults is indicated on the California Fault Map (Figure 2). Our field observations and review. of readily available geologic data indicate that no known active faults cross the site A pr6babilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000b).t , Based dn this analysis, a range of peak horizontal ground accelerations uk to 0.28g should I .be used for, seismic design., This value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475-year return' period). Selection of this -design .event is important as -it is the level of risk assuned by the Uniform'Building1. "Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO] 1997 and 2001) minimum design requirements This level of ground shaking, corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of approximately M6.9. I Seismic Shaking Parameters I , Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building ' Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [lCBO], 1997 and 2001) I .' seismic parameters are provided lii the following table: Calavera Hills, LLC ' . . . W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . ,. . . . ' . '. January 15, 2007.' FiIe:e:wp9\53005353a.uge . . - , Page 11, ' - 't . t I I CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 5353 . 1100- . .. . . .. I 4 1000- I I goo-•( , 800- . . I 700.-- 600 I .500 . A 400 . . 300 200-- . . 1 00 - . 0 0 I -100'- I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II I . -400, -300 -200 -100 0 100 - 200 300 400 500 600 I I W 0 5353ASc RO 2 I 1997 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO I_SEISMIC PARAMETERS Seismic Zone (per Figure 162*) 4 Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16.1*) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16.J*) SD Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16.0*) 0.44Na Seismic Coefficient C,, (per Table 16..R*) 0.64N,, Near Source Factor Na (per Table 16.S*) . 1.0 Near Source Factor N,, (per Table 16.T*) . - . 1.0 Distance to Seismic Source , 7 mi (11 km) Seismic Source Type (per Table 16.U*) . . B Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-Inglewood fault) M 6.9 PHSA 1 Opercent probably in 50 Years (475-year return period) 0.28 g * Figure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. All testing completed for the.Robertson Ranch Project (East and West Villages [GSI, 2004a]) is considered valid and applicable to the current East Village project. Classification . Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density To determine the compaction characteristics, of representative samples of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-1557. Test results are presented in the following table: Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge GeoSofls, Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 13 I Expansion Index Testing I Expansion Index (El) testing was performed on representative, soil samples of colluvium and terrace deposits in general accordance with Standard No. 18-2 of the UBC/CBC I (lCBO, 1997 and 2001). The test results are presented below as wellas the expansion classification according to UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). I I I Direct Shear' Tests Shear testing was performed on aremolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080. Results of shear testing (GSI, 2001 c and 2002b) are presented :as Plates C-i through C-12 in Appendix C.' I I Calavera Hills, LLC W.0. 5353 A SC I Robertson Ranch, East Village , January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\53005353a.uge ' Page 14 GOSOS Ie Consolidation Testing Consolidation tests were performed, on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435. Test results.(GSI, 2002b and 2001 c) are presented as Plates C-13 through C-29 in. Appendix C. Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Limits . Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general - accordance with ASTM test method D7422 Atterberg limits were determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D-4318. Test results (GSI, 2001 c and 2002b) are presented as Plates C-30 through C-45 in -Appendix C.'.. - Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity A representative sample of soil was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and potential corrosion to ferrous metals. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results, site soils appear to have a negligible potential for corrosioh to concrete per table 194-4 f the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). The results of pH testing indicates that site soils are neutral to slightly acidic. Resistivity test results indicate that site soils are highly corrosive to ferrous' metals when saturated. Highly corrosive soils are considered to be generally in the range of 1,000 to 2;000 ohms-cm. SEISMIC HAZARDS - - The following list includes.other seismic related hazards thathave been considered during our evaluation of the site The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, typiOal site development procedures, and recommendations for mitigation provided herein Surface Fault Rupture GrOund Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture Tsunami Seiche . . . It is important to keep in perspective that in the event Of a maximum probable or credible1 ' earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's geheral area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and iriipelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. 41 - Calavera Hulls, LLC W.0. 5353 A SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . . . . . January 15,' 2007 Fiie:e:wp9\5300\5353a.uge . . - Page 15 GeoSoss, Inc... I I. I Liquefaction I : Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced. by earthquake induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesion less, soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to -lateral I movement sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil, as I excess pore water dissipates. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions must I exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed large amount of cementation; 2) sediments must consist mainly of medium to I fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience. seismic event of a sufficient duration and large enough magnitude, to induce straining of I soil particles. At the subject site, all of the conditions which are necessary for liquefaction to occur exist. - I .One of the primary factors controlling the pptential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table,' the greater normal effective stress acting on I . saturated sediments at any given depth and liquefaôtion susceptibility decreases with increased normal effective stress; and 2) age, cementation, and relative density of sediments generally increase with depth. Thus, as the depth to the water table increases, I .and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative density, and confining normal stresses increase, the less likely they are to liquefy during a seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential where groundwater is greater than 30 feet in depth and virtually unknown below 60 feet. Following an analysis of the: laboratory data and boring logs, representative soil profiles I . were established to evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils• onsite. The depth to groundwater encountered in our borings was used in the analyses (i.e., 9 to 14, feet). The. liquefaction analyses.were performed using a peak site acceleration of 0.28g for an upper bound event of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon fault zone. A review of GSI (2001c), indicates that portions of the site underlain by alluvium have soil deposits that display a factor of safety of 1.25, or less, against liquefaction (Note: a factor of safety of 1.,25 is recommended by Seed and Idriss, 1982). Based on our analysis of the liquefaction potential within alluvial areas of the site, and the relationships of Ishihara (1985), it is our opinion that damaging deformations should not adversely affect the proposed development provided that a minimum 10- to-1 5 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (i.e., compacted fill plus alluviumabove the water table) is Calavera Hills, LLC. Robertson Ranch, East Village : I . FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Geoftils, Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 16 I- I 1 I I I provided beneath any given structure This also assumes that the existing groundwater table does not significantly rise above its current level Assuming that the I recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project, the potential for surface damage from liquefaction should be mitigated. The use of canyon subdraihs and "wick drains,", discussed in a later section of I .this report, Will also aide in the mitigation of theliquefaction potential onsite. Printouts of the liquefaction analysis performed are presented in this report as Appendix D. I Seismically Induced Lateral Spread I The procedure used for the analyses of seismically-induced lateral spread is based on, Bartlett and Youd (1992 and 1995) Lateral spread phenomenon is described as the lateral movement of stiff, surficial, mostly intact blocks of sediment displaced downslope towards a free face along a shear zone that has formed within the liquefied sediment The resulting ground deformation typically has extensional fissures at the head of the failure, shear deformations along the side margins, and compression or 6buckling of the soil at the toe. The extent of lateral displacement typically ranges from half an inch to several feet. Two 'types of lateral spread can occur: 1) lateral spread towards a free face (e.g., drainage canal or embankment), and 2) lateral spread down ,a ground slope where a free face is absent Factors such as earthquake magnitude, distance from the seismic energy source, thickness of the liquefiable layers, and the fines content and particle size Of those. sediments also correlated with ground displacement. fri orderfor the free-face type of lateral spread to occur,a continuous liquefiable layer mUst exist at or above the base of a free-face. The potentially liquifiable layers occuring within alluvial soils onsite are located at depth. Therefore, seismically-induced lateral spread, in our opinion, -is not likely. I Seismically Induced Settlement Please refer to the discussion on dynamic settlement presented in the following section I ' SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS GSI has estimated the potential magnitudes of total settlement, differential settlement, and I angular distortion for the site. The analyses were based on laboratory test results and, subsurface data collected from borings completed in' preparation of this study and GSI (2001c and 2002b). Site specific conditions affecting settlement potential include I .depositional environment, grain size and lithology of sediments, cementing agents, stress history, moisture history, material shape, density, void ratio, etc I , Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression of the left-in-place alluvium and compacted fills.',The total amount of settlement, and time over which it occurs, is dependentupon various factors, including Caiaverá Hills, LLC • W.O. 5353-A-SC I . Robertson Ranch, East Village • . . ... January .1 5, 2007 FiIë:e:wp9\53O6\5353a.uge . . . . Page 17 GoSoLc, Iw. • • . I material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of subsurface materials. Current analysis is included in, Appendix E and GSI I .I • Post-Grading Settlement of Compacted Fill - Compacted fills, to the thicknesses anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive settlement. Based on our analysis total settlements, on the order of ½ inch,, or less, I should be anticipated. 1 I Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium - General . I Where these materials are left in place, settlement of the underlying saturated alluvium is anticipated due to the weight of added planned fills. The magnitude of this settlement will vary with the proposed fill heights (i.e., measured from existing grades), and the thickness, texture, and compressibility of the underlying, left-in-place saturated alluvium. Due to the predominantly fine grained texture of the alluvial soils onsite, settlement of the alluvial soil I will occur overtime. I Alluvium Underlying "Engineered Stockpile" .. Within the triangle" area, referred • to in thiè report, approximately' 10 toA5 feet of I compacted fill has been placed to within approximately 2, to 5 feet-of planned grade. During interim fill placement and the subsequent waiting period (approximately 40 months as of the date of this report), our evaluation indicates that a majority of the total settlements' I . - have occurred. The'remaining total post-grading settlement is estimated to be on the order , of 2 inches total, and 1 inch differential, or les, over a 40 foot span (GSI, '2006d). I - - Tributary Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA) In areas underlain bytributary alluvial soil, complete removal and recompactiorof alluvium I is anticipated. Please refer to our previous discussion regarding the "post grading settlement of compacted fill." I Valley Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal - Based. on the currently proposed grading, depths to groundwater, end the overall. ' I thickness of valley -alluvium, alluvial soils will'Hkeiy be left in place withinportiOns of superpads Lotsi, 2, and 3, also know as planning areas PA-1 5 (multi-family), PA-20 (water treatment site), PA-21 (residential) and PA-22 (no currently proposed development). 'A I general characterization of alluvial soil conditions within these areas is as follows Calavéra Hills, LLC , ' W.O. 5353-A-SC' Robertson Ranch,'Eãst Village January 15, 2007- File: I, e:wp9\53oo\5353a.uge . -. , Page 18 '. •.,' . . - .' - '. wo• •". ' I • PA-20 (offsite) will likely be underlain with a nominal amount of alluvium (less than I approximately 10 feet), isolated within the extreme southwest corner. PA-22 (Lot 3) will likely be underlain with up to approximately 15 to 25 feet of alluvial I soil, with planned fills varying up to approximately 5 to 10 feet' PA-1 5 (Lot 1) will likely be underlain with plan fill and suitable formational soils I (northern part), however, up to 20 feet of engineered fill and up to 15 feetof alluvium left in place is anticipated within the southern part The suggested waiting period is discussed below I • The southwest corner of PA-21 (Lot 2, adjacent to PA-1 5) will likely be underlain with up to 15 feet of alluvial soil anticipated to be left in place At present, this condition I appears to only affect two to four lots and should not impact design, if the area is adequately phased (i e, built after time required for adequath settlement of I alluvium) during construction The desired magnitude of differential settlement for typical post-tension design is up to 1 inch in a 40-f6ot span but post-tension design may adequately accommodate differential I settlements up to 2 inches. Based on our current analysis (GSl, 2006d), the time necessary (wait time) to allow for settlement of alluvial soils to occur to a point where these differentials can be applied, is on the order of 120 to 180 iays after the completion of I grading (PSI, 2006d) The use of wick drains would generally reduce this "wait" time by approximately 60 to 70 percent, for a "wait time" on the order of 45 to 65 days after the I completion of grading (2006d) If-the necessary post-grading "wait" times (no wick drains) are not compatible with respect' I to planned building schedules, then wick drains may be considered for structures within the southern portion of PA-15, 5, the southwest corner of PA-21, and those portions of PA-22 where settlement-sensitive improvements are planned Monitoring of individual I fill pads would be required after grading is completed in order to verify that settlement has essentially been completed The general distribution of alluvial soil to remain in place, and potential wick drain areas is shown schematically in G'SI (2006d). S V V Monitoring * V I Areas where alluvial soil is left-in-place should be monitored and the settlement values revised based on actual field'data..Settlement monuments are recommended during I construction Monument locations would be best provided during 40-scale plan review Dynamic Settlements I Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event (or by some man made means) can produce settlements in sands, both above and below the groundwater. table This V Calavera Hills, LLC V V W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village V Januar 15, 2007 I . FHe:e:\wp9\5300\5353aVuge V V V Page 19 V. GoSofts, I '.1.,.: I phenomena is commonly referred to as dynamic settlement and is most prominent in relatively 'clean sands, but .can also occur in other soil materials. The primary factor I controlling earthquake induced settlement in saturated sand, is the cyclic stress ratio. In dry sands earthquake, induced settlements are controlled by both cyclic shear strain and volumetric strain, control. On site, the alluvial materials are loose and could generate I volumetric consolidation during a seismic event. An analysis, of potential dynamic settlements, due to the occurrence of the identified maximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault zone, has been performed. 'Based on this analysis, approximately 11/4 inches of settlement could occur during a maximum credible seismic event. Current analysis is included in Appendix E. ' I Settlement Due to Structural Loads The settlement of the structures supported on strip and/or spread footings founded on compacted fill will depend on the actual footing dimensiohs, the thickness and compressibility of compacted fill below the bottom of the footing, and the imposed structural loads. Provided 'the the thickness of compacted fill below the bottom of the footing is at least equal to the width of the footing, and based on a maximum allowable bearing pressure of* 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf), provided in this report, total I ' settlement of less than 1/2 inch should be anticipated. ' I Summary of Settlement Analysis , The design of structures are typically controlled by differential settlement, and not the total I settlement In order to evaluate differential settlement, data on the relative position and dimensions of adjacent footings, structural loads on the footing, and the nature and thickness of compressible soils below each footing may be assumed to be on the order I . of one-half of the total settlement. In areas where structures will be founded on formational'or bedrock, and/or compacted I '-fills, and ,not underlain with saturated alluvium, total settlement is anticipated to be less than 11/2 inches, with 'a differential settlement on the order of 3/4 inch over a horizontal I distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads Areas underlain by alluvial soils left in place, i.e., the "triangle" area, should be designed to withstand an overall total settlement, on the order of 2 inches, or less, and a'differential I settlement of up to approximately -1 inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads, and as further evaluated by settlement monitoring. Other areas underlain by alluvium left in place (I e, PA-15, PA-21, and PA-22) may also be minimally designed for a differential settlement of up to 1 inch in a 40 foot span, provided that the area(s) are allowed to adjust (over time) to the new loading conditions The "wait" time necessary to I achieve the recommended design differential settlement may be significantly reduced with the use of 'wick drains," as indicated previously Caiavera Hills LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village ' ' January 15, 2007 I FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge - ' Page 20 GeSo ifs, !sc I Due to the predominantly clayey nature of the underlying wet alluvium, the magnitude of seismic settlement will be less than that due to static loading conditions The maximum I seismic differential settlement for design should betaken as less than 1 1/2 inches over a horizontal span of 40 feet Current analysis is included in Appendix E SUBSIDENCE I Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering of the ground surface occurs as a result of a number of processes. These include dynamic loading during grading,,fill loading, fault I activity, or fault creep, as well as groundwater withdrawal An analysis of fill loading is presented in the previous section Ground subsidence I (consolidation) due to vibrations would depend on the equipment being used the weight of the equipment, repetition of use, and the dynamic effects of the equipment Most of these factors cannot be determined and may be beyond ordinary estimating possibilities I However, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other that fill loading would be relatively minor (on the order of 1 inch, oriess, which should occur during grading), and should not significantly affect site development The effect of fill I loading on alluvial soil has been evaluated in the previous section I ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION I Rock Hardness and Rippability - The majority of the site is underlain with medium dense to dense terrace deposits and I older sedimentary bedrock These materials were observed to be readily excavated with a backhoe, and producing no oversize material I Field mapping and subsurface exploration indicate the presence of undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock at or near the surface along the northern boundary of Robertson Ranch East (see Geotechnical Maps) Based on previous work performed by I-this office (GSI, 2001c), comparisons of seismic velocities and ripping performanc, e. developed by Church (1982) and the Caterpillar Tractor Company (2002) the f011owing I '.:conclusions regarding rock hardness and rippability areprdvided. In general, little ripping to soft ripping to process and excavate earth materials I should be anticipated within approximately 2 to 3 feet of existing elevations Ingeneral, soft to medium ripping to process andexcavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of easting elevations Catavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-8C Robertson Ranch East Village January 15 2007 I Fiie e \wp9\5300\5353a uge Jt Page 21 GSoUs, Ine. I - •V - I 3. Undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock, requiring extremely hard ripping or. blasting to excavate, may likely be encountered below depths on the order of 5 to I 10 feet below existing elevations. V - It should be anticipated that due to the presence of dense outcrops throughout the area, however, isolated boulders or hard spots will be encountered at any depth during grading and trenching. These hard zones will likely require specialized equipment, such as rock ,I breakers or rock saws, to excavate, and blasting may not be entirely precluded in areas ,vhere, it was not previously, anticipated, nor at any depth or locatioh on the site. Overexcavation should be considered in dense rock in proposed street areas I . approximately 1 foot below lowest utility invert in order to facilitate utility construction however, this is not a geotechnical requirement. I • Blasting.. • .- . ' . V Blasting operations will likely be necessary to excavate the deeper cuts, and for utility I .. construction along the northern margin on V Robertson Ranch East, 'where dense metavolcanic/granitic bedrock occurs near the surfaáe. Ablasting contractor should be consulted regarding the current standards -of practice when preparing an area for blasting; the blasting itself, and any associated monitoring. If blesting becomes necessary, care V should be taken in proximity to proposed cut slopes and structural pad areas. V Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions, which could require I remedial grading to stabilize the building pads and affected cut slopes. V V I V Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials, which may V otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized, it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials are produced àndthat sufficient fines (sands V V V I . 'and 'ravel), to fill all void spaces, are present. This procedure would facilitate fill' placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced. I SLOPE STABILITY I V Gross Stability . . •- V Based on available data, including a review of GSI (2004a, 2002b, and 20016), it appears; - that graded fill slopes will be generally stable: assuming proper construction and V maintenance. Cut slopes, constructed interrace deposits are anticipated to be generally .I C stable assuming proper construction and maintenance, under normal rainfall conditions. Cut . slopes constructed to the anticipated heights in competent 11 undifferentiated V metavolcanic/granitic bedrock should perform adequately at gradients of 2:1 (h:v), or V V I V V flatter, and are considered to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. V :, V • V V Calavera Hills, LLC • V W.O. 5353-A-SC V V V Robertson Ranch, East Village • . . V V • January 15, 2007'.V I .. File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge .• V Page 22' V • . G8os9 Inc . I All cut slope construction will require observation during grading in order to verify the 1 findins and conclusions presented herein and in subsequent reports. Our analysis I assumes that graded slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines provided by the City, the UBC/CBC(ICBO, 1997 and 2001), and recommendations. provided by this office. I Suiiicial Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes constructed of compacted , fills and/or bedrock material Our analysis (GSI, 2004d, 2002b, and 2001 c) indicates that I proposed slopes exhibit an adequate factor of safety (i.e., >.1 5) against surficial failure, provided that the slopes are properly constructed and maintained, under conditions of normal rainfall. - I PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the I proposed development are Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material I Slope stability: Corrosion and expansion potential. I . Subsurface water and potential for perched water. - Rock hardness L Settlement potential. I . Liquefaction potential. Regional seismicity and faulting. . I The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid I unless the changes are reviewed and the 'recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this 1 office for review. I - Caiavera Hills, LLC / W.0, 5353 -A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village -• January 15, 2007 I FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge - . Page 23 I GoSofts, Xne. I Geheral All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the I UBC, the requirements of the City, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix G, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide I additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule During earthwork construction, all *site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative (s) of• GSl If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed I by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety arid Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met Site Preparation Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. Following removals, areas approved I to receive additional fill should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum mOisture, content) to a depth of 12 inches; and compacted to a minimum " 90 percent relative compaction. . Removals . I Alluvial soils above the groundwater table are not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presenceof groundwater within I areas of the site underlain with alluvium, removals will be generally limited in depth by the presence of groundwater Removals on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within tributary canyon areas Within areas underlain by valley alluvium, complete alluvial I removals is desired, but may not be feasible. Minimally, the uppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be removed and recompacted Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement I monitoring and site specific foundation design The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plates 1 through 13 Typical removal depths within fill areas are also shown on I Plates 1 through 13 Stabilization of removal bottoms in valley alluvium maybe necessary priórto fill placement I Tentatively, stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inch thick layer, of . /- to 1 1/2-inch-diameter crushed rock) with geotxtile fabric (Mirafi 500x, or equivalent) may being considered and subsequently recommended, based on conditions exposed during I .. caiavera Hills, LLC '. " W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village • ., January15, 2007, FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge •- • Page 24 GeoSoils, I I grading Previous earthwork in nearby deposits of valley alluvium did not require bottom stabilization using rock blankets, however, the use of rock blankets cannot be precluded, I based on the conditions exposed during grading Removal depthson the order of 3 to 5 feet may be anticipated within areas underlain I with terrace deosits (Map Symbol - Qt), and metavolcanic/ igneous bedrock (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr) Deeper removal areas may occur locally and should be anticipated Removal of slump deposits will likely be required (if encountered) and may vary, on the I order of 10 feet, or less. 1 Overexcavatión/Transitions In order to provide for the uniform support of structures, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket is recommended for lots containing plan transitions.,Any cut portion of the pad for the I residence should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be over excavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness Maximum to minimum fill thickness within a given lot should not exceed ratio of 3:1, if conventional foundations are desired, As such,' deeper over excavation will be necessary for fill lots with maximum fills in excess of approximately 9 feet Overexcavation is also recommended for cut lots exposing claystones and/or heterogenous material types I (i.e., sand/clay) or hard rock (if encountered) Overexcavation is also recommended for I cut iois in oraer to mitigate the potential adverse effects from perched water.' Final overexcavation depths should be determined in the field based on site conditions. In orderto facilitate the construction of future utilities within areas underlain by hard rock,. cut areas may be overexcavated to at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. This may be achieved by either excavating the entire right of way or line shooting along a particular utility alignment This is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Overexcavation in pad areas should be sloped to drain toward streets: Sheet grading areas into large "superpads" as indicatedon ODC (2007) will require particular attention to overexcavation depths so that future fine, or finish grading does not compromise the minimum undercut recommended for a given lot. As such, locallydeeper undercuts may be recommended in some area in order to accommodate potential future grade adjustments. . .84 'Inch Storm Drain Line . . . Based on our review of GSI, (2006c) and O'Day (2006), the following recommendations are provided Removals are anticipated to be no more than 5 to '6 feet below grade within un-, improved areas, located beyond the limits of the existing, fill embankment supporting Cannon Road:' However, dependant on the current groundwater elevation, and the relative saturation of native soils above the groundwater table, Calavera Hills, LLC • , W. 0. 5353-A-SC.' Robertson Ranch, East Village . . ' January 15, 2007 File: e:\wp9\530Q\5353a.uge Page 25 G$@S0a59 Inc. * . I I our experience with previous grading in the area has indicated that removals could be as little as 1 to 3 feet. - I Stabilization of removal bottoms (due to yielding ground) may be necessary prior to fill placement. Stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inches I of 11/2 inch crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) placed around the rock layer, may be considered and subsequently recommended, based 1 on conditions exposed during grading. . The stabilization of soil subgrades immediately below the storm drain may also be . necessary. Stabilization should minimally consist of over-excavating the bottom of I the trench to at least 24 inches below the bottom of the pipe, placing a layer of. geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) over the exposed bottom, then filling to pipe grade, with 1 1/2 inch crushed rock. This method of stabilization would. best be I , completed during trenching operations, and not during mass grading. I ' Wick Drains c In order to accelerate the consolidation and settlement of saturated alluvial soils to be left I in place, a vertical wickdrain system may be considered as an alternative to fill surcharge. Based on the current plan (O'Day, 2007), and our evaluation (GSl, 2004a and 2006d) wick drains may be considered within portions of Lots 1, 2,and 3 (super pads), i.e., Planning I. Areas PA-15, PA-21, and PA-22. --The general distribution of the potential wick drain fields are shown in GSI (2006d). I Drain Spacing and Depth For saturated alluvial soils (valley alluvium, Map Symbol - QaIB) upto approximately 3Ofeet. in total remaining thickness (i.e., after remedial earthwork), wick drains should be installed in a triangular pattern on 1 0100t centers. For alluvial soils greater than 30 feet thick, the I spacing should be reduced to 8 feet on center. The' depth of an individual wick drain should beat.- leàst 80 percent of the total alluvial thickness at that location. For example, a 40-foot thick column of alluvial soil will require a wick drain installed to a depth of 32 feet... I 'Wick drains are not required where the remaining saturated alluvial thickness (after remedial grading) is less than 10 feet. Based on the recommended spacing and depth pattern, the required time for 90 percent consolidation will be reduced by approximately I 60 to 70 percent, or 45 to 65 days after the completion of grading. Ground Preparation .• . . Remedial earthwork should be performed in accordance with recommendations presented herein. Prior to drain installation, a relatively flatlying, uniformly sloping, working platform.: I should be constructed. The platform should be sheet graded to provide a minimum fall of at least 2 percent toward the approved wick drain outlet(s). . Calavera Hills, LLC. ' . W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village -. - ' January 15, 2007 I . FiTe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge .•. . . Page 26 - GeoSois, Inc. . . . . . . .I I Drainage A gravity driven drainage system is recommended in order to de-water the wick drains. Drainage alternatives are presented as follows: IN I • The drainage system mayconsistof a permeable sand/rbck blanket (SE >30), at V V V least 3 feet thick and connecting' to a gravel subdrain(s). The use of open graded V material (i.e., crushed rock) will require the use of filter fabric to provide separation I . between the rock and soil,both above and below. V V •V • V - - V - V The drainage system may consist of horizontal wick drains connected to the vertical } V 2drains and tied into a gravel subdrain(s) system. . V :- I V V •V Gravel- subdrains should consist of a, perforated 4-inch diameter PVC pipe, V V, V V • embedded in. 3/4-inch crushed rock, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, or V equivalent). The subdrain trench should be at least 12 inches in width by 24 inches V I :iridepth. Drains should be constructed with a minimum fall, of 2 percent., V V Subdrains may be outletted into available storm tdrain systems, or onto surface I ' grades. within approved areas. Subdrains outlettéd onto surface grades should be/ constructed no closer than 20 feet from grade and outletted to the surface via a V solid pipe V 1 . This office should be provided with'wick drain plans/layouts and subdràin plans/layouts' as they become available in order in minimize any misunderstandings between the plans V V the intent of this report. Subdrains V V V 1 - : • - •• V Subdrains will be required within the larger tributary drainage cleanouts, where the as-built V fill thickness , (including remOval/ecompact) is greater than approximately 10 feet. V - Preliminary subdraih locations are shown on Plates 1 through 13..- 1 V I If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may require a subdrain system. In addition, the placement of rock blankets and windrows should also consider having a I subdrain system to mitigate any perched water tram collecting and to outlet the water into a designed system, or other approved area. Typical subdrain design and construction details are presented in Appendix F. - - - V I Calavera Hills, LLC W.0 5353 A SC V Robertson Ranch, East Village . V January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp95300\5353a.uge V V PagA 27 I - GeoSfis, I • I Fill Placement and Suitability I Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6 to ±8 inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory I standard ASTM test method D-1 557-91 If soil importation is planned, samples of the soil import should be evaluated by this office I prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report Import soils should be relatively sandy and I very low to low expansive (i e, E I less than 50) LY Rock-Disposal . .. During the course of grading, materials generated from hard rock areas (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr) are anticipated to be of varying dimensions For the purpose of this report, the materials may be described as either 8 inches, or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than Winches. These three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be placed. Tentatively, disposal areas for oversized materials (i.e., 12 inches, or greater) appear to be limited to existing canyon i. areas. * - Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less Suice rock fragments along with granular materials are a major part of the native materials -used in Lnegrauing of the site, a criteria is neeaea to facilitate the placement of these. -- materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough grading, post-grading improvements, and serve as suitable compacted fill 1 Fines and rock fragments 8 inches, or less, in one dimension maybe placed as compacted fill cap, materials within the building pads, slopes, and street areas as described below. The rock fragments :and fin'es should be.brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of - 90 percent of the laboratory standard. . * ., ... The purpose for the 8-inch-diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized rock fragments into the fill under selected conditions (optimum moisture or, above) surrounded with compacted fines The 8-inch-diameter size also allows a greater volume of the rock fragments to be handled during grading, while staying in. reasonable limits for later onsite excavation equipment (i.e., backhoes) to excavate footings and utility lines 2 Fill materials 8 inches, or less, in one dimension should be placed but not limited to) within a hold-down distance in the upper 5 to 10 feet of proposed fill pads, the Caiavera Hills, LLC '. '. , . , W.O. 5353-A-SC4 Robertson Ranch East Village January 15 2007 File e \Wp953OO\5353a uge Page 28 GeSofis, Inc. I r 1 2 • upper 3 feet of overexcavated cut areas on cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width The building official/agency reviewer will need to approve I , any variance from the, 10 feet hold-down distance,if oversize materials are placed within 10 feet from finish grade, prior to grading Overexcavation is discussed in a previous section of this report I Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter 1 During the process of excavation, rock fragments or constituents larger than 8 inches in one dimension will be generated These oversized materials, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, may be incorporated into the fills I utilizing a series of rock blankets If rock blankets are not an acceptable means of dispoal, then materials may either be placed in rock windrows as described in the following section, or broken down to 12 inch minus material and incorporated into I soil fill I .2. If constructed, each rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, along with sufficient fines - generated from the proposed, cuts and overburden materials generated from I removal areas The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 inches in thickness and should be placed with granular fines which are flooded into and around the rock I . fragments effectively, to fill all voids. 3.1 If constructed, rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert within the Street right-of-way, 10 feet below finish I grade on the proposed fill lots, and a minimum of 20 horizontal feet (unless approved by the governing agency) from any fill Slope surface Shallower depths * to the top of oversize materials may be considered, dependant upon approval by I the controlling authorities for the project I Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wheel rolling methods with scrapers and vater trucks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers. Equipment traffic should be routed over each 1ift, Giventhe rocky, nature of this material, I . sand-cone and nuclear' (denson-ter) testing methods are often fouhd to be ineffective Where such testing methods are infesibIe, the most effective means to evaluate compaction efforts by the contractor would be to excavate test pits at I random locations to check those factors pertinent to performance of rock fills, moisture content, gradation of rock fragments and matrix material and presence of I any apparent void spaces 5.' If constructed, each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow. Calavera Hills, LLC - • . W.O. 5353-A-SC - . Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007- I File e \wp9\5300\5353a uge Page 29 GeoSoils, Iw I I Materials Greater Than 36 inches in Diameter I i Oversize rock, greater than 36 inches in one dimension, should be placed in single rock windrows The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width apart, whichever is greatest 2. - The void spaces between rocks in windrows should, be filled with the more granular soils by flooding them into place 3 A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock windrow should be maintained Also, the windrows should be staggered from lift to lift Rock windrows I should not be placed closer than 15 feet from the face of fill slopes 4 Larger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into I - a dozer trench: Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill or dense natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other) I granular fill material should be flooded into the trench to fill the voids I The oversize rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet at a particular elevation and at least 15 feet from any slope face Trenches at higher elevations should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of c6mpacted fill between the top I Of one trench and the bottom of the ne*t higher trench. Placement of rock into these trenches should be under the full-time inspection.of the soils engineer. U5. Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space "green belt" areas that would be designated as non-structural fills I Rock Excavation and Fill 1 If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to-proposed-cut I slopes and structural pad areas Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the 1.. building pads and affected cut slopes. - * 2 Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials which may I otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials is produced and that. sufficient fines (sands and gravel) to fill all void spaces are present This procedure I would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced. : I I calavera Hills, LLC . . W.O. 5353-A-SC. Robertson Ranch, East Village - January 15, 2007- I File e \wp9\5300\5353a uge Page 30 I Earthwork Balance Shrinkaae/Bulkina The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking maybe approximated by using the following parameters: Existing Artificial Fill .. . ........................ 5% to 10% shrinkage Colluvium 3% to 8% shrinkage Alluvium ...............................................1Q% to 15% shrinkage Terrace Deposits ....................................2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Rock (Excavated) ..........................., .............5% shrinkage to 10% Bulk Rock (Shot) ..................................................15% to 20% Bulk It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. Slope Considerations and Slope Design Graded Slopes Onsite soils are considered erosive. All slopes should be designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of City/County, the UBC/CBC (lCBO, 1997 and 2001), and the recommendations in Appendix F. I Stabilization/Buttress FilISlopes I The construction of stabilization and/or buttress slopes may be necessary for some west facing cut slopes. Such remedial slope construction may be recommended, as necessary, based upon conditions exposed in the field during grading. I Temporary Construction Slopes I In general, temporary construction slopes maybe constructed at minimum slope -ratio of 1:1 (h:v), or flatter, within alluvial soils and terrace deposits, and 1/2:1, or flatter, for temporary slopes exposing dense sedimentary or metavolcanic/granitic bedrock without I adverse (daylighted) bedding or fracture surfaces. Excavations for removals, drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized conditions should be evaluated on an individual basis by the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance from this I recommendation Due to the nature of the materials anticipated, the engineering geologist should observe all excavations and fill conditions The geotechnical engineer should be I Caiavera Hulls, LLC W.0. 5353 A SC Robertson Ranch, East Village • January 15, 2007 File: : Page 31 I Go8oUs9 I I I notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate recommendations should be presented. - - . - FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be 'considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing, by this office. RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS El General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing, and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSL Recommendations for conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections for bedrock, or fill (less than 30 feet thick) on bedrock areas. The foundation systemsmay be used to support he proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing material.. Foundations should be founded entirely in compacted fill or rippable bedrock, with no exposed transitions. Conventional foundations may be used for very low to low expansive soil subgrades, where the soils' plasticity index(Pl) is 15, or less. For low to medium expansive soil conditions where the P1 is greater than 15, conventional foundations may be used, provided that they are designed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Section 181.5) of the UBC (lCBO, 19,97). Typically, when the P1 is greater than 15, Code may require the use of more onerous foundations (i.e., post-tension, mat, etc.): Conventional foundations' systems are not recommended for, high to very highly expansive soil conditions, where alluvial soil' is left in place, where the maximum fill thickness is greater.than 30 feet,"or post- tensioned foundations may be used for all soil conditions, or where th6 maximum fill thickness within a given building pad exceeds a ratio of 3:1. In these areas, a post tensioned, slab design is recommended. The, information and recommendations preseritd in this 'section are not meant to -' superëede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Preliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low to high expansion potential. Preliminary recommendatiOns for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided Calavera Hills, LLC MO. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 ''Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 32' - GoSoiJs9 IWG - U at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory.testingof fill materials exposed at finish grde. • I I Bearing Value I :-1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with4 guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC. -2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for the design of continuous footings at !east 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at.Ieat . I '. 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected by a grade beam in at least one direction. This valüé may be increased by.20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf. No increase in bearing value is recommended I . for increased footing width. The allowable bearing pressure may beincreased by I one-third under the effects of temporary loading, such as seismic or wind loads. I - Lateral Pressure For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of Jriction may be utilized for. a; I concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of I 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. When combining passive pressure 5and frictional resistance; the passive pressure. I component should be reduced by one-third. I . Construction . . 0 The following foundation construction recommendations 7 are presented as a minimum I criteria from 'a soils, engineering standpoint. 'The onsite soils expansion potentials generally range from very low (El less than 20), to potentially high (E.l. 91 to 130) range. During grading of the site, we recommend that highly expansive material should not be I ' . placed within 7 feet of finish grade, if feasible. ConventiOnal foundation systems are not. recommended for high to very, highly expansive soil conditions or where alluvial soil is left. I in place. Post-tension slab foundations may be used for all soil conditions. Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed thesdils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following , I . minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered durihg grading. Conventional foundation - recommendations are presented in the following Table 1, followed by an explanation by the 'Foundation Category," and other criteria - Calavera Hills, LLC ' • '. , . W.O. 5353-A-SC, Robertson Rahch, East Village ,• • January 15, 2007 I , • - FiIe:e:\wp9X5300\5353a.uge - . . • ' Rage,83'. 0 - 0 ' •', - , - • - 1 - I .-I I TABLE 1 I .Conventional Perimeter.Föotings. and Slabs. Robertson Ranch East Village - ..,.. .'.. .., . .. .. . ... - . -.. -' j . MINIMUM . MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM . MINIMUM . CTERIOR I FOIJNDA11O1t FOOTING INTERIOR REINFORCING INTERIOR UNDER-SLAB GARAGE SLAB FLATWORK CATEGORY ...SIZE:SLAB STEEL SLAB TREATMENT REINFORCEMENT RFINFORCING • THICKNESS . . REINFORCEMENT . I 12' Wide x 4' Thick 1-No. 4 Bar Top No.3 Bars @ 18 2" Sand Over 6's 6' ' - None 12 Deep and Bottom lO-Mil vapor (10/10) welded wire r • - Both Directions 'retarder fabnc (WWF) - . . - Over 2' . . - - Sand Base -. v. - II 12Widex 4" Thick ... 2-No.4Bars No. 3 Bars @16' 2 'Sand Over 6'x6' - 6'x6' I . .18' Deep -. Top O.C. 10/15-Mil ' (6/6) WWF, or 10x10WiNF - - -, and Bottom '- Both Directions vapor retarder No 3 Bars @ 18 - - -. Over 2' Sand o c. Both Directions Base (15-mil . -t for Low . for medium -. . . . . . . expansive soils only) . • -- - . 1 .5 I - iii 12Widex • 5'Thick ',-'2-No. S ,2-No.5Bars No.3Bars@18 2'SandOver . ,Same 6'x6 24' Deep lop * o.c. • iS-Mil - Interior Slab (6/6) WWF - - . . . - . .. I - . and Bottom Over 3 Sand Both Directions vapor retarder - • ..'•' I • .-. . ' - Base (highly . . . .' expansive soils - ., . - - • - -. only) . .- .,-. - - .5 -, I Category Cr i teria - Category I: Max. Fill Thickness is'less than 20And E.I: is lass than, àreqüaI to, 50 (P1 <15) and, Differential Fill I I Thickness IS less than 10 (see Note 1) Category II Max Fill Thickness IS less than 30 and E I is less than or equal to 90 or Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and 20 (see Note 1) Presoaking required I Category Ill Max Fill Thickness exceeds 30 or E I exceeds 90 but is less than 130 or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20 (see Note 1) Presoaking required i - Notes 1 Conventional foundations shall also be designed per Section 1815 Chapter 18 of the UBC (ICBO 1997) where the P1 (Plasticity Index) is 15 or greater. Post tension foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 30',or the ratio of the maximum fill I 2 - . . ' • ' . thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1, or where the E.I. exceeds 90, or in areas underlain •- with alluvial soil left in place Differential settlements discussed in the body of the report should be incorporated into foundation design by the structural engineer/slab designer. 3 Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent compacted/suitable subgrade - I 4 The allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 psf 5 Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi at 28 days The maximum slump shall 6e5 inches. The water/cement ratio of concrete shall not be more than 0.5 for soils - I with an El > 90 6 The vapor retarder is not required under garage slabs However, consideration should be given to future uses of the slab area such as room conversion and/or storage of moisture sensitive materials and disclosure All vapor retarders should be placed in accordance with ASTM E 1643, and the UBC (lCBO, I 1997) 7. Isolated footings shall be connectd to foundations pd soils engineer's recommendations (se re port). 8 Sand used for base under slabs shall be a clean granular material and have SE >30' Pea gravel may be substituted for the basal sand layer in order to improve water transmission mitigation I 9 Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report - 10 All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints to control cracking Joint spacing should be in accordance with correct industry standards and reviewed by the project structural ergineer. I i 11 Pre wetting is recommended for all soil conditions as follows very low to low expansive (at least optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches medium expansive (at least 2-36/o over optimum to a depth of' 18 inches) highly to very highly expansive (at least 4-5% over optimum 'to a depth of 24 inches) I - - I Calaverá Hills, LLC - . . - - W.O. Robertson Ranch East Village -. January 15 2007 I Fite:e:\wp9\53005353a.uge = -- -' . .- •. - . - ' . . , - Page ?i;- I . GeoSoils Inc. 4' Thorñthwaite Moisture index -20 inches/year Correction Factor for irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet Constant _Soil _Suction _(p1) I i I I POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN I 'Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed buildings. Based on the potential differential settlement within areas of the site underlain by alluvium, post-tensioned slab foundations are recommended exclusively. ' I General I The information and recommendations presented in this section are 4n0t meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post-tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI I could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to, post-tensioned slab design during grading. The ost-tensioned slabs should be designed I . .in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method. Alternatives to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlement noted for this, site. I Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending, due to non uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur I at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 UBC Section 1816 (ICBO, 1997), based on design specifications of the PTI. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the PTI design I method. •, * The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst I case conditions such as over-irrigation, adverse drainage, and/or improper landscaping, and maintenance The above parameters are applicable provided positive drainage is maintained away from structures, for a distance of at least 3 feet. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners and/or interested parties. I Based on the above parameters, design values were obtained from figures or tables, of the'. 1997 UBC Section 1816 and presented in Table 2. These values may not be appropriate. I to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors (i.e., fill settlement). If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. Calavera Hills, LLC 0 . , W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 I FiIee\Wp95300\5353a.uge T 0 Page 35 , .. GeoSo ifs9. '" . I TABLE POST-TENSION FOUNDATIONS . EXPANSION VERY LOWc3 TO MEDIUM HIGHLY POTENTIAL LOW EXPANSIVE EXPANSIVE EXPANSIVE (E.I. 0-50) (E.I. = 51-90) (E.I. =91-120) em center lift ' 5.0 feet 5.5 feet, 5.5 feet em edge lift 3.5 feet , 4.0 feet 4.5 feet Ym center lift 1.7 inches: 2.7 inches 3.5 inches Ym edge lift 0.75 inch . . 0.75 inch 1.2 inches, Bearing Value . ', 1000 psf 1000 psf 1000 pf Lateral Pressure 250 psf ." 250 psf . 250 psf Subgrde ModuIu (k) . 100 pci/inch 85pci/inch 170 pci/inch Perimeter Footing Embedment (2) 12 inches 18 inches . 24 inches, (1) Intethal bearingvalues within the perimeter.of the post-tension slab may be increased to 2,000 psf for a'minimum embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additiohal foot of embedment to a maximum of 3,000 psf. 2 Aè measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface. - (3) Foundations for very low expansive soil conditions may use the California Method (spanability method). Note: The use of open bottomed raised planters adjacent to foundations will require more onerous design parameters. 'I Subgrade Preparation I Thésubgrade material should be'5compacted to a minimum 90 per6ent of the maximum laboratory dry density. Prior,to placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned in'accordance with the following discussion. Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting ,From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, afáirly common contribUting factor to distress of structures 'using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation.in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this 'posible phenomenon, a combination .of soil': I t pre-wetting and construction of aperimeter cut-off wall grade beam should be employed Deepened footings/edges around the' slab 5perimeter' must be ued to minimize non-uniform surface moisture miratioh (from an outside source) beneath the slab I Embedment depths are presented in Table 2 for various soil expansion conditions The bottom' of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable Calaverà Hills; LLC . , ' W.O. 5353-A-SC * Robertson Ranch, East Village S ' ' January 15, 2007. Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . . - -' 'Page 36 GeoSois, Inc. I or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Otherappiicabié recommendations presented under conventional foundation recommendations in the referenced report - I should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. Floor slab subgrade should be at or above the soils optimum moisture content to a depth I of 18 inches prior to pouring concrete, for very low to, low expansiie soils, at least 2 to 3 percent over optimum for medium expansive soils to a depth of 18 inched, and at least 4 to 5 percent over optimum for highly to very highly expansive .soils to a depth of 24 inches. Pre-wetting of the slab subgradesoil prior to placement of steel and concrete will likely be recommended and necessary, in order to . achieve optimum moisture conditions. Soil moisture contents should be verified at least 72 hours prior to pouring I • ' concrete. If pre-wetting of the slab subgrade is completed prior tofooting excavation, the pad area may require period wetting in order to keep to soil from drying out. MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION 1 The following methodologiesfor vapor transmission mitigation are provided with respect • to the Robertson Ranáh, East Yilláe Project. These recommendations are also presented ' . in Table 1. The following alternatives have been developed in accordance with the expansive character of the building pad subgrade within 7 feet of finish grade:' I Very Low to Low Expansive Soils For floor s!abs bearing on very low to low expansive soil subgrades (E.I. of 50, or less), the I floor slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand, over a 1 0-mil polyvinyl membrane. (vapor retarder),' over a 2-inch sand base. Sand used should have a minimum sand' I ... equivalent of 30. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be 2,500 psi. (upgraded from the prior recommendation). All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E 1643 and the UBC/CBC(lCBO, 1997 and 2001). I Medium Expansive Soils I - For floor slabs bearing on medium expansive soil subgrades (E.I. between 51and 90), the slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand (SE >30), over a 15-mil vapor retarder, over a minimum 2-inch sand (SE >30) base. The minimum concrete compressive strength I should be at least 2,500 psi. All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E-1643 and the UBC/CBC (lCBO, 1997 and 2001). A 2-inch layer of "pea" gravel may be substituted. - for the sand layer used beneath the vapor retarder if it is desired to further mitigate -. I ater/watervapor. transmission. I Calavera Hills, LLC • - - W.O. 5353-A-SC • . ' - -• • . Robertson Ranch, East Village • . • '- January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353auge ' , • Page 37 I . 5 GoSois; Inc. 1' Highly Expansive Soils' , Based on our, preliminary., information, soils with an' E.l. greater than 90 (i.e., highly expansive soils) are not anticipated to occur in significant quantities that will influence foundation design. •However, should these soils occur, recommendations would be provided on a lot by lot basis and will need to be carefully monitored during grading. On a preliminary basis, Alternative #3 would include similar criteria as indicated for Alternative #2, and a water/cement ratio of not more that 0.5 for concrete; however, the underlayment thickness would increase below the vapor retarder to a minimum of 3 inches. (per ASTM E 1643). Other Considerations ' Regardless of the 'soils expansion potential, an additional improvement to, moisture protection would be to extend the vapor retarder/membrane beneath all foundation".' elements and grade beams. In addition, because it has been shown that the lateral migration of water from foundation edges may contribute significantly to' excess moisture transmission, the vapor retarder/rhembrane could extend slightly above soils grade around',, the slab/foundation perimeter'and the exposed foundation face could be painted with a. latex sealer prior to color coat. L Recognizing that these measures 'go beyond the current - standard of care, we recommend that the developer evaluate the construction issues and costs associated with the additional measures. above and determine the feasibility of implementing them. While these methods are, considered to be overall 'improvements to the existing recommendations for this project (GSl, 2004a), they will only minimize the transmission ,of water vapor through the slab, and may not completely mitigate it. Floor slab sealants may also bb used for a particular flooring product, if hecessary. The use of concrete additives that reduce the overall permeability (water reducers)' of the concrete may also be 'considered. F' rrAIr' IDRI..r ,All footings shoOld maintain a mihimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face of no less than 7 feet, nor need not '.. be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing, elevation. .Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for 1 , structures adjacent to retaining walls should' be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads frbm buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. 'Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15,2007 ' FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 38 GeoSoHs, Inc. SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY Based on our experience in the vicinity, the majority of site soils are anticipated to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Site, soils are also anticipated to be mildly corrosive to buried metal, but may become highly corrosive when saturated. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. I . SETTLEMENT In addition to designing slab systems (post-tension or other) for the 'soil expansion I conditions described herein, the estimated total and differential settlement values that an individual structure could be subject to shbuld be evaluated by a structural engineer, and. utilized in the foundation design. The levels of angular distortion may be evaluated on a I ' 40-fo6t length assumed as minimum dimension of buildings; if, from ''a structural standpoint, a decreased orincreased length over which the differential is assumed to occur is justified, this change should be incorporatOd into the design. Please refer, to the I previous sections regarding "settlement analysis" for a discussion of preliminary design values to be used. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS . I Conventional Retaining Walls . The design- parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) gr native materials (up to and including an E.I. of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e.,. selector native), should be specified bythe wall designer,and clearly shown on the plans: Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report regarding conventional foundation design, as appropriate. The bottom of footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 in below adjacent grade (excludinglandscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be nO increase in bearing for footing width. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, ëarthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be Iprovided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls - Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice ' the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. • . Caiavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge - GeoSoils, Inc. Page 39 Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be supérceded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT ... EQUIVALENT RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. FLUID WEIGHT P.C.F. (SELECT BACKFILL) (NATIVE BACKFILL) Level* 35 45 2tol 50 60 * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are '2 feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 1/2-inch to 3/4-flCh gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). For low expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials, or ½-inch to 3/4-flCh gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) should be used behind the wall as backfill within the active zone, defined as the area above a 1:1 projection up from the base of the wall stem. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted ta 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed. Materials with an E.I. potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. Any wall drainage plan should be reviewed by this office for approval prior to construction. Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 40 GeoSoils, Inc. I ' a I Weeping. of the walls in lieu of a.backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than '. 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet, or less, in height, weephdles should be no reater than .' I . 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse 'of block and above the landscape zone., Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diámeter. solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than, ±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of only'wee I holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be consideed. The surface of the backfill should be 6ealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E. 1. .90). - Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For-additional mitigation, consideration I . should be given to applying a waterproof membrane to the back of all retaining structures; - The use of.a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints; Proper surface drainage should also be provided in order to reduce the potential for surface water I ' penetration. , ' . . '. •. . . 0 , I Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ¶ Site walls are anticipated to le founded on footings' designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil' designer may specify either: I a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction 6f cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the, 'point of transition. . ,. . . I , b) Increase of the amountof reinforcing steel and walldetailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360.for a distance of 2H' on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be ".placed' no greater than 20 ,feet On-cehter, in accordance with the stru6tural a 'engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition I ' conditions exist. Expansion joints 'should be sealed with a flexible, nonshrink grout,. c) Embed the footings' entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened' I ' footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than ' I ; .45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a' (above) and •'until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall-alignment. TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/ENCES/IMPROEMENTS I : • Due to the potential for slope creep '(see the "Development Criteria' section for a discussion) for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the' walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. TO mitigate the tilting I • of top of slope walls/fences, we-recommend that the walls/fences be conthrutéd On deepened 'foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansior I Calavera Hills, LLC W.0. 5353 A SC! Robertson Ranch, East Village 0 , ,. 'January, 15,2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge - ' - " 0 ' 0 ' Page 41 1 GoSs, Inc... I I index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, or a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than I 50, comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account Recommendations for grade beam and caisson foundations can be provided upon request Deepened foundations should minimally provide for a lateral distance of 7 feet from the outside I bottom edge of the footing to the face of slope POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa I design and planning The following recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors; etc., that may :perform such work. Final, I recommendations will be based on as-built conditions 1 The pool system should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the IBC The pool shell should I be embedded entirely into properly compacted fill, or suitable native soil I 2 The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool design should be 62 pcf for pool walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 (h v) sloped backfill condition In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool walls subjacent to slopes 1 3. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of I 250 pcf, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. 4 An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0 35 may be used with the dead load forces. I 5.. When combining passive pressure and frictnal resistance, the passive pressure I component should be reduced by one-third 6 The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and I flatwork design prior to construction Recommendations for pool flatwork are, presented in a following section A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design, including drainage and setback conditions, per the UBC/CBC I 7 All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical consultant, including during excavation prior to the placement of any additional fill, I prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any concrete 8. Where pools are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need to be I incorporated into design and constructkn by the pool designer. I Caiavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A SC Robertson Ranch, East Viiiage January15, 2007. I File e \wp9\5300\5353a uge Page 42 GeoSoi*s9 Inc. S - - 1* 9. All pool walls should be designed as "free standing" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support per Section 1806.5.4,1 Chapter 18 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). . . r. .1.0. The pool structure should be set back, from any adjacent descending I slope in accordance with the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997-and 2001). 11: The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly, moist with the same, stiffness throughout.' If a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool bottom, the cut • .' , portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 24 inches, and replaced • . with compacted fill. The fill should be placed at a minimum of 90, percent relative I . compaction, at over-optimum moisture conditions. ,The potential for grading and/or re-grading of the pdol bottom, and attendant -potential for shoring and/or slot I ecavation, needs to be considered during all aspects of pool planning, design, and construction If pool subgrade conditionsare wet, or saturated, for drying provisions ; back overekcavated soils, or importing/mixing with drier soils may be necessary.' Hydrostatic pressure relief, valves should be incorporated into the pooll and spa designs... A pool under-drain system should also be considered, with an appropriate outlet for discharge, depending on pool location. ... I All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in th& side of the pool or spa, should I •' be prbperly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the 'adjacent soils materials. An elastic expansion/shrinkage joint (waterproof. sealant) should be installed to ' I ' ' prevent water from seeping into the soil at all desk joints. V . Reinforced grade beams 'should be. placed around skimmer inlets tO provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. . . I ' - 16. Pool decking/f latwork should be pre-wet/pre-soaked per the Foundation Section of V this ', report. V 17. Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa: is filled with water, should. it be emptied, there exists some that potential if emptied, significant distress may • occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be 'emptied unless • • evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. I - I V Calavera Hills, LLC S ,• . V W.O. 5353-A-SC. Roberton Ranch,East Village , ' . V • . , January 15, 2007 V FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge V • V • • . V .Page 43 V CeoSois, VZVWO DRIVEWAY. FLATWORK. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flaiwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To reduce the likelihood of - distress,the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. If very low to low expansive soils are present, only I optimum moisture content; or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. For medium, or higher expansive soils, the subgrade shOuld be I presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade elevation. The moisture - content of the subgrade should be verified within 72 hours prior to pouring i concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch I layerof crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low to low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel or sand is not required. The layer or subgrade should be wet-downY. completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. I 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. When driveways are placed over rock, gravel or clean sand , driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge which isolates the bedding material from any adjacent I landscape area, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. I 4: . The Use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitiate such cracking are: .a) add a- sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, I increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) prOvide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, exterior slabs may b reinforced as indicated in Table 1. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, I .. 1/2 to /8 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks I with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material I Calavera Hills, LLC - .. W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:wp9\53OO\5353a.üge . - Page 44 I .. . . Gec8ois, Inc. i 1 5. Notrafflc should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression I . strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to a structure should be separated I .from the structure with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints: I . should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic.i . . Planters and walls should riot be tied to the house. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. Any masonry landscape walls that are to.be constructed throughout the property : should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long.. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. I 10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible conneètionsto accommodate differential settlement.and expansive-soil conditions.' I ii. Positive site drainage should be maintained at ailtimes. Finish grade on the lots - - should provide for an adequate fall to the street, per the design civil engineer. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including I post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 1 : . 12. Air conditining WC) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation, or constructed on an isolated rigid slab with flexible. couplings. for plumbing and electrical lines. NC waste. water lines should be. I . - drained to asuitable outlet. . . I . 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate ratedf I . •. . curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site.. I I .. Calavera Hills, LLC . . . . . W.O. 5353-ASC Robertson Ranch, East Village . . . January 15, 2007 I FiIe:e:wp9\00\5353a.uge Page 45 GeoSiLc jg . . . PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on the R-value data (to be verified by specific R-value testing at completion of grading) from a representative sample taken from the project area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented on the following table. . . ... •. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT . . CLASS2 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC SUBGRADE R-VALUE . . A.C. AGGREGATE BASE M. AREA ; INDEX . . (Subgrade Parent . THICKNESS . THICKNESS(1) Material)3... ._(inches) . Cul De 4.5 12 (Qal) 4.0 5.0 Sac 4.5 19 (Qt or Tsa) 4.0 4.0 4.5 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Local 5.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 6.0 Street 5.0 19 (Qt or isa) 4.0 5.0 5.0 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Collector 6.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 12.0 6.0 19 (Qt orTsa) 4.0 11.0 6.0 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 6.0 (')Denotes standard Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base R >78, SE >22). (2)11 values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the design team during future plan development. (3) Qal = Alluvium, Qt = Terrace Deposits, isa = Santiago Formation, Jsp/Kgr = Igneous Bedrock In addition to the construction of new roadways within Robertson Ranch East, the existing I alignments of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, in proximity to the project, are to be improved (widened). An evaluation (s) of pavement design were prepared by this office for portions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road (GSl, 2004b, 2004c). The recommended I pavement sections evaluated are presented in the following tables. I I I I I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village FiIe:e:\wp953005353a.uge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 46 COLLEGE BOULEVARD CANNON ROAD AGGREGATE BASE TRAFFIC SUBGRADE. THICKNESS THICKNESS 21 CAR INDEX R-VALUE (Inchés)" (inches) Cannon Road 8.5 28 5.0 13.0 Stations 125+22 to 130 Cannon Road 8.5 27 5.0 13.0 Stations 130+10 to 135+ Cannon Road 8.5 6 6.0* 20.0* Stations 135 to 140 Cannon Road 8.5 5 6.0* 20.0* Stations 140+ to 145+22 Cannon Road 8.5 6 6.0* 20.0* Stations 145+50 to 150 Cannon Road 8.5 6 6.0* 20.0* Stations 150 to 1 64 (1) City minimum - .Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R >78, SE >25) L* Caltrans requirements Calavera Hills, LLC • W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 47 GeeSe gls, Inc. . f' V - 4 . V I . V V V V V •• . VV V I .• As noted in the table above,-some of the R-values reported are less than 12. Per Carlsbad V '(1 996) soil subgrades with R-values 'lessthan, or equal to 12, shall be tested for lime V V I V V• ' stabilization. However, for the existing sections of Cannon Road noted, it is our understanding that this requirement was waived by the City. This should be verified by the V developer prior to construction. I V . • . The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner V or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair V I could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended,as reflected by the traffic index used for design,- increased maintenance and repair-could' epair could be required for V the pavement section. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation V should be performed in accordanceVwith the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade. V V (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base'compactión should be 95 percent of the V maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). If adverse condilions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) V V are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special cbnstrüction methods may need , ' to be employed. • V V V V V These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further R-value testing and V V pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for, the site. ' V PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS V I General * All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered., I during the preparation of èubgrade materials, special construction methods may need to V be employed. 1 Subgràde V Within street areas, all'surlicial deposits of loose soil 'material should be-removed and V recompacted-as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is'to be- scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as -necessary and compacted to, 1 95 percent of naximum laboratory, density, as determined by ASTM test method-D-1557. V - - Deleterious material, excessively Wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock I ' '• fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should, be. removed. The compacted fill material shou!d Vthenbe brought to the elevation of the , V proposed subgrade for the pavement.' The subgrade should' be proof-rolled:in order to V ensure 'a uniformly firm and,unyielding surface. 'All grading and fill placement should be V observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. calavera Hills, LLC - V VV V ' - W.O. 5353-A-SC , V Robertson Ranch, East Village, V V ' January 15, 2007 V I F11e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge V V V Page 48 - V GeoSos, Inc.. • V . I - Base . .. I Compaction tests areequired for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory dehsity as determined by ASTM test method D-1 557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to th "Standard, I Specifications for-Publicr Works Construction" (green book) current edition. I Paving .-. Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following condition are met: 1 . The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks,of completin of base • and/or subbase course. - , 2. Traffic is not outéd over completed base before paving. I Construction is completed during the dry season of, May through October. - . - 4. The base isfreé of dirt anddebris. I If construction is performed durin6 the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving the I .time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of dirt and debris. Where' . prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed,. measures shall be taken to restore base 1 , course, subbase course, and subgrade'to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. S . I Drainage I Positive drainage should be provided for all surface waterto draintowards the area swale, curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positivesite drainage should be: maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or-seep into the ground. If 1 . planters or landscaping are -adjacent to paved areas, measures should be'tàken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. . - I Calavera Hills, LLC .. . W.0 5353-A-SC r• Robertson Ranch, East Village . 4 . January 15, 2007 I . F11e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ... . . . Page 49 Geesoas, Iw. * I I DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA I Slope Deformation 4 General I Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surticial stability, and constructed in general accordane with the design specifications, should be I expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination with differential lateral movement in the out-df-slope direction, after grading This post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension I (LFE) Slope Creep -' I Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow I downslope movement This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i.e., separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal I .:distance of approximately 15 'feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outside) edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The actual width of the zone7 affected is generally dependant upon: 1) the height of the slope; 2) the amount of irrigation/rainfall the slope receives, and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements located within the creep zone -, Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential for distress due to lateral deformation typically include setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or I CBC); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening and deepening of foundations Per Section 1806 5 3 of the UBC, a horizontal setback (measured from the slope face to the outside bottomedge of the building footing) of H/3 is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill slope in feet and H/3 need not be greater than 40 feet Alternatively, in consideration of the discussion presented above, sitd I , - conditions and Section 1 806.56 of the UBC, H/3 generally need not be greater than 20 feet: for the development As an alternative to a deepened footing, where the adjacent slope is greater than 45 feet in height and the building/footing is within 20 feet from the slope face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch (additional) may be applied to the design of that portion of the structure(s) Any settlement-sensitive improvements (i.e., walls ,spas, I , flatwork, etc) should consider the above Lateral Fill Extension (LFE) LEE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Based dn the generally very low expansive character of onsite soils, Caiavera Hills, LLC ,. W.0. 5353 A SC - Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 I File e \wp9\5300\5353a uge Page 50 GoSogs, Inice. the potential component of slope deformation due to LEE is considered minor, but may not be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the fill throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture 'content. . I Summary It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LIFE. I .. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the UBC and/or CBC [lCBO, 1997 and 2001]); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; stiffening; and, I deepening of foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements and minimizing the placement of "dry" fills. Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage, away from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should'be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surilcial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable. vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting, or other fibrous covers, may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, 'etc. to develop. A rodent control program .to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of. natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes., Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping' or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water Calavera Hills, LLC . . . W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January .15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' . Page 51 GeoSoils, Inc. I 41 I should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. lngeneral, the area within 3 feet around astructure should slope away from the I structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of I raised planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc) Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s).'- Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or 'other appropriate means may be utilized to I " control roof drainage Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a minimum of 3 feet from structures or into an alternate, approved area, such as a drainage system swale. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be . I anticipated Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential If areas of seepage develop,, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request I Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down the slope allows for I some seepage into the subsurface materials, sometimes creating conditions causing or contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe of slope/toe drains may be beneficial in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be I utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows I . Is there a source of irrigation above ort on the slope that could contribute to saturation of soil at the base of the slope? I , • Are the slopes hard rock and/or impermeable, or relatively permeable, or; do the slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., *stabilization fills, etc.)? I • Was the lot at the base of the slope overexcavated or is it proposed to be overexcavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope bould accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap Are the slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less I 'evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently prevailing seasonal storm tracks What is the slope height? It has been, our experience that slopes with heights in -: excess of approximately 10 feet tend to have more, problems due to storm runoff: I and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height . Do the slopes toe out" into a residential lot or a lot where perched or ponded water I may adversely impact its proposed use? I Calavera Hulls, LLC W.0. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch East Village January 15 2007 I File e \wp9\5300\5353a uge Page 52 - GeoSoil, Inc. I ... I Based on these general criteria, the construction of toe drains may be considered, by the design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining walls in slopes, descending to the I rear of such lots. Following are Detail 1 (Schematic Toe Drain Detail) and Detail 2 (Toe Drain Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may be warranted due to unforeseen conditions, homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains are constructed I :during grading, including subdrains, the locations/elevations of such drains should be surveyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is recommended that the above be disclosed to all interested parties, including homeowners 1 and any homeowners association. I Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes-will be subject to surflcial erosion during andafter grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to I providing hay bales, and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint 4. I Landscape Maintenance , I Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to proposed structures I , be restricted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed•to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If raised. I box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope l areas should be planted with 'drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface I . improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed fOr the purpose of adding I amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. I ' Subsurface and Surface Water. . . -- Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided the I recornmendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should Calavera Hills, LLC * . . W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 I FiIe:e:\wp95300\5353a.uge . Page 53 GeoSóils, bw. - 4 SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL . 4c. a —1e Drain May Be Constructed into, - p or at, the Toe of Slope 1 Pad Grad I NOTES: Native Soil 1) Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relative Compaction. 12' Minimum 2.) Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in 4 Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N or Equivalent). 3.)44nch Diameter Perforated Pipe (SDR.150r .1. Equivalent) with Perforations Down. I _ Pipe to Maintain a Minimôm 1 Percent Fall. • T Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided atTransition to Solid Outlet Pipe. Permeable . . Material Solid Outlet Pipe to Drain to Approved Area. - Cleanouts are Recommended at Each Property, 24' Line. Minimum Drainpipe :- - • • .4 •.; . -•• — 21 SLOPE (ThPIGAL t . TOP OF WALL I BAC<FILL.WITh COMPACTED NOTES: >' 4- NAI1VE SOILS ' • i.)Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relative Compaction, 12" • RETAINING WALL ..-. — MIN 2) Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N or EquivaIett). -. ..... .. 4 inch Diameter Perforated Pipe — (SDR.35 or Equivalent) with MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC Perforations Down EINtSHORADE —\ — OR EQUAL. Pipe to Maintain a Minimum I Percent Fall 314 CRUSHED GRAVEL —IIk - •._ 9 53 Concrete Cutoff Wall td be Provided WALL JOOT1NC-. . . t ltaFStibfl to, Solid. Outlet Pipe: 6) Solid OutletPipe to Drain to L.... ApprovedArea. . 24 7) Cleanouts are Recommended at M , -4"DRAIN Each PropOrty Line I B) Compacted Effort Should Be ApplIed to Drain Rock. rTO2 • - - 4. SUBDRAIN.ALONG RETAMNO WALL DETAIL ,OTToc!Aa $ 4 •- t . - R-WERSIDE CO - • --4 - - '• f .4.9p ORANGECW - - .4 . .- - :. - • . I I petched groundwater conditions deveiop,this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater I conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rinfall, or other factors. - I Tile Flooring . Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small I •' cracks in a.conventional slab may not be significant: The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl I .crack isolation membrane, 'Or other approved method by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute. I Site Improvements If in the future, any additional,improvements(e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the I site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotóchnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Thisoffice should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of tha site, or trench backfilling after I , rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills.. , I ' Additional Grading ' This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, suplemental regrading of 1 the site' or trench backlilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfllls. . . . Footing Trench Excavation - All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to rio trnching and pr to concrete formandreinforcement placement. The purpose of the I observations is to verify that the excavations are made, into the recommended bearing - material and to the, minimum widths anddepths re'cdmmendedfor construction. If loose or compressible matérialsäre exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompactionof the subgrade rnaterials would be recommended at that time- Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench dxcavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not. removed from the site - I, Calavera Hills, LLC - - - - W.O. 5353-A-SC' - Robertson Ranch, East Village " - : ' - January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp95300\5353a6ge - - Page 56 Geosoas, Zw . I ••ae I Trenching I Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavationsand trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and I .should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representativest, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes _4. I Utility Trench Backfill . .. 1. All interiorutility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above' I optimum moisture content and then, compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an afternative for shallow I ' (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab'trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater maybe utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and selective testing should be provided to evaluate the desiredrésülts. . . . ' . I • •c. - . - 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within, a . reas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from-the outside bottom edge of the fOoting, and all trenches beneat1 I ' hardscape featuresand in slopes, should be cohipactOd to at least 90 percent of the labOratory standard. Sand backfill, unless. excavatedfrom the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Selective compaction testing and observations, along with probing,.should be áccomplishd to verify the desired results. . 3. - All trenh excavations should conforr to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. S.- - . 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass I through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. I SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS -REGARDING I .. ' GEOTECHNICALOBSERVATION AND TESTING .1- - S_,,.. ' We recommend that observation [and/or testing be performed by GSI at each Of the I . following construction stages:4 During grading/recertification. H •..- -• :- - . After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls' footings, Prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. 4 I' Calavera Hills, LLC . '• - .• ' W,O.5353-A-SC ' - Robertson' Ranch, East Village •• • ' . . January 15, 2007 I ,.FiIe:e:\wp9\53005353auge • -. • • -. Page 57 - - .5 .• GoSosLc, bc • 'I ' •.S •., •_ I* - I •. Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after, presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing I steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.), as necessary. - I • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, I' and retaining-wall backfill, as necessary. During slope construction/repair. .. . I When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any, construction E' operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools,' I ,walls, etc., are constructed. A report of geotechnical observation and testing 'and/or'fleld testing reports, should .I •. be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages as necessary, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code réquiréments. I ' •. GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc.', prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners' maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. .1 H- 1 . OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, I ' ' incorporate those recommendations into a11. -their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their projebt plans: This report presents rninimUm design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements poss ibly applicable I i - to the project.'. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs. by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze " .• 'actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence,. and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible . . that other influences will also have to be considered: The structural engineer/designer. I ' should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein' 1' . , Caiavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . • : January 15, 2007 I , • FiIe::\wp9\5300\5353auge . • • Page 58 . - Li as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In ofderto mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvemert's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/o(improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS It is recommended that the developer should notify, and/or make available the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this Ireport to any homeowners or homeowners association in order to minimize any misunderstandings regarding the design and performance of earth structures, and the design and performance of existing and/or future improvements. I PLAN REVIEW Any additional project plars generated for this project should be reviewed by this office, prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or, their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an, agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to 'review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of, services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the Client, in writing. Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge eoSoils, Inc Page 59 I APPENDIX A I REFERENCES I Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, I L, 1995, Empirical prediction of liquefaction-induced lateral spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol 121, No 4, April I , 1992, Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement generated by liquefaction induced lateral spreads, Tech Rept NCEER 92-0021, National Center I for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY Blake, I F , 2000a, EQFAULI, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources, Windows 95/98 version, updated to 1 September, 2004 I , 2000b, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources*,, Windows 95/98 version, updated to September, 2004 I . - I California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the state of California, DMG Open-File Report 96-08 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluation and mitigating seismic hazards in California, CDMG Special Publication 117. California ".Department of Water Resources, 2002, Water Data Library I (www well water ca gov/) - I Campbell, K W and Bozorgnia, Y, 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide acceirograms recorded from 1957 to 1993, Proceedings, Fifth-U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume I Ill, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293 Caterpillar Tractor Company, 2002, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 33, CAL I Publications, October. - . I Church, W, 1982, Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill Frankel,. Arthur D, Perkins, David M, and Mueller, Charles S, 1996, Preliminary and I working versions of draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United States showing peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response af 0 3 and 1.0-second site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (1 -0 percent chance of I exceedancé in 50 years) for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) U S Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado I GeoSoils, bc0 Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultarts, 2004, Geotechnical review - EIR 03-03, Robertson 'Ranch 'master plan, Carlsbad, California, No job no., dated June 19. GeoSoils, Inc., 2006a, Supplemental recommendations regarding pier supported bridge abutments, Robertson Ranch East Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 30 2006b, Memorandum update of the geotechnical report with respect to site grading and the current grading plan, Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 15. 2006c, Memorandum: discussion of earthwork recommendations in the vicinity of - a planned 84-inch storm drain, Cannon Road, Stations •127 to 136 +32 , Improvements for Robertson Ranch East, City. of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated July 28: 2006d, Supplement to the update geotechnical evaluation regarding ttie distribution of wick drains, Robertson Ranch East, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated June 9 2006e, Report of rough grading, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District No 4 (B&TD), Carlsbad Tract 00-02, Drawing 390-9A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-132-SC, dated January 27 2004a, 'Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20. 2004b, Third revision of pavement design report, Calavera Hills II, Cannon Road Stations 125 to 164, City of Carlsbad; San 'Diego County, California, W.O4030-E-SC, dated May 14. I , 2004c, Revised pavement design report, College Boulevard, Statibns 101+75 to 118 10, Reach B, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, i W.O. 4029-E-SC, dated'March 17; revised April 23 r 2002a, Geotechnical recommendations for the use of"Wick Drains,". Cannon' Road I . •: (Stations' 152 to 163); College Avenue (Stations. 108 to 116), and 'Disposal Areas" (Robertson Ranch, Planning Areas '10a, 13a, and 16b), City of ' 'Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated July 24. 2002b, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertso'fi Ranch Property, -City of Carlsbad; I , San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-Al -SC, dated January 29 2001a, Preliminary findings of the geotechnical evaluation, Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.0.-3098-A-SC, dated July 31. Caiavera Hills ii, LLC Appendix A I Fi1e:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge . :, . .. Page 2 osoas, bc. 1 I 1 , 2001b, Alluvial settlement potential in the vicinity of a planned box culvert and., existing sewer line, Intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, Calavera I Hills, District No 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated March T. I ;2 001 Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills U, College Boulevard and - Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24. - - 1998a, Addendum to feasibility of 1:1.'cutslope'in lieu of approved crib wall, -Station No. 29 to 31 , College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, I California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated May 4. 1998b, Feasibility of 1:1 Cut slope in lieu of approved cribwáll, :Station No. 29+00 I . to 31 , College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad,, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated April 10. . 1998c, Preliminary, review of slope stability, Calavera Hills: Villages "Q" and "T," City - of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. I Geensfelder, R. w.; 1974, Maximum credible rockaccration from earthquakes in, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. I . Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Faulf-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 International Conference of Building Officials, 2001 ,'California building code, California I code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2 . 1997, Uniform building code Whittier, California, vol 1,2, and '3. I Ishihara K, 1985, Stability of natural deposits during eithquakes Proceedings 'of the Eleventh lhternational:Conferencé on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: I A.A. Balkena Publishers, Rotterdam, Nëtherlands . Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity hiap of CaliforniaLand adjacent areas: California I - Division of Mines and Geology,Map sheet no 6, scale 1:750,000.. 1 Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M:, 1982a, Estimation of response-spectralvalues as functions' .of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., * ... and Blake, T.F.: AEG Short Course, Seismic-Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. I , 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response 'spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 82-977, 1 6p I ' . Caiavera Hills il, LLC . Appendix A - I. . FUe:e:\wp9',5353',5353a.uge - •' - Page 3 GeSo Us, 7&c . * I Leighton and Associates, 1985, Geotechnical feasibility evaluation, 403.3 acres at east corner of El Camino Rea! and Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, California, Project' 1 . no. 4850555-03, dated November 15. - - 'Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T. K., and Lindivall,E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego ' revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on 'The seismic riskin the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyoh fault system. 1 -O'Day Consultants, 2007, Grading plans for: Robertson Ranch, East Village, 40 scale, City I project no C T 02-16, Drawing No 433-6, Job No 01-1014, print dated January 11 2006, Storm drain plans for Cannon Road, C.T. 02-16, Drawing. No. 433-6, Project no. C.T. 02716, O'Day Jób.No. 0114, dated July 7. . Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer,C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters. used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic I - seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported ' • I in Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization; and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics I . II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, JL., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102: I Seed, H. B; and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction, during 'earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. - I Sowers and Sowers, 1970; Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New. I York. . -. State of California, 1967, Department of Water Resources Bulletin 106-2, GrOundwater. I . occurrence and quality: San Diego Region, Vol. II: plates, dated June. I & B Planning Consultants, 2001, Tentative lotting study, Robertson Ranch, 2 sheets, I : J.N. 533-002, dated November 13, Revised December 5. ' Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, 'M.P.; 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern prt of San Diego I County, California, plate 2, geologic map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' quadrangles, San Diego County, California, scale 1:24,000, DMG Open-File Report 96-02. Calavera Hills ii; LLC , :- , . . . Appendix A I . FiIe:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge . . . . Page 4 , GoSos9 Inc. . - • r I H I Treirnan, J A, 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone southern California, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG ' Open-File Report 93-02 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis, published by the I California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, cooperative agreement EMF-83-k-01 48 I United States Department of Agriculture, 1953) Black and white aerial photographs, AXN-8M-70 and AXN-8M-71, and AXN-8M-100 to 102 I Weber, F H, 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides California I Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA Wilson, K L, 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California unpublished masters thesis, University of California, Riverside I * I I - I I 1 , I i - I : I I I I Caiavera Hills ii, LLC Appendix A I File e \wp9\5353\5353a uge Page 5 Go8os, Iw. 3 •1 - - -. .• .- - •: .-- .•• 3., - -. 3) 5.• 7 3 4 .7 . - :--- 'I.... •' ,-- ,. 3 -': . ...•' .y4. 4. 1' . 1 • 3. - I I . .• 7 . •33 .3 '..3• 74 - • '.7 -• . . -7 •• ,.. - - •1' . . 7 -,.. , - 3 .5 14 1 3 'I-. - . - . . T, .. - -, • • ,:, , .'. 7. - - 7 . . • ,. .)-; - S •. . -7.; 4. . . S 41 " I -, 3. ."-' 5 . '4- • '-3 • --1••- ..... .1.•. S . 4.' . . • I • • • '" .:' .. . . . .' . -7- . ' . '' 54% , I APPENDIX '. - TEST P IT- AND BORING LOGS TEST, -3- -' - .. . .'.•' . ,. -.. - .- -. 7 , • ,-7..-j -/7.. 35 4 3. 4 -- .7 -. - . , - . -'.4, . . . . . '1 - . - • ' -: - 4 - -. .: - 10. : .I I' • -: ''-k • 4 7. ,- 4 .3 -5 . . 3., 43 - 4.4.. . 3- -' . ..- , ' . . .3, - .7 4,• .7, .•. 4 - - 7 -- . 7 . •' 5 7 .3' ••'3. 7 ' . , 3 1 - -'.• .7 - ', 4 5 5 : -- ' .. -: -. .3,__ , S3, - . .. . -, ., - -. •'. ''4. 85 - '.7 --S, -8" / I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - . •- • - W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies Geo øils, Inc. January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE :. FIELD DRY PIT NO. DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION _________ (ft.) •. SYMBOL TP-10 0-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft. 31.51 ring@31/2' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, orange • - brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No GroundwaterEncountéred Backlilled 1/10/02 1 - S - • ,• - -• • • • . •,• TP-1 1 0-6' SM 0-3' bulk 6-12' S 6-8' bulk 12-13' I CL - - - - - - - ---- - - --- - W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies GeoSoils,Inc. January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS PLATE B-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TP-12 0-1' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 1-5' CL WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff. 5-7' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray to gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies J January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS ,- - V O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO. DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL (%) (pcf) TP-1 4 0-3' - CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 317' CL ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown to light brown, wet, medium stiff. - 71101 Sc TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAY, olive gray, wet, stiff. Total Depth = 10' - No Gioundwater Encountered Bäckfilled 1/10/02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.O. 3O8-A1-Sc 1L McMillin companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE- `:FIELDDRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION :....SYM.BOL. TP-1 5 0-4' SC COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 4-5' Sc ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to light brown, moist, medium dense. 5-6' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth= 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — W.O. 3098-Al-SC rx McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY 'IT NO. DEPTH GROUP•• DEPTH: MOISTURE •• DENSITY : DESCRIPTION (ft) SYMBOL • (ft.) (%) (V. pct) _______ TP-1 6 0-3' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3-5' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. 5171 CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAYEY SAND, olive brown, wet, dense. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered Backfi!led 1/10/02 PLATE B-7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -V — .- - - -, - W.O. 3098-Al-SC / I McMillin Companies GeoSodS, Inc. January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS 'TEST SAME,'FIELD DRY.. .'':'P DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL•• TP-17 0-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. 2-5' SM - TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND,' olive gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff. V -. V V - Total Depth =. 5' V No Groundwater Encountered V Backfilled 1/10/02 — — — — — — - — — — — — — — . — — - — W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies GeoS011S, IflC. January 232002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE . FIELD DRY PIT NO. ..DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL. - (ft.) (%). TP-1 8 0-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. - 31..5' SM . TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND TO CLAY, olive brown to brdwn, moist, dense to stiff. • • Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered • . Backfilled 1/10/02 . I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 '-........- LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO. DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION • (ft.) SYMBOL (ft.) (%) (pcf) TP-19 0-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; roots, rootlets. 3-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-b I I I - BORING LOG -' GeoSoils, Inc. wa 3098-Al-SC PROJECT CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-3 SHEET OF McMillin, Robertson Ranch -• DATEE)(CAVATED 10-2-01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP - Standard Penetration Test 0 - Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample - Description of-Material - SM : COLLUV1UMITOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, loose. - . S - SM : ALLUVIUM - ::: @ 3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose.- 10 : @ 5' SILTY SAND, light brown, m6ist to wet, loose; coarse - 4 sands with silt. • - 10 34 CL @ 10' SANDY CLAY, dark grey, moist to wet, very stiff; oxidized minerlization. * 15- 43 - Z- WEATHERED SAN11AG0 FORMATION - @ 15 SILTY-SANDSTONE with metavolcanic and granitics, '- dense oxidization SANTIAGO FORMATION - - • 18' SILTY SANDSTONE, dense. - I - Total Depth = 18.5' 200 • Groundwater@ 10' •. - Backfilled on 10/02/01 25: - - -. GeoSoils Inc. - McMillin, Robertson Ranch - ' S PLATE B-li I BORING LOG GéoSoils, Inc Wa 3098-Al-SC PROJECT. CALAVERA HILLS II, LIC BORING HB-4 SHEET OF McM;Ilin Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 Sample . SAMPLE METHOD. 130LB HAMMER @40 DROP Standard Penetration Test SZ - Groundwater CD E Undisturbed, Ring Sample V -CU - Description of Material SM : COLLV1UMITOPSOIL • - --: .... @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. SM . ALLUVIUM @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense. 20 .5- 10-- 30 :: WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 10' CLAYEY SANDSTONE olive brown moist medium dense 28 SANTIAGO FORMATION 15 @ 14 CLAYEY SANDSTONE olive brown to reddish brown \ moist, medium dense. Practical Refusal @ 14.5' • . No Groundwater Encountered - • Backfihled - -20- -. • 25- - " - GeoSoils, Inc• McM:iiin, Robertson Ranch . PLATE B-12 I 'I ' .. ... BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc WO. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT CALAVERA HILLS ii LLC BORING HB-5 SHEET OF McMillin, Robertson Ranch - DATE E)(CA VA TED 10-3-01 - - Sample SAMPLE METHOD 130LB HAMMER @40 DROP • Standard Penetration Test & . Groundwater . '• E r2-. Undistuthed,RingSample U, (1) Cd Description of Material • SM : COLLUVIUM!TOPSOIL @0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry to moist, loose. - .. . '-.. 23 CL ALLUVIUM . . . ______ S - @ 5'SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, very stiff. A .• @6'GROUNDWATER. A' 10 'A 7 27 . @ 10' SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff. 15 29 @ 15' SANDY CLAY greenish brown to brown wet very stiff. 20 @ 20 SANDY CLAY light brown saturated medium stiff. 25- 13 CL - . @25' SILTY SANDY CLAY, light brown; saturated, stiff. - S GeoSóils ' Inc.. - McMillin, Robertson Ranch ' S - . ' . PLATE B-13 I I. BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. - - . WO. 3098-Al-SC " PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-5 SHEET2 OF McMillin, Robertso Ranch - DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 San pie . SAMPLE METHOD: 1301B HAMMER @40" DROP - Standard Penetration Test r7. . -(-Groundwater . • Undisturbed, Ring Sample . -c 15 . Description of Material - 15 SM '- @ 30' SILTY SAND, olive brown, saturated, medium dense: - .. . orange iron oxide. 14 @ 35' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. 40- 12 SM WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION • @ 40' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. . .- .. • • - . . . • ,• • . S • 45. - • ,- 5_S 5_S 5- 5- 5-- 5 -. - 5()• - 56 ML SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 50'CLAYEY SILTSTONE, olive, dry todamp, hard.'-., Total Depth =51.5' ... Groundwater @ 6' . - .. - . Backfi lied on 10/03/01 •' 55- - :- •. . • •5 . J . 5•. GeoSOils Inc. M cMilhn, Robertson Ranch • ' r PLATE B-i 4 4 a BORING LOG - GeoSoils, Inc. . WO. - 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-6 - SHEET OF 2, McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED .10-3-01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER 640" DROP Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample, 'C cn u . 16 ;' - - 0 ' Descnptionof Material a • . • SM • -: COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL • :-: @ Q' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. @4' SILTY SAND, Iightbrown, moist, loose. - 9 SM -s-:'ALLUVIUM: - A @ 5' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. - . ••;-.• r @10' SILTY SAND light brown moist dense 10 .39 15 25 --- @ 15' SILTY SAND light brown wet medium dense , - , - S - c 20 24 @20' SILTY SAND, light brown,.wet, medi im dense. - .• • - • , . 25- 19 ; @ 25' SILTY SAND light brown wet medium dense - • ., S - GeoSoi, Inc.pj - FM cMillin,RobertsonRanch B-15 I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al -SC PROJECT CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-6 SHEET OF McMillin, Robertson Ranch DA TE EXCA VA TED 10-3-01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1301B HAMMER @40" DROP - Standard Penetration Test 0 . Groundwater . Undisturbed, Ring Sample -c w C/) -a - o - - cc - - Description of Material - — 7 SM1 @ 30' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. 45 SM : SANTIAGO FORMATION - 2 - • - -: @ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, green, wet,-dense. Total Depth = 36.5' . • • Groundwater@ 30' - -, - • - i- Backfihled 10/02/01 40- ,45- 50- 55-1 - •• . - . 4- 4.- - - • GeoSoiIs Ind. McMillin, Robertson Ranch ' •. PLATE B-16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ism, - - - - - oll L 0. C'alavera Hills II, LLC PUP 'May 12, 2000 LOG ., OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS M. .- - . .. . TESL 14 AMPLE JFIEL1 II!J PlT DEPTH GROUPh DEPTH MOlSTUREDRyt - DESCRIPTION 'NO1 ti) 1YMBO i(ft NSTYiS INN Q7 TP13 0-2 - SM COLLUVIUM SILTY SEND, medium gray, dry , loose, many c1 roots, blocky, open dessicatio-iacks, finerained. 2-4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS SILTY SAND, slightly moist, medium 4 - dense, weathered, few dessication cracks, fine grained, .,massive.4- - - - Total Depth = 4' - No groundwater encountered :t_..k •;' . . • * - .-. p - -- , - - -.. - . - :' - • . . 4- . .- . . - '4 ,. •• -fl •_ . ., . . ......- - - ., , •.. . - '4 -4 - 4 Plate-B-20 - .', , *. - . . .. -, •. . - - - - 4 *4 - •_ . - - . 4 - ' - - . '44 . . - - . 4 . . . - Y.4 - -- - - - - - - - - •• %rj4 - - N - W 0 2863-A-SC MW - Calavera Hills ll LLC HAM, I May12, 2000 - - - / LOGOFEXPLORATORyTESTpITS TEST. q Zvi j, SAMPL FIELD S DEPTH) PIT A. GROUP$ DEPTHj £jMOISTQRE jDRYg- NO fL )W PSYMBOI ff)! 5(%) cDENSI1'Y DESCRIPTION - TP-12 O-/ SM COLLUVIUM SILTY SAND, medium gray, dry, loose; many rootblocky,. open :dessjcation cracks, fine r'àined ½-1½ SW - SAND, dry, medium dense few dessicatior cracks, fine to medium grained, som silt. - 11/2-21/2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS SILTY SAND, slightly moist, brown, - 'medium dense; weathered, few dessicatiOn cracks, fine .grined'massive 21/2-8 SM - ' SILTY SAND, yellow brown to olive brdwn, moist, medium dense; fine grãied, massive to weakubhorizontaI bedding - - I Total Depth = 8' No groundwater encountered r 4 -- - Plate B-19 - - - - 4 - -..- -,-- ,- ---, -- - - * •- - -- - - - - - ,-. _ - _J -r, -- - - - _•_ - - 3 - b- - - - - -- 4I EE ffng 'c" Md. 2863-!A-SC' CalavaHsll,LLC Ma 12..2000- ME * - LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 44 AMLE qFIELDJ PIT i: DETHv4lquROUP DEPT4H%MOISTURE DRY3fr DESCRIPTION 1 Lt IW %Jg lec ME s___________________ JP-10 0-2•COLLUVIUM:CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, damp to moist, • ___________ loose; roots and'rôótlets.' 4 2-4 SC , — - CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, fine o coarse, well sorted, roundd, caliàhe - ---• 4-7 ML - • --- -. -*. .- • - .- ., -: .-- •.- -•. TERRACE DEPOSITS SANDY SILT, light yellowish brown,' moist, medium dense, fine *grained, well sorted, massive 7-10' , ML BULK@ 7-8 - SANDY CLAY, dray, moist, medium dense, orange iron oxide - • ••• - .. - - staining, massive - 41, - Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered - - ,-- -- - - - - Backtilled 05-12-00 -. I - - •: Bit W.O. 2863-A7SC i JLL Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12,'2000 N PIN LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITSI ....-. . . . . . TEST M SAMPLE IØ :&FIEU 1 PlT DEPrHGROUp JJDEPTHJJ M6!STUE IDRY4iI &DESCRIPTION NO 1C(ft) tSYMBOL j()jj DENSITy, }T f 1(pcf) . ' ..... -. - . h..-. . . TP-9 0-4 / - CL - COLLUVIUM SANDY CLAY, dark brown, dry, looe, roots and rootlets, blocky. 4-10 SC ALLUVIUM CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarse grained, well sorted, laminated clay and sand lenses, orange iron oxide, rounded - - ; 10'--' BEDROCK r4ETAVOLCANIc/GRANITIC ROCK, olive gray, daInptomôit,dènsèfracturedt l -. - - - - - - - 4 -- .-. Practical Refusal'© 10' - - Total Depth = 10' No groundwater, encountered Backfihled05-12pp . . .. t - I 1 / r I t 1 1 .• - . .. 'r--- - - .. - . .- - ,.- - -.,. - * -- 1 - - - - - -17 Plate B 14 4 LOG I BORING I GëoSoils, Inc. WO 2863ASC I B1 10F 2 PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS ii, LLC . BORING SHEET College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills . DATE EXCA VA TED 4-13-00 - Sample SAMPLE METHOD 140 lb Hammer 30 drop I - - Standard Penetration Test - Water Seepage into hole 0 - C j Undisturbed Ring Sample i c n - - Description of Material i w ALLUVIUM @ 0 SANDY CLAY brown damp loose I 10 CL 104.1— 19.9 89.3 © 2 1/2, SANDY CLAY brown wet stiff roots and - rootlets. . -. • - I Q. 5' SANDY CLAY light brown wet stiff, fine to medium 1 6 CL 106.6 18.4 88.3 grained well-sorted sand fraction I ,. 4 10 -17 SC iii 9 iii 99 /1 @ 10 CLAYEY SAND light brown saturated medium dense fine to medium grained well sorted sub angular sands - .. I © 14 Groundwater encountered - 12 SP 15% SAND light yellowish brown saturated medium - dense fine to medium grained well sorted sub-angular I 20- -13 No R cve y @ 20 No recovery. i I 25 @ 25 SAND light yellowish brown:saturated medium I - 19 p dense medium to coarse grained well sorted little fines I - 18 College Hills PT _ - I 41, BORING LOG GeôSoils, Inc. W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS ii, LLC : - BORING 8-1 SHEET 20F 2 Coliege.& Cannon Road/Calavera Hills - - DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-1.3-00 - Sample SAMPLE METHOD 140 lb Hammer 30 drop Srandârd Penetration Test L. Water Seepage into hole C Undisturbed, Ring Sample WW ii) 0 -.o 3 W o CL UI 0. -DL 0 OC I - - c Y - Description of Material 11 - - No R y @ 30 No recovery • ::.: 0 5 -V.. r - - 11 - @ 35 CLAYEY SAND light brown to tan saturated medium dense fine to medium grained well sorted sub angular • V // 40 -15 SP @ 40' SAND, light yellowish brown saturated medium S - dense; fine grained. - ' 15 SC @ 45 CLAYEY SAND light brown saturated, medium dense fine to medium grained 50 8 SC 4 @ 50', CLAYEY. SAND; light yellowish brown, saturated, loose; fine to medium grained. Total Depth = 51 1/2'.. Groundwater encountered @ 14' V V Backfilled 04-13:00 V 55 V V - V •. • - V 4 V V V GeoSoils, Inc L-Coll1ge & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills - PLATE B-19 - 'S V •V V 5V. V S BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC APROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS Ii, LLC BORING B-5 SHEET 1 O 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills - DATE EXCA VA TED 4-14-00 SAMPLE METHOD 1401b Hammer 30 drop - Sample Standard Penetration Test - - L PV Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed Ring Sample - L 0 Description of Material • ALLUVIUM. @ 0' SAND light brown moist loose 8 SP @ 2 1/2 SAND light brown wet loose medium to coarse - grained. 7 sp @ 5 SAND light brown wet loose medium to coarse z . . . grained. @ 9', Groundwater encountered. 10 15 @ 10 No recovery. 15 - --j-- -j 7 @ 15 CLAYEY SAND light brown saturated medium .7 dense; fine to coarse grained. . . 20- 27 Sc • . ./ ./5 @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium grained • 7 -.1 . . • 25 sc - . @ 25',, CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, .medim dense GeoSolls , Inc.,-PLATE B-20 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills I BORING LOG GebSoils, Inc. WO. 2863-A-SC I - PROJECTCALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-S SHEET 20, 2 :college & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills • DATE EXCA VA TED 4-14-00 - Sample - SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop Standard Penetration Test t -' .• Water Seepage into hole I 0 \ - C Undisturbed, Ring Sample ma in 0 -I- 1. -.4- C/J.D 11 '13 0 C 3 . Description ofMaterial0 . :3 4- to ca U) 1 • .35sc. < BEDROCK -. @30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, dense. Total Depth = 31.1/2' • Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 40 I 4 - I 45- I I ; - 50- S - , -. .- - % - . •- . -I . - 55- - - I GeoSolls College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills , Inc..PLATE B-21 I - BORING LOG GeoSoils,lnc. , W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 86 SHEET 1.6F College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills - - . DATEEXAVATED - 4-17-00 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 300 drop - — - Standard Penetration Test L •. Water Seepage into hole C 4. 1 Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 SW UI 0 D L 4- -.O 3 .O S. ' 4- - Q. -0L 0 LIE ) C - Description- of Material ALLUVIUM - 4 @ 0', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose. '- 6/5" CL 4z @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, dark brown; wet; medium stiff; roots and rootlets, no. recovery. / Th SiF @ 5 SILTY SAND dark brown wet loose no recovery. @ 9 groundwater encountered — 1 2 CL '@ 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown; saturated, stiff, fine to - - medium grained, orange iron oxide staining. - ...• 0 • / / / 15- 7 CL , @ 15',SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, medium stiff. 20 9 Sc , @ 20', CLAYEY SAND; light brown, saturated, loose; medium to coarse grained. • --- • /•/ - - • t - -. XX 25- 6 SC .. ', @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; orange iron oxide staining '--7 t• // • • • 'S /, _t•, - 0 • - - /7 Lcolleile&CannonRoad/CalaveraHills - GeoSoils, Inc. B22 PLTE - - • - - - -• __I . -' .- • - I. I ' BORING LOG : • :' GeoSoils, Inc. 0 - W.O. 2863-A-SC I 01 PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-6 SHEET2OF2 'College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills • ! ' DATE EXcAVATED 4-17-00 ' Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop - - • Standard Penetration Test , i I • ,, Water Seepage into hole - C Undisturbed, Ring Sample ' - - I - Description of Material - ':.3Q SC • ., BEDROCK @ 30', CLAYEY- SANDSTONE, reddish brown to brown, saturated; medium dense; orange iron oxide 'staining:' - Total Depth = 31 1/2' - 0 Groundvater encountered @ 9' , I . . ' Backfilled 04-14-00 35- - 0 . ,.' • -• - 40 - : 45- - I .-, - •0 •,' - 0 .50- I I I-- GeoSolls, Inc college & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills PLATE 8-23 - 4 4 I '- BORING LOG - GeoSoils, Inc. 2863-A-SCL' PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC - BORING 87 SHEET 10F , College & Cannon Rad/CaIavera Hills :DATEEXCAVATED 4-17-00 - Sample - SAMPLE METHOD: 140IbHarnmer3O"drop — . , Standard Penetration TestO L 4-- Water Seepage into ho/e..- '0 m I \ — C Undisturbed, Ring Sample - £ SW 5 0 J 4- -L j -I- —4D 3 L'fl 5 3 - 0 to p -I- I M :3 0 0 V) Description of Material - ALLUVIUM - - @ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry, loose. • 48 "CL - - -. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, hard. @,5', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, vey stiff; Calcium LL 30 carbonate and orange iron oxide • . 1 - , . .. .. S. -@ groundwater encountered; - 17 S : @1O',CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense, • Z manganese oxide staining. . . V.- • /2' // . - 'S • - - - '15 - 16 CL . @ 15', Groundwater encountered. z~. . . @ 15', SANDY CLAY, brown, saturated,- stiff.RR - ffix 20 17 @ 20 SANDY CLAY light brown saturated very stiff. - 0/0 - - -: . 25 80 - BEDROCK • - @ 25, CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to olive green, - .saturated,very dense. Total Depth = 26 1/2'. - - - Groundwater encountered @ .1 5 Backfilled 04-17-00 I - - __ __ .:; _-••.• -.'. _-. GeoSoils, Inc. - -- College & Cannon Road/Calavera - - PLATE 'B-24. U.'-,' - ; - I jiaiaia 1 2500 2006 1500 z iii I--- - I . 4 1000 I: I 500 0 I iO 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration B-01 Depth (ft) 5.0 I Legend Results; Primary Cohesion (psf) 635 Test Method Friction Angle 22 I Undisturbed Ring Residual Cohesion (psf) 598 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing * Friction Angle 21 I DIRECT SHEAR GeoSo i I s • Inc. TE S T RE S U L I August 2000 • 11.0. : 2863-SC t1cMILLIN I - Plate C-i . -• • ( Th '. .300 2500 I, H : 2000 I LL II Lo 1500 z Ui * of + I 1000 -500 I I .-,0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 I NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-02 Depth (ft): 5.0 I . - Legend: .Results: Primary - Cohesion (psf): 623 • Test Method: Friction AngIe: 23 I Remolded to ?0 of 128.0 paf @ 10.0 I Residual - Cohesion (psf): 612 • Sample Innundated Prior To testing Friction Angle: 23 I U , GeoSoils inc. DIRECT TEST RESULTS SHEAR August * 2000 * - *.Wo*.2à:3'SC McMILLIN - I Plate C-2 I I 3000 2500 .1' I 2000 I a- I-- I 1500 z LiJ-- 4 (II) w. I - " 1000 5,00 I , I. . 0 - 0 500 1-000 1500 2000 2500 3000 I - . NORMAL STRESS (PSF) -Exploration: B-03 Depth (ft): 5.0 I • -Legend: I. . Results: - . Primary Cohesion (psf): 811 . Test Method: . - . Friction Angle: 12 I I . - - Undisturbed Ring Residual Cohesion (psf): 805 Sample Innundated 4 Prior To Testing • -4 Friction Angle: 12 I.. . ).1 I . . . - DIRECT SHEAR Geo5ojls- Inc. - TEST RESULTS August 2000 . W.o.:2863-SC - . McMILLIN -. Plate. C-3 I 4 I I. 3000 16. 2500 I: 2000 1500 z iLl - - I I iii V) I. • 1000 I 500 I 0 500 1000 NORMAL 1500 2000 STRESS (PSF) 2500 * 3000 I Exploration: B-03 Depth (ft): - 10.0 ' Legend: Results: Primary Cohesion (psf) 684 Test Method:. . Friction AngIe: 22 I . Undisturbed Ring Residual Cohesion (ps'P) 685 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing 1 Friction Angle 22 I I DIRECT SHEAR I GeoSoils Inc. TEST RESULTS August 2000 McMiLLIN • Plate 'C-4 - .. - I H I, 30 00 2500 tA l I'. • 2000 I LL I: U 1500 z w I 0) Lii I I 1000 500 • VI ••V ' NORMAL -- • ;Exploration: B-04 Depth (ft): 5.0 STRESS (PSF) IV I • Legend: Results: - Primary Cohesion- (psf): 169 Test Method: . Friction Angle: 28 I Undisturbed Ring " U Residual Cohesion (psf): 123 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing . - Friction Angle: 29 1 .. DIRECT SHEAR - Geo Soil s, inc. - TEST RESULTS . August 2000 1.1.0.: 2863-SC McMILLIN I. V.. V - - .• Plate C-5. . •V- . -V - V . V • V I rol 3000 I: 2500 I I. 2000 I 1" 1500 z I (I' I I • 1000 I.•. 500 '0 0 500 1000 1500 . 2000 • 2500 3000 I . -, . •• . NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-OS Depth (ft): 4.0 .I Legend: ResIts: Primary Cohesion (pef): .431 Test Method: .. . Friction Angle: 25 .I Remolded to lOX of 126.5 pcf @ 11.0Z Residual - Cohesion (psf): 481 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing . . . Friction'Angle: 24 I I .DIRECT SHEAR • - . 6eoSoi Is, Inc. TEST RESULTS Au gust 2000 - . w.o.:28:3-SC lIchILLIN I. • • Pl ate C-6 4.t 6,000 5,000 4,000 U, 0. I I- 2 w 3,000 w I U) 2,000 1,000 - I - NORMAL PRESSURE psf - Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual, Shear S'am'ple Type ) MC% c • TP 02 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1608 20 • TP 02 3.0 Residual Shear U,idisturbed 109.9 136 1345 20 Note Sample Innuridated prior to testing GeoSoils inc DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project MCMILLIN a "Ysi Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone (760)438-3155 Number 3098-Al-SC 5 Fax: (760)931-0915 •' I, Date January2002 - Plate C-7 - , ..-• - 4 1-•., ' • S - - - I 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type V. MC% c • TP 10 35 Primary Shear Undisturbed 102.1 136 531 29 • TP 10 3.5 Residual Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 514 29 Note Sample Innundated prior to testing co GeoSoils, inc. ': DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer WaOEMy - Project:-MCMILLiN S . Carlsbad, CA 92008 - 1StJ? Telephone (760) 438-3155 Number 3098-A17SC Fax: (760)931-0915 - -- -: Date: January 2002 -. Plate C-8 6,000 5,000 4,000 (I, 0. I I— z w co 3,000 uJ I Cl) 2,000 1,000 .0 'I NORMAL PRESSURE, psf -. * - Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type ) MC% . C 4) • TP 26 3.0 Primary Shear Remolded 102.6 13 0 130 31 • TP-26 3.0 Residual Shear. Remolded 102.6 13.0 98 31 D - Note: Sample Innundated -priortotestirig' GeoSóils, Inc. . - DIRECT SHEAR TEST : SIM 5741 Palmer Way Project: -MCMlLLlN Usjuc. Carlsbad CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax (760) 931-0915 Date January 2002 Plate C9 6,00C 5,00( 4,00C U) 0. I- 0 z LU It UY 3,00C a: w I U) 2,00C 4 1,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf - Sample Depth/El Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type % MC% c 4) • TP 32 3 0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 464 35 • TP-32 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 361 36 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing - 1 GeoSoils Inc DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 - - we-10S, Telephone (760)438-3155 Number 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 U, Date: .'January 2002 Plate C 1 I., - ; 0 •. :0.1 0 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample. - Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type MC% c 4) • TP-35 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 99:0 13.3 250 27 N TP-35 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 0 99.0 13.3 208 28 Note Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, inc DIRECT SHEAR TEST 31 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN: S GSL1sIuc. Carlsbad CA 92008 Telephone (760) 438-3155 Number 3098-Al-SC 5 Fax (760),931-0915 Date January 2002 Plate C-li 6,000 '4 5,000 - 4,000 (0 I I- (: z U.' a: 3,000 w I U) 2,000 1,000 0 V NORMAL PRESSURE psf - Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type MC% c ! TP 39 80 Primary Shear Undisturbed 1150 143 3189 48 • TP-39 - 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 115.0 -14.3 1007 29 Note Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils Inc DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project MCMILLIN G 1J*ii. Carlsbad, CA 92008 . '[L Telephone (760) 438-3155 Number 3098-Al-SC Fax (760) 931-0915 Date January 2002 Plate C-12 - . - I. . 1 1 2 I. 3 I - I- 4 I- I . uJ 5 Iii 1 -.. 7 1 ; 8 IH - 9 1 I I I III 1 I I 11111 I 100 2 .4 ,6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSE) . Exploration: B-01 Depth: 5.0 4 1 I Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 107.5 Sample Innundated @ 750 psf , Water Content (Z): 18.4 I i ., .• __l I . . CONSOLIDATION.August 2000 GeoSoils, Ir. . TEST • RESULTS - Mct1ILLIN . I - . Plate C-13 I I: . .. 1 ..: .1 'I H U I-. 4 I -. z C-, 5 I Ir. H I STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-01 Depth: 10.0 I Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 111.1 . Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf Water Content (X): 18.4 ! I . CONSOLIDATION August 2000 eoSoils Inc. - TEST RESULTS - . - W.O. : 2863-SC I . . IlcIlILLIN Plate C-14 Ii II -1 • 0 1 2 I ; - H I . .4 z I I Ui - 5 w••. i H I STRESS CPSF) Exploration: 6-02 Depth: 10.0 . Undisturbed Ring Sample . - I Dry Density (pcf) 109.6 Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf Water Content (X): 17.7 I I .. CONSOLIDATION GeoSoiIs. Inc. TEST RESULTS August 2000 Wo2::3SC . . McMILLIN I .• . .... . • Plate C-is •- -1. .. . - - •., - - • . • -j -•.-. • - "I I - I 'I:;.. I 3 z - I I- 4 I- I • Iii 5 Lii T- I .2 .4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000-, 2 - . STRESS (PSF) - - Exploration: B-03 Depth: 5.0 I , •Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf):96.8 - Sample Innundated @ 750 ps-P —Water Content (Z):.25.2 - I CONSOLIDATiON- U GeoSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS - - • t1ct1ILLIN - - Plate C-16. I . I I 2 I I: H lx 4 I- I . z w C) I lx• 5 : I•.• I .. 13 ! c• STRESS •(PSF) I Exploration: 3-03 Depth: 10.0 -• Undisturbed Ring Sample - • I - Dry Density (pcf): 108.5 . Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf. Water Content (Z): 18.5 .. • • I H • - .• i •• I CONSOLIDATION . GeoSotIs, inc - TEST RESULTS August 2000, f1ct1ILLIN • • i 4 Plate C-17 I ~ p. IH 1 I. 2 I z - I 4 I-. (I, F- z I w .5 2 Iii a I: 8 9 I 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 - STRESS (PSF) - Exploration: B-04 Depth: 5.0 U •Undisturbed Ring-Sample - - Dry Density (pcf): 105.9 Sample Innundated @ 750 psf - Water Content (Z): 19.4 I- - - I - CONSOLIDATION - . GeoSoi i, Inc. TEST RESULTS August 2000 W.SO. : 2863-SC - McMILLIN I . . • - Plate C-18 I I • -1 I',..0 2 • 3 U 4 I z 0 - 5 UI I I -. 1 :9 .100 2 - 4 6 1000 2 4 6. 10000 2 I STRESS (PSF) - ExpFbratiOn: B-04 Depth: 15.0 I . . • Undisturbed Ring Sample I • Dry Density (pcf): 106.0 . .Sample Innundated @ 2000 psf Water-Content (Z): 21.9 -• I I CONSOLIDATION A u gust 2000 GeoSoils. inc. t TEST RESULTS • U.O.: 28:3-SC McMILLIN• . -. I * Plate C-19- I I I U .I 0 I I . 1 .V 2 ( 5 IL 6 -I :: : I . -9 I . 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 . . 2 STRESS (PSF) . Exploration: B-07 Depth: 5.0 : . I .V Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Oenèity, (pcf): 118.1 . * Sample Innundated @ 750 psf -Water Content (X):,14.3 -' 'CONSOLIDATION V ' 13e05oi1s, Inc.Augus.t 2000 TEST. RESULT S -: WO•2863-'Sc - . . F1cMILLIN . I .- V . . . V Plate C-20 V 1 I too 2 4 6 1000 2 - 4 6 10000 2 I STRESS (PSF) - Exploration: B-08 Depth: 10.0 I Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 114.5 .Sample Innundated @ 1250 pef Water Content (/) 11 1 I I CONSOLIDATION August 2000 GeoSoils Inc TEST RESULTS Mct1ILLIN I Plate C-21 I..- - H - Mi 11-11 - * I I H-11 H I Tir. DO I,uuu lu,uuu f05 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification 7d Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 ! HB-1 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) - 105.7 20.5 17.3 250 4 7 9 10 11 I GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 PalmerWay Go J1lc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 'i'1i Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN - Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-22 9. -I C -- 1 2 4 z 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. ___ Visual Classification . ;POO;RL;Y(GRADED Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-1 15.0 SAND(SP) 107.7 19.5 18.7 720 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way -j P S Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3i55 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC - Date: January 2002 -- Plate C-23 \ 1 - 3 I 7 3 3 1 100 L 0 10,000 STRESS, psf Sample . Depth/El. Visual Classification .. Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 - ! HB-2 10.0 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) 100.9 20.8 18.3 250 0 .4 GeoSoils, inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST OR 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN flc. Carlsbad CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760)931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-24 ------ N -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Iuu I,uuu - Iu,uuu STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification ) Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 5.0 Silty Sand - - 100.6 9.5 18.0 2000 (9 5 10 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST , 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN 3oSo1 iI. Carlsbad, CA 92008 5 . Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number:. 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760)931-0915 -rn Date: January 2002 -- .PlateC25 :1 - . ,• - - ,5. -• .-.--- - I \ __ N , ----- IM )O 10ff) - 10000 in STRESS, psf I Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification ' 'Y, Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 10.0 Sandy Clay 121.7 13.6 - 13.6 2500 --. GeoSoils inc CONSOLIDATION TEST , O 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN LSlC. Carlsbad, CA 92008 2 IJ Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC RI Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: Jánüary 2002 -. Plate C-26 -1 I. o 2 3 ;--- 11111 _Iij 11111 7 - 10 11111 _ 11111 100 1,000 10,000, STRESS,psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification - . Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-5 15.0 102.7 23.3 20.8 250 GeoSoils, inc. • CONSOLIDATION TEST . , G4oj$Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad CA 92008 Project: .MCMILLIN Number: 3098 -Al-SC Telephone: (760) 438-3155 . C-' U, Fax: (760)931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate .C-27 - -1 - 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- z 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11 - 100 I ,UUU I U,UUU STRESS, psf io Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification 'Y Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-6 5.0 Sandy Clay 107.5 12.5 16.9 2000 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way çoJoilIflc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 S - Fax: (760) 931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN S Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 - - Plate C-28 I STRESS. psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Initial Yd MC Initial MC Final H20 0 HB-6 15.0 . 106.7 11.7 16.3 2500 0) - GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST ,. 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN -J GIeOSOi Inc Carlsbad CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 - - Date: January 2002 - Plate C=29 - I. I * EXPLORATION DEPTH LL PI 'CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY rse fine coarsel coa medium fine I ... I SIEVE ANALYSI I 3" 3/4" 3/8" *4 *10 #20 *40*60 *100 *200 • 100 90 Be I 70 Z 62 H I C,, 'I IL 52 I Z Iii 0 42 312 1 22 12 I 12 I PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS H: I'll Oil B-01 15.0 I. U B-01 20.0 A B-02 10.0 B-02 20.0 I PARTICLE SIZE GeoSoils, Inc. DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN I August 2000 W.O. : 2863-SC Plate C-30 100 90 80 p 70 Z 60 H I C,, 0 50 I z Iii Ci 40 a. 30 U 20 10 I.. Oil I SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 " 34" #4 *10 *20 *40*60 *100 *200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS F EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION B-03 25.0 37 21 SC ' CLAYEY SAND I D 6-04 ia.o A 6-04 20.0 36' 19 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY * B-05 5.0 I I PARTICLE SIZE GeoSoils, Inc. DISTRIBUTION I, McMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-3.1 GRAVEL . SAND -I SILT CLAY coarse fi ne coarse medium fine SIEVE ANALYSIS I 3" 3/4" 3/8' *4 *10 *20 *40*60 *100 *200 • 100 90 80 70 60 I U) 0 50 I- I Ui C-) Ui 40 0. 30 20 10 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS VEL SAND SILT CLAY fine coarsel medium fine GRA coarse I EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION B-OS 25.0 I B-OS 15.0 A B-06 25.0 B-07 10.0. I GeoSoils, Inc. I ; PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION McMILLIN August 2000 11.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-32 I SIEVE ANALYSIS : I 3" 3/4" 3/8" *4 *10 *20 *40*60 *100 *200 10 I " I - CD z 6 H I (I, a. S I z Lii a. I I — • V PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION 8-07 25.0 I. 8-08 15.0 A B-09 10.0 8-09 30.0 I. I. PARTICLE SIZE GeoSoils. Inc. DISTRIBUTION V McMILLIN I•s. August 2000 W.O. : 2863-SC Plate C-3.3 GRAVEL SAND I —i SIL T CLAY coar ine coarse medium fine se f • • -. - * . * i•i , i, * I , 7 . Ge I L' 42 C) H I- I V I 12 '1 - LIQUID LIMIT (LL) I EXPLORATION DEPTH ft - LL- PL P1 * I - • 8-03 25.0 37 16 21 B-04 20.0 36 1.6 19 I - - ATTERBERG LIMITS GeaSoj Is. Inc. * TEST RESULTS * August 2000 14.0.: 2863-SC * . McMILLIN -. I Plate C-43 60 H 000, CL CH / /000/ 5C 140 30 / 2O /. 10 / ML MH .. * .CL-k1L L? u 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL P1 Fines Classification • 1-16-1 . 10.0 36 15 21 54 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-1 15.0 NP NP NP 5 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) A HB-1 30.0 49 20 29 70 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • NB-2 10.0 NP NP NP 6 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) • HB-2 25.0 32 16 16 42 CLAYEY SAND(SC) O HB-5 . 25.0 36 15 21 . 36 CLAYEYSAND(SC) GeoSoils, inc. ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: MCMILLIN . 19-7 5741 Palmer Way çeoSojL*c. Carlsbad CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 . Date: January 2002 Plate C44 60 CL CH 50 LU 30 40 /• 20 7 ML MH 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL P1 Fines Classification . • TP-01 0.0 51 15 36 • TP-02 3.0 43 25 18 Clay GeoSoils, Inc.. . 5741 Palmer Way eoSj1S,Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS. Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-45 BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF F IAYER # (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) <#200, 50 SPT. (ft) 1 10.0 5.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 138.0 10.0 1.000 5.25 - 2 12.5 5.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 130.0 43.7 '0.150 10-.25 - 3 17.5 4.0 IJNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125 0 40.0 0.150 15.25 * 125.0 2025 5 27.5 11.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 45.0 0.100 25.25 -- 3025 7 -------22 3.7.5 ----- ------- 15.0 ----- --- -------- --- ---------- -TJNSUSCEPTIBLE(0) UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 - --- - - - - -- ---- - --- -- - -150 70.0 0.060 35.25 --------32 --- 1250 125.0. -- -- - - - - -- ---- - -- --060 70.0 4025 9 ----- ---- 42 '47.5., 9.0 --------- -- -----------UNSUSCEPTIBLE(0) UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 70.0 - -- --060 0.060 45.25 [o ---52.5 -----16 125 ----------------°° ** *** * * ** * *** * ** * *LIQUEFY2 * * * * Version 1.30 * EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF I EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday; May 25, 2000 tOB NAME; McMilliri Cornpanies/Cannn Road/Calavera Hills j t IQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road OIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B9. . . . ROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft. . . ESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 . . JITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g OREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 . C60 PLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00. (AGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: . 0.8 12 . IELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS tOTIE: Relative, density values listed below are estimated usin equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) . S i. . I' ., . , ': '• . . . 'S S LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ' . Plate D-2 I, k.C-EER [19961 Me*thod I . CALC. TOTALI EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY fNO. (ft) (tsf) .(tsf) (B/ft) () N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR - -+ - - - - --+ - - - - - . -+ - - -- - - - + - - - - -. - + - - - - + - - -+ - - - - - - + - - - - - - + - - -+ - - - - - - + ------- 1 0.25 0.017 0.017 5 40 @ @ 0.052 0.052 5 40 .@ @ @ @ @ 1 I i0.75 1.25 0.086 0.086 5 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 0.121 0.121 5 40 © @ © © © © © 1 2.25 0.155 0.155 5 40 © © © © © © © 0.190 0.190 5 40 0 © @ @ © '@ @ 1 I i2.75 3.25 .0.224 0.224 5 40 © © . © . . © © © 1 3.75 0.259 0.259 5 40 @ © @ © © © © 1 4.25 0.293 0.293 5 40 © © @ © @ © 0.328 0.328 5 40 © @ © © © @ @ 1 I i4.75 5.25 0.362 0.362 5 40 .@ © @. @. @. © @ 1 5.75 0.397 0.397 5 40 © @ © © © © @ 1 6.25 0.431 0.431 ' 5 40 @ © © @ © . © © 0.466 0.466 5 40 © @ © ,® © © ® 1 I i6.75 7.25 0.500 0.50O 5 40 ' © © @ @ © ,@ 1 7.75 0.535 .0.535. 5 40 @ @ © @ © @ © 1. 8.25 0.569 0.569 5 40 © @ © . © © 0.604 0.604 5 40 * © @ . © . © @ 1 I i8.75 9.25 0.638 0.630 5 40 1.709 7.6 0.086 0.958 0.143 '0.60 1 . 9.75 0.673 0.649 5 40 1.709 7.6 0.086 0.955 0.146 0.59 2 . 10.25 0.706 0.667 5 10.75 0.739 0.684 5. . - - - - I 2 2 11.25 0.771 0.701 5 - - - 2* 11.75 0.804 0.718 5 -; - 2 12.25 0.836 '0.735 5 -, - 12.75 0:868 0.751 4 .- - - - I 3 3 13.25 0.899 0.767 4 3 . 13.75 0.931 0.782 4 - - -• 3 '. 14.25 0.962 0.798 4 - - . 14.75 '0993 0.814 4 . . - 3 I 15.25 1.024 0.829 4 - - ,- 3 15.75 1.056 0.845 4 -• - - 3 16.25 1.087 .0. 8G1 4 - - 16.75 1.118 0.876 4 - -. - I 3 3 17.25 1.149 0.892 4 4 17.75 1.181 0.908 4 - 4 . 18.25 .1212 0.923 4 18.75 1.243 0.939 4 . I 4 4 19.25 1.274 0.955 4 - - 4 19.75 1.306 0.970 .. 4 - 4 20.25 1.337 0.986 4 - I * 20.75 1.368 1.002 4 - . 4 21.25 1.399 1.017 4 4 . 21.75 1.431 1.033 '4 4 22.25 1.462 1.049 4 - 5 22.75 1.493 1.064 11 19 PAGE 1 I-------------------- NCEER [1996] Method I------------------- CALC. TOTALI 'EVF. FIELD I OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf)' (B/ft) I * Plate D-3 PAGE 2 st.D CORR. LIQUE. . INDUC. LIQUE. r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY (%-) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR + _. + - ± - + , 5 23'.25 1.524 .1.080 11 - . - I 23.75 1.556 1.095 11 5 L - 24.25 1.587 1.111 . 11 5 .24.75 1.618 1.127 11 - - 5 25.25" '1.649 1.142 11 . . . I -.25.75 , 1.681 1.158 .11, 5 - - 26.25 1.712 1.174 11 - - - - -- 5 26,75 1.743 1.189 11 5 27.25 1.774 1.205 11 - - - - - - I 6 27.75 1.806 1.221. . 10 6 28.25 1.837 1.236 10 6 ' 28.75 1.868 1.252 10, -• . 6 29.25 1'.'899 1.268 10 I 6 29.75 1.93,1 1.283 10 '6 '30.25 1.962 1.299 10 - - - - - 6 . 30.75 1.993 1.315 10 6 31125 2.024 1:330 10 - - - - I 6 '.31.75 2.056 1.346 10 6 32'.25. 2.087 1.362 10 7 32.75 2.118 1.377 '15 I ' 33.25 2.149 1.393 15 7 33.75 2.181, 1.408 15 - 7 , 34.25 2.212 1:424 ' 15 -7 34.75 , 2.243 1.440 15 I 35.25 2.274 1.455 15 7 35.75 2.306 1.471. 15 - - - 7 .36.25 2.337 1.487 15 .- 7 36.75 2.368 1.502 15 I 37.25 2.399 1.518 ' 15 8 - - ' - . •- - - - . - 37.75 2.431- 1.534 8 . 38.25 2.462 1.549 8 8 38.75 2.493 1.565 8..' I 8 39.25 2.524 1.581 .8 8 39.75 2.556 1.596 8 8 40.25 2.587 1.612 - 8 8 40.75 2.618 1.628 8 I 8 41.25 2.649 1.643 8 -8 41.75 2.681 1.659 8 42.25 2.712- 1.675 8 9 , 42.75 2.743 1.690 " 9. I 91 43.25 2.774 1.706 9 -9 43.75 2.806 1.721 9 9 44;25 2.837 1.737 9 9 - 44.75 2.868 1.753 9 -- I 45.25 2.,899 1.768 -9 9 45.75 2.931 1.784 9 9 4'6.25 2.962 1.800 9 .- - - - 9 46.75" 2.993 1.815 . 9 - - I -,47.2.5 3.024 1.831 9 10 - ' - - ' 47.75 3.056 1.847 - 16 10 48.25 3.087 1.862 16 - ' -• ' . 10 ' 48.75 - 3.118, 1.878 16 I 10 49.25 3.149 1.894 16' I- ------------------ ---------------- CEER [1996] Method .. PAGE 3 I I 1'i. tiLjU nsc.0 UOKK. LJL2UJ. INDUC. LIQUE. DEPTH (ft) -l STRESS STRESS N' 'r , C (Ni) 60 RESIST , , r STRESS SAFETY jOIL NO. (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) () ' N (B/ft) 'RATIO d RATIO FACTOR - + ------+ ------+ -------+ ------------------------ - - ------+_-----+ --+ ------ -,.10 49.75 ' 3.181 1.909 - 16' - I -- 10 50.25 50.75 3.212 3.243 1.925. 1.941 16 -' D..4.1 10 -;• . - 16 -- - - -- .Plat 1.0 51.2.5 .274 1.956 16 - - - 10 .51.75 3.306 1.972 16 10 52.25 3.337 1.988 16 - 0 I S 05 0 0 IL 0 I 5 . I5 S....,. . 05 5 • 1:. . 5 5 5•, 1 0 0 0 0 • I 0 0 55 0 5 5 5 . 0 SI 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 S 0 I 5 . 0 5; 5, 0 5 0 0 5 5. 5 •0 : 5. 5 I Plate D-5 * * I . * SOIL PROFILE LOG * --------------------------- ************************ 1• .J . . SOIL PROFILE NAME: 2863B1 j ------------------------- . LAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES JJ (mm) DEPTH OF I(ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT.(pcf) %<#200 50 SPT (ft) 7.5 . 7.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 30.0 0.160 5.25 2 12.5 9.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 132.5 30.0 0.160 10.25 3 17.5. 12.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 32.5 0.160 15.25 1 - 22.5. 7.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 25.0 0.200 20.25-- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - 5 27.5 19.0 .SUSCEPTILE (1) 125.0 25.0 0.200 25.25 6 32.5 . 6.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 25.0 0.200 30.25 7 37.5 . 11.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 25.0 0.150 35.25 8 42.5 15.0 . SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 25..0 0.150 40.25 9 47.5 15.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 . 25.0 0.150 45.25 1 10 51.5 8.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 25.0 0.150 50.25 I. * ' Version 1.30 * ' EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL' JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2'863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 10B NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin'Companies/Cannoñ Road OIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B1 I I ROUND WATER' DEPTH:' 9.0 ft ' ESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g OREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 ' rGO PLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 CORRECTION' FACTOR: 1.00 ' tAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 IELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS IOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani 'and Nicoll (1982).- ------------------------ LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY ' Plate D-7 I IC_EER_ [1996] Method PAGE 1 ------------------- SOIL • DEPTH .L%J .L1LJ Li. i. • STRESS STRESS i. .J__J_1iJ N L L. . 1. r C (Ni) 60 H . RESIST r '-,'--,'.--. . STRESS SAFETY INO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) () N (B/fL) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR - +_------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ - .+ -----+ ------+ ------+ - - - - + ------+ ------ 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 7 .48 @ Co i 0.75 0.047 0.047 7 48 . @ @ I i1.25 0.078 0.078 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 0.109 0.109 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ . @ @ 1 2.25 0.141 0.141 7 48 @ @' 0.172 0.172 7 48 @ @ @ @,@ @ @ I i2.75 1 3.25 0.203 0.203 7 48 @ 0 @ @ @ @ @ 1 ' 3.75 0.234 0;234 7 48 ip @ @ @ @ @ 1 ' 4.25 0.266 0.266 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ I i4.75 1 5.25 0.297 0.328. 0.297 .0.328 7 7 48 48 . . © @ @0 .® @ i 5.75 0.359 0.359 7 . 48 © @ @ @ © . © © 1 6.25 0.391 0.391 7 48 @ © @ @ © @ © I l6.75 i 7.25 0.422 0.453 0.422 0.453 7 7 48 48 @ © © @ @ @ © © @ @ ® @' @ @ 2 7.75 0.485 0.485 9 49 @ © © © © ® 2 8.25 0.518 0.518 9 49. © © © @ @ ,@ ® 8.75 0.552 0.552 9 49 © © © . © ® © I 2 2 '9.25, 0.585 0.577 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.958 0.143 1.12 2 9.75 0.618 0.594 9, ' 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.955 0.147 1.09 .2 '10.25 0.651 0.612 9 49 1.315, 14.7 0.160 0.953 0.150 1.07 10.75 0.684 0.630 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.951 0.153 1.05 I 2 2 '11.25 0.717 0.647 ' 9 49 1.315 14.7 .0.160 0.949 0.155 1.03 2 , 11.75 0.750 0.665 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.946 0.158 1.02 2 12.2.5. 0.783 0.682 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.944 0.160 1.00 0.816 0.699 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193, 0.942 0.162, 1.19 I 12.75 3 13.25 0.847 0.714 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.939 0.165 1.18' 3 13.75 0.878 0.730 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.937 0.167 1.16 3 14.25 0.909 0.746 . 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.935 0.169 1.15 3 14.75 0.941 0.761 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.933 0.170 1.14 .3 15.25 0.972 0.777 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.930 0.172 1.12 3 15.75 1.003 0.793 12 54 1.167 .17.8 0.193 0.928 0.174 1.11 3 16.25 1.034 '0.808. 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.926 0.175 1.11 3 16.75 1.066 0.824 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.923 0.177 1.10 3 17.25 1.097 0.840 . 12. 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.921 0.178 '1.09 4 17.75 1.128 0.855 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.919 ' 0.179 0.69 4 18.25 1.159 0.871 7 , 40 1.065 11.4 .0.124 0.917 0.180 0.69 18.75 1.191 0.886 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.914 0.181 0.69 I 4 4 19.25 1.222 0.902 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.912 0.183 0.68 ' ' 19.75 1.253 0.918 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.910 0.184 , 0.68 4 20.25 1.284 0.933 ' 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.907 0.185 .0.67 4 20.75 1.316 0.949 7 40 1:065 11.4 0.124 0.905 0.185 0.67 .I 4 21.25 1.347 0.965 7. 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.903 0.186 0.67 4 '21.75 1.378 0.980 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.901 0.187 0.66 4 22.25 1.409' 0.996 7 40. 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.898 0.188 0.66 5 22.75 1.441 1.012 19 . 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.896 0.189 1.32 t------------------ NCEER [1996] Method . PAGE 2 I ' Plate D-8 --CALC.1 TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D . CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. OIL DEPTH STRESS' STRESS N (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS ~.RATIO ~,FACTOR SAFETY IS NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/fL). () , N (B/ft) RATIO d - + - + - + - + - +-----+ - + - + - + - + - 5 23.25 1.472 1.027 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.894 0.189 1.31 1.503 1.043 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.891 0.190 1.31 5 I 23.75 24.25, 1.534 1.059 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.889 0.190 1.30 5 24.75 1.566 1.074 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.887 0.191 1.30 5 25.25 1.597 1.090 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.885 0.192 1.30 1.628 1.106 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.882 0.192 1.29 5 I S25.75 26.25 1.659. 1.121 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.880 0.192 1.29 5 26.75 1.691 1.137 19 . 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.878 0.193 1.29 5 27.25 1.722 1.153 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.875 0.193 1.28 I 6 27.75 1.753 1.168 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.873 0.194 0.56 6 28.25 1.784 1.184 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.871 0.194 0.56 6 .28.75 1.816 1.199 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.869 0.194 0.56 6 29.25 1.847 1.215 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.866 0.195 0.56 I 6 29.75 1.878 1.231 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.864 0.195 0.56 6 30.25 1.909 1.246 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.862 0.195 0.56 6 30.75 1.941 1.262 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.859 0.195 0.56 31.25 1.972 1.278 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.857 0.195 0.56 6 I 6 31.75 2.003 1.293 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.855 0.196 0.56 6 . 32.25 2.034 1.309 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.853 0.196 0.56 7 32.75 2.066 1.325 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.850 0.196 0.76 7 7 . 33.25 33.75 2.097 2.128 1.340 1.356 11 11 45 45 0.868 0.868 14.2 14.2 0.149 0.149 0.848 0.846 0.196 0.196 0.76 0.76 7 34.25 2.159 1.372 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.843 0.196 0.76 7 34.75 2.191 1.387 11 45 0.868 14.2 . 0.149 0.841 0.196 0.76 7 I 7 35.25 35.75 2.222 2.253 1.403 1.419 11 11 45 45 0.868 0.868 14.2 14.2 0.149 0.149 0.839 0.837 0.196 0.196 0.76 0.76 7 36.25 2.284 1.434 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.834 0.196 0.76 7 36.75 2.316 1.450 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0..832 0.196 0.76 I '7 8 37.25 37.75 2.347 2.378 1.466 1.481 11 15 45 52 0.868 0.824 14.2 17.0 0.149 0.175 0.830 0.827 0.196 0.196 0.76 0.89 8 38.25 2.409 1.497 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.825 0.196 0.89 8 38.75 2.441 1.512 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.823 0.196 0.89 I '8 8 39.25 39.75 2.472 2.503 1.528 1.544 15 15 52 52 0.824 0.824 17.0 17.0 .0.175 0.175 0.821 0.818 0.196 0.196 0.89 0.89 8 40.25 2.534 1.559 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.816 0.196 0.89 8 40.75 2.566 1.575 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.814 0.196 0.89 41.25 2.597 1.591 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.811 0.196 0.89 .I 8 8 41.75 2.628 1.606 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.809 0.196 0.90 8 42.25 2.659 1.622 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.807 0.195 0.90 9 42.75 2.691 1.638 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.805 0.195 0.85 2.722 1.653 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.802 0.195 0.85 9 I 43.25 43.75 2.753 1.669 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.800 0.195, 0.85 9 44.25 2.784 1.685 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.798 0.195 0.86 9 44.75 2.816 .1.700 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.795 0.195 0.86 45.25 2.847 1.716 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.793 0.194 0.86 I 9 9 45.75 2.878 1.732 15 . 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.791 0.194 0.86 9 46.25 2.909 1.747 15 50' 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.789 0.194 0.86 9 46.75 2.941 1.763 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.786 0.194 0.86. 2.972 1.779 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.784 0.194 0.86 10 I 47.25 47.75 3.003 1.794 8 36 0.752 10.7 0.107 0.782 0.193 0.55 10 48.25 3.034 1.810 8 36 0.752 10.7. 0.107 0.779 .0.193 0.55 10 48.75 3.066 1.825 ' 8 36 0.752 10.7 '0.107 0.777 0.193 0.56 10 49.25 3.097 1,841 8 36 0.752 10.7 '0.107 0.775 0.193 0.56 kC-E-E-R---[1-9-9-G-1 Method PAGE 3 UAIJL. 'l(YIAL tF. FILjt) St.0 UORM. J.J1UU1. DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r ~iNDUC.JLIQUE. STRESS SAFETY I OIL NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ---+ ------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------ 10 49.75 3.128 1.857 8 36 0.752 10.7 0.107 0.773 0.192 0.56 10 I 10 50.25 50.75 3.159 3.191 1.872 '1.888 8 8 36 ' 36 0.752 0.752 10.7 10.7 0.107 0.107 0.770 0.768 0.192 0.192 0.56 0.56 Plate D-9 ************•*********.*** * *. * SOIL PROFILE LOG * I . I.'. OIL PROFI'LE.NANE: 2863B2 . AYER DEPTH OF BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION. WET UNIT FINES D (mm) I (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) %<#200 50 SPT (ft) 1 ' 10.0 . 6.0 SUSCEPTIBLE. (1) 112.0 25.0 0.150 5.2,5 I: 1O ----. 'i1R i: --- -i. 0.140 .10.25 17.5 . 6.0 ' tJNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 ' 35.0 0.150 15.25 4 25.0 ----------- - 0.150 20.25 5 I------------------------ 30.0 . 27.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) - - SUSCEPTIBLE 125.5 35.0 0.150 25.25 I Plate D-10 I ******************* * I * *.. . * - * Version 1.30 * S • . . s7 0 EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1TOB NAME: MdMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills IQUEFACTION äALCUL1ATtON NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road r . . I OIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B2 WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft. IROUND ESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 . . PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0280 g. 0 JITE . . OREHOLEDIANETER CORRECTION FACTOR:01.00 PLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR:.1.00 r60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 S -r WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 tAGNITUDE IELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS I LTE:' Re1atie density values listed b61owae estimated using equat'ions.of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) . . . . . 0 I 4 0 I C I I' 4 I. . . 'LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS .SUMMARY ------------------------- -------. . PlateD-li 5*. •0 0 - — 0 .. 0 II CEER [1996) Method • PAGE 1 ------------------- CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE.. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) () N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR I .-+ ------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ----- 1 0.25 0.014 0.014 6 45 1 0.75 0.042 0.042 6 45 @' @ @ @ © @ @ 0.070 0.070 6. 45 © @ ©' @ @ 1 I i1.25 1.75 0.098 0.098 6 45 @ @ © @ © © @ 1 2.25 0.126 0.126 6 45 . © © © © @ 1 2.75 0.154 0.154 6 45 @ @ @ © I i3'. 25 0.182 0.182 6 45 @ @ @ @ @ © @ 1 3.75 0.210 0.210 6 45 @ @ .@ @ © '@ @ 1 4.25 0.238 0.238' 6 45@ © © @ © @ @ 1 4.75 0.266 0.266 6 45 © @ @ @ @ © @ I i5.25 0.294 0.294 6 45 @ @ © , © © @ @ 1 5.75 0.322 0.322 6 45 @ © © © © 1 6.25 0.350 0.350 6 45 © © 1 I i6.75 7.25 0.378 0.406 0.378 0.406 6 6 45 45 , © © @ © © © ' © © ' © © © © 1 7.75 0.434 0.434 6 ' 45 © @ @ © © @ © 1 8.25 0.462 0.462 6 45 © © © © © '© @ .1 I i8.75 9.25 0.490 0.518 0.490 0.510 6 6 45 45 © 1.897 @ 13.2 © 0.144 © 0.958 © 0'.144 @ © 1.00 1 9.75 0.546 0.523 6 .45 1.897 13.2 0.144 0.955 0.148 0.98 2 10.25 0.576 0.537 10 - - - I 2 2 10.75 11.25 0.608 0.640. 0.553 0.570 10 10 . - - - -. - 2 11.75 0.672 0.586 10 - 2 12.25 0.703 0.602 10 - - I 3 3 12.75 13.25 0.735 0.766 0.618 0.634 6 .- 6 - 3 13.75 0.798 0.649 6 3 14.25 0.829 0.665 6 - - I 3 14.75 '15.25 0.860 0.891 0.681 0.696 6 6 3. 15.75 0.923 0.712 6 • - - , , -- 3 16.25 0.954 0.728 6 - - .- - - 0.985 0'.743 6 . 3 I 1675 ' 17.25 1.016 0.759 6 - - - - 4 ' 17.75 1.048 0.775 8 44 113 ;1. 15.0 0.164 0.919 0.184 0.89 4 ' '18.25 1.079 0.790 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.9.17 0.185 0.89 1.110 0.806 8' 44 1.113 15.0 ' 0.164 0.914 0.186 0.88 . I '18.75 19.25 1.142 0.822 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.912 0.187 0.87, 4 19.75 1.173 0.838 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.910 0.188' 0.87 4 20.25 1.204 0.853 ' 8 .44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.907 0.189 0.86 '20.75 1.236 0.869 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.905 0.190 0.86 I 21.25 1.267 0.885 8 , 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.903 0.191 0.86 4 ': '21.75 1.299 ' 0.901 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164' 0.901 0.192 0.85 4 22.25 1.330 0.917 -8 . 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.898 0.193 0.85 4 .22.75 1.361 0.932 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.896 0.193 0.85 I-C-E-E-R--[-1-9-9-61--M-e-t--h-o-d . . . - . PAGE 2. • . Plate 0-12 - CALC. TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N. ' r C ' (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft). (%) N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ---trn ------------------------------ -- + - + - + - +-.----+ -------- :4 23.25 1.393 0.948 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.894 0.194 0.84 4 23.75 1.424 0.964 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.891 0.195 0.84 .I 4 24.25 1.455 0.980 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0'.889 0.195 0.84 4 24.75 1.487 0.995 8. 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 '0.887 0.196 0.84 • 5 25.25 1.518 1.011 27 77 1.023 33.5. Infin 0.885 0.196 NonLiq 5 25.75 1.550 1.027 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0'.882 0.197 NonLiq 1 5 26.25 1.581 1.043 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.880 0.197 NonLiq • 5 26.75 1.612 1.059 27 .77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.878 0.198 NonLiq 5 27.25 1.644 1.074 27 77. • 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.875 0.198 NonLiq 1.675 '1.090 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.873 0.198 NonLiq 5 I S27.75 28.25 1.706 1.106 27 • 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.871 0.199 NonLiq 5 28.75 '1.738 1.122 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.869 0.199 NonLiq 5 29.25 1.769 .1.137 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.866 0.199 NonLiq I_:::_ 771.023 33.5 Inf in 0.864 0.199 NonL.iq I , .• •• • .• I I: I ' '••• ,' I. '• . . • ' • , I . •••• I ,: I •. I••••. •• • •• • ' ••• • • •• .• •• ••• I '', I' I ' " • • • •••• • • Plate D-13 * * •* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAYER EASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF F (ft) - - - - - - - - - (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. .(pcf) <#200 50 SPT (ft) 1 7.5 8.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 122-.0 6,6 .0 0,050 5 25 2 F 12.5 4.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 120.0 60.0 0.050 - 10.25 3 17 5 .7 .0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 128 0 55.0 0.050 15.25 F 4 22.5 15 0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125A 55.0 0.050 20.25 5 27.5 15.V UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 30.0 0.100 25.25 F 6 32 ..51 1 23.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.0 55.01 0.050 30.25 7 37.5 14 .,0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 5s.0 0.0 1 50 35.25 8 42-5 14.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 40 25 .9 47.5 19.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 5.0 0.050 \.45.25 I IT .. . I *'. *... *LIQUEFY2* * * k Version 1.30 * 7' EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 1OB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road 101L-PROFILE NAME: 2863B4 IROUND WATER DEPTH: 9". 0' ft ESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 61.90 ' t . ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g , OREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00' r6O PLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 CORRECTION FACTOR:. 1.00 -.MAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 . tIELD'..SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR' THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE.RODS loTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations, of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) . 1 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY , Plate D-15 I. UE-E-R,----[1''996.1 Method : PAGE CALC. TOTAL EFF. IELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N" r C (Ni)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY I NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) () N (E/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR +-------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------ 1 0.25 0.015 0.015 8 @ @ @ @ @ 1 0.75 0.046 0.046 8 - @ @ @ @ @ '@ @ I i1.25 0.076 0.076 8 @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 0.107 0.107 8 @ @ -@ @0 @ 1 2.25 0.137 0.137 8 - @ @ @ @' @ @ 1 2.75 0.168 0.168 8 @ @ . @ •. @ @ @ @ I l3.25 0.198 0.198 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.75 0.229 0.229 8 - @ 0 @ ® , @ @ @ @ 1 4.25 0.259 0.259 8 - @ © @ @ @ 1 4.75 0.290 0.290 8 - @ @ @ © @ @ @ I i5.25 0.320 0.320 8 © © ' © © © @ @ 1' 5.75 0.351 0.351 8 - @ © © . @ © © @ 1' 6.25 0.381 0.381 8 - . @ © -® @ © © © I l6.75 1 7.25 0.412 0.442 0.412 .0.442 8 8 - . © @ © © 0 @ © @ © @ . © @ @ @ @ 2 7.75 0.473 0.473 4 - " @ @ © @ @ @ 2 8.25 0.503 0.503 4 , @ © 0 ®' © © © @ I 2 . 2 8.75 9.25 0.533 0.563 0.533 0.555 4 4 - - © -. ' © @ - © - @ © ©' 2 9.75 0.593 0.569 4 0 2 10.25 .0.623 0.584 4 - - - - I 2 2 10.75 11.25 0.653 0.683 0.598 0.612 4 4 2 11.75 0.713 0.627 4 - - - 2 12.25 ''0.743 0.641 4 I 3 3 12.75 13.25 0.774 0.806 0.657 0.673 7 - 7 - - - 3 13.75 0.838 0.689 7 3 14.25 0.870 0.706 7 - I .3 3 14'.75 15.25 0.902 0.934: 0.722 0.739 7 7 - - - - - 3 . 15.75 0.966 0.755 7 - 3 16.25 0.998 0.771 7 -. 3 16.75 1.030 0.788 ' .I 3 17.25 01.062 0.804 7 - 0 4 17.75 1.093 0.820 15 -- 4 18.25 1.124 0.836 15 -- 4 18.75 1.156 0.851 15 0_ I. 4 19.25 1.187 0.867 15 - - - - 4 19.75 1.218 0.883 '15 0 0 • 4 20.25 0 1.249 0.898 ' 15 - 20.75 1.281 0.914 15 I 4 21'.25 1.312 0.930 15 0 4 21.75 1.343 0.945 15 - . - - 4' 22'.25 1.374 0.961 15 - - - - - - 22.75 1.406 0.977 , 15 0 - - - - - CEER' -------------------- [1996] Method PAGE 2 F 0 0 Plate D-16 CALCc TOTAL EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. INDUC. LIQUE. DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY IOIL NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) (%) , , N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR l:__+ -•-+ - +_.___+ - + +------------------------------ .5 1.437 .0.992 15 23.25 - - - - - 23.75 1.468 1.008 . 15 - - - . - 5 I 24.25 1.499 1.024 15 - - - - 5 24.75 1.531 1.039 15 - 5 25.25. 1.562 1.055 15 - -. - - 1.593 1.071 15 -. - 5 I S25.75 26.25 1.624 1.086 15 5. 26.75 1.656 1.102 15 5 27.25 1.687 1.118 15 - - 27:75 1.718 1.133 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.873 0.196 1.83 I 6 6 28.25 1.749 1.149 23 68 0.93.5 28.5 0.358 0.871 0.196 1.83 6 28'.75 1.781 1.164 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 .0.869 0.196 1.82 6 29.25 1.812 .1.180 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.866 0.197 1.82 6. 29.75 . 1.843 1.196 23 68 0.935 .28.5 0.358 0.864 0.197 1.82 I 6 30.25 1.874 1.211 23 68 0.935. 28.5 0.358 0.862. 0.197 1.82 6. .30.75 1.906 .1.227 . 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.859 0.197 1.81 6 31.25 1.937 .1.243 23• 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.857 0.197 1.81 1 6 - 31.75 1.968 1.258 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.855 0.198 1.81 6 32.25 1.999 1.274 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.853 0.198 1.81 7 32.75 2.031 1.290 14 - 7 33.25 2.062 1.305 14 -- I 33.75 2.093 1.321 14 - 7 34.25 2.124 1.337 14 - - - - - 7 34.75 2.156 1.352 14 -- 35.25 2.187 1.368 14 -- 7 1 7 35.75 2.218 1.384 14 7 36.25 2.249 1:399 14 -- 7 36.75 2.281 1.415 14 I 37.25 37.75 814. 2.312 2.343 1.431 1.446 14 . 14 - - - - - - - - -. 8 38.25 2.374 1.462 14 - - - 8 38.75 2.406 1.477 14 -- 8 I 8 39.25 39.75 2.437 2.468 1.493 1.509 14 14 - - - - - 8 40.25 2.499 1.524 14 - - - 8 40.75 2.531 1.540 14 - -. - - l 8 8 41.25 41.75 2.562 2.593 1.556 1.571 14 14 -- 8 42.25 2.624 1.587 14 - - .- - - 9 42.75 2.656 1.603 19 9 I 9 43.25 43.75 2.687 2.718 1.618 1.634 19 19 -- - - 9 : 44.25 2.749 1.650 19 9 44.75 2.781 1.665 19 -- 9 I 45.25 45.75 2.812 .2.843 1.681 1.697 19 19 - - - - -. - . - - - - - - -- -- 9 46.25 2.874 1.712 19 .9 46.75 2.906 1.728 19 - - - - - - -- 9 47.25 2.937 1.744 19 I Plate 0-17 1 . * * L I Q U E F Y 2 * * Version 1.50 * * * I .. EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF - EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL . JOB NUMBER: SC3098 . . DATE: 08-11-2004 JOB NAME: MCMILLIN . SOIL-PROFILE NAME: MCMILIN.LDW . . I ' BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 10.00 ft . . . . . ... CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 10.00 ft DESIGN' EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 Mw . SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g I BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15 ' SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 . N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1;00 ' I .MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press) Magnitude Scaling Faàtor: 1.238 I rd -CORRECTION METHOD: NCEER (1997) ' FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. I . Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft . .• ' CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf . MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6 . I . I. H .. . .. Plate D-18 ' NCEER [1997].Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 'SUMMARY PAGE File Name: MCMILIN.OUT CALC.1,TOTALI EFF. IFIELD I FC I I CORR.ILIQUE.1 .IINDUC. ILIQUE. SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C (Nl)60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO.! (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN1_601 N (B/ft) I RATIO! dt I RATIOIFACTOR -+ ------+ ------_+ ------+--.---+----+ ------+ 7 ------------------------- 1 .1 0.251 0.0151 0.0151 30,! 7 .451 *1 * I * I * * I ** 1 1 0.751 0.0451 0.0451 30 1 7.451 * I * I I * J * ** 1 1 1.251 0.0751 0.0751 30 * I . * I * I * * I ** 1 I 1.751 0.1051 0.1051 30 1 7.451 * I * I * I * * I 1 I 2.251 0.1351 0.1351 30 7.45 * I * I * I * I ** 1! 2.751 0.1651 0.1651 30 1 7.451 * I * I * I I * I ** 1 1 3.251 0.1951 .0.1951 30 1 7.451 1 *1 * I * I * I ** 1 1 3-751 0.2251 0.2251 30' I 7.451 * I * ! * I * I * I ** 1 I 4.251 0.2551 0.2551 30 ! 7.451 * I * I * I * .1 * 1. 1 4-751 0.2851 0.2851 30 ! 7.45,1 * * * I * I * I ** 1 I 5.251 0.3151 0.3151. 30 1 7•451 * I * I * I * I * I ** 1 1 5-751 0.3451 0.3451 30 I 7.451 * I * I * I * I I ** 2J 6.2510.37510..375! 15 1 - I * I *I* 2 I 6.751 0.40510.405! 15 - *. I 1 * I * I 21 7.2510.435!0.4351 15 ! - I * ! * ! * ! * ! ** 2! 7.75L0.46510.4651 15 1 -1 1 1 * I * ! * ! ** 2 ! 8.251 0.4951 0.4951 15 1 1 * I * I * I 2! 8.75!0.52510.5251 15 ! - I * ! *1, * I * ! * ! 2! 9.251 0.5551 0.5551 15 ! - ! * ! 2 I 9.7I 0.5851 0.5851 15 ! - I ! * ! . . !' * I * I ** 2 1 10 .25 1 0 .615 1 0 .607 1 is! - ! - I 2 I 10.751 0.645! 0.6221 15 I - ! - I - !-- 2 1 11.251 0 .675 1 0 .636 1'15 ! - ! - .1 -! - I - I - I-- 2 I "I 0.7051 0.6501 15 ! - ! - I - 1 - .1 - I ! -- 2112.25!0.73510.6651 15.! - I -'I -I- I'- I - ! -- 2 ! 12.75! 0.7651 0.6791 15 I - 1 --- 2j 13.251 0.7951 0.6941 15 ! - I 2 ! 13.751 0.8251 0.7081 15 ! - I -. I - ! - I - I - I -- 3 1 14.251 0.8551 0.7221 12 I 7.7611.185! 21.9 I 0.25010.9121 0.1781 1.74' 3 I .14.75! 0.8851 0.737! .. 12 1 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.25010.9071. 0.1791 1.73 3 1 15.251 0.9151 0.7511 12 1 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.25010.9031 0.1791 1.73 3 I 15.751 0.9451 0.7661 12 1. 7.7611.1851 21.9 I 0.25010.8991 0.1801 1.72 16.251 9-95I o.78qI 12 ! 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.25010.8951'0.1801 1.72 3 I 16.751 1.0051 0.7941 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.25010.8911 0.1801 1.72 3 I 17.251 1.0351 0.8091 12 1 7.7611.1851 21.9 I 0.25010.8871 0.1811 1.71 3 I 17.75! 1.0651 0.8231 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9! 0.25010.8831O.181! 1.71 3 I 18.251 1.0951 0.8381 12 I 7.7611.1851, 21.9 L0.25010.8791 0.1811 1.71 3 I 18.751 1.1251 0.8521 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 1.0.25010.8751 0.1821 1.70 4119.2511.15510.8661 13.!-!-! -I - I - I I-- 4 I 19:751 1.1851 0.8811 13 I •- I I - I - ! - I - .1 -- 4 I 20.251 1.2151 0.8951 13 I - ! - I ! - I - I - I -- 4 !20.751 1.2451 0.9101 131 - I - I'I.-- 4121.25! 1.2751 0.9241 'I - I - I I, I I I NCEER [1997) Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 File Name: MCMILIN.OUT CALC. TOTA-LI EFF. IFIELD I FC I I CORR. ILIQUE. I IINDUC. ILIQUE. SOILj DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C (N1)601RES1ST1 r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. (ft) I '(tsf) I (tsf) (B/ft) IN1_601 N (B/ft) I RATIO I d I RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ -----+ ------+ -------------------------- 4 1 21.751 1.3051 0.9381 13 I - I - I -I - I - I - I -- 5 I 22.251 1.3351 0.9531 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.25410.8461 0.1831 1.72 5 I 22.751 1.3651 0.9671 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.254 1 0.8421 0.1831 1.72 5 I 23.251 1.3951 0.9821 19 I 1.34 1 1.0061 23.0 0.254 1 0.8381 0.1831 1.72 5 I 23.75.1 1.4251 0.9961 .19., 1 1.3411.0061 23.0 1 0:25410.8341 0.1831 1.72 5 I 24.251 1.4551 .1.0101 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 10.25410.8301 0.1831 1.72 5, 1 24.751 1.4851 1.0251 19 'I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.254 1 0.8261 0.1831 1.72 5 I 25.251 1.5151 1.0391 19 1 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.25410.8221 0.1831 1.72 5 I 25.751 1.5451 1.0541 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8181 .0:1831 1.72 5 I 26.251 1.5751 1.0681 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I. 0.25410.8141'0.1831 1.72 I 26.751 1.6051 1.0821 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8101 0.1831 1.72 I 27.251 1.6351 1.0971 '.19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8061 0.1831 1.72 5 I 27.751 1.6651 1.1111 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.25410.8021 0.1831,1.72 5 I 28.251 1.6951 1.1261 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.798 1 0.1831 1.72 5 L28.751 1.7251 1.1401 19 1 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.794 1 0.1821 1.72 6, I 29.251 1.7551 1.1541 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.18710.78910.1821 1.27 6 I 29.751 1.7851 1.1691 11 I 5.661 0.9421 17.6 I 0.1871 0.785 1 0.1821 1.27 6 1-30.251 1.81511.1831 11 I 5.661 0.9421 17.6 I .0.18710.7811 0.1821 1.27 6 I 30.751 1.8451 1.1981 11 1 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.18710.777 1 0.1821 1.27 6 I 31.251 1.8751' 1.2121 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 1 0.18710.773,1 0.1811 1.28 6 1 31.751 1.9051 1.2261 . 11 .1 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.18710.7691 0.1811 1.28 6 I 32.251 1.9351 1.2411 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.1871 0.7651 0.1811 1.28 6 I 32.751 1.9651 1.2551 11 ' I 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.187 1 0.7611 0.1811 1.28 6 I 33.251 1.9951 1.2701 11 I 5.6610:9421 17.6 I 0.187 1 0.7571 0.1801 1.28 6 I 33•751 2.0251 1.2841 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.187 1 0.7531 0.1801 1.29 71 34.251 2.0551 1.2981 11 I - I I I -' I - I. - I -- 71 34•751 2.0851 1.3131 11 I I - I ' - I I - I - I -- 7 I 35.25I 2.115I 1.37I "I -.1 -1 -I - I I - I 7135.7512.14511.3421 11 I - I I -I - I - I I -- I 36.251' 2.1751 .1.3561 11 1 - I - I - I - I - I ' I I 36.751 2.2051 1.3701 11 I - I . - I - I - I . - I - • I - 7 1 37.251 2.2351 1.3851 11 I - I - I -I - I - I -.1 -- I37•751 2.2651 1.3991 11 I - I - I - I - I - I I -- 7 I 38.251 2.2951 1.4141 11 I - I -' I - I - I I - I -- 7138.7512.32511.4281 11 I -'I - I -I - I - I - I - 8 I 39.251 2.3551 1.4421 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.211 1 0.7081 0.1751 1.49 8 1 -39.751 23851 1.4571 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 10.21110.7041 0.1751 1.50 8 I 40.251 2.4151 1.4711 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.7001 0.1751 1.50 8 I 40.751 2.4451 1.4861 15 'I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.6961 0.1741 1.50 8 I 41.251 2.4751 1.5001 15 .1 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.2111 0.6921 0.1731 1.51. 8 I 41.751, 2.5051 1.5141 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.6881 -0.1731 1.51 I 42.251 2.5351 1.5291 15 1 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.2111 0.684 1 0.1721 1.52 8 I 42.751 2.5651 1.5431 15 I 5.9610.8441 20..5 1 0.2111 0.6801 0.1721. 1.52 8 I 43.251 2.5951 1.5581 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.6761 0.1711 1.53 Plate 0-20 i.. .1 H - - - - - - - - - - - - - . NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMF'4ARY PAGE 3 ,,File Name: MCMILIN.OUT I CA-LC. TOTAL! EFF. FIELD I FC j CORR. ILIQUE. I IINDUC. ILIQUE. SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSJSTRESSI N 'IDELTAI C (N1)60IRESISTI' r ISTRESSlSAFETY. I . (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) N1 601 ' N j(B/ft)j RATIOI dl RATIOIFACTOR ------------+ - - ------+ -------+ ------+ -----+-------------------------- 7 ----------- 8 1 43.751 2.6251 1.5721 15 1 5.'9610.8441 20.5 10.21110.671 1 0.1711 1.53 ' 9 I 44.25 2.6551 1.586 1 15 1 9 144.751 2.6851 1.6011 15 1 9 1 45.25J 2.7151 1.6151 15 1 9 1 45 .75 L 2 .7451 1.630 1 15,1 - I - I I 9 I 46 .25 1 2 .7751 1.644 1 151 - 9 1 6 .75 1.805 1.6581 5 1-I - I..•-I - I I - I.-- 9 1 47.251 2 .835 1 1.673 1.15 I -- 9 I 47..75 I 2.865I 1.687I 15 I_II,I -I-- I . 91 48.25 12.8951 1.702! 15 1 - I - I -'I • I - I I - 9 I 48.751 2.9251 1.7161 15 'I - - I - I . I - •I - 9 9 I 49.251 2.9551 1.7301 15 1 --- I 49.751 2.9851 '•5I 15 I - 9 1 50.2513.01511.7591 15 - 9 1 50.751 3.045 1 1.774 1 151 - I - I - I - I - I - I -- 9 1 51.251 3.0751 1-.788 1 15 I -I.- i - I •• '9 1 51.75 1 3.1051 1.8021 . . • 15 I - -. , . , . .• -. . .- . - . I I ' I. .1' • -, • , , - H • . • • . . . • • . .. , . . - '. • . . • . • , . -, • Plate D-21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL MCMILLIN B-2 INPUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) 19 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) 115 • AVERAGE NATURAL' MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE.COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 D DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (Fr) 20 y ., AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120 D DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) . • 10 Crm PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMAIIY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) '10.00 CI C COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER . 0.09 • Cl, RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.050 tl, ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) 50 SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO ' CALCULATIONS . P'O INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) , 1900.8 PI C PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE . . 2900.8 Ap CHANGE IN LOAD 1200 Pi t FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 3100.8 SP CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P'0=P' SP CASE 2. ' PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED ('> P0, P' <= CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P' > P0 , P' > P') 2.69 S. SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) 0.42 stot TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 3.10 . : • rn . . — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — on SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL MCMILLIN B-3 INPUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) , 20 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- •(PCF) 115 AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 ID DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) 16 y AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120 D DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 Iq EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER-.(FT) 15 Crm PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOI,IDATBD SOIL =0) 1000 CIC COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER 0.09 Cl, RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.050 t ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE, LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) 50 C SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO q'oos CALCULATIONS P'0 - INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 1670.4 Pic PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE 2670.4 Ap CHANGE IN LOAD 1800 Pe r FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) ' 3470.4 'S CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P'0=P' SP CASE 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED ('> P0, P If <= SP CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P' > P0, P'f > ') 4.90 S. ' SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) 0.44 Stot TOTAL PRIMARY' AND SECONDAR SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 5.34 -U CD F') 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - * SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL MCMILLIN B-4 PAD AREA INPUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) - - _30 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) 115 () AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 D DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) 21 y AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120 D DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) 15 Crm PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) 1000 CI C COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER 0.09 Cl, RECOMPRESSION RATIO -' 0.050 tp ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- .(YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) 50 Ct SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATIONS P '0 INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 1958.4 PI C PRECÔNSOLIDATION PRESSURE - 2958.4 AP CHANGE IN LOAD - 1800 pf f FINAL PRESSURE.AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 3758.4 CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch) - NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P' ' ) CASE 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P> P0, P't <= SP CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P'0 > p0, Plf > P'0) 6.59 - SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) 0.66 tot TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 7.25 -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -: - - - - SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL MMILLIN B-i INPUT PARAMETERS H S THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) 25 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) 115 AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 D DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) 20 y AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120 Dw DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) 18 Cym -PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMAI,Y COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) 1000 cic COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER 0.08 Cl , RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.030 t, ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY' SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) 50 SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO 0'OOiS CALCULATIONS P'0 INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) - 1900.8, pt PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE 2900.8 AP CHANGE IN LOAD S 2160 P'f FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) S 4060.8 SP CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P'0=P' S9 CASE 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED ('> P0, P'f <= S, CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch) - PRECONSOLIDATED (P ', > P01 P" > P') f 4.94 S. SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) 0.55 Stot TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 5.49 0 0 _I. CD S S çn, - - S i: SEISMIC SETTLEMENT I• MAXIMUM PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (g) 0.28 MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR 1.24 I D H VOLUMETRIC SEIMIC 'ft (ft) N1, (60) CSR CSRcor STRAIN SETTLEMENT (%) (in) 6.0 6.0 30 0.220 0.180 0:0.1.> 0.00 14.0 .8 .0 23 0.215 0.174 0 10 0.10 I .19 .0 22.0 .5 .0 3.0 12 0.225 0.182 21 0 226 0.183 0 50 0 20 0.30. 0.07 29.0 7.0 23 0.227 0.183 0 10 0.08 34.0 5.0 18 0.227 0.183 0 50 0.30 1 39.0 5.0 19 0.223 0.180 0 40 0.24 44.0 5.0 21 0.215 0.174 0 10 0..06- 52.0 8.0 23 0.215 0.174 0 10 0.10 I. >.• I I S : I TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT (in) = 5 1.25 I IN ACCORDANCE WITH "SEED & TOKIMATSU" METHODOLOGY AS RECOMMENDED BY SPECIAL PUBLICATION 117 IS> OS S I 5 . 0,• .5 ,. Plate E-5 I GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading I .as shown on the approved grading plans, including .'preparation 'of -areas to filled, placement ,of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and I would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which culd supercede these gUidelines or the recommendations I - contained in the geOtechni cal, report. . I .The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completioh of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project pins'and specifications: The project soil engineer-and engineering geologist (gëotechnical consultant), or their representatives, should provide , obseation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. . . . EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING . I Geotechnical Consultant .. Prior to the commencement of grading; a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil ngineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. I ' The geotechnical consultant should provide testi99 and observation so that determination .may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated, work I ' schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly... All remedial removals, clean-duts, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and I subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior, to placing and fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering. geologis't and soil engineer when such areas are ready for I • observation. .I Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed I .in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation , D-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests. should be performed in . • . accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1 556,'D-2937 or D-2922, and D-301 7, , I GoSoils, Inc. L. At intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed. The's6 criteria would vary depending on the'soil conditions and the size of the I project The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant I Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted I by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, I spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor shOUld also remove all non-earth I material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate eqUipment-and methods I to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codas or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for I the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are I resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions and if necessary, stop I work until4conditions are satisfactory During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to I control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION V All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of offsite. These removals must I be concluded prior to placing fill In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium colluvium, or rock materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being Unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement Depending upon the soil conditions, these ' materials may be reused as compacted fills Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. V * I Any underground structures such as cesspools; cisterns,m1n1ng shafts,* tunnels' septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed I V or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry,spongy, highly.. Caiavera Hills, LLC 1 W.O. 5353 ASC V V V Fiie:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge V V, Page 2 V I GeoSoils, I I I fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to I ,' firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as I specified, in these guidelines Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be I scarified to ,'a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought, to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. I Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site soils engineer, I and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of 1arge lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or I other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical I [h v]), the ground should be stepped or benched The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist In fill over cut I ' slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil I engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1/2 the height of the slope I Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood I that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet Pie-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness I All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until I design grades (elevations) are attained I caiavera Hills, LLC . W.O. 5353-A-SC FiIe:e:\wp9\53OO5353a.uge - Page 3 I GeOSoiisilne. 41 I I COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill I provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials. Ali unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by .the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or 'substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable I , and may require blending with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill I area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. 1 Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the I .,location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should betaken offsite or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated-as suitable for rock disposal. Per the UBC/CBC, I •oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from I the governing agency). To facilitate future .trenchirg, rock (or oversized material) should not be placed within U ... 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to I , determine it's physical properties and suitability-for use onsite. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis 'of this I material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas preparedto receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when'compacted, should not exceed abqut 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The soil I engiheer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. I ; Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aeratd by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moistu re, conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture. . Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC' Page 4 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353auge ' H L I I After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be' uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation D-1 557, or as otherwise recommended, by the soil engineer. i Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of'fill, or portion thereof, is' below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the; soil engineer. In general, per the UBCICBC, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-buildinga minimum of 3 feet horizontally,, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special effortsmay be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h:v), pribr approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the cOmpacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: ' 1.' An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill, is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope •• Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted Any loose fill spilled o'er a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. ' Field compaction tests will,be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations After completion of theslope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor IT and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to caiavera Hills, LLC W.0. 5353 A SC FiIe:e:\wp953005353a.uge • * - Page 5 GeoSis, Iw , - I . 4 I achieve compaction to the slope face Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. I 5 Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to I achieve compaction..Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction I 6 Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering I geblogist. I SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION * I Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate' alignment and details indicated .by the geotechnical consultant: Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical I consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct' changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be I recorded by the project civil engineer. I EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering I geologist If directed b the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes I should be performed When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The I . engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and 'should be notified by the' contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence I If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these I conditions The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. I Caiavera Hiiis, LLC W 0 5353 -A-SC I File e \wp9\53OO5353a uge Page 6 GeeSoils, Inc. I I Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the, ordinances of controlling I governmental agencies Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility. I Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or I engineering geologist.- CO MPL,ETION I Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications After completion I of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the c6ntrolling governmental agencies No further excavation or filling should be undertaken I f without prior, notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in I accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape - architect Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading - I JOB SAFETY General - At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primaryconcern. The following-is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites * I On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety, is the prime responsibility of the contractor, however, everyone must be I safety conscious and responsible at all times To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents' cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained I In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects I + Caiavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC - I Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353aiige - t Page 7 / GoSoils, Inc. I I Safety Meetings: GSl field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety ineetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Flashing Lights: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. , In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not I following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. I Test Pits Location Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading I contractor's authorized representative, and to select loctiohs following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct I excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety; and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. I Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite I ' the spoil pile This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition Alternatively, the contractor may wish to, park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or thbse with, limited access. I A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should exteiid'. I approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and t avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. I When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative, should effectively keep all equipment at a safe I operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC I FiIe:e:\wp95300\5353a.uge . Page 8 GeoSoils, Iiw i , H. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active ortion of.the fill assoon as possible following testing The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors.' that may affect site access and site safety. 40 In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. However, in the interim; ' no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation • It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction I testing is needed Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid baôk; 2) displays any evidence of - instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, I should be shored or laid back Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards Our personnel are directed not to enter any I. trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment.' If the contractor fails, to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our I company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The. contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. AllbackfiIl, not tested due to safety concerns or Other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or I vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation If corrective steps are not taken, GSl then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA-and/or the proper controlling authorities I ' I. Calavera Hills, LLC • W.O 5353-A-SC:. i File e \wp9\5300\5353a uge - - GeoSoUs, Inc. Page 9 , - I I CANYON: SUBDRAIN DETAIL I TYPE A ----- I PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL 1 \...!—NATURAL GROUND COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) I doo . - I 1 BEDROCK l TYPICAL BENCHING : SEE ALTERNATIVES IL --------TYPE B - PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL ol I ' ,. \NATURAL GROUND I NCOLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) /7 i/' i • --. I'iui/II -. — - •. - — — .— — - 1 - •- Ø'\\. BEDROCK I f TYPICAL BENCHING • 1 •/\\J/ SEE ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES. LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBO RAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED I . BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. I - PLATE EG-1 I - S.. •. H i CANYON SUBORAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS '- I ALTERNATE 1 PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL '12MINIMUM- ;IN I FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.3 ...—c, iLINEAR FT. 6 ABS OR PVC. PIPEOR APPROVED •:.•. •.. ,SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4 ) PERFS. NII9UL1 LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. ASTM-D2751. SOR 35 OR ASTM 01527, SCHD, 40 . / A-i ASTM O3O34,.SOR.35 OR ASTM 01785. SCHO. 40 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 Fl-. USE 8PIPE FILTER MATERIAL. SIEVE-SIZE PERCENT PASSING #. S 1 INCH . 100 . . 3/4 INCH ._.go—__100 3/8 INCH , 40-100 . 1 NO.4 2540: . NO.8 . 18-33 • .NO..30 • 5-15 S I . ., NO. 50 ' .o- . - NO. 200 - .. 0-3 - ALTERNATE 2 PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC 0 . 'MINIMUM OVERLAP . 6 MINIMUM 0VERc -4. ¶ 0 MINIMUM COVER I - =4 MINIMUM BEDDING 4' MINIMUM BE00INGO c\ GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT3/LINEAR FT. . I 0 - PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE.1 - , GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/41NCH.ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 11.0 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE, ,I l I I - I 2 PLATE EG- I I I DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON I TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON 'GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE I RESTORED WITH CO MPA CT ED FILL' ORIGINAL GROUN0 SURFACE I BACK-CU T - VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. I BACKCUT 1\SHOULD BE MADE NO - - STEEPER THAtM 1 OR AS NECESSARY ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL I FOR SAFETY ! CONSIDERATIONS. / DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER ln :j. t.. JL 1 /7LPROVIDE AiiMINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED I REMOVAL DEPTH SLOPE HEIGHT SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. I i REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL I I PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE\ I ' TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL _...- - FOR DRAINAGE ONLY Qaf Q a f (TO BE REMOVED) I (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL) \ / / LEGEND - TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL - PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL- FILL QaI ALLUVIUM PLATE EG-3 - -.-.. - - - ---- --- - TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBORAIN DETAIL • FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE Ft3 /LINEAR Ft OF PIPF • 2' INIMU OR FOUR Ft3 /LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF • ... CUTTRENCH.. . THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE-IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE ,OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: • e .. .'. '. - - ENCASED INAPPROVED FILTER FABRIC. 'FILTER FABRIC SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING — SHALL BE.MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC 1 INCH 100 SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 ON ALL JOINTS 3/4 INCH 90-100 4" MINIMUM 2" MINIMUM MINIMUM 4 DIAMETER PIPE ABS-ASTM D-2751', SOR 35 3/8 INCH 40-100 PIPE OR ASTM 0-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM 0-3034, NO. 4 25-40 SOR 350R ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING NO. 8 18-33 - STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF NO. 30 5-15 4 MINIMUM 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE NO 50 0-7 PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE NO 200'.0-3 2 MINIMUM PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE SLOPE AT 2% •• TO OUTLET PIPE OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE SUBORAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR (N NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: WITH ON-SITE SOIL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 2" MINIMUM 2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE 1 1/2 INCH 100 • LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. NO. 4 50 —. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE NO. 200 8 - LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE iii SAND EQUIVALENT MINIMUM OF 50 0 REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS - - - I • ; ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. u1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL PROPOSED GRADE MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15 WIDTH, TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN SLOPE TO BENCH/BACKCUT PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION .FROM '•/ - - , . - . DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY / AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT %ok OR ou 4MINIMUM NATURAL SLOPE TO . . 0?S0" •• JL BE RESTORED WITH / COMPACTED FILL . / /\ .• . '. BENCH WIDTH MAYI VARY . BACKCUTVARIES 4, 0 - - ][3- MINIMUM. . , • ' . NOTE: 1. WHERE' THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS'THE / 15 MINIMUM KEY WIDTH . DESIGN SLOPE RATIO. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE / 2X 3MINIMUM KEY DEPTH - PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. • 0 0 • • . 0/ • 0 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION.OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED 2 MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR • 0 • ,BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON.EXPOSEO CONDITIONS. 0 APPROVED MATERIAL. . 0 • ' •0 - - • G) - - - - - - - :0) 0 •0 . .. • ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -- FILL OVER6 CUT DETAIL - CUT/FILL CONTACT - MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15 FILL SECTION FROM - AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN BACKCUT TO- FACE OF FINISH SLOPE AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT 2 - PROPOSED- GRADE- - COMPACTED FILL H / \\ 2 . T-4~MINIMUM ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY - 2 MINIMUM CUT SLOPE BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY - - - - - ILOWEST BENCH-WIOTHI - -. - - - - - - - - - 15 MINIMUM OR H/2 - 3 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL - - - - NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATEDANO -EVALUATED. BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL-PORTION. - - - . - - • 8 - .3 8 8.• 3 - ---- - 3•j0 - -' 08 -- - - •0 0. - - - ----_0• - • -,-3--- 3 --- . • -. *- __.;_ -: / L STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPO.SED".IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE - REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL NATURAL SLOPE - •.-- _______ 15' MINIMUM - P POSED FINISHED ORADE 4 UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL 2 REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL COMPACTED STABILIZATION FILL MINIMUM TILTED BACK IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING • 2 , GEOLOGIST. THE REMAINING-CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY • -.W1 - REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. - M - NOTE: 1. SUBORAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, W. SHALL BE EQuIPMENT WIDTH (151 FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESSTHAN 25 FEET: FOR SLOPES GREATER 'THAN 25 FEET W SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR -ENGINEERING. 00 ' GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL "W BE LESS'THAN H/2. • 4 • •. _ -. — — S. •5 -• — -•... — — — S — — — - — -- 4 SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND * . ORIGINAL SLOPE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 15 MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM .. 3' MINIMUM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL \ \\ • * 0 0 - .01 2 MINIMUM 3 MINIMUM KEY DEPTH KEY DEPTH \ /\V. KEY WIDTH - NOTE 1 THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD. CONDITIONS. 0 • -. 0 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BEPERFORMEOIF DETERMINED TO BE rn . NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGI1EER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. 0 0 C) - -- - 0 . . 0• 00 - '.-- ' -- ..-,. :.. -- 4 DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL 4 + 4 NATURAL GRADE * RECONSTRUCT COMPACTE.O FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER (MAY- INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA). - ON- OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT REPLACEMENT FILL * • . -. * • PROPOSED FINISH GRADE AVOID AND/OR CLEAN 'UP SPILLAGE OF • /K. 3 MINIMUM BLANKET FILL • • • MATERIALS ON T H E NATURAL SLOPE SO / \\ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL ' ' / • - . ii " " TYPICAL BENCHING • - 2MINIMUM ___ ' - • • r . \* %,GRAOI / ' •• ' • ' '. KEY DEPTH Fi • •. - .•. - NOTE: 1. SUBORAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE m - '• •CONDITIONS AND THICK-NESS OF OVERBURDEN. ' - • •' m • 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTIONSHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY.-BY TE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST I 41 L I TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NMLGRAL IMM, PAD GRADE 0 COMPACTED FILL OVEREXCAVATE AND REcOMPAcT ' 1 7''/?3 MINIM u M * BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING' 0 CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) 1 0 I ' NATURAL GRADE _'iMIMUM • PAD GRADE 0 " I TVEXCAVA TE COMPACTED FILL AND RECOMPACT /4A III 11 /\\// 11, 1111 //\\\\\\//(\\//) 3 MINIMUM* 0 UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL / TYFICL BENCHING I S I NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER - 0 AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT—FILL TRANSITION AREAS; I . . - * ••i'• 0 0' 0, - . -' • - S . 0 • '; PLATE EG1t I SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1/4 STEEL PLATE STANDARD 314 PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/4 X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDSANO ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADO IN 5INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. I FINAL GRADE -1-- MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT: J....MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2.VERTICAL J\ LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. I . . 5. 5' 5 . I I MECHANICALLY HAND. COMPACT THE INITIAL 5 I J(VERTICAL WITHIN A .5 RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. I .. N I BOTTOM OF-CLEANOUT - - PROVIDE A MINIMUM l' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND I NOTE: LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND ' WITHIN 5(VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. AFTER 5(vERTICAL).OF FILL' IS.IN PLACE, CONTRACTOR SHOULD' MAINTAIN A 5'RADIUS- EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE. FROM RISER. • PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 20F FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. . . . I .5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR * SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT 'PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY' BE PROVIDED AT THE I DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. . PLATE EG-14 1 I I OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL I VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE .PROPOSED FINISH GRADE I : MINIMUM (E) 00 00 00 I 15M1N1MUM(A) ,"';2,0 MINI Mi ° (B) 00 ().ø-___.i.cO -.00 (G) I 5' MINIMUM, (AL ; QO I BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL i VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 1:1 MAXIMUM (B I / 15'MINIMUM 4 15' MINIMUM I 2'5'MINIMUNI(c). FROM CA WALL MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH ORAMINIMUM 0F15'FEET. HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE'NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. I IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE 'IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (0) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY I THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. I '(F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW-SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% 'RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (0) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF I ' - FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PLATE RD-i I t I ROCK:D1SPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. I FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT COMPACTED FI LL . 1 RANU SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I . COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE I •• - 1 ' I . U . .•. I ROCK DISROSAL LAYERS. GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. COMPACTED. FILL I.: OENSIFIEO BY FLOODING - LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH I • PROPOEO FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER I , jO MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIL??' -. 2 O '1NJ1M OVERSIZE LAYER '-S -LOPE FACE • • I .an COMPACTED FILL • ccooc?cxx2oDc I •. L .• FILL SLOPE -, ICLEAR ZONE 20MINIMUM • I •.• • LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH ITOP VIEW -2 PLATE RD I, () X 1/ veo U/C / \leo 'Ea I \\\ ,Ii/I /// il-lfsi n, / / I 8 di 18/8 \ t \-_T \ '— ock \-'c1 \ y•s. % X 75 >74.9 x 745 - LEGEND ' X /Z y \\ I Al / AfT Artificial fill — engineered stockpile, circled where buried X 7) 4 \ // AfBTD Artificial fill — engineered placed within the College/Canyon x 746 / x 7J 7 right of way I Afu Artificial fill — undocumented i — — —X elf IX, _) x -75. - NCT /.\ PART - Qa1A Quaternary alluvium - tribituary canyon VI, \V V,N X 767 ) ) 733 Qa1B Quaternary alluvium - valley floodplain, circled where buried 0. Rocks Quaternary terrace deposits, circled where buried J <Z PRPO.2 11 t i/S INUNDA I CT Tsa X 767 PER Tertiary Santiago Formation, circled where buried J 1K r Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics and Cretaceous granitics - X 726 . x"72 0 >< 7'3 1 undifferentiated, circled where buried / .. OV 9 x750 Hf =75 5 000 Now aft 40.46 \4C. GROSS / 1 Approximate location of geologic contact, dotted where buried 38. 74A C. NET N\ X 74 Attitude of beddin i \ ) A x 7/. 3 x 72. C Horizontal attitude of bedding / 25J- ,/ x751 )< 734 ( - LIMIT or E.7S11NC HETL4EDS REItCETA170W ._._-... .. '/—L 1J / '-'1 / 721 1 . AREA . -.--• -Athtude of joint —4 774 J 1 \ /' —ED-- Vertical attitude of joint, L / x 703 x 71.2 \X71 -6 751 f / \ Approximate location of exploratory boring (GSI, 2002) ( 1ME XY Or ct RA t?ZED 6/23/2004 AS x 7/.9 i4v 2004-0584673 S,, r To at ABAEXWED B-9 f (<'TI . Approximate location of exploratory boring (GSI, 2001) %Y / NOT-6 A PART-8 x 715 \\\\ ~Kocks •__\ •. TP Xlx 7,6 7,1 ly Approimate location of exploratory test pit (GSI, 2002) PfRaMAW SAW , 41 703 Approximate location of exploratory test pit (GSI, 2001) 20' MAIL CA& X 170 ( I (( xPy \ / / \ \ I • • Approximate depth of oposed remedial removal (in feet) tX 707 r#VAL\ fl PT DEMS MEW ra? xzx SCALE. I 4. crr cl-/ITT Aln R tf/2 if ry my cg I/I H _If 4Jw X7 M i)x ,01' \'\P LX,/65-,i, \ .: q i If/I /i i GV '\ \\ 16 \\ N()t ; \ vii -J /257 145 1 / \\ "co /as2~ \"i / 'S\ X" 2080MH I / AfB'MA I \ 7Sigr L 0 T 10 HdwI <' \ \\\ / ( ' \ I x_ Js p/Kgr,' ~ < / smvc x,y45 \, I CcWSERVA116W —JP, /'•&\ E145EA/EIIT TO / / , I / i'áMAL AS Doc'i- - / N . ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ,flw, I 1" 1111611 W1* \ •\\ \.L\ (\ 2 \ \••\ \ \•\ \) \\\t\c 1. 177 51SE SHEET 2 TO? EI%ISIINC EASEMENT /NFOS'MA 11CW ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARK: ocESS, NO 60223 EXP: 6/30/08 )ESCRIPflON STANDARD M- 10 STREET CENTERLINE HfZL MCWUMENT L0CA110N CENTERLINE OF £Z CAM/A') REAL ATEN'NEER STA liON 45492 PER R.S 1800-1 RECORD FROM C01IN1Y emai LElfLS (Na C(AJNTY I!?T CCW1R01 DATA) ELeIA1ION 68479 DA RIM.- NktV OF 1929 PROJECT MGR.t K.H. JOB NO.; 01-1014 CONSULT NTS 2710 Lcksr AVenUe Wnt Civil Englns*ing ENGINEER OF WORK: Sulti 100 PlannIng Corisbad. CalWcrnki 92010 ProcessIng 760-931-7700 SuvsyIng DATE: Fr 760.931-8680 KEITH W. HANSEN RCE: 60223 CITY OF CARLSBAD sHEETS 5 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 - _____ ____ • _____ _____ _____ _____ GRADING PLANS FOR: - ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE AI.P. 02-03 - C.T 02-16 - • _____ APPROVED DAVID A. HA(JSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE - _______ ______ ______ ______ ______ BY: ______ . PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. CHKD BY: C. T. 02-16 4J3-6,4 WE NIW. REVISION DESCRIPTION WE P11W. WE P11W. A.*I /I &A.& IB_k_k__t 4 A. r. M 7 . .. Von=w v-www.w • -----.-. '-.----..-, '---•-- -.--•---- -- - --. -- -- -- )s 14RD O114OMAP 0114BS1 l6207uV 962i K 9O 2* ,* 1620uut1 0114O 0I148Q1X1 Ol141p4 0I14AMAP 0114fsma SEE SHEET No. 5 Nx 70 /00001 x69 x5 ) (H I I I STaVRA1 WA 1 .. ri - ?XW EASEMENf '' I ! I x 72.9 Cr !r I 20 TRAIL EASEMENT If / X PAA xi X 717 x67/ H / I / r .i I . /.1000 vç x68J X682 / . I . S\ NOT IxA0 PAr,~ ivv \, 774 9STA oBz)cU ITORM WA —72.7 RLttWIOD 6/23/2004 A - I f 00000' 0000' x 675 x 676 DE AILS) x / r, 2004-058667J Z O T ( V(7 'ASEMENTPER ' /1A1P/1ARWNP '( 1L MAP Cr 6\40.46 A C. GROSS i II[L F , x 67 i lk \\_ESIINCOI4EOACcSSR0A0 II iI PERDUtJ89UI9X x 67 X66e" fI / i, I p 70 9 / WX J"N OT A PAI, Ix x 702 x5 62 i •' I) I. ' i / / N. .01 5J$ \ i\// ////. i/i" / i/ x • J RJ e2S ' 4 I' \ \\\.Ø ., : I ! I \ x 707 -\ \ Ns( 61), \\ / , IN d0BSCURit I I I \\ / l I g7/( FLX ZIWE Drrms Ix /\ \$\.\ IV I FS INS I i AK I .\' I\\\\\F:. QS 2 PERI -' •./ - I I I • SCALE: 1=40' SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS, ARE APPROXIMATE I No;s SEE SWEET No. 7 / [jJ SEE SHEET 2 FcW EX'S17NO EASEMENT /NFCRMA11CW ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. tTT\TrHMATMz RIVERSIDE CO. GeoSoils, 11w. ORANGE co. . . SAN DIEGO Co. 1k lI#'t A I L I A I ,-'ocESS,ó.. NO. 60223 La EXP. 6/30/08 JiJJi'1111VJJ1R1. DESCRFflON STANDARD M-1O S1REU CENTERLINE MW MCWUMD/T. LOCA11ON CENTERLINE OFl CAM/NO REAL .4 T £WC4'NEL??'S STA llO'/ 454+92 PER AS 1800-I RECORD FROM: CO/fIllY BDVO/I LE1ZS (Na CCVJNTY IVV CCW1RC+ DATA) ELEVATION 6479 DA17JM.• NVI or 1929 SHEET 6 sHEETs CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MR 02-03 . CT 02-16 APPROVED DAD A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE DWN BY: PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. CHKD BY ivwt BY ____ C. T 0216 1 4J3-6A WE NM. REVISION DESCRIPTION Dt PIflAL E NM. DIG1lR Of WM ti ApmwAL cny mwwm £..$llift UAMN. Vinim 01 .I. rak IV) 'J47 O114FEMk 0114$G1)CT SEE SHEET No. 6 - 7/ //x i'' A .11 x ::c !\ 67 N K \Gate / )A \T\/ L /1 / bl .00, / 'I el Ix 6 I I N x / /1 / /,/ / /1 / /,/ /_/////f 77 \ x5J / / x772 XJ x7541 $4 1 - \\ N 'c \ \\ ...1\'s./\\0 1 I E1SllNCPAfl 400, N\ gh\ 0. 00, Scattered ckplles \'\ \ \•\\\ / .21 so x 'h It X. IN AfT QaIB x 730 x 746 x 764 x 766 A xJ5 PLC x 7a J\\ \ 1 N I 7 — ZOT 5 / ,// \ 6706 AC NET 76 11 7 Af --- - 1 x 75j, I DI '/\ AfT N x 000, 710 x 75 MOD D-75 BROW \_-. ,'.' /\,; ,1'T / / Qt '' \ i/x?7/;' 9TJLAfcT4 /1 I /" . /•ç•_4( 000, o 11 1 Scattered Stockpiles \ \\ V / x 62 / / ' / x 7 ' ' 70 —-\- ,// i ' I / /. 'i /\' / j/ 4'. ) \ ofAfu , 'k / •27/\ vvQ x 90 x 74 IF 90 40 040.4 %4151 000, / / / ( \ / N677 1-11, 100'/// 752 ;,I'll 'K ' .00, Z ., ' J x 686 fT AfTAl 01 x 610 67 1000' op ripe x 6.90 - /1 •l low - \ { x 2 MH4 , x 715 I \ / 5 4 / / / ? ;_/' 17' 6 1 N / J N x 60 X. 676 14 Qa113 V Sloe t 01 x 000, x 7 10 x\745k X 7. x 7f•5\ X 705 Q #9)/ / /'.ij /' , /'B, 7' .y X J/ •73 //- _ 58'--' ..---- 11 _41 . . , ) -- 141 — 20'..-,, ou SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCA11ONS ARE APPROXIMATE E RIVERSIDE CO. MOM - M /NFMA71W SEE SHEET No. 8 Soi1s, inc. ORANGE CO. Go ...... n! SANDIEGOCO. ©2006 0 Day Consultants, Inc DImTr1UuATv M. . GEOTECHNICAL MAP EXP: 6/30/08 NO 60223 Plate 3 of 13 CIVIL r%A"r= (%4Ifl7 I C(AI 1"An, .LIJLdN.j11!V1L-11\fl. DESCRIP11ON: STANDARD /1—tO STREET CENTERLINE IffU LOCATOt aW1ERLIN( O Li CAM/NO REAL AT £V'NE(R T RA ThW 454#92 PERR.S 1800-1 RECORD FROM COUNTY 8EN0'I LEI!ZS (NO. COUNTY iVV CCW1RC( DATA) ELEVAIJOIt 68479 DAPJM. MW 6F 1929 CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEUS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH £4 ST VILLA GE UP 62-03 c.i: 02-16 APPROVED DAD A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE BY: CHKD ETY PROJECT NO. C. T 02-16 DRAWING NO. 433-6A WE MW REVISION DESCRIPTION QMR WE WE MW Of WM AMMAL IT I SEE SHEET No. 7 Ole ON 5k '74 al 41 __67 - - -- -- - -- I - 587 X - J-11 60 7771\ 3,9 x 606 . X 606 1/1/111/ _L/I '-' /\ /_ ./, ,/' ,.../ /. / .../• ,/ - 01 00 fit Amp, OOF 10, le oo- -.... '1 // •• 7_/ ./Y,. '10 00p 707 zoo p VDmffrAAIVV 00 40 DWA r X .11 rA ff~ZRA "o AfT 00 01 1-10 40, 0000e SI ww 000000, X, \\ ) / 7/ / A leor- / \ /Qal. . / xy / 00/ "00// T1 4T,1 / /x 54,9 / SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE E RIVERSIDE CO. GeoS9s1s . Inc. ORANGE CO. 4q ii1 SAN DIEGO CO. SCALE: 1 0 = 40' NO1ES 1. [J SEE $/EET 2 FtW (AIS11NC EASEMENT INrCec'MA haY. ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARK: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CL, B.B., M.P. SCMLE: i"40' DESCRFM S1'(ET CENTERLINE 0 PROJECT MGR.! K.H, JOB) NO.; 01-1014 LOCA11ON CENTERLINE 0r It WINO REAL CONSULT N T S . AT maim SSTAJVN454#92 2710 Loksr Avsnus Wist CMI Englsr nhq ENGINEER OF WORK: PER R.S 1800-1 Carlsbad. CaVornia 92010 P.ng RECORD FROU COUNTY BENCH LEfS (NO. CVNrY M. 760-931-7700 Survsylng DATE: CCW1RC4 DATA) fac 760-931-6660 KEITH W. HANSEN ROE: 60223 EIE,A1POtt 69479 DATUM. /MW Or 1929 GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 4 of 13 W.O. 5353 -A-SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD 8 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT L_.35 GRAD/NO PLANS FOR:. ROBERTSON RANCH EAST V/LLAE M.P. 02-03 . 0.1 02-16 APPROVED DAVID A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 crii ENGINEER DATE CHKD_____ PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. RVWD ry ____ C. T 02-16 43J-614 WTE NM. . REVISION DESCRIPTION WE HTV. WE 01M APPROVAL Ii Appmw /OE SS/ NO. 60223 i\ Ld EXP. 6/30/08 r ) *1 CgV%. or CM.-" t .k * Ak_*&W p....t RAM, Rwv EWRV_ A A i 6. rr 6. ywwww WW .-.---• -- .-. . ... . . — Xrs¼ 01146GRD 0114101AP 0114BSIR 9620au1t ge2o7uv; 0114M 0114tp-* 0114butl olllbglxt 0114AUAP 0II4FDIA 2109 1097 x 2041 X, Flog 42 .249 8f 82 88 MAP Y41046 Flag Flog 9 Flog Fo Wall 42 "T,---A R ART :jFla,~ V,• v . IMSSOV io'ac lot 0. - - — - -_ x'O .2 200 'r BAR 6' HIGH fiNCE POSRS GROUND x 1.994 DETAIL.• EN NOT Q NN TA L FENCE N \J spI N / ,r' 7 -- / / 1 // j p1kg /972 OT 10 \Wq z x 1718 / x /7 ) ) '2à>28 A C'\flE 'T x f9 ow AS 00r. ON 'N --1715 Shed 75 0 x 169.7 ------------------------------ 160 "ecks 82 _i65 9 '(xi63') NN. 0 151* - - — 140 150 A/ CD lor DVWR VTALffN —E DETAIL — 1 4 4.8 CKINO A. ov \\ -- 0011 RD 0-40 8 105, RAP POR.-MR. At v / ••• / / / I'... 10' 40' 20' 80' SCLE lm 40' g - -- --- --- - -- - --67.06 AG- NET -- _J -- ,' I - PPARRSOD-b ' p/Kg pq Shed C am out lee Of 40 SEE SHEET No. 10 SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE NOTES. 1. J StE S'IEET 2 FOR E*7517NC EA.2A/ENT INFORMA 11CM RIVERSIDE CO. (OJ11S, !iiic0 ORANGE CO. U. SANDIEGOCO ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc.tL'MCTi1,fAJTT. GEOTECHNICAL MAP NO 60223 Plate _5_of_13 OF CAOI A d%#% I I%AI1 n4In"7 I f'AI C 1"—Afl' J.iLi1'l i1IIV1t11iIV. D('SCRIPliON STANDARD U-tO STREET CEWTERLINE IfEZL MONUMENT LOCATION CV/1ERL/NE OF E CAM/NO REAL AT £7/C4W(ER'S .94 1104Y 454#92 PER R.S 1800-1 RECORD FROM COUNTY BLWQ'/ LE&fZ$ (NO. COUNTY I&V COMMDATA) ELEVATION 69479 DAR4k MW OF 1929 CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS 9 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST WLLAGE 4P. 02-OJ ci: 02-16 FE. APPROVED. DAVID A. HAtJSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 crrr ENGINEER DATE EXP. 6/30/08 DWN El': PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. C. T 02-16 4J3-6/1 REVISION DESCRIPTION —-- QM W.V • utaiM w &A.UM. A 010910aI fl flA7 .Uni,i "2ft*-. 0441k 0114W-F; 0114B 1X, 0114a I _ ___.. . ... .--.-. . ... .. ••7 • SEE SHEET No. 9 --,z — >n ea I I' .:.\ I.) '/'Ii// / / / /\//(g.i/\71 lop 41 00, T --8 101 29 Shed 14~3.8 7rl 4 KO : 10 lell yy. "0 / ,/ - -1O5J / \\ N ' —--lZ \\ I _--loo" Qt 0000p / / \oi IT .000000 S 40 x,2t/ i 1 1/1 7 / 7 / / / // /z:-/_ / \N \\ \\ ----'c/ \--m\ 2O ) 80* LOT \f27 ' 'I c NEr S K r 77 71 \ \ / 'N\ x \ / IN \N 102 Q) Ile 101 Qt!lcl :zo 0 00!, k 0000 IL -31. 011 so- o.* LZ 000 a IA 05 oo :~< 1290 N YcA,'/ /YY2 p/K r 1.79, AC. -40 Iso/ r 24-1 _j %to 0 --QaIA - NN OD 61 AI 1100 f 1000 i f Qt X111, SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE SEE SHEET No. 11 SHEETS qg4 9, RiVERSIDE CO. 10 1 G4IjJ1c. SAN DIEGO CO ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc BENCHMARK: ___ ___ ____________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ESSi DESIGNED BY: J.J. DATE: MAR. 2005 DPTON STANDARD /1-10 STREET CaViFRI/NE DRAWN BY:C.F.. B.B., M.P.S(CALE: 1 HEll MCWUMENT GEOTECHN ICAL MAP PROJECT MGR.! K.H. J(OB NO.!O1-1014 CAflQ CENTERLINE CE1 CAAI/NO R&4L NO. 60223 C 0 N S U L T N I S _________________________ ATENC'NEER'SSTA11ON454#92 ____ ____ ___________________________ ____ ____ ____ ____ __________________________ EXP. 6/30/08 2710 Laker Avenue West CM Enginsirkig ENGINEER OF WORK: PER AS 1800•1 sufte, 100 Planning Plate 6 of 13 Carls)ad, loop 7OD-931-7700 Suvy DATE: (No. COUNTY ER1 Fox: 760-931-4680 KEITH W. HANSEN RCE 60223 ELEVAlIQIt 68479 DATUM. NiW 1929 W.O. 5353-A-SC DATE 01/07 SCALE 1"=40' ,. .L.___4 IR.RlIV't Ig.4 ID ts.I* * 'MVTY SHEEIJCITy OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPAJTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST WLLI4GE APPROVED DAVID A. HAIJSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 criv ENGINEER DATE DWNBY: DRAWING NO. CHKD BY:____ PROJECT N O . 4J3-6A RVWD BY: REVISION DESCRIPTION mciiia ç WOMC mm APPRO#I. cnv wp. y•www I W WVV W -----I IIWI I I I — I Xrsfs O114BGl 0114BMP O1IWP 0114$ 01141w-V; oll4bgtxt O114AMAP SEE SHEET No. 10 Jr tTTT / t~a rV '1 / / // I 202A GROSS - 1-L 1' 1/ / / / x 57 Kir -- \\\\~3 -1,41 1' 00 PER 'W~w P. ANV 1 TT11 ~\nLFER PL-4 / / - Ri 80 ------ PX4 x jKtD ~rZTArL SWEET 4 A/ RAF O APR '- '2. 1( 1 I I - II I -1 , Qt. I 1 Sp[ r 'I sfir DEM 1077 12% R i', 4t "tPL?A \II \JV JO I\\ ox Z~ 101)2 I / \\ \ \\\\\ LL CF - - - -, C' - / ESAM )' Qt 7,w 41 MAR"I MAI 0 1 op Ts a /h7= 7183 SAMOFM PIPE ;;t _r\ ;IIi- I w/ \II KAfT '•O •-•-. .... . /:- /'f\/ \12.14 GROSS TP18 A. x 11A Ho 24" OW MW dW BMW RlfCR Qa!A B-74 0 Z T I - R3_---- - / // // // /1'90 C-72 0 \\ \ Moog 1) 10 601 400 17-75 Mil, 101 All \ -i'ADEfl7 Li 1 I \ \ \ - / 7 .ZTA/L S'1EEr41'.j / / pcc sOR & \ \ 2 x 650 PER MRSD moo — - - I6i\ / 1 ," / \/ (' / \ I '7/ x 50S C-IAZ - Md 2,vWkn, i. o' j( LJ_ / , : p -sOR \ Qa113 ( / / I BASIN / — x 100f4 TO AIL SbYZT 4 ow= SAND SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE SEE SHEET No. 12 2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARK: DESIGNED BY: J.j. DATE: MAR 2005 0 DRAWNCF BB M.P.E. PROJECT MGR. K.H. 4018 NO. 01-1014 2710 LckSr AVenUS Wi.t CM Engkiidnq ENGINEER OF WORK: SuitS 100 Plannng Carlsbad. CdWornla 92010 ProcessIng 760-931-7700 SurveyIng DATE: Fax: 760-931-8680 KEITH W. HANSEN RCE: 60223 DESCRIPI1ON: STANDARD M- 10 STREET CENTERLINE HfZL MCWUMENT LOCATIOt. CENTERLINE OF EL CAM/NO REAL AT ENa'NEER'S S?4 770W 45492 PER R.S 1800-1 REcORD FROU COUN1Y 8ENOV LflfiS (Na COUNTY ifRT CCWTRCt DATA) ELe1A7ION 68479 V=V NI'W 0f 1929 SHEEI CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRADING PLANS FOR; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MP. 02-OJ c.i: 02-16 APPROVED DAVID A. HAIJSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE OWN BY: CHKD BY BY; PROJECT NO. C. T. 0276 DRAWING NO. 4JJ-6A DATE 1411W. REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE P111W. __ f — £NGIIER or yuI L\.Iw.d\AutcCAD Fhs\5300\63 NcMuI (Rcbirtsom)\5353-A Plate 7.dwg Fib 02. 2007 305pm Xmft 01148G10, 0114OMAP 01140S1R a620au1t 0114M 01146WL 01147P-p; 011lbgbct 0114WP 962DAS1R SEE SHEET No. 11 _, \ - , _~ if 11 00 / \__\ . 7 # APRO)V,' "pruly ,- I x I I . ,( - nLRK Th\ ,_4 - 0-75 .. . . \ J-1, . ( . . , , Ii / / / j . /\\ / I" 65 .,o uso cf \ 0 -1, Z OT 1 \ \ X\ 4. 9/ L OrI2 / if - ) ( \ 4.72 AC. GROSS I \ ' 12.17 gIGoss I \ / \ c . 3 13 AC NET k 4 1 ____ x iô' 6' 8 ' SO/iD \ / 922 .4(1 NET < 625 \. \ -•<ow S.8Dh.4(N . . I .---. e BIW .,.-..'.. ( I I I I -.• - - - . . ETAJL 1 4 ______ \ . •5.. c - -...--.- - I Q Zi N .-..-.-.- pROP0 A*1t11T" x 48.9 _• ...:.T.- :. : / "1 \ PtiBLI4,4L A' C 02-16 __ -- - I PER " __- ... - ..---- - - - - - - - x 455 x \ .9 .J_- - - - - - - - - - E-.-..... . - -.'-TT - -. .._- ...-. .. ---.. - ---- . -. .. ,._;;__ ;_.,.- s..- -- - ..___ - - - -- - - - -.... 2' .-_. - - - - -- - - __ . _--:Z - , All . - . - . -. zo.- ',. . - I - 04.5 J --- - - "~> - - - - - - - - - - r) P --;::- ,---- - 19 - -o - X* .8 - % I -' S IW I •I. S. ' ISIS I S I / cFS' SEE t1 t.! - . - . .-- . . -.-. - \i /iY I £ A \\ l °JT7t ' ,1v' '3 ZT I I ) \ x 845 / / pcW?11c 1 .. P/ 1=' - ,_- ' I A '' - -: - roA "-'7 0 Li -_ ---- - - - - , - \\ 1Ti5 : --;;-",--- / __1!11 __K ~~'_ -, 0 - x56 ---- _ -- - - - - -- 4 - -- - - _- - - - -- - ....çç _j6 i~.- - - -------- - .--- * -lot - -----, 51_.V - - .I .-- I. '. I __ _,1 I jo- - :__-:~~' a __ __--- '.. -l I ., ... --' __ _,I- .. ....." . Plo - 9~~__ ___ !!~ __ - - '-. .- 4- E51:l- :....•-.•- .. - ZO_ .- -- ./ 1l I - / -f -- - -- -T__ 1__ _--- -- --- -- --- ç , I I" \% c SN \.._.y,....) , _- -T....-• .--..-- ..-- ....•; ------ _:•.;;' .--..----- .\ N ••. \ \ RWA OZOOD Z ,' ,• / - --- 5-< - - ,---- - - - ___ - - - 0 -- - -\ \ . \ - j ' ('.F L%N0F? DilAJLS,) 4aIB / . I .. , __ ____ .1. . __ _~ - - - -.- _. , 1-1 \ \ ..~ ,-- -C. -) ---I ... 1!?111 x '7_ - - .___ \ .2 _____._,_--___ - __'.. -, - .**,% ,\,\ \ ) j \ . - ', \ )_ \ Nl~.c 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- . r - - \ N / I - I \ \11 _S-__ . s- - - - - - ' - -- - - - - - - - ___ - -- _.• ~ N11 I / - " ' / __ . . :::;;;;..--._-!!!l dow ~ ... '-,,, - \ Q \ I \ \ J\ *% - o,llllllllll" -, I ~_, - 4_. r - _~_=-_-_;;:-(_,_(--~:~~, - i - _-.1. - - w v-lllll!-- - __ _- 4111m sow 4iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, \-,." . 'N. . . ) \ / . ol /~,),/ LIQ I \ \ ", \ . ___.", - _ - 'r,7e~ - 'o_ woo, Z. "'i \ \ / // "_ . . --___:.r., ,-.------.-- - ___ - \1 \ , t - x . , \ \ !", / \ -ql 51 - 6Q- - - - - - \ \ I isiwc n OOD zwA / '4. I \\ 'N N #L \ '.dL, I - - a & )V.q 4 '. I U _vJ - \ \ '\ I . ,' "a.- 7 / S. / - ' ' 5 -" - 451 I PER Cl/IWO 511)01 .. 7/ 4*4 -, -. '_, I" 7__ I ' ' \ s '\ '' I ' / . Cr) ., i i 0 f TF MarND FOR DUM , I IV 11, . 1-1. V t0t )C,00512 1 #WW ;~~ -_;~~V__ jq /~/ - ---, , , -C:> , # p , / I x &9 . _:r, --,-, , _~ _-I- _ - . I / I 0 I% \ N 0 . / , \ i - '000 11 -,.:. , '. Q I . toll ( I . ,10,77~ . '1% \ - , / ?-v__// -17 ___ > llj ' , 11 ( __ 4F-,- -,/ / " I I 11 / *$ - . \ - - . I-. 4k I . - _:___- - I . .4 .1 .\ _4~ , 1. . , ,;~ - . ..g -__ ,o,,' .# \ VA - i . 7 __ ;,lll - : " .) 'r" / X r, z, ~ o, IF ,R - I I r * qj. . j . , . ~/,00 I K,.:.,j _-1 .. \ i . % ~:_ I . .\ . I , I I r)~ C, ., ,,,-,,,%.__ -, - - I _.. ---- Z , . ,~,.. . &9 io - ,`4 - 11 43 v'-- ll* 0" x 4.92. x 487 . , \" _ -, _j. -- I ( *+ = 01~ go ,~ ___ - I .;~ Z ~ z >r- ),>-~~ I " -_ - _-- 340- 1% / 4 ,0* \ -, ~_< vroo __ _ X'_ .. . "419 Qa1B __--x I r . ___ . __ ____ lq__ . I 1_~,, . .. \ \ I --.--- -.------ y, 11, , ** \,_ z/ \ - - - I x 4 s .. _ - -r-_- , I - - - 1-0~ -,, "", \ \ 1 \ \ - y - - - / - oo oo - -- , 0~ 1 WA ~~ -, -_,:~,--- . - - - - - - * - , , - . . "'~ \ \ i .. ~ I, / / -, ' / 1\ I ONED ," 11* . "V11_~ 'y -1. . I - ZOT J . 11 00 - .w ,/,75~~ / /0 lll, r, / /,.) " " . ( --- x Tj 4 ~ ~-:-...~, x 452 467 j To BE REMOfD 0,)6 I j - - -- - - 00l 0 - 'ES7ST A V To 71NQ-WffS TO - L N' - - f I I I \ L - - #50 - (StEW D TAIL / " Rp1O woo- p 100010 __ I 4'PRESQ?IQt3)---' I "q--- CII B - \-. : _, - Y_ / - .)~~ . x -' I :, ,- "- , : . . ___--1 -.1 _..),."-, ,_," ,.` / I I - .,~ X, -. x 0, %, , --y./ I" -X,/" -:P:? r - _~ I x I - 5:: - .0l V. . '~~ 6 Z __ = N8W;' )J// /1 1 00 ) , _ "' ___~L~- 171 - I .k,L,_llllllll. _.,l " . 1 4(8 -_ .... .1!7-1;,;.,0- ____",,: - I-- ,,-,\(,_,v' I . __ T (( MH - - - 6 __ -',! ,l . L ft I X 2 2 -, ;*~ / / I - - I % t,-.Lo' 50 .. .g_•_ / -', - I - ll - - ._ft.___ 21% 1 ..- N -- - - 7S1/NC - ~ '-- , 11 -___ , w--llllllllllll` 3 .. 00 ,~ RP PER S0R D-4 x J7y c % - I _:.z__tmzz:j____- 11, - - , 7Z'1;; ~. \ - --- x 501 - P -- - / 4. 11 .0000 I 0. 1HIC1< F7L1IRB.ANA'(T1=J//6 - ------- - Nl ---- - -, ' - -- - - 5 lllllll` T?'\c--' ..j- ) / - - Ac(-oATEs"mICx I r I _'•.___I I' ----- A& )'X499 -- . - !.. -I ---:.. x -j8f--- --:.:---.:- -.- -(.-------.--- -.... .. / t I - I - - - - - - - X 4 I I I I I x - - - - - - I I - 'x 49)' -_ - >--- J.>r - ~ , I .~~; .,' x47 'I' I H Iii I - iPC x497 - 1' 1' I I - - 1 _____i_____'___I/ - Ij 11 /: I - - -'p --f -v -- -- )I / I - _ - -I f__ -_--:--- - - I x I I i I - - - - - 481 -- - - - - - 'I r A~, x472 - x475 - - I (I I I \ - --- (. )F \\ - 1-1 - - - - - I I I I ç \ I I \ \ - _ \ SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCA11ONS ARE APPROXIMATE MOTE2 1. [] SEE SHEET 2 roc' £7S11NC EASEMENT INFORMA 11OIL Consultants,©2006 O'Day Inc. ___________________ - -. •/ ,< gn 1 /// - -4-", / / ,,, , ~,_P- , t~,_ x 51.4 1 \ , x 57 O\ - 1. / '\\ d . :---- -- 4.95/.' \ / \\ \ c\ \---••'\ 1.X s --- -\ \ ----_ \,-- \ \f \ 1 - - , I 1. - L . A . I ~ --- ?<11 1..7--- --------' \(i, "2 _-' '- - 1 --- - \ >'\ \\ \\ \\ SCALE: 1 = 40' BENCHMARK: 4 _ Z NO. 60223 Ig EXP. 6/30/08 J CIVIL )CRIPT)ON: STANDARD U-tO STREET CENTERLINE HfZL MCWUM(NT L.0CATIOft (EI1ERL/ilt Li CAM/NO REAL ATEN('N(ER'S$TA11ON 454#92 PER RS 1800-I EORD FROM COUNTY emov uzs (Na CVJNTY I'f7V CWR OA M) ELEVATlOIt 6847.9 DA 711M.- N 1929 0 . PROJECT MGR..- K.H. J(08 NO.,- 01-1014 , CONSULT N T S 2710 Lcksr AVnue W..t CM Englnserk'sg ENGINEER OF WORK: Sult 100 Planrng Carlsbad, CaiWornia 92010 Procwaing 760-931-7700 SurveyIng DATE: Fax: 760-931-5680 . KEITH W. HANSEN RCE 60223 SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD SHE 12 ENGINEERING tpmmir 35 ___ GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST WLLAGE AIR 02-03 C.1 02-16 _ ___ _____________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ APPROVED DAVID A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE _______ ______ PROJECT NO. C. T. 02-16 DRAWING NO. 4J3-6/1 REVISION DESCRIPTION DIG$W yIu lI ,. -'----- ri.tw'ut ii.4 DIM. R.I. fl "m MMIllon mi4euñ 0i14w-F; miibgtxl K2OAS1 O114AMAP OT14FEMA .10 \ \ y\ •- 0 - / / OBSCURE I I ' <'\ \ - •- - :- - -• - 0 _ / \\ \ \\ \ V I N, - --- .--. .: --•• / ' \ •. ,\ \ 0 \ \ \ --.---- I \ \ \ \ •\ \. \ \ \. \ \ .\'i - --- S.. \'./\ .\.\' ' I / / •/ ///I/J /1/ / ) // / // ///'/,,/ ,I/I / /1 ) S\ I /0 ,/ '//i' •' ':2 ',/ /1 0• / I' / / / / 1 / / \ I V '--7 \ \ x 181.0 —7 ; ------ ------->-j-WaI! —c - ..- \ I \ \ \ / - _00 ..0 _--..---.- ....... ... .. / •'i \: ..__._-.-- ,/7,V / SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 1 i J SCAI.E14O' I jJ28 0 SEE SHEET No 14 1 Ei ..2F MEET 2 FOR Ek1S11NC £4MENT INPORMA 170N ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARK: SHEET. 13 CITY OF CARLSBAD . ENGiNEERING op,jn SHEETS 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE MR 02-03 . . . . C'.T 02-16 APPROVED DAVID A. HAtJSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 Clii ENGINEER DATE DWN Y: BY: PROJECT NO. . C. 7 02-16 DRAWING NO. 433-6,4 I NM. CRIPTION 0 REVISION DES CHKD DTE WK — DIQUIER AMW& 07M II )RIPfl0N: STANDARD -) SYREET CP/ThVNE HElL MCWUMThT 0CA11ON CW1FRL/NE Y £7. CAM/NO REAL AT EVNEER STA 77tW 454+92 PER R.S 1800-1 FE0RD FROkt couNrr a1vcH LEWIS (Na COUNTY IEV CCWTRC+ DATA) ZfA1lON 68479 DA1TJM. NW) OF 1929 DESIGNED BY. J DXXE: CONSULT AOrNTS 2710 Laker Avenue Wt CM EngineerIng ENGINEER OF WORK: 0 * SuRe 100 PlannIng Carlsbad, Callfoni$u 02010 Pa'1g 760-9317700 Sway"DATE: . Fax: 760-931-8680 KEITH W. HANSEN RCE: 60223 rm..%Kvm%awt IA&i 1D, DIM. Oili rA& fa ow 67nm 0114D 011*-F; 01I4DG1XT 0114AMAP ______ ---- SEE SHEET No. /3 I I \let\ I I I / 1 / / I 1 / / / / Irl C' { N N \Lj K.... / / / 1 . 'I / / / .1-----• I ,// /,,' 7L.. / X/ )/' - / / ,J90 f// •// / I SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE V 100 1 10 40' 20' 80' SCALE: 1TM-40' SEE SHEET No. 15 2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. BENCHMARK: (ES ((:&W x )) or SCRlPflON: STAA'DARD 11-10 STREET CEN1E7'L/NE KL MCWUAIENT LO.1ION C(NTERL/NE CF a CAM/NO REAL ATEdVO/NEER'S STA 11011 454#92 RR RS' 1800-1 RECORD FROU COUNTY BENCH LEIfIS (NO. COUNTY IV CW1RCV DATA) ELEVATION: 6 47Y DA1YJM. MW OP 1.929 :::: F.. ., M.P. :ATE MAR. 2005 .0 PROJECT MGR. K. H. JOB NO.O1—lO14 CONSULT N T S 2710 Laker Avenue West CM Englnierinq ENGINEER OF WORK: S'At, 100 Planr*ig Carlsbad. CaVornia 92010 Proomk 760-431-7700 SurveyIng DATE: Fox: 760-431-5660 KEITH W. HANSEN RCE: 60223 SHEET J CITY OF CARLSBAD SHEETS 14 L ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 GRAD/NC PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST WLLAGE M.P. 02-03 C.T 02-16 APPROVED DAVID A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE : RVWD Y. EEKD PROJECT NO. C. T 02-16 DRAWING NO. 4J3-6,4 KITE KflM . DES(CRIPTION . VAlE HTIM. VAlE INflW. Y'REVISION ___ APPMAL I1 I WNUm fR Pith.. lbdm fá fl. MW &,i iiáóin47P--6f,* 0114AMAP,O1i*u M1 0M L SEE SHEET No. 14 1 lop MOD QPF 0-75 Bfi?VW Of ra LOT 10 .(4,Y4"4f r r z Je 1" 4e I / .~,5 ~, "I - % A&P ME DETAIL A 7E SrORY 100a -ZL (/ 7 - ,' I 6 K4TT / ii / I J C( / 7 ( \\ \ _______ i i '"SEFiPAnAr:%-29 20 çfl /,/ / 4 \ N \ \:i< \$jl sir xTAx SHEET 4 N1. 111 (i /'t / •. \ \ 2 \N" DL7A1LS AND I RAP POR D-40 6V1O'APRON ' CLASMO 2 Ley. \ PE1IIL 09 DJ %17 WAR m V ~ 7 N.L MESA Ni s a // ' / / / / / N /1 / 'UKE 78 / gi iF / / / 73 15 1 d 6ROS3 6 PF?,47ED N / /'/i/ 0)078 Q aIB / I ,) / / "• /PP // /1 / I // / //àAc/M d/'C, I A 75 ROW 41 IA+ TA x Qt. sp/Ka 107 -, / Z/////// / // // / ,1 N' ; nF F4 ME 471 7. yabvw, .4 PRIVAR'. ~,rl;w, vw / \\\\ HB- 5 - o<</ ./! 01.1 1 ,t/ INSE 12- Oil '//kj/1'// '1570V /'11iCFS i'09 I RIP RAP PER SDR.2? D 40 / / / / / / / S.. - P Z7 / / 1' " / ' - \ 41 T-06' MAM X J45 / 06# Il/I I ;cj " 446 440 Jjak Qa1B. juv MA IL X I ffMA ZONE 83 z L —2 j - -// / /à / / X oopPlh . Qt LEO FOR DTNL S // '2 / ///,/ // / / /7 - 7 , - / x 44 7 /' / / // / - - - ,// , U - m-w // / / / - ( //~j / T 0 INS rA L MW. 'N i // LOT 1 ot 14 40, \ x j o /)x 44J // / / / / '/ // x -- /' '( / - V - Qa1 A x / 111111r1 " (Shed / / // V -- -- ff/CHTJV AYD _' - x 5J0 - 0 40' 0 dow 20 80, ~SCALE. 40 Wd SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE i1 RIVERSIDE CO. SEE SHEET No. 16 - _____ ____ _____________________________ é~,',,$óU ORANGE CO. SANDIEGOCO. ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc.uTT\Tru1irAPTr. 11 S GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate llofl3 \OF :vIL / A I (%AItt7 I (AI .LJLi1N DESCRIPflOPt STANDARD U-tO S1REET CENTERLINE 14W UCWUMENT LOCA1JON CENTERLINE O Li CM/INC REAL ATENC/NEER'S STA11CW 454#92 PERR.S 18-1 RECORD FROM: CCVfNf BENCH !.EIfLS (NO. C(NJN1Y If CCW1RCL DATA) ELEVA1IOH 68479 DAflJM. NkVD 1929 jFsHEm m CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 35 CR40/NC PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE ALP. 02-03 C.T 02-16 4SSio APPROVED DAVID A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE DWN BY: PROJECT NO. DRAWING NO. mnv. (E INIL. : IT'II CHKD BY REVISION DESCRIPTION . yII JI RM BY; C. T 02-16 433-6A SEE SHEET No. 15 'C' Z M8 40 potc?'ir so 4 àASI!A •C ,n Lj i•j ci -- 4301- how ZONE - PER 1ANO S1IJDY - \'f (SIE LEGEND ra -TO' \DETA/LS) oILLW ' LINED D,10 -4 Sol _EE ---'' PR64°OSED flOcV P(Rc/lANG _i'• SR/DY gwrY TO BE (Sit Low Pt2? DETAILS) 1.9 LL yn / E)aff'gHm LEGEND p No J5 4 NSrN./ N SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ' 40' I- SCAIEt1 = 40' N00- 1.SHEET 2 FW EAIS17NC EASEMENT /NP6WMA17CW SEE SHEET NO 17 2. liE £4R7/l SWALE TO AC IYLLWA} FLOIftJNE TO BE FZU/ 1ff11/ AC YLL WAY ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc.D1T1rU1IrAD1 NO. 60223 CKLx JiLi1N .j111Y1kU1. DCRIPflON: STANOAR4#I-10 STh'EET CENTERLINE 1ffZL MC$MENT LOCATIOIt CV1ERLE OF a CAM/NO REAL AT £V67AW'$ STA )1011 4541-92 PER R.SV)O-1 RECORD FROlit CO?JN7Y1A/cJ1 LEfZ5 (Na COUNTY jf CCW1RCI 4 TA) EI.EVAIIO& 68479. OA11JA* N= X 1929 lo 0.p *00; L DESIGNED BY: J.d. wBY,cRF. . MR DA7rE: --MAR. 2005 LE.•1"o ______________ 1 _________ PROJECT CONSULT NTS 2710 Ldcsr Avenue Wnt CM Enajns.dng ENGINEER OF WORK: $dt. 100 PlannIng Carlsbad, Coilfornia 92010 Pruciesing 7C0-931 —7700 $urv.>lng DATE: Fax: 760-931-6680 KEITH W. HANSEN RCE 60223 I SHED CITY OF CARLSBAD SHIEETS 16 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT L 35 GRA z7/NO PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE M.P. 02-03 O.T 02-16 PROVED DAVID A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE DWN BY: CHKD BY. RM BY PROJECT NO. C. T 02-16 DRAWING NO. 4JJ6A WE MK DTt REVISION DESCRIPTION P11W. WE DMIM or wm y APpitmx - L\ilxnd\AutoCAD fl,s\53O0\53 McIlllki (Rcbirtscn)\8353-A Plot, 12.dwg Fib 02 2007 313pm Xri 01148GR0 0114eUAP 01146S1 i620aut1 91207mit1 011460 01114tp-t O114OUL 0ll4bgtxt 0II0MAP O620S1R 01I4FEMA 338 I - --: 0000, ,'\ •> - ' - / x 46.6 'I / x4 x465 xJZJ x374 x ( '36.6 -5' . 5_____ •5/ / / x O// \ \ \ N. x \ 77 \> 44.4 --\c / 'S. / •'S - \'--'-S 'S -s.. - / • \ "S /, --•-': " 'N xJ5O '_•5*_ —.--. 5.-S -s-'S---.---__. 45z. I / 5- -- I, \5 _Z -•. '- --(-.-, '-S.- -: 7 --.'-- T-'-•- 09 10, 40* SCALE: 1 40' A Id 77 . X 41 '----.. I 2' / Pipe y '---• :-:i1--' SEE PLATE 1 FOR LEGEND ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE -"p .' s•41" c71 RIVERSIDE Co G.$..!$. C, ORANGE Co. :P SAN DIEGO CO. GEOTECHNICAL MAP Plate 13 of 13_ W.O. 5353-A-SC f DATE 01107 SCALE 1"=40' NOTES. 1. (]SIT SHEET 2 FOR £%ISI1NC £4SEMENT /NFVRMA ThW ©2006 O'Day Consultants, Inc. NO 60223 EXP. 6/30/08 1 2710 Lokir kiento Wsst CM EngineerIng sufte 100 780-931-7701D sm"I" \\c1v L Fax: 760-931-580 SHEET .17 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGiNEERING DEPARTMENT ETS SHE 35 GRADING PLANS FOR: ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE M.P. 02-0J CJ 02-16 APPROVED DAVID A. HAUSER RCE 33081 EXPIRES 6-30-08 CITY ENGINEER DATE DWN BY: j PROJECT NO. C. T 02-16 DRAWING NO. 433-6/1 REVISION (DESCRIPTION pir pp ,, pp o.w or pj LJJ.Ji'l .j11iVLL11i DESCRIPTION: STANDARD M-10 STREET CENTERLINE NEll MONuMENT LOCATION: CN71'L/NE OF IZ CAM/NO REAL AT £/C'AR'S STA liON 454+92 PER RS 1800-1 RECORD FROM: COUNTY BENCH LEI'EZS (NO. COUNTY IfRT CCWTRC* DATA) ELEVATION: 69479 DAFFJAt NIG) OF 1929