The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 04-26; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE PA 16, 17, & 18; UPDATES GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2007-01-15UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE DEVEL NT OPME CARLSBAD TRACT 02-16 DRAWING 433-6 CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA FOB S CALAVERA HILLS LLC 2750 WOMBLE ROAD SANDIEGO, CALIFORNIA 921:06- W-0, 5353-A--SC JANUARY 15,2007. I " I Géotechnical Geologic Coastal Environmental 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 438-3155 FAX(760)93i-0915 I January. 15, 2007 WO. 5353-A-SC I Ca'lavera Hills, LLC 2750 Womble Road Diego, California 92106 I San Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell Subject: Updated Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch, East Village Development, Carlsbad Tract 02-16, Drawing 433-6, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Mitchell: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) hasreviewed site conditions and our existing geotechnical reports (see Appendix A) in order to update the existing geotechnical evaluation (GSl, 2004a) of the East Village portion of the Robertson Ranch Property. The. I purpose of our current evaluation is to update the existing report with respect to current standards of geotechnical practice. This repoft summarizes the findings of our work. Based on our findings and analyses, recommendations. for site preparation, earthwork, and I foundations are provided for design and, planning purposes. I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration (AppendixB), and I geologic and engineering analysis., the proposed construction appears to be feasible from - a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most I significant elements of this study are summarized below: Earth material,s unsuitable for the support of structures, settlement-sensitive I improvements, and/or compacted fill generally consist of 'existing artificial fill, colluvial soil, near-surface alluvium, and near-surface! highly weathered formational, I or bedrock, earth materials (i.e., sedimentary and/or metavolcanic/igneous rock). Complete removals of tributary alluvium (on the order of 5 to 25 feet) should he anticipated. Complete removals are desired within valley alluvial areas, but may be I limited due to the presence of a shallow groundwater table. In this case, removals should minimally be completed to depths on the order of approximately 5 to 6 feet, and settlement monitoring would likely be-necessary- Removals on sloping areas, I I including colluvium and near-surface weathered formational earth materials, are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 5 feet thick throughout the majority of the site. Existing engineered fill, located northwest of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, has been observed and tested by this office, and is considered suitable for its intended use. Since placement of this fill, additional "undocumented" fill stockpiles have been placed throughout the area. Undocumented fill stockpiles are not suitable for use in their present condition and will require removal and recompaction. An evaluation of rock hardness and rippability indicates that moderately difficult to very difficult ripping should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations in areas underlain by metavolcanics/granitics; however, localized areas of shallower practical refusal should be anticipated. Rock requiring blasting to excavate will likely be encountered.below'these depths. Overexcavation should be considered in dense metavolcarlic/granitics in proposed pads and street areas Overexcavation is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Planned cut and fill slopes are considered to be generally stable, assuming that these slopes are maintained and/or constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in this report. Natural slopes, to remain about the perimeter of the project, are also anticipated to be generally stable. Liquefaction analyses indicate that some alluvial soils are generally susceptible to liquefaction; however, damaging deformations should be essentially mitigated by maintaining a minimum 10- to 15-foot thick, non-liquefiable soil layer beneath any proposed improvement, provided our recommendations are implemented. Groundwater was generally encountered at depths on the order of 6 to 30 feet below existing grades. Planned fills and underlying alluvial soil will provide for at least 20 to 25 feet of non-liquefiable material above the groundwater table, and should effectively mitigate adverse surface effects due to liquefaction. o Alluvial soils left in-place will settle due to the addition of foundation and fill loads The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed. above the alluvium. A settlement analysis is presented in the body of this report. Our experience in the site vicinity indicates that alluvial soils are generally represented by an R-value of 12, terrace deposits by an R-value of 19, and metavolcanic/granitic bedrock by an R-value of 45. Soils onsite typically have a very low to high expansion potential, but after grading should generally be in the very low to low expansive range. Site soils are anticipated to have a negligible to moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and are considered highly corrosive (when saturated) to buried metals, based on the available data. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page Two I I I I I I I I D I I I. L I I I I , Conventional foundation systems may be used for very low to low expansive soil conditions (where the Plasticity Index [P1] of the soil is 15, or less), and relatively shallow fill areas (<30 feet). Similarly, conventional foundations designed in ' accordance with Chapter 18 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC]., International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001), May be used for low through medium expansive soil conditions (where the P1 is I 15, or greater, and the Expansion Index [El] is less than 90). Post-tension foundations may be used for all categories of expansive soil conditions, and are exclusively recommended for highly expansive soil conditions, deep fill areas I (>30 feet), areas with fill thickness, differentials exceeding a ratio of 3:1 , and in areas underlain with saturated alluvial sediments left-in-place, or within their influence. I . Our evaluation indicates there are no 'known active faults crossing the site. Adverse geologic features that would preclude project feasibility were not I encountered in our geotechnical evaluation. The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during I construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. The. opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to I contact any of the, undersigned. • Respectfully submied'OL I . GeoSoils Inc. o ccO j) °- No. 1934 I Cerzified .Engineering I Robert G. Crisman 'o Engineering Geologist; " 34 I RGC/DWS/JPF/jk Distribution: (6) Addressee I I I I Calavera Hills, LLC Fe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uqe I F30F_ 476-57 David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 478 ' W.O. 5353-A-SC Page Three I TABLE OF CONTENTS I SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION .....................................................1 I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................3 I FIELD WORK FINDINGS ..................................................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ...................................................4 I EARTH MATERIALS .......................................................4 Engineered Stockpile (Map Symbol - AfT) ................................5. I Engineered Fill (Map Symbols - AfBTD) ...................................5 Undocumented Stockpile (Map Symbol - Stockpile) ......................6 Existing Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) ..........................6 I CollLivium (Not Mapped) ..............................................6 Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA and QalB) ................................6 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) ...................................7 I Undifferentiated Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa) .................................7 Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol - .Jsp/Kgr) .................7 I MASS WASTING ........................................................8 GROUNDWATER ........................................................9 I REGIONAL FAULTING/SEISMICITY .........................................10 Regional Faulting .................................................10 I Loca•l Faulting .....................................................10 Seismicity ........................................................10 Seismic Shaking Parameters .........................................11 I LABORATORY TESTING .................................................13 Classification .....................................................13 I Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density .............................13 Expansion Index Testing ............................................14 Direct Shear Tests .................................................14 I Consolidation Testing .............................................1.5 Sieve Analysis/Atterherg Limits .......................................15 - Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity ......................................15 I SEISMICHAZARDS .....................................................15 Liquefaction ......................................................16 Seismically Induced Lateral Spread ..................................17 I Seismically Induced Settlement ........................................17 I Geos I I SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS . 17 Post-Grading. Settlement of Compacted Fill ............................18 Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium ............18 ' General ...................................................18 Alluvium Underlying "Engineered Stockpile" ........................18 Tributary Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA) ...............................18 I Valley Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal8) ...................................18 Monitoring.................................................19. Dynamic Settlements ...............................................19 I Settlement Due to Structural Loads ....................................20 Summary of Settlement Analysis ....................... . ............... 20 I SUBSIDENCE ....................................21 ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION ...............................................21 I Rock Hardness and.Rippabiiity .......................................21 Blasting............................................................22 I SLOPE. STABILITY .................................................... Gross Stability ....................................................22 ....22 .SurciaI Stability ............................................23 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................23 I RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION .......................24 General..........................................................24 Site Preparation ..................................................24 I Removals ........................................................24 Overexcavation/Transitions .........................................25 84 Inch Storm Drain Line ............................................25 I Wick Drains ........................................................26 Drain Spacing and Depth .....................................26 Ground Preparation ...........................................26 I Drainage ....................................................27 Subdra iiis .......................................................27 Fill Placement and Suitability .........................................28 I Rock Disposal .....................................................28 Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less ...........................28 Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter. 29 I Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter .....................30 Rock E xcavation and Fill .......................................... 30 Earthwork Balance ................................................31 I . Shrinkage/Bulking ...........................................31 Slope Considerations and Slope Design ..............................31 Graded Slopes .............................................31 catavera Hills II, LLC Table of Contents 1 Fle:e:\wp91S35315353a.uge G&U, Page ii I I Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes . 31 I Temporary Construction Slopes ................................31 ' FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................32 RECOMMENDATIONS- CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS ......................2 General .........................................................32 I Preliminary Foundation Design ......................................32 Bearing Value ..............................................33 Lateral Pressure ..............................................33 I . Construction .......................................................33 POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN ..........................................3 I General.........................................................35 Su.bgrade Preparation ............................................. . 36 Footings and Pre-Wetting ..................................36 I Perimeter MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION .............................37 Very Low to Low Expansive Soils ....................................37 1 Medium Expansive Soils ...........................................37 Highly Expansive Soils ..............................................38 Considerations ...............................................38 I Other SETBACKS............................................................38 I SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY ........................................39 SETTLEMENT .........................................................39 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................39 Conventional Retaining Walls .........................................39 I Restrained Walls ............................................39 Cantilevered Walls ..... ...................................... .o Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage ..................................40 I Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ................................41 TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS ..........................41 I . POOL/SPA DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .................................42 I DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS .......................44 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................................46 Catavera Hills II, LLC Table at contents FiIe:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.ucjc Page iii G&s, Inc. I - I General PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................48 . 48 Subgrade........................................................48 I Base ................................................................49 Paving............................................................49 Drainage .....................•. ..................................49 I DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ............................................. 50 Slope Deformation ................................................. 50 I . General ....... .............................................50 SlopeCreep; ................................................5.0 Lateral Fill Extension (LEE) .....................................50 I Summary . .. . ............................................. Slope Maintenance and Planting .................................... . 51 51 D .ainage .....................•. . ...... . .............................51 I Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains ........................................52 Erosion Control ......................................................53 Landscape Maintenance ...........................................53 I Subsurface and Surface Water ......................................53 Tile Flooring .....................................................56 Site. Improvements ................................................56 I Additional Grading .................................................56 Footing Trench Excavation- ... ............. ........................... 56 Trenching.........................................................57 I . Utility Trench Backfill ..............................................57 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND I TESTING........................................................57 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS ..........................58 I HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS ............................59 I PLAN REVIEW . ......................................................... 59 LIMITATIONS ..........................................................59 I I I Calavera Hills II, LLC Table of Contents Fi1e:e:\wp9\5353\53533.u9e Page iv I I FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .........................................2 Figure 2 -California Fault Map .......................................12 I Detail Detail 1 - Schematic Toe Drain Detail ..................................54 2- Toedrain Along Retaining Wall Detail ..........................55 I ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References .....................................Rear of Text Appendix B - Test Pit and Boring Logs ........................Rear of Text I. Appendix C - Laboratory Data ...............................Rear Appendix D - Liquefaction Analysis ...........................Rear of Text of Text Appendix E - Settlement Analysis ............................Rear of Text I Appendix F - Gener al Earthwork and Grading Guidelines .........................Rear of Text Plates 1 and 13 - Geotechnical Maps .................Rear of Text in Folder 1 I I I I I I I I. I 1- - Calavera Hills II, LLC File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge I Table of Contents Page v 1 UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH, EAST VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT cARLSBAD TRACT 02-16, DRAWING 433-6 CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). I 2. Geologic site, reconnaissance. 3. Subsurface -exploration consisting of.six small diameter borings with a hollow stem I auger drill rig, and 44 exploratory' trench excavations Using, a rubber tire backhoe (completed in preparation of GSI, 2001a and 2002b). I 4. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program (completed in preparation of GSI [2001 a and 2002b]). I .5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. I SITE DESCRIPTION I The subject site is approximately 175 acres in size, consisting predominantly of several north to south trending ridgelines separated by intervening south flowing, alluviated drainages located in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (see Site Location Map, I Figure. i) Relief across ridges and the intervening drainages varies from approximately 40 to SQ feet across the site. Overall relief throughout the site varies from an approximate elevation of 160 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), within the northern portion of the. I property, down to an elevation of approximately 40 feet MSL within the southwestern portion of the property. The largest of the drainage courses is located along the eastern boundary of the site, and appears to be occupied by an ephemeral creek (Calavera Creek). I The majority of the site has been used for farming, primarily within alluviated drainage areas and on gentle slopes. Steeper slopes are relatively undeveloped and support native vegetation. Site drainage is directed southward toward Agua Hedionda Creek and I Lagoon- Since GSI (2002b), earthwork operations have been completed onsite for the construction of onsite portions of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, between El Camino Real and the adjacent Calavera Hills Il development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters generated up gradientfrom the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road (GSl, 2006). Additionally, a structural 'stockpile" has been placed within an I GeoScigs, Inc. I 1 I I .1 I I .1 L Op I ,J ) ': (1 -• Bill : BENZ : UP* - - . ' L L:rw 1030 FELI Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California -- San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1997, current 1999. I I I I I. I . ITE 2: A,: xfl— ' liac— - I I' - '\\ Fj7,1, -- '1090FEET' I Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co., Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, pages 1106 and 1107. I Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Mops Thin mop In copyrightod by Thomas Bros. Maps. it to unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any port thereof, whether for personal use or resale. without permission. All rights roseroed. I Gf3ç(fjJjw0 W.O. 5353-A-SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 I alluviated area bounded by College Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road the south; and upland areas to the west. The preparation of existing ground and the placement of structural fills located within this "triangle" area, formed by the aforementioned boundary conditions, was observed and tested by this office. Site preparation and fill placement was performed in general accordance with recommendations presented in GSI (2001c) and in the field by this office. Presently, engineered fills are on the order of 10 to 15 feet in thickness. A compaction report of rough grading for these engineered fills will be prepared at the completion of a forthcoming phase of grading. I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Robertson Ranch East Village will be developed as a master planned community 1 consisting of, but not necessarily limited to: residential building sites, multi-family structures, affordable housing unitS, commercial property, park/recreation property., a school site, and open space. Associated roadways and underground improvements are also planned. Based on a review of the 40-scale grading plans, prepared by O'Day Consultants (ODC, 2007), the site will be mass, or sheet, graded as several large lots, or super pads. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated on approximately 90 acres of the 175 total acres in order to create building pads. A review of ODC (2007) indicates that maximum cuts and fills, on the order of 35 feet in depth (cut and fill), are planned. Fill slopes, and cut slopes exposing sedimentary bedrock/formational soils, are 1 anticipated to be constructed at gradients on the order of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical [h-.v]), or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 30 feet. Cut slopes exposing dense undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock may be constructed at gradients on the I order of 11/2:1 (h:v), or flatter, to the maximum planned heights of approximately 304eet. The aforementioned "triangle" area, located within the East Ranch area, appears to have been rough graded to require additional fills on the order of 2 to 5 feet, or less, in I ' thickness, per the current plan. I FIELD WORK FINDINGS The findings presented below are, based on work completed in preparation of this report and previous work completed:by this office (GSI, 2004a, 2002b, and 2001 C). The body of field work completed to date consists of field mapping, seismic survey, backhoe test pits, I and hollow stem auger drill rig borings, as well as laboratory testing. Overall site conditions were reviewed by this office during January 2007. Based on our field review, site conditions are essentially the same as previously encountered. I Subsurface conditions were explored in October 2001 and January 2002, by excavating six exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 44 exploratory test.pits with a rubber tire backhoe, throughout the larger Robertson Ranch property (East and West I Villages). A previous study (GSI, 2001 c) completed nine exploratorysmall diameter hollow Calavera Hills, LLC - W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fie:e:'\wp9\53OO\5353a.uqe Page 3 Inc. /1 I I stem auger borings and ii exploratory test pits with a backhoe AU exploratory excavations were completed in order to determine the soil and geologic profiles, obtain samples of representative materials, and delineate soil and geologic parameters that may I affect the proposed development. Boring and excavation depths ranged from 2 feet to 511/2 feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of applicable borings and test pits are presented in Appendix B. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are ' indicated on the attached Geotechnical Maps, Plate 1 through Plate 13. Plate 1 through Plate 13 use the 40-scale grading plans prepared by ODC (2007) as a base. In addition to our subsurface exploration, field mapping of earth material and a seismic refraction survey (GSI, 2001c) was performed. I REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Peninsular .Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic units in I western North America. It extends fromthe Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin south to Baja California.. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf I of California, and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented-fault blocks. In the Peninsular Ranges, relatively younger sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline I bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas. Based on our work performed to date, the site appears to be underlain at depth, and in outcrop, I by Eocene age sedimentary bedrock, belonging to the Santiago Formation, non-conformably deposited over older, undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock. Younger, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits have been deposited unconformably on these older formational materials within the eastern and western portions of the site, while recent I alluvial deposits have been deposited within active drainage courses. Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore and the San Jacinto fault zones trend northwest-southeast, and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province, whereas, a fault related to the San Andreas Transform .Fau!t System, the Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone exists near the western margin and Continental Borderland geomorphic province- As discussed in a later section of this report, the site is located east of the Rose Canyon fault zone. I . EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials within the site consist predominantly of engineered stockpile, engineered fill, stockpile soil and rock, existing undocumented soil fill, surficial slump deposits, I colluvium, alluvium, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock belonging to I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 4 I I 'the Eocene-age 'Santiago Formation, and undifferentiated Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic/granitic (igneous) bedrock. Preliminary recommendations for site preparation and treatment of, the earth materials encountered are discussed in the I ' Earthwork Recommendations section of this report. The general distribution of earth materials are shown on Plates 1 through 13- Engineered Stockpile (Map Symbol - Af1). Engineered stockpile has been placed within a triangular area bounded by College I Boulevard to the north, Cannon Road the south, and upland areas of the East Ranch to the west. The preparation of existing ground and the placement of structural tills located within the "triangle" area, formed by the aforementioned boundary conditions, was I observed and tested by this office. Site preparation arid fill placement was performed during grading operations, by this office, in 'general accordance with recommendations presented in GSl (2001c and 2002b), and in the field by-this office. Field testing services I provided by this office indicate that fills placed have generally been compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments I generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing .soils and bedrock in the vicinity: These fills vary up to approximately 10 to 15 feet in thickness locally. A compaction report of rough grading for these engineered fills is forthcoming. Future I earthwork in this area will require the removal and recompact ion of loose surficial stockpiles, and the processing of the near surface layer'of compacted fill. The approximate limits of engineered stockpile is shown on the attached geotechnical maps. Some surficial I ' reprocessing will be necessary prior to placing any new fill. Engineered Fill (Map Symbols - Af810) I Since the completion of GSI (2002b), earthwork operations have been completed for the those portions of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, located within the Robertson I Ranch property, between El Camino Real and the adjacentC'alavera Hills II development, including a detention basin for the control of flood waters: generated up gradient from the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Site preparation and fillpla,cement I Were performed during grading operations, ,by this office, in general accordance With r'ecomme'ndations presented in GSI (2002a and 2002h), and in the field by this office. Field testing services provided by this office indicate that fills placed have generally been I compacted toa minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and are considered suitable for their intended use. Fill materials were derived primarily from sands, silts, clays, and rock fragments generated from cut excavation into the underlying, pre-existing soils and I bedrock in the vicinity. These fills vary up to approximately 30 feet in thickness locally. A summary of observation and testing services is presented in GSI (2006e). I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File: c:\wp9\S3OO\5353a.uge Page 5 Gs9 Inc. I I Undocumented Stockpile (Map Symbol - Stockpile) A large stockpile of soils and rock fragments is located within the eastern portion of the I property. This material is not considered suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill support unless it is removed, moisture conditioned, and placed as properly compacted fill. I Existing Undocumented Fill (p Symbol - Atu) Minor amounts of existing fill are scattered throughout the project site as small P embankments for dirt roads or level pads for existing farm structures. These materials typically consist of silts and sands derived from the underlying native soils and appear to be on the order of 1 to 5 feet thick where observed. Existing fills are not considered I suitable for foundation, improvements, and/or fill support unless these materials are removed, moisture conditioned and placed compacted fill. I Colluvium (Not Mapped) Where encountered, colluvium is on the order of 2 to 6 feet thick, and consists of silty- to I clayey sand and sandy clay. These soils are typically dryto moist, loose to medium dense (sands), stiff (clays), and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for support o settlement-sensitive improvements, unless these soils are removed, moisture conditioned, I and placed as compacted fill. Expansion testing (GSI, 2001. c),and this study indicates that these soils range from very low to medium expansive. Large dessication cracks in colluvial soils are visible at the surface in some areas underlain with sedimentary bedrock (Map I Symbol -Tsa), and may indicate highly expansive soils. Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA and Qal131 I Alluvial soils onsite appear to occur within two distinct depositional environments onsite. One is characterized as tributary alluvium (Qal, deposited within smaller canyons and I gullies dissecting slope areas, and valley alluvium (Qal8), deposited within the larger, broad flood plains located along the eastern and southern sides of the project. Where encountered, alluvial sediments consist of sandy dày and clayey/silty sand. C layeysands I are typically loose to medium dense, while sandy days are stiff. Alluvium ranges from generally damp to wet above the groundwater table, to saturated near, at, and below the groundwater table. Tributary alluvium is anticipated to range in thickness from I approximately 5 to 35 feet (5 to 25 feet within planned development areas), while valley alluvium was encountered to the depths explored (approximately 51 feet; GSI [2002b], and GSI [2001 ci). I Alluvium above the groundwater table is not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and recompacted. Due to the presence of groundwater, alluvial I removals could be limited in depth. Complete to partial removals to saturated sediments, on the order of 5 to 25 feet, are anticipated within some areas underlain by alluvium- 11 Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 6 I GeL, I Alluvial materials left in place Will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation I design. The distribution of alluvial materials, including general removal depths, is shOwn on Plates 1 through 13. Terrace Deposits Map Symbol - Qt) I Mid- to late-Pleistocene terrace deposits encountered onsite vary from silty sand to sandy/silly clay. These sediments are typically yellowish brown to brown and olive brown, slightly moist to moist, and medium dense/stiff. Unweathered terrace deposits are I generally considered suitable for the support of structures and engineered fill. Bedding structure observed within these materials in road cuts along El Camino Real, Cannon Road, and other outcrop exposures in the vicinity, display a generally massive to a weakly I developed subhorizontal orientation. Santiago Formation (!'4p Symbol - Tsa) ISandstone, clayey siltstone, and claystone sedimentary bedrock, belonging to Eocene-age Santiago Formation, was encountered at depth in our exploratory borings, and are not I anticipated to be encountered during site grading. While the Santiago formation occurs at the surface to the west, and east of the. site, .it was encountered at depth in some of our exploratory borings, beneath younger terrace, and alluvial deposits onsite. The general limits of the Santiago Formation, where buried, are shown on the attached Plate 1 through Plate 11. I Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol - JspLKgfl Undifferentiated igneous bedrock onsite consists of metavolcanic rock belonging to the I Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics, and/or granitic rock belonging to the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. Where encountered in our exploratory. test pits and observed in outcrop, these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular weathered I zone (up to 21/2 to 4 feet thick), consisting of dry, medium dense materialswhich generally decompose to. silty sand and angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Seismic refraction surveys in the area are discussed in the Rock. Hardness and Rippability section I of this report. Fractures observed within the bedrock are typically high angle. (i.e., 45 degrees or steeper) and closely spaced, on the order of 1 to 30 inches. Fracture orientations appear to. vary from east-northeast to northwest to north-south. I Igneous bedrock was encountered at depth in some of our exploratory borings, beneath younger terrace and alluvial deposits. The general limits of igneous bedrock, both near the surface and where buried, are shown on the attached Plates 1through 13. I cala.vera Hills, LLC . W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007. Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 7 GSL Inc. I I MASS WASTING Field mapping and subsurface exploration performed in preparation of this report did not indicate the presence of any deep seated landsliding, and these features were not noted I during our review of available published documents (Appendix A). A review of a previous feasibility evaluation completed, by Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985) referred to several "landforms," which may be suggestive of slumps and/or small landslides. These features I were generally located withinthe toe areas of natural slopes developedin terrace deposits or the Santiago Formation (west of the site). Field mapping, a review of aerial photographs, and subsurface exploration, completed by this office, has further defined the I extent of these features. Our findings indicate that these features are relatively shallow (i.e., 10 feet, or less), and are not anticipated to significantly affect site development, I provided our recommendations are implemented. The features mapped by (L&A, 1985) were based on visual reconnaissance and photographic review. Our review of their information, including test pit data, further I constrained the location of these features. Of the' four features identified in GSI (2002b), only one feature was evaluated with a subsurface exploration (Test Pit [TPI -5), and located within the Robertson Ranch West property (offsite). The absence of subsurface exploration I within the remaining features was primarily due to access issues with respect to the current use of the site (agriculture) and the steepness of slope(s) involved. Based on the relative size of these features, it was determined that these deposits Were surficial in nature and I should readily be mitigated with typical site grading, whether they exist or not. The area containing one of the features, located within the southwest portion of Robertson Ranch East (GSI, 2002b) has been re-evaluated as terrace deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) and I tributary alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA). It has been postulated by others (Geopacifica, 2004) that earth materials, presently mapped as terrace deposits, may actually be a large landslide deposit, especially in the vicinity of TP-12 and TP-18. Based on a review of test pit data obtained to date (Appendix B), and recent grading operations in the vicinity of TP-12 and TP-18, areas of I the site mapped as "Q.t" are underlain by relatively fine grained, sub-horizontally bedded mixtures of sand and clay. Internal structure is.visible in outcrop along El Camino Real, a recently constructed road cut for Cannon Road, and along the eastern limits of the project. I The basal, depositional contact along the underlying igneous bedrock is exposed along the eastern portion of Robertson Ranch East, and within a canyon side slope near the boundary between Robertson Ranch West and Robertson Ranch East. Evidence of I shearing was not observed along this contact. Furthermore, a back scarp/head scalp, or source area, does not appear to be present, based on the observed geomorphology of the terrain located up slope from the terrace deposits. Based on the general lack of chaotic, I internal structure, the relatively uniform and fine grained texture of earth materials, absence of shearing along the basal contact, sub-horizontal bedding, and general absence of other defining geomorphic characteristics indicative of a large landslide, it is our opinion that I earth materials mapped as terrace deposits onsite are the result of ancient fluvial depositional processes, and not the result of mass wasting. caiavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 FIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' Page 8 GSL 9 Inc. H1— I GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in test pits and test borings completed in preparation of this report and in previous test borings (GSI, 2001.c and 2002b) within alluvial materials (Map Symbol - QaIB) located along the southeastern and eastern' margins of the site, as well as within the extreme, western end of the site. Depths to groundwater encountered within alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal)' ranged from approximately 6 feet to 14 feet below existing 'grades, with depths shallowihg to the west. The presence Of bedrock materials, with lower moisture content beneath the alluvium, suggests that groundwater is generally perched within the alluvial section. Groundwater was also locally encountered at depth within tributary alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA). The depth to groundwater in these deposits ranged from approximately 6 to 30 feet below grade; however, groundwater was not always encountered. In general, depths to groundwater are relatively shallow where I tributary alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA) feeds, or interfi,nger.s, with valley alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal8), with the depth increasing as the alluvial deposits extend up into each tributary drainage. The local groundwater gradient is-estimated to vary following surface I drainage patterns, from a south to southwesterly. direction towards Calavera Creek. The regional gradient is estimated to be in a similar direction toWards'Agua Hedionda Lagoon. I Surface signs of water wells were not observed.Onsite during our site reconnaissance. In addition, there are no water wells reported within the site, as listed in a March 1998 United States Geological Survey database and the California Department of Water Resources I (2002). State of California regional 'groundwater maps from 1967 indicate no permitted water wells existing within 'the subject site, therefore, a discussion of historic groundwater levels is not available. However, based on the relatively close proximity to relatively I constant water levels associated with the coastline and adjacent lagoon, and relative low soil permeabilities, groundwater levels are considered to have remained relatively constant, from a historic perspective. Furthermore,, observation of groundwater levels within borings I completed at different times during the evaluation of the site appear to have remained relatively constant, given a margin for error associated with boring locations and the determinatiOn of elevation. It should also be noted that a wick drain system was I constructed beneath those portions of College and Cannon Roads underlain with alluvial soils left-in-place. These structures should also aidein controlling groundwater levels. I While not noted during this study, "perched' groundwater, where relatively impermeable fill and/or sediments underlie relatively permeable fill and/or sediments filled with water, may be encountered at shallower depths onsite, especially during the rainy season. This I should not adversely affect site development provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our field evaluation and I ' do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future from heavy irrigation or precipitation. I Calavera Hills, LLC ' W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File: e:\wp9\5300\5353auge Page 9 GeoSolls, I. nw I I REGIONAL FAULTING/SDSMICITY Reaionàl Fàultina I .There are a number of faults in the southern California area which are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault; I the San Jacinto fault; the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone; and the Rose Canyon - Newport-Inglewood (RCNl) fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking, at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California I region as a whole. The general distribution of the major faults relative to the site is shown on Figure 2. I Local Faulting 'No known active or potentially active faults are-shown crossing the site on published maps (Jennings, 1994). No evidence for active faulting was observed during field mapping; however, at least two lineaments were observed and reported in Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985). One of these lineaments, referred to as the western lineament, I was mapped within a canyon area trending northwest, outside of the western edge of the project. Observation and mapping of continuous, relatively uniform bedding across the canyon bottom, did not indicate the presence of any active faulting. Based on bur I evaluation, this lineament appears to be generally consistent with the trend of bedding structure within the Santiago Formation (offsite), and is, therefore, likely controlled by I bedding, and not faulting. The eastern lineament was mapped (L&A, 1985) where alluvium is in contact with undifferentiated igneous bedrock. Based on the general lack of geomorphic expression I and the absence of faulted Holocene earth material, these features are not considered manifestations of active faulting, and are therefore not anticipated to affect site development. Subsequent grading operations were completed across the eastern I lineament during the construction of College Boulevard. Observations of removal bottoms exposed during this phase of grading indicated that the lineament represented a depositional contact between younger alluvium and the older, underlying bedrock. The I relatively low sinuosity of this lineament is likely attributed to bedrock fracture patterns controlling deposition and erosion along this side of the valley, further corroborating the un-faulted nature of this contact. I Seismicity I The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982aand 1982b), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, et al. (1987) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site I .were determined based on the random mean plus 1-sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982a and 1982b), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh, I Calavera'HiIIs, LLC W.O. 5353-A.SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 10 I -.......... I et al. (1987). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in I EQFAULT, a computer program.by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified Vile. If afault is found to be within a.usèr-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that-may occur at the site from the upper bound (maximum credible') and "maximum probable' earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of. the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQ-FAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.31 g to 0.36g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.17g to 0.19g. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site Should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROX MILES (KM) DISTANCE..ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROX DISTANCE MILES (KM) Catalina Escarpment 38 (61) Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 10 (17) Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca 23(37) Rose Canyon 7 (11) Elsinore 22 (36) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sot 33 (53 La Nacion 23(37) The possibility of ground shaking at the site may be considered similar to the southern California region as a whole. The relationship of the site location to these major mapped faults is indicated on the California Fault Map (Figure 2). Our field observations and review of readily available geologic data indicate that no known active faults cross the site. I A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using FRISKSP (Blake, 2000b). Based on-this analysis, a range of peak horizontal ground accelerations up to 0.28g should be used for-seismic design. This -value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent I probability of exceedance in .50 years (or a 475-year return period). Selection of this design event is important as it, is the level of risk assumed by the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials I [ICBO]., 1.997 and 2001) minimum design requirements. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of approximately M6.9. I -Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [lCBO], 1997 and 2001) - seismic, parameters are provided in the following table: I . Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp915300\5353a.uge Page 11 I GeoSoils;, Inc. I 1 I 100 -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1100 1000 400 200 EM 700 rs1 Is iI CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 5353 W.O. 5353-A-SC 04~,Wwr a - .5. Fore 2 : .1997 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO. . :SEIMIC.PARAMETERS Seismic Zone (per Figure 162*) 4 - Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 161*) 0.40 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16J*) SD Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16-Q*) 0.441\1a Seismic Coefficient C (per Table 16-R*) 0.64N Near Source Factor Na (per Table 16-S*) 1.0 Near Source.Factor N, (per Table 16T*) 1.0 Distanceto Seismic SoUrce 7 mi (11 km) Seismic SourceType (per Table 16-U*) B Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-Inglewood fault) M 6.9 PHSA lOpercent probably in 50 Years (475-year return period) 028 g * Figure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (lCBO, 1997) LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. All testing completed for the Robertson Ranch Project (East and West Villages [GSI, 2004a]) is considered valid and applicable to the current East Village project. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration, logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard - Maximum Dry Density TO determine the compaction characteristics of representative samples of onsite soil, laboratOry testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-1557. Test results are presented in the following table: Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353--A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File:c:\wp9\5300\5353a.u9e Page 13 LOCATION ]'-'MAXIMUM.DENSITY . (cf)! .. OPTIMUM MOISTURE ...; . CONTENT (%); HB-1 @ 5-10 127.0 10.5 TP-26 @ 2'3' 114.0 13.0 *.RD10 @ 7' 120.5 13.0 *B2@.5 128.0 10.0 *B6@4• .126.0 11.0 * Location and testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 c and 2002b) I I . Expansion Index Testing Expansion Index ([.1.) testing was performed on representative soil samples otcolluvium and terrace deposits in general accordance. with Standard No. 182 of the UBC/CBC I .(ICBO, 1997 and 2001). The test results are presented below as well as the- expansion classification according to LJBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). - I , I I.' I' II I' LOCATION__{ SOIL TYPE I E I__{ EXPANSION POTENTIAL TP-1 @ 0-3' SANDY CLAY 61 Medium TP1 @ 4-5' SANDY SILT 25 Low TP-2 @ 3-5' 'CLAY 60 Medium TP-38 @ 3-5' SAND 4 Very Low *flD. @ 1-2 SILTY SAND 1 Very Low *Tp..10 @ 7-8' SANDY CLAY 102 High. *B2@ 5' SANDY CLAY 32 Low 4' SILTY SAND 19 Very Low * Localion and testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001c and. 2002b) Direct Shear Tests I Shear testing was performed on a remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080. Results of shear testing (GSI, 2001c and 2002b) are presented as Plates C-i through C-12 in Appendix C. 1.' 1., I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village FiIe:e:\wp9\530015353a.uge I Geo'sofls' Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15,2007 Page 14 I I I I I I I I III Consolidation Testing Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was performed in-general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435. Test results (GSI,2002b and 2001c) are presented as Plates C-13 through C-29 in Appendix C. Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Limits Sample gradation for various representative samples. was determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D-422. Atterberg limits were determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D-4318. Test results (GSl, 2001 and 2002b) are presented as Plates C-30 through C-45 in Appendix .C. Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity A representative sample Of soil was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and potential corrosion to ferrous metals. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results, site. soils- appear to have a negligible potential for corrosion to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the UBC/CBC (lCBO, 1997 and 2001). The results of pH testing indicates that site soils are neutral to slightly acidic. Resistivity test results indicate that site soils are highly corrbsiveto ferrous metals when saturated. Highly corrosive soils are considered to be generally in therange of 1,000. to 2,00.0 ohms-cm. SEISMIC HAZARDS The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, typical site development procedures, and recommendations for mitigation provided herein: Surface Fault Rupture Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture Tsunami Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking Would occur in the subject sites general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other 'existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. I I I I I LI I 1 calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge I GeoSofls, Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 15 I I I Liquefaction Uquefaction describes a phenomenon in'Which cyclic'stresses, produced by earthquake induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils. I These soils may thereby acquire a high degree. of mobility, which can lead to lateral ' movement sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations.. This phenomenon occurs only below the Water table, but after I liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into 'overlying, non-saturated soil, as excess pore water dissipates. I Liquefaction susceptibility is. related to numerous factors and the following conditions must exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have 'developed large amount of cementation; 2) sediments must I consist mainly of medium to 'fine grained cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must' have (ow relative density; '4) free groundwater must be present in the. sediment; and 5) the site must experience seismic event of a sufficient duration and' large enough magnitude, to induce straining of I soil particles. At the subject site, all of the conditions which are necessary for liquefaction to occur exist. I One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater normal effective stress acting on I saturated sediments at any given depth and liquefaction susceptibility decreases with increased normal effective stress; and 2) age, cementation, and relative density of sediments generally increase with depth.. Thus, as the depth to the Water table increases, I and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative density, and confining normal stresses increase, the less likely they are to' liquefy during a, seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential where groundwater I is greater than 30 feet in depth and virtually unknown below 60 feet. Following an analysis of the laboratory data and boring logs, representative soil profiles I were established to evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils on'site. The depth to groundwater encountered in our borings was used in the analyses I '(i.e., 9 to 14 feet)- The liquefaction analyses were performed using a peak'site acceleration of 0.28g for an upper bound event of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon fault zone. A review of GSI (2001c) I indicates that portions of the site underlain by alluvium have soil deposits that display a factor of safety of 1.25, or less, against liquefaction (Note: a factor of safety of 1.25 is I recommended by Seed and ldriss, 1982). Based on our analysis of the liquefaction potential within alluvial areas of the site, and the relationships of Ishihara (1985), it is our opinion that damaging deformations should not I adversely affect the 'proposed development provided that a minimum 10- to-IS foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (i.e., compacted fill plus alluvium above the water table) is I çalavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353auge G@L Page 16 I - U - I provided beneath any given structure. This also assumes that the existing groundwater I table does not significantly rise above its current level. Assuming that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project, the potential for surface damage from liquefaction should be I mitigated. The use of canyon subdrains and "wick drains:," discussed in alater section of this report, will also aide in the mitigation of the liquefaction potential onsite. Printouts of I the liquefaction analysis performed are presented in this report as Appendix ft SeismicilIy Induced Lateral Spread The procedure used for the analyses of seismically-induced lateral spread is based on Bartlett and Youd (1992 and 1995). Lateral spread phenomenon is described as the lateral movement of stiff, surficial, mostly intact blocks of sediment displaced downslope towards a.free.face alO!19.ashear zone that has formed within the liquefied sediment. The resulting ground deformation typically has extensional fissures at the head of the failure, shear deformations along the side margins, and compression or buckling of the soil at the toe. The extent of lateral displacement typically ranges from half an inch to several feet. Two types oflateral spread can occur: 1) lateral spread towardsa free face (e.g., drainage canal .or.enibankment); and 2) lateral spread down a ground slope where a free face is absent. I Factors such as earthquake magnitude, distance from the seismic energy source, thickness, of the liquefiable layers, and the fines content and particle size of those I sediments also correlated with ground displacement. In orde,rforthe free-face type of lateral spread to occur, a continuous liquefiable layer must exist 'at or-Above the base of a free-face. The potentially liquifiable layers occuring within I alluvial soils onsite are located at depth. Therefore, seismically-induced lateral spread, in our opinion, is not-likely. I Seismically Induced Settlement Please refer to the discussion on dynamic settlement presented in the following section. I I SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS GSI hasestimated the potential magnitudes of total settlement, differential settlement, and angular distortion for the site. The analyses were based on laboratory test results and I subsurface data collected from borings completed in preparation of this study and GSI (2001c and 2002b). Site specific conditions affecting settlement potential include depositional environment, grain size and lithology of sediments, cementing agents, stress I history, moisture history, material shape, density, void ratio, etc. Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary I ' compression of the left-in-place alluvium and compacted fills. The total amount of settlement, and time over which it occurs, is dependent upon various factors, including El I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge GeoSofls, Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 17 I U material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place. density of subsurface materials Current analysis is included in Appendix E and GSI (2006d). I Post-Grading Settlement of Compacted Fill Compacted fills, to the thicknesses anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive sthement. Based on our analysis, total settlements, on the order of ½ inch, or less, should be anticipated. Post-Grading Settlement of Alluvium Général Where these materials are left in place, settlement of the underlying saturated alluvium is I anticipated due to the weight of added planned fills. The magnitude of this settlement will vary with the proposed fill heights (i.e-,.measured from existing grades), and the thickness, texture, and compressibility of the underlying, left-in-place saturated alluvium. Due to'the I predominantly fine grained texture of the alluvial soils onsite, settlement of the alluvial soil will. occur over time. I Alluvium Underlying "Engineered Stockpile" Within the. "triangle" area, referred to in this report, approximately 10 to 15 feet of I . compacted fill has been placed to within approximately 2 to 5 feet of planned grade. During interim fill placement and the subsequent waiting period (approximately 40 months :as of the date of this report), our evaluation indicates that a majority of the total settlements U have occurred. The remaining total post-grading settlement is estimated to be on the order of 2 inches total, and 1 inch differential, or less, over a 40 foot-span (GSl, 2006d). I Tributary Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalAl -in areas underlain by tributary alluvial soil, complete removal and recompactionof alluvium I is. anticipated. Please refer to our previous discussion regarding the "post gradi.ng settlement of compacted fill." Valley Alluvium (Mar) Symbol - QalBi Based on the currently proposed grading, depths to groundwater, and the overall I thickness of valley alluvium, alluvial soils will likely be left in place within portions of superpads Lotsi, 2, and 3, also know as planning areas PA-1 5 (multi-family), PA-20 (water treatment site), PA-21 (residential) and PA-22 (no currently proposed development): A I general characterization of alluvial soil conditions within these areas is as follows: I . Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East-Village January 15, 2007 FUe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.tige Page 18 I Gs9 I U . PA-20 (offsite) will likely be underlain with a nominal amount of alluvium (less than approximately 10 feet), isolated within the extreme southwest. corner. I . 'PA-22 (Lot 3) will likely be underlain with up to approximately 15 to 25 feet of alluvial soil, with planned fills varying up to approximately 5 to 10 feet- PA-15 (Lot 1) will likely be underlain with plan fill and suitable forniatiOnal soils (northern part), however, up to 20 feet of engineered fill and up to 15 feet of alluvium left in place is anticipated within the southern part. The suggested waiting I period is discussed below. The southwest corner of PA-21 (Lot 2, adjacent to PA-1 5) will likely be underlain with I up to 15 feet of alluvial soil anticipated to be left in place. Atpresent, this condition appears to only affect two to four lots, and should not impact design, if the area is adequately phased (i.e.., built after time required for adequate settlement of I alluvium) during construction. The desired magnitude of differential settlement for typical post-tension design is up to I i inch in a 40-foot span, but post-tension design may adequately accommodate differential settlements up to 2 inches. Based on our current analysis (GSI, 2006d), the time necessary (wait time) to allow for settlement of alluvial soils to occur to a point where these I differentials can be applied, is on the order of 1.20 to 180 days after the completion of grading (GSI, 2006d). The use of wick drains would generally reduce this "wait" time by approximately 60 to 70 percent, for a "wait time" on the order of 45 to 65, days after the U completion of grading (2006d). If the necessary post-grading "wait" times (no wick drains) are not compatible with respect I to planned building schedules, then wick drains may be considered for structures within. the southern portion of PA-15, the southwest corner of PA-21, and those portions Of PA-22 where settlement-sensitive improvements are planned. Monitoring of individual I fill pads would be required after grading is completed in order to verify that settlement has essentially been completed. The general distribution of alluvial soil to remain in place, and potential wick drain areas.is shown schematically in GSI (2006d). U Monitoring I Areas where alluvial soil is left-in-place should be monitored and the settlement values revised based on actual field data. Settlement monuments are recommended during construction.. Monument locations would be best provided during 40-scale plan review. 1 Dynamic Settlements I Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event (or by some man made means) can produce settlements in sands, both above and below the groundwater table. This I Catavera Hills, LLC W.0. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File: e:\wp9\53O0\5353a.ucje Page 19 I GSiL, I I phenomena is commonly referred to as dynamic settlement and is most prominent in relatively clean sands, but can also occur in other soil materials. The primary factor controlling earthquake induced settlement in saturated sand, is the cyclic stress ratio In I dry sands earthquake, induced settlements are controlled by both cyclic shear strain and volumetric strain control. On site, the alluvial materials are loose and could generate volumetric consolidation during a seismic event. An analysis of potential dynamic I settlements, due to the occurrence of the identified maximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon fault zone, has been performed. Based on this analysis, approximately 11/4 inches of settlement could occur during a maximum credible seismic event. Current analysis is included in Appendix E. Settlement Due to Structural Loads I The settlement of the structures supported on strip and/or spread' footings founded on compacted fill will depend on the actual footing dimensions, the thickness and I compressibility of compacted fill below the bottom Of the footing, and the imposed structural loads. Provided the the thickness of compacted fill below the bottom of the footing is at least equal to the width of the footing, and 'based, on a maximum allowable I bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf provided in this report, total settlement of less than 1/2 inch should be anticipated'. I Summary of Settlement Analysis The design of structures are typically controlled by differential settlement, and not the total I settlement. In order to evaluate differential settlement, data On the relative position and dimensions of adjacent footings, structural loads on the footing, and the nature and thickness of compressible soils below each footing may be assumed to be on the order 1 ' of one-halt of the total settlement. In areas where structures will be founded on formational or bedrock, and/or compacted I fills, and not underlain with saturated alluvium, total settlement is anticipated to be less than 11/2 inches, with a differential settlement on the order of ,4 inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads Areas underlain by alluvial soils left in place, i.e., the "triangle" area, should he de'signed to withstand an overall total settlement, on the order of 2 inches, or less, and a differential I settlement of up to approximately 1 inch over a horizontal distance of 40 feet, under dead plus live loads, and as further evaluated by settlement monitoring. Other areas underlain by alluvium left in place (i.e.. PA-15, PA-21, and PA-22) may also be minimally designed for a differential settlement of up to 1 inch in a 40 foot span, provided that the area(s) are allowed to adjust (over time) to the new loading conditions. The "wait" time necessary to achieve the recommended design differential settlement may be significantly reduced with the use of "wick drains," as indicated previously. I Calavera Hills, LLC ' W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.ucje Page '20 I GO'L, I I Due to the predonlinantly clayey nature of-the underlying wet alluvium, the magnitude of seismic settlement will be less than that due to static loading conditions. The maximum seismic differential settlement for design should be taken as less than 11/2 inches over a horizontal span of 40 feet Current analysis is included in Appendix E. I SUBSIDENCE Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering of the ground surface occurs as a result I of a number of processes. These include dynamic loading during grading, fill loading, fault activity, or fault creep, as well as groundwater withdrawal. I An analysis of fill loading is presented in the previous section. Ground subsidence (consolidation), due to vibrations, would depend on the equipment being used, the weight of the equipment, repetition of use, and the dynamic effects of the equipment.. Most of I these factors.cannot be determined and may be beyond ordinary estimating possibilities. However, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other that fill loading would be relatively minor (on the order of 1 inch, or less, which should occur I during grading), and should not significantly affect site development. The effect of fill loading on alluvial soil has .been evaluated in the previous section. I ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION I Rock Hardness and Rippability The majority of the site is underlain with medium dense to dense terrace deposits and I older sedimentary bedrock. These materials were observed to be readily excavated with a backhoe, and producing no oversize material. I Field mapping and subsurface exploration indicate the presence of undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock at or near the surface along the northern boundary of Robertson Ranch East (see Geotechnical Maps). Based on previous work performed by I this office (GSI, 2001c), comparisons of seismic velocities and ripping performance developed by Church (1982) and the Caterpillar Tractor Company (2002),. the following conclusions regarding rock hardness and rippability are prOvided. I 1. In general, little ripping to soft ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 2 to 3 feet of existing elevations. 2. In general, soft to medium ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations. I. I Calavera Hilts, LLC S W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 21 I I I I I I 3. Undifferentiated metavolcanic/g ran itic bedrock, requiring extremelyhard ripping or blasting to excavate, may likely be encountered below depths on the order of 5 to 10 -feet below existing elevations. It should be anticipated that due to the. presence of dense outcrops throughout the area, however, isolated boulders or hard spots will be encountered at any depth during grading I and trenching. These hard zones will likely require specialized, equipment, such as rock breakers or rock saws, to excavate, and blasting may not be entirely precluded in areas Where it was not previously anticipated, nor at any depth or location on the site. I Overexcavation should be considered in dense rock in proposed street areas to approximately 1 foot below lowest utility invert in order to facilitate utility construction.; however, this is not a geotechnical requirement. I I Blasting operations will likely be necessary to excavate the deeper cuts, and for utility construction along the northern margin on Robertson Ranch East, where dense metavolcanic/granitic bedrock occurs near the surface. A' blasting contractor should be I consulted regarding the current standards of practice when preparing an area for blasting, the blasting itself, and any associated monitoring. If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to proposed cut slopes and structural pad areas. I Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions, which could require remedial grading to stabilize the building pads and affected cut slopes. I Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials, which may otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized, it is recommended that generally minus 2-loot sized materials, are produced and that sufficient fines (sands I and gravel)., to fill all void spaces, are present This procedure would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced. I SLOPE. STABILITY I Gross Stability Based on available data, including a review of GSI (2004a, 2002b', and 2001c), it appears I that .graded fill slopes will be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Cut slopes, constructed in terrace deposits are anticipated to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance, under normal rainfall conditions. I Cut slopes constructed to the anticipated heights in competent undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic. bedrock should perform adequately at gradients of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter, and are considered to be generally stable assuming proper construction and i maintenance. I calavera Hills, LLC 'Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 22 I GeóSs, Ine. I I All cut slope construction will require observation during grading in order to verily the findings and conclusions presented herein and in subsequent reports. Our analysis assumes.that graded slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines I provided by the City, the UBC/CBC (ICB.O, 1997 and 2001)., and recommendations provided by this office. I Surlicial Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes-constructed of compacted I fills and/or bedrock material. Our analysis (GSI, 2004d, 2002b, and 2001c) indicates that proposed slopes exhibit an adequate factor of safety (i.e., >1.5) against surficial failure, provided that the slopes are properly constructed and maintained, under conditions of I normal rainfall. I PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and gebtéchnical, engineering analysis, I it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed developm ent from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction I phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: I . Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. Slope stability. Corrosion and expansion potential. I Subsurface water and potential for perched Water. Rock hardness. Settlement potential. I . Liquefaction potential. Regional seismicity and faulting. The recommendations presented herein consider these as well-as other aspects of the site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. I I I I I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January -15,2007 Page 23 I GeoSoils, Inc. I I RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION General All grading shoUld conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the UBC, the requirements of the City, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as I Appendix G, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. I During earthwork contruction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of I GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed-in the field, theyshould be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry l safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation,, and other deleterious material should be removed from the I improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. Following removals, areas approved to receive additiOnal fill,should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches, and compacted to a minimum I 90 percent relative compaction. Removals I Alluvial soils above the groundwater table are not considered; suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presence of groundwater within I areas of the site underlain with alluvium,. removals will be generally limited in depth by the presence of groundwater. Removals on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within tributary canyon areas. Within areas underlain by valley alluvium, complete alluvial I removals is desired, but may not be feasible. Minimally, theuppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be removedand recompacted. Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement I monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plates 1 through 13. Typical removal depths within fill areas are also shown on Plates 1 through 13. I Stabilization of removal bottoms in valley alluvium may be necessary prior to fill placement. Tentatively, stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inch thick layer,, of I 3/4 to 1 1/2-inch-diameter crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x, or equivalent) may being considered and subsequently recommended, based on conditions exposed during I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1ere:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 24 I GeSos, I grading. Previous earthwork in nearby deposits of valley alluvium did not require bottom I stabilization using rock blankets, however, the use of rock blankets cannot be precluded, based on the conditions exposed during grading. I Removal depths on the order of 3 to 5 feet may be anticipated within areas underlain with terrace deposits (Map Symbol - Qt, and rnetavolcanic/ igneous bedrock (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr). Deeper removal areas may occur locally and should be anticipated. I Removal of slump deposits will likely be required (if encountered) and may vary, on the order of 10 feet, or less. I Overexcavation/Transitions In order to provide for the uniform support of structures, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket I is recommended for lots containing plan transitions.. Any cut portion of the pad for the residence should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be over excavated in order to provide the mihimurn fill I thickness. Maximum to minimum fillthickriess within a given lot should not exceed ratio of 3:1, if conventional foundations .are desired, As such, deeper over excavation will be necessary for till lots with maximum fills in excess of approximately 9 feet. Overexcavation l is also recommended for cut lots exposing claystones and/or heterogenous material types (i.e., sand/clay) or hard rock (if encountered). Overexcavation is also recommended for cut lots in order 10 mitigate the potential adverse effects from perched water. Fihal I overexcavation depths should be determined in the field based on site conditions. In order to facilitate the construction of future utilities within areas underlain by hard rock, I cut areas may be overexcavated to at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. This may be achieved by either excavating the entire right of way or line shooting along a particular utility alignment. This is not a geotechnical requirement, however. I Overexcavation in pad areas should be sloped to drain toward streets. Sheet grading areas into large "superpads" as indicated on ODC (2007) will require I particular attention to overexcavation depths so that future fine, or finish grading does not compromise the minimum undercut recommended for a given lot- As such, locally deeper undercuts may be recommended in some area in order to accommodate potential future I grade adjustments. I 84 Inch Storm Drain Line Based on our review of GSI, (2006c) and O'Day (2006), the following recommendations I are provided: Removals are anticipated to be no more than 5 to 6 feet below grade within un- improved areas, located beyond the limits of the existing fill embankment I supporting Cannon Road: However, dependant on the current groundwater elevation, and the relative saturation of native soils above the groundwater table, I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robert-son Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:1vdp91530015353a.u9e Page 25 I Geosoils, Inc. I I I our experience with previous grading in the area has indicated that removals could be as little as 1 to 3 feet. I Stabilization of removal bottoms (due to yielding ground) may be necessary prior to liD placement. Stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inches of 11/2 inch crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) placed around the rock layer, may be considered and subsequently recommended, based I on conditions exposed during grading. I The stabilization of soil subgrades immediately below the storm drain may also be necessary. Stabilization should minimally consist of over-excavating the bottom of the trench to at least 24 inches below the bottom of the pipe, placing a layer of I geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) over the exposed bottom, then filling to pipe grade with 1 1/2 inch crushed rock-This method of stabilization would best be completed during trenching operations, and not during mass grading. I Wick Drains I In order to accelerate the consolidation and settlement of saturated alluvial soils to be left in place, a vertical wick drainsystemmay be considered as an alternative to fill surcharge. Based on the current plan (O'Day, 2007), and our evaluation (GSI, 2004a and 2006d) wick I drains may be considered within portions of Lots 1, 2, and (super pads), i.e., Planning Areas PA-1 5, PA-21, and PA-22. The general distribution of the potential wick drain fields are shown in GSI (2006d). I Drain Spacing and Depth I For saturated alluvial soils (valley alluvium, Map Symbol - Qal8) up to approximately 30 feet in total remaining thickness (i.e.., after remedial earthwork), wick drains should be installed in a triangular pattern on 10-foot centers. For alluvial soils greater than 30 feet thick, the I spacing should be reduced to 8 feet on center. The depth of an individual wick drain should beat least 80 percent of-the total alluvial thickness at that location. For example, a40-foot thick column of alluvial soil will require a wick drain installed to a depth of 32'feet. I .Wick drains are not required where the remaining saturated alluvial thickness (after remedial grading) is less than 10 feet. Based on the recommended spacing and depth pattern, the required time for 90 percent consolidation will be reduced by approximately I 60 to 70 percent, or 45 to 65 days after the completion of grading. Ground Preparation I Remedial earthwork should be performed in accordance with recommendations presented herein. Prior to drain installation, a relatively flatlying, uniformly sloping, working platform I should be constructed. The platform should be sheet graded to provide a minimum fall of at least 2 percent toward the approved wick drain outlet(s). I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 26 I GeoSofls, I I Drainage A.gravity driven drainage system is recommended in order to de-water the wick drains: I Drainage alternatives are presented as follows- The drainage system may consist of a permeable sand/rock blanket (SE >30), at I least 3feet thick and. connecting to a gravel subdrain(s). The use of open graded material (i.e., crushed rook) will require the use of filter fabric to provide separation between the rock and soil, both above and below. I The drainage system may consist of horizontal wick drains connected to the vertical drains and tied into a gravel subdrain(s) system. I Gravel subdrains should consist of a perforated 4-inch diameter PVC pipe, embedded in 3/4-inch crushed rock, wrapped in filter fabric (Miràli 140N, or I equivalent). The subdrain trench should be at least 12 inches in width by 24 inches in depth Drains should be constructed with a minimum fall of 2 percenL I Subdrains may be outletted into available storm drain systems, or onto surface grades within approved areas. Subdrains outlettéd onto surface grades should be constructed no closer than 20 feet from grade and outletted to the surface via a I solid pipe This office should be provided with wick drain plans/layouts and subdrain plans/layouts I as they become available in order in minimize any misunderstandings between the plans the intent of this report. I Subdrains SUbdrains will be required within the larger tributary drainage cleanouts, where the as-built I fill thickness (including rem oval/re co m pact) is greater than approximately 10 feet. Preliminary subdrain locations are shown on Plates 1 through 13. I If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may require a sübdrain system. In addition, the placement of rock blankets and windrows should also consider having a I subdrain system to mitigate any perched water from collecting, and to outlet the water into a designed system, or other approved area. Typical subdrain design and construction details are presented in Appendix F. I I I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\53OO'5353auge Page 27 I I Fill Placement and Suitability Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6 to ±8 inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard ASIM test method D-1557-91. If soil importation is planned, samples of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the oñsite site soils and the U recommendations presented in this report Import soils should be relatively sandy and very low to low expansive (i.e., El less than 50). Rock Disposal During the course of grading, materials generated from hard rock areas (Map I Symbol .-.Jsp/Kgr) are anicipated to be of varying dimensions. For the purpose of this report, the materials may be described as either 8 inches, or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than 36 inches. These three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be paced. Tentatively, disposal areas for oversized materials (i.e., 12 inches, or greater) appear to be limited to existing canyon areas. Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less U Since, rock fragments along with granular materials are a major part of the native materials used in the grading of the site, a criteria is needed to facilitate the placement of these materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough grading, I post-grading improvements, and serve as suitable compacted fill. 1. Fines 'and rock fragments 8 inches, or less, in one dimension may be placed as compacted fill cap materials within the building pads,. slopes, and street areas as described below. The rock fragments and fines should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. The purpose for the 8-inch-diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized rock U fragments into the fill under selected conditions (optimum moisture or above) surrounded with compacted fines. . The 8-inch-diameter size also allows a greater volume of the rock fragments to be handled during, grading, while staying in I reasonable. limits for later onsite excavation equipment (i.e., backhoes) to excavate footings and utility lines. I . 2. Fill materials 8 inches, or less, in one dimension should be placed (but not limited to) within a hold-down distance in the up.per'5 to 10 feet of proposed fill pads, the I . Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 28 I ' 'GecSoils, Inc. I I upper 3 feet of overexcavated cut areas on cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width. The building official/agency reviewer will need to approve any variance from the 10 Feet hOld-down distance, if oversize materials are placed within 10 feet from finish grade, prior to grading. Overexcavation is discussed in a previous section of this report. I Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter During the process of excavation, rock fragments or constituents larger than I 8 inches in one dimension will be generated. These oversized materials, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, maybe incorporated into the fills utilizing a series of rock blankets. If rock blanketsare not an acceptable means of I disposal, then materials may either be placed in rock windrows as described in the following section, or. broken down to 12 inch minus material and incorporated into soil fill. If constructed, each rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than .8 and less than 36. inches in one dimension, along with sufficient fines generated from the proposed cuts and overburden materials generated from removal areas. The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 inches in thickness and should be placed with granular fines which are flooded into and around the rock fragments effectively, to fill all voids. If constructed, rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert within the street right-of-way, 10 feet below Finish grade on the proposed fill lots, and a minimum of 20 horizontal feet (unless approved by the governing agency) from any fill slope surface. Shallower depths to the top of oversize materials may be considered, dependant upon approval by the controlling authorities for the project. I 4. Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wheel rolling methods with scrapers and water trucks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers. Equipment traffic should be routed over each lift. Gien the rocky nature of this material, I sand-cone and nuclear (densometer) testing methods are often found to be ineffective. Where such testing methods are infeasible, the most effective means to evaluate compaction efforts by the contractor would be to excavate test pits at I .random locations to check those. factors pertinent to performance of rock fills; moisture content, gradation of rock fragments and matrix material and presence of any apparent void spaces. I 5i If constructed, each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow. I I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 29 I GeoSeiffs, Inc. I I Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter Oversize rock, greater than 36 inches in one dimension, should be placed in single rock windrows. The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width I apart, whichever is greatest. The void spaces between rocks in windrows should be filled with the more granular I soils by flooding them into place. A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock windrow should be maintained. Also, the windrows should be staggered from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be placed closer than 15 feet from the face of fill slopes. '4. Larger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted till or dense natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried. After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other), granular fill material should be flooded into the trench to fill the voids. The oversize rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet at a particular elevation and at least 15 feet from any slope face. Trenches at higher elevations I should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of compacted fill between the top of one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. Placement of rock into these trenches should be under the full-time inspection of the soils engineer. 1 . 5. Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space"green belt areas that would be designated as non-structural fills. Rock Excavation and Fill I .'1 - If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to proposed, cut slopes and structural pad areas. Over-blasting of hard rock would result in' weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the I building pads and affected. cut slopes. 2. Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality till materials which may I otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials is produced and that sufficient fines (sands and gravel) to fill all void spaces are present. This procedure would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks I .produced- I Calavera Hills. LLC -' W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch. East Village January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 30. Gjij[9 Inc. I Earthwork Balance Shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwOrk shrinkage and I bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters- Existing. Artificial Fill ......................................5% to 10% shrinkage Colluvium ..............................................3% to 8% shrinkage I Alluvium .............................................10% to 15% shrinkage Terrace Deposits ..................................2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Rock (Excavated) ...................................5% shrinkage to 10% Bulk I Rok (Shot) ................................................15% to 20% Bulk It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. SlopeConsiderations and Slope Design I Onsite soils are considered erosive. All slopes should be designed and constructed in I accordance with the minimum requirements of City/County, the UBC/CBC (lCBO, 1997 and 2001), and the recommendations in Appendix F. I Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes The construction of stabilization and/or buttress slopes may be necessary for some west facing cut slopes. Such remedial slope construction may be recommended, as necessary, based upon conditions exposed in the field during grading. I Temporary Construction Slopes I In general, temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a minimum slope ratio of 1:1 (h:v), or flatter, within alluvial soils and terrace deposits, and 1/2:1, or flatter, for temporary slopes exposing dense sedimentary or metavolcanic/granitic bedrock without I adverse (daylighted) bedding or fracture surfaces. Excavations for removals, drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized -con ditions should be evaluated on an individual basis by the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance from this recommendation. Due to the nature of the materials anticipated, the engineering geologist I should observe all excavations and fill conditions. The geotechnical engineer should be Calavera Hills, LLC W:O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353auge Page 31 GO&S, Inc. I notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate I recommendations should be. presented. I FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS I In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be I considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. I RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS I General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing I and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Recommendations for conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections for bedrock, or fill (less than 30 feet thick) on bedrock areas. The foundation systems may be used to I support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing material. Foundations should be founded entirely in compacted fill or rippable bedrock, with no exposed transitions. Conventional foundations maybe used for very low to low expansive I soil subgrades, where the soils plasticity index (P1) is 15, or less. For low to medium expansive soil conditions where the P1 is greater than 15, conventional foundations may be used., provided that they are designed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Section 1815) I of the UBC (ICBO, 1997). Typically, when the P1 is greater than 15, Code may require the use of more onerous foundations (i.e., post-tension, mat, etc.). Conventional foundations systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions, where I alluvial soil is left in place, where the maximum fill thickness is greater than 30 feet, or post- tensioned foundations may be used for all soil conditions, or where the maximum fill thickness within a given building pad exceeds a ratio of. 3:1. In these areas, a post I tensioned slab design is recommended. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to I supercede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. IPreliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low to U high expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final -foundation recommendations should be provided I calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 File: e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 32 I I at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials, exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value The foundation systems should be .dsigned and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 psf may be. used for the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected by a grade beam in at least one• direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches -in depth to a maximum of 3,000.psf. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width. The all.owable.beáring pressure may be increased by one-third under the effects of temporary loading such as seismic or wind loads Lateral Pressure ., . . ., . 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. I 2: Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. I 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. . . Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials generally range from very low (E. 1. less than 20), to -pot ' entially high (E.l.91 to 130) range. During grading of the site we recommend that highlyexpansive material should not be placed within 7 feet of finish grade,. if feasible. Conventional foundation systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions or where alluvial soil is left in place Post-tension slab foundations may be used for all soil conditions I Recommendations by the projects design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineers rCdornniëñdatiOn, should take prebederice over the followih I minimum requirements Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surfacesoils encountered during grading. Conventional foundation recommendations are presented in the following Table 1, followed by an explanation by the "Foundation Category," and othe.r criteria. I ..Calavera Hills, LLC • • •• . • W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village • . , January 15, 2007 Fiie:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . Page 33 I I I I 1 I TABLE 1 Conventional Perimeter Footings, and Slabs, Robertson Ranch East Village ' . MINIMUM ' MINIMUM MIN(MUM': MINIMUM'. ' 'MINIMUM'.,: . MINIMUM.. " ' FOUNDATION lOOTING INTERIOR REINFORCING INTERIOR UNDER SLAB GARAGE SLAB FLATWORK CATEGORY—SIZE SLAB STEEL I s TREATMENT REINFORCEMENT REINFORCING - THICKNESS". . .,-,:' . : REINFORCEMENT . h:.. ;,- ::" .: ' -' -. ' :' '• ,: ... I 121 Wide x 4 Thick i-No. 4 Bar Top No.3 Bars @ 18' 2' Sand Over 6' x 6' None 12 Deep and I3otIom 'o.c. I 0-Mil vapor (10/10) welded wire Both Directions relardkr , fabric (WWF) Over 2' Sand Base II ' 12 Wide x 4 Thick 2-No. 4 Ears No.3 Bars @ 16' 2 Sand Over . 6', 6' 6' x 6' 18' Deep Top O.C. 10/15-MiI (6/6) WWF or 10x10WWF and Bottom Both DireEtions vapor retarder No.3 Bars @ 18' Over 2 Sand o.d, Bcith.Directions Base (15-mit ' to, Low for medium expansive soils only) ., III , 12' Wide x' ' S'ThiCk 2-No.5Bars No. 3 Bars ()l8' 2'SandOver' . Sameas , ' ' ' 6'x6' 24' Deep ' Top , O.C. 15-Mit Interior Slab ' (6/,5) VWIF and Bottom ' Both Directions vapor retarder Over 3'Sand . Base (highly . expansive soils only) Category Criteria Category I: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 20' and E.I. is less than, or equal to, 50 (P1 <15) and Differential Fill Thickness is less than 1.0' (see Note 1). . Category II: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 30' and E.I. is less than, or equal to, 90 or Differential Fill Thickness is - between 10 and 20' (see Note 1). Presoaking required. Category Ill: Max. Fill Thickness exceeds 30'. or E.I. exceeds 90 but is less than 130, or. Differential Fill ThiGkness exceeds 20' (see Note 1). Presoaking required. Notes: 1. Conventional foundations shall also be designed per Section 1815, Chapter 18 of the UBC (1C130, 1997) where the P1 (Plasticity Index) is 15, or greater. Post-tension foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 30', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1, or where the E.I. exceeds 90, or in areas underlain with alluvial soil left in place. Differential settlements discussed in the .body of the report should be incorporated into foundation design by the structural engineer/slab designer. Fdbting depth measured from lowest adjacent compacted/suitable subgrade. The allowable, soil bearing pressure is 2,000 psf. 5.. Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi at-28 days The - maximum slump shall be5 inches The water/cement ratio of concrete shall not be more than 0.5 for soils with an 0 > 90. 6 The vapor retarder is not required under garage slabs However, co'lisideration should be given to future uses of the slab' area, such, as' room conversion 'and/or storage of moisture-sensitive materials'arid disclosure. All vapor retaders should be placed in accordance' with ASTM E 1643, and the UBC (lC80, 1997). Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineeis recommendations (see report). - Sand used for base under slabs shall be a "clean" granular,material, and have SE:>30. "Pea" gravel may be substituted for the basal sand layer in order to improve water transmission mitigation. Additional exterior flatwo,rk recommendations are presented in the text of this report ' All slabs should be provided with weakened plane-joints to. control cracking. Joint:pacing should be in accordance with correct industry. standards and reviewed by the project structural engineer. - Pie-wetting is recommended for all soil conditions as follows: very low to low expansive (at least-optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches, medium expansive (at least 2-3% over optimum to a depth of 18 inches), highly to very highly expansive (at least 4-5% over optimum to a'depth of 24'inches) Calave'ra Hills, LLC W0 5353-ASC Robertson Ranch, East Village . ' . , ' January 15, 2007 Fiie:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' Page 34 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I - I i----.--. S.' I I .POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed buildings. I Based on the potential differential settlement within areas of the site underlain by alluvium,- post-tensioned slab foundations are recommended exclusively.. General The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered -structural engineer or civil e.nginee,r familiar with post-tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering, consultant. Upon request, GSI could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to post-tensioned slab design during grading. The post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance .with the. Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method. Alternatives to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which-accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlemerit rioted for this site. . Post-tensioned slabs' should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 UBC Section 1816 (lCBO, 1997), based on design specifications of the PTl. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the PTI design method. I I I I P1 I I Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 inches/year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet Constant Soil Suction (pf) 3.6 The coefficients are considered minimums and may not 'be. adequate to represent worst" ' case conditions such as over-irrigation adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance The above parameters are applicable provided positive drainage is '. maintained away from structures, for a distance of at lOast 3 feet. Therefore, it is imporfant I .that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects, of expansive soils be passed onto future owners and/or interested parties. I . Based on the above parameters, design values were obtained from figures or tables of the 1997 U.BC Section 1816 and 'presented, in Table 2: These values may notb.appropri.ate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab, due to other 'factors (i.e., fill I settlement). If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. I ..Calavera Hills, LLC . '. '. . W0. 5353-ASC Robertson Ranch, East Village , . , January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . Page 35 TABLE 2 POST-TENSION FOUNDATIONS , EXPANSION.' VERY LOWtm TO ." .'MbIjM:.:, ':'.''I4iGHLY POTENTIAL LOW EXPANSIVE EXPANSIVE. EXPANSIVE (EI'o5o) 91-12O).::. em center lift - 5.0 feet '. 5.5 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 3.5 feet 4.0 feet . :45 feet Yrn center lift 1.7 inches 2.7 inches 3.5 inches Ym edge lift 0.75 inch 0.75 inch •- 1.2 inches Bearing Value 1000 psf .1000 psi 1000 psI. Lateral Pressure . 250.psl 250 psI . ''- 250 psI Subgrade Modulus (k) 100pci/inch 85 pci/inch •. 70 pci/inch Perimeter Footing Embedment 12 inches . 18 inches :'. ..' 24 inches Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be increased to 2,000 psi for a minimum embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 3.000 psI. As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface. Foundations for verylow expansive soil conditionsmay use the California Method (spanability method). Note: The use of open bottomed raised planters adjacentto foundations will require more onerous design parameters. Subarade Prënaration The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned in accordance with the following discussion. Perimeter. Footings and Pre-Wetting .•• S ,,, .. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint a fairly common contributing factor to distress Of structures using post-tensioned slabs-is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a 'dishing or 'arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil pre-wetting and constructionof a perimeter cut-off wall grade beam should be employed: Deepened' footings/edges. around the,. slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from anoutside source:) beneath the slab: Embedment depths are 'presented in Table 2 for various soil expansion' conditions. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should' he designed to resist tension, using cable Calavera Hills, LLC • '. '• . W.O. 5353-ASC Robertson Ranch, East Village - • • • January 1.5, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge S Page 36 Inc. ', : ' • : , i I or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation recommendations in the referenced report should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. Floor slab subgrade should be at, or above the soils optimum moisture. content to a depth of 18 inches prior to pouring concrete, for very low to tow expansive soils, at least 2 to I 3 percent over optimum for medium expansive soils to a depth of 18 inches, and at least 4 to 5 percent over optimum for highly to very, highly expansive soils to a depth of 24 inches. Pre-wetting of the slab subgrade soil prior to placement of steel and concrete I will likely be recommended and necessary, in order to achieve optimum moisture conditions. Soil moisture contents should be verified at least 72 hours prior to pouring , concrete. If pre-wetting of the slab subgrade is completed prior to footing excavation, the pad area may require period wetting in order to keep to-soil from drying out. 0 MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION . .. The following methodologies for vapor transmission mitigation are provided with respect I to the Robertson Ranch, East Village Project. These recommendations are also presented in Table 1. The following alternatives have been developed in accordance with the expansive character of the building pad subgrade within 7 feet of finish grade. I iv Low to Low Expansive Soils I For floor slabs bearing on very low to low expansive soil subgrades (E.I. of 50, or less),Jhe floor slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand, over a.10-mil polyvinyl membrane (vapor retarder), over a 2-inch sand base. Sand used should have 'a minimum sand I. equivalent of.30. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be 2,500 psi. (upgraded from the prior recommendation)- All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E 1643 and the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001). I . Medium Expansive Soils I .For floor slabs bearing on'medium expansive, soil subgrades (El. between 51 and 90), the. slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand (SE >30) over a1 5-mil vapor retarder, over a minimum 2-inch sand (SE >30) base. The minimum concrete compressive strenth I .should be at least 2,500 psi. All vapor retarders should be placed per ASTM E-1 643 and the UBC/CBC (lCBO, 1997 and 2001). A 2-inch layer of ."pea" gravel may be substituted for the sand layer used beneath the vapor retarder if it is desired to further mitigate water/water vapor transmission. . . I . I ..Calavera Hills, LLC . . .. '. 0 W.O. 5353-ASC Robertson Ranch, East Village . . 0 January 15, 2007 Fiie:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . . Page 37 I Highly Expansive Soils Based on our preliminary information, soils with an El greater than 90 (i.e., highly .I expansive soils) are not anticipated to occur in significant quantities that will influence foundation design. However, should these soils occur, recommendations would be provided on a lot by lot basis and will need tb be carefully monitored during grading. On I a. preliminary basis, Alternative #3 would include similar criteria as indicated for Alternative #2, and a water/cement ratio of not more that 0.5 for concrete; .however, the underlàyment thickness would increase below the vapor retarder to a minimum of 3 inches (per ASIM E 1643). Other Considerations I Regardless of the soils expansion potential, an additional 'improvement to moisture protection would be to extend the vapor retarder/membrane beneath all foundation I elements and grade beams.. In addition, because it'häs been shown that'the lateraF migration of water from foundation edges may contribute significantly to excess moisture transmission, the vapor retarder/membrane could extend slightly abovelsoils grade around I the slab/foundation perimeter and the exposed foundation face could be painted with a latex sealer prior to color coat. Recognizing that-these measures go beyond the current standard of care, we recommend that the developeí evaluate the construction issues and I costs associated with the additional measures above and determine the feasibility of implementing 'them. I While these methods are considered to' be overall' improvements to the existing . recommendations for this project (GSI, 2004a), they will only minimize the transmission of' Water vapor through the slab, and may not completely mitigate it. Floor slab sealants may I' also be used for a particular flooring product, if necessary. The use of concrete additives that reduce the overall permeability (water reducers) of the concrete may also be considered. SETBACKS I 'All footings shoLid maintain a minimum horizontalsetback of H/3 (H='slope height) from the base of the :footing to- the descending slope face. Of no- less than'7 feet, 1nor peed not I ,be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage s,wales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below' the invert 'of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for I structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend' below a 1:1" protection from the heel of, the wall. Alternative.ly, walls may be,designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or 'appurtenances as described in 'the retaining wall section of this report. I .. Calay.ra Hills, LLC '. ' , ' W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village ' . January 15, 2007 FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a,uge ' Page 38 SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY Based on our experience in the vicinity, the majority of site soils are anticipated to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete .per table 19-A-4-of the UB'C (ICBO, 997). Site sOils are also anticipated to be mildly corrosive to buried metal, but may become highly corrosive when saturated. Consultation with a corrosion engineer should be considered. SETTLEMENT In addition to designing slab systems (post-tension or other) for the soil expansion conditions described herein, the estimated total and differential settlement values that an individual structure could be subject to should be evaluated by a structural engineer, and utilized in the foundation design. The levels of angular distortion may be evaluated on a 40-foot length assumed as minimum dimension of buildings; if, . from a 'strijctural standpoint a decreased or increased length over which the differential is assumed to occur is justified, this change should be incorporated into the design. Please refer to the previous sections regarding "settlement analysis" fo'a discussion of preliminary design' values to be used. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided, below assume that either non expansive soils (Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native materials (up to' and including an E.I. of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in ttis and preceding sections of this report regarding conventional foundation design, as appropriate. The bottom of footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer ,'6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width There should be no increase in bearing for footing width Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material • or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be design'edfor an at-rest equivalent fluid. '1 pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable' surcharge loading. For.aré'ás of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (21-1) laterally from the corner. U .. calavera Hills, LLC ' . . . WO. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village . January 15, 2007 FiFe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 39 Inc. • ' S •,, S I I I U I I U I I P I I ..Cantilevered Walls . . . The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet I high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may. be superceded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent I fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure. against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do. not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, I structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized; the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. I I II I Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage . Positive drainage must be provided behind a ll retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls I .that are 2 feet or greater in height . Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or ½-inch to 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) For low I expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind .the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials or 1/2-inch to 3/4-inch I gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) should be used behind the wall as backfill within the. active, zone, defined the area.•above a 1:1 . projection. up. from the base of:the wall stem. This material should be continuous(i.e., full height)'behind I .the wall The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top. 18 inches. compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed. Materials with an I .El potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. Any wall drainage plan should be reviewed by this office for approval prior to construction I' I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fle:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 40 I I Weeping Of the walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet, or less, in height, weepholes should be-no greater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than :t100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of only weep holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.l. <90). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The useof a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry. joints. Proper surface drainage should also be provided in order to reduce the potential for surface water penetration. Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report Should wall footings transition from cut to fill the civil designer may specify. either: . .. I a) A minimum of a 2-fOot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. I h) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (Le., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a.distance of 2H I . on either side of the transition may be 'accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 'feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition .Iconditions exist. Expansion joints.should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. C) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened I footings).. If. transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at anlangle of less than.. I 45 degrees (plan view), then. the designer'should follow recommendation 'a (above) and . until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment I TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS I Due to the potential for slope creep (see the' "Development Criteria" section 'for a discussion) for slopes higher than 'about 10 feet, some settlement and.: tilting of -the walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, .should. be expected. To mitigate the tilting I of top of slope walls/ fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on deepened foundations' without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansion I .. calavera Hills, LLC '• S 5 W.0. 5353-A-SC Robertson' Ranch, East Village , January. 1.5, 2007 Fèie:e:\wp95300\5353a.uqe S Page 41 I .. S GeoSofls, I 1 I I I index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less. than 50, or a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations,, for expansion indices greater than• 50, comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account. Recommendations for grade beam and .caisson foundations can be provided upon request. Deepened foundations should minimally provide for a lateral distance of .7 feet from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the face of slOpe. POOL/SPA-DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in pool/spa design and planning. The following recommendations should. be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, etc., that may perform such work. Final - recommendations will be based on as *built conditions- 1 . The pool system 'should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the IBC. lhe.pool shell should be embedded entirely into properly,compactéd fill, or suitablenative soil. The equivalent fluid pressure to be used for the pool design should be 62 pcf for pool walls with level backfill, and 75 pcf for a 2:1 (h:v) sloped backfill condition. In addition, backdrains should be provided behind pool walls subjacent to slopes. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pcI, to a maximum earth' pressure of 2,500 psf An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with' the dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third- The geotechnical consultant-should review and approve all aspects of pool/spa and, flatwork design prior to construction. Recommendations to 'pool flatwork are presented in a following section A design civil engineer should review all aspects of such design including drainage and setback conditions per the UBC/CBC All aspects of'construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnicat' 'consultant, including during excavation, prior to the placement of any additional fill,' prior to the placement of any reinforcement or pouring of any co'ncrete. Where pools are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge loads need tobe incorporated into design and construction by the pool designer. I ..Calavera Hills, LLC ' ' ' W.O. 5353A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village ' January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge ' Page 42 Inc. I 9. All pool walls should be. designed as "freestanding" and be capable of supporting the water in the pool without soil support per Section 1806.5.4, Chapter 18 of the UBC (lCBO, 1997). I 10. The. pool structure should be set back from any adjacent descending slope in accordance with the UBC/C.BC (ICBO;'1997and,2001). ii ,The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same stiffness throughout lf'a fill/cut transition occurs beneath the pool bottom, the cut I portion should be overexcavated to a minimum depth Of 24 inches, and replaced with compacted fill. The fill should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative 'compaction, at over-optimum moisture conditions. The potential for grading and/or I . re-grading of 'the pool bottom, and attendant potential for shoring' 'and/or slot excavation, needs-to be considered during all'aspects of pool planning, design, and . construction If pool subgrade conditions are wet or saturated provisions for drying back overexcavated soils, or importing/mixing with drier soils may be necessary:" 12. Hydrostatic pressure relief valves should be incorporated into the pool and. spa I designs. A pool under-drain system should also be considered, with an appropriate outlet for discharge, depending on pool location. I 13. All fittings and pipe joints, particularly fittings in the side of the pool or spa', should be properly sealed to prevent water from leaking into the adjacent soils materials. I 14. An elastic expansion/shrinkage joint (waterproof sealant) should be installed to prevent water from seeping into the soil at all deck joints. Reinforced grade beams should be placed around skimmer 'inlets to provide support and mitigate cracking around the skimmer face. Pool décking/flatwork should be pre-wet/pre-soaked per the Foundation Section of this report.,' I 17 Regardless of the methods employed once the pool/spa is filled with water should it be emptied there exists some potential that if emptied significant distress may occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless evaluated by the 'geotechnical consultant. I I I ..Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge I W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 43 I I DRIVEWAY. FLATWORK, AND.OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level.areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and, swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improveinents. The resulting potential for distress to I improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are .presented for all exterior flatwork: I 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be. compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. livery low to low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not I .warranted. For medium, or higher expansive soils, the subgrade should be - presoaked.to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent 01) the soils' optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade elevation The moisture I .'content of the subgrade should be verified within 72 hours prior to pouring. concrete. I 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low to low expansive soils are present, the rock I or gravel or sand is not, required. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. I . . Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. When driveways are placed over rock, gravel or clean sand, driveway slabs and approaches should additionally I.. have athickened edge which, isolates the bedding material from any adjacent landscape area, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. I 4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel I increasing tensile strength of the' slab; and, b) provide an 'adequate amount of control and/or expansion loints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and-expansion- In order to reduce the potential for unsightly 'cracks, exterior slabs may be reinforced as indicated in Table' t. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut,'' I ' , ½ to /8 inches deep, often enough so,thät no section is greate'r than 10 feet by 10 feet- For sidewalks'or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. Th,e slabs should' be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material- Calavera Hills, LLC . ' W.O. 5353-A.SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . . Page 44 I 5 No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. I I Hi I W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 45 Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge GeoSofls, Inc. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to a structure should be separated from the structure with expansion/shrinkage joint tiller material. In areas directly adjacent to acontinuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. •Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20. feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide for an adequate fall to the street, per the design civil engineer. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, 1nc1ud1ng post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation, or constructed on an isolated rigid slab with flexible couplins for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drainedto a suitable outlet. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finisjiing and curing practices are not followed. . Finishing, and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines.. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers ,used on site. I I 1 I H I I I PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on the R-value data (to be verified by specific R-value testing at completion of grading) from representative sample taken from the project area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City. For planning purposes, pavemehtsectibns consisting of asphaltic concrete over base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented on the following table. - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT . CSS2 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC SUBGRADE R-VALUE A C AGGREGATE BASE AREA INDEX 2 (Subgrade Parent THICKNESS THICKNESS' (TI Assumed) Material)m (inches) (inches) Cul Dé 4.5 12 (Qal) 4.0 5.0 Sac 4.5 19 (Qt 01 Tsa) 4.0 4.0 4.5 45.(Jp/Kgr) 4.0 :. 4.0 Local 5.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 6.0 Street 5.0 19 .(Qt or Isa) 4.0 5.0 5.0 . 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Collector 6.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 12.0 6.0 19 (Qt orlsa) 4.0 11.0 6.0 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 6.0 ('Denotes standard Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base R,>78, SE >22). (2)11 values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the design team during future plan development. Qal =Alluvkim, Qt = Terrace Deposits, Isa = Santiago Formation, Jsp/Kgr = Igneous Bedrock In addition to the construction of new roadways within Robertson Ranch East, the existing alignments of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, in proximity to the project, are to be improved (widened). An evaluation (s) of pavement design were prepared by-this office for., portions of CollegeBoulevard and Cannon Road (GSl, 2004b, 2004c)-'.'. 004c) The recommended pavement-sections evaluated are presented in the following tables. • Calavera Hills, LLC • W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge • • Page 46 QeSoL, I H COLLEGE BOULEVARD AC AGGREGATE BASE TRAFFIC SUBGRADE THICKNESS THICKNESSt2t TRAFFIC AREA '. :.. INDEX'.., '; . R-VLUE :.(Iéhé: (Inches) College Boulevard 8.5 17 5.0 16.0 Sta 101 1,L5 to 106 College Boulevard '8.5 13 5.0 1.8:0 22 Sta106tto1'l19 College Boulevard 8.5 26 S 5.0 14.0 Sta111to1'14 College Boulevard 8.5 21 - ' 5.0 . 150 .Sta11492to1i8!Q ty. of Carlsbad minimum .. Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base © >78, SE >25) ,- CANNON ROAD A C AGGREGATE BASE TRAFFIC SUBGRADE THICKNESS THICKN ESS121 TRAFFIC AREA INDEX R VALUE (Inches)!) (inches) Cannon Road 8.5 28 5.0 ' 13.0 'Stations 125+LO to 1304-Lo . . Cannon Road 8.5 27 5.0 13.0 Stations 130' to 135+22 Cannon Road 8.5 6 6.0* 20.0* Stations 135 to 140 Cannon Road 8.5 5 . 6.0* 20.0* . Stations 140-- to 145+L0 ' '' . . ," Cannon Road :.. 8.5 ' 6 ' 6.0* . . 20.0 Stations 1452 t6-1 56 . . ' . . . . . . . Cannon Road. ' ' 85 ' 6 6.0* 20.0* Stations 150 to 164 City minim um , ' .. . . . . .. . (2) Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R >78, SE >25) Caltrans requirements U Calavera Hills, Robertson Ranch, East Village File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge I. Inc. W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 47 I I As noted in the table above, some of the R-valües.reported are less than 12. Per Carlsbad (1996) soil subgrades with A-values less than, or equal to 12, shall be tested for lime, stabilization. However, for the existing sections of Cannon Road noted, it is our I understanding that this requirement was waived by the City. This-should be verified by the developer prior to construction. I The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased, maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended,as reflected by I the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repafr could be required for the pavement section. I Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with.the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subrade (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the I maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557); If adverse conditiOns (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. ' I These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further A-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for the site. PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS I General I. All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. I Subgrade S , Within street areaS, all suriicial deposits of loose soil material shOuld be removed and recompa,cted as:.recomrnended. After the loose soils are. rerrioved, the' bottom is to be scarifiéd'to a depth of 12' inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test method D-1 557. Deleterious material, excessively wet Or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock I fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed: The compacted 'Fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement.' The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to I ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. I calavera Hills, LLC W.O', 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village ' January 15, 2007 FIe:e:\wp9\53OO\5353a.uge • •• Page 48 I ' ' bw ' Base Compaction tests are required for the recommende.d base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM test method D-1557. Base aggregate shouldbe in accordance to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Constructioh' (green book) current edition. Paving . . .. - Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions, are met: 1. The asphalt. pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or subbase course. 2 Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving Construction is completed during the dry season of May throulgh October. The base is free of dirt and debris. lf.construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided, the base is free, of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed; measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards the area swale, curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage. channel... Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uçje GSs, Page 49 I I I DEVELOPMENT 'CRITERIA Slope Deformation I General I Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial stability, and constructed in general accordance with the design specifications, should be expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination with I differential lateral movement in the out-of-slope direction, after grading. This post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension (LEE). I slope Creep I Slope 'creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying of the fill soils which results in slow' downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughout the life of the slope, and' is anticipated to potentially affect improvements" or structures (i.e., I separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal distance of approximately 15 feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outside) edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The 'actual width of the zone affected is I generally dependant upon: 1) the height of the slope; 2) the amount of irrigation/rainfall the slope receives; and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope. This movement generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvementslocated within the I creep zone. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential for distress due to lateral deformation I' typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 1997 UBC and/or CBC); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening and deepening of foundations. Per Section 1806.5.3 of the UBC, a horizontal setback I (measured frohi the slope face to the outside bottom edge of the building footing) of H/3 is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill Slope infeetand H/3 need not be greater than 40 feet. Alternatively, in consideration 'of the discussion presented above, site" I conditions and Section 1806 5 6 of the UBC, H/3 generally need not be greater than 20 feet fOr the development.: As an alternative to a deepened footing, where the adjacent slope is greater than 45' feet in height. and the building/footing is within. 20 feet from the slope I ; face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch (additional) may be applied to the design of that portion of the structure(s). Any settle ment-sensitiveinprovements (i.e., walls ,spas, flatwork, etc.) should consider the above. Lateral FiIl'Extension (LFE)' I [FE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised of expansive materials. Based on the generally very low expansive character of onsite soils, I .. Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 I FiIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 50 I I the potential component of slope deformation due to LEE is considered minor, but nay not be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expected, long-term movement. from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by placing the till throughout the slope region, wet of the, fill's Optimum moisture content. Summary. It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effects of either slope creep or LEE. Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of lateral deformation typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the UBC. and/or, CBC [ICBO 1997 and 2001]); positive structural separations (i.e., joints) between iiiproverneñts;. stiffen ingl; and, deepening of foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and improvements and minimizing the placement of"d" fills. SloDe Maintenance and Plantin I I I I Li I Water has been shown to weaken, the inherent strength of all earth 'materials. Slope'' stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positivè'surfacë drainage, away from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount Of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surf icial slope stability enhanced by e'stablishing'and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the faceot'fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected'-for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting, or other fibrous covers, may aid in allowing; the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, 'etc. to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of 'natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. Qver-steepening of slopes should be avoided' during building 'construction activities and 'landscaping- Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of Water anywhere on a lot, and epècially near structures a'd tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage shpuld be, carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should betaken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water Calave'ra Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fili:e :\wp9\5300\5353a:uge I : I ~71 I 1 I LI I oSoils, Inc. W.O. '5353-A-SC January 15, 2007 Page 51 I I I should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pOnd and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 3 feet around a structure should slope away from the. structure. 'We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have -ä minimum I gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of raised planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should I be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may. be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet arninimum of I 3 feet from structures or into an alternate, approJed area, such .as a drainage system swale. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of s?epage develop, I recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Toe of Slope Drains/Toe Drains I ' Where significant slopes intersect pad areas, surface drainage down'the slope allows for some seepage into the subsurface materials; sometimes creating conditions causing or I contributing to perched and/or ponded water. Toe of slope/toe drains may be beneficial in the mitigation of this condition due to surface drainage. The general criteria to be utilized by the design engineer for evaluating the need for this type of drain is as follows: I Is there a source of irrigation above or on the slope that could contribute to saturation of soil at the base of the slope? I . Are the slopes hard rock and/or impermeable, or, relatively permeable, or; do the slopes already have or are they proposed to have subdrains (i.e., stabilization fills, etc.)? Was the lot at the base of the slope overecävated or is it proposed to be I overexCavated? Overexcavated lots located at the base of a slope could accumulate subsurface water along the base of the fill cap. I Are the slopes north facing? North facing slopes tend to receive less sunlight (less evaporation) relative to south facing slopes and are more exposed to the currently prevailing seasonal storm tracks . . •. I What is the slope height? It has been our experience that slopes with heights in exces of approximately 10 feet tend to have more problems 'due to storm runoff I and irrigation than slopes of a lesser height. Do the slopes "toe out" into a residential lot or a lot where perched or ponded water may adversely impact its proposed use? I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village • January 15, 2007 File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge . , . Page 52 1 . 4-7 ... ... .. S 5, I Based on these general criteria, the construction:of toe drains may be considered by the design engineer along the toe of slopes, or at retaining .walls in slopes, descending lb the rear of.such lots Following are Detail 1 (Schematic Toe Dam Detail) and Detail 2 (Toe Drain. Along Retaining Wall Detail). Other drains may he warranted due to unforeseen conditions- homeowner irrigation, or other circumstances. Where drains are constructd during grading, including subdrains, the loations/elevations of such drains should be I surveyed, and recorded on the final as-built grading plans by the design engineer. It is recommended that the above be disclosed to all interested parties, including.homeowners and any homeowners association. I Erosion Control I Cut and fill slopeswill be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from 'a... I geotechnical viewpoint.' Landscape Maintenance I Only the amount of irrigation necessary to -sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely, affect proposed site improvements. We I recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to-proposed structures be restricted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be I installed to direct drainage away-from structures 'or any exterior concrete ilatwork. If raised box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into 1. .the subgrade.: Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be I given to the type of vegetation Chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (ie., some trees will have an-effect on concrete flatvvork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnica'l standpoint,, leaching is not... recommended for.- I establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surfabe wáterâre'nbt anticipated to affect site development, -provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent-surface and subsurface drainage practices are-incorporated - - into the construction plans: Perched groundwater conditions, along zones of contrasting I permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village - January 15, 2007 17i1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge - . Page 53 Geosoils, Inc. I.. . 0 ••0 •0 SCHEMATIC TOE DRAIN DETAIL Soil j 12" Minimum I.) Soil Cap Cornpa'cthd to 90 Percent Relative Compaction. 2.) Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in FilterFabric (Mirafi 140N or Equivalent). d Pipe (SDR- 35 or ons Down. in 1 Percent.Fall. eProvidcd t Transition to Approved Area ded at Each Property IC PETAl FINISHED WALL ILL WITH COMPACTED NOTES: SOILS 1.)Soil Cap Compacted to 90 Percent Relative Compaction. 2:) Permeable Material May Be Gravel Wrapped in Filter Fabric (Mirafi 140N4 or Equivalent). 3.) 4-lnch.Diameter Perforated Pipe (SOR-35 or Equivalent) with I 140 FILTER FABRIC Perforations Down. UAL 4.). Pipe to Maintain a Minimum 1 Percent Fall. USHEO GRAVEL 5.)'Concrete Cutoff Wall to be Provided at Iransitionto Solid Outlet Pipe. 6:) SoIid:Outletpipe to Drain to Approved Area. 7.)Clcanouts are Recommended at IN Each Property Line. 8.) Compacted Effort Should Be Applied to Drain Rock. SUBDRAIN ALONG RETAINING WALL DETAIL NOT TO SCALE - I 1 perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. I Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl crack isolation membrane, or other approved method by the Tile Council of I America/Ceramic Tile Institute. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be I notified in advance of any till placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any-grading', utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. I Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed, by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper looting or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated fromlutility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of *90 percent, if not removed from the site. I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 I Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge GeeSWU9 Inc. Page 56 LII I I I I I I n I Trenching Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degree) may be necessary and should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (1 2-inch to 18-:inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and selective testing should be-provided to evaluate the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas. Selective compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: During grading/recertification. After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 File: e:\wp9\5300\5353auge Page 57 ik 1 I I I I [1 I I I I I I I I I I W.O. 5353-A-SC January 15, 2907 Page 58 P H I Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.), as necessary. During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill, as necessary. During slope constructiOn/repair. When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed. A report of geotechnical observation and testing and/or field testing reports, should be provided at the conclusion: of each of the above stages as necessary, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. GSl should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners associations for geotechhical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., shOuld review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer shOuld analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive, soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein 1 [II I I I I I I I I I LI I I I Calavera Hills, LLC Robertson Ranch, East Village Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge I [:1 I. as minimums, the minimum's 'presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely I that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI_ In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundationand/or I improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein. 1 I HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS It is recommended that the developer should notify, and/or make available the 'findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report to any homeowners or ' homeowners association in orderto minimize any misunderstandings-regarding the design 'and 'performance of earth structures, and the design and performance of existing and/or future Improvements. 1 I PLAN REVIEW Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office, prior to construction, so that 'construction is in accordance with the conclusions and I recommendations of this report. I LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed I representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site I conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review,and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions I have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their I inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate it our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an, agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding I any other agreements that maybe in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless I specifically requested by the Client, in writing. I Catavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Robertson Ranch, East Village January 15, 2007 Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 59 AP.PENb.ixA REFERENCES I I I APPENDIX A REFERENCES Bartlett, S.F. and Youd, T-L, 1995, Empirical prediction of liquefaction-induced lateral. I spread, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol 121, No. 4, April. 1992, Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement generated by I liquefaction induced lateral spreads, Tech. Rept. NCEER 92-0021, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY. I .Blake, T.F, 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version, updated to. September, 2004. I , 2000b, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources; I Windows 95/98 version, updated to September, 2004. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probabilistic I seismic hazard assessment.for the state of.Calitornia, DMG Open-File Report 96-08. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluation and mitigating seismic hazards in California, C.DMG Special I Publication 117. California Department of Water Resources, 2002, Water Data Library I I Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak. horizontal acceleration from worldwide acceirograms recorded from 1957 to. 1993,- Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume I :111, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293. Caterpillar Tractor Company, 2002, Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 33, CAT I Publications, October. Church, W., 1982, Excavation Handbook, McGraw Hill. I Frankel, Arthur D., Perkins, David M., and Mueller, Charles S., 1996, Preliminary and working versions of draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United States showing I peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response at 0.3 and 1 .0-second site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years) for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado I Geogeigs, Inc. I I I Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultants, 2004, Geotechnical review - ElR 03-03,. Robertson Ranch master plan, Carlsbad, California, No job no., dated June 19. I GeoSoils, Inc., 2006a, Supplemental recommendations regarding pier supported bridge abutments, Robertson Ranch East Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 30. 2006b, Memorandum: update of the geotechnical report with respect to site grading and the current grading plan, Robertson Ranch East, City. of Carlsbad, U W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 15. 2006c, Memorandum: discussion of earthwork recommendations in the vicinity of I a planned 84-inch storm drain, Cannon Road, Stations 127 to 136, Improvements for Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad, California, W.G. 3098-A2-SC, dated July 28. 2006d, Supplement to the update geotechnical evaluationregarding the distribution of wick drains, Robertson Ranch East, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, I WO 3098-A-SC, dated June 9. 2006e, Report of rough grading, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon I Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), Carlsbad Tract 00-02, Drawing 390-9A, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3459-132-SC, dated January 27. I , 2004a, Updated geotechnical evaluation o 'the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2--SC, dated September 20. I , 2004b, Third revision of pavement design report, Calavera Hills II, Cannon Road Stations 125' to 1641, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, WO. 4030-E-SC, dated May 14. 2004c, Revised pavement design report, College Boulevard, Stations 101 to 118, Reach B, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, I W.O. 4029-E-SC, dated March 17, revised April 23. 2002a, Geotechnical recommendations for the use of "Wick Drains," Cannon Road (Stations 152 to 163"), College Avenue (Stations 108 to 116), and "Disposal Areas" (Robertson Ranch, Planning Areas 10a, 13a, and 16b), City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, dated July 24. I 2002b, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, WO. 3098-Al-SC, dated January 29. 2001a, Preliminary findings of the geotechnical evaluation, Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31. Calavera Hills II, LLC Appendix A File:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Page 2 I GeoSoigs, Inc. I I 2001b, Alluvial settlement potential in the vicinity of a. planned box culvert and I existing sewer-line, Intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, Calavera Hills, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated I March 7. 200.1 c, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District No. 4 (B&TD), City. of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24. 1998a, Addendum to feasibility of 1:1 cut slope in lieu of approved crib wall, Station No. 29 to College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated May 4. 1998b, Feasibility of 1:1 Cut slope in lieu of approved .cribwall, Station No. 29 to 31 College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, California, I W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated April 10. ,.1.998c, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Wand "T," City I of;Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. Greensfelder, R. W., 1.9.74, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in I California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California I Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California. building code, California I code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2., and 3. I Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: I A.ABalkena Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California I .Division of Mines and Geology, Map sheet no. 6, scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., I and Blake, T.F.- AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U.S.. Geological Survey I Open-File Report 82-977, 16p. Calavera Hills II, LLC . Appendix A File:e:\wp9\5353\5353auge Page 3 H -.1 I Leighton and Associates, 1985, Geotechnical feasibility evaluation, 403.3 acres at east corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, California, Project no. 4850555-03, dated November 15. I Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, 1K., and Lindivall, E-C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6-I- Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on 'the seismic I risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system. O'Day Consultants, 2007, Grading plans for: Robertson Ranch, East Village, 40 scale, City 1 project no..C.T. 0-16, Drawing No. 433-6, Job No- 01-1014, print dated January 11. 2006, Storm drain plans for Cannon Road, C.T. 02-16, Drawing. No. 433-6, Project no. C.T. 02-16, O'Day Job No. 0114, dated July 7. I Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. I Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, 'Measurement, characterization, and I prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. I Seed, H. B; and ldriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. I Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New I York. State of California, 1967, Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 106-2, Groundwater I occurrence and quality: San Diego Region, Vol. II: plates, dated June. T &-B Planning Consultants, 2001, Tentative lotting study, Robertson Ranch, 2 sheets, I J.N. 533-002, dated November 13, Revised December 5. Tan, S.S.-and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego I County, California, plate 2, geologic map of'the Encinitas and Rancho SantaFe 7.5' quadrangles, San Diego County, California, scale 1:24,000, DMG Open-File Report 9602. Calavera Hills II, LLC Appendix A Fi1e:e:\wp9\5353\5353a.uge Page 4 I I Treiman, JA, 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone southern California, published by the I California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 93-02. I 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, cooperative I agreement EMF-83-k-0148. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953) Black and white aerial photographs, I AXN-8M-70 and AXN-.8M-71, and AXN-8M-100 to 102. Weber, FH, 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California I Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA. Wilson, KL, 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and I Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, University of California, Riverside. I I 1 I I I Ti H L __7 Calavera Hills II, LLC Appendix A File:e:\wp9\5353\5353auge Page 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1L U . - - - - - - W.O. 3098A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TP-10 0-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft. 3-5' ring@31/2' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' - No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-i 4 , Al W 0 3098 SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS .... I ••. TEST SAMPLE T FIELD DRY 1 GROUF DERTI4 MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION PITNO" DEPTH , I TP-1 1 0-6' SM 0-3' bulk . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. 6-12' SM 6-8' bulk ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense. 12 -13' CL . TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth = 13' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1W W.O. 3098-Al-SC MCMillin ary 3Pa2n LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS '- TEST 11.0 SAMPLE' FIELD DRY' ' r PIT NO DEP1H GROUP , DETHJ MOISTURE , ' DEN1,TY DESCRIPTpN SYM BOL-:,.---4'- TP-12 01 -11 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 1-5' CL WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff. 5-7' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray to gray,. moist, dense. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered Backlilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-3 - - - - - - - —. - - - - - - - - - - - W.O. 3098-Al-SC January 23, 2002 MOuinuomaes LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS :! .t 4t: ; •i 1 TEST SAMPLE ' FIELD DRY' ' PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTI-I MOISTURE DENSITY DES?RIPTION Tt TP-13 0-5' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 5-13' S ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. 13-14' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY CLAY, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth = 14' - No Groundwater Encountered Back-filled 1/10/02 PLATE B-4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.O. 3098-Al-SC imcmillin Companies - January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS ;•::) .;- - ,_ TEST I SAMPLE FIELD DRY Oil -. r, PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH.. MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SWMBOL TP-14 . 0-3' CL - COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. * 3-7' CL - . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown to light brown, wet, medium stiff. .7"- 101 . Sc . . TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAY, olive gras', wet; stiff. Total Depth = 10' - .4 - - No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled_1/10/02 : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '- W.O.3098-A1-SC 'McMillin Companies C January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS . ::_:!.;_ .... TEST SAMP1.E FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY1 L DESCRIPTION ., TP-15 . o'-4' SC . - . . COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown-to dark brown, moist, loose; rootléts. - :4-5' - sc - . ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to light brown, moist, medium dense. . - 5-6' CL -. . TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, - . stiff. .. - - - . Total Depth= 6' . . . No Groundwater Encountered - . S Backfilled 1/10/02 . . . . . . . W.O. 3098-Al-SC •( : . . McMillin Companies January 23 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION , ............ t4, .. TF-16 0-3' S . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3-5' SM - ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. 5-7' CL TERRACEDEPOSITS: CLAYEY SAND, olive brown, _________ ___________ ___________ _____________ • wet,dense. • Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered __________ • Backfilled1/10/02 PLATE B-7 - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - _ - - - W.O. 3098-A1-SC :McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS - :. , :- _ .,'1 .:•..,. ;..- TEST AMPLE FIELDDRY 'LS •:Fm I PIT NO I DEPTH; GROUP DEPTI- MOISTURE 'DENSITY DESCRIPTION TP-1 7 0-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. 2-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.0.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS "•: ?• ?:?i.::;j 'r-; . TEST? SAMPLE FIELD1DRY PITNO DEPTH GROUP 'DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY 1 DESCRIPTION I 1 1 Ii :SMBOL' ;(%) TP-18 01-31 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND TO CLAY, olive brown to brown, moist, dense to stiff. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4IN$ - - -.- .—.,— W.O.3098-A1-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS r i I TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY ,, PIT NO 'DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE IDENSITY1 I DESCRIPTION :L.,y(ftSMBOL S TP-19 0-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; roots, rootlets. 3-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backlilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-10 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 3098-Al -SC PROJECT CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCA VA TED 10-2-01 - Sample - SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40' DROP - Standard Penetration Test - C - . 4t- Groundwater >1 M Undisturbed, Ring Sample U) a . a o .e - Description of Material SM . COLLUVJUMITOPSOIL - - -: . @ 0' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, loose. SM . ALLUVIUM - . @ 3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. 10 : .--: 5' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist to wet, loose; coarse sands with silt. 10 34 CL @ 10' SANDY CLAY, dark grey, moist to wet, very stiff; oxidized minerlizatiori. 15 43 ii WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 15' SILTY SANDSTONE with metavolcanic and granitics, dense; oxidization. SANTIAGO FORMATION SILTY SANDSTONE, dense. Total Depth = 18.5' 20 Groundwater @ 10' Backfilled on 10/02101 25 GeoSoils Inc. McMillin, Robertson Ranch PLATE B-il I I E n LI I I ri LI LI I I I LI I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-4 SHEET 1 OF I McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample - Z ri) Description of Material SM -: COLLUV1UM!TOPSOIL -:@ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. SM ALLUVIUM @4' SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense. 20 30 10- WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 10 CLAYEY SANDSTONE olive brown moist medium - dense. 28 SANTIAGO FORMATION 15- @ 14' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive brown to reddish brown, moist medium dense. -. Practical Refusal @ 14.5' No Groundwater Encountered Backlilled 20 25 GeoSoils Inc. McMillin, Robertson Ranch ' PLATE B-12 I I I I... I I I I I I I I I I I I I LI I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC McMillin, Robertson Ranch Sample 0 w E .0 >- U) 4: w U) 0 w i 2 U) o m D m D 0 SM 23 W. 0. 3098-Al-SC BORING 1-113-5 . SHEET OF DATE E)(CA VA TED 10-3-01 - SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40' DROP Standard Penetration Test Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material COLLUV1UMITOPSOIL 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry to moist, loose. ALLUVIUM 6' @ 5' SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, very stiff. @6' GROUNDWATER. I 10 27 @ 10' SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff. I 15 29 @ 15' SANDY CLAY, greenish brown to brown, wet, very stiff. I 20 7 @ 20' SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, medium stiff. 13 I CL @ 25' SILTY SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. - B13 I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. wo. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING HB-5 SHEET 2 OF 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 Sample . SAMPLE METHOD.- I30LB HAMMER @40' DROP - Standard Penetration Test 2' 0 Z. Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample EA C U' Description of Material - 4° - 15 14 SM @ 30' SILTY SAND, olive brown, saturated, medium dense: orange iron oxide. @ 35' SILTY SAND, fight brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. • 12 SM : WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION @40' SILTY SANDSTONE, olive brown, saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide. - 56 ML SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 50' CLAYEY SILTSTONE, olive, dry to damp, hard. - 55- Total Depth = 51.5' Groundwater Q 6' Backfilled on 10/03/01 GëoSoils Inc. McMillin, Robertson Ranch ' PLATE 13-14 15- 20- 25 24 @ 20' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. © 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. wo. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS It. LLC BORING H13-6 SHEET 1 OF 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test -5 - - Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Z. Description of Material SM : COLLUVIUMJTOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. : @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. 19 S : ALLUVIUM: 5' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. 10 :..: @ 10' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, dense. 25- 19 @ 25' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. [ McMillin, Robertson Ranch -- - - GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-15 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0- 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 118-6 SHEET 0F2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 - Sample - S SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40' DROP Standard Penetration Test - - 'B - z' - Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 .Q 2 Description of Material - 17 SM : @ 30' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. - 45 SM : SANTIAGO FORMATION ::• @ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, green, wet, dense. Total Depth = 36.5' Groundwater @ 30' Backfilled 10/02101 I 45 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PlTE 8-16 — mom — — — — — — — — — MM MM MM S Calavera Hills M May 12, 2000 NO LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD PIT/ DEPTI-tk GRb'UP LDPTHj MSTUE; DRY DESCRIPTION 'ol.NO ft5 YMBOt 4t(n 0A)Ø gDENSI1 TWI TP-9 0-4 CL .. COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, dry, loose; roots and rootléts, blocky 4-10 SC ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense; fine to coarse grained, well sorted, laminated clay and sand lenses, orange iron oxide, rounded. 10 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK, olive gray, damp to moist, dense; fractured. Practical Refusal 6 10' Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered BackfiUed 05-12-00 - Plate B-17 • jJPLE Q4 c ft ljESCRIPTION NO ,2 TZ on PC TP.10V .0-2 Sc COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown,;dampto moist, loose; roots and rootlets. 2-4 SC . . CLAYEY SAND, light.yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; - . V fine to coarse, well sorted, rounded, caliché. - 4-7 ML V • . - TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY SILT, light eIlowish brown, • V moist, medium dense; fine grained, well sorted; massive V 7-10 ML BULK @ 7-8 SANDY CLAY, gray, moist, medium dense orange Iron oxide • . . V • • V • staining, massive. . V Total Depth = 10' - No groundwater. encountered — - - Backfilled 05"12-00. 'Calavera Hills AF Q May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS .. -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 On ffl. W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS Esr ii; DEPTH$ PIT ' GROUP gDEPTH STJR NO j(ft)j DR\AIRR cDENSITY - j3DESCRIPTION - r$ r c - - - TP-12 0.1/2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium gray, dry, loose; many roots, blocky, open dessication cracks, fine grained. ½-i ½ SW SAND, dry, medium dense; few dessication cracks, fine to medium grained, some silt. 11/2-21/2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, slightly moist, brown, medium dense; weathered, few dessicatiori cracks, fine • __________ ___________ ____________ grained) massive 21/2-8 SM , SILTY SAND, yellow brown to olive brown, 'moist, medium' • ____________ • __________ dense; fine grained, massive to weak subhôrizontal bedding • Total Depth = 8' • No groundwater encountered 'Plate B-19 - - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - Nj'14 '111 imm :I •'sr .-.- - --.:- W.O.2863-A-SC -. - Calavera Hills II, LLC '1r May 12, 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS - EST id iTii PITS NO cDEPTH GROU4 DEPTHj MOISTURE TDRY DESCRIPTION ft ) SYMB (ftt% bENSf7! OMNI - TP-13 0-2. SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY sAND; medium gray, d, loose; many roots, blocky, open dessication cracks, fine grained, - 2-4 SM. TERRACE DEPOSITS SILTY SAND, slightly moist medium - dense, weathered, few dessication cracks, fine grained, . massive. Total Depth = 4' - . . . . No groundwater encountered Backfilled 05-12-00 . . -. I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 13-1 SHEET 1OF 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-13-00 - Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30' drop Standard Penetration Test .4- .. 0 4- Pq Water Seepage into hole I 70 \ - C : a Undisturbed. Ring Sample Cu to 0 30 4- L 4- —.0 5 (/11)CL - DL 0 uc a -- 4- u :1 c - a L o a Description of Material o rn 34- G3 30) 0 5 0) - - 10 16 CL CL 104.1 106.6 19.9 18.4 89.3 88.3 ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp, loose. @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff; roots and rootlets. @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff, fine to medium grained well-sorted sand fraction. ?- 17 SC 111.9 18.4 99 -'.- @ 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular sands @ 14', Groundwater encountered. 15 20 25- • 12 13 19 SP sp No R covey :h @ 15', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. 20' No recovery. @ 25', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; medium to coarse grained, well sorted, little fines. ',> GeoSoils, Inc. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills . PLATE_ I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS Ii, LLC BORING B-i SHEET 20F 2 CIiëe.. DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-13-00 - Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb Hammer 30' drop - - - " Standard Penetration Test - L - Water Seepage into hole ID \ - C0 Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 to : Description of Material 11 No R cove y @ 30', No recovery. T i @ 35', CLAYEY SAN D,light brown to tan, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. / 40 15 Sp : @ 40', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; fine grained. 15 Sc '/ @ 45', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium , dense; fine to medium grained. 50 a S • @ 50', CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, 7/ loose; fine to medium grained. Total Depth = 51 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 14' Backfilled 04-13-00 55. GeoSoils Inc. College & Cannon Road/CaIaveraHls , PLATE B-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALA VERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 85 SHEET 1OF 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-14-00 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop - " Standard Penetration Test L + l Water Seepage into hole C Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0. - 0L 0 OC CD - u n L 0 Description of Material ALLUVIUM - @ 0', SAND, light brown, moist, loose. -; 8 SP :::: @ 2 1/2', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse - grained. -. 7 SP ::::@ 5', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse - grained - Groundwater encountered. 10- 15 :H No recovery. 21 - 4 @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, -1 t%?i dense; fine to coarse grained. 27 1 SC FI @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown; saturated, medium 1/) dense; fine to medium grained. 251 2.8 sc 5*1 @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium I l~5l V/A dense. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA 13- - BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-S SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road /Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-14-00 Sample . SAMPLE METHOD: 140Ib Hammer 30"drop - - Standard Penetration Test 0 .\ — C L -I- a - Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample - U) 31 L Description of Material 35 SC :' BEDROCK • :J 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, dense. - • Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' BackfiJled 04-14-00 97 45 GeoSoils, Inc. College & Cannon Roaci/Calavera Hills • PLATE B-21 - I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-6 SHEET 1QF CoIIe..&C5 ñRÔ lCáIavthà HiII& DATE EXCAVATED 4-17-00 Sample . SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop Standard Penetration -Test L 4- . fAl Water Seepage into hole I -0 \ - ' :J a 7 Undisturbed, Ring Sample £ 01W 01 0 D L 4- —.0 ) (fliJ (0 J 0. - -0 L 0 (JE Description of Material . . 77 ALLUVIUM - . @ 0', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose. 6/5" CL @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, medium stiff; - ,Ø roots and root!ets, no recovery. : 5 SM . @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, wet, loose, no recovery. - @ 9', groundwater encountered. 10 - 12 i[ © 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, stiff, fine to medium grained, orange iron oxide staining. 7 CL © 15', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, medium stiff. 20 .': © 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; medium to coarse grained. - 25- 6 SC ' @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; orange iron oxide staining. -'17- /... GeoSoils, Inc. B-22 - College & Cannon floadlCalavera Hills . PLATE I I I I I I I i I I I I I I L] I I I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. I w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-6 SHEET 2 OF 2 U............ .. ., DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample i - t- ( Description of Material 30 SC ' BEDROCK - @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to brown, \saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining. - Total Depth = 31 1/2' . Groundwater encountered @ 9' I Backlitled 04-14-00 35 1 i - I 40- I: I 45- I'- I 50- I 55i 1 - Inc. GeoSoils . College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills , PLATE B-23 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING . 877 SHEET........OF. CöIIé & Cannon dlCaara I-i is DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 - Sample - Z SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30'drop - Standard Penetration Test .s-. Water Seepage into hole C '4- a Undisturbed, Ring Sample C Wa) C 0 J° -I- L -J 1- —.0 3 (A fl 0. - DL 0 U J) -- c - L 0 Description of Material ALLUVIUM @ 0'. SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry, loose. - -. 48 CL @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, hard. 30 / @ 5', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff; Calcium - -Z- carbonate and orange iron oxide. -- @ 9', groundwater encountered. 10 - 17 SC @ 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense, - : manganese oxide staining. - 7 iiT @ 15', Groundwater encountered. - - @ 15', SANDY CLAY, brown, saturated, stiff. 20- 17 - @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, very stiff. - 7 25 80 SC BEDROCK @ 25', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to olive green, \saturated. very dense. Total Depth = 26 1/2' - - Groundwater encountered @ 15' - Backfilled 04-17-00 - GeoSoils Inc. - College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills PLATE B-24 LI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Li I I I I I I I I Ll Li I I r Li I 11 I P I I I I I ri LI I I I I I I P I I ;3.0ol I 20.09 I:..:.. ! .a.•••• 1 . . (I, - •. ••• w .1...1000 I I- 500 .-.: NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration B-06 Depth (ft) 4 0 I Legend Results Primary Cohesion (paf) 431 Test Method Friction Angle 25 I Remolded to ?0/ of 126 5'-.:P.6 f @ 11 0/ Residual Cohesion (psf) 481 Sample Ii-inundated Prior To Testing Friction Angle 24 I DIRECT SHEAR I GeoSoils Inc TEST RESULTS 000 . .•• • • . • .• • . . McMILLIN • • . .. .• . . ....... • .. . Plate C-6 0 6,000 - 5,000 - 4,000 CL 3,000 2,000 1,000 - 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% c 4) TP-02 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1608 20 TP-02 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1345 20 1-1 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing DIRECT -SHEAR TEST GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN GooiJ Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone:. (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760)931-0915 Dale: January 2002 Plate C-7 6.00 5. 00 0 - 0 - o 1,000 2,000 3.000 4,000 5.000 6.000 00 1 1'OO ( NORMAL PRESSURE, psi Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% c 4) 0 TP-10 3.5 Primary Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 531 29 IS TP-10 3.5 Residual Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 514 29 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing cc GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way ! Ific.Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project: MCMILLIN Telephone:'(760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC S Fax: (760) 931-0915 .- Date: January 2002 Plate C-8 6,000 5,000 4,000 U, 2,000 1,000 _ 7.- _ 7, _ 7 _ _ 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 . 5,000 6.000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psi Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Y, MC% c 4) Q .TP-26 3.0 Primary Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 130 31 M TP-26 3.0 Residual Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 98 31 21 Note: Sample lnnundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way U, Project: MCMILIJN ON! I4C. Carlsbad CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC . F 0)90915 . .. Date: January 2002 PIateC9 b,UU 5,OC 4,00 0 5 VS .,. 0 _________________ 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 2,00 NORMAL PRESSURE, psi Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C 4) e TP-32 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 464 35 TP-32 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 361 36 21 Note: Sample lnnundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST In Géooi1hk. 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Number: 3098 -Al-SC Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-b 6,000 5,000 4,000 w CL I— C) z w 3,000 w U) 2,000 1,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5.000 6.000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% c 4) 0 1 TP-35 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 250 27 ill TP-35 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 208 25 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way GoSóä1N Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 - Plate C-il 4,000 3,000 w (I) 2.000 1,00 0 1.000 2.000 6.000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Y, MC% c 4, TP-39 6.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 3189 48 TP-39 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 1007 29 Note: Sample lnnundated prior to testing 0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST GeoSoils Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Wi- Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC 6 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 -. PIte C-12 I I GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Mct1ILLIN August 2000 W.O. : 2863-SC Plate C-13 I HI -1 0 I 2 Ld I 100 I I I 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 107.5 Sample Innundated 0 750 ps-f. Water Content (Z): 18.4 Exploration: B-01 Depth: 5.0 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-01 Depth: 10.0' Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 111.1 Water Content (Z): 18.4 Sample Innundated @ 1250 ps-F I .. HI I I . IL I - 100 2 4 6 1000 2 I I I I 6eoSoi Is, Inc. T. 4 6 10000 2 August 2000 14.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-14 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS hcMILLIN STRESS (PEE) Exploration: 8-02 Depth: 10.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 109.6 Water Content (X): 17.7 Sample Innundated @ 1250 paf I I 'I -.... I , I, I , Ld 9 1 100 2 4 6 1000 2 I , .1 I I GeoSoils, Inc. 4 6 10000 2 August 2000 14.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-15 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McMILLIN I I .... . ..... I . I 1 I 3 I x Z H 4 I- I I - z Ui 0 S I I I 8 I 9 .1. ..i. .1 . I 100 I I I I GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS t1cMILLIN Exploration: B-03 Depth: 5.0' August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Plate C-16 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 96.8 Sample Innundated @ 750 psf Water Content (Z): 25.2 1 I, I 1 I ., I I 0 I. I H 4 I- I z w C-) IL I 6 1 7 1' 8 1. 9 I 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) I Exploration: B-Oa Depth: 10.0 I Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 108.5 Water Content (v): 18.5 I, 1 GeoSoils, 1 4 6 10000 2 Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf August 2000 W.O. : 2863-SC Plate C-17 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS f1ct1ILLIN Exploration: B-04 Depth: 5.0 2 • 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Sample Innundated @ 750 psf Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 105.9 Water Content (Z): 19.4 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS McI1ILLIN I 100 1 I I. • l3eoSoils. Inc. 4 6 10000 2 August 2000 W.O. : 2863-SC Plate C-18 I I 1 I I .. I 3 I 4 I I - w Lij 5 I I 7 I 8 '1 9 STRESS (PSF) Exp'oration: 8-04 Depth: 15.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 108.0 Water Content (Z): 21.9 Sample Innundated @ 2000 psF 1, HI 1 1• 0 I I I I 4 I- I p.- 0 S I I I I 1 100 2 4 8 1000 2 I I I I I l3eoSoils. Inc. 4 6 10000 2 August 2000 1.1.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-19 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 11cNILLIN -1 0 1 2 x 6 7 8 9 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-07 Depth: 5.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 118.1 Sample Innundated @ 750 psf Water Content (Z): 14.3 CONSOLIDATION ileoSol Is. Inc. - TEST RESULTS August 2000 11.0.: 2863-SC - 11cf1ILLIN Plate C-20 • GeoSoils, Inc. 4 6 10000 2 7 I— :r 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 0-08 Depth: 10.0, Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pcf): 114.5 Water Content (Z): 11.1 Sample Innundateci @ 1250 psf August 2000 14.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-21 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS IlcIlILLIN 4= 2 3 7 - - - 00 1,000 10.000 10 5 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification 'Y Initial MC lAitial MC Final H20 HB-1 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 105.7 20.5 17.3 250 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January Plate C-22 I -1 I I 0 I I I 1 7 I 8 10 I 11 I DO 1,000 10,000 1( STRESS, psi U Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification 'Y, Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-1 15.0 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) 107.7 19.5 18.7 720 • 0 0 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 o Fax. (760)931-0915 Cn U CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-23 II I I I I I z. F- I I . I I 1 I 0- 2 _EHE TTTTT. _ 3 kj~ lii: IEEE 11111 C 7 8 C'-- C 100 1.000 10,000 1( STRESS, psi I 1 Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Yd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 0. HB-2 10.0 POORLY GRADED SAND with SlLT(SP-SM) 100.9 20.8 18.3 250 a. I GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Mc.Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 I — CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January2002 . Plate C-24 FI STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 5.0 Silty Sand 100.6 9.5 18.0 2000 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way - Carlsbad, CA 92008 1I tiII Telephone: (760) 438-3155 . Fax: (760)931-0915 ... CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC . Date: January 2002 Plate C-25 __------. __ --- - _ 30 1,000 10,000 10 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/EL Visual Classification 'Y Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 . 10.0. Sandy Clay 121.7 13.6 13.6 2500 1 HB-3 - I C I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way -'eM i fill, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 . Plate C-26 4 e 7 10 100 - - 1.000 - - - - - - 10,000 - - - '10 STRESS, psi Sample Depth!EI. Visual Classification JYd Initial MC Initiall MC Final H20 1 01 HB-5 15.0 102.7 23.3 20.8 25 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way 4'éo.øiI.1ic. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-27 C 11111 _ 11111 3 :11111 100 1,000 - - - - - - 10,000' STRESS, psf rS1 I- a GeoSoils, inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST 5741 Palmer Way ProJect:' ! MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Plate C-28 Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification % Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 HB-6 5.0 Sandy Clay 107.5 12.5 16.9 2000 I -1 I I 4 Cn 1 6 I 7 I 8 10 1 11 1 1 ---------- 00 1.000 . . - 10.000 STRESS. psi I I 0 I 0 I 0 Sample 1 Depth/El. Visual Classification Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 0H6 15.0 . 106.7 11.7 16.3 2500 .- ---.-. -- I a. 0 - GeoSoils, Inc. . . 5741 Palmer Way -J GQ It~O 1$hic. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax. (760)931-0915 1 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate-C-29 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" 114 *10 1120 #401160 11100 *200 :!IlIuIiuuIi.I1imii!IuIIiI!!!IIIIIul - 111111_11111111_IIii!UIUIIIIIIII_liii U! I___ I_ . -1111111111111_OHIi1IiIIu_liii III'S___ LIII o III_1011111 hulA liii II_liii III .-- (/ 50 )liii I I 111111 I I 1111111 I 111111 I ]_II I LLJ 40 ----- ------- -- 30 --------- 20 ------- 10 10 1 0.1 - -- - - - - 0.0 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine I coarsel medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH 8-01 15.0 8-01 20.0 A 8-02 10.0 - 8-02 20.11 LL P1 CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION GeoSoNs. Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION JIcHILLIN August 2000 W.O. 2863-SC Plate C-30 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" #4 4*10 1 4*20 4*40#60 #108 4*200 I I-I (1 a. SE I- z Ui U Of --\------ jo it 0 t'E 10 1 - 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN I1ILLIIIETERS I GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Lc oar e I fine coarse medium fine —d EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTII DESCRIPTION ® 0-03 25.0 37 21 SC CLAYEY SAND B-04 10.0 A 0-04 20.0 36 19 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 0-05 5.0 PARTICLE SIZE GeoSoils. Inc. DISTRIBUTION - I1ct1ILLIN August 2000 1-1.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-3.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40#60 11100 41202 100 :: 70 60 (I I 50 I- z 0 Iz W 40 I a- i 30 1 12 2 I I I Oil EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS 8-05 25.0 1 8-06 15.0 A 8-06 25.0 G 8-07 10.0 I I GeoSoils. Inc. I ASTH DESC1IPTION August 2000 W.O. : 2863-SC Plate C-32 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION f1cMILLIN PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I GRAVEL I SAND - SILT CLAY LarseL fine coarseI medium fine PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS P GRAVEL SAND d SILT CLAY I coarse ) fine coarse medium fine SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4 3/8' *4 *10 *20 41'40#G0 #100 #200 10 I 17 R H 0i 0) 0 5 I- z w U IL 1 2 Ii I I I I liiohilII1riiii 11111111 111111I IIIIIIiiiIUhII_hiJiIIIIiOhIIi___ 111111 ___ 111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111 ___ 111111 10111111 OIIIIi!iI0h1III. 11111 . 11111 11111111 'iIIIiIIIIIIIiIU!I Oil 1111 11111 11111111 11111111 Ullillil P111111 Di 11111111 111111 # i'I!1II I iii liii 1111111 111111 ii it :111111 Ii ilUl 11111111 Ji iii j iiii; 01 AST1 DESO-RIPTION EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS G 8-07 25.0 I B08 15.0 A 8-09 10.0 8-09 30.0 I I GeoSoils. Inc. I August 2000 14.0.: 2863-SC Plate C-33 PARTICLE SIZE 'DISTRIBUTION IlcIlILLIN i U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 A 2 ic 1 11A 112.1R 3 d, 6 ç10 1A 16 gn 30 4n 50 fin 100 140 200 III Il0IlIII VII VIiII1iii1NftuiU1_t1iUi UI 11111111 1111111 III II 1111111 II 1111 111 111111 1111111 --Ill 1lIII 11111 11111 ___ ill II IlUI___ 1111111 liii IlILill 11111. 11111 ill 111111 1111111_lIlIlIIl00lIUl_III III ui_1111111 I RIMINI 111111111111111110111 ill_H uiiiii 11111_1111111 i.. U i UI II IUIRIOIUII I 11111 II Iii 1111111 III__111111IN1111111___II liii1111111___11111111_IlIllUIie!iIII ON • 1. 1111 11 11011111 IIIhi1I_HiII 111111 11111loll11111, IR 111111 1 I III III_I 11U111111111 0111111 U 11111 I II III 11U111111111111111 1111111 11 iiiii II UI__ 11111__1111111_1111111 :111__I IIIIU 11111__11111111__I IlUl 11111 U _-1I0 liii in II liii 11111111111.__III U I 11111 011111 liii Ii 111111 UI ___ II 1011111 I liii 1111111 III II 11111111 ___ 1011 II 11111111 III 1111111 11111111 11111111 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine 1 Sample Depth I Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu 01 HB-1 30.0 J SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 49 20 29 Sample Depth 0100 D60 . D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay IeI HB-1 30.0 4.75 0.025 0.0 30.3 20.3 49.4 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Gc Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 - Plate C-.36 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 0 iii 60 55 elf 50 LL 1-45 z w o40 Qf 035 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 4 2 1 1/A 1121/R 3 A 10 IA 16 30 50 100 IIIIIgi 111_11111111111VIIIi&UhhIIII1IIII0IIUI_iiiiiiii '"_IIIIIUI .11.111.01nhIi10 uiiiiiiiuiiiriiiui_11011111_111111111 ioiiuiiiiiuui___ uauiiniiiaiiiiiau_iiuiui____ mnui_ilollu,_iimui imuim iiiiioiiuiioiiiii___ 111111 1111111 11111U1 U11111U1U1H1111_lihilIl 111111111 iiiiiiii iiiui MINE i.iiiiiiii_11111111 11011111 IllIllU UIIIOIUIIIIIHII IllIllIll_ III 1111_UIIi III U IIIii0IiUiiiiiiIIU IIllUhI IlOihl_IIIIIIII uuooiiiuioiiiii 1111111_1101111_omui miioiiiimioiuii oiiiiia 101111_iiiiuuia U1I101IUIHiI1Ih1. 11111111_Ell 011111_ III iiui IllIlHIUlIRII1IIIIl IlihiRil 101111 hllillS IIlRIl0II1IlIIlIIIl1 11111111_11111111_IIIIIIIIU UIUIIHIIUIIUIII I I 1111111 IlhillIlU IIIUiihI IUIiII ___ i lls iIOhlIl I li lhiui 11111111 II hiiiIihlIUIU 100 10 1 0.1 001 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL I_SAND I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine Sample Depth i Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu 01 HB-2 100 1 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) NP I NP I NP 1.10 2:84 Sample Depth D100 060 030 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay Iol NB-2 10.0 2 1 0.609 1 0.379 0.214 0.0 93.7 5.8 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 - Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date:January2002 Plate C-37 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 0 ui 60 55 Of 50 LL F-45 z W o40 Ui 035 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 I 10( 9 8 8( 7 7( I— 6 0 iii 6( 5 a: 5€ z w (-)4( of w a 3 3C 2 2C 15 10 5 0 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS - I HYDROMETER 4 2 1 M 112 3 6 R1016 30 An 50ffl 100,A, 200 I10M1IUtILIOhIlMI1IVIIIIIIII0IIUl__IllillilU _iilii uiu•• 11 III IIHIIUUIIIIIIII_iiiiiiii_1101111 111111 IIIIIIIU 11.___ ui•iiiiuui_IIIuII._olillul___ Ill IIHIUiIIIIUlI_111111111_11011111_iIIiIUlU III IIHIIIIIIIIIIllI,_IlilliLl_IlUllil_IIIIIIIlN iii_iiouuuiiiiuii_oiiiiii liollill___ ollul. III 11U111111111111_IIIIIIIlIIIiIUU_HiIiIIIR III,_OOIIUIRHIIIIII_1111111111 11011111._111111::: iii__ UIIIllIUIiIIIHIIiIIIIIIIIIiiUU __ II__I iioiiuioiiiu i ioiniirnooiui• omui iii Hilifli iioiiiu•oiinii In,ii. lilaul. UI IIOIIIIIRIIIIIIII 11111111_II0h'1I llIIIUI III IIHIIIIIIIlIlII 0111111_IOIIII IllIllIl. Ill IIHIIIIliIIlHhI_11111111 Iii ___ III,_llHIIIlIiilIHII_11111111 I II ___ IiOIUIIUIiIIIIII_11111111_11011111_I1IUH Ill UI IiHIIIIIiIIIlIII 11111111 1011111 IlLIlUIN IUU 1U 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse J medium fine Sample Depth Classification IL PL P1 Cc Cu HB-2 25.0 CLAYEYSAND(SC) 32 16 16 Sample Depth 13100 D60 D30 010 %Gravel %Sand %Sitt /.Clay 25.0 J 4.75 . 0.169 0.025 0.0 58.3 19.2 22.5 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN. Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-38 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 3 2 1.5 13/4 1/23/8 3 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200 11111111 iii iioiui•iiiiiiui_IIIiiiIlo III—II0IIIIIRIIIIIIII_Illilkil_II 1011111 ___ ___ IIiIiiii In ___ iiiiiii___ III 11111111! 11011111 11111111 uiiiuiiiiiiiiiuui_iiiuiuiouiuu_11111111 IIIIIJIIUII'lHIlIll Hills l 1111111 11111111 iii HIM iuunui o RUN ouuii_11111111 111 11111 iiu _iii ioi— uiiioiiuuioiuii oiiiuu ioiuiiiiiiiiuu Milli HIM lIIllIlI__IIIl Ill Ii!!lll III Mill iiiii ill iuii 11111111 11011111 IHIhI uII Ell IluuI.IIIIIluI QUEEN1101111 llUIUl 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 IIIIllIl 11111111 Ills ill iui=iiiiiuuiiiiiiiiui 11111111 IllIlillI 11111111— IN 1111111 III_lIIIUiIIIIIIflhI_11111111_IlIllilil_MINE IUU 1U 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine I_I coarse medium fine Sample Depth Classification IL PL P1 Cc Cu HB-5 15.0 Sample Depth 0100 D60 030 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay 4j_HB-5 -- 15.0 4.75 0.081 0.0 41.4 18.4 40.2 cd GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION GeOSOIIS Inc. 41i 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Ge oiIáic. Carlsbad CA 92008 jiIJ Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 'Plate C-39 10( 9 9( 8 - 8( 7 7( 6! w 6( >- 5 m 5( LL z uJ o4( Iyf a- 3 3€ 25 2€ 15 1€ 5 C U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 4 . 2 1 r 1 q1A 1J2. 3 6 A 10 14 16 211 30 411 50 100140200 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 I— 6 I 0 Uj 60 55 a: 50 LL w o 40 a: w 35 30 25 2C 15 1€ C UiiioiiIilmihhIiIINIIIIIIUIhllIUU_1111111 III 111111 ISlillill 01111_1111111_1111111 ___ III 101111 ___1111111 ___IIIiIIR.IIlIIIR_11111111 Iii IIIIIIIIJIIIIHII_111111 111111 ____H IIUI III__001111111111111_ IIIIIi 111 01 1 11111 I1III11 11111 IllIllUlIlIflhl_1IIlIIII___ iiiiuii bull. Ell imui___ ii ___I 11 iiiiiui•_i ___uouiu iuiuioiuiiui_ii iii ouuuui.iiouiiii_11111111 ioiiuiioiuui___ INNER UI_IIIIIIUIIWIIIIHlI_IIIII1IIIIiIIlI 111111 III IIIII llIIEIlI IIUI_iiuiuu IIliIIIIIIIl U NlIlIlIUlIlIHIl___ 111111111101 liii_1111111 0111111111111 1111011111_11111111 IIIIiUI 1111111 IuI1II!HIi1U III I IUIIRO 11111_11111111_I III I iiuiii 11111. I I LII 11111_IIhIi! ii ___ i i iii i iii 1111111 __ _ II 101111 'lIIlIII liii LII_110 III liii ___ 10111 liii Ill 01111 1UIlI!HL .. 1011111 100 10 1 0.1 • 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES I GRAVEL I I SAND I I I SILT OR CLAY coarse fine I coarse medium fine Sample Depth Classification LL PL P1 Cc Cu 61 HB-6 • 15.0 Sample Depth 0100 060 D30 010 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay II H6-6 • 15.0 9.423 0231 0.056 0.4 67.5 13.1 19.1 GeoSoils, Inc. w . 5741 Palmer Way En Carlsbad, CA 92008 K CS, fzi~ Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-41 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1123/R 3 6 R10 30 50 1001Afl200 ulii iIuIIhiiIr"lI'IuuuIIIuuu 11111111 II 1011111 iiiiuu II 11111_111111 illlul., ___ ii i iiui ioiuiu_0 liii._111111 111111 ___ II._I1011Iul-1011Iul_Ililliki_II IIUt 111111 III oiiiiiiii•iiiiiiii_11111111! 1 1111111 • 111111 is III 11111111 JUHiIIIII iiiiiiiiii liii 1111111 III 1101111 iiiiiii IIIIIIIuIiII0 III 11111111 III MINIM IIIiiiiiui 11111111 III III MINIM III llIIIIiII0IlIlI IllIlUIR III 111111 iiiiuii_II IIlIl0HIIUI IlililliR IllMilli lUllUl 111111_I 111111 10111 1111111 Ill—Il IIIiII 111111_1111111 Il0I1! 11111111 III_II IlUllUl 111111_11111111_IlI1lIIiiPIIiUU III i0llliililiiiil 1111111_1101111 I liii OIIIiIIUIIIIUII___ Ii ___ 011111_101111 I liii 11 ___ ii Elio iii_111111 liii IllillilU Ii HIIUIJUII IIII 11111 I 11111 1111111 iuuhli. IUU IU I U.1 O.U1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES LI GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse line coarse medium line Sample Depth I Classification LL P1 P1 Cc Cu 101 HB-6 25.0 Sample Depth 0100 D60 030 DIO %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay 2101 HB-6 25.0 4.75 0.167 0.051 0.0 64.5 16.7 18.8 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way toSib. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 .. Plate C-42 10( 9( 8 7 7( 6 0 w 6C >- 5 ID r z Ui (.)4( Ui B- 35 3C 25 20 15 10 5 C I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I I 1 1 60 50 CL CH 7 .. . / /7. .. . 40 3C___________ 20 / / / 10 C ML MN ______ CLL 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL P1 Fines Classification O NB-i 10.0 36 15 21 54 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) NB-i 15.0 NP NP NP 5 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) A NB-i 30.0 49 20 29 70 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-2 10.0 NP NP NP 6 POORLY GRADED SAND'with SILT(SP-SM) HB-2 25.0 32 16 16 42 CLAYEYSAND(SC) O HB-5 25.0 36 15 21 36 CLAYEY SAND(SC) GeoSoils, Inc 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 ----: (760) 931-0915 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Plate C-44 I LI I I I I I I I I I I I El. 60 50 CL CH // 7 40- 30 20- /710- • 0 _ _.7 ' ML MR CL4v1L I 0 20 40 60 .80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL P1 Fines Classification • TP-01 0.0 51 15 36 TP-02 3.0 43 25 18 Clay GeoSoils, inc. 5741 Palmer Way .01 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 ATTERBERGLIMITS'RESULTS Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC ate: January 2002 Plate C-45 Li I I 1] I F~ I I I I I I I I I El I I . ** * SOIL PROFILE LOG * ---------- ----------- OIL PROFILE NAME: 2863B9 ------------------------- AYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF 44 (ft) (blows/ft) S SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) <#200 50 SPT (ft) 1 10.0 5.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 138.0 10.0 1.000 5.25 - 2 12.5 5.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 130.0 43.7 0.150 10.25 I 3 17.5 4.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 . 40.0 0.150 15.25 4 22.5 4.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 40.0. 0.150 20.25 I- 275 11.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 450 0.100 25.25 6 32.5 . 10.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 70.6 0.060 30.25 37.5 15.0 t -------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0)' 125.0 700 0.060 35.5 8 42.5 8.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 70.0 0.060 40.25 47.5 9.0 t -------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 70.0 0.060 45.25 10 52.5 160 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 70.0 0.060 50.25 I-------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I IM I I Plate D-1 I I * * *LIQUEFY2 * * * * Version 1.30 * * * EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 1OB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB JIANE: McMillin Companies/Cannon Röad/Cälave.ra Hills 1IQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B9 IROUlID WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 690 IITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 1AMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 FAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS I NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). I I I I I I ---------------- 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Plate D-2 I LI I I I FCEER [19961 Method ------------------ PAGE 1 CALC. TOThJ EFF. FIELD Est.D CORR. LIQUE. OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 RESIST r J INDUC.I LIQUE. STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) () N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ --------f ------ 1 I---+------ + 0.25 0.017 0.017 5 40 @ @ @ @ @ 1 0.75 0.052 0.052 5 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.25 0.086 0.086 5 40' @ ' @. @ i1.75 0.121 0.121 5 40 @ @ @ @ @ S © © 1 2.25 0.155 0.155 5 40 @ © @ © @ © @ 1 2.75 0.190 0.190 5 40 @ © @ © @ @ © 1 3.25 0.224 0.224 5 40 @ © @ @ © 1 i 3.75 4.25 0.259 0.293 0.259 0.293 5 5 40 40 @ @ © © @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 4.75 0.328 0.328 5 40 @ © @ © @ © @ 1 5.25 0.362 0.362 5 40 @ © @ © i5.75 0.397 0.397 5 40 @ @ © @ © @ 1 6.25 0.431 0.431 ' 5 40 @ @ @ @ © @ © 1 6.75 0.466 0.466 5 40 © © © © © @ © 1 7.25 0.500 0.500 5 40 © @ © @ @ © © 1 7.75 0.535 0.535 5 40 © © © © © © @ i8.25 0.569 0.569 5 40 © © 0 @ © @ © 1 8.75 0.604 0.604 5 40 @ © © © ' 1 9.25 0.638 0.630 5 40 1.709 7.6 0.086 0.958 0.143 0.60 1 9.75 0.673. 0.649 5 40, 1.709 7.6 0.086 0.955 0.146 0.59 10.25 0.706 0.667 5 - -. - I 2 2 10.75 0.739 0.684 5 - - 2 11.25 0.771 0.701 5 - ' - - 2 11.75 0.804 ' 0.718 5 -. - - 12.25 0.836 0.735 5 ' - I 2 3 12.75 0.868 0.751 4 -. -. 3 13.25 0.899 0.76.7 4 - 5- - - 3 13.75 0.931 0.782 4 - 3 14.25 0.962 '0.798 4 3 14.75 0.993 - ' 0.814 4 - - - 3 15.25 '1.024 0.829 4 -. - - - 3 15.75 1.056 0.845 4 -. 3 16.25 1.087 0.861 4 - - 3 16.75 1.118 0.876 4 - 3 17.25 1.149 0.892 4 4 17.75 1.181 0.908 4 - S - 4 18.25 18.75 1.212 1.243 ' 0.923 0.939 4 4 -. -. -. 4 19.25 1.274 0.955 4 5 - 4 19.75 1.306 0.970 4 -. 4 4 20.25 20.75 1.337 1.368 0.986 1.002 4 4 - - 5- - 4 21.25 1.399 1.017 4 -. - 5- 4 21.75 1.431 1.033 4 - - - 4 5 22.25 22.75 1.462 1.493 1.049 1.064 4 11 - .5 I-------------------- Plate 0-3 SNCEER [19961 Method PAGE 2 ------------------- lUIAL E1b. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) I 1-- -- + - + + + + 5 23.25 1.524 1.080 11 .- - - 5 23.75 1.556 1.095 11 .- - 24.25 1.587 1.111 11 - - I 5 24.75 1.618 1.127 11 - 5 25.25 1.649 1.142 11 - .- 5 25.75 1.681 1.158 11 - I 5 26.25 26.75 1.712 1.743 8 1.19 11 :•74 5 27.25 1.774 1.205 11 6 . 27.75 1.806 1.221 10 - - -. 2825 1.837 1.236 10 I 6 6 28.75 1.868 1.252 10 6 29.25 1.899 1.268 10 6 29.75 1.931 1.283 10 6 30.25 1.962 1.299 10 U 6 30.75 1.993 1.315 10 6 31.25 2.024 1.330 10 - - -. 6 31.75 2.056 1.346 10 -. - - 6 32.25 2.087 1.362 10 - -. - - 32.75 2.118 1.377 15 -. - - I 7 33.25 2.149 1.393 15 - - 7 33.75 2.181 1.408 15 7 34.25 2.212 1.424 15 - - - 3..7s 23 1.440 15 .- - I 7 35.25 2.274 1.455 15 -. - - 7 35.75 2.306 1.471 . 15 7 36.25 2.337 1.487 15 -. .3675 2.368 1.502 15 - .- - I 7 37.25 2.399. 1.518 15 . -. 8 37.75 2.431 1.534 8 -. - - 8 38.25 2.462 1.549 8 - 2.493 1.565 . 8. .8 I a38.75 39.25 2.524 1.581 8 8 39.75 2.556 1.596 8 8 40.25 2.587 1.612 8 40.75 2.618 1.628 8 - -. - I 8 8 41.25 2.649 1.643 8 8 41.75 2.681 1.659 8 8 42.25 2.712 1.675 8 I 9 4275 43.25 2.743 2.774 1.690 1.706 9 9 - -. . 9 43.75 2.806 1.721 9 9 44.25 2.837 1.737 9 - - 9 44.75 2.868 1.753 9 . . I 45.25 2.899 1.768 9 - -. 9 45.75 2.931 1.784 9 95 46.25 2.962 1.800 9 - 9 46.75 2.993 1.815 9 I 47.25 3.024 1.831 9 .- - - 10 47.75 3.056 1.847 16 10 48.25 3.087 1.862 . 16 - 10 48.75 3.118 1.878 16 -. - - - 10 49.25 3.149 1.894 16 - - -. ---- ------ ------ NCEER [1996] Method PAGE 3 ------------------ UALJL. fOlALi UOKK LUt.IL\IIJUU DEPTH STRESS STRESS tJj Esu N UiçU1 SOIL r C (Ni) 60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft (%) N (B/f t) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ----- 10 --------+-------+ 49.75 3.181 1.9-091 16 I -- 10 50.25 3.212 1.925 16 - - - - - .PIatD4L 10 1 50.75 1 3.2431 1.9411 16 I I 10 1 51.25 1 -3.274 1 1.956 1 -'16 .10 51.75 3.306 1.972 1.6 10 1 52.251 3.3371 1.9881 16 I I 1 - I I I ..... .... .. . .S I 5 I I I I I I I I I I L7 SI Plate D-5 ************* *********** * *. SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plate D-6 DEPTH OF SPT (ft) .60 .5.25 .60 1025 .60 15.25 :00 2025 :00 2525 :o0 -------- 30.25 .50 35.25 .50. 40.25 .50 4525 .50 -------- 5025 I I I I * * * * * * ** * * * L Q U E FY2 * I * . * Version 1.30 * * * EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 1013 NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills UQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B1 IROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 IAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 100 N60 CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 JAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS I I . NOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) I I 11, I I LI ----------------------------- LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Plate D-7 I PAGE 1 P I -------------------- CEER [1996] Method ------------------ e D-8 LIQUE. SAFETY FACTOR GE 2 CALC TOTALEFF. OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C FIELD...ESt:D.....'CORRLIQUE......INDUC......IQUE (N1)60 RESIST r STRESS SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) () N (B/ft) RATIO d RATIO FACTOR ----------- --------------------- - ------- ------------ ----------------------------- 1 0.25 0.016 0.016 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ ® 1 0.75 0.047 0.047 7 48 @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 1.25 0.078 0.078 7 48 @ @ 1 1.75 0.109 0.109 7 48 @ @ @ 0.141 0.141 7 48 @.@ @ @ @ @ @ 1 I i.2.25 2.75 0.172 0.172 7 48 @ © © .© @ @ @ 1 3.25 0.203 0.203 7 48 © © @ @ @ @ @ 1 3.75 0.234 0.234 .7 48 @ © © © @ © @ 0.266 0.266 7 48 @ © @ © i I i4.25 4.75 0.297 0.297 7 48 @ © @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.25 0.328 0.328 7 48 @ © @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.75 0.359 0.359 7 48 . @ © @. @ © @ @ 0.391 0.391 7 48 @ @.@ @ @ @ i I i6.25 6.75 0.422 0.422 7 48 @ @@ © @ © @ 1 7.25 0.453 0.453 7 48 @ © @ @ © @ @ 2 7.75 0.485 0.485 . 9 49 @ © @ @ @ @ @ 8.25 0.518 0.518 9 49 @ © @ @ © @ @ 2 I 2 8.75 0.552 0.552 9 49 © © @ @ @ @ 2 9.25 0.585 0.577 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.958 0.143 1.12 2 9.75 0.618 0.594 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.955 0.147 1.09 2 10.25 0.651 0.612 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.953 0.150 1.07 I 2 10.75 0.684 0.630 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.951 0.153 1.05 2 11.25 0.717 0.647 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.949 0.155 1.03 2 11.75 0.750 0.665 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.946 0.158 1.02 2 12.25 0.783 0.682 9 49 1.315 14.7 0.160 0.944 0.160 1.00 I 3 12.75 0.816 0.699 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.942 0.162 1.19 3 13.25 0.847 0.714 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.939 0.165 1.18 3 13.75 0.878 0.730 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.937 0.167 1.16 3 14.25 0.909 0.746 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.935 0.169 1.15 14.75 0.941 0.761 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.933 0.170 1.14 I 3 3 15.25 0.972 0.777 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.930 .0.172 1.12 3 15.75 1.003 0.793 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.928 0.174 1.11 3 16.25 1.034 0.808 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.926 0.175 1.11 16.75 1.066 0.824 12 54 1.167 17.8 0.193 0.923 0.177 1.10 I 3 3 17.25 1.097 0.840 12 54 1.167. 17.8 0.193 0.921 0.178 1.09 4 17.75 1.128 0.855 7 40 ]..065 11.4 0.124 0.919 0.179 0.69 4 18.25 1.159 0.871 7 40 1.065 11.4 .0.124 0.917 0.180 0.69 18.75 1.191 0.886 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.914 0.181 0.69 I 4 4 19.25 1.222 0.902 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.912 0.183 0.68 4 19.75 1.253 0.918 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.910 0.184 0.68 4 20.25 1.284 0.933 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 .0.907 0.185 0.67 20.75 1.316 0.949 7 40 .1.065 11.4 0.124 0.905 0.185 0.67 I 4 4 21.25 1.347 0.965 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.903 0.186 0.67 4 21.75 1.378 0.980 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.901 0.187 0.66 4 22.25 1.409 0.996 7 40 1.065 11.4 0.124 0.898 0.188 0.66 5 22.75 1.441 1.012 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.896 0.189 1.32 I- - - - +- ------ - ------ + - + - + - + - + - + 5 23.25 1.472 1.027 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.894 0.189 1.31 5 23.75 1503 1.043 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.891 0.190 1.31 5 24.25 1.534 1.059 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.889 0.190 1.30 524.75 1.566 1.074 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.887 0.191 1.30 5 25.25 1.597 1.090 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.885 0.192 1.30 5 25.75 1.628 1.106 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.882 0.192 1.29 5 26.25 1.659 1.121 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.880 0.192 1.29 :26.751.691 1.137'19 0.8780:193 1:29 s 5 27.25 1.722 1.153 19 64 0.985 22.6 0.248 0.875 0.193 1.28 6 27.75 1.753 1.168 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 . 0.109 0.873 0.194 0.56 6 28.25 1.784 1.184 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.871 0.194 0.56 28.75 1.816 1.199 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.869 0.194 0.56 6 6 29.25 1.847 1.215 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.866 0.195 0.56 6 29.75 1.878 1.231 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.864 0.195 0.56 6 30.25 1.909 1.246 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.862 0.195 0.56 30.75 1.941 1.262 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.859 0.195 0.56 6 6 31.25 1.972 1.278 6 35 0.921 10.2 0.109 0.857 0.195 0.56 6 31.75 2.003 1.293 6 35 0.921 10.2 0:109 0.855 0.196 0.56 6 32.25 2.034 1.309 6 35 0.921 10.2. 0.109 0.853 0.196 0.56 32.75 2.066 1.325 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.850 0.196 0.76 7 33.25 2.097 1.340 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.848 0.196 0.76 7 33.75 2.128 1.356 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.846 0.196 0.76 7 34.25 2.159 1.372 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.843 0.196 0.76 7 34.75 35.25 2.191 2.222 1.387 1.403 11 11 45 45 0.868 0.868 14.2 14.2 ...............0.24a 0.149 0.149 0.841 0.839 0.196. 0.196 0.76 0.76 7 35.75 2.253 1.419 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.837 0.196 0.76 7 36.25 2.284 1.434 11 45 0.868 14.2 0.149 0.834 0.196 0.76 7 36.75 37.25 2.316 2.347 1.450 1.466 11 11 45 45 0.868 0.868 14.2 14.2 0.149 0.149 0.832 0.830 0.196 0.196 0.76 0.76 8 37.75 2.378 1.481 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.827 0.196 .0.89 8 38.25 2.409 1.497 15 52 64.......0:98522 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.825 0.196 0.89 8 38.75 39.25 2.441 2.472 1.512 1.528 15 15 52 52 0.824 0.824 17.0 17.0 0.175 0.175 0823 0.821 0.196 0.196 0.89 0.89 8 8 39.75 2.503 1.544 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.818 0.196 0.89 .8 40.25 2.534 1.559 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.816 0.196 0.89 8 40.75 2.566 1.575 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.814 0.196 0.89 41.25 2.597 1.591 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.811 0.196 0.89 8 8 41.75 2.628 1.606 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.809 0.196 0.90 8 42.25 2.659 1.622 15 52 0.824 17.0 0.175 0.807 .0.195 0.90 9 42.75 2.691 1.638 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.805 0.195 0.85 43.25 2.722 1.653 15 50 0.785 16:5 0.167 0.802 0.195 0.85 9 43.75 2.753 1.669 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.800 0.195 0.85 9 44.25 2.784 1.685 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.798 0.195 0.86 9 44.75 2.816 .1700 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.795 0.195 0.86 45.25 2.847 1.716 15 50 0:785 16.5 0.167 .0.793 0.194 0.86 9 45.75 2.878 1.732 15 . 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.791 0.194 0.86 9 46.25 2.909 1.747 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.789 0.194 0.86 9 46.75 2.941 1.763 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.786 0.194 0.86 47.25 2.972 1.779 15 50 0.785 16.5 0.167 0.784 0.194 0.86 10 47.75 3.003 1.794 8 36 0.752 10.7 0.107 0.782 0.193 0.55 10 48.25 3.034 1.810 8 36 0.752 10.7 .0.107 0.779 .0.193 0.55 10 48.75 3.066 1.825 8 36 0.752 10.7 0.107 0.777 0.193 0.56 10 49.25 3.097 1.841 . 8 36 0.752 10:7 0.107 0.775 0.193 0.56 t-C-E-E-1-Z--[1-9-9-6-1 _i; PAGE - iiLi. 1IELjU kst.0 INDtJC. LIQUE. SOIL DEPTH I STRESS STRESS N r N1)60 C I ( CORR.ILIQUE.1- RESIST r STRESS SAFETY INO. - + (ft) (tsf) ------+ ------+ (tsf) --------------~ (B/ft) (%) N (B/ft) RATIO d -----. ----------------------------------------- RATIO FACTOR 10 49.75 3.128 1.857 8 36 10.7 0.107 0.773 0.192 0.56 10 50.25 3.159 1.872 8 36 1 1 0.752 1 0.752 10.7 0.107 1 0.770 0.192 0.56 50.75 3.191 1.888 8 36 0.752 10.7 0.107 0.768 0.192 0.56 I 10 . Plate D-9 I I . * * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * 1 UY: BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION NET UNIT FINES D (mm) DEPTH OF (ft) (blows/ft) SUSCEPTIBILITY NT. (pcf).%d420O 50 SPT (f1) 10.0 . 6.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 112.0 25.0 0.150 5.25 2 125 10.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 127.5 .41.8 0.140 - 10.25 I- 3 ---- . 17.5 6.0 ----------- UNSUSCEPTIBLE ('0) ------------------ 125.0 --------- 35.0 ------ 0.150 ------ 15.25 4 -------- 7 - 25.0 8.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.5 35.0 0.150 -------- 20.25 -- 5 30.0 27.0 SUSCEPTIBLE (1) 125.5 35.0 0.150 25.25 Plate D-1O I I . * * *LIQUEFY2* I . * * Version 1.30 * * . * * ** * ***** * * * ** * * I EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 1OB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2000 JOB NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills IIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road- SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B2 IROUND WATER DEPTH: 9.0 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 IAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1-00 NGO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 JAGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS I kOTE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani. and Nicoll (1982) I. I I I Li I ------------------------------ . LIQUEFACTIOt ANALYSIS SUMMARY ----------------------------- Plate D11 LI I -------------------- CEE-R [1996] Method ------------------ PAGE 1 OIL NO. I :CAL.C: DEPTH (ft) STRESS (tsf) STRESS (tsf) N (B/ft) r () C N TOTAL'EFF........FIE'LD........Est;D.............CORR:LiI-QUE.....INDUC........IQtJE (N1)60 (B/ft) RESIST RATIO r d STRESS RATIO SAFETY FACTOR ----+ ------+ ------+ ------+ ------+ ------ + -----+ ------+ -----+ -----+ ------+ ------ 0.014 0.014 6 45 @ @ @ © @ @ @ 1 I i0.25 0.75 0.042 0.042. 6 45 © @ @ © © 1 1.25 0.070 0.070 6 45 @ © @ @ @ @ 1 1.75 .0.098 0.098 6 45 @ @ @ @ @ @ © 0.126 0.126 6 45 @ © - © © @ @ © 1 I i2.25 2.75 0.154 0.154 6 45 @ © @ © © @ @ 1 3.25 0.182 0.182 6 . 45 © @ .@ @ @ 1 3.75 0.210 0.210 6 45 @ © @ @ © @ 1 I i 4.25 4.75 0,238 0.266 0.238 0.266 6 6 45 . 45 @ .@ @ @ @ © @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 5.25 0.294 0.294 6 45 @ © @ @ © @ 1 5.75 0.322 0.322 6 45 @ @ © © .@ @ © 1 I i 6.25 6,75 0.350 0.378 0.350 0.378 6 6 45 45 © © © © © © © © @ 1 7.25 0.406 0.406 6 45 @ @ @ © . © © © 1 7.75 0.434 0.434 6 45 . .© @ 1 I i 8.75 8.25 0.462 0.490 0.462 0.490 6 6 45 45 .@ @ .@ @ © © . © © © © @ @ © © 1 9.25 0.518 0.510 6 45 1.897 13.2 0.144 0.958 0.144 1.00 1 9.75 0.546 0.523 6 45 1.897 13.2 0.144 0.955 0.148 0.98 2 10.25 0.576 0.537 10 - - - -. - .10.75 0.608 0.553 10 I 2 2 11.25 0.640 0.570 10 2 11.75 0.672 0.586 10 .2 12.25 0.703 0.602 10 12.75 0.735 0.618 6 - . - - -- 3 I 13.25 0.766 0.634 6 3 13.75 0.78 0.649 6 - - - - - -- 3 14.25 0.829 0.665 6 - - - - -. I 3 3 14.75 15.25 0.860 0.891 0.681 . 0.696 6 - 6 .- - - - 3 15.75 0.923 0.712 6 - - - 3 16.25 0.954 0.728 6 - -. - - I 3 3 16.75 17.25 0.985 1.016 0.743 0.759 6 6 4 17.75 1.048 . 0.775 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.919 0.184 0.89 4 18.25 1.079 0.790 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.917 0.185 0.89 I 4 4 18.75 19.25 1.110 1.142 0.806 0.822 8 8 . 44 44 1.113 1.113 15.0 15.0 0.164 0.164 0.914 0.912 0.186 0.187 0.88 0.87 4 19.75 1.173 0.838 8 44 1:113 15.0 0.164 0.910 0.188 0.87 4 20.25 1.204 0.853 . 8 . 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.907 0.189 0.86 4 I 20.75 21.25 1.236 1.267 0.869 - 0.885 8 8 44 44 . 1.113 1.113 15.0 15.0 0.164 0.164 0.905 0.903 0.190 0.191 0.86 0.86 4 - 21.75 1.299 0.901 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.901 0.192 0.85 4 4 22.25 22.75 1.330 1.361 0.917 0.932 8 8 44 44 1.113 1.113 15.0 15.0 0.164 0.164 0.898 0.896 0.193 0.193 0.85 0.85 1 UE-E--i-Z-H-9-9-6-1 Method PAGE 2 --------------- Plate 0-12 61 SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N NO; (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft) r C 60 RESIST N I..(Nl) (B/ft) RATIO r STRESS SAFETY d RATIO FACTOR I 1 - - -- +- + - + - + + + + + + - 23.25 1.393 .0.948 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.894 0.194 0.84 4 2375 1.424 0.964 8 44 1.113 15.0, 0.164 0.891 0.195 0.84 4 24.25 1.455 0.980 8 44 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.889 0.195 0.84 I 4 24.7.5 1.487 0.995 8 4.4. 1.113 15.0 0.164 0.887 0.196 0.84 5 25.25. 1.518 1.011 27 77 1.023 33.5. Infin 0.885 0.196 NonLiq 5 25.75 1.550 1.027 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.882 0.197 NonLiq 5 26.25 1.581 1.043 27 77 .1.023 33.5 Infin 0.880 0.197 NonLiq "5" "2'6....75' '"oT'I9"8 N67hLiq.......... 5 27.25 1.644 1.074 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.875 0.198 NonLiq 5 27.75 1.675 1.090 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.873' 0.198 NonLiq 5 28.25 1.706 1.106 27 r'I2I."0'59..........27..............77'""1....023........3.3•_5........ 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0 .871 0.199 NonLiq 28.75 1.738 1.122 27 77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.869 0.199 NonLiq I 5 5 29.25 1.769 1.137 27 77 1.023' 33.5 Infin 0.866 0.199 NonLiq 5 29.75 1.801 1.153 27 .77 1.023 33.5 Infin 0.864 0.199 NonLiq I I I I I I I I I I I I Plate 0-13 I I * * * SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * SOIL PROFILE NAM E: 2863B4 -------------------- LAYER BASE DEPTH SPT FIELD-N LIQUEFACTION WET UNIT FINES DThñT DEPTH OF * (ft.) (blows/ft.) SUSCEPTIBILITY WT. (pcf) <#200 50 SPT (ft.) I i7.5 8.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 122.0 66.0 0.050 5.25 -- 2 12.5 4.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) .120.0 60.0 0.050 10.25 3 17.5 7.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 128.0 550 0.050 15.25 I 4 22.5 15.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 20.25 '-- 5 27.5 15.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 30.0 0.100 25.25 6 ----- 32.5 ---------- 23.0 ----------- SUSCEPTIBLE (1) ----------------- 125.0 --------- 55.0 ------ 0.050 ------ 30.25 7 37,5 14.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 -------- 35.25 I 8 14.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 42..5 40.25 -- 9 47.5 19.0 UNSUSCEPTIBLE (0) 125.0 55.0 0.050 45.25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I I I I I I I . . Plate 0-14 [1 I - ** *LIQUEFY2 * * Version 1.30 * - * * I EMPIRICAL- PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTIO'T POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: W.O. 2863-A-SC DATE: Thursday, May 25, 2O00 JOB ["TAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road/Calavera Hills IIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: McMillin Companies/Cannon Road - - SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 2863B4 - - tROUND WATER DEPTH-: 9.0 ft - DESIGN-EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 - ITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 AMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 NGO CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 - - I[AGNITUDE WEIGHTING FACTOR: 0.812 ' FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS I kOTE: Relative densityvalues listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982) . I I I I I - LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY - Plate D-15- I ----------------------------- I I ICEER [1996] Method ------------------ PAGE 1 -CA[iC. I TOTAL''EFF. 9OIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS FtELD........ N . . r (B/ft). C (N1)60 Est .D...................CORRLTQtJ...............rNDUCT RESIST r STRESS IT-QUE : SAFETY NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf). ) () N (B/ft) RATIO d PATIO FACTOR ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- 1 0.25 0.015 0.015 8 @ @ . @ @ 1 0.75 0.046 0.046 8 .- @ . @ @ 1 1.25 0.076 0.076 8 .- © @ 11 1.75 0.107 0.107 8 .- @ @ @ @ © © ® 0.137 0.137 8 - 1 I i2.25 2.75 0.168 0.168 8 - © @ @ 1 3.25 0.198, 0.198 8 - © © @ @ © @ © 1 3.75 0.229 0.229 8 . - @ © @ @ @ © @ 0.259 0.259 . 8 .@ 1 I i4.25 4.75 0.290 0.290 8 - 1 5.25 0.320 0.320 8 - @ © @ @ @ © @ 1 5.75 0.351 0.351 8 - @ @ @ © ® 0.381 0.381 8 - © @- 1 I i6.25 6.75 0.412 0.412 8 - © © @ @ @ © ® 1 7.25 0.442 0.442 8 - .@ © @ @ @ © @- 2- 7.75 0.473 0.473 4 -. @ © @ @ © © @ 8.25 0.503 0.503 4 - @ @ © © .@ @ I 2 2 8.75 0.533 0.533 4 - @ @@ © © @ 2 9.25 0.563 0.555 4 .- 2 9.75 0.593 0.569 4 . - - 2 I 2 10.25 10.75 0.623 0.6.53 0.584 0.598. 4 4 .- .- - - - - - 2 11.25 0.683 0.612 4 ... - 2 11.75 0.713 0.627 4 - - - - - 3 I 2 12.25 12.75 0.743 0.774 0.641 0.657 4 7 - - - - - - -. - - 3 13.25 0.806 0.673 7 - -. - - 3 13.75 0.838 0.689 7 - 3 14.25 0.870 0.706 7 - - - 14.75 0.902 0.722 7 - - - - - I 3 3 15.25 0.934 .0.739 7 3 15.75 0.966 0.755 7 - . 3 16.25 0.998 0.771 7 - 3 16.75 1.030 0.788 7 -- I . 3 17.25 1.062 0.804 7 - - ... . -. 4 17.75 1.093 0.820 15 ._ -. . . 4 18.25 1.124 0.836 15 - 18.75 1.156 0851 15 -- I 4 4 . 19.25 1.187 0.867 15 - - - 4 19.75 1.218 0.883 15 - - - - -. 4 20.25 1.249 0.898 15 - -. 2075 1.281 0.914 15 4 21.25 I .- 1.312 0.930 15 - - .- -. 4 2175 1.343 0.945 15 - 4 22.25 1.374 0.961 15 --- 5 22.75 1.406 0.977 15 - U kC--9E-R---[1-9-9-6-1--M-ethod - LI-LjL. J.jJ JtI. LELjU JSC.0 UURM Li'JUI. SOIL DEPTH STRESS STRESS N r C (N1)60 j (B/ft)j PATIO RESIST NO. (ft) (tsf) (tsf) (B/ft ) W . N PAGE 2 Plate D-16 r STRESS SAFETY d I PATIO FACTOR I I- - -+- + - + - + - + - +- - .- - - + - + - + -.- - - - + - + 5 23.25 1.437 0.992 15 - 5 23.75 1.468 1.008 15 5 24.25 1.499 1.024 15 - - -. 24.75 1.531 1.039 15 I 5 5 25.25 1.562 1.055 15 - -. - 5 25.75 1.593 1.071 15 - - - 5 26.25 1.624 1.086 . 15 1-5--- ........ 5 5 27..25 27.25 1.687 1.687 1.118 1.118 15 15 - 6 G 27.75 27.75 1.718 1.718 1.133 1.133 23 23 68 68 0.935 0.935 28.5 28.S 28.5 0.358 0.358 0.873 0.873 0.196 0-19 G 1.83 1.83 6 6 .28.25 .28.25 1.749 1-749 1.149 1.149 23 23 68 68 0.935 0.935 28.5 28.5 0.358 0.358 0.871 0.871 0.196 0.196 1.83 1.83 6 28.75 28.75 1. 7bl 1.781 1.164 .1.164 23 23 68 68 0.935 0 A 3 5 28.5 .0.358 0.869 .0.196 1.82 I6 6 29.25 1.812 1.180 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.866 0.197 1.82 6 . 29.75 1.843 1.196 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.864 0:197 1.82 6 30.25 1.874 1.211 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.862 0.197 1.82 30.75 1:906 1.227 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.859 0.197 1.81 I 6 6 I S...........6:751656 31.25 1.937 .1.243 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.857 0.197 1.81 6 31.75 1.968 1.258 23 68 0.935 .28.5 0.358 0.855 0.198 1.81 6 32.25 1.999 1.274 23 68 0.935 28.5 0.358 0.853 0.198 1.81 32.75 2.031 1.290 14 -- I 7 7 33.25 2.062 1.305 14 .- -. - 7 33.75 2.093 1.321 14 .- 7 34.25 2.124 1.337 14 -. 7 I 34.75 35.25 2.156 2.187 1.352 1.368 14 14 -. - -- 7 35.75 2.218 1.384 14 - - -. - 7 36.25 2.249 1.399 14 -. .- - - 7 l 36.75 37.25. 2.281 2.312 ......1.102 1.415 1.431 14 14 .- .............................. 8 37.75 2.343 1.446 14 - - 8 38.25 2.374 1.462 14 - - - -. 8 38.75 2.406 1.477 14 .--- I8 39.25 2.437 1.493 14 -. .- - 8 39.75 2.468 1.509 14 - -. - - 8 40.25 2.4.99 1.524 14 - .- 8 40.75 2.531 1.540 14 - - - -. 41.25 2.562 1.556 - - - I8 8 41.75 2.593 1.571 14 - - - - - 8 42.25 2.624 1.587 14 - '- - 9 42.75 2.656 1.603 19 - - - - 43.25 2.687 1.618 19 -. - - - I 9 9 43.75 2.718 1.634 19 - - - 9 44.25 2.749 1.650 19 - -. - - - - 9 44.75 2.781 1.665 19 .- 2.812 1.681 19 - - - - - - -- 9 I 45.25 45.75 2.843 1.697 19 - -. 9 46.25 2.874 1.712 19 . . 9 46.75 2.906 1.728 19 - - -. 9 47.25 2.937 1.744 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 I U I I Plate 0-17 I, I. I I ***************************** * LIQUEFY2 * * * * Version 1.50 * EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL JOB NUMBER: SC3098 DATE: 08-11-2004 I JOB NAME: MCMILLIN SOIL-PROFILE NAME: MCMILIN.LDW BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 10.00 ft CALCULATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 10.00 ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.90 Mw I SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.280 g BOREHOLE DIAMETER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.15 I SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 I MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: Idriss (1997, in press) Magnitude Scaling Factor: 1.238 I rd-CORRECTION METHOD: NCEER (1997) I FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE DRIVE RODS. Rod Stick-Up Above Ground: 3.0 ft I CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf MINIMUM UN VALUE: 0.6 Plate 0-18 I I ------------ -------- ------- NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE File Name: MCMILIN.OIJT CALC.I TOTAL! EFF. IFIELD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I FC I I CORR.ILIQUE.I IINDUC.ILIQUE. I SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAl C (Ni)GOIRESISTI r I STRESS I SAFETY NO.1 (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (sift) IN160I N j(B/ft)j RATIOj d I PATIOIFACTOR' + ------+ ------+ ------+ -----+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ------ I i 1 0.251 0.0151 0.0151 30 f 7.4.51 * I * I * I * I * I ** 1 1 0.751 0.0451 0.0451 30 1 7.451 * I * * * I * ** 1 I 1.251 0.0751 0.0751 30 1 7.451 * I * I l 1 j I 1.751 2.251 0.1051 0.1351 0.1051 0.1351 30 30 1 7.451 * j 7.451 * I * f * * * * I * * I * I ** ** if 2.751 0.1651 0.1651 30 1 7.451 * I * I * * I * I ** 1 I 3.251 0.1951 0.1951 30 f 7.451 * I * I * I * I * ** 1 3.7Sf 0.2251 0.2251 30 f 7.451 * f * * * * I ** I i i I 4.251 0.2551 0.255! 30 1 7-451 * I * * I * * ** 1 1 4-751 0.2851 0.2851 30 1 7-45! * • * * I * I * I ** 1 f 5.251 0.315! 0.3151 30 I 7-451 * I * I * I * I * I ** I 5.751 0.3451 0.3451 30 1 7.451 * I * I * I * I * I ** I i 21 6.251 0.3751 0.37SI 15 f - * I *1 * I * I * I ** 2 I 6.751 0.4051 04051' 15 1 - I * I * * I * I * I ** 2! 7.2510.43510.435! 15 I I * I *1 * I * I * I ** I 2j 7.75I0.465I0.4651 15 1 - I * I *1 * I * I * I ** 2! 8.251 0.4951 0.4951 15 1 - I * I *1 * I * I * I ** 2 f 8.751 0.5251 0.5251 15 I I * I * I * I * I * I ** I 2 1 2 I 9.251 95I 0.5SSI 0.5851 0.5551 0.5851 15 15 I - I * I I - I * I * * I * I * I * I * I * I * I ** ** 2 1 10.251 0.6151 0.6071 15 1 --- 2 1 10.751 0.64SI 0.6221 15 I --- 2 1. 11.251 0.67SI 0.6361 15. I - I I 2 1 11.751 0.7051 0.6501 15 1 - 2 f 12.251 0.7351 0.6651 15 1. --- 2 1 12.751 0.765! 0.6791 15 I --- 2113.2510.795I0.6941 15 I - I 2 1 13.751 0.8251 0.7081 15 I - I -- I 14.251 0.8551 0.7221 12 f 7.7611.1851 21.9 f 0.2501 0.9121 0.1781 1.74 3 I 14.751 0.8851 0.7371 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 f 0.2501 0.9071 0.1791 1.73 I . 15.251 0.9151 0.7511 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 I 0.25010.9031 0.1791 1.73 I 15.751 0.9451 0.7661 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.2501 0.8991 0.1801 1.72 3 I 16.2Sf 0.9751 0.7801 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.25010.8951 0.1801 1.72 I I 3 I 16.75! 17.25f 1.0051 1.0351 0.7941 0.8091 12 12 f 7.7611.1851 I 7.761 1.185 1 21.9 I 21.9 1 0.2501 0.8911 0.2501 0.8871 0.1801 0.1811 1.72 1.71 3 f 17.751 10651 0.8231 12 1 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.2501.0.8831 0.1811 1.71 3 I 18.251 1.0951 0.8381 12 f 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0 .250 1 0 .8791 0.1811 1.71 3 I 18751 1.1251 0.8521 12 I 7.7611.1851 21.9 1 0.25010.8751 0.1821 1.70 I 4 I 19.251 1.1551 0.8661 13 f -- 4 I 19.751 1.1851 0.8811 13 f -- I 20.251 1.2151 0.8951 13 f •- I - I - I - I - I - I I 4 1 20-75 1 1.2451 0.9101 13 I 4 I 21.25! 1.2751 0.9241 13 I I I Plate D-19 I I ------------------- ----------------------------- NCEER [1997) Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2 File Name: MCMILIN.OUT I I CALC.I TOTAL! EFF. IFIELD ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I FC I I CORRHLIQUE.I IIN1JUC.ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C (N1)601RESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO.1 (ft) I (tsf) I (tsf) I (B/ft) IN16oI N I (B/ft) I RATIO! d I RATIOIFACTOR + ------+ ------+ ------+-----+ -----+ ------+ ------+ -----+ ------+ ______ I 4!21.751]..30510.9381 13 - I - I -1 - I - I - I -- 5 j. 22.25 1.3351 0.9531 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.254 1 0.8461 0.1831 1.72 5 I 22.751 1.3651 0.9671 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.25410.8421 0.1831 1.72 1 23..251 1.3951 0.982 1 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8381 0.1831 1.72 I I 23. 751 1.4251 0.9961 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8341 0.1831 1.72 I 24.251 1.4551 1.0101 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8301 0.1831 1.72 I 5 I 24.751 1.4851 1.0251 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.2541 0.8261 0.1831 1.72 5 I 25.251 1.5151 1.0391 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.25410.8221 0.1831 1.72 I 25.751 1.5451 1.0541 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 1 0.25410.8181 0.1831 1.72 l 26.251 1.5751 1.0681 19 I 1.341 1.0061 23.0 1 0.254 1 0.8141 0.1831 1.72 I 26.751 1.6051 1.0821 19 1 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.254 1 0.8101 0.1831 1.72 1 5 I 27.251 1.6351 1.0971 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 I 0.254 1 0.8061 0.1831 1.72 I 27.751 1.6651 1.1111 19 1 1.3411.0061 23.0 j 0.25410.8021 0.1831 1.72 I 28.251 1.695! 1.1261 19 I 1.3411.0061 23.0 0.254 1 0.7981 0.1831 1.72 I S I 6 1 28.751 29.251 1.7251 1.7551 1.1401 1.1541 19 11 I 1.3411.0061 1 5.6610.9421 23.0 I 17.6 I 0.25410.7941 0.187)0.7891 0.1821 0.1821 1.72 1.27 6 1 29.75! 1.7851 1.1691 11 J 5.66)0.9421 17.6 I 0.18710.7851 0.1821 1.27 6 1 30.25! 1.8151 1.1831 11 I 5.66)0.9421 17.6 I 0.18710.7811 0.1821 1.27 6 1 30.75! 1.8451 1.1981 11 I 5.6610.942.1 17.6 j 0.187(0.7771 0.1821 1.27 I 6 I 31.251 1.8751 1.2121 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 I 0.187(0.7731 0.1811 1.28 6 1 31.751 1.9051 1.2261 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 1 0.18710.7691 0.1811 1.28 6 1 32.251 1.9351 1.2411 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 1 0.187 1 0.7651 0.1811 1.28 6 I 32.751 1.9651 1.2551 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 1 0.18710.7611 0.1811 1.28 I 6 I 33.251 1.9951 1.2701 11 I 5.6610.9421 17.6 1 0.18710.7571 0.1801 1.28 6 1 33-51 2.0251 1.2841 11 1 5.66(0.9421 17.6 I 0.187 1 0.7531 0.1801 1.29 7134.2512.05511.2981 ii I - I I -I I I - I -- I 7134.7512.08511.3131 11 1 - I I -I - I - I - -- 7135.2512.11511.3271 11 - - 1 -I - - I - I -- 7135.7512.14511.3421 11 1 - I - I -I - I - I - I -_ 7 1 36.251 2.1751 1.3S61 11 - - I 1 - I - I - I - I.-- I 7 1 36.751 2.2051 1.3701 11! - - I -I - I - i I 7137.2512.23511.385! 11 - - I 1 -I - I - I - I -- 7 I 7137.7512.26511.3991 11 I - I - I -I I - I I 7 I 38.251 2.2951 '•'I ii I - I - I I I - I I - I 38.75 2.3251 1.4281 11 - I I - - - I I -- 8 1 39.251 2.3551 1.4421 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.2111 0.708 1 0.1751 1.49 8 1 39.751 2.3851 1.4571 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.704 I 0.1751 1.50 I 8 I 40.251 2.4151 1.4711 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.7001 0.1751 1.50 8 I 40.751 2.4451 1.4861 15 1 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.6961 0.1741 1.50 8 I 41.251 2.4751 1.5001 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 1 0.21110.6921. 0.1731 1.51 I 8 1 8 1 41.751 42.251 2.5051 2.5351 1.5141 1.5291 15 15 I 5.9610.8441 1 5.96)0.8441 20.5 I 20.5 I 0.2111 0.688 1 0.21110.6841 0.1731 0.1721 1.51 1.52 8 I 42.751 2.5651 1.5431 15 I 5.9610.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.6801 0.1721 1.52 8 I 43.251 2.5951 1.5581 15 I 5.96(0.8441 20.5 I 0.21110.6761 0.1711 1.53 I. Plate D-20 I I Li I I SUMMARY_--PAGE 3 File Name: MCMILIN.OUT CALC.1 TOTALI EFF. IFIELD I FC I I CORR.ILIQUE.I IINDUC.ILIQUE. SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C (Nl)GOIRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFETY NO. (ft) I (tsf) J (tsf) (B/tt) N1601 N j (B/ft)j RATIOI d I RATIOJ FACTOR -.---- ------ -+ ------+ ------+ -----+ -----+ ------+-. -----+ -----+ ------+ ------ 8 43•7l 2.6251 1.5721 15 1 5.9610.8441 20.5 1 0.21110.6711 0.1711 1.53 9 1 44.251 2.6551 1.51361 15 1 - I -.1 -I - I 9 1 44.7SI 2.6851 1.6011 15 1 - I-I -I -- 9145.2512.71511.6151 15 j - I I -I - I -I I 9 1 45.7SI 2.7451 1.G301 15 I I -I 9 1 46.251 2.7751 1.6441 15 - I -l -- I 46.751 2.8051 i.6581 15 1 - I - I 9 1 47.251 2.8351 1.6731 15 1 - 9 1 47.751 2.8651 1.6871 15 I - I 48.251 2.8951 1.7021 15 J - I - I - I - I - I - I -- 9148.7512.92511.7161 15 1 I I -1 I - I - I -- 9 I 49.751 9149.2512.95511.7301 2.9851 1.7451 15 I - I - I -I - I - I I is 1.- I -1 I - I I -- 9 1 -50.251 3.0151 1.7591 15 1 - I - I -- 9150.7513.04511.7741 -- 15 1 915125I3.07511.7881 15 1 9 I 51.751 3.1051 1.8021 15 I Li I I Plate 0-21 I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mm - - PUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) :19 AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) IllS co AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 D DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) 20 AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) :120 D DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) 10 PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) 1000 C COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER 0.09 C'r RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.050 tp ASSUMEDTIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) . C . SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATI ONS P'0 INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MID EIGHT (PSF) 1900.8 PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE . 2900.8 AP CHANGE IN LOAD .200 pf f FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 3100.8 S CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P'=P' ) S CASE. 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P's> P0, Plf <= S CASE 3., PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P I C > P0, Plf > P') 2.69 S SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) 0.42 s tot TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 3.10 CD çn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FELL MCMILLIN B-3 INPUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) :20 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) 115 c AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 D DEPTH,TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) :16 y AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.TIOUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120 D DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) 15 PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) 1000 COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER 0.09 C r RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.050 tp ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE 'STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) 50 , , SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO 005 CALCULATIONS P'0 INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 1:670.4 P'0 PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE ' 270.4 AP CHANGE IN LOAD 1800 P'0 FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) ' 3470.4 SP CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORI4ALY CONSOLIDATED C P'=P',. ) - S CASE 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- ' PRECONSOLIDATED '(P'0> P0, Pie <= P') S CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P'c > P,, Pi e > P') 4.90 S9 SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) 0.44 stot TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 5•34 iE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FELL MILL'IN B4 PAD 'AREA INPUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) 30 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) .115 AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) . 20 U DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) 21 y AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WTTHROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120' DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- ' 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) S 15 PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL r0) 1000 Cl COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER 0.09 C r RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.050 t ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t . POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS)' 50 C SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO CALCULATIONS Pl o INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) ' 1958.4 PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE 2968.4 AP CHANGE IN LOAD . 1800 P'0 '' ' FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 3758.4 S CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- ' NORMALY CONSOLIDATED ( P'0=P'0 S CASE 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P'0> Po, P lf <= S CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (' >.P0 p'0 > P'0) :6.59 S9 SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) Stot TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) , 7.25 CD çn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS DUE TO ADDED FILL CMILLIN B-i INPUT PARAMETERS H THICKNESS OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER (FT) 25 Yd AVERAGE DRY UNIT WT.FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (PCF) 115 0) AVERAGE NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT FOR THE COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (%) 20 D DEPTH TO MID HEIGHT OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER- (FT) 20 y AVERAGE TOTAL SOIL UNIT WT.THROUGHOUT THE DEPTH- (PCF) 120 DEPTH TO WATER TABLE- 12 q EQUIVALENT SURCHARGE LAYER- (FT) 18 PRECONSOLIDATION MARGIN (PSF) (FOR NORMALY COSOLIDATED SOIL =0) 1000 COMPRESSION RATIO FOR COMPRESSIBLE LAYER .0.08 Cl, RECOMPRESSION RATIO 0.030 tp ASSUMED TIME TO THE END OF PRIMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE LAYER- (YEARS) 3 t POST CONSTRUCTION LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE- (IN YEARS) 5.0 Ct SECONDARY COMPRESSION RATIO 0 0015 CALCULATIONS P'0 INITIAL EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN ATMIDHEIGHT (PSF) 1900.8 PRECONSOLIDATION PRESSURE 2900.8 LP CHANGE IN LOAD 2160 FINAL PRESSURE AT MIDHEIGHT (PSF) 4060.8 SP CASE 1. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- NORALY CONSOLIDATED ( P'0=P' S CASE 2. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P'> P0. P' <= S CASE 3. PRIMARY SETTLEMENT (inch)- PRECONSOLIDATED (P'c > P0, P' > P') 4.94 S8 SECONDARY SETTLEMENT (INCH) :0.55 S 0 TOTAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SETTLEMENT COMBINED (INCH) 5.49 I I I SC SETTLEM ENT. MAXIMUM PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (g) 0.28 I . ... .... ... MAGNITUDE ------ -------- SCALING ----------- - - - FACTOR ........ 1.24 D H VOLUMETRIC SEIMIC • ( ml(60)cs CSR CSRcor STRAIN SETTLEMENT I - 6.0 6.0 30 0.220 0.180 0.01 0.00 I 14.0 19.0 8.0 5.0 23 12 0.215 0.225 0.174 0.182 0.10. 0.50 0.10 0.30 22.0 3.0 21 0.226 0.183 0.2d 0.07 29.0 7.0 23 0.227 0.183 0.08 I 34.0 5.0 18 0.227 0.183 0.50 0.30 39.0 5.0 19 0.223 0.180 0.40- 0.24 44.0 5.0 21 0.215 0.174 0.10 0.06 52.0 8.0 23 0.215 0.174 0.10 0.10 I I,• I - I TOTAL SEISMIC SETTLEMENT (in) = 1.25 1 - IN ACCORDANCE WITH "SEED & TOKIMATSU" METHODOLOGY AS RECOMMENDED BY - SPECIAL PUBLICATION 117 I I I I Plate E-5 I - - I 1 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES I General ' These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and g r a d i n g as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to fill e d , placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The' recommen d a t i o n s I contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines, a n d would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Ev a l u a t i o n s performed by the consultant 'during the course of grading may result in new 'or revi s e d I recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendation s contained in the geotechnical report. I The contractor i's responsible f& the satisfactory'completion of all earthwork in accorda n c e with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engin e e r a n d engineering geologist. (geotechnical consultant), or their representatives, should pro v i d e I observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the durati o n o f t h e project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING I Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engi n e e r I and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwor k procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations o f t h e geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes an d I ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that deter m i n a t i o n I may be made that-the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the- consultants and keep them apprised Of anticipat e d W o r k schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. I All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrain installation should be observed and documented by the project engi n e e r i n g I geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractor's responsib i l i t y to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready fo r observation. La'boratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be perf o r m e d in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designa t i o n 0-1557. Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed i n accordance with test methOds ASTM designation 0-1556, D-2937 or 0-2922, and 0 - 3 0 1 7 , GS, Inc. I I I at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards I placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the ' geotechnical consultant. Contractors Responsibility I All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed, on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a.geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractors responsibility to prepare the I ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all non-earth 1 material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of-the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the. contractor with due consideration for I the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are I resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop I work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to I control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION I All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill-In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock I materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the I compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic I tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed Or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly I Calavera Hills, LLC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC Page 2 GeoSeils, Inc. I I I fractured, Or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface I . processing cannot adequately improve the condition., should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and fillingoperations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and I moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. I Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the I materials should be compacted as specified herein- If the scarified zone is greater than 610 8inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material I in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be ôverexcavated as required in the geotechnicat report' ,or by the on-site soils engineer I and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and.free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or I other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical [h:v]), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut I slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil ' engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1/2 the height of the slope. ' Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to-remove unsuitable materials, although it is-understood that thevertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill I benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geolOgistprior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained I I I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC File:e:\wp9\5300\5353aiige Page 3 GSs, Inc. 1 E1 I COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated 'on the properly may 'be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer.. These, materials should be free of roots,, tree branches, other Organic matter, or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from thefill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor radatiOA, Undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable 'and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should' be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only. within a single equipment Width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock, .r other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be 'buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable tor rock disposal. Per the UBC/CBC, oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from the governing agency). To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material) should not be placed within 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to I 'determine it's' physical properties and suitability for use O'nsite. If any material.other than 'that previously tested is encountered duri'n,, grading, an appropriate analysis. of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as, soon as possible' I Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness. The soil I engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for i compaction. 'Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet I 'fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content 'at, or above, optimum mOisture. Calavera Hills, LLC W.Q. 5353-A-SC Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 4 i , , Geosolls, Inc. Li I I I I I I H I I After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be I uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as deternined by ASTM test designation D-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should:be specifically designed I for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. I Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in 'eVideflce, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been I attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet e the density and moisture requiremnts, and is approved by the soil engineer. I In general, per the UBC/CBC, fill slopes should he designed and cOnstriitéd at agradient of 2:1 (h:v), or flatter. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a I minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed asthe fill is elevated to evàluate.compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified I compaction in the fill slope Zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming, and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of till slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope I face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (h-v.), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet I of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot I should be. used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes,, and extend out over the slope to provide ade,quateco,mpaction to the face of the slope. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is I compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be-subject to re-rolling. I Field. corn paction tests will be made in the. outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate, vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC Fiie:e\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 5 GeSL, bw I I I achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling. I S. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slp'pe material' as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to evaluate i compaction. 6 Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil I engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the, soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION I Subdrain's -should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the -geotech'nical consultant. Subdrain locations or I materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant.. The soil engineer and/or enginering geologist may-recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade, and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains, especially the outlets, should be I recorded by the project civil engineer. I EXCAVATIONS I Excavations and cut slopes should he examined during 'grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation .and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes I should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be, graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be obsenied. by The engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill-portion of the slope, The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the I contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence. I If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading I evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. I I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC File: e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 6 Gs9 I 1 Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be I excavated higher or sleeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the I contractor's responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil.engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental I agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. I COMPLETION I Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with.the approved project specifications. After completion I of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or fillingshould be Undertaken I without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cLlt and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in I accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completiOn of grading. I JOB SAFETY I I At GSI, gettingthe job done safely-is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites- On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and I construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities willvaryon each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, I cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the I following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: I I Ca(avera Hills, LLC W.O. 5383-A-Sc File:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 7 GeGS019s, Inc. 1 I Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel -are directed to attend contractor's regularly I scheduled and documented safety meetings: Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, I at all times, when they are working in the field. I Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the. spoil pile on all test pits IFlashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area thall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on-the vehicle during all field testing. I While operating avehicle in the grading area, the emergency: flasher on the vehicle shall. be.actiated. In the event that the contractors representative observes any of our personnel not I following the above, we request that it be.brought to the attentibn of our office. I Test Pits Location, Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technician's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the, grading I contractor's. authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc.) should direct I excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, 'whenever possible. The technician's -vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil. pile. . This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor 'may, wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be.established for all test pits. No grading, equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results. When.taking slope'tests, th'e technician should parkthe vehicle directly above or below the test location. If-this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. I Calavera Hills, LLC W.O. 5353-A-SC File: e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge Page 8 Inc. I I I The technician is directed to withdraw-from the active portion.of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle, should be parked'at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor I shoUld inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut:and'fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. I ln'the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractor's I representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a'solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recom'pactio'n, or removal. In the event that the soil' tech nician does riot comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that 'the contractor. bring thisto.the technician's attention and I notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. I Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid. back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state, and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" o.n the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to. trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and. notify his/her supervisor. The -contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI pesonoeI become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. It.cor.rective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities. I I Calavera Hills, LLC Fi1e:e:\wp9\5300\5353a.uge W.O. 5353-A-SC Page 9 I I I I H I I I CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL 7 N " v-NATURAL GROUND 1' COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM .(REMOVE) BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B ------------------------------ PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL 7 GROUND COLLUVIUM N ' KilL / AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) BEDROCK TYPICAL BENCHING/ , \ \\\i / SEE. ALTERNATIVES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 CANYON SUBDRAI:N ALTERNATE DETAILS I. ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL I - 12 MINIMUM .6WNIMVj& FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUMVOLUME 0F9 FT..' : I /LINEAR FT. V 9 ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (1/4 ) PERFS MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF pipE. ASTMD2751..SDR3.5 OR ASTMO1527.scHo,40, MNM'M I A-i ASTM 03.034, SDR 35 OR •ASTM 01785 SCHO 40 FOR CONTINuOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 Fl: - USE 8 Ø PIPE I . FILTER MATERIAL . . SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSINO I IINCH .100 314 INCH 90-00 3/8 INCH 40-100 . NO- -4 25-40.. NO. 8 18-33 I - NO. 30 15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 I ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE. GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC I INIMUM OVERLAP 6 MINIMUM OVERLAP - • 6 MINIMUM COVER LMINIMUM. BEDDI. 4 MINIMUM BED - • A-2 • GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FP/LINEAR FT. 13-2 I . PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/4 INCH-ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE I. I I • • PLATE EG-2 I I - ....- ... DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT I ON FLAT A.LLUVIATED CANYON I TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLANLAN COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE BE ACKCUT - VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. B BACKCUT 1NSHOULD BE MADE NO I STEEPERTHAI\:1 OR AS NECESSARY ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL FOR SAFETY P- CONSIDERATIONS/ / I DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER. I... // I ~I PROVIDE A 1.1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF I SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THERECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH, SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE, CONDITIONS AND/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD. DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS. I I REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL I . PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE\ I TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL _- ;FOR DRAINAGE ONLY -- Gaf \ Oaf (TO BE REMOVED) . / I (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL) / LEGEND I . TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL i . . COMPACTED FILL Oat ALLUVIUM I PLATE EG-3 LI 15 TYPICAL - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100 MAXIMUM INTERVALS, AND SHALL EXTEND 12 BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. BLANKET PILL IF REQOMIMENOED 15 MINIMUM / BY THE SOIL ENGINEER DESIGN FINISH SLOPE 10' M I-NIM U M - - - - - 2L2 5 MAXIMU , • TYPICAL BENCHING B UTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FILL DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE \ AND BACK-DRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES) ,2%G.RAD1ENT BEDROCK TOE HEEL 3 MINIMUM KEY DEPTH W:15' MINIMUM OR H/2 L MINIMUM 2 MINIMUM PIPE 4 MINIMUM PIPE ' 2' Ml I MUM. ------------ . ... ... :. . 2' MINIMUM > -H m m 0 (31 FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 .3/8 INCH 40-100- NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO, 50 0-7 NOi 200 0-3. GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 1/2 INCH 100 NO.4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TYPICAL STABI.'LIATION. / BUTTRESS SU BORAIN DETAIL. FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE Ft/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE OR FOUR Ft'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE CUT TRENCH, ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE ENCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC, FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12' ON ALL JOINTS. MINIMUM 1.' DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SDR 35 OR ASIM 0-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM 0-3034, SDR 35 OR ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING STREN GTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE, SLOPE AT 2% TO OUTLET PIPE, OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO SUEDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL, 2, BACKO RAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE LOWER LOT GRADE, ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING. GEOLOGIST. FILL OVER CL CUT/FILL CONTACT I. AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN 2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY I Jr SLOPE 15' MINIMUM OR H/2 I CK OR APPROVED MATERIAL MOTE: Ti DI hq FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL COMPACTED FILL PROPOSED GRADE MAIN TAIN MUM 15' WIDTH TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN SLOPE TO BENCH/BACKCUT PROVIDE A 11 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT /\\ \ MINIMUM BE RESTORED WITH O? Co o /1 NATURAL SLOPE TO COMPACTED FILL / / . BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY BACKCUT VARIES -I ----- MINIMUM / NOTE: 1. WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE / 15' MINIMUM KEY WIDTH DESIGN SLOPE RATIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE /NIMUM KEY DEPTH PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 2K 3' MI > 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED 2' MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS. m m APPROVED MATERIAL. 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL. EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT.SL.OPE REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATRJAL NATURAL SLOPE 15 MINIMUM PR.OPOSED FINISHED GRADE UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL H2 REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL I \N H1 COMPACTED STABILIZATION FILL / MINIMUM TILTED BACK I W IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF -THE SLOPE MAY REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. > H rn NOTE: 1. SUBORAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, m 2. W SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH 1151 FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER 0 THAN 25 FEET SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, AT NO TIME SHALL W BE LESS THAN H12. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND ORIGINAL .LOPE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 15 MINIMUM TO E MAINTAINED FROM - •3 MINIMUM P R OPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL \\ o o 2MINIMUM : 3 MINIMUM KEY DEPTH - KEY DEPTH NIMUM KEY WIDTH NOTE: 1, THE NEEfl AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. -1 2 PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE m NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, m T (0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT OR FLATTER (MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA). - NATURAL GRADE OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT REPLACEMENT FILL - PROPOSED FINISH GRADE AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF 140 MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE MINMUM BLANKET FILL 77 7-7 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL '/ \O TYPICAL BENCHING 2'MINIMUM - \ T 2%GRAPL1T KEY DEPTH II I! > NOTE: 1. SUBORAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS-OF OVERBURDEN. m 2. FAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE - 5• MINIMJJM. PAD GRADE - COMPACTED FILL , OVER,EXCAyATE AND RECOMPACT - - \\\ 3 MINIM U M* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) - NATURAL GRADE IMUM -;_ COMPACTED FILL __ MINIMUM* 1 BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANDIOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS PAD GRADE PLATE. EG-11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I U I I I I I SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2°X 2'X 1/4 STEEL PLATE STANDARD 314 PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/4 X 5 GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN S INCREMENTS 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5° INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE I MAINTAIN 5° CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. ......,MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2° VERTICAL IILA LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND _____ _j ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIALS' - VERTICAL WITHIN A 5- RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. N N N N N BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT P RU V IC A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMIACTED SAND NOTE: 1.. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS, CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OFA 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. AFTER 5° (VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5 RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE. FROM RISER, PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2°OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE. EG-14 U I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT PLATE EG-15 TEST FIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT 1' GRANULAR MATERIAL CLARGE----------j COMPACTED FILL I SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE I COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. COMPACTED FILL DENSIFIED Y FLOODING. - 4— LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER it 20' mum Q MMUMOR BELOW LOWEST ULI .. OVERSIZE LAYER FR LOPE FACE COMPACTED FILL 13' MINIMUM. FILL SLOPE I Tc LEAR ZONE ZOMINIMUM I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I [I 1 I 11 LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD-2 NOT A PART LEGEND At Af— Mu QI, Qat, Qt Tsa isplkgr V —_- 110-6 19 6-9 NOT'A PART' • TP-44 TF-13 IFO '---'V.-" *V.•V.V) itt 151 .. V-V--V.'- StE 5#10Tm,. 6 - NMI Ohl ,:,'6R•:flVCtL1p1I U -.. -.... U'• UJ... --_______________________ ____I -1 w - I II !II UI V SIT SHut! N 5 I Allm < El II I / '_ I I Xf :-;'( " ' :-'/ S Gef,ofi7nc I * VDLLOO U 02005 ODey fr€ BENCHMARK: ROqIRISON RANCH (AS! 7UA6( I GEOTECHNICAL MAP wo c IoI - I I I] I HI SEE S/IEEE M 6 4. \A \ I I LT At, I . GeoI,c. voco SEE SHEET M,. 8 C/I306 OD BENCHMARK: o I GEOTECHNICAL MAP I1I I I I I I V @2GQ6 O.D 'ONCI!MARK- fEO CHNICAL L -- ---- -- -- ---- -- -- ---- Li II -- ---- - I I I I H I OPT//PACE I 8.28 AC CRESS I \è2aAcNtl 'A=2_ \ SEE SHEET Ho to I I I 4" VHH.NO. I I I O BENCHMARK ___ RORTUSON RANCH C ST W/UC( OfOA- GEOTECHNICAL MAP --i Elf J~ L] I I I I I I I H' S1ff I Ah /0 it \----- 'I, at --------- / ../ .-i I \i — ••.. - -- - -- -• - r Qt'\\\ \ /.. Ts / / / \_ I -_-- / ' --:— . •'/\ ' , --'- al 71Z 2 G4Zigiri,c I I I E1aTj IME -K /A!. OIL//OU) C2006 0oci CoflUlot. . .. - A : orrso, RANCH (AS! I/it/Ct GEOTECHMCAL MAP (!) . 00/I - I iiIIII CI 02 I I I I :•. ..\.. . \ :'\ ';I\ / \S I... /'.y //.•.// / 10 / j . /•,•, •__---,'' /11/TI \'."_•- -I -... \\I'\. cJspr,j4, :-•—-- --.. (.'..' Mr SHFU Na 11 .— \Fc Of . Oaf. PA Ga ix - .-. '.-. . . . .... ...-. kx / L,, , LC I IX j - - Oaf. J \ -7 --- -< / ji I '[LCjADj]I 2OO6 oo coo BENCHMARK I (AS! GEO FECHNICAL MAP I IWO OSO.A.SC DATE ti/OW r.4. AO• A//i AO DIA - '"JH ' \\ '\k> 14.1 ' I if SEE 2ot/1-a&5o55 is I - / I - s I _.k \.._-__.. 9/tEl 14 ==ME l ====I . S 4b ,U!S.StLtaktfl ..J -- IMEMS __,.. ---- L'I'ZI.fl.Ir..a.lC.liZ_:s ._JL -- --______ _ ---- L 5ff 51117 IH Ii /•.' !/::,' SIT SHEET N. 15 L I I I I H' 5ff SO/ITT Mt 15 - - -- !, / // / / // 0 1XV1hI1lij\\ -- I I - L CP J 2 ?_O — / A/Sf -' \, / PiLE No 2O0i0866086/ \ 0 liI —1i.u; ,- 2.'2:' 1-;l \ I ----, ' '- / / '\'-::"'--' , e >J- 00' I SITS/f/TIN I? so.nno.000cn. I 02006 ODo, coudc -a 06 9FJ2CUMARK. I GEOTECHNICAL MAP 12 060. S353C I --, — I I I 11 'I I I I I- / * - JY17I Is) HVY8 [LII ff] :\ 7 .... 7. I I I I. I dVY1 1VOINH33100 u3floI!o - I I - -