HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 05-07; BRESSI RANCH LOT 40; SOILS REPORT PACKAGE; 2006-01-184
BRESSI LOT 40
SOILS REPORT
PACKAGE
Southern California Geotechnical
St. Croix Capital January 18, 2006
4350 Executive Drive, Suite 301 Project No. 04G243-6
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jim Jacob
Subject: Response to City of Carlsbad Comments
Proposed Business Park
Bressi Ranch Lot 40
Planning Area 5
SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, California
Reference: 1) Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lot
40, Planning Area 5, SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive,
Carlsbad, California, prepared for St. Croix Capital by Southern California
Geotechnical, dated December 28, 2004, SCG Project No. 04G243-1.
2) Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lot
40, Planning Area 5, SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive,
Carlsbad, California, prepared for St. Croix Capital by Southern California
Geotechnical, dated December 8, 2005, SCG Project No. 04G243-4R.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the request of Mr. Martin Yousif of Partners Engineering, we have
prepared this response to recent redline comments by the city of Carlsbad, provided to
us by Partners Engineering, pertaining to our referenced reports.
The grading plans for the subject site were reviewed from a geotechnical
perspective. The results of our review of these plans are summarized in our
Grading Plan review letter dated January 17, 2006. Grading for the building
located in the vicinity of the retention basin the southwest portion of the site is
discussed in our above-referenced reports.
Based on conversations with Martin Yousif of Partners Engineering, it is our
understanding that the building numbering on the grading plan will be revised to
match those indicated in our reference (2) 04G243-4R report.
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807-1951 • (714) 777-0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. If
there are any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office at your
convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
DES SoSo COMMCab(ornla Qeotechifical, Inc. G.
.2655
c
,., GE 2655
\
Robert G. Trazo
/
Senior Engineer TEX C?
OF CI
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(2) Partners Engineering, Attn: Martin Yousif
Southern California Ceotechnical Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA - Project No. 04G243-6
Page 2
Southern California Geotechnical
St. Croix Capital
4350 Executive Drive, Suite 301
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Jim Jacob
Subject: Foundation Plan Review
Proposed Business Park
Bressi Ranch Lot 40, Planning Area 5
Carlsbad, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lot
40, Planning Area 5, SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive,
Carlsbad, California, prepared for St. Croix Capital by Southern California
Geotechnical, dated December 28, 2004, SCG Project No. 04G243-1.
Dear Mr. Jacob:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the grading plans for the proposed
development. These plans were reviewed for conformance with the assumptions,
conclusions and recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report.
The grading plans for this project were prepared by Partners Planning and Engineering.
The plans reviewed by our office for conformance with the geotechnical report are
identified as Sheets 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 of 8 of Grading and Erosion Control Plans for
Bressi Ranch Lot 40, Map No. 14960 Tract CT 02-15, plot date January 13, 2006.
Comments generated during our review of these plans as well as any items requiring
correction are presented below:
The grading plan indicates the buildings identified as Lot 1, Lot 6, Lot 7, Lot 8,
Lot 9, Lot 10, Lot 11 and Lot 12 will be constructed in close proximity to tops of
descending slopes. In accordance with Uniform BUilding Code (UBC) and
California Building Code (CBC) requirements, all footings should maintain a
minimum horizontal setback of H/3 where H equals the slope height, measured
from the outside face of the footing to any descending slope face. This setback
should not be less than 7 feet, nor need it be greater than 40 feet.
The grading plan indicates that the new buildings will be constructed with
finished floor elevations as El. 431.7 to 438.5. Existing grades within the
proposed building areas generally range from El. 428± to El. 442±. The proposed
grading is in accordance with that assumed at the time of the geotechnical
report. Therefore, the grading recommendations presented therein are
considered valid.
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807-1951 • (714) 777-0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398
The pavement sections presented on the grading plan are in general
conformance with those recommended in the geotechnical report.
Our review of the grading plans indicates that they have incorporated the
recommendations for the geotechnical report. It should be noted that our review was
limited to the geotechnical aspects of this project and no representations as to the
suitability of the civil design are intended.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. If there are
any questions concerning this matter, please contact our office at your convenience.
Respectfully Submitted,
:c: ::::::::::0
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(1) Partners Planning and Engineering, Attn: Mr. Andrew J. Kann
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-5
Page2
___ Southern California Geotechnical
St. Croix Capital
do Mr. Jim Jacob
2720 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
June 22, 2005
Project No. 04G243-2
Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Business Park
Bressi Ranch Lot 40
Planning Area 5
SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, California
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Bressi Ranch Lot 40,
Planning Area 5. SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive, Carlsbad.
California, prepared for St. Croix Capital by Southern California Geotechnicál,
dated December 28, 2004, SCG Project No. 04G243-1.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this addendum to the referenced
geotechnical investigation report in order to present additional geötechnical design information.
The use of a shallow foundation system, as described in the referenced report, Is typical for
buildings of the type planned for the site, where they are underlain by the extent of existing fill
soils encountered at this site; The cosmetic distress and damage that could occur as a result of
secondary compression of deep fills within the buildings proposed for this site will also be typical
of similar buildings in the vicinity of this project. However, if the owner determines that this level
of potential damage is not acceptable, other geotechnical and structural options are available,
including the use of ground improvement, deep foundations, or mat foundations.
At the discretion of the stnjctural engineer, civil engineer and/or architect, design parameters
from the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) may be utilized in lieu of design parameters from
the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) in addressing seismic design considerations as
discussed in the referenced report.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project We look
forward to providing additional consulling services during the course of the project. If we may be
of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
S
em
IuomIaGeoter,calI Inc. z
,
Robert G. Trazo, M.Sc., E 2655
Senior Engineer
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(2) Smith Consulting Architects, Attn: Peter Bussett
4nen e.,.......t.. Lj........,..
Southern California Geotechnical
St. Croix Capital
do Mr. Jim Jacob
2720 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Business Park
Bressi Ranch Lot 40
Planning Area 5
SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, California
Reference:
October 12, 2005
Project No. 04G243-3
prepared for St. Croix Capital by Southern California Geotechnical, dated December
28, 2004, SCG Project No. 04G243-1.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this addendum to the referenced geotechnical
investigation report in order to present additional geotechnical design information.
Per section 1904.3.1 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code,
"Concrete to be exposed to sulfate-containing solutions or soils shall conform to the
requirements of Table 19-A-4 or shall be concrete made with a cement that provides sulfate
resistance and that has a maximum water-cementitious materials ratio and minimum
compressive strength set forth in Table 19-A-4."
Therefore, all concrete that is not exposed to sulfate-containing soils, as determined by the owner,
structural engineer and/or civil engineer, need not be comprised of 4,500 psi strength concrete, nor
be limited to a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.45.
Consideration may be given to a detail for the vertical concrete wall panels designed by the structural
engineer or civil engineer such that the bottom of the concrete panels are at finish floor grade or
above; and isolated from the adjacent soils. We recommend that the detail be provided to our office
for review from a geotechnical standpoint.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. We look forward to
providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further
assistance in any manner, please contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
So California Geotechnical, inc.
4 / /If
Robert G. Trazo, M.c., GE 2655
Senior Engineer V
Distribution: (2) Addressee
No 2655
A Exp. l2I3lIO!j
12R1) Mnrth I4intnnk qtrppt R uitp lfll • Anhp.im. Califnrnii q2g07-1q1 9 (7141777-033.1 • Fay 171A 777flOO
GEOTECHNICAL 1NVE$11GAUON
PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK
Bressi Ranch Lot 40
Planning Area 5
Carlsbad, California
for
St. Croix Capital
Southern California Geotechnical
St. Croix Capital
do Mr. Jim Jacobs
2720 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Business Park
Bressi Ranch Lot 40
Planning Area 5
SWC of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
December 28, 2004
Project No. 04G243-1
In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the
subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and
recommendations developed from our investigation.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We Jook
forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If
we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
Geotechnical, Inc.
1 No. 2125 CERTIFIED J. 'V ENGINEERING
CEG 2125
tchell, GE
neer
Distribution: (5) Addressee
U N° 2364 ri
Exp. 09/30/06 /
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807-1951 • (714) 777-0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I
tO SCOPE OF SERVICES 3
3.0 SUE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
3.1 Site Description 4
3.2 Proposed Development 4
3.3 Previous Studies 4
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 9
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 9
4.2 Geotechnlcat Conditions 9
4.3 Geologic Conditions 10
'5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 11
(LICONCLUSIOMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 13
6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 15
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 18
6.4 Construction Considerations 21
6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 22
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 24
6.7 Retaining Wail Design Recommendations 25
6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 27
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 30
APPENDICES
A Plate 1: Site Location Map
Plate 2: Boring Location Plan
El Boring Logs
C Laboratory Test Results
D Grading Guide Specifications
E UBCSEIS Computer Program Output
SOUthOM1llfl.hnM1 Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Cattsbad. CA
-: Project No. 04G243-1
11.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this
investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, It should be read in complete
context with the entire report.
Site Preparation
No significant topsoil or vegetation was present at the site at the time of the
subsurface exploration. Any vegetation that develops prior to site grading should be
stripped and removed from the site.
. The site is underlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone and
claystone bedrock. The fill soils extend to depths of up to 50± feet within Planning
Area 5 and were placed under the purview of a geotechnical engineer. The existing
fill soils and bedrock possesses relatively high strengths, and medium expansive
potentials.
A compaction report prepared by Leighton and Associates indicates that the existing
fill soils were placed as compacted structural fill. Leighton indicates that the existing
fill soils are suitable for support of the proposed development provided that the
cut/fill transitions are mitigated during precise grading.
Based on the expansive potentials and differing strengths of the engineered fill and
bedrock, and in order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help mitigate
the potential cutifill transitions, it is recommended that remedial grading be
performed within the proposed building pad areas.
The building pad areas underlain by shallow bedrock (Proposed Buildings A - D)
should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade and to a
depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade. The depth of overexcavation
should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the
bearing grade of all foundations.
In the remaining portions of the site, overexcavation should extend to a depth
adequate to remove all surficial, weathered soils.
Following completion of the recommended overexcavation, exposed soils should be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. After the subgrade soils have been
approved by the geotechnical engineer, the resulting soils may be replaced as
compacted structural fill.
A precise grading plan review is recommended subsequent to preparation of the
plan In order to confirm the recommendations contained herein.
Building Foundations
Shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill.
2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure.
Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5 rebars
(2 top and 2 bottom), due to medium expansive potential of near surface soils.
saathorrtCaIIfenIaGeoteclrnIcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1
.: .. •. Pagel
Due to highly differential fill depths in the eastern area of the site, strip footings
within Buildings E and F are recommended to be reinforced with six (6) No. 5 rebars
(3 top and 3 bottom):
Building Floor Slabs
Slab-on-Grade, at least 5 inches thick.
Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions.
a Due to the highly differential fill depths in the eastern area of the site, floor slab
reinforcement within Buildings E and F is recommended to consist of No. 4 bars at
18 inches on-center, in both directions.
Pavements
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Thickness (inches)
Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate
(TI = 4.0) Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic
(Ti = 5.0) (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0)
Asphalt Concrete 3 3 3Va 4
Aggregate Base 6 9 11 13
Compacted Subgradè (90% 12 12 12 12
minimumcompaction)
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Thickness (inches)
Materials Automobile Parking Light Truck Traffic Moderate Truck
and Drive Areas (Ti = 6.0) Traffic
(fl = 7.0)
PCC 5 5% 7
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 (5% minimum compaction)
Southe11callfiffllteebteghiilcai Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 0413243-1
Page 2
?! SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal
No. 0413392, dated November 23, 2004. The scope of services included review of
previous reports, a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and
laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for
preparing design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot
pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction
considerations for the proposed development. The evaluation of environmental aspects
of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation.
$arncaIItoGUOteEnIcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad. CA
.. .. .Now . Project No. G241 -CW- Page
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Description
The subject site is located within the recently mass graded Bressi Ranch Industrial Park
which is located south of Palomar Airport Road in the city of Carlsbad, California. The
specific site is a portion of Planning Area 5 or Lot 40, and consists of 9.8± acres located
southwest of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Melrose Drive. The general
location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate I In
Appendix A of this report.
The subject site is an irregular shaped parcel, with overall dimensions of 400 to 700±
feet in the north-south direction and 800± feet in the east-west direction. At the time of
the subsurface exploration, ground surface cover consisted of exposed soil with
negligible to sparse grass and weed growth. Some of the finished slopes have been
recently hydro-seeded to establish vegetation.
Site topography consists of gently sloping terrain, dipping downward to the southwest.
Topographic information provided to our office indicates that site grades range from a
maximum of El. 445± feet msl (mean sea level) near the northeast property corner to a
minimum of El. 425± feet msl at the southwest property corner.
.2 Proposed Development
Preliminary information regarding the proposed development was obtained from the site
plan prepared by Smith Consulting Architects. This plan, labeled Option A. has been
provided to our office by the client. This plan indicates that the new development will
consist of fifteen (15) separate buildings which will be constructed in two phases. The
proposed building footprints will range in size from 5,700± ft2 to 8,200± W.
Detailed structural inlbrmation is not currently available. It is, however, assumed that
the buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction, typically supported on conventional
shallow foundation systems and concrete slabs on grade. Based on the assumed
construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 60
kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively.
3.3 Previous Studies
As part of our investigation of the overall site, including Planning Areas PA-1 through
PA-5, we were provided with several geotechnical reports. The geotechnical reports
SoUthenI•CaIItcflIaGejchnlcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1
Page
provided to us consist of preliminary and supplemental geotechnical investigations, a
summary report of mass grading, and as graded reports of mass grading. The subject
site has been recently rough graded to its current configuration under the purview of
Leighton and Associates, Inc. The reports which are applicable to the entire site,
including all of the Planning Areas, are summarized below:
Geotechnical Investigation, Bressi Ranch Corporate Center, Planning Areas I
through 5. SEC of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, Carlsbad.
California; prepared for Sares Regis Group by Southern California Geotechnical,
Inc., dated May 3, 2004, Project No. 03G259-2.
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of Planning Areas I
through 5 subsequent to the mass grading. Subsurface exploration performed as part of
this geotechnical investigation included twenty (20) borings advanced to depths of 5 to
19Y2± feet below currently existing site grades. The maximum depth of the borings was
limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health (DEH).
Based on the subsurface conditions, the site is underlain by recently placed compacted
fill soils and sandstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils extend to depths of up to
90± feet and were placed under the purview of a geotechnical engineer. The existing fill
soils and bedrock possesses relatively high strengths, and highly variable expansive
potentials.
Based on the variable expansive potentials and differing strengths of the engineered fill
and bedrock, and in order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help
mitigate the potential cut/fill transitions, it was recommended that remedial grading be
performed within the proposed building pad areas.
The building pad areas were recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5
feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 4 feet below proposed pad grade.
The depth of overexcavation should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new
structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations.
Sulemental Geotechnical Investigation for Mass Grading, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Homes by Leighton and Associates,
Inc., dated March 14, 2001, Project No. 971009-005.
This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical investigation to update
their earlier preliminary geotechnical report prepared in 1997. Subsurface exploration
performed as part of the supplemental geotechnical investigation included eight (8)
large diameter borings and fifty-six (56) exploratory trenches. Logs of these
supplemental borings and trenches as well as previous work by Leighton and others is
included in the report and summarized on the Geotechnical Map included therein.
SOUthn:;CI1frnIaGeiteehnlcal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
- ... . . PioJect No. G241
Page 5
Based on the presented information, the subject site is primarily underlain by sandstone
bedrock. The bedrock is indicated to consist of the Tertiary age Santiago formation,
which is described as massively bedded sandstone with some zones of claystone and
siltstone. Some minor areas of shallow undocumented fill, terrace deposits, and
alluvial/colluvial soils were also mapped within the boundaries of the subject site.
Although the majority of the mapped, larger ancient landslides are located outside the
boundaries of the subject site, two (2) small ancient landslides were mapped on the
subject site, east of PA-1 and PA-2. Due to their small scale, they were recommended
to be removed in their entirety and replaced as compacted fill. Remedial grading
recommendations contained in this report indicate that all undocumented fill and
alluvial/colluvial soils should be completely removed to competent material.
Supplemental Geotechnical Landslide Investigation, Planning Areas PA-I. PA-2.
and PA-10 through PA-I2. Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad. California, prepared for
Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 12, 2003,
Project No. 971009-007.
This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation
for specific portions of the site. Subsurface exploration performed as part of the
supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation included nine (9) large diameter
borings and five (5) exploratory trenches in the areas of the previously mapped ancient
landslides. Logs of these additional borings and trenches as well as revised cross
sections are included in the report.
The area of the subject site addressed by this report includes the eastern portion of
planning areas PA-1 and PA-2 where several nested ancient landslides were mapped.
Cross Sections E-E' and P-P' depict the mapped geologic conditions and the
recommended remedial grading, which consisted of complete removal of the landslides
and replacement as engineered fill. This report restates the previous remedial grading
recommendations and provides slope stability calculations to justify the proposed
grading configurations.
Geotechnical Recommendations Concemin 95 Percent Relative ComDaction of
Fill Deeper than 40 Feet, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad. California, prepared for
Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 13, 2003,
Project No. 971009-007.
This report addresses the settlement potential of deep fill areas and provides
recommendations to reduce the time period for the majority of the settlement to occur.
In several areas of the overall project, fills up to 80 to 901 feet in thickness were
planned to achieve the design grades. Deep fill areas on the subject site are located in
the eastern portion of PA-2, and two small areas within PA-3 and PA-5. The report
recommends that all structural fills below a depth of 40 feet from finish grade be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density, and
estimates that the time period for the majority of the settlement to occur will be reduced
lOUthei alitoffliaeoJeIhniCaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park— Carlsbad. CA
. Project No. 04G243-1
. . . Page
from 6 to 12 months to 3 to 8+ months. Near surface settlement monuments were
recommended to be installed immediately after rough grading, with survey intervals of
once a week for the first month, then twice a month for 3 months, and then monthly to
determine completion primary settlement of deep fills. The recommended locations of
the near surface settlement monuments are indicated to be contained on an index map
within this report, however, the copy provided to us does not contain this plan.
Summary of the As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions and Partial Completion of
Rough and Fine Grading, Planning Areas PA-1 Through PA-5, Bressi Ranch,
Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and
Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2004, Project No. 971009-014.
This summary report indicates that grading of Planning Areas PA-11 through PA-3 is
essentially complete, and that grading is ongoing in Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5.
Grading operations • were reportedly performed in general accordance with the
recommendations presented in Leighton's previous geotechnical reports. Geotechnical
issues presented In this summary report which were not discussed in the previous
reports include the presence of inactive faults within PA-4 and PA-5, perched
- groundwater within the overexcavated tributary canyons on the east side of PA-11 and
PA-2, oversize materials within the engineered fills, high to very high expansive soils at
or near finish grade, and some severe sulfate concentrations which would require the
use of specialized concrete mix designs.
As Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-I, PA-2. and PA-3.
Metropolitan Street, and a Portion of Town Garden Road, Gateway Road. and
Alicante Road, Carlsbad Tract No. 00-06, Bressl Ranch, Carlsbad. California,
prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated April
15, 2004, Project No. 971009-014
This report documents the mass grading of Planning Areas PA-I, PA-2, and PA-3 as
well as a portion of the interior streets. Most of the information contained in this report
was presented in the January 20, 2004 summary report. The conclusions and
recommendations are also similar to the previous report. With respect to the deep fills
on this portion of the site, Leighton concluded that most of the anticipated settlement Is
complete, but the seven settlement monuments should be continued to be monitored.
Soluble sulfate test results range from negligible to severe, and expansion index test
results range from low (El = 46) to very high (El = 163). Preliminary pavement sections
are presented and are based on assumed R-value of 12. Maximum cuts and fills within
Planning Areas PA-I, PA-2, and PA-3 are documented as 25 and 90 feet, respectively.
Fill soils below a depth of 40 feet were• compacted to at least 95% of ASTM 1557
maximum dry density.
Addendum to As-Graded Reøorts of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion
of Settlement Monitoring, Planning Areas PA-11 through PA-5, Bressi Ranch.
ft 2 M eatchiucl Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1
Page 7
Carlsbad, California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and
Associates, Inc., dated October 11, 2004, Project No. 971009-014
This report presents the data collected from the settlement monitoring program for the
deep fill (greater than 40 feet) areas of the entire site. The settlement monitoring data
was collected over a period of 5 to 6 months. Based on the collected data, Leighton
concludes that the primary settlement of the fill soils is essentially complete, and that
construction of improvements within Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5 may begin.
Secondary consolidation settlement of deep fills is estimated to be less than I to 3
inches depending on the depth of fill. Differential settlements are estimated to be on the
order of 1/2 inch in 25 feet.
sautherncallfdinuLeDotechfflcal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G241
Page 8
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods
The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of eight (8) borings
advanced to depths of 10 to 19Y2± feet below currently existing site grades. The
maximum depth of our borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions
imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). All of
the borings were logged during excavation by a member of our staff.
Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling. Relatively
undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler"
containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling
method is described in ASTM Test Method 0-3550. In-situ samples were also taken
using a 1.4± inch inside, diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with
ASTM 0-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive
blows of a 140-pound weight failing 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving
are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were taken at periodic locations in the
trenches. The bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original
moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded
plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory.
The approximate location of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan,
included as Plate 2 of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions
encountered at the boring locations, as well as some of the results of the laboratory
testing, are included in Appendix B.
4.2 Geotechnical Conditions
Presented below is a generalized summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at
the boring locations. More detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered are
illustrated on the Boring Logs, included in Appendix B.
Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at all eight (8) of the boring
locations. These fill soils extend to depths of I to at least 19% feet below existing
grade, the maximum depth of our borings. As previously discussed, the fill soils within
PA-5 are documented to have maximum depths of 45 to 50± feet. The fill soils
encountered in the borings generally consist of stiff to very stiff, silty to sandy clays, and
medium dense to dense silty sands, dayey sands and sandy silts. Occasional samples
Sflfl1ftG'atecbtcal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA 1., ...
. . Project No. 04G243-1
- : Page
of the fill materials possess minor debris content including bedrock fragments, asphalt,
concrete, etc. The fill soils possess moderately high strengths, moisture contents near
or above optimum and based on their color mottling and composition, appeared to be
well mixed.
Bedrock
Bedrock was encountered beneath the fill soils at six of the eight boring locations. The
bedrock encountered at this site consists of Tertiary age Santiago formation, which is
comprised of dense to very dense sandstone with some zones of claystone and
siltstone. Bedding within the Santiago formation on site is generally massive with no
significant planes of weakness or discontinuities. The sandstone unit is typically light
gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of weakly
cemented silty fine sand. The siltstone unit is typically light gray to gray In color,
contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of fine sandy silt. The
claystone unit is typically dark gray to gray green in color, contains some shell
fragments, gypsum veins, and is comprised of silts and clays.
Groundwater
Based on the water level measurements, and the moisture contents of the recovered
soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth In
excess of 20± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration. Further, based on the
conditions documented in the mass grading report by Leighton, no groundwater was
encountered during grading. Therefore, groundwater is expected to be at depths
greater than the extent of the fill soils, which are 45 to 50± feet thick within PA-5.
4.3 Geologic Conditions
Geologic research indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone mapped as the
Santiago Formation (Map Symbol isa) with nearly horizontal bedding attitudes. The
primary available reference applicable to the subject site is DMG Open-File Report 96-
02, Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County. California, by
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996.
Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, it is our opinion the site
is underlain by sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock consisting of the Santiago
formation (Map Symbol isa). The bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings and
observed at the ground surface Is generally massively bedded and structure is
comprised of nearly horizontal bedding with some moderately developed joints in the
upper, less weathered portions of the bedrock.
SOUthCniUfèIOthChMkat Pioposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
- - -.- PiojOCt No. 04G243-1
.• .: Page 10
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our
laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties
of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test
results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at
other locations and depths.
Classification
All recovered soil samples were classified using the
(USCS)I in accordance with ASTM D-2488.
supplemented with additional visual classifications
USCS classifications are shown on the Boring
periodically referenced throughout this report.
Unified Soil Classification System
Field identifications were then
and/or by laboratory testing. The
Logs and Trench Logs and are
In-situ Density and Moisture Content
The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples.
These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in
ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot.
The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are
expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the
Boring Logs.
Consolidation
Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in
accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either
natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in
diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and
the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in
contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore
water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to
determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing
are plotted on Plates C-I through C-Il in Appendix C of this report.
j4admum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
A representative bulk sample has been tested for its maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor
procedure, per ASTM D-I557. These tests are generally used to compare the in-situ
densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional
sOUthemcaluoialaljootechfllcal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
. : .. Project No. 04G241
Page 11
testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. The results of
the testing are plotted on Plate C-I 2 in Appendix C of this report.
Expansion Index
The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to
accept a 4-inch diameter, 1-in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded
to 50 ± 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds
per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against.
the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period.
The results of the El testing are as follows:
Sample Identification Expansion Index Expansive Potential
B-4@0t05 feet 63 Medium
Soluble Sulfates
Representative samples of the near-surface soils have been submitted to a
subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble
sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result
in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the
soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent
section of this report.
Sample Identification
B-I @ 0 to 5 feet
B-4 @ 0 to 5 feet
Soluble Sulfates (%)
0.174
0.226
Sulfate Classification
Moderate
Severe
Duthrnca1lvornItceoIeb1tffltaI Proposed Lot 40 BusIness Park - Carlsbad, CA
• • .::. •.. •.. •. .....•.............. Project No. 04G243-1
Page 12
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical
analysis, the proposed development is. considered feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the
design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are
contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by
the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as
Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated Into
the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should
bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those
stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. Following
completion of the recommended grading and foundation construction procedures, the
subject site is considered suitable for its intended use.
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to
earthquakes. The completion of a site specific seismic hazards analysis is beyond the
scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. However, it should be noted that
numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the
subject site. Due to economic considerations, it Is not generally considered reasonable
to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore,
significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The
proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and
thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property
damage and loss of life.
Faulting and Seismicity
Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an
Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault
rupture on the site is considered to be low.
Seismic Design Parameters
The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of
the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC provides procedures
for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil
conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including
the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are
based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to
the subject site.
1. dal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
....... Project No. 04G243-1
. .
. Page 13
The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer
program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a
compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values
presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is
included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as
generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the
following parameters may be utilized for the subject site:
Nearest Type A Fault
Nearest Type B Fault:
Soil Profile Type:
Seismic Zone Factor (Z):
Seismic Coefficient (Ca)
Seismic Coefficient (Cu):
Near-Source Factor (Na)
Near-Source Factor (Ny)
Elsinore-Julian (36 km)
Rose Canyon (11 km)
SD
0.40
0.44
0.64
1.0
1.0
The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to
protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may
experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of more
conservative seismic design parameters would provide increased safety and a lower
potential for cosmetic damage and economic loss during a large seismic event.
Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of
risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the
proposed structure.
Liauefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the
pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or
exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for
liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics,
relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of
ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact
surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing
ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine
sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and ldriss,
1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particle (d<0.005mm) in
excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not ponsidered to be
susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static
groundwater table.
The subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to
liquefaction. These conditions consist of structural fill soils underlain by high strength
Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 040243-1
Page 14
sandstone and claystone bedrock, neither of which are susceptible to earthquake-
induced liquefaction. Based on the subsurface conditions, liquefaction is not considered
to be a significant design concern for this project.
5.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations
General
The subject site is underlain by variable depths of compacted fill soils underlain by
sandstone and claystone bedrock. The fill soils, extending to maximum depths of 45 to
50± feet within PA-5, generally consist of moderate strength silty to sandy clays, silty
sands, clayey sands and sandy silts. Based on the compaction report prepared by
Leighton and Associates, these fill materials represent compacted structural fills, placed
during recent mass grading operations. Laboratory testing indicates that these materials
possess generally favorable consolidation characteristics. However, the depth of fill
soils varies significantly across the site and several cut/fill transitions between the fill
and bedrock were created by the mass grading procedures. In addition, the proposed
grading to establish the new finished floor elevations is expected to result in the
formation of numerous additional cut/fill transitions. The resultant subsurface profile is
expected to provide variable support characteristics for the foundations of the proposed
structures. Based on these considerations, it is recommended that remedial grading be
perlbrmed within the new building areas in order to provide a subgrade suitable for
support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures.
The primary geotechnical design considerations that will impact the proposed
development are the presence of highly differential fill depths within some areas of the
site, and the fact that the proposed grading will create cut/fill transitions within most of
the proposed building areas. These considerations are discussed in detail in the
following sections of this report.
.radinci and Foundation Plan Review
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the
preliminary plans provided to our office. No grading plans were available at the time of
this report. Once preliminary grading plans become available, it is recommended that
they be provided to our office for review with regard to the conclusions and
recommendations presented herein. In addition, a foundation plan was not available at
the time of this report. It is recommended that preliminary foundation plans be provided
to our office once they become available. Depending on the results of our review, some
modifications to the recommendations contained in this report may be warranted.
Differential Fill Depths
Buildings E and F are underlain by significant differential fill depths, due to the
previously completed mass grading. The fill depths within Building E are expected to
wMaMaMaNk-s- *4W 11110 Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1
. ... Page 15
range from 10± to 45± feet, and the fill depths in the area of Building F are expected to
range from 30± to 50± feet. These buildings will require special geotechnical design
considerations to reduce the potential effects of differential settlements that could be
caused by the differential fill depths in this area of the site. These considerations
include the use of additional steel reinforcement within the foundations and floor slabs
of the affected structures.
Settlement
The results of the consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the existing fill soils are
not subject to significant collapse upon moisture infiltration. In addition, the existing fill
soils do not exhibit significant consolidation when exposed to load increases in the
range of those that will be imposed by the new foundations. Provided that the
recommendations contained within this report are implemented in the structural design
and construction of the proposed buildings, the post-construction settlements are
expected to be within tolerable limits. Based on our understanding of the proposed
development, new fills in the areas of the existing deep fills are expected to be less
than 5 or 6± feet, and will not induce significant new settlements. Following completion
of the recommended grading, the post-construction static settlements are expected to
be within tolerable limits.
Settlement of Existing Fill Soils
As discussed above, the subject site is underlain by engineered fill soils, extending to
depths of up to 45 to 501 feet These materials represent engineered fill soils,
monitored during placement by Leighton. Minor amounts of additional settlement may
occur due to secondary consolidation effects. The extent of secondary consolidation is
difficult to assess precisely, but may be in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the fill
thickness, thus settlements of 0.6± to 1.8± inches may occur. Based on the differential
fill thickness that will exist across some of the building areas, the structural design will
need to consider the distortions that could be caused by the consolidation of the fill
soils.
Cut/Fill Transitions
Buildings A, B, C and 0 are closely underlain by dense bedrock. It is expected that cuts
and fills of up to I to 3± feet will be necessary within these building areas to achieve the
proposed subgrade elevations. Therefore, cut/fill transitions are expected to exist within
these building areas after completion of the proposed grading. This cut/fill transition
condition at beating grade raises a potential for additional differential settlement. This
report contains recommendations for additional remedial grading within these building
pads to remove this cut/fill transition.
It should be noted that the extent of areas that will require overexcavation to
mitigate cut/fill transitions will depend upon the final grades that are established
Só1th.erncalafoin Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA ..+ Project No. G241
Page 16
throughout the site. Therefore, the extent of this remedial grading may change,
following our review of the preliminary grading plan.
Expansion
Most of the on-site soils consist of medium expansive soils and bedrock (El = 63).
However, isolated areas of highly expansive soils may be present on the site. Based on
the presence of expansive soils, special care should be taken to properly moisture
condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as
newly placed fill soils. The foundation and floor slab design recommendations
contained within this report are made in consideration of the expansion index test
results. It is expected that significant blending of the on-site soils will occur during
precise grading procedures, and that the resulting building pad subgrade soils will
possess medium expansion potentials. It is recommended that additional expansion
index testing be conducted at the completion of precise grading to verify the expansion
potential of the as-graded building pads.
Shrinkage/Subsidence
Based on the results of the laboratory testing, removal and recompaction of the existing
near-surface engineered fill soils is estimated to result in average shrinkage or bulking
of less than 5 percent. Where the existing bedrock is overexcavated and replaced as
structural fill, bulking on the order of 0 to 5 percent is expected.
Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal
due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.1 feet.
These estimates may be used for grading in areas that are underlain by existing
engineered fill soils. No significant subsidence will occur in areas that are immediately
underlain by sandstone bedrock.
These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions
encountered at the boring locations. The actual amount of subsidence is expected to
be variable and will be dependant on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use,
and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely.
Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this report,
indicate that the on-site soils possess moderate to severe concentrations of soluble
sulfates, with regard to attack of subsurface concrete. Therefore, specialized sulfate
resistant concrete mix designs will be necessary. It is recommended that additional
testing be performed during precise grading. However, based on the results of the
testing indicating severe sulfate concentrations, with respect to Uniform Building Code
and Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines, the UBC requires that all concrete
which will come into contact with these soils incorporate the following characteristics:
SOur1Ca1lfflVa•GothcIifflCl Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
- .. ...-.. Project No. 040243-1
:. Page 17
Cement Type: V (Five)
Minimum Compressive Strength (fe): 4,500 psi
Maximum Water/Cement Ratio: 0.45
All structural concrete should meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
the American Concrete Institute. Furthermore, any imported fill soils brought to the site
should be tested for sulfate content.
Setbacks
In accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements, all footings should
maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3, where H equals the slope height,
measured from the outside face of the footing to any descending slope face. This
setback should not be less than 7 feet, nor need it be greater than 40 feet.
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations
,The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed
development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance
with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless
superseded by site specific recommendations presented below.
Site Strirming
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed
development We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance
with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless
superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below.
Site StuDDing and Demolition
Initial site preparation should include stripping of any vegetation and organic debris.
Based on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, no significant
stripping of vegetation or topsoil is expected to be necessary. However, if vegetation
develops subsequent to the date of our reconnaissance, it should be removed off site.
Initial grading operations should also include abandonment of the existing detention
basin, located in the southwest corners of the site. Any softened soils, silt deposits,
water, or other unsuitable materials should be removed from the detention basin.
Removals should extend to a depth of suitable structural compacted fill soils or
bedrock. Where the detention basins are located within proposed building areas, the
building pad overexcavatlon recommendations should also be Implemented.
SOUthCCtIf(iIn1a:COdteItihlCaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
.4., •. .•
.- Project No. 040243-1
- Page 18
Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Pads
As discussed above, remedial grading will be necessary in several of the building areas
to mitigate potential cut/fill transitions that will exist at or near the proposed foundation
bearing grade.
Remedial grading should be performed within the areas of Buildings A, B, C, and D to
remove and replace a portion of the dense bedrock as engineered fill. The existing
bedrock should be overexcavated to provide for a new layer of compacted structural fill,
extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade,
throughout the building areas. Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations,
it is expected that such overexcavation will be required throughout Building A, as well
as most of Building B. Buildings C and 0 are partially underlain by fill soils extending to
depths of 2 to 6± feet. Depending upon the proposed pad elevations within these
buildings, overexcavation may not be required within Buildings C and D.
In general, the overexcavations should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building
perimeters. If the proposed structures incorporate any exterior columns (such as for a
canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas.
Within areas of the proposed structures that do not require overexcavation per the
recommendations presented above, it is recommended that the existing fills be
overexcavated to a depth of at least 1 foot below existing grade, to remove any existing
weathered andlor softened fill soils, as well as to prepare the subgrade for new fill
placement.
Following completion of the overexcavations, the subgrade soils (or bedrock) within the
building areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their
suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation
loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy
rubber-tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be
removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous,
or low density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation. The exposed
subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to
2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Retaining Walls and Site Walls
The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls underlain by less
than 2 feet of existing engineered fill soils should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet
below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill, as discussed
above for the proposed building pad. Subgrade soils in areas of non-retaining site walls
should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below proposed bearing grade, if not
underlain by at lest 1 foot of existing engineered fill soils. In both cases, the
overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior
to scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompacting the upper 12 inches of exposed
Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
.. ProJect No. 04G241
.'• Page 19
subgrade soils. In areas where unsuitable fill soils are encountered at foundation
subgrade level, additional overexcavation or deepened footings will be necessary. The
previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking Areas
Overexcavation of the existing fill soils in the new parking areas is generally not
considered warranted, with the exception of any areas where lower strength soils are
identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading.
Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of
completion of cuts where required. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the
subgrade to identify any areas of unsuitable soils. Based on conditions observed at the
site at the time of drilling, no significant overexcavation is expected to be necessary
within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of
12± inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4± percent above optimum, and recompacted
to at least 90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maximum dry density.
Depending upon the actual finished grades, which have not yet been established,
portions of the parking lot subgrades may be immediately underlain by bedrock. These
materials may be used for direct pavement subgrade support. However, the owner
and/or developer of the project should understand that minor amounts of reflective
cracking and/or minor differential movements should be expected to occur near the
location of the transitions between these bedrock materials and the adjacent
engineered fill. If such cracking or minor differential movements within the pavements is
not considered acceptable, additional overexcavation should be performed within the
cut portions of the parking areas.
Fill Placement
Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture
conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and
compacted.
On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris or
oversized materials to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
All grading and fill placement activities should be completed In accordance
with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the grading code of
the City of Carlsbad.
All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed.
Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical
engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These
tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete
locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore
should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job
specifications.
Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
-
.• Project No. 04(3243-1
.... Page 20
Imported Structural Fill
All imported structural fill should consist of low expansive (El <30), well graded soils
possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200
sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide
Specifications, included as Appendix D.
Utility Trench Backfill
In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
ASTM D-1 557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand
Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and flooded in place. Compacted
trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more
restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Carlsbad. Materials used to
backfill trenches should consist of well graded granular soils with a maximum particle
size of 3 inches. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical
engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed
and visually evaluated elsewhere.
Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a lh:lv plane projected
from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils,
compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 standard. Sand or pea gravel
backfill, unless it is similar to the native soils, should not be used for these trenches.
6.4 Construction Considerations
Moisture Sensitive SubQrade Soils
Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt and clay content and will
become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by
construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, the on-site soils will
also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent
ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations.
Excavation Considerations
Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, the bedrock that underlies the
subject site possesses a dense to very dense relative density, but is somewhat friable.
It is expected that It will be feasible to utilize conventional grading equipment within the
depths that were explored by the borings. However, some difficulty may be encountered
during excavation, possibly requiring large single shank-equipped bulldozers,
excavators, etc. The grading contractor should verify the need for special excavation
equipment prior to bidding the project.
5IiiitheCallföiWfflOtOChflIcal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G2431
..... Page 21
Based on the presence of predominantly granular soils throughout the development
area, minor to moderate caving of shallow excavations may to occur. Flattened
excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although
'deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or
bracing. Temporary excavation slopes should be no steeper than I h:lv. All excavation
activities on this site should be conducted In accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.
Expansive Soils
As previously discussed the on site soils have been determined to possess a medium
to high expansion potential. It is recommended that the highly expansive soils be
blended with less expansive soils to create structural fills with a low to medium
expansive potential (El <90), or removed and placed in non structural areas. Therefore,
care should be given to proper moisture conditioning of all building pad subgrade soils
to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum during site
grading. All imported fill soils should have low to medium expansive characteristics. In
addition, to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade soils and fill soils during
grading,' special care must be taken to maintain the moisture content of these soils at 2
to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum. This will require the contractor to
frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the grading process, unless
grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather.
Groundwater
Free water was not encountered within the depths explored by the borings drilled for
Oils project. These borings extended to a maximum depth of 20± feet below existing
grade. Based on this information, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed
grading or foundation construction activities.
.5 Foundation Design and Construction
Based on the preceding preliminary grading recommendations, it is assumed that the
new building pads will be immediately underlain by existing or newly placed structural fill
soils extending to depths of at least 3± feet below foundation bearing grade. Based on
this subsurface profile, the proposed structures may be supported on conventional
shallow foundation systems.
Foundation Design Parameters
New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows:
Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure; 2,500 lbs/ft2. The allowable
bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration
wind or seismic loads.
So1hOmcaJItoriIaGeothcIffiIbaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad CA
. Project No. 04G241
Page 22
. Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches
Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5
rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to medium expansive potential of near
surface soils.
Due to highly differential fill depths in the eastern area of the site, strip
footings within Buildings E and F are recommended to be reinforced with six
(6) No. 5 rebars (3 top and 3 bottom):
Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils,
and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. interior column footings
may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab.
It is recommended that the perimeter foundations be continuous across all
exterior doorways. Flatwork adjacent to exterior doors should be doweled into
the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer.
The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical
considerations. Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural
considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the
structural engineer.
Foundation Construction
The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as
discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation
subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or
concrete placement. Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly
placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum
dry density. Any unsuitable bearing materials should be removed to a depth of suitable
bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfllled with
compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be
used to backfill such isolated overexcavations.
The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4
percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below
bearing grade.
Estimated Foundation Settlements
The proposed structures will experience settlements due to two primary factors: 1) the
elastic settlements caused by deformation of the existing structural fill soils due to the
loads Imposed by the new foundations; and 2) long term settlement of the existing
structural fill soils under their own weight. The total and differential settlements Induced
by the foundation loads of the new structures are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5
SdUtherfliCaIIfoifllajotIhflIcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
.: Project No. 040243-1 - Page 23
inches, respectively, for shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance
with the recommendations provided in this report. The differential movements are
expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less
than 0.002 inches per inch.
As discussed in Section 6.2 of this report, the long term settlements associated with the
relatively deep existing fill soils could be on the order of 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the fill
depth. On a preliminary basis, there may be up to 35± feet of differential fill depth
across Building Pads E and F. This could result in differential settlements on the order
of 0.4 to 1.3± inches. However, these differential settlements will occur over a
distances of 100± feet, causing angular distortions on the order of % inch in 50 feet.
Such angular distortions are considered to be within the structural tolerances of the
proposed buildings.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base
of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below
'grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces:
Passive Earth Pressure: 250 IbsJft3
Friction Coefficient: 0.25
These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety. When combining friction and
passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third.
These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable compacted
structural fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2500 lbs/ft2.
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this
report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the
new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on newly
placed structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be
designed as follows:
Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches
Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both
directions.
Due to the highly differential fill depths in the western area of the site, floor
slab reinforcement within Buildings E and F is recommended to consist of No.
.4 bars at 18 inches on-center, in both directions.
BolitlWfli.CulIfmfflnjGDOtCtflfCal Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
a. Project No. 043243-1
:•. •S•. Page 24
Slab underlayment 10-mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand.
Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor
barrier and 2-inch layer of sand may be eliminated.
Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 2 to 4 percent above
optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches.
Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential
for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks.
5.7 Retainlnci Wall Design Recommendations
It is expected that some small retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site
grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are
presented below.
Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following
parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have
provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill: on-site sandy days and
clayey sands, and imported select granular material. In order to use the design
parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire
active failure wedge. This wedge is defined as extending from the base of the retaining
wall upwards at a 59 degree angle of inclination.
RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Soil Type
Imported
Aggregate Base
On-Site
Soils
Internal Friction Angle () 380 280
Unit Weight 130 lbs/ft3 125 lbs/ft3
-
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure:
Active Condition
(level backfill)
31 lbs/ft3 45 lbs/ft3
Active Condition
(2h:1v backfill)
44 lbs/ft3 79 lbs/ft3
At-Rest Condition
(level backfill)
48 lbs/ft3 66 lbs/ft3
Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil-footing
SUEtti6flC1IfoMIliCoDtCb1dC8I Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
••.• Project No. 040243-1
Page 25
coefficient of friction of 0.25 and an equivalent passive pressure of 250 lbs/ft3.
The active earth pressures may be used for the design of retaining walls which do not
directly support structures or support soils which in turn support structures and which
will be allowed to deflect The at-rest earth pressures should be used for walls which
will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils,
or which will support foundation loads directly.
Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a hard" surface
such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when
calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed
or degraded during the life of the structure.
Retaining Wall Foundation Design
Retaining walls should be supported within newly placed structural fill monitored during
placement by the geotechnical engineer. Where retaining walls are also serving as
building walls, they should be graded in accordance with the recommendations
presented in Section 6.3 of this report for the proposed building pad areas. Foundations
to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general
Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report.
Backfill Material
It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material
(less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed against the face of
the retaining walls. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. A
suitable geotextile should be used to separate the layer of free draining granular
material from the backfill soils. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an
impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-Inch thick layer of a low
permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to
the underlying soils.
All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled
conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90
and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test
(ASTM D1557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind
the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided.
Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained
backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be
necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage
may consist of either:
Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1 -
- Page 26
A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch
diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation
on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center
spacing. The weep holes should include a minimum 2 cubic foot gravel
pocket surrounded by an appropriate geotextile fabric at each weep hole
location.
A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per
linear foot of drain placed behind the retaining wall, above the footing. The
gravel drain should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the
potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to
daylight or tied into a storm drainage system.
6.8 Pavement Design Parameters
Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously
recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The
subsequent preliminary pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and
construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design
parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. These preliminary designs also
assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the 20-year pavement
service life.
Pavement Subrades
It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of
compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and
recompacted native materials and/or fill soils. The on-site soils generally consist of
sandy clays and sandy days. These soils are considered to possess fair pavement
support characteristics with R-values of 10 to 20. Since R-value testing was not
included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is
based upon an assumed R-value of 15. Any fill material imported to the site should
have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be
placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. It is recommended that
R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading. Depending upon the
results of the R-value testing, it may be feasible to use thinner pavement sections in
some areas of the site.
Asphaltic Concrete
The pavement designs are based on the traffic Indices (Ti's) indicated. The client
and/or civil engineer should verify that these Ti's are representative of the
anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the
expected traffic volume will exceed those recommended herein, we should be
contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to
SoIEthn.ICaIIfbIflIaGeotecbfflcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1
Pogo 27
the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5
operational traffic days per week:
Traffic Index No. of Heavy Trucks per Day
4.0 0
5.0 1
6.0 3
7.0 11
For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor-
trailer unit, with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices
allow for 1000 automobiles per day.
Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement
structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be noted that
the TI = 5.0 section only allows for I truck per day. Therefore, all significant heavy
truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used;
otherwise premature pavement distress may occur.
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Thickness (inches)
Materials Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Moderate
(TI = 4.0) Lanes Traffic Truck Traffic
(TI = 5.0) (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0)
Asphalt Concrete >v 44 w4 4 j
Aggregate Base 0,407. .S' '4' C, 11 13
Compacted Subgrade (° 12 12 12 12 minimum _compaction)
* p.. js-i7 rYr1.
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM 13-
1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The
aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed
miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material.
The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB
should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the
"Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
Portland Cement Concrete
The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be
performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. Since
$oe1HtoflIaCooteltnIcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
.- Project No. 04G241
Page 28
significant portions of the granitic bedrock are expected to be removed' around the
perimeters of the proposed structures where the Portland cement concrete pavements
will be located, the pavement design presented below is based on the presence of
existing or newly placed compacted structural fill immediately beneath the proposed
pavement subgrade elevation. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the
Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows:
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Thickness (inches)
Materials Automobile Parking Light Truck Traffic Moderate Truck Traffic
and Drive Areas (TI = 6.0) (Ti = 7.0)
PCC 5 6% 7
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12
(95% minimum compaction)
The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi.
Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh
(6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab. In areas underlain by•
expansive soils, the reinforcement should be increased to No. 4 bars at 18 inches on
center. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended
to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness.
$th'VntCa1IfdlaiICdteC?hiIcaI Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 04G243-1
.... :'. Page 29
70 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order
to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the
design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be
provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information
relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a
specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect,
structural engineer, and/or CMI engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this
report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.
Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's
sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur.
The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited
discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are
considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected
between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during
construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted
immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.
This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed
development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer,
and civil engineer. carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent
with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they
should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and
recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and
specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations
have been correctly interpreted.
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have
been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical
engineering practice. No other warranty is Implied or expressed.
NMI! flicallfomlaGointam Proposed Lot 40 Business Park - Carlsbad, CA :.J:t Project No. G241
.... Page 30
APPENDIX A
SITE LOCATION MAP
BOBItãG LOCATION MAP
I
I LAIJ /
I
\ç
At #' I ) /
/ / / T us A/ :
13 i
I' /
'I I
sit II,
WMY 0
% PAOveLO -28 / d Al 18
AIRPW -,
-
- _
SEE V lit
\_5' , X1
4
\ \ I IN 4 ?A ILU5
m
IIITA )
7VJII I 5 VIA lAfl*
%
cr C ,RLSB4 D ____
% f vi I
I ..I :A-:1
Par-
------- ---
; - -- -. --
r23
PAM cr
ST 22 24
MarA
— REfAtr
ot ly
a
-- I + $ 1
I •'
-'
S S VIA 4 VII smuln g cm Imm
LII
IAVDIIJVA
\ SI —
,•.
12
'-• VI
.it
T 8111FF
PL4Z4 25 ig
AV1AR4 .
I
•.••. 1I
Fla _ALM ___________ ________
" Th g' 'r 26c Rig w$ic 1jU' 30
GOLF cauff 813 •,1lV (it $1' V
VV IARI VMui_7 / I
—.•- IE '4it 81 1
35
MOWCWA
VA a4rioulivs :r MI Mit5
j , SOURCE' SAN DIEGO COUNTY
THOMAS GUIDE. 2004
PROPOSED LOT 40 BUSINESS PARK
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA _______
V-24W Southern California Ceotechnical
DRAWN: ORK C14K0:JAS
1260 North Hancock 3tj4 Sufte 101
AnaheIm California92807
(714) 777-0333 Fa,c (714) 777-0398
SCG PROJECT
040243.1
PLATE I
v
A. .
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
BORING. LOG LEGEND
SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL SAMPLE DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS, NO AUGER FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH.
I (DISTURBED) I
ROCK CORE SAMPLE TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A CORE DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED GRAB EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT
__
I GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED)
BARREL SAMPI.ERIUNEDWITH I4NCH HIGH BRASS PANGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER. (RELATIVELY
UNDISTURBED
NO RECOVER: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT NSR
0
REStLT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL
PENETRAT10N TEST: SAMPLER IS 1.4 SPT ><STANDARD
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER (DISTURBED)
SHEBLY TUBE TAKEN WITH A TN WALL SAMPLE SH 1JBE;PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) I VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGH OBTAINED VANE I uSiwe A4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY J USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.
COLUMNDESCRIPTIO
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface.
§MPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.
BLOW COUNT: Number of blow required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 lb
hammer with a 304nch drop. 50I3 indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows)
at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to
push the sampler 8 inches or more.
Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by
pocket penetrometer.
Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page.
Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample.
Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of
the dry weight.
The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid.
The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.
The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve.
The shear strength of a coheshe soil sample, as measured In the
unconfined state.
POCKET PEN..:
EAPHIC LOG:
Y RENO 1TY:
MOISTURE CONTENT:
LlUID UMIT:
PLASTIC UMFr:
POSING #200 SIEVE:
UNCONFINED SHEAR:
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
vw
'I $ GW WELL.GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL.
AND MIXTIJRES,LITTLE ORNO
FINES
GRAVELLY
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)
0(30 06(30,
, GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
•
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
0 (Y*(
o GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND
SILT MIXTURES
RETAINED ON NO.
• 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES) " CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
MORE THAN SO% 01 MATERIAL. IS
SAND CLEAN SANDS ::::::::.:::
AND
IVY WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE ORNOFINES
LARGER THAN
O. 200-SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY or"
9J1TLE OR NO FINES)
j $) POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SANDS WITH
FINES
1 a IVI SILTY SANDS SAND-SILT
MIXTURES MORE ThAN 50% OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ONNO.
• 4 SIEVE
•
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES) sc CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS. ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
1
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOWTO
MEDIUM PLAS11CI1Y, GRAVELLY
SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT AND
" CLAYS
- -
OI 1 ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
140. 200 SIEVE
SMALLER THAN
OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SIZE SILTS
AND LIQUID UMIT
cvs GREATER THAN 50 "
j INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
O'-I OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM 10
HIGH PLASTICrrY, ORGANIC TO
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS DT
gg r I PEAT. HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Southern California Geotechnical I:D
BORING NO.
B-I
JOB NO.; 04G243 DRILLING DATE: 11129/04 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Brassi Ranch Lt 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 17 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS
DESCRIPTION U'
C., U. uj z z,- Ui x -J
a a.t. o SURFACE ELEVATION:MSL Y 0
______ C.)
- EILL.Motfled Orange Brown to Gray fine Sandy Clay to Silty
fine Sand. medium dense to stiff-moist
30 4.5+ 100 16
21 4.5+ 112 17
233.5 10816
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Gray to Light
65 Orange Brown Silty fine grained Sandstone, medium dense to 105 15 very dense-damp to moist
734-1 98 12
21 1 • I
11I1T
I 15
34
Boring Terminated at 19W
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I
Southern California Geotechnical
'V
BORING NO.
B-2
JOB NO.: 04G243 DRILLING DATE: 11/29104 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Bressi Ranch U 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 9 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS
I -
0
0 DESCRIPTION
CL t5 w
. - - 8Ow
o ' ° ZX 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: OO O.;l:co C.) - - - - EIU..Brown One Sandy Clay, very stiff-clamp to moist
23 4.5+ 103 21
very
25 14. 5 + V0, 3,q 11051 21
31 I4.5JF 1105 1 22
26 14.5+ WISN, 11081 20
57 I4.5 11081 21
Boring Terminated at 10'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-2
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-3
'V
JOB NO.: 04G243 DRILLING DATE: 11129104 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lt 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 13 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD RESULTS1 LABORATORY RESULTS
- . o
8 Zoe DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION:MSL . 8 8
- EILL.Mouled Orange Brown to Gray fine Sandy Clay,
stiff-damp to moist
30 4.5+ 101 22
SANTIAGO FORMA111 BEDROCK: Gray Clayey Slitstone,
stiff to very stiff-moist -
24 102 22 - N SANTIAGOfORMATION BEDROCK: Orange Brown to LIght
Browns Silty fine grained Sandstone, trace calcareous
nodules, medium dense to very dense-damp to moist -
60 107 8
69 114 15
50/3" No Sample
10-4 10- Recovery
-
115
49 14 X
Boring Terminated at 15
I
I
I
--___
iT BORING LOG S PLATE E
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-4
JOB NO.: 04G243 DRILLING DATE: 11/29/04 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Bressl Ranch Lt 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH:
LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS
a. DESCRIPTION
h a zx W in RE a SURFACE ELEVATION:MSL 8 a. 8
- -M[L. to Orange Brown to Gray -Clayey line Sand to fine
Sandy Clay, fragments of Siltstone and Sandstone, very
19 454 stiff-damptomoist 104 16
30 4.25 110 14
50/50 4.5+ 104 19
22 225 105 19
50/5" SANTIAGO EORMATIONBEOROCK: Light Brown to Orange 111 14
Brown Silty line grained Sandstone, medium dense to very 10- - dense-damp to moist
23 14
Boring Terminated at 15
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-
Southern California Geotechnical
'V
BORING NO.
B-5
JOB NO.: 04G243 DRILUNG DATE: 11f29104 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Bressi Ranch U 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 18 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad. CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD ESULTS1
DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY RESULTS
P LU
z it
CL
01 SURFACE ELEVATION:MSL
FILL: Dark Gray to Orange Brown Clayey Silt to Clayey fine
Sand, some Slltstone fragments, medium dense to very
21 45+ stiff-damp tomoist 104 18
23 4.5+ 108 12
70/5 4.5+ 104 17
-
ILMottied Orange Brown to Brown Gray Silty fine Sand to
fine Sandy Clay, some Slltstone and Sandstone fragments,
31 medium dense to stiff-damp 102 13 N
30 106 17
10- -
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK: Light Brown to Orange
Brown fine grained Sandstone, some Silt, dense-damp to
50/3d moist 108 7
15
41 110 15
Boring Terminated at 20'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5
Southern California Geotechnical 1:1..
BORING NO.
B-6
JOB NO.: 04G243 I DRILLING DATE: 11/29/04 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lt 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 17.5 feet
LOCATION: _CaiisbadCA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD RESULTS1 LABORATORY RESULTS
W
i
a. - DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION:MSL
U. 5 1-- h:
U.
L
a- azx
u. z W
2 0 o
•
•
27 45+
E!LLLOrange Brown to Brown Gray, occassionally Mottled,
fine Sandy Clay to Clayey fine Sand, some Gray Siltstone
fragments, trace Silt, dense to very stiff-damp to moIst 104 20
30 4.5+ 101 20
27 4.5+ 102 19
25 4.5+ 110 13
fjLjOrange Brown to Gray Silty Clay, very stiff-moist
kA 24 4.5+ 104 18
to
medium dense to stiff-moist
I 15-1
264.5+ 1061 16
[;1
41
Boring Terminated at 19W
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B
Southern California Geotechnical
'V
BORING NO.
B.7
JOB NO.: 04G243 DRILLING DATE: 11129104 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Bressi Ranch Lt 40 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16.5 feet
LOCATION: _Carlsbad, CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
FIELD RESULTS1 LABORATORY RESULTS
tii z
IL DESCRIPTION lULL. w
Ui
iz' '
'co, 8 0 m a.b o SURFACE ELEVATION:MSL a.i & o
fJLLL dense-damp
21 4.0 113 9
Orange Brown Clayey fine Sand, trace Silt, medium
dense-damp
110 16
33 4•5 108 14
38 4.5+ EjIJ,j.Mottled Dark Brown to Orange Brown Silty Clay and 109 18
-
Clayey fine Sand, dense to stiff-damp
31 109 15
E!LL Orange Brown fine Sandy Clay, medium dense
61 14.5+ 1061 20
25 1 2.5 1051 18
Boring Terminated at 19W
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-8
JOB NO,: 04G243 DRILLING DATE: 11/29104 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: Brossl Ranch U 40 DRILLING METHOD: HoHow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16 feat
LOCA11ON: Carlsbad, CA LOGGED BY: Daryl Kas READING TAKEN: At Completion
HELD RESULTS1 - LABORATORY RESULTS
DESCRIPTION ftf (D.it z-z Ui
tz L U) 0< (l)°OW 0 jja.' rj o a < 0 o a 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: MSL o a.i a. co o - - -
EILL..MoWed Orange Brown and Gray Clayey fine Sand to fine
Sandy Clay, occasslonat fragments of SHtstone, medium
26 4.5+ dense to very stiff-damp to moist 102 18
30 4.0 109 20
24 4,5+ 96 19
29 4.5+ EILL..Orange Brown to Gray fine Sandy Clay to Silty Clay, 112 15
trace SlIt, trace wood fragments, stiff-damp to moist
26 4.5+ 106 15
10' - _____________________________ EiLLLMOttled Orange Brown and Gray Clayey fine Sand to
Silty Clay, some Gray Slltstone fragments, medium dense to
very stilt-damp to moist
22 4.5+ 107 18'
15 -
— 5013 4.5+ 99 19
Boring Terminated at 19W
0
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Consolidation/Collapse Test R38u1t8
WeWrAdded
at 1600 Pd
CD
10
12
0.1 0 100
Load (ksf)
Classification: FILL: Dark Gray to Orange Brown Clayey Silt to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: B-5 initial Moistu:e Content (%) 16
Sample Number: - Final Moisture Content (%) 21
Depth (ft) I to 2 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.1
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 110.5
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.24
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Soithern California Geotechnical
Carlsbad, California
Project No. 04G243
l APA I I A FL. I h.tm. CalfOmla 92801
- Phon.: (714) rn.0333 F=("4)7"4198
Classification: FILL: Dark Gray to Orange Brown Clayey Silt to Clayey fine Sard
Boring Number: B-5 Initial Moisture Content (%) 14
Sample Number: - Final Moistum Content (%) 18
Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.9
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 113.6
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.27
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Southern California Geotechnical
Carlsbad, California
Project No. 04G243 1280 Sfrsst. 8Wt. 101
.%Nhdn CWwfft 92807 PLATE C- 2 Phons: (714) 777.8033 Fax: (714) 771.03k
ConsolldatlonlCoUapse Test Results
Ut
Water Added
at 1600 pat
4
g 8 -
8
10 11t
12
0.1 1 10 100
Load (ksf)
Classification: FILL: Dark Gray to Orange Brown Clayey Silt to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: B-5 Initial Moisture Content (%) 17
Sample Number: - Final Moisture Content (%) 21
Depth (ft) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.2
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 108.7
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) -0.47
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Southern California Geotechnical I Carlsbad, California 'Ilpi,. 1111
Project No. 04G243 Inc 11W1hHAnC0C*SbW1k Me 101
' ' r I %A'E -
An1n% CWfomIa 02807
PhDfl. (714)777.0333 Faic (714)777.0321 11
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
_
-
WaterAdded
at1600psf
--
j -I
6 -
8
10
12
0.1 1 10 100
Load (ksf)
Classification: FILL: Mottled Orange Brown to Brown to Gray Silty fine Sand
Boring Number: B-5 Initial Moistwe Content (%) 9
Sample Number: Final Moisture Content (%) 19
Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcI) 104.8
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcfi 113.1
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.86
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Southern California Geotechnical
Carlsbad, California .4,. Project No. 04G243 1HSUt,SIII101
%A'E 4 kiilt*IIiI, CID?Om& O2C?
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Water Added
at 1600 pet
-. -II 29
C 1
H ____
8
—U--
10
-----
12
0.1 1 10 100
Load (k"
Classification: FILL: Orange Brown to Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 12
Sample Number: -- Final Moistu -e Content (%) 17
Depth (ft) I to 2 Initial Dry Density (pot) 108.4
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 118.3
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.58
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Smithern California Geotechnical
Carlsbad, California JJr Project No. 04G243 1O RoM H1o1
t Ar ri I Phøi(714)m4333 F.x(714)777.OUI
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
2
_
__-----• -.
Water Added _______________
at 1600 psf
C
—i'
Be
--a--I— 1=1
C 0 C,
---s---
8
10 -
-
-
12
0.1 1 To 100
Load (ksf)
Classification: FILL: Orange Brown to Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 15
Sample Number: - Final Moisture Content (%) 18
Depth (ft) 3 to 4 Initial Dry Density (pcI) 110.7
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.9
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) -0.02
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Seuthern IIfornIa Geotechnicat
1 Cailsbad, California '401V Project No. 04(3243 120 NxthBmcockSlatet,Stdt.1Ot
PLATE C- 6 AisheIn CaffwWa B2BOT
Pione: ni.ou 1114)
Li-
ConsoildatlonlCoff apse Test Results
IF1
49PSf
C
10
8
0.1 1 0 100
Load (kaf)
Classification: FILL: Orange Brown to Dark Brown fine Sandy Cby to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moistu:e Content (%) 14
Sample Number: -- Final Moistuee Content (%) 20
Depth (if) 5 to 6 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.6
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcI) 114.9
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.70
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Southern CallfornVa Geotechnical
Carlsbad, California 4J. Project No. 04G243 125 SStiu.1oi
PLATE C- 7 uhuIm, CiQfomta 92801
Phow (V 4) M4M3 Fax; (714)7714398
ConsolkbtionlCollapse Test Results
WaterAdded
at 1600 P81'
ca
10
12
- 0.1 1 1
Load (ksf)
Classification: FILL: Orange Brown to Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 15
Sample Number: - Final Moisture Content (%) 18
Depth (ft) 7 to 8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 110.7
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 114.5
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) -0.15
Ranch Lot 40 Southern California SeotecbncaI rBrersi
rlsbad, California
ject No. 04G243
'. PLATE%A..IE ' 8 Phone: (714) 7774333 FeE (714) 777.033D
Classification: FILL: Orange Brown 10 Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number:
Sample Number:
Depth (ft)
Specimen Diameter (in)
Specimen Thickness (in)
B-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 16
- Final Moistute Content (%) 22
9 to 10 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.3
2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 112.8
1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.31
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Southern California Geotecirnical I Carlsbad, California I Project No. 04G243
An.Im, CaEomls 92301 IPLATE C- 9 Phan, (714)7774333 FuE 1714) 77743$3 I
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
WaterAdded
at 160D pof
UJ
06 -'-II------
8
10
--
-
12 _
0.1 1 10 100
Load (kst)
Classification: FILL: Orange Brown to Dark Brown tine Sandy Clay to Clayey tine Sand
Boring Number: B-7 Initial Moistire Content (%) 19
Sample Number: - Final Moisture Content (%) 22
Depth (ft) 14 to 15 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 106.8
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry D3nsity (pct) 109.9
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) -0.33
-
Bressi Ranch Lot 40 Southern California Geoteihnlcal
Carlsbad, California 4. Project No. 04G243
PLATE C-10 Pticis: (714)777.0333 Faic (714) 7T7-O3
_
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
WaWrAdded
-
4I;1 Fiv- -
6
-
o i
at1600psf I---
_
-
-
10 -
F --
12
0.1 1 10 10)
Load (ksf)
Classificatior: FILL: Orange Brown to Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay to Clayey fine Sand
Boring Number: 8-7 Initial Moisture Content (%) 16
Sample Number: -- Final Moisture Content (%) 22
Depth (ft) 19 to 20 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.7
Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 114.8
Specimen Thickness (in) 1.0 Percent Collapse (%) 0.56
Ranch Lot 40 Saithern California Geotechnical rBressi
Carlsbad, California
Project No. 04G243
PLATE C- Il 02807
PhOIIE (114)711.0333 F (114) 71143U
Moisture/Density Relationship
ASTM D-1557
APPENDIX D
OWING GUIDE SPECIFICAUONS
Grading Guide Specifications Page 1
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading
operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained In the
geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations In the
geotechnical Investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site
specific recommendations In the geotechnical Investigation report will govern.
The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in
accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county,
and Uniform Building Codes.
The Geotechnical Engineer Is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of
Implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to
relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in aworkrnan-like manner,
nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by
the Contractor.
The Earthwork Contractor Is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated
work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may
be stopped and redone If personnel have not been scheduled In advance.
The Earthwork Contractor Is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job-
site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the
specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to
conform with recommendations and guidelines In this report
Canyon cleanouts, overexcavatlon areas, processed ground to recelveflil, key excavations,
subdralns and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
placement of anyflil. It Is the Earthwork Contractoi's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
Engineer of areas that are ready for Inspection.
Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and
sequence that will provide drainage at afi times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation,
springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable
working surface. The Geotechnlcai Engineer must be Informed of springs orwaterseepage
encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the
recommended construction procedures andlor Installation of sttdmins.
The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site
preparation for the project In accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected
of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and
Owner/Builder should be notified immediately.
Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-eite. This includes trees, brush,
heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer,
Grading Guide Specifications Page 2
Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining
shafts, tunnels, wefts and pipelines should be removed under the Inspection of the
Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or
city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical
Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be
formulated.
Any topsoil, slopewash, coliuvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered
unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement.
Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of frees, foundations
basements, Irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill.
Subsequent to cleating and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of
10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted
The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum
moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field
conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing.
Soil materials Imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized In the fill, provided
each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall
be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result
in the material being classified as "contaminated,' and shall be low to non-expansive with a
maximum expansion index (El) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted flit should have a
maximum particle size of 3 Inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximumS-
inch particle size, except as noted below.
All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high
expansion potential, tow strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require
removal from the site or selective placement anWor mixing to the satisfaction of the
Geotechnical Engineer.
Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed In
accordance with recommendations and In areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Acceptable methods typically Include windrows. Oversize materials should not be
placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate
excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from elopes (minimum distance: 15 feet)
to facilitate compaction near the slope.
Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed In areas previously.
prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 Inches in
loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above,
as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing andlor drying, to evenly
distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density In compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise indicated.
Density and moisture content testing should be performed bythe Geotechnical Engineer at
random Intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Enginee. These tests
are Intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship,
Grading Guide Specifications Page 3
equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for
compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies.
After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, the
contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted
moisture content Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated
may require removal andlor scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement Soils with
medium to high expansion Indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy soils that
are allowed to dry can also lose density.
Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and
recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify
the Geotechnlcal Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made.
Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5401 Inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should
be benched Into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Typical details of benching are ilkzstrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5.
Cutlflhl transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet
and rebuilt with tO (see Plate G-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
All cut lots should be Inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other
bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and
rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to Impede moisture penetration.
Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a
depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture
penetration.
Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed In unison to provide
lateral support Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that
excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade wails must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used In the design.
The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horlzcntallyfrom the outside
edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward ala Ya horizontal to I vertical (0.5:1)
Inclination.
Where overexcavatlon beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so
as to encompass the entire foundation Influence zone, as described above.
Compacted- fill adjacent to exterior fäotlngs should extend at least 12 Inches above
foundation bearing grade. Compacted till within the interior of structures should extend to
the floor subgrade elevation.
The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope
compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill
In even layers, Including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the
compacted core.
Slope compaction may also be achieved by backroliing the slope adequately every 2 to 4
vertical feet during the tilling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction
equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the
Grading Guide Specifications Page 4
slope face should be compacted with a eheepefoot connected to a eldeboom and then grid
rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used If approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
Sandy soils lacking In adequate cohesion maybe unstable for a finished elope condition and
therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face.
All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at
least 15 feet wide and Inclined at 2 percent Into the slope. For elopes higher than 30 feet,
the OR key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slOpe (see Plate G.5).
All till keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and
should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling.
The cut portion of glover cut slopes should be made first and Inspected bythe Geotechrdcal
Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed
through all surflclal soils and Into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed
from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G.2).
All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for
stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope
cutting is In progress at Intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result ina delay in
recommendations.
Cut slopes exposing loose, coheslonless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical
Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations.
All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical
Inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and
dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail Is shown on Plate G-6.
Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdralns. Typical subdraln details
we shown on Plates G-6.
SubdraIns maybe required In canyons and swales where fill placement Is proposed. T1cai
subdraln details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdralns should be Installed after
approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer.
Plastic pipe may be used for subdralns provided It is Schedule 40 or SOR 36 or equivalent
Pipe should be protected against breakage, typicatybyplacement In a square-cut (bacthoe)
trench or as recommended by the manufacturer.
Filter material for subdratns should conform to CAUFRANS Spe1fIcatlon 68-1.025 or as
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean 1/44nth
crushed rock may be used provided It Is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe dIameters should be6 Inches for runs up to 500 feet
and 8 Inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-Inch diameter pipe may
be used In buttress and stabilization fills.
-
--
OVEREXCAVATE AND
RECOMPACT
DEEPER OVEREXCAVAT1ON MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
IN STEEP TRANSONS
CUT LOT
-
1 __...
- -
... .•,'..
b
CQMPAôtED FILL. . i
••...•.'-• .•...
.4••
OVEREXCAVATE AND
RECOMPACT
COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED
-. - I BY THE GEOTECIINICAL ENGINEER
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
- .• - - • -
_4_b:
.. S •. ,- ,(
COMPACTED FILL ..
-r•. \L COMPETENT MATERIAL AS APPROVED
••. 'I BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
NWTOSCALE
am am
1260 North Hanoodc8bo(,StdIo 101
AMINK Ceffamla OW PLA1EGI Phano:(714) 7774333 F (714) 777.0398
CUE/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
'y... .••••
9'MIN.
'..---
... ...o_ •___
At UIN
. I MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES S • ••' 184 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
...• - BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
0R2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
COMPETENT MATERIAL
NEW COMPACTED FILL
CtLTIFILL CONTACT TO BE SHOWN ON WAS.8UILr
NATURAL GRADE
- -
CUTSLOPE
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED cOMPETENrMATERIAL
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
'--KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAl.
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 16 FEET OR PS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAYMAYNOTBE
REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5
FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
I "°° I 8niithem caHfvrn Oootechnlcal MAW., S
CHKW ow I 1260 Noith Hmmk 8tr ,e*. Sdte 101
92w. PI.A1E 04 Phone: (714) 777-0338 Feo (714) 717.0398
t141URAU9RQUNb-\
\. I bOMPACTED FILL
\,<T
hLo EXCAVATION -'
/ . M- •.• .:.
.
_.. .•
...
FIRM NATIVE SOII.JBEDROCI( • 24'
18'MIN. •.. •• .
MINUS 1' CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY
a.. SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC, OR
'.4 .-. - CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL
L4. MIN.
181, MIN.
6' DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLOPE
PIPE DEPTH OF FILL
MATERIAL OVER SUEDRAIN SCHEMATIC ONLY ADS (CORRuGATED POLEThYLENE) 8 NOT TO SCALE TRANSITE IJNDERDRAIN 20
PVC OR ABS: 8DR35 36
SDR2I 100
amom
JIft 000technlg
I 1280N 8!reef8iIe1O1
M&*bn, mJa 92807 PLAtE 04 PhflG (714) m.oass Fm 014) m.9298
I MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
- 154 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
_ BY THE GEOTECHNICAL. ENGINEER
I T-MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK J 0R2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
KEYWAY IN COMPE1ENTMA1ERIAL.
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 16 FEET OR AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEO1ECHNIAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN IF IN HEIGHT
AS RECOMMENDED BY "THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER NOTE
BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED
WHEN NAWRAL SLOPES ARE
EQUAL. TO OR STEEPER THAN 51
OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
NEW COMPACTED RLL.
OVERFILL REQUIREMBIlS
PER PLATE NOA COMPETENT MATERIAL
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN ç:• .zr. . ON GRADING PLAN I •.. .. sJ.... .s. S
PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT
..... ••..'.:. '.• .: •:
PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL -• . •. .' .:. .. .. TO ORIGINAL GRADE
_... .. .. -.:
BACKCLTr-YARIES—I ç 1i
2 MINIMUM
KEY DEPTH
;;
- =II
I 1280 North Hamodc8'eot, Sub 101
Andft PLATE 04 Row. (714)ffi4333 Fox (714) 7Th4388 U
8'TYPICPJ.
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TOP WIDTH OF FILL
AS SPECIFIED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
COMPETEIff MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE SOIL ENGINEER
\
COMPACTEDFIU.
\ • .: :'-.
FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE
VARIABLE I-
-
.. '-..•. • MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BNCHES
: IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
'. . • BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
I. • -. ... ... St • I. • •.•,.
—T—
- . •.
MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK
2'MINIMUM —J _________________ OR 214 SLOPE
KEY DEPTh KEYWAY WIDTh. AS SPECIFIED (WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
UPAM, M9 cmv. am
1200 Noilh NanaocSfmot Sift 101
M&ohnflfumIa 20007 PLATE Phono: (714)7770333 Faic (714) m-0388
'GRAVEL' TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT
MAXIMUM
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1112' 100
NO-4 50
NO. 200 8
SAND EQUIVALENT= MINIMUM OF 60
DESIGN FINISH SLOPE
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED
AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS.
EXTEND 12 INCHES BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE \ BY THE GEOTECHNICN.. ENGINEER
AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING
CONSTRUCTION.
BUTTRESS OR •. . :
' M
SIDEHILL FILL SJMO . T
I •I
ls'Prx 'c'.'DETAILW
...•. . . 4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD
. :.,. BY THE SOIL ENGINEER.
2'cl.EAR
'FILTER MATERIAL' TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA BID. PLAN 323)
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1' 100
314' 90-100
318 40-100
NO.4 25-40
NO.8 18-33
NO. so 5-15
NO. so 0.7 NO. 200 04
OUTLET PIPE TO BE con- rFILTER MATERIAL- MINIMUM OF FIVE
NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE
WITh TEE OR ELBOW __________
ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION.
ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL
I FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVE.
I PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED
V IN FiLlER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR
__________
GRAVEL SPECIFICATION.
I FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140
I OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES
i..ON ALL JOINTS.
- MINIMUM 44NCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDRSB WITH
A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS WITH AMINIMUM
DETAIL 'A' OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
END OFPIPE. SLOPE AT2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
NOTES:
I. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFIU.ED
WITH ON-SITE SOIL
H0TT08CE
1 1280 Noilh HenoockStsnet8idte 101
Analift ftiffiamle W PlATE I Phone:(714)777-0338 Fac (7141 .038
MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF MINIMUM ONE FOOT WIDE LAYER OF LOW PERMEABLIUlY SOIL IF NOT FREE DRAINING MATERIAL
COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE / (LESS THAN 6% PASSING THE 9200 SIEVE)
.. I PIL1ER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OFTWO
CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE
BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION.
ALTERNATIVE: IN UEU OF FILTER MATERIAL
. TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL
:. I PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED I IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE BELOW FOR
.. / GRAVEL SPECIFICATION.
/ FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 140
/ OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
.• / BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 0 INCHES
/ .ON ALL JOINTS.
I 2L- MINIMUM 44NCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ASS CLASS SDR 35 WITH I - A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1,000 POUNDS. WITH MINIMUM
, (Th OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
•
4
44
'FILTSR MATERIAL" TO NEST FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION "GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO EMA STD. Pg.AN 323) APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
MAXIMUM SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING in 100 1 I 100
3f4U 90-100 NO.4 60 318" 40400 NO.200 8
N0.4 26-40 SAND EQUIVALENT a MINIMUM OF 50 NO.8 18-33
NO. 30 5.16
NO. 60 0-7 NO. 200 04
I TAWIMt WAI I imArknomme -
Off TO8CALE J Southern california Geotechnical CRAWN: tM 1
I 1260 Noah Hanoodc Street, Sutte 101
Mthekii,mIe 02807 PIAIEGY Phone (714)7Th0333 Fe (1`14) 77T.0398
APPENDIX E
IFICSEISCOMPUTEH PROGRAM OUTPUT
5.0
* *
* U B C S E I S *
* *
* Version 1.03 *
* *
* ** *** * * ** ** ** ** **** ** *
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: 040243 DATE: 12-21-2004
OB NAME: St. Croix Lot 40 PA 5 Bressi Ranch
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGtJBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1291
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2647
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
tJBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: BLSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 36.2 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ROSE CANYON
DISTANCE: 11.4 lan
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME: 0000c00000mm0000mmom0000000
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED tJBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.0
NV: 1.0
Ca: 0.44
CV: 0.64
Ts: 0.582
To: 0.116
It CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are *
* limited in number and have been digitized from small- *
* scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, *
* the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by *
* several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that * * the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and *
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. *
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 1
APPROX.
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE
FAULT NAME I (km)
I -===-- ROSE CANYON 11.4
NEWPORT-IMGLEWOOD (Offshore) 15.6
ELSINORE-JULIAN 36.2
ELSINORE-TEMECULA, 36.2
CORONADO BANK 36.6
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 5•
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY f 63.9
PALOS VERDES 64.9
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 73.0
SAN JAC INTO-SAN JAC INTO VALLEY .75.3
SAN JAC INTO-COYOTE CREEK 79.3
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) . 81.0
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 81.5
BLSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN f 86.0
ELSINORE-WHITTIER 87.7
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 98.7
SAN JACINTO - DORREGO f 100.0
SAN ANDREAS - Southern 104.2
SAN JOSE 114.8
PINTO MOUNTAIN . 115.0
CUCAMONGA 118.3
SIERRA MADRE (Central) f 119.1
BURNT MTN. 122.8
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 125.0
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 125.9
EUREKA PEAK 127.2
CLIEGHORN 127.4
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 131.4
ELMORE RANCH 131.8
SUPERSTITION BILLS (San Jacinto) I 133•5
SAN ANDREA.S - 1857 Rupture 133.7
RAYMOND J 134.4
CLANSHELL-SAWPIT 134.5
ELS INORE -LAGUNA SALADA 136.4
VERDUGO 138.8
LANDERS 139.5
HOLLYWOOD I 142.1
HELENDALE - S. LOCI!ARDT 142.9
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 147.1
LENWOOD-LOCKEART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 148.3
SANTA MONICA 150.2
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 152.1
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 152.6
MALIBU COAST 154.9
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 159.7
IMPERIAL I 159.7
ISOURCE I MAX.
------------------------------------
( SLIP j FAULT
TYPE I NAG. f RATE I TYPE
(A,B,C)
I ===== I
(MW) I (mm/yr) (SSLFDS,BT)
B
=====
6.9
I =====
1.50
I
SS
B 6.9 1.50 SS
A 7.1 5.00 SS
B 6.8 J 5.00 SS
B J 7.4 3.00 SS
B ( 6.8 5.00 I SS
B 6.5 2.00 SS
B 7.1 j 3.00 ss
A 7.2 J 12.00 SS
B 6.9 12.00 SS
B 6.8 J 4.00 j SS
B 6.9 1.00 1 SS
B 6.7 J 1.00 DS
B 6.8 J 4.00 Ss
B 6.8 2.50 SS
B 6.7 12.00 SS
B 6.6 4.00 SS
A 7.4 24.00 SS
B 6.5 I 0.50 DS
B 7.0 I 2.50 SS
A • 7.0 5.00 DS
B 7.0 f 3.00 DS F
B 6.5 0.60 I SS
B 7.0 J 1.00 1 DS
B 6.6 5.00 1 SS
B 6.5 0.60 SS
B 6.5 3.00 I SS
B 6.7 0.50 I DS
B 6.6 I 1.00 55
B 6.6 4.00 I SS
A J 7.8 J 34.00 SS
B j 6.5 0.50 DS
B 6.5 0.50 DS
B 7.0 3.50 SS
B 6.7 I 0.50 DS
B , 7.3 I 0.60 I SS
B 6.5 j 1.00 1 DS
B 7.11 0.60 SS
B ( 6.5 25.00 , SS
B 7.3 0.60 SS
B 6.6 1.00 DS
B 6.9 0.60 I SS
B 6.7 0.60 I SS
B 6.7 0.30 DS
B 6.7 . 2.00 I DS
A I 7.0 I 20.00 I $5
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 2
APPROX. IS0URCE MAX. I SLIP FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE J TYPE NAG. RATE TYPE
FAULT NAME ()am) (A,B,C) (MW) (uun/yr) (SS DS, BT)
PISGAH-BULLION MTN. -MESQUITE LK 162.0 B 7.1 0.60 SS
SAN GABRIEL 162.5 B 7.0 1.00 SS
ANACAPA-DUME 163.7 B 7.3 3.00 DS
CALICO - HIDALGO 165.5 B 7.1 0.60 58
SANTA SUSANA 175.5 B J 6.6 5.00 DS
HOLSER 184.4 B 6.5 0.40 DS
S IMI -SANTA ROSA I 192.5 B 6.7 1.00 DS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore) J 193.1 B 6.9 4.00 DS
GRAVEL BILLS - HARPER LAKE 196.5 B 6.9 0.60 SS
SAN cAYETANO 201.4 B 6.8 6.00 DS
BLACKWATER 212.0 B 6.9 0.60 SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT 220.9 B 6.8 1.00 DS
SANTA YNEZ (East) 221.1 B J 7.0 2.00 SS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 230.4 B ( 6.8 1.00 1)8
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 231.5 B 6.7 0.40 1)8
RED MOUNTAIN 235.1 B 6.8 2.00 DS
OARLOCK (West) 236.2 A 7.1 6.00 55
1?LEITO THRUST 242.4 B 6.8 2.00 DS
131(3 PINE 248.4 B 6.7 0.80 SS
OARLOCK (East) 249.9 A 7.3 7.00 SS
WHITE WOLF 262.3 B 7.2 2.00 DS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND 265.3 B 6.9 1.00 1)5
SANTA YNEZ (West) 267.1 B 6.9 2.00 SS
So. SIERRA NEVADA 274.1 B 7.1 0.10 1)5
OWL LAKE 277.8 13 6.5 2.00 SS
PANAMINT VALLEY 278.1 B 7.2 2.50 I SS
LITTLE LAKE 278.2 B 6.7 0.70 SS
TANK CANYON 279.4 B 6.5 1.00 DS
DEATH VALLEY (South) 286.2 B 6.9 4.00 SS
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 309.6 B 6.8 0.70 DS
LIONS HEAD j 327.0 B 6.6 0.02 1)8
DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 328.1 B 6.9 4.00 DS
SAN LUIS RANGE (s. Margin) 336.5 B 7.0 0.20 1)5
SAN JUAN 336.8 B 7.0 1.00 SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 345.0 B 6.5 0.25 DS
OWENS VALLEY 347.0 B 7.6 1.50 SS
LOS 0805 366.5 B 6.8 01.50 1)5
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 372.6 B 7.0 2. 50 SS
HOSGRI 372.8 B 7.3 2.50 SS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 381.7 A 7.2 51.00 88.
INDEPENDENCE 382.8 B 6.9 0.20 DS
RINCONADA 387.2 B 7.3 1.00 58
]BIRCH CREEK 439.3 B 6.5 0.70 DS
SAN ANDREA.S (Creeping) 443.0 B I 5.0 34.00 88
WHITE MOUNTAINS 443.7 B 7.1 1.00 88
DEEP SPRINGS 462.0 B 6.6 0.80 DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROX. IS0URcE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE! TYPE I NAG. I RATE j TYPE
FAULT NAME (kin) (A,B,C)J (Mw) (mrn/yr) I(SS DS, BT)
DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 466.7 A j 7.0 I 5.00 SS
ROUND VALLEY (B. of S.N.Mtns.) 474.5 f B I 6.8 I 1.00 DS
FISH SLOUGH 482.1 f B 6.6 0.20 OS
HILTON CREEK 500.7 B 6.7 2.50 ) DS
HARTLEY SPRINGS 525.1 B 6.6 0.50 OS
ORTIGALITA 527.1 B 6.9 1.00 SS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 532.9 B 6.2 15.00 I SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 535.8 j B 7.1 0.50 DS
PALO COLORADO - SUR J 537.0 B i 7.0 3.00 SS
QUXEN SABE I 546.0 B J 6.5 1.00 SS
MONO LAKE 561.1 B 6.6 J 2.50 DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES 564.7 J B 6.8 0.10 SS
SARGENT - 569.9 B 6.8 3.00 SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906) I 569.9 A 7.9 24.00 SS
ROBINSON CREEK I 592.4 B 6.5 f 0.50 DS
SAN GREGORIO 611.2 A 7.3 5.00 SS
GREENVILLE 619.4 B I 6.9 2.00 I SS
HAYWARD (SE Extension) I 620.0 B 6.5 3.00 I SS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I 620.1 B 6.5 0.40 f DS
ANTELOPE VALLEY 632.8 B f 6.7 0.80 DS
HAYWARD (Total Length) I 639.7 A 7.1 9.00 J SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 639.7 B 6.8 I 6.00 SS
GENOA I 658.3 B 6.9 1 1.00 I DS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 687.3 B 6.9 J 6.00 SS
RODGERS CREEK 726.2 A 7.0 9.00 SS
WEST NAPA 727.0 B 6.5 I 1.00 SS
POINT REYES 745.3 B 6.8 0.30 OS
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I 749.3 B 6.9 6.00 SS
MAACANPi (South) I 788.9 B 6.9 I 9.00 SS
COLLAYOMI 805.7 J B 6.5 0.60 SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS 809.1 A 7.1 6.00 I SS
MACAMA (Central) 5. 830.5 5 A j 7.1 I 9.00 5 SS
MAACAMA (North) I 890.0 5 A 5 7.1 5 9.00 5 SS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 5 896.0 5 B 5 6.8 I 6.00 I SS
BATTLE CREEK 918.7 5 B 5 6.5 0.50 5 DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN 954.4 5 B 6.7 5 6.00 5 ss
C3ARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 971.6 5 B 5 6.9 5 9.00 $ ss
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1028.0 5 A 5 7.4 5 35.00 I DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 5 1034.5 5 A 5 7.0 5.00 I DS
MAD RIVER 5 1037.2 5 B 7.1 5 0.70 I DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE I 1041.8 5 A 8.3 I 35.00 5 OS
McKINLEYVILLE 5 1047.6 B 7.0 0.60 OS
TRINIDAD 1049.1 5 B 5 7.3 5 2.50 DS
FICKLE HILL 1049.6 B 6.9 5 0.60 J OS
TABLE BLUFF 1055.1 5 B 5 7.0 5 0.60 DS
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 5 1068.4 5 B 7.1 5 1.00 DS
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS ---------------------------
Page 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX.ISOURCE J MAX. SLIP FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCE1 TYPE I MAG. I RATE f TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I(A,B,C)I (Mw) (mm/yr) I(SSI DS, BT)
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE I 1086.0 B 7•3 I 0.50 DS