The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 02-29; CASA LA COSTA; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS; 2010-06-23c'coi ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLSJEIONS, INC. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (0)AGS 16795 Von Karman, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 Telephone: (714)786-5661 Fax: (714)409-3287 NEW POINTE COMMUNITIES, INC. June 23, 2010 16880 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 230 P/W 1004-02 San Diego, CA 92127 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 Attention: Mr. Scot Sandstrom Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Design Recommendations for Proposed Condominium, Lot 11, Villas de La Costa, Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, presented herein are the results of Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.'s (AGS) geotechnical investigation and foundation design recommendations for the proposed multi- family residence at Lot 11 of the Villas de La Costa condominium complex, Carlsbad, California. The recommendations presented in the following report are based on our review of available geologic and geotechnical literature, a limited subsurface investigation performed by AGS, and associated laboratory testing. It is AGS's opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, the subject site is suitable for construction of the proposed multi-family residence, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design, planning and construction phases of site development. Included in this report are: 1) engineering characteristics of the onsite soils; 2) unsuitable soil removal recommendations; 3) grading recommendations; 4) foundation design recommendations; 5) flatwork recommendations; and 6) seismic design parameters for use in the structural design. Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical consulting services and professional opinions. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (619) 708-1649. Respectfully Submitted, I Advanced Geotechy4ãT A IAZd I PAUL J. DE RJSI, Vice President Ca o President CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-11 AL C7 D,6 1( ar No ° '\\\\ II 1 CERTIFIED I -ilJ E NGINEERING / GEOL9GIST OP cAL\ I ORANGE COUNTY INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO 1 (714)786-5661 S (619)708-1649 (619)850-3980 Inc. I I I (%rJ. ' < (8) Addre .• -, No. 23,14 rn Exp.6/30/1 June 23, 2010 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 GEO TECHNICAL IN yES TIGA HON AND FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM, LOT 11, VILLAS DE LA COSTA, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Is I June23,2010 Page 1 I P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES This study is aimed at providing geotechnical information as it relates to: 1) existing site soil conditions; 2) discussion of the geologic units onsite; 3) seismic hazard analysis; 4) engineering characteristics of the onsite soils; 5) excavation characteristics of earth materials; 6) seismic design parameters for use in the structural design of the proposed multi-family residence; and 7) foundation design parameters for the I proposed pier and grade beam foundation system. The scope of our study included the following tasks: I > Review of pertinent published and unpublished geologic and geotechnical literature, maps, and aerial photographs. I > Excavating, logging and sampling four (4) hollow-stem auger borings (Appendix A). >. Conduct laboratory testing including direct shear, plasticity index, and moisture/density of I samples of the onsite soils obtained during the subsurface investigation. > Conducting a geotechnical engineering and geologic hazard analysis of the site. I > Conducting a limited seismicity analysis. > Determine design parameters of onsite soils as a foundation medium including bearing and friction values for foundation soils. I > Determine the site-specific seismic design parameters for use in the structural design. > Preparation of a geotechnical foundation investigation report with exhibits summarizing our I findings. This report would be suitable for design, contractor bidding, and regulatory review. 2.0 GEOTECHNICAL STUDY LIMITATIONS I The conclusions and recommendations in this report are professional opinions based on the data developed during this investigation. I The materials immediately adjacent to or beneath those observed may have different characteristics than those observed. No representations are made as to the quality or extent of materials not observed. Any evaluation regarding the presence or absence of hazardous material is beyond the scope of this firm's I services. 3.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION I The subject site is located east of the intersection of Levante Street and Via Iris on Lot 11 within the existing Villas de La Costa condominium complex. The subject lot previously supported a temporary fire I station but is currently vacant. Overall site topography is predominantly flat to gently sloping with minor descending fill slopes up to three feet in height along the northeast and southeast property boundaries. The surrounding area was previously graded as part of the overall development of the Villas de La Costa condominium development by Trimark Homes in 2004. The subject lot was not graded during this I development. I ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I June 23,2010 Page P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed development at the site will consist of the construction of a two- story, three-unit, wood-framed, multi-family structure, and associated improvements. It is anticipated that the structure will be a post tensioned or mat slab supported by pier and grade beam foundation system. It is our understanding that grading at the site will be limited to minor cuts and fills on the order of one to three feet. Foundation plans were not available for our review at the time of this report. 5.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 5.1. Field Investigation Site geologic reconnaissance mapping, as well as the subsurface investigation, were performed on June 8, 2010. The subsurface work consisted of drilling, four (4) 8-inch diameter borings (B-i through B-4), using a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig (CME 75). The approximate. locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of borings are presented in Appendix A. 5.2. Laboratory Investigation As part of our investigation, relatively "undisturbed" ring and bulk samples were obtained from the borings at various depths, as well as at significant lithologic changes. The ring and bulk samples were transported to AGS's approved laboratory for testing. The test results are presented in Appendix C. 6.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 6.1. Geologic and Geomorphic Setting The subject site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges province occupies the southwestern portion of California and extends southward to the southern tip of Baja California. In general the province consists of young, steeply sloped, northwest trending mountain ranges underlain by metamorphosed Late Jurassic to Early Createceous-aged extrusive volcanic rock and Cretaceous-aged igneous plutonic rock of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. The westernmost portion of the province is predominantly underlain by younger marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges' dominant structural feature is northwest-southeast trending crustal blocks bounded by active faults of the San Andreas transform system. 6.2. Stratigraphy A brief description of the earth materials encountered on this site is presented in the following sections. More detailed description of these materials is provided in the boring logs included in Appendix A. Based on our site reconnaissance, subsurface excavations, and review of geologic maps, the site is underlain to the depths explored by Tertiary aged Santiago Formation which is locally overlain by two phases of artificial fill soils of variable thickness. ADVANCED GEOTECIINICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I June 23, 2010 1 P1W 1004-02 Page 3 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 I 6.2.1. Artificial Fill (Documented) Documented artificial fill soils were not encountered in our exploratory borings but were mapped I by PSE during the previous grading of the Villas de La Costa project. Due to the existing improvements on Lot 11 (the fire station) removals of the undocumented fills were not conducted on Lot 11. Along portions of the lot, removal and replacement with engineered fill was conducted I . as depicted on the attached Figure 2. In the proximity of Lot 11, the documented fill soils were of variable thickness, ranging from approximately 3.5 feet to in excess of 15.0 feet. As described in the referenced PSE reports the fill generally consisted of brown to reddish brown to gray, moist, I loose to medium dense, silty to clayey sand and firm, sandy clay. 6.2.2. Artificial Fill (Undocumented) I . Artificial fill soils were encountered in all four exploratory borings and observed to overlie the - Santiago Formation. The fill soils were of variable thickness, ranging from approximately 3.5 feet in boring B-4 to 15.0 feet in B-3. As encountered, the fill generally consisted of brown to reddish I brown to gray, slightly moist to moist, loose to medium dense, silty to clayey sand and firm, sandy clay. I 6.2.3. Santiago Formation The site is underlain to maximum depth explored by Santiago Formation. As encountered in our exploratory excavations, these materials can generally be described as green to gray green, I slightly moist to moist, stiff to hard, silty claystone. - . 6.3. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory excavations. No natural groundwater condition is known to exist at the site that would impact the proposed site development. However, I it should be noted that localized perched groundwater may develop at a later date, most likely at or near fill/bedrock contacts, due to fluctuations in precipitation, irrigation practices, or factors not evident at the time of our field explorations. I 6.4. Non-seismic Geologic Hazards I 6.4.1. Mass Wasting No evidence of mass wasting was observed onsite nor was any noted on the reviewed maps. I . 6.4.2. Flooding According to available FEMA maps, the site is not in' a FEMA identified flood hazard area. 1 6.4.3. Subsidence/Ground Fissuring Due to the presence of the well indurated underlying formational materials, the potential for subsidence and ground fissuring due to settlement is unlikely. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I June 23, 2010 Page 4 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 I 6.5. Seismic Hazards The site is located in the tectonically active Southern California area, and will therefore likely I experience shaking effects from earthquakes. The type and severity of seismic hazards affecting the site are to a large degree dependent upon the distance to the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the underlying soil characteristics. The seismic hazard may be primary, I such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The following is a site-specific discussion of ground motion parameters, earthquake- induced landslide hazards, settlement, and liquefaction. The purpose of this analysis is to identify I potential seismic hazards and propose mitigations, if necessary, to reduce the hazard to an acceptable level of risk. The following seismic hazards discussion is guided by the California Building Code (2007), CDMG (2008), and Martin and Lew (1998). 1 6.5.1. Surface Fault Rupture No known active faults have been mapped at or near the subject site. The nearest known active I surface fault is the Oceanside section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone which is approximately 7 miles west of the subject site. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is low to remote. This conclusion is based on literature review and I aerial photographic analysis. 6.5.2. Seismicity I As noted, the site is within the tectonically active southern California area, and is approximately 4 miles from an active fault, the Oceanside section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault I zone. The potential exists for strong ground motion that may affect future improvements. At this point in time, non-critical structures (commercial, residential, and industrial) are usually designed according to the California Building Code (2007) and that of the controlling local I agency. However, liquefaction/seismic slope stability analyses, critical structures, water tanks and unusual structural designs will likely require site specific ground motion input. I 6.5.3. Liquefaction Due to dense nature of the underlying bedrock and lack of a shallow groundwater table at the • I considered project site and the clayey nature of the fills, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction is negligible. I 6.5.4. Dynamic Settlement Dynamic settlement occurs in response to an earthquake event in loose sandy earth materials. This potential of dynamic settlement at the subject site is considered nil due to the presence of shallow bedrock and the absence of loose, sandy soils. 6.5.5. Seismically Induced Landsliding I Evidence of landsliding at the site was not observed during our field explorations nor was any geomorphic features indicative of landsliding noted during our review of aerial photos and published geologic maps. ADVANCED GEOTECIINICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I • I I I I June 23, 2010 Page 5 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING I Presented herein is a general discussion of the geotechnical properties of the various soil types and the analytic methods used in this report. 7.1. Material Properties 7.1.1. Excavation Characteristics I Based on our previous experience with similar projects near the subject site and the information gathered during our investigation for this report, it is our opinion that the artificial fill and I .fcirmational materials are readily excavatable with conventional grading equipment. Localized well cemented zones within the Santiago Formation, may be difficult to excavate. However, it is anticipated that the excavation of the proposed piers can be conducted utilizing conventional 1 - drilling methods. 7.1.2. Compressibility I .The near surface artificial fill soils are considered to be low to moderately compressible in their present condition. Compressibility of the Santiago Formation is not a geotechnical design concern I. for the proposed structure. 7.1.3. Collapse Potential/Hydro-Consolidation Given the relatively clayey nature of the artificial fill and the lack of topsoil or alluvium on top of I the dense formational materials, the potential for hydro-consolidation is remote at the subject site. 7.1.4. Expansion Potential I As part of AGS's services and our review of the PSE reports, the soil tested exhibited expansion indices ranging from 50 to 120 coresponding to expansipn potentials ranging from "moderate" to I "high". 7.1.5. Shear Strength Shear strength testing was conducted on the onsite soils. Based upon our recent testing and our previous experience in the general area with similar soils and bedrock the following are design shear strengths for compacted fill soils and the Santiago Formation. I TABLE 1 SHEAR STRENGTHS Material Cohesion I Friction Angle (psf) I (degrees) Compacted Fill I 175 I 22 Santiago Formation (Tsa) I 500 I 24 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I June 23, 2010 Page 6 1 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 1 7.1.6. Chemical/Resistivity Test Results Soluble sulfate and chloride, and resistivity testing was conducted by PSE on representative near- surface soil sample obtained from various lots onsite. The results of sulfate testing indicate that the soil exhibits "Moderate" to "High" sulfate concentrations when classified in accordance with ACT 318-05 Table 4.3.1 (per 2007 CBC). Preliminary resistivity and chloride testing indicates I that onsite soils are "severely" corrosive to metals. Consultation with a corrosion engineer is recommended. I 7.1.7. Pavement Support Characteristics It is anticipated that the onsite soils will have "poor" to "moderate" support characteristics. Depending upon the final distribution of site soils, pavement support characteristics could vary. I If structural pavements are to be constructed (concrete or asphaltic concrete), an "R"-value of 20 can be utilized for the preliminary design of pavements. Final design should be based upon representative sampling of the as-graded soils. 1 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Construction of the proposed multi-family residential structure and associated improvements is I considered feasible, from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The existing roadways I on the west, south and east sides of the proposed structure were constructed as part of the original mass grading of the site. During this grading, remedial grading was not conducted in the fire station. With this new phase of construction the removal of undocumented fill is impractical as parts of this fill are within I the right-of-way. Accordingly, it is proposed to support the structure on a pier foundations system bearing directly on the bedrock. As the structure will be supported by the pier foundation system minimal removal and recompaction of the undocumented fill soils are proposed on site. Presented below are specific issues I identified by this study as possibly affecting site development. Recommendations to mitigate these issues are presented in the text of this report. / 8.1. GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1.1. Unsuitable Soil Removals - Since the structure will be supported by a pier foundation system only the upper 18 inches of the onsite soils will require removal and recompaction. Where possible the removals should extend a lateral distance of at least 5 feet beyond the limits of settlement sensitive structures. The resulting removal bottoms should be observed by 'a representative of AGS to verify that adequate removal of unsuitable materials have been conducted prior to fill placement. In general, soils removed during remedial grading will be suitable for reuse in compacted fills, provided they are properly moisture conditioned and do not contain deleterious materials. Grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and engineering geologist or their authorized representative in accordance with the recommendations contained herein, the current grading ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I Ii I 1 June 23, 2010 Page 7 1 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-13-2 8.1.2. Earthwork Considerations 8.1.2.1. Compaction Standards I . Fill and processed natural ground shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, as determined by ASTM Test Method: D 1557. Compaction shall be achieved at or slightly above the optimum moisture content and as generally discussed in I the attached Earthwork Specifications (Appendix B). 8.1.2.2. Treatment of Removal Bottoms I At the completion of unsuitable soil removals, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of eight inches, moisture conditioned to above optimum conditions and I compacted in-place to the standards set forth in this report. 8.1.2:3. Fill Placement I Fill should be placed in thin -lifts (eight-inch bulk), moisture conditioned to or slightly above the optimum moisture content, uniformly mixed, and compacted by the use of both wheel rolling and kneading type (sheep's foot) compaction equipment until the I designed grades are achieved. 8.2. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS It is our understanding that the proposed foundation will consist of either a post-tensioned or I "Mat" slab supported by a pier foundation system founded in bedrock. Specific foundation design criteria are presented as follows: Mat Slab I Slab Allowable Bearing: 500 lbs./sq.ft. allowable bearing for the mat or post tensioned slab on prepared grade I Total Settlement: Total = 3/8 inch Differential: 3/8 inch in 20 feet I Sliding Coefficient: 0.25 Pier Foundations I Pier Design: Pier design values are presented for 18 and 24 inch diameter piers. Results of our analysis are presented on Tables C-i and C-2 in Appendix C and the Allowable Load vs. Depth are presented on Figures 3 and 4 on the following pages. These figures are for embedment into bedrock only. For analysis of the allowable bearing a I . ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I . June 23, 2010 Page 8 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 Factor of Safety FS=1.75 was utilized. Final determination of factor of safety for piles should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon code and the current standard of care. Minimum Pier Embedment: The piers should be embedded a minimum of six pile diameters into bedrock and no vertical load resistance will be provided in the portion of the piers situated in the undocumented fill. Group Efficiency: Provided that piers are placed no. closer than 3 pile diameters no group efficiency reduction will be required. The above values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic. Building Code and structural design considerations may govern. Depth and reinforcement requirements should be evaluated by the Structural Engineer. 8.2.1. Seismic Design Parameters The following seismic design parameters are presented to be code compliant to the California Building Code (2007). The subject lots have been identified to be site class "C" in accordance with CBC, 2007, Table 1613.5.3 (1). The lot is located at Latitude 33.0814' N and Longitude 117.2387' W. Utilizing this information, the computer program USGS Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters Version 5.0.7 and ASCE 7 criterion, the seismic design category for 0.20 seconds (S5) and 1.0 second (Si) period response accelerations can be determined (CBC, 2007 1613.5.5. 1) along with the design spectral response acceleration (CBC, 2007 1613.5.4). Seismic Design Criteria Mapped Spectral Acceleration (0.2 Sec Period), Ss 1.130g Mapped Spectral Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), S 0.424g Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient, F 1.376 NICE Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SMs 1.130g MCE Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SM1 0.584g Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SDs 0.754g Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SDI 0.389g I ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Li] I I I I 77 J I June 23, 2010 I P1W 1004-02 Page 9 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 8.2.2. Under Slab Prior to concrete placement the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content. A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below the slabs-on-grade in portions of the structure considered to be moisture sensitive. The retarder should be of suitable composition, thickness, strength and low permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. Historically, a 10-mil plastic membrane, such as Vis queen, placed between one to four inches of clean sand, has been used for this purpose. More recently Stego® Wrap or similar underlayments have been used to lower permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. The use of this system or other systems, materials or techniques can be considered, at the discretion of the designer, provided the systein reduces the vapor transmission rates to acceptable levels. - 8.2.3. Deepened Footings and Structural Setbacks It is generally recognized that improvements constructed in proximity to natural slopes or properly constructed, manufactured slopes can, over a period of time, be affected by natural processes including gravity forces, weathering of surficial soils and long-term (secondary) settlement. Most building codes, including the California Building Code (CBC), require that structures be set back or footings deepened, where subject to the influence of these natural processes. For the subject site, where foundations for residential structures are to exist in proximity to slopes, the footings should be embedded to satisfy the requirements presented in Figure 5. I I I I I I I FIGURE 5 FACE OF FOOTING TOP OF SLOPE FACE OF STRUCTURE H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40 FT. H MAX. TOE OF LOPE 1*2 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 15 FT. MAX. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I June 23, 2010 Page 10 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 8.2.4. Concrete Design Preliminary testing conducted previously by PSE indicates onsite soils exhibit a "Moderate" to "Severe" sulfate exposure when classified in accordance with ACT 318-05 Table 4.3.1 (per 2007 CBC). Accordingly, concrete used for the foundation construction should be designed to accommodate a "Severe" sulfate exposure. Typically, this will require a 4,500 psi concrete, utilizing a 0.45 maximum water-cement ratio (by weight) and a Type "V" Cement concrete. 8.2.5. Corrosion Resistivity testing was not performed on the onsite soils, however, based upon our past experience in the area the onsite soils are anticipated to be "moderately" to "severely" corrosive to buried metallic materials. Minimally, AGS recommends all buried metallic conduits in contact with native soils should be wrapped and/or coated to minimize the potential for corrosion. Consultation with an engineer specializing in corrosion to determine specifications for protection of buried metallic construction materials is recommended. 8.2.6. Retaining Walls The following earth pressures are recommended for the design of retaining walls onsite utilizing select granular backfill: Rankine Equivalent Fluid Level Backfill Coefficients Pressure (psfllin.ft.) Coefficient of Active Pressure: Ka = 0.31 38 Coefficient of Passive Pressure: K = 3.25 407 Coefficient of at Rest Pressure: I( = 0.47 59 Rankine Equivalent Fluid 2 : 1 Backfill Coefficients Pressure (psfllin.ft.) Coefficient of Active Pressure: Ka = 0.47 59 Coefficient of Passive Pressure: Descending K (-) = 1.23 154 Coefficient of At Rest Pressure: K = 0.72 90 The foundations for retaining walls of appurtenant structures which are structurally separated from the building structure may bear on properly compacted fill. A bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for design of retaining walls. Retaining wall footings should be designed to resist the lateral forces by passive soil resistance and/or base friction as recommended for foundation lateral resistance. As depicted on Figure 6, to relieve the potential for hydrostatic pressure wall backfill should consist of a free draining backfill (sand equivalent "SE" >20). and a heel drain should be constructed. The heel drain should be place at the heel of the wall and should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR35 or SCHD 40) surrounded by 4 cubic feet of crushed rock (3/4-inch) per lineal foot, wrapped in filter fabric (Miraflo 140N or equivalent). ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL. SOLUTIONS, INC. June 23, 2010 Page 11 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 Proper drainage devices should be installed along the top of the wall backfill, which should be properly sloped to prevent surface water ponding adjacent to the wall. In addition to the wall drainage system, for building perimeter walls extending below the finished grade, the wall should be waterproofed and/or damp-proofed to effectively seal the wall from moisture infiltration through the wall section to the interior wall face. 1. The wall should be backfilled with granular soils placed in loose lifts no greater than 8-inches thick, at or near optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Flooding or jetting of backfill materials generally do not result in the required degree and uniformity of compaction and, therefore, is not recommended. The soils engineer or his representative should observe the retaining wall footings, back drain installation and be present during placement of the wall backfill to confirm that the walls are properly backfilled and compacted; FIGURE 6 WATERPROOFING PROVIDE MEMBRANE DRAINAGE (OPTIONAL) SWALE :! 12m. it .: j BACKFILL H . .Et2o& It 4. : • DRAIN (1) NATIVE BAcKFILl EIc5O) 1:1 (H:V) OR FLATTER (1) DRAIN: 44NCH PERFORATEOAS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED EOUALENT SUBSTrnJrE PLACED PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUNDED BY A MINIMUM OF I CUBIC FEET OF 314 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE AND WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE I I: ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I June 23, 2010 Page 12 I P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 8.3. UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATION All utility trenches should be shored or laid back in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. Excavations in bedrock areas should be made in consideration of underlying geologic structure. AGS should be consulted on these issues during construction. 8.4. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL I Mainline and lateral utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Onsite soils will not be suitable for use I as bedding material but will be suitable for use in backfill, provided oversized materials are removed. No surcharge loads should be imposed above excavations. This includes spoil piles, lumber, concrete trucks or other construction materials and equipment. Drainage above I excavations should be directed away from the banks. Care should be taken to avoid saturation of the soils. Compaction should be accomplished by mechanical means. Jetting of native soils will'not be acceptable. I 8.5. EXTERIOR SLABS AND WALKWAYS 8.5.1. Subgrade Compaction I . The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D 1557. 8.5.2. Subgrade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to a minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture content a minimum of 48-hours prior to concrete placement. 8.5.3. Slab Thickness I Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four-inch minimum thickness. A thickened edge (scoop footing) is recommended for concrete flatwork approximately six inches I wide and extending six to eight inches below the slab. 8.5.4. Under Slab Treatment Consideration should be given to under laying concrete flatwork with approximately four inches of a non expansive soil (sand, aggregate base or crushed rock) to help minimize detrimental movement caused by the underlying expansive soils. I 8.5.5. Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximatelj eight to ten feet. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of the concrete. I ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I, I June 23, 2010 Page 13 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 I I I I I I 1 8.6. 8.5.6. Flatwork Reinforcement Consideration should be given to reinforcing any exterior flatwork with No. 6 by No. 6 Welded Wire Mesh. 8.5.7. Thickened Edge Consideration should be given to construct a thickened edge (scoop footing) at the perimeter of slabs and walkways adjacent to landscape areas to minimize moisture variation below these improvements. The thickened edge (scoop footing) should extend approximately eight inches below concrete slabs and should be a minimum of six inches wide. 8.5.8. Concrete Payers In lieu of concrete flat work segmental paving stones may be a suitable alternative given the expansive nature of the onsite soils and the ability to reset the payers should they undergo grade changes as a result of heaving of the underlying native soils. Presaturation and a non expansive soil underlayment as discussed previously is recommended for the construction of the payers. Consideration should be given to incorporating a layer of geotextile (similar to Mirafi 500X) between the non expansive soil and the leveling sand. PLAN REVIEW Once grading and foundation design plans become available, they should be reviewed by AGS to I verify that the design recommendations presented are consistent with the proposed construction. I 9.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE Maintenance of improvements is essential to the long-term' performance of structures and slopes. Although the design and construction during mass grading is planned to create slopes that are both I grossly and surficially stable, certain factors are beyond the control of the soil engineer and geologist. The homeowners must implement certain maintenance procedures. I The following recommendations should be implemented. 9.1. SLOPE PLANTING I Slope planting should consist of ground cover, shrubs and trees that possess deep, dense root structures and require a minimum of irrigation. The resident should be advised of their responsibility to maintain such planting. I 9.2. LOT DRAINAGE Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from structures and slopes and I toward approved disposal areas. Design fine-grade elevations should be maintained through the life of the structure or if design fine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water, away from structures and slopes. Residents I should be made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of all drainage terraces, down drains and other devices that have been installed to promote structure and slope i stability. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 1 I June 23, 2010 I P1W 1004-02 Page 14 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 I 9.3. SLOPE IRRIGATION The resident, homeowner and Homeowner Association should be advised of their responsibility to maintain irrigation systems. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be I adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap: Overwatering with consequent wasteful run-off and ground saturation should be avoided. If I automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use roust be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions. I 9.4. BURROWING ANIMALS Residents or homeowners should undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals. This should be an ongoing program in order to maintain slope stability. I 10.0 CLOSURE 10.1. Geotechnical Review I As is the case in any grading project, multiple working hypotheses are established utilizing the available data, and the most probable model is used for the analysis. Information collected during the grading and construction operations is intended to evaluate the hypotheses, and some of the I assumptions summarized herein may need to be changed as more information becomes available.. Some modification of the grading and construction recommendations may become necessary, should the conditions encountered in the field differ significantly than those hypothesized to exist. I AGS should review the pertinent plans and sections of the project specifications, to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained in this report. I If the project description or final design varies from that described in this report, AGS must be consulted regarding the applicability of, and the necessity for, any revisions to the recommendations presented herein. AGS accepts no liability for any use of its recommendations I if the project description or final design varies and AGS is not consulted regarding the changes. 10.2. Limitations I This report is based on the project as described and the information obtained from the excavations at the approximate locations indicated on the Figure 2. The findings are based on the results of the field, laboratory, and office investigations combined with an interpolation and extrapolation I of conditions between and beyond the excavation locations. The results reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. Services performed by AGS have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession I currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other representation, either expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended. I The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of field review will be provided by geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists who are familiar with the design and site geologic conditions. That field review shall be sufficient to ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I June 23, 2010 Page 15 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 confirm that geotechnical and geologic conditions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and corresponding recommendations presented in this report. AGS should be notified of any pertinent changes in the project plans or if subsurface conditions are found to vary from those described herein. Such changes or variations may require a re- evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report. - The data, opinions, and recommendations of this report are applicable to the specific design of this project as discussed in this report. They have no applicability to any other project or to any other location, and any and all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of AGS. AGS has no responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions or programs in connection with the construction, for the acts or omissions of the CONTRACTOR, or any other person performing any of the construction, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the construction in accordance with the final design drawings and specifications. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. T] - J N SITE LOCATION MAP PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM LOT 11, VILLAS DE LA COSTA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1: I SOURCE MAP-TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE A ENCINITAS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE, ( 2 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA' . N1 I : LEGEND: Afe Artificial Fill (Engineered) Afu Artificial Fill (Undocumented) Tsa Santiago Formation (bracketed where buried) Approximate Location of Boring B-4 / Approximate Location of Geologic Contact woo (?- Queried where uncertain) Geologic Cross-Section :\\\ Af \a N Approximate Scale 1" = 30' / FIGURE 2 Boring Location Plan AGS ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL. SOLUTIONS, INC Project: Report: Date: PM 1004-02 1004-02-B-1 June 23, 2010 - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P vs D Curve for 18- inch Diameter CIDH Pile - (minimum embedment 6 pile diameters) (U 60 0I 50 C.) 0 Co 40 ,3o Co 0 20 LL 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 ALLOWABLE LOAD (kips) PW 1004-02 June 23,2010 FIGURE - - -, - - - -S ---5----.- - - P vs D Curve for 24- inch Diameter CIDH Pile (minimum embedment 6 pile diameters) • 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 - 250.0 ALLOWABLE LOAD (kips) PW 1004-02 June 23, 2010 FIGURE 4 70 60 w 50 0 LU C 40 z I- z w 30 w w U- 020 x I- 0. Ui C 10 0 — — — - - —.— - - - - - - -- — — -..- A Qafe ---Qafu .---"-- Tsa Ii Tsa Tsa Approximate Scale 1" = 30' 13 _______ ------------ BI Existing Qafe ----------------------------------- Qafu Tsa ?-- NQafe Tsa PLATE I - GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS 11 1")AGS ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC Project: Report: Date: P1W 1004-02 1004-02-13-1 June 23, 2010 z 0 uJ -j lU 25 z H June23,2010 Page 16 1 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-13-2 I . . REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2002, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete I (ACI318M-02) and Commentary (A C1 318RM-02), ACI International, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I American Society for Testing and Materials (2008), Annual Book ofASTlvl Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock (I), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. California Code of Regulation, Title 24, 2007 California Building Code, 3 Volumes. I Kennedy, M.P.,Tan, S.S.,Bovard, K.R.,Alvarez, R.M.,Watson, M.J. and Gutierrez, C.I., 2007, U Geologic map of the Oceanside 30x60-minute quadrangle, California: California I Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale 1:100000. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan Review, Casa La Costa, Carlsbad, California, October 9, 2003. I Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Foundation Design Parameters, Building Pads 1 through 10, Villas de La Costa, Carlsbad, California, July 9, 2004. I Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Project Grading Report, Building Pads 1 through 10, Villas de La Costa, Carlsbad, California, July 19, 2004. P Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Compaction Tests for Underground Utility Trench Backfill, Street and Surface Improvements, Villas de La Costa, Project No. C. T. 02-29, Carlsbad, I California, October 4, 2004. I I Li H I I ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I 1 1 I I . I. I I. I . I. I. I I. 1 1' 1 1 I APPENDIX A BORING LOGS / \ ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL. SOLUTIONS, INC. BORING NUMBER B-I 16795 Von Karman #100 (0)AGS, Irvine, CA 92606 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: (714) 786-5661 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICALSOLU11ONS, INC. Fax: (714) 409-3287 CLIENT New Pointe Communities PROJECT NAMEVilla La Costa PROJECT NUMBER1004-02 PROJECT LOCATIONCarlsbad DATE STARTED-6/8110 COMPLETED 6/8/10 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 8 inch DRILLING CONTRACTOR Baia Exploration GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHODHollow Stem Auger -- AT TIME OF DRILLING LOGGED BYPJD CHECKED BYPJD -- AT END OF DRILLING NOTES AFTER DRILLING____________________________________ ATTERBERG i— W C)) W LIMITS I I I I 2 W > W I— ' -r- Z Z Q W , aO MATERIALDESCRIPTION Q O. > II 0 o z o w oz >- Oz o Q IIU)z w < - 00 o Ia. Iz A I Ia. LL SILTY to SANDY CLAY, yellow brown to pale olive grey, slightly moist, firm @ 2 ft. - green grey to olive grey, moist GB green, moist, stiff to very stiff, iron oxide H MC 7-17-21 (38) 102 123.2 © 10 ft. - green, slightly moist, very stiff to hard, iron oxide MC 15-30-38 (68) © 15 ft. - grey green, manganese oxide and iron oxide MC Total Depth 16.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. 16-26-421 (68) DS 1 104 23.8 I Li d BORING NUMBER B-2 16795 Von Kerman #100 PAGE 1 OF 1 'Telephone: Irvine, CA 92606 (0)AGS (714) 786-5661 ADVANCED GEOTICHNICAL SOUfflONS, INC. Fax: (714) 409-3287 CLIENT New Pointe Communities PROJECT NAMEVilla La Costa PROJECT NUMBER1004-02 PROJECT LOCATIONCarlsbad DATE STARTED-6/8/10 COMPLETED 6/8/10 GROUND'ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 8 inch DRILLING CONTRACTOR Baia Exploration GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHODHollow Stem Auger -- AT TIME OF DRILLING LOGGED BYPJD CHECKED BYPJD AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING____________________________________ ATTERBERG i— W 0 Cl) W_Li!!IS _W 2 W (W (I) W z - a.°- MATERIALDESCRIPTION o > O. O 0> w - ,- 0 z o w oz O:::J u)zw 0 < 0) - - 00 0 O (L U ARTIFICIAL FILL: (af) . SANDY CLAY, yellow brown to light red brown, dry to slightly moist, firm - @lft. - moist GB -- @5ft-CLAYEY SAND to SANDY CLAY, light red brown to ox 4-5-6 . orange brown, moist, firm/moderately dense MC (11) 98 14.9 10 MC 4-5-5 (10) _ 98 24.8 T -------- moist, - 15 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (Ts a) 10-2440 SILTY CLAYSTONE, green to grey green, moist, very iron oxide, manganese oxide stiff to hard, 4iI MC (64) DS 102 22.7 :1 WMIC 8-18-22 (40) Total Depth 21.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. I i i I I Pj I I i BORING NUMBER B-3 16795 Von Karman #100 PAGE 1 OF 1 Irvine CA 92606 (0)AGS Telephone: (714) 786-5661 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLIJflONS, INC. Fax: (714) 409-3287 CLIENT New Pointe Communities PROJECT NAMEVilla La Costa PROJECT NUMBER1004-02 PROJECT LOCATIONCarlsbad DATE STARTED-6/8/10 COMPLETED 6/8/10 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 8 inch DRILLING CONTRACTOR Bala Exploration GROUND WATER LEVELS: -- DRILLING METHOD. Hollow Stem Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING LOGGED BYPJD CHECKED BYPJD AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING____________________________________ ATTERBERG-- o UJ a- CO i.. - LIMITS Z LU IW MATERIAL DESCRIPTION >- cuJ F- U) LU - - z o LU Cl) LU - I- 00 of Mi 0 0 0 a- u ARTIFICIAL FILL: (at) - SANDY CLAY to CLAYEY SAND, yellow brown to orange brown, slightly moist, loose to moderately dense @ 2.5 ft. - SILTY to CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, pale yellow T: 7-9-13 7-9-13 brown, slightly moist, moderately dense MC (22) 5 ... '.1:.' ©5 ft. -CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, red brown to yellow brown, — 345 — — moist, moderately dense , SPT (9) 106 12.6 ---------------------------- - © 7.5 ft SILTY SAND, fine-grained,dark red brown, moist — 378 @ 8 ft. - SANDY CLAY, trace organics MC (15) 106 18.9 10 © 12.5 ft. - SILTY CLAY, brown to grey green, moist, firm to stiff, 3-6-8 trace round gravel MC (14) 15 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (Tsa) . 8-9-15 • SILTY CLAYSTONE, green to grey green, moist, very stiff, trace SPT (24) 94 23.5 iron oxide 20 © 20 ft. - green, hard, iron oxide 1 MC 107 20.7 59 22 37 Total Depth 21.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. . I i (0)AGS , 16795 Von Karmen #100 Irvine, CA 92606 BORING NUMBER B-4 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: (714)786-5'661 ADVANCED GEOTECHIC4L SOLUTIONS, INC. Fax: (714) 409-3287 CLIENT New Pointe Communities PROJECT NAMEVilla La Costa PROJECT NUMBER1004-02 PROJECT LOCATIONCarlsbad DATE STARTED -6/8/10 COMPLETED 6/8/10 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE 8 inch DRILLING CONTRACTOR Baia Exploration GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHODHollow Stem Auger -- AT TIME OF DRILLING LOGGED BYPJD CHECKED BYPJD AT END OF DRILLING -- NOTES AFTER DRILLING___________________________________ a. 0 o 0 S MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - .5 (I) cc o - 00 0 ATTERBERG-- LIMITS - - w Z LL - O 5 J - - - - • . ARTIFICIAL FILL: (af) CLAYEY SAND to SANDY slightly moist, loose to CLAY, yellow brown to orange moderately dense brown, - - -' fl MC 7-8-10 (18) 96 - 261 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (Ts a) SILTY CLAYSTONE, green, moist, stiff @ 7.5 ft. - trace gypsum crystals, iron oxide @10 ft. - green, slightly moist, very stiff td hard, manganese oxide, iron oxide . @ 15 ft. -iron oxide S , 10 .15 . • MC 720 DS 102 233' • . SPT 9-12-19 (31) . 20 !ISPT ___ 12-12-18 (30) • SPT 10-18-26 (44) Total Depth 21.5 feet. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings. [I I' APPENDIX B PIER ANALYSES / ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. swi m M111100 - - 104''m M. - - - - - - - - - - Table C-I Pile Capacity Calculation 18-Inch Diameter Date: 6/23/2010 P1W 1004-02 By: jac Location: Villas La Costa Type of Pile: CIDH Pile Diameter D (ft): 1.5 Effective Unit Weighty' (k/ft): 0.126 Friction Angle, degrees, 4): 24.0 (see below): 0.80 K (see below): 0.50 Cohesion c (ksf): 0.5 dhøinn Cnffir'ipnf k fl Allowable Tip Bearing (kips) 10 Depth to Bedrock (ft): 0.0 Factor of Safety: 1.75 Tip Resistance (kips): 10 dZ=lncrement of Pile Length (ft) Z=Depth to Center of Inc. of Pile Length (ft) Sheet: Qtip= *rA2*Qat F.S. Qs(f)= *D*dZ*y*Z*K*tan4)a F.S. Qs(c)= *D*dZ*Z*k*c - F.S. Depth (ft) (ft) As Perimeter Area (ft/ft) dZ Increment of Length (ft) AA Increment of Area fi...*D*dZ Z Effectiv Depth (ft) y' Effective Unit Weight k/ft3 4)a 4)a 13*4) tan4)a' K S Shaft Friction + Adhesion 5=7*Z*k*tan4) + k*c(k/ft2) AQ iQ=AAS F, Q QzQ Qs Safe Cap. Q9=QIF.S. QuIt Tip+Shaft (kips) 5 4.71 5 23.56 2.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 0.33 7.77 7.77 4.44 14.5 10 4.71 5 23.56 7.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 0.44 10.36 18.13 10.36 20.5 15 4.71 - 5 23.56 12.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 0.55 12.94 31.07 17.75 27.9 20 4.71 - 5 23.56 17.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 050 0.66 15.53 46.59 26.62 36.7 25 4.71 5 23.56 22.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 0.77 18.11 64.70 36.97 47.1 30 4.71 - 5 23.56 27.5 013 19.20 0.35 050 0.88 20.69 85.40 48.80 58.9 35 4.71 - 5 23.56 32.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 0.99 23.28 108.68 62.10 72.2 40 4.71 5 23.56 37.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 050 1.10 25.86 134.54 76.88 87.0 45 4.71 5 23.56 42.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 1.21 28.45 162.99 93.14 103.2 50 4.71 5 23.56 47.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 050 1.32 31.03 194.02 110.87 121.0 55 4.71 5 23.56 52.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 1.43 33.62 227.64 130.08 140.2 60 4.71 5 23.56 57.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 050 1.54 36.20 263.84 150.77 160.9 65 4.71 5 23.56 62.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 1.65 38.79 302.63 172.93 183.0 70 4.71 5 23.56 67.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 050 1.76 41.37 344.00 196.57 206.7 75 4.71 5 23.56 72.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 1.87 43.96 387.95 221.69 231.8 80 4.71 -5 23.56 77.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 . 1.98 46.54 434.49 248.28 258.4 85 4.71 5 23.56 82.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 2.08 49.12 483.62 276.35 286.5 90 4.71 5 23.56 87.5 0.13 19.20 0.35 0.50 2.19 51.71 535.32 305.90 316.0 3= 0.6 for Steel K= Condition of Sand 12' Pipe Timber (14" Bu#) Precast (12") Step-Taper H-Pile Cast-in-Place 0.75 for Driven Concrete Loose 4)=25 0.7 1.1 0.75 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 for Cast-in-Place Concrete Dense 4)=35 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.1 0.55 - IM 11110 ON Ml an - - - : - Table C-2 Pile Capacity Calculation 24-Inch Diameter Date: 6/23/2010 By: jac Location: Villas La Costa Type of Pile: CIDH Pile Diameter D (if): 2.0 Effective Unit Weighty' (k/ft): 0.126 Friction Angle, degrees, 4): 25.0 (see below): 0.80 K (see below): 0.50 Cohesion c (ksf): 0.5 Ar1heirsn ('rcffi,'ir,f k fl Allowable Tip Bearing (kips) 10 Depth to Bedrock (if): 0.0 Factor of Safety: 1.75 Tip Resistance (kips): 18 dZ=Increment of Pile Length (if) Z=Depth to Center of Inc. of Pile Length (if) PAN 1004-02 Sheet: Qtip= *rA2*Qat F.S. Qs(f)= *D*dZ*.*Z*K*tan4) F.S. Qs(c)= *D*dZ*Z*k*c F.S. Depth (if) (ft) As Perimeter Area (ft/if) dZ Increment of Length (if) AA Increment of Area .A=ic*D*dz Z Effectiv Depth (if) 7' Effective Unit Weight k/ft3 4)a' - 4)a134) tan4)a' S Shaft Friction + Adhesion S=7*Z*k*tan4) + k*c(k/ft2) Qfi*5 QEAQ Safe Cap. QQ/F.S. Quit Tip+Shaif (kips) 5 6.28 1 5 31.42 2.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1 0.33 10.44 10.44 5.97 23.9 10 6.28 5 3.42 7.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 0.45 14.04 24.48 13.99 31.9 15 6.28 5 31.42 12.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 0.56 17.64 42.13 24.07 42.0 20 6.28 5 31.42 17.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 050 0.68 21.25 63.37 36.21 54.2 25 6.28 5 31.42 22.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 0.79 24.85 88.22 50.41 68.4 30 6.28 5 31.42 27.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 0.91 28.45 116.67 66.67 84.6 35 6.28 5 31.42 32.5 0.13 .. 20.00 0.36 050 1.02 32.05 148.72 84.98 102.9 40 6.28 5 31.42 37.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.13 35.65 184.37 105.35 123.3 45 6.28 5 31.42 42.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.25 39.25 223.62 127.78 145.7 50 6.28 5 31.42 47.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.36 42.86 266.48 152.27 170.2 55 6.28 5 31.42 52.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 050 1.48 46.46 312.94 178.82 196.8 60 6.28 5 31.42 57.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.59 50.06 363.00 207.43 225.4 65 6.28 5 31.42 62.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.71 53.66 416.66 238.09 256.0 70 6.28 5 31.42 67.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.82 57.26 473.92 270.81 288.8 75 6.28 5 31.42 72.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 1.94 60.86 534.78 305.59 323.5 80 6.28 5 31.42 77.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 2.05 64.47 599.25 342.43 360.4 85 6.28 5 31.42 82.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 2.17 68.07 667.32 381.32 399.3 90 6.28 5 31.42 87.5 0.13 20.00 0.36 0.50 2.28 71.67 738.99 422.28 440.2 3= 0.6 for Steel K= Condition of Sand 12" Pipe Timber (14' Bu#) Precast (12") Step-Taper H-Pile Cast-in-Placel 0.75 for Driven Concrete Loose 4)25 0.7 1.1 0.75 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 for Cast-in-Place Concrete Dense 435 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.2 1.1 0.55 APPENDIX C LABORATORY DATA ADVANCED GEOTECIINICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. ML AW • Vertical 'V Natural Moisture and Density I (Ring Samples) I Date: June 18,2010. Job No: 148980.00 Client: ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS I Address: 25220 Hancock Avenue #420 Murrieta CA 92562 * Report No: 1497 ENGINEER: Carlos E..Acero, Civil Engineer Pjoject: 'P/W 1004-02 - Villas La Costa NPC - Date Sampled: 6110/10 ( Lab Number 6763 6764 6765 6766 6767 6769 Sample Identification B-1@6ft B-1@16ft. B-2@6ft B-2@11ft .B-2@15ft 13-3@4ft Moisture Content, % 23.2 23.8 19.9 21.8 22.7 .12.6 Dry Density, pcf 101.7 1 104.3 1 976 98.4 1 102.3 106.4 Lab Number 6770 6771 6773 6774 6775 1 _________ _____ _____ Sampleldentification B-3@8ft B-3@14ft B-3@20ft B4@4 ft B-4@6ft. Moisture Content, % 189 23.5 20.7 26.1. , 23.3 Dry Density; pcf i058 94.2 106.5 .96.1 102.2 .Rview4 By: . Carlo E. Acero, RCE I Testing Engineers -Vertical V, Inc. 7895' Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA 92111 Main: 858 715 5800 Fax: 858 715 5810 S www.verticai-v.com DIRECT SHEAR TEST OF SOIL . CONSOLIDATED DRAINED CONDITIONS (ASTM 03080) 'ROJECT & SAMPLE DATA Project No. 14880.00 - Lab No. 6764 Client: Advanced Geotechnical. Solutions .lnc Project Name: Villas La Costa INPC Location: B-i @ I6FT Boring No: B-I - Depth: 1 6F soil Descript'n: Olive green Silt Type of Test: l Undisturbed E Remolded to, . moisture rEsT DATA: FILE NAME: II Normal Vertical Load, ksf'i 12 4 Initial Data I Wt. Of Ring & Soil (wet), g. 197.74 196.31 197.16 Wt. of Ring, g. 41.43 43.4 43.11 Wt. of Soil (wet), g. 156.31 152.97 154.05 Ring Diameter, In. 2.42 2.44 2.425 Original Moisture, % 22.1 23.2 22.6 Post Test Data I Gross Wet Wt.,g. 204.93 202.68 201.1 Gross Dry Wt., g. 169.46 167.51 168:76 Net Wet Wt., g. 163.5 159.34 157.99 Net Dry Wt., g. 128.031 124.17 125.65 Ring Height, in. 1 1 1 Volume, cf 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 Density, pcf 106.1 101.2 103.7 Moisture Content, % 27.7 28.3F 25.7 Reviewed By: , Carlo E. Ace , RCE Run .A I B C Slope: L_-_P.q381 Phi angle (deg): 19 Cohesion (PSF):1I5 Normal 10001 2000 40001 Shear 622 1059 U-561 Direct Shear. 1800 1600 1400 :_ 120O -1000 co 800 - • I- 600 . U) 400 ,I 200 0 - 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 y =.0.3381x + 323.5 . Effective Normal Stress, (psf) I Vertical Vertical v, Inc Project PM 1004-02 Villas La '. Testing Engineers Direct Shear, Test Results I p. 858.71.5 5800 1. 858 715 5810 Date. 6/18/10 Figure: 1498 - Title: 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Drwn: Contract: San Diego CA92l11 waran 148980.00 2500 I 2000 ICL 1500 U I0 U) 1000 I U) 500 1. .0 .5 1'' • I . DIRECT SHEAR TEST OF SOIL - CONSOLIDATED DRAINED CONDI I (ASTM PROJECT& SAMPLE DATA I Project No. 148980.00 003 Lab No. 6767 Client: Advanced Geotechnical Solutions.lnc Project Name: Villas La Costa /NPC - - I Location: B-2 © 15ft Boring No:, B-2 Depth: 15ft Olive green fine grained silt I Type of Test: W Undisturbed E Remolded to - lEST DATA: FILE NAME: i .5 moisture . 11 1 Normal Vertical Load, ksf 1 2 4 Initial Data I Wt. of Ring & Soil (wet), g. 194.2 198.38 201.31 Wt. of Ring, g. 41.68 41-,83 45.67 Wt. of Soil (wet), g. 152.52 156.55 155.64 Ring Diameter, in. 2.4062 2.4062 2.4021 Original Moisture, % 22.7 24.1 24.6 Post Test Data I ________ Gross Wet Wt., g. 203.4 204.6 206 Gross DryWt., g. 165.95 168 170.6 Net Wet Wt., g. 161.72 162.77 160.33 Net Dry Wt., g. 124.27 126.17 124.93 Ring Height, in. 1 1 1 Volume, cf 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 Density, pcf 104.2 105.8 105.1 Moisture Content, % 30.1 29.0 28.3 Reviewed By: Carl E. A kero, RCE Run A B C __J Slope :0.447 Phi angle (deg): ______ 24 .Cohesion (PSF):1 152 Normal 10001 2000 4000 Shear 581 1065 1923 Direct Shear I - 0 .500 1000 1500 2000 2500. 3000 Effective. Norma I Stress, (ps y=0.4447x.+152 - 3500 4000; 4500- . ( -- I Vertical V . I Date Testing Engineers Vertical V, mc,. 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego CA92lll p. 858 715 5800 f..858 7155810 Title.. 'DIrect Shear Test Results. Project. Villas La. CôstaINPC S Drwn: .' waran Contract:: 148980.00 6/17/10 Figure: 1499 Reviewed By: Carlos E. Acero, RCE DIRECT SHEAR TEST OF SOIL - CONSOLIDATED DRAINED CONDITIC (ASTM D3080) PROJECT & SAMPLE DATA Project No. 148980.00 Lab No. 6775 Client: Advanced Geotechnical Solutlons.lnc Project Name: Villas La Costa /NPC Location: b-.4 @ 6ft. Boring No: B-4 - Depth: 6ft Olive green fine grained silt Type of Test: l Undisturbed r Remolded to TEST DATA: FILE NAME: moisture Normal Vertical Load, ksf 1 2 4 Initial Data Wt. of Ring & Soil (wet), g. 195.39 19624 197.8 Wt. of Ring, g. 45.49 44;77 4367 Wt. Of Soil (wet), g. 149.9 151.47 154.13 Ring Diameter, in. 2.443 2.441 2.42 Original Moisture, % 23.5 234 23.4 Post Test Data I Gross Wet Wt., g. 201.55 _202.68 204 Gross Dry Wt., g. .166:91 167.53 . .168.6 Net Wet Wt., g. 156.061 157.91 160.33 Net Dry Wt., g. 121.42 122.76 124.93 Ring Height, in. I ... 1 1 Volume, cf 0.0027 0.0.027 0.0027 Density, pcf 98.7 100.0 103.5 Moisture Content, % 28.5 28.61 28.3 Run A I B C I . Slope: t_'_R._3454 Phi angle (deg): . 19 CohesiOn (PSF):1 248 Normal 10001 2000 4000 Shear 6221 896 1644 Direct Shear 1800. 1600 1400 . 1200 1000 800 CD 600 400 200 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 >3000 3500 4000 4500 -1 y = 0.3454x + 248 Effective Normal Stress, (psf) Title: Testing Engineers Direct Shear Test Results Vertical V Inc. Project: .., Villas La Costa/NPC 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Drwn: Contract: San Diego CA 92111 waran 148980.00 0. 858 715 5800 f. 858 715 5810 Date: 6/16/10 Figure: 1502 11L, AW Vertical 'V ' - DATE JOB1 NO.: RESULTS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D4318) June 18, 2010 Perm it 148980.00 003 Plan File #: N/A N/A CLIENT NAME Advanced Geotechnical Sample Type: Silt Solutions ADDRESS: 25220 Hancock Avenue #420 Murrieta, CA 92562 Date of'Te.sting 6/18/10 Report No.: 1503 ENGINEER: Carlos E. Acero, CIVIL ENGINEER PROJECT: PM 1004-02 - Villas Là Costa NPC SAMPLED BY: Client DATE RECEIVED: 6/10/10 RESULTS: Sample ID Lab Number Liquid Limit (LL) Plastic Limit (PL) Plasticity Index (P1) 9-3 © 20ft 6772 59 22 37 The sample was tested to determine the Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity. Index in general. accordance with the procedure outlined i ASTM Dr43.18. Reviewed By: Carlos E. Acero, RCE ( I Testing Engineers -Vertical V,. Inc. Main 858 715 5800 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Fax: 858 715 5810 San Diego, CA 92111 www.vertical-v.corn I I.. I I I . I I I I . I, I I I I . I. I' I . I . APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS AND GRADING GUIDELINES 11 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I May 24,2010 Page D-1 I P1W 1002-02 Report No. 1002-02-B-3 GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS I I. General I General procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading are presented herein. The earthwork I and grading recommendations provided in the geotechnical report are considered part of these specifications, and where the general specifications provided herein conflict with those provided in the geotechnical report, the recommendations in the geotechnical report shall govern. Recommendations I provided herein and in the geotechnical report may need to be modified depending on the conditions encountered during grading. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications, applicable building codes, and local governing agency requirements. Where these requirements conflict, the stricter requirements shall govern. 1-1 I C. It is the contractor's responsibility to read and understand the guidelines presented herein and in the geotechnical report as well as the project plans and specifications. Information presented in the geotechnical report is subject to verification during grading. The information presented on the exploration I logs depicts conditions at the particular time of excavation and at the location of the excavation. Subsurface conditions present at other locations may differ, and the passage of time may result in I different subsurface conditions being encountered at the locations of the exploratory excavations. The contractor shall perform an independent investigation and evaluate the nature of the surface and subsurface conditions to be encouItered and the procedures and equipment to be used in performing his i work. I D. The contractor shall have the responsibility to provide adequate equipment and procedures to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable requirements. When the quality of work is less than that required, the Geotechnical Consultant may reject the work and may recommend that the operations be suspended until the conditions are corrected. I E. Prior to the start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant should be employed to observe grading procedures and provide testing of the fills for conformance with the project specifications, approved grading plan, and guidelines presented herein. All remedial removals, clean-outs, removal I bottoms, keyways, and subdrain installations should be observed and documented by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to apprise the Geotechnical Consultant of their schedules and notify the Geotechnical Consultant when those areas are ready for observation. I I ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I H May 24, 2010 Page D-2 I P1W 1002-02 Report No. 1002-02-B-3 F. The contractor is responsible for providing a safe environment for the Geotechnical Consultant to I observe grading and conduct tests. I II. Site Preparation A. Clearing and Grubbing: Excessive vegetation and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently I removed as required by the Geotechnical Consultant, and such materials shall be properly disposed of offsite in a method acceptable to the owner and governing agencies. Where applicable, the contractor may obtain permission from the Geotechnical Consultant, owner, and governing agencies to dispose of vegetation and other deleterious materials in designated areas onsite. I B. Unsuitable Soils Removals Earth materials that are deemed unsuitable for the support of fill shall be removed as necessary to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, other utilities, or other structures located within the limits of grading shall be removed and/or I abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the governing agency and to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant. Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill: After removals are completed, the exposed surfaces shall be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uniform I moisture content that is at or near optimum moisture content. The scarified materials shall then be compacted to the project requirements and tested as specified. I E. All areas receiving fill shall' be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of fill. A licensed surveyor shall provide survey control for determining elevations of processed areas and keyways. III. Placement of Fill A. Suitability of fill materials: Any materials, derived onsite or imported, may be utilized as fill provided that the materials have been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Such materials I shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious materials, and be of a gradation, expansion potential, and/or strength that is acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill materials shall be tested in I ADVANCED GEOTECIINICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I May 24, 2010 S Page D-3 1 P1W 1002-02 Report No. 1002-02-B-3 a laboratory approved by the Geotechnical Consultant, and import materials shall be tested and approved I prior to being imported. B: Generally, different fill materials shall be thoroughly mixed to provide a relatively uniform blend of materials and prevent abrupt changes in material type. Fill materials derived from benching should be dispersed throughout the fill area instead of placing the materials within only an equipment-width from the cut/fill contact. Oversize Materials: Rocks greater than 8 inches in largest dimension shall be disposed of offsite or be placed in accordance with the recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant in the areas that are designated as suitable for oversize rock placement. Rocks that are smaller than 8 inches in largest dimension may be utilized in the fill provided that they are not nested and are their quantity and distribution are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. The fill materials shall be placed in thin, horizontal layers such that, when compacted, shall not exceed I 6 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed to obtain near uniform moisture content and uniform blend of materials. Moisture Content: Fill materials shall be placed at or above the optimum moisture content or as recommended by the geotechnical report. Where the moisture content of the engineered fill is less than recommended, water shall be added, and the fill materials shall be blended so that uniform moisture content is achieved: If the moisture content is above the limits specified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the fill materials shall be aerated by discing, blading, or other methods until the moisture content is acceptable. I F. Each layer of fill shall be compacted to the project standards in accordance to the project specifications and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the fill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90, percent -of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method: D1557-09. I G. Benching: Where, placing fill on a slope exceeding a ratio of 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be keyed or benched. The keyways and benches shall extend through all unsuitable materials into suitable materials such as firm materials or sound bedrock or as recommended by the Geotechnical I Consultant. The minimum keyway width shall be 15 feet and extend into suitable materials, or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The minimum keyway width for fill over cut slopes isaio 15 feet, or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the minimum width of the keyway shall be equal to 1/2 the height of the fill slope. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I May 24, 2010 I P1W 1002-02 Page D-4 Report No. 100202-B-3 H. Slope Face: The specified minimum relative compaction shall be maintained out to the finish face of fill and stabilization fill slopes. Generally, this may be achieved by overbuilding the slope and cutting . back to the compacted core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. Alternately, this may be achieved by backrolling the slope face with suitable equipment or other methods that produce the designated result.. Loose soil should not be allowed to build up on the slope face. If present, loose soils shall be trimmed to expose the compacted slope face. I . I. Slope Ratio: Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant and governing agencies, permanent fill slopes shall be designed and constructed no steeper than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). J. Natural Ground and Cut Areas: Design grades that are in natural ground or in cuts should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant to determine whether scarification and processing of the ground and/or overexcavation is needed. I K. Fill materials shall not be placed, spread, or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When grading is interrupted by rain, filing operations shall not resume until the Geotechnical Consultant approves the moisture and density of the previously placed compacted fill. I , I IV. Cut Slopes . I A. The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect all cut slopes, including fill over cut slopes, and shall be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If adverse or potetitially adverse conditions are encountered during grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall investigate, evaluate, and make recommendations to mitigate the adverse conditions. Unless otherwise stated in the geotechnical report, cut slopes shall not be excavated higher or steeper I than the requirements of the local governing agencies. Short-term stability of the cut slopes and other excavations is the contractor's responsibility. S I H. V. Drainage I I' ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I May 24, 2010 1 P7W 1002-02 Page D-5 Report No. 1002-02-B-3 Backdrains and Subdrains: Backdrains and subdrains shall be provided in fill as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall be constructed in accordance with the governing agency and/or recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. The location of subdrains, especially outlets, shall be surveyed and recorded by the Civil Engineer. Top-of-slope Drainage: Positive drainage shall be established away from the top of slope. Site drainage shall not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the governing agency requirements and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Non-erodible interceptor swales shall be placed at the top of cut slopes that face the same direction as the prevailing drainage.. Erosion Control A. All finish cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion and/or planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or landscape architect's recommendations. Such measures to protect the slope face shall be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. I B. During construction, the contractor shall maintain proper drainage and prevent the ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent the erosion of graded areas until permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. Trench Excavation and Backfill I A. Safety: The contractor shall follow all OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. Knowing and following these requirements is the contractor's responsibility. All trench excavations or open cuts in excess of 5 feet in depth shall be shored or laid back. Trench excavations and open cuts exposing adverse I geologic conditions may require further evaluation by the Geotechnical Consultant. If a contractor fails to provide safe access for compaction testing, backfill not tested due to safety concerns may be subject to i removal. I. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL. SOLUTIONS, INC. I I May 24, 2010 —Page D-6 1 P1W 1002-02 Report No. 1002-02-B-3 B. Bedding: Bedding materials shall be non-expansive and have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30. I Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the bedding materials can be densified by jetting. I C. Backfill: Jetting of backfill materials is generally not acceptable. Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the bedding materials can be densified by jetting provided the backfill materials are granular, free-draining and have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30. I VIII. Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading Compaction Testing: Fill shall be tested by the Geotechnical Consultant for evaluation of general compliance with the recommended compaction and moisture conditions. The tests shall be taken in the I compacted soils beneath the surface if the surficial materials are disturbed. The contractor shall assist the Geotechnical Consultant by excavating suitable test pits for testing of compacted fill. Where tests indicate that the density of a layer of fill is less than required, or the moisture content not within specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the contractor of the unsatisfactory I conditions of the fill. The portions of the fill that are are not within specifications shall be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed until the last lift of fill is tested and found to meet the project specifications and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. I C. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as adverse weather, excessive rock or deleterious materials being placed in the fill, insufficient equipment, excessive rate of fill placement, results in a quality of work that is unacceptable, the consultant shall notify the contractor, I and the contractor shall rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. Frequency of Compaction Testing: The location and frequency of tests shall be at the Geotechnical Consultant's discretion. Generally, compaction tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding two feet in fill height and 1,000 cubic yards of fill materials placed. Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of the compaction test locations. The contractor shall coordinate with the surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established s6 that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations. Alternately, the test locations can be surveyed and the results provided to the Geotechnical Consultant. - I ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I May 24, 2010 Page D-7 P1W 1002-02 Report No. 1002-02-B-3 Areas of fill that have not been observed or tested by the Geotechnical Consultant may have to be removed and recompacted at the contractor's expense. The depth and extent of removals will be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant. Observation and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be conducted during grading in order for the Geotechnical Consultant to state that, in his opinion, grading has been completed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report and project specifications. Reporting of Test Results: After completion of grading operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall submit reports documenting their observations during construction and test results. These reports may be subject to review by the local governing agencies. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. - PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE '7 / -/ / REMOVED UNSUITABLE ENGINEERELFILL BEARING MATERIAL - 1 - - - - - - J. REQUIRED BENCHING SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL - PLACE SUBDRAIN AT LOWEST SUBDRAIN OPTION 1 OR 2 GRADE WITHIN CANYON REMOVAL (SEE DETAIL 2) CANYON SUBDRAIN PROFILE DIRECT SOLID OUTLET PIPE TO APPROVED DRAINAGE AREA PER PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER CONSTRUCT DRAIN OUTLET A MINIMUM 1-FOOT ABOVE GRADE CUTOFF WALL CONSISTING OF GROUT, CONCRETE, BENTONITE OR APPROVED MATERIAL AS DETERMINED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT • 2O FOOT MINIMUM 5FT. I 'MIN.' I I SOLID PIPE PERFORATED PIPE 2ft 3ft Qt 1 f NOTE: LOCATION OF CANYON SUBDRAINS AND OUTLETS' SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED BY PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER CUTOFF WALL OUTLETS MUST BE KEPT UNOBSTRUCTED ATIALL TIMES. DIMENSIONS CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMINUS VER1.O NTS (0)AGS CANYON SUBDRAN DETAIL 1 ADVANCED GEOIECHNICAI SOLUflONS, INC. 12-INCH MINIMUM ABOVE PIPE 1 •APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL \Q7 MATERIAL 12-INCH MINIMUM ABOVE PIPE APPROVED :. APPROVED FILTER : : : : 07 : FILTER FABRIC, WITH : MATERIAL 6-INCH OVERLAP 6-INCHES MINIMUM, 6-INCHES MINIMUM, ADJACENT TO AND ADJACENT TO AND BELOW PIPE BELOW PIPE OPTION I OPTION 2 FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAL FOOT OF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL.(OPTION 1), OR 3/4-INCH MAX ROCK (OPTION 2) OR APPROVED ALTERNATIVES FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT PIPE: 6 OR 8-INCH ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 PERFORATIONS (1/4-INCH DIAMETER) PER LINEAL FOOT IN ( BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE (ASTM D2751, SDR 35 OR ASTM D3034 OR SDR 35 ASTM D1527, SCHD. 40 OR ASTM D17485, SCHD. 40) NOTE: CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FEET REQUIRES 8-INCH DIAMETER PIPE (ASTM D3034, SDR 35, OR ASTM 01785, SCHD. 40) CANYON SUBDRAIN APPROVED 2-FT. MIN FILTER I -r MATERIAL 2-FT. I" - ----. 4-INCH SOLID \ 2-INCH MIN OUTLET PIPE BELOW PIPE OPTION I 3-FT. MIN.1 APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL 2-FT. 1111"o 4-INCH SOLID 2-INCH MIN. OUTLET PIPE BELOW PIPE OPTION 2 FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL TRENCH TO BE FILLED WITH EQUAL MIXTURE OF NO.2 AND NO.3 ROCK OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT FILTER FABRIC: FOR FABRIC ENVELOPED DRAIN, USE MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC WITH 12-INCH OVERLAP OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT PIPE: 4-INCH ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 PERFORATIONS (1/4-INCH DIAMETER) PER LINEAL FOOT IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE (ASTM D2751 SDR 35 OR ASTM D3034 OR SDR 35 ASTM D1527, SCHD. 40 OR ASTM D17485, SCHD. 40) BUTTRESS/STABILIZATION DRAIN I VER1.0 NTS I 10)AGS DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS DETAIL 2 ADVANCED GEORCHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. BLANKET FILL -AS REQUIRED BY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AND/OR OR CODE COMPLIANCE (3 FOOT MIN.) CODE COMPLIANT SETBACK, 15 FOOT MIN. \ SETBACK__JP__• BENCH WIDTH VARIES ------------------- 1 FOOT MINI TOE HEEL I- WIDTH -1 CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY NOTES: WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: DRAIN OUTLETS TO BE PROVIDED EVERY 100 FEET TOE 2 FOOT MIN. CONNECT TO PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE BY 'U' OR "T" HEEL 3 FOOT MIN. AT MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT. WIDTH 15 FOOT MIN. THE NECESSITY AND LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DRAINS SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. UPPER STAGE OUTLETS, SHOULD BE EMPTIED ONTO CONCRETE TERRACE DRAINS. DRAIN PIPE TO EXTEND FULL LENGTH OF STABILIZATION/BUTTRESS WITH A MINIMUM GRADIENT OF 2% TO SOLID OUTLET PIPES. SEE DETAIL 2 FOR DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS LOCATION OF CANYON SUBDRAINS AND OUTLETS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED BY PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER OUTLETS MUST BE KEPT UNOBSTRUCTED AT ALL TIMES. VER1.O . NTS (0)AGS , STABILIZATION/BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL 3 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. / PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE * THE 'CUT" PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT PRIOR TO DESIGN GRADE CONSTRUCTING THE 'FILL" PORTION "CUT" SLOPE SLOPE* "FILL" SLOIE - -. 0 BENCH WIDTH - 00 VARIES ENGINEERED FILL 4 FOOT MIN. I I BENCH HEIGHT 000 000 TOE HEEL SUITABLE EARING MATERIAL SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL WIDTH -I CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: TOE: 2 FOOT MIN. HEEL: 3 FOOT MIN. WIDTH: 15 FOOT MIN. NOTES: THE NECESSITY AND LOCATION OF DRAINS SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SEE DETAIL 2 FOR DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS \ VER1.O NTS (0)AGS FILL OVER CUT SLOPE DETAIL 4. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLLITIONS, INC. DESIGN GRADE PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE ENGINEERED FILL AI:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN SLOPE TOE TO TOE OF. KEYWAY RE-GRADE NATURAL SLOPE * * WITH ENGINEERED FILL S BENCH WIDTH VARIES , 4 FOOT MIN. ' I TOE BENCH HEIGHT / VARIABLE SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL / ' BACKCUT HEEL 11 F- WIDTH I CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: TOE: 2 FOOT MIN. HEEL: 3 FOOT MIN. WIDTH: 15 FOOT MIN. NOTES: WHEN THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE DESIGN GRADE SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NECESSARY BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WILL DETERMINE THE REQIREMENT FOR AND LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15 FOOT HORIZONTAL WIDTH FROM FACE OF SLOPE TO BENCH/BACKCUT VER1.O NTS (0)AGS FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL 5 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. - SI J DESIGIN GRADE ( * UNSUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL * * * BACK/BENCH llel 15 FOOT MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM SLOPE FACE TO \ PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE BENCH WIDTH VARIES 4 FOOT MIN. 0 BENCH HEIGHT Eg TOE HEEL SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL CODE COMPLIANT KEYWAY WITH MINIMUM DIMENSIONS: TOE: 2 FOOT MIN. HEEL: 3 FOOT MIN. WIDTH: 15 FOOT MIN. VER1.O NTS (0)AGS SKIN FILL CONDITION DETAIL 6 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. THE NECESSITY FOR DRAINS WILL BE EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS 1 PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURFACE DESIGIN GRADE UNSUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL ENGINEERED FILL Fl5 FOOT MIN. I -z A .. \ ____ H2 H1 * BENCH WIDTH VARIES + I 14 FOOT MIN. BENCH HEIGHT 1. FOOT TILT BACK (M IN.) S wi ~-j SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL W2 -I NOTES: IF RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH AN ENGINEERED FILL "W" SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15 FEET) FOR SLOPE HEIGHT LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 25 FEET, "W" SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT. AT NO TIME SHALL 'W" BE LESS THAN H12. DRAINS WILL BE REQUIRED (SEE DETAIL 2) VER1.O NTS (0)AGS PARTIAL CUT SLOPE. DETAIL 7 ADVANCED G[OTEcHNIGAI sowruoNs, INC. STABILIZATION Li Z . E . -DEVELOPMENT SURFACE DESIGN GRADE 5 FEET / 5 FEET MIN. . MIN. , ** gRCE XPTHE* RAINAGE / SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL . REMOVE AND REPLACE - WITH ENGINEERED FILL CUT LOT OVEREXCAVATION I _0• DESIGN GRADE L~P7-DEVELOPMENT. SURFACE . -.. p - 5 FEET * IN. - ENGINEERED FILL G "SUBSURFACE REQUIRED BENCH REMOVE AND REPLACE, WITH ENGINEERED'FILL ., • •,,. -. SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL CUT-FILL LOT OVEREXCAVATION -. NOTES :- - 5 - 5 5*•_, * SEE REPORT FOR RECOMMENDED DEPTHS, DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE GOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BASED ON EXPOSED FIELD CONDITIONS. ""CONSTRUCT EXCAVATION TO PROVIDE FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS STREETS, DEEPER FILL AREAS OR APPROVED DRAINAGE DEVICES BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. VER1O NTS ( A (7 C CUT & CUT-FILL LOT '\ JIi3 - OVEREXCAVATION, . DETAIL 8S.. ADVANCED GEO1ECHNICAL SOLUTiONS, INC. - -- - LI LI APPENDIX E HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I, June 23, 2010 'II P1W 1004-02 Page E-1 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 HOMEOWNER MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS I' Homeowners are accustomed to maintaining their homes. They expect to paint their houses periodically, replace wiring, clean out clogged plumbing, and repair roofs. Maintenance of the home site, particularly on hillsides, should be considered on the same basis, or even on a more serious basis because neglect can I result in serious consequences. In most cases, lot and site maintenance can be taken care of along with landscaping, and can be carried out more economically than repair after neglect. I Most slope and hillside lot problems are associated with water. Uncontrolled water from a broken pipe, cesspool, or wet weather 'causes most damage. Wet weather is the largest cause of slope problems, particularly in California where rain is intermittent, but may be torrential. Therefore, drainage and erosion I control are the most important aspects of home site stability; these provisions must not be altered without competent professional advice. Further, maintenance must be carried out to assure their continued operation. 1 As geotechnical engineers concerned with the problems of building sites in hillside developments, we offer the following list of recommended home protection measures as a guide to homeowners. Expansive Soils Some of the earth materials on site have been identified as 'being expansive in nature. As such, these materials are susceptible to volume changes with variations in their moisture content. These soils will swell upon the introduction of water and shrink upon drying. The forces associated with these volume changes can have significant negative impacts (in the form of differential movement) on foundations, walkways, patios, and other lot improvements. In recognition of this, the project developer has constructed homes on these lots on post-tensionedor mat slabs with pier and grade beam foundation systems, intended to help reduce the potential adverse effects of these expansive materials on the residential structures within the project. Such foundation systems are not intended to offset the forces (and associated movement) related to expansive soil, but are intended to help soften their effects on the structures constructed thereon. Homeowners purchasing property and living in an area containing expansive soils must assume a certain degree of responsibility for homeowner improvements as well as for maintaining conditions around their home. Provisions should be incorporated into the design and construction of homeowner improvements to account for the expansive nature of the onsite soils material. Lot maintenance and landscaping should also be conducted in consideration of the expansive soil characteristics. Of primary importance is minimizing the moisture variation below all lot improvements. Such design, construction and homeowner maintenance provisions should include: + Employing contractors for homeowner improvements who design and build in recognition of local building code and site specific soils conditions. Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, driveways, patios, and other hardscape improvements. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I June 23, 2010 Page E-2 1 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 I + Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the - improvements via subdrains into approved disposal areas. + Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. + Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Alternatively, watering should be done in a uniform manner as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. + Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all structures with downspouts installed to carry roof runoff directly-into area drains or discharged well away from the structures. + Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one-half the mature height of the tree. + Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively constant moisture conditions. Sulfates On site soils were tested for the presence of soluble sulfates. Based on the results of that testing, the soluble sulfate exposure level was determined to be "moderate" to "severe" when classified in accordance with the ACT 318-05 Table 4.3.1 (per 2007 CBC). As such, a concrete mix design should be based on a "severe" sulfate exposure (4,500 psi concrete with a water to cement ratio of 0.45). Homeowners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain fertilizers, soil amendments, and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relating to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds into soils otherwise containing "negligible" sulfate concentrations and increase the sulfate concentrations in near-surface soils to "moderate" or "severe" levels. In some cases, concrete improvements constructed in soils containing high levels of soluble sulfates may be affected by deterioration and loss of strength. Water - Natural and Man Induced Water in concert with the reaction of various natural and man-made elements, can cause detrimental effects to your structure and surrounding property. Rain water and flowing Water erodes and saturates the ground and changes the engineering characteristics of the underlying earth materials upoti saturation. Excessive irrigation in concert with a rainy period is commonly associated with shallow slope failures and deep seated landslides, saturation of near structure soils, local ponding of water, and transportation of water soluble substances that are deleterious to building materials including concrete, steel, wood, and stucco. Water interacting with the near surface and subsurface soils can initiate several other potentially detrimental phenomena other then slope stability issues. These may include expansion/contraction cycles, ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL. SOLUTIONS, INC. Li June 23, 2010 Page E-3 P1W 1004-02 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 liquefaction potential increase, hydro-collapse of soils, ground surface settlement, earth material consolidation, and introduction of deleterious substances. I 'The homeowners should be made aware of the potential problems which may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, swimming pools, paved walkways and patios. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, over-watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. + Before the rainy season arrives, check and clear roof drains, gutters and down spouts of all accumulated debris. Roof gutters are an important element in your arsenal against rain damage. If you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may elect to install them. Roofs, with their, wide, flat area can shed tremendous quantities of water. Without gutters or I ' other adequate drainage, water falling from the eaves collects against foundation and basement walls. Make sure to clear surface and terrace drainage ditches, and check them frequently during the . rainy season. This task is a community responsibility. Test all drainage ditches for functioning outlet drains. This should be tested with a hose and 1 done before the rainy season. All blockages should be removed. Check all drains, at top of slopes to be sure they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself, causing erosion. Keep subsurface drain openings (weep-holes) clear of debris and other material which could block them in a storm. +Check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. •• Monitor hoses and sprinklers. 'During the rainy season, little, if any, irrigation is required. Oversaturation of the ground is unnecessary, increases watering costs, and can cause subsurface drainage. + Watch for water backup of drains inside the house and toilets during the rainy season, as this may indicate drain or sewer blockage. + Never block terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the tops of cut or fill slopes. These are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. + Maintain the ground surface upslope of lined ditches to ensure that surface water is collected in the ditch and is not permitted to be trapped behind or under the lining. + Do not permit water to collect or pond on your home site. Water gathering here will tend to either seep into the ground (loosening or expanding fill or natural ground), or will overflow into the slope and begin erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. + Never connect roof drains, gutters, or down spouts to subsurface drains. Rather, arrange them so that water either flows off your property in a specially designed pipe or flows out into a ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAt.. SOLUTIONS, INC. I I June 23, 2010 1 P1W 1004-02 Page E-4 Report No. 1004-02-B-2 paved driveway or street. The water then may be dissipated over a wide surface or, preferably, may be carried away in a paved gutter or storm drain. Subdrains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during a heavy rain. + Never permit water to spill over slopes, even where this may seem to be a good way to prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion and, in the case of fill slopes, can eat away carefully designed and constructed sites. + Do not cast loose soil or debris over slopes. Loose soil soaks up water more readily than compacted fill. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide when laden with water; this may even affect the soil beneath the loose soil. The sliding may clog terrace drains below or may cause additional damage in weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that loose fill is not dumped above your property. +Never discharge water into subsurface blanket drains close to slopes. Trench drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other means of disposing of water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and, if located close to slopes, may cause slope failurein their vicinity. I . + Do not discharge surface water into septic tanks or leaching fields. Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different purpose, but they will tend, because of their construction, to naturally accumulate additional water from the ground during a heavy rain. Overloading them I . artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as subsurface subdrains, and is doubly dangerous since their overflow can pose a serious health hazard. In many areas, the use of septic tanks should be discontinued as soon as sewers are made available. I . + Practice responsible irrigation practices and do not over-irrigate slopes. Naturally, ground cover of ice plant and other vegetation will require some moisture during the hot summer I' . months, but during the wet season, irrigation can cause ice plant and other heavy ground cover to pull loose. This not only destroys the cover, but also starts serious erosion. In some areas, ice plant and other heavy cover can cause surface sloughing when saturated due to the increase in weight and weakening of the near-surface soil. Planted slopes should be planned I where possible to acquire sufficient moisture when it rains. + Do not let water gather against foundations, retaining walls, and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand the ordinary moisture in. the ground and are, where necessary, accompanied by subdrains' to carry off the excess. If water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through the wall, causing dampness and leakage inside the basement. Further, it may cause the foundation to swell up, or the water pressure could cause structural damage to walls. + Do not try to compact soil behind walls or in trenches by flooding with water. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of compacting fine-grained soil, but it could damage the wall foundation or saturate the subsoil. . + Never leave a hose and sprinkler running on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy I season. This will enhance ground saturation which may cause damage. + Never block ditches which have been graded around your house or the lot pad. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. .1' I! Hi I TI. June 23, 2010 Page E-5 P7W 1004-02 Report No.. 1004-02-B-2 street or other positive outlet. By all means, do not let water become ponded above slopes by blocked ditches. . + Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. + It should be the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the residents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the resident's risk. + The resident is responsible for.proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. Residents must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongoing program in order to promote slope stability. The burrowing animal control program should be conducted by a licensed exterminator and/or landscape professional with expertise in hill side maintenance. Geotechnical Review Due to the presence of expansive soils on site and the fact that soil types may vary with depth, it is recommended that plans for the construction of rear yard improvements (swimming pools, spas, barbecue pits, patios, etc.), be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer who is familiar with local conditions and the current standard of practice in the 'vicinity of your home. In conclusion, your neighbor's slope, above or below your property, is as important to you as the slope that is within your property lines. For this reason, it is desirable to develop a cooperative attitude regarding hillside maintenance, and we recommend developing a "good neighbor" policy. Should conditions develop off your property, which are undesirable from indications given above, necessary action should be taken by you to insure that prompt remedial measures are taken. Landscaping of your property is important to enhance slope and foundation stability and to prevent erosion of the near surface soils. In addition, landscape improvements should provide for efficient drainage to a controlled discharge location downhill of residential improvements and soil slopes. Additionally, recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Study report apply to all future residential site improvements, and we advise that you include consultation with a qualified professional in planning, design, and construction of any improvements. Such improvements include patios, swimming pools, decks, etc., as well as building structures and all changes in the site configuration requiring earth cut or fill construction I 1 I- .1, ~ i ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.