HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 06-25; ROBERTSON RANCH PA 21; REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 2008-11-24';1> •
REPORT OF aOU~H GFJAOING
PLANNING AREA.21 .
OF·ROBERTSOI"f.RANCtf, EA$TVllLAGI; :'
CARLSBAD; SAN' DIE;GO COUNTY, OALIFORNIA '
FOR
BROQKFIELD SAN DIEGO 'BUILDERS, iNC.
. 12865 POINTE OE.L MAR) SUr{E'2'op ....
sAN DIEGO •. cALi.~ORN.A ~2014'"
W.O. 535'3-B1-SC NOVEMBER 24, 2008
-----~~ . ' ..... _-.... _ ....... ~-~."-.. --.'''." .. , .. ~.-''''-' ... ''.~'.:' .....
RECBfVJm
FEB 1 7: 2009·
~NGINEE'RING'
DEPARTMENT
. . -'
", ;
.. , .. '~
610fo~&S .. ····
•
Geotechnical" Geologic (I Coastal ¢) EnVironmental -
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 ! FAX (760)931-0915
November 24, 2008
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
Del Mar, California 92014
Attention: Ms. Ter; McHugh
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
Subject: -Report of Rough Grading, Planning Area 21 of Robertson Ranch, Eflst Village
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Ms. McHugh:
This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services
provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the rough earthwork construction phase of
development associated with the development of Planning.Area 21 (PA-21) of Rdbertson
Ranch East Village, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Earthwork was
performed in conjunction with the grading of the larger Robertson Ranch East Village.
Earthwork commenced in April 2007, and was generally completed in July 2008.
PURPOSE OF EARTHWORK
The purpose of this phase of grading was to prepare building -pads and asso-ciated street
areas for the construction of apprOXimately 84 multi-family residential structures~ one
recreation area, and associated surface and subsurface improvements. Cut-and-tIJI
grading techniques were utilized to attain the desired graded configurations. Existing
colluvium (topsoil), alluvium, and weathered formational material were removed to-suitable
earth material (as defined in the approved report for this portion of the project tract), and
either exported from the site or recompacted as fill. Rough grading is generally completed
throughout PA-21.
The approximate limits of grading under the purview of this report are shown on the
Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 through 4}, which use the 20~scale grading plan for this
project, prepared by O'Day Consultants (O'Day, 2007). as a base.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
Subsurface geologic conditions exposed during the process of rough grading were
observed by a representative of GSI. Prior to grading, earth materials onsrte consisted of
4_ • "--" '''----"" .. """ ...... " ...... ""--....... ,, ... "
surficial deposits of colluvium (topsoil), and -alluyium, underlain by terrace deposits
(considered bedrock), orformational.sediments belonging to the Santiago Formation (also
considered bedrock). The subsurface conditions exposed were generally-as. anticipated
per our approved geotechnical report (GSI, 2007b). Perimeter grading, along the· south
side of PA~21, as indicated on Plates 1 through 4, was performed prior to this phase of
earthwork with geotechnical observation and testing services provided by GSI (2006e and
2007a). Grading of PA-21 was completed at the same time as grading of' the larger
Robertson Ranch East Village project, to the west, north, and east, of PA-21.
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
As observed onsite, the bedding structure observed within terrace ,deposits is generally
thickly bedded and subMhorizontal. Bedding structure was not well developed within the
thickly-bedded Santiago Formation, but generally dips on the order of 5 to 10 degrees to
the northwest, based on mapping in the vicinity and a review of GSI (2004 and 2007b).
GROUNDWATER
Naturally occurring perched groundwater was encountered during rough grading at depths
generally less than 10 feet below the pre-construction grades, or approximately 40 to
45 feet below as-graded pads, near the former bedrock/alluvium contact. Whete feasible,
suborains were constructed, as discussed herein. Regional groundwater should not
significantly affecUhe performance ofthe fill, provided that prudent surface and subsurface
drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans.
Perched groundwater conditions may develop in the future duett> rainfall, excess irrigation,
homeowner altered drainage, or damaged utilities, and should be antiCipated along cuVfill
contacts or areas within compacted fill with contrasting permeabilities. Should
manifestations of perched conditions (Le., seepage, develop in the. future), this office
should assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary. A
discussion of subdrainage constructed during grading is presented in a later section ofthfs
report.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
Earthwork operations have been completed in general aqcordance With the City .grading
ordinance, approved recommendations provided by GSI (see the Appendjx)~ and the
guidelines provided in the field by this office. Observations cfuring grading included
removals, excavation, aod fill placement, along with general grading procedures of
compacted fills by the contractor. Table 1 presents a summary of compaction test results.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1 .. ror.pa21
W.O,5353-B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 2
•
Rough Grading
Preparation of Existing Ground
1. Deleterious material, such as concentrated organic matter and miscellaneous
debris, were stripped from the surface and disposed of beyond the limits of grading
for the subject area, prior to plaCing any fill.
2. Loose surficial materia.ls (I.e., eXisting topsoils, colll:lVium, alluvium, <=tnd unsuitable
formational soils), were removed to expose suitable bearing soils, as defined in the
approved report for the site.
3. Lots containing cut/fill transitions, Jots containing non-uniforrrt·rtative:s·oil conditions,
and lots exposing terrace deposits'or bedrock near finish grade, were undercut per
the approved report. In general, undercL!ts were completed to depths n.o less than
3 feel across a given lot, andjorto minimum depths no less,than about one-third the
maximum fill depth across any given lot (Le., to create a minimum to maxijTIum fill
thickness ratio of 1:3). Approximate as-builtfifl depths are indicated in Table 2.
4. Subsequent to completing removals, areas to receiVe compacted .fill :Were scarified,
moisture conditioned, and then compactectto attain arninimUtn telative.compactio~
of 90 percent (ASTM 0 1557). These areas were then broughtto grade with fill
compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, based on field
observations.
5. All processing of original ground in areas to receive fill, shown on Plates 1
through 4, was observed by a represeFltative 'of GSI. Plates 1 through 4 utilize the
20-scale grading plans prepared by Q'Day (2007), asci. base map.
Fill Placement
Fill consisted of onsite and import materials which were placed in thin lifts, approximately
4 to 8 inches in thickness, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted
to attain a minimum 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM 1557. Approxirnateas-built
fill depths are shown in Table 2 .. The presence of scattered rock fragments, Or:! ·theorder
of 12 inches in size, more or less, cannot be precluded from occurring within any ofthe fills
onsite. Compaction test results for fills are presented in the ,attached Table 1.
Fill containing rock fragments up to approximately 24 inches in size, mote or I.ess, Wefe
placed at depth, below about 5 to 10 feet, per the qpproved report (GSI, 2007bl, in the
general Vicinity of Lots 13 through 52. Where fills· contained a,.significant amol,lnt of rock,
precluding testing in accordance with ASTM D 1556, D 2922; and D S017,·a '-'method oolt
(Nichols, 1976) technique was employed in conjunction with areas where testing, using the
procedures described above, could be performed. In these areas, the.material was spread
Brookfield San Diego BuUders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b 1.ror.pa21
W.O_5353-B1-SC
November 24,2008
Page 3
• •.......... ~ .......... --........ _, .. , ''''', ..... "" '-'
out in lifts on the order of 1 to 2 feet thick, mixed with sandy materIals, flooded with water,
and rolled with fully loaded, heavy rock trucks, Rolling was completed until further
movement ofthe material was not observed. Once an'areas Was cQmpacted, test pits-were
completed to evaluate moisture content and the presence of void spaces. Where aQverse
conditions were observed, these areaswere re-excavated and replaced with asWitablesoil
rock mixture untif satisfactory. Oversize material was placed in .generaf accordance with
recommendations presented in the approved report (G81, 2007b), and placed no closer
than approximately 5 to 10 feet from finish grade. Nonetheless, shallow excavation may
encounter oversize materials.
Slopes
Graded Slopes
Graded slopes constructed under the purview of this report are generally on tfJe order of
10 to 20 f?et in height, or less, and should typically perform satisfaetorily' with respect to
gross and surficial stability under normal conditions of care, maintenance, and rainfall
(semi-arid). Fill slopes, constructed under the purview of this report, were provided with'
a basal bench, or keyway, excavated into suitable earth material in 'general accordance
with the approved GSI recommendations (see References [AppendixAJ). Cut sJopeswere
not constructed during this phase of grading.
Temporary Slopes
Any proposed/future temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a gradient of
1:1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]), or flatter, in comp<;:lctedfill (provided adverse.condi.tionsare
not present, as evaluated by GSI prior to workers entering trenches), provided seepage
or groundwater is not present. Utility trenches may be excavated in accordance with
guidelines presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations for Excavation,
Trenches, and Earthwork, with respect to ''TyPe B" soil (compacted fill) •. again provided
seepage or groundwater is not present Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil
should not be stored within 'H' from the top o'f any temporary slbpe, where '1-1' is the height
of the slope, in feet. Temporary/permanent proVisions should be made to direct any
potential runoff away from the top of temporary slopes.
Natural Slopes
Natural slopes are not present within P-A-21.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch. EastVillage
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-81-SC
Novemb~r 24, 2008
Page 4
•
Subdrainage
A canyon subdrain system, constructed in general accordance with the approved report
(GSl, 2007b) and GSlfield recommendations, was placed within apre-existing canyon area
in Planning Area 18 (north of PA-21) and continues into PA-21 j in the general vieihity-of
Building Pads 25, 29,30,32,33,37, and 38 (see Plate 1). Thesubdrain system ultimately
is connected to the storm drain system near Cannon Road.
Field Testing
1. Field density tests were performed using the sanq-cone method (ASTM D 1556) and
nuclear (densometer) method (ASTM D 2922 and D 3017). Tests taken for the
Robertson Ranch project were taken in consecutive numerieal order. However, only
tests within the subject site, under the purview of this report, are presented in
Table 1 at the end of the text, therefore test sequencing may be periodioally
non-consecutive, but consistent with the testing on the tract as a whole. The
approximate locations of field density tests are shown on the Geotechnical Maps
(Plates 1 through 4)., which utilize the 20-scafe grading plans, prepared by O'Day
(2007). as a base map. .
2. ReId density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check
the compactive effort provided by the contractor. Rock 'corrections were applied
during testing of fill with significant rock fragments, as appropriate. Based em the
operations observed, test results presented herein ate generally considered
representative of the fills observed under the purview of this report.
3. Visual classification of the soils in the field, as well as random laboratory testing,
was the basis for determining which maximum dry density value-to use fora given
density test.
4. Testing and observations were performed on a fu/l time basis.
LABORATORY TESTING
Moisture-Density Relations
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each major soil
type occurring within PA-21 was determined in general accordance with test methoq
ASTM D 1557. Non-consecutive lettering indicated in the following table is a result of soil
types being part of the soil type sequence for the larger Robertson Ranch development.
The following table presents the test results:
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, EastViHage
File:e:\wp9\530D\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-81-SC
November 24. 2008
PageS
• ••
1-3:0
10.0
12S.0 1 .0
8.0
121.0 12.5
123.0
1'27.0
1'1.0
9.0
ExPansion Index
Expansion Index (EJ.) tests were performed for the representative foundation -soil types
exposed near finish grade in general accordance with ASTM D 4829 in groups of three to
four pads, or ifthere was a significant change in expansive character. An E.!. test s!Jrnmary
is pres~nted in Table 2, at the end of this report.
Atterberg Limits
Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the Atterberg Limits (liquid limit, plastic limit.
and plasticity index) in general accordance with ASTM D 431.8. for representative ~oils
exposed near finish grade that exhibited an E.!. greater than 20 or had high fines
(-200 sieve) content. The results of Atterberg Limit testing are presented in Table 2.
Corrosion Analysis
Representative samples of the site materials bas been analyzed for sol~ble sulfates, soil
pH, and saturated resistivity by Schiff Associates, Inc. (Corrosion Consultants). Sased
upon the laboratory testing, the majority of site soils are considered to be m~gligible
(sulfate class SO, American Concrete Institute [ACI] 318-08) with respect to water soluble
sulfate exposure to concrete. This classification is in accordance with Tables 4.2.1 and
4.3.1 of ACI 318-08 (California Building Code [CBC] , Oalifornia Building Standards
BroQkfield San Diego BUilders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
'File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
November 24, 2008
PageS
Commission [CSSC} , 2007). Soils are relatively neutral with respectto soil acidity/alkalinity
(pH = 7.4 [Romanoff, 1957]), and are very corrosive to exposed ferrous metals in a
saturated state (saturated resistivity < 1 ,DOD ohm-cm). The chloride ion content in soil for
the lots was also noted to be below action levels per Caltrans (1999)' (Le." <300 ppm). It
is our understanding that standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel is usuaUy
appropriate for these conditions; however, a corrosion engineer should be consulted 10
provide specific recommendations regarding foundations and buried piping, etc. A
summary of the results of the soil sulfate evaluation are presented in Table 2.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or
any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are
made, the conclusions and recommendatic;ms contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are
modified or approved in writing by this office. The conclusions and recommendations
presented in GSI (2007b) are generally considered valid and applicable unless specific;ally
superceded in the text of this report. Recommendations for conventional and
post-tensioned foundation systems are provided in the foilowingsections. .
RECOMMENDATIONS -CONVENII9NAL FOUNDATIONS
General
The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing
and engifleering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSf. The foundation systems maY
be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in comp~tent
bearing material (Le., founded entirely in compacted fiU or rippable bedrock), 'with no
exposed transitions. Conventional foundations may be usedfor very lowtb loW expansive
soil subgrades, where the soils plasticity index (P.L) is 15; or less. For low to meqium
expansive soil conditions where the P./. is greater than 15, conventional foundations may
be used, provided thatthey are designed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Section 1805A,8)
of the GSC (CSSC, 2007). When soils have an E.1. >21 and PJ. >1'5, this implies-that the
Code may require the use of more onerous foundations (Le., post-tension, mat, etc.).
The information and recommendations presented in this section are minimums and not
meant to supercede design(s) by the project structural engineer. Upon request; GSI could
provide additional information/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to
foundation design.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-S'1-SC
November 24. 2008
Page?
•
As-Built Conditions
As-built soil conditions to be minimally considered in foundation design and construction
are presented in Table 2 of this report.
Foundation Design
Based on the as-graded conditions, the minimum geotechnical recommendations for
foundation design and construction are presented below.
Bearing Value
1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance With
guidelines presented in the latest edition of the CBC (CSSe, 2007).
2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) may be used for
the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches de~p, and
isolated column footings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep. conne~ted
by a grade beam back to the main foundation in at least one direction. The bearing
surface is assumed to be approved compacted fill, placed as part of the overaJi site
grading. This value may be increased by 20 percent for .each additional 12 inches
in depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf. No increase in bearing value is recommended
for increased footing width. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by
one-third under the effects of temporary loading, such as seismic or wind loads.
Lateral Pressure
1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to compacted fill soil contact when multiplied by the dead load~
2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivaJentfluid having a density of
250 pounds per cubic foot (pct) with a maximum 'lateral earth pressure of 2,500 pst.
3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third and the previously noted maximum
lateral earth pressure applied.
Differential Settlement
All foundation systems (conventional and post tension) should be designed to minimally
accommodate a differential settlement of at reast 1 inch in .a 40-foot span. This includes
long-term static as well as dynamic effects.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, fnc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353b 1,ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
November 24. 2008
Page 8
e--·" .. ·" ........ _,,· ... ·-"",,--""'" ---"""-.... ". " ......
Seismic Shaking Parameters
The table below summaries the site-specific design criteria obtained per the 2007 CSC.
We used the computer program Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response
Spectra, provided by the U.S.G.S. The short spectral response uses a period of
0:2 seconds.
Site Class D Table 1613.5.2
Spectral Response -(0.2 sec), Ss 1.15g Figure 1613.5(3)
Spectral Response -(1 sec) S, O.44g Figure 1613.5(4)
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.04 Table 1613:5.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.56 Table, 161 3.5.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.20g Section 1613..5.3
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec) SMS (Eqn 16-37)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.68g Section 1613.5;3
Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral 0.79g Section 1613.5.4
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), Sos (Eqn 16-~~)
5% Damped Design Spectral 0.46g
Res onse Acceleration 1 sec S
A probabilistic peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHSA), of 0.28 g Was evaluated forthis
site (GSI, 2007b). This value was chosen as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of
exceed~nce in 50 years (or a 475-year return period).
Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does n6t constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur
in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not
to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Construction
The following 'foundation construction recommendations are. presented as a minimum
criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. Recommendations by the project's
design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's
recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements.
Minimal conventional foundation recommendations are presented in the'following Table A,
'followed by an explanation of the "Foundation Category," and other minimal criteria.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
Rle:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.o. 5353-81-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 9
II 1Z"Widex 4"Thick 2-No_4Bars No.3 Bars@18' 2" Sand Qver 10/1S-Mil 6" x 6" S"xo'
18" Deep Top & Bottom O.c. Both Directions vapor retarder Over 2' (6/6)~,or 10xl0'WWF
Sand Base (15·mil for No. 3' Bars @ 18"
medium expansive 0.0 Both Direct!ons
soils only) for Low
III 12" Wide x S"Thick 2-No. SSars No.3 Bars @lan 2' Sana Over 15-Mll Same as 6"xS'
24"Deep Top & Bottom O.c. Both Directions vapor retarder Qvar 3" Interior Slab {6/6>.WWF
Sand Base (hIghly
ex ansive soils ani
Calcgo!:£ Criteria
Category I; Max, FiIfThiclmess is less than 20' and EI. Is lesslhan, or equal to, SO (p.I. <15) and Differential Fill Thickness Is less then 10' '(~ee Note 1).
Catogory II: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 30' or E.I. is less than, or equal to, 90 Q!: Differential Fill Thickness is between 10 and 20' (see Note 1).
Presoaking required.
Category III: Max. Fill Thioknelis exceeds 30', Q[ E.!. exceeds 90 but is less-than 130, Q[ Differential Fill Thickness 8XQeeds-20' (see Note 1).
Presoaking required.
Notes: 1. Conventional foundations shall also be designed per Section laOSA.B, Chapter 18 of the cae (CSSC, 2007) where 1he P.I.is 15,
or greater.
2. Post-tonsion-foundations are required where maximum till exceeds 30', or-the rallo of the maximum fill thickness to tIie-minimum
ftllthickness exceeds 3:1, or where the E.I_ exceeds 90, or in areas underlain with alluvial 501liell In place: Differential wtller:nents
discussed in the body of the report shOUld be incorporated into foundation design by the structural engineer/slab designer.
3. Fooling depth measured from lowest adjacent compacted/suitable subgrade.
4. The allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 pst.
5. Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a!!!i!:!l!m!m compressive strength of 2,500 psi at 28 days. The maximum slumpshaJl be
5 inches. The water/cement ratio of concrete shan not be more than 0.5 for solfs with an E.!. '>00.
6. The vapor retarder is not required under garage Slabs. However, consideration shOUld be given IOJuture uses of the slab area; such
as room conversion and/or storage of moisture-sensitive materials and discf9sure. All -vapor retarders shoUld be placed-in
ac:cordance with ASTM E 1643, and Ihe CSC (CSSC, 2007).
7. Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer's recommeitdations (see report).
8. Sand used for base under slabs shall be a 'clean" granular material. ahd have SE >30. "Pea' gravel may be substltuteq for the
basal sand layer In order to Improve 'Water transmission mitfgation.
9. Additional exterior ffatwork recommendations are presented in the text oHhls report.
10. All slabs shOUld be provided with weakened plane join1s to contrQl cracking. Joint-spacing should be In accordance with correct
industry standardS and reviewed by the project structural engineer.
11. Pre-wetting Is recommended for all soil' conditions as follows: very low to low expansive (at least optimum mojS1ure.cont~nttl?a
depth of 18 inC'.hf'.s, medium expansive (at/east 2-3% over optimum to adepth of 18 Inches), hlghlyto very highly expansive (at [east
4-5% over optimum to a depth of 24 inches).
POST-TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN
Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed building,
Based on the as-built soil conditions, post-tenSioned slabs may be designed for low to
highly expansive soil conditions, as indicated below.
General
The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to
supercede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with
post-tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI
could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters as related to
post~tensioned slab design during grading. The post-tensioned slabs should pe designed
in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method (3rd Edition). Alternatives
to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed whiCh
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch. East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 535S-B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page lO
accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlement noted forthis
site.
Preliminary Foundation Design
Based on the as-built graded conditions within the subject lots, the following table In
general accordance with the CBC (CBSe, 2007) presents foundation design. parameters
for post-tensioned slab foundations relative to a specific range of soil expansion potential.
Settlement criteria is provided in a previous section of this report, and GSI (2007b).
em center lift 9.0 feet 8.7 feet 8.5 feet
em edge lift 5.2 feet 4.5 feet . feet
Ym center lift 0.30 inches 0.49 inches 0.66 inches
Ym edge lift 0.7 inch 1.3 inch 1.7 inches
Bearing Value (1l 1,000 psf 1,000 pst 1,OOO'psf .
Lateral Pressure 250 psf 250 pSf 250psf
Subgrade Modulus (k) 100 pci/inch 85 pci/inch 70
Foundation Category Category I PT Category II PT Category III·PT
per GSI (2007b)
Minimum Perimeter 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches
Footing Embedment (2)
Intemal bearing values in the ofthe post·tension slab may 2,OOO·ps{for a
embedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 3,000 pst.
(2) As measured below the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface.
Subgrade Preparation
The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum
laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgragesoils should be
moisture conditioned in accordance with the following discussion. Should the property sit
unimproved for a period of 12 months, or longer, remedial treatment of the building pads,
including, but not limited to scarification, and removal/recompaction, cannot be precluded
and should be antiCipated. An updated geotechnical document in accordance with Cjty
requirements shall be provided if the site is allowed to sit fallow.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\Wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
November24,2008
Page 11
· .. -e .. · .. · .. -....... _ .. _ ........ _--.................. '"
Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting
From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, afairfy common contributing factor to distress
of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content
of solis underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "cUshing"
or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of-soil
pre-wetting and construction of a perimeter cut-off wall (minimum 12 inches deep) grade
beam/typical footing should be employed.
Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize
non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside' source) beneath the slab.
Embedment depths are presented in Table B. The bottom ofthe deepened footing/edge
should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural
engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation
recommendations in the referenced report should be adhered to during the design and
construction phase of the project.
Floor slab subgrade should be treated in accordance with criteria presented in Table A,
Note 11. Pre-wetting of the slab subgrade soil priorto placement or-steel and concrete wili
likely be recommended and necessary, in order to achieve optimum rnoisture conditions.
Soil moisture contents should be evaluated at least 72 hours prior to pouring concrete.
If pre-wetting of the slab subgrade is completed prior to footing excavation, the pad area
may require period wetting in order to keep to soil from drying out. The level of moisture
needed will be dependant on the length of elapsed time petween the date of the pad(s)
completion and the day of foundation/final improvem~nts.
MITIGATION OF WATER VAPOR TRANSMISSION
The following methodologies for vapor transmission mitigation are provided below with
respect to the Robertson Ranch, East Village Project, are also presented in Table A, Tbe-
following minimum guidelines have been developed in accordance with the expansive
character of the building pad subgrade within about 7 feet of finish grade.
Very Low to Low Emansive Soils
For floor slabs bearing on very low to low expansive soil subgrades. (E.I. of 50, or less). the
floor slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand, over a 10-mil polyvinyl membrane
(vapor retarder), over a 2-inch sand base. Sand used should hi;'lve a minimum sand
equivalent of 30. The minimum concrete compressive strength' $h0Uld be 2,500 psi.
(upgraded from the prior recommendations [GSI, 2004J), and constructed in accordance
with ACI302.1R-04. The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 1745 -Class A
or B criteria, and be installed in accordance with ACf 302.1 R-04 (ASTM 1643), ahd"the CSc.
(CBSC, 2007).
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
w. 0,. 5353~B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Pagei2
e· .. -'" _."", .. " .. . .. " "-,, ..
Medium to Highly Expansive Soils
For floor slabs bearing on medium expansive soil subgrades (EI. betweet151 and 90). the
slab should be underlain with 2 inches of sand (SE >30), over a 15-mil vapor retarder,
over a minimum 2-inch sand (SE >30) base. The minimum concrete compressiVe
strength should be at least 2,500 psi. The vapor retarder should comply with the
ASTM E 1745 -Class A or B criteria, and be installed in accordance with ACI 302.1 R.,04
(ASTM 1643). A 2-inch layer of "pea" gravel may be sUbstituted for the sand layer used
beneath the vapor retarder jf it is desired to further mitigate water/watervaportransmission.
A 3-inch layer of "pea" gravel or clean coarse sand is required for highly expansive soils,
if present.
.Other Considerations
Regardless of the soils expansion potential, an addition·al improvement to· moisture
protection would be to extend the vapor retarder/membrane beneath all foundation
elements and grade beams. In addition, because it has been shown that the, lateral
migration of water from foundation edges may contribute signifiq;tntly to excess moisture
transmission, the vapor retarder/membrane could extend slightly above soils grade'arouno
the slab/foundation perimeter and the exposed foundation face Gould be p~inted with a
latex sealer prior to color coat. Recognizing that these measures go b~yond the current
standard of care, we recommend that the developer evaluate the construction issues and
costs associated with the additional measures above and determine the feasibility of
implementing them.
While ~hese methods are considered to be overall improvements to the existing
recommendations for this project (GSI, 2.004 and 20D7b). they wi(! only minimize, the
transmission of water vapor through the slab, and may not completely mitigate it. Floor
slab sealants may also be used for a particular flooring product, "if necessary. The use of
concrete additives that reduce the overall permeability (water reducers) of the concrete
may also be considered. Generally, slab moisture emission rates range from abo Lit 2 to
27 Ibs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a typical slab (Kanare~ 2005), while typical floor
covering manufacturers recommend about 3 Ibs/24 hours as an upper limit. Accordingly;
floor coverings and improvements that can tolerate these anticipated rates should be
considered by the developer/owner.
SETBACKS
All settlement-sensitive improvements should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of
H/3 (H =slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face of no less
than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the
improvement or footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings adjacent to unlroed
drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below-the invert of the
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File;e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
w.o. 5353-B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 13
adjacent unlined swale. Footings 'lor structures adjacent to retaining walls should be
deepened so as to extend below a 1: 1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively,
walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from-buildings or appurtenances,
as described in the retaining wall section of this report.
SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY
Based on our testing and experience in the vicinity, the majority of site soils are antiGipated
to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete per Table 4.2.1 and 4.3.1 of ACI318-08;
and the 2007 CBC (see Table 2). Site soils are a.lso anticipated to be very corrosive to·
buried metal. This level of corrosion was evaluated by saturated resistivitytest{s). As such,
the amount of soil will influence the variation in soil corrosivity to exposed/buried metal
improvements. Consultation with a corrosion engineer is recommended, bythedesigner,
and/or developer.
WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Conventional Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the eBC (CBSC,2007). Tne
design parameters provided below assume that either non-expansive soils (Class 2
permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or natIve materials (up to and
including an EJ. of 50) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e.,
select or native), should be specified by the wall deSigner, and clearly shown on the plans.
Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed. The foundation system for the
proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations
presented in this and preceding sections of this report regarding.conventional foundation
design, as appropriate. The bottom of footings should be embedded a minimum of
18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and .sl:lould bE:!
24 inches in width. There should be no increase if) bearing for footing width.
Recommendations for specialty walls (Le., crib, earthstone, geogrid,.etc.) can be provided
upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Based on the as-built
condition ofthe pad, and the current site development plan (O'Day, 2007, revised 2008),
several cut/fill transitions will likely occur within the influence of planned walls.
Recommendations for the treatment of transitions are presented in a later section of this
report.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfifl material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressure (EFP) of 100 pcf (native soil) or 60 pcf (select), plus any applicable surchargl?
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-$.C
November 24, 2008
Page 14
loading, per Table 1610.1 of the CBC (CSSC, 2007) for USeS soil classification SM~SC.
For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained Waif design should extend' a
minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner.
Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet
high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in Fieight may be super.ceded by City
and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wail
design, provided the top ofthe wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent
fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure againstthe Wall.
Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of ~he retained
material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic,
structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are
finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimpose.d loads can be provided,upon
request. Traffic load surcharges should be applied withil1 a distance 'H' in feet behind the
wall, where 'H' is the height of the wall. Earthquake loads need only be applied for walls
that are 6 feet or more of retained earth and/or will .impede access to, and from,
re$idences. or the project site.
* level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained,
,without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall.
** SE >30 and <10 percent passing No. 200 sieve.
*** E/' <50, SE >20, and PI <15.
Values minimall conform to Table 1610.1 of the CSC csse 200l
Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage
Positive drainage must be provided behind all retainingwalls in the form of gravel wrapped
in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls
that are 2 feet or greater in height. Sackdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter
perforated PVC or ASS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or %-inch
to %-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or 'equivalent). For low
expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot benind
the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot For native backfill that has up to medium
expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials, or %.;inch to %-inch
gravefwrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140, or equivalent) should be used behind
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wpD\5300\5353b1.fOr.pa21
w.o. 5353~B1..sC
November 24, 2008
PEig915
e----.---.--,-.. ~. . --'-'-........ ... .-.. '" ..... . ..
the wall as backfill within the active zone, defined as the area above. a 1:1 projection up
. from the base ofthe wall stem. This material should be continuous (Le., full height) behind
the wall. The surface of the backfiU should be sealed by pavement or the top 18-inches
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. For limited access and
confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed. Materials with an
EJ. potential of greater than 65 should not be used .as backfill for ret~jning walls,
regardless ofthe criteria for backfill summarized in the precedingtabre. Any wall drainage
plan should be reviewed by this office for approval prior to construction. Wan back:ftll
should be made by relatively light equipment. The contractor should avoid stockpiling
earth or any building material within 2H of newly completed/backfilled walls, where H is the
height of the wall, in feet.
Weeping of the wans in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than
2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet, or less, in height, weepholes should pe no greater than
6 'feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. Outlets
should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ASS pipe spaced no greater than
± 100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The uSe of only we~p
holes in walls higher than 2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the' backfiiJ
should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil.(EI. <$0).
Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, considen:ition
should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retainingstruttures.
The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry jOints. Proper
surface drainage should also be provided in order to reduce the potential for surface· water
penetration.
Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions
Site walls are antiCipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition ·from cut to fill, the civil
designer may specify either:
a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials 'for a
distance of 2H, from the point of transition.
b) Increase ofthe amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i~e., expansion joints
or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1./360 for a distance of 2H
on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expan$ion joints should be
placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural
engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or nottransition
conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink groUt.
c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (Le., deepened
footings).
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O_5353-B1~SC
November 24, 2008
Page 16
If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than
45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and
until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. The presence of
transitions beneath planned improvements with result in an elevated potential for distress
to the particular improvement, unless the recommendations presented above are
implemented.
TOP~OF-SlOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS
Due to the potential for slope creep (see the "Development Criteria" sect jon for a
discussion) for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tiltin!:jJ of the
walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be.expected. To mitigate the tilting
of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constn:.tcted on
deepened foundations without any consideration 'for creep forces, where the expansion
index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, ill a
combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than
50, comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account. Recommendations for
grade beam and caisson foundations can be provided upon request. Deepened
foundations should minimally provide for a lateral distance of 7 feet from the outside
bottom edge of the footing to the face· of slope and provide enough lateral resistance for
creep forces.
DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typicaUy occur over the lifetime of any
improvements. On relatively level areas, when the sOils'are alloWed to dry, the dessication
and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other
improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but
not totally eliminated. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations
are presented for all exterior fiatwork: .
1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve aminimum
90 percent relative compaction. If very low to low expansive soils are prE?sent, only
optimum moisture content, or greater, is required .and specific presoaking .is not
warranted. For medium, or higher expansive soils, the Sl1pgrade should be
presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum
moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches below subgrade elevation. The moisture
content of the subgrade should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant Within
72 hours prior to pouring concrete.
2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch
layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
November 24. 2008
Page 17
........ · ...... e-.............. _. -.-.. . ............. -_. . .... .. .. ..
prior to pouring concrete. If very low to low expansive soils are present, the rock
or gravel or sand is not required. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down
completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture· to the
surrounding earth materials. Cut/fill transitions should be mitigated beneath any
settlement sensitive improvement. The adverse effect~ of transitions may b .. e
mitigated by undercutting the cut portion of the transition at least 2' feet below the
grade, and replacing with compacted fill.
3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. When driveways are placed
over rock, gravel or clean sand, driveway slabs and approaches should addition~lIy
have a thickened edge which isolates the bedding material from any adjacent
landscape area, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab.
4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommendea to help'
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to
mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel,
increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate .amount of
control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage
and expansion.
In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, exterior slabs may be
reinforced as indicated in Table A. The exterior slabs'shoiJld be scored or saw 'cut,
to a minimum depth ofT/4, where "T" is the thickness of the slabs in inches. Saw
cuts should be provided often enough so that no section is greater than 1 0 feet by
1 0 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at Intervals
of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks
with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material.
5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured-concrete slabs until theyhave.
been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compressibh
strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi.
6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to a structure should be separated
from the structure with expansion/shrinkage joint filler material. In areas directly
adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (Le., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints
should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic.
7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the structure.
8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs" or structurally aesigned
with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion sqils
are present, footings need only be tied in one direction.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 18
e -" • _Un_"'''' ••• ,..... ••• n , ... ,m, .. " .. , ___ ... ". "" •• _ I
9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property
should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These
segments should be keyed or doweled together.
10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible
connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions.
11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the pads
shouJdprovide for an adequate fall to the street, per the design civilenginf)er. It
should be kept in-mind that drainage reversals could occur, including
post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients ar:e not
periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association.
12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are, incorporated into
the building foundation, or constructed on an isolated rigid slab with flexible
couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. Ale waste water lines shollld be
drained to a suitable outlet.
13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices
are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be perforrneQ per the
Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of
curing 'for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of
soils, and fertilizers used on site. If spray on typical curing is employed, apply as
soon as possible after finishing. Use Hunt's curing compound, or equivalent.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
Preliminary pavement section design was performed in general accordance with the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual of Instructions
(2006), traffic index data provided by the project civil eflgiheer, 'and the-miIiirnum sections
per the City. Pavement sections are based on the aforementioned criteria, the City of
Carlsbad (1993) design criteria, and the resistance R-value data estimated for the ar:ea.
Parking Lot Stalls/CUi De Sac/
Low Traffic Private Streets
4.5 9
Private Streets 5.0 9
1(1) Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base "R";;:78, SE >25).
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
4;0
4.0
5.0
7.0
W.o. 5353_~81-St
November 24, 2068
Page 19
· ....... -e········· -._-_.. . ...................... .
Final pavement sections shall be based on site specific R-value testing upon completion
of underground improvements. All pavement construction should be performed in
accordance with the currently approved. and applicable specifications, and the standard
ot practice. Best management construction practices should be followed at all times,
especially during inclement weather. Due to the relatively low R-value(s) of the soil
samples obtained from finished subgrade, GSI recommends that drainage of the subgracle
and provisions for irrigation and other water should not be ·allowed to penetrate street
subgrades. GSI will assist the civil designer to reduce this potential.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
§(ope Deformation
General
Compacted fill slopes, designed using customary factors of safety for gross or surficial
stability, and constructed in general accordance with the design speCifications, should be
expected to undergo some differential vertical heave, or settlement, in combination
with differential lateral movement in the out-ot-slope direction, after grading. This
post-construction movement occurs in two forms: slope creep; and, lateral fill extension
(LFE).
Slope Creep
Slope creep is caused by alternate wetting and drying ofthe fill soils:which results in slow
downslope movement. This type of movement is expected to occur throughol/t the life of
the slope, and is anticipated to potentially affect improvements or structures (i,~.,
separations and/or cracking), placed near the top-of-slope, generally within a horizontal
distance o.f approximately 15 feet, measured from the outer, deepest (bottom outSide)
edge of the improvement, to the face of slope. The actual width of the zone affected is
generally dependant upon: 1} the height ofthe slope; 2) the amount o.firrigatiQn/rainfall the
slope receives; and, 3) the type of materials comprising the slope. This movement
generally results in rotation and differential settlement of improvements lOcated within the
cr.eep zene.
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential fer distress due to lateral deformatien
typically include: setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the 2007 CBC);
positive structural separations Q.e., joints) between improvements; and, stiffening and
deepening of foundations. Per Section 1805.3.1 of the 2007 CSC, a ho.rizontal'setback
(measured 'from the slope face to. the outside bottom edge of the building footing) of H/3
is provided for structures, where H is the height of the fill slope in feet, and H/3 (to be
minimally 7 feet), need not be greater than 40 feet. Alternatively, in consideration of the
discussion presented above, stte conditions and Section 1805.3.1 of the 2007 eBC,. H/3
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353··B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 20
generally need not be greater than 20 feet for the development. As an alternative to a
deepened footing, where the adjacent slope is greater than 45 feet in height arid the
building/footing is within 20 feet from the slope face, a differential settlement of 0.5 inch
(additional) may be applied to the design of that portion of the structlJre(s). Any
settlement-sensitive improvements (Le., walls ,spas, flatwork, etc.) should minimally
consider the above.
lateral Fill Extension (LFE)
LFE occurs due to deep wetting from irrigation and rainfall on slopes comprised .of
expansive materials. Based on the generally very low expansive character of onsite soils,
the potential component of slope deformation due to LFE is considered minor; but may not
be totally precluded. Although some movement should be expected, rang-term movement
from this source may be minimized, but not eliminated, by generairy placing the fill
throughout the slope region, wet of the fill's optimum moisture content, as was done on
this project.
Summary
It is generally not practical to attempt to eliminate the effE?cts of either slope creep or LFE
Suitable mitigative measures to reduce the potential of laten:l.I deformation typically include:
setback of improvements from the slope faces (per the CSG [CaSe, 2007]); positive
structural separations (Le., joints) between improvements~ stiffening; and, deepening of
foundations. All of these measures are recommended for design of structures and
improvements and minimizing the placement of "dry" fills.
Slope Maintenance and Planting
Water ha,s been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope
stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage, aWay
from slopes, should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain
plant life should be provided for planted slopes~ Over-watering shouldbe avoided ~s it Gan
adversely affect site improvements and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded
slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be
minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining as!Jitable
vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face offill slopes would tend
to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute~type matting, or othertlbrous covers;maY
aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants. other than those
recommended above will increase the potential for perched wate~, staining, mold, etc. to
develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be -implemented.
Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended.
Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 2-1 Robertson Ranch. East Village
Rle:c:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa2-'
W.O. 5353-81~SC
November 24. 2008
Page 21
.... --..... e.---
landscaping. All landscaping plans should be reviewed by a qualified civil engineer with
respect to site drainage and compatibility with adjoining property u.ses.
Drainage
Adequate pad surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance offoundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be
sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures:~nd
tops of slopes. Pad surface drainage should be carefully taken into considert;ltion during
fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care'shouldbetaken that
future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions.
Positive site drainage within pads and common areas should be provided and maintained
at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending ~Ibpe. Water
should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the
ground. In general, the area within 3 feet around a structure should slope away from the
structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum
gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures,. and whenever possible, should be
above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of
raised planters adjacentto structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should
be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical
requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utiliied to
control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices, should outlet a minimum of
3 feet from structures or into an alternate, approved area, such as a drainage system
swale. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be
anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop,
recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided 'Upon request. Geotechnical
recommendations for drainage practices are included herein. The civil.consultant and
landscape planner(s) should provide additional recommendations in accordance with local
practices.
Erosion Control
Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and-after grading. Onsite earth
materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to
providing hay bales and silt 'fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant fife should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site ·improv$ments. We
recommend that any open-bottom, raised box planters adjacent to proposed structures
be restrj~ted for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type
raised planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be
Brookfield San Diego Builders, fnc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File;e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror .pa21
W.O. 5353-81-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 22
·e-·--. ----.-_. "-...... ---.--.,.
installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If raised
box planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter
should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation water into'
the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the
planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope
areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be
given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface
imprQvements (Le., some trees will have an effect on concrete ftatwork with their"extensive
root systems); From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching IS not recommended for
establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding
amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect Site development, provided·the
recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated
into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions, along zones ,of contrasting
permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigati.on,
poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipC!.ted. ShoLild
perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the ;:;I,ffected area(s} and
provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater
conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall,
or other factors.
Tile Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small
cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. The tile installer should consider
installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets, a vinyl
crack isolation membrane, or other approved method by the Tile CounCil of
America/Ceramic Tile fnstitute.
Site Improvement§,
If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the
site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and
construction oJ said improvements could be provided u.pon request. Pools and/or spas
should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from
GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to the homeowners
association or other interested/affected parties. This office should be notified in advance
of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been
completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork,
etc.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 53S3-B.1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 23
Additional Grading
This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental, regrading of
the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been complet~d. This includes
compfetion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall
backfills. Rough grading is generally completed throughout PA-21.
Pr:eliminary Pool/Spa Design Recommendations
The following minimal preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration .in
pool/spa design and planning. The following recommendations should be provided to,any
contractors and/or subcontractors, etc., that may perform such work.
1. The pool system should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest adopted edition of the CSC (CBSe, 2007). The
pool shell should be embedded entirely into properly compacted fill. Pools
proposed in the Vicinity of Lots 20 through 24 may require overexeavaticm for the
pool shell due to the presence of hard rock. Rock fragments'should be antiCipated
within any excavation, especially in the vicinity of Lots 37 through 43, 64 throL(gh 72,
100 through 103, 113 through 116, 141 through 145, 152 through 159, 'and
190 through 194. Overexeavation depths should be reviewed on a lot by lot basis,
as plans are developed.
2. The equivalent fluid pressure against a cantilever wall free to yield at the, top, m~y
minimally be assumed as 62 pet
r
3. The equivalent fluid pressure against a non-yielding wall bra wall restrained from
movement at the top, may be minimally assumed as 100 pcf! per the CSC
(CSSC, 2007) for these soil conditions.
4. The preceding unit weights do no include superimposed loading from expansive
soil pressure, earthquakes, traffic or adjacent building/wall loads. These loads
could be provided upon request.
5. Passive earth pressure may be compLJted as an equivalent fluid having -a density of
25'0 pcf, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pst.
6. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of '0.35 may be us~d
with the dead load forces. '
7. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-BH-;C
November 24, 20Q8
Page 24
-_. _._._--'~"""'" "" .--------,,--_._ .. -
8. The geotechnical consultant should review and approve all aspects of pool/spil and
flatwork design prior to construction. Recommendations for pool flatwork are
presented in a following section. A design civil engineer should review all aspects
of such design, including drainage and setback conditions, per the CSC
(CSSC, 2007).
9. All aspects of construction should be reviewed and approved by the geotechn'icill
cDnsultant, including during excavatiDn, prior to the placement of any additional fill,
prior to the placement of any reinforcement Dr pDuring of any cDncrete.
10. Where pools are planned near structures, appropriate surcharge IDads need to be
incorporated into design and construction by the p.ool designer.
11. All pDol walls should be designed as ''free standing" and be capable of supporting
the water in the pool without soil support per Section 18Q5.3.3, Chapter 1:8 of the
CSC (CSSC, 2007).
12. The pool structure should be set back from any adjacent descending
slope in accordance with the CBC (CBSC,2007).
13. The soil beneath the pool/spa bottom should be uniformly moist with the same
stiffness throughout. If a fill/cut transition occur~ beneath the pool bottom, the cut
portion shDuld be overexcavated to a minimum depth .of 24 inches; and replaced
with compacted fill. The fill should be placeq at a minimum .of 90 percent relative
cDmpaction, at over-optimum mDisture conditions. The potential for g'rading and/or
re-grading of the pDol bottom, and attendant potential for shering and/or slet
excavation, needs to be considered during all aspects· .of pDol planning •. design, and
cDnstructiDn. If peal subgrade conditiDns are wet, or saturated, provisions for
drying back Dverexcavated soils, Dr importing/mixing with drier sDils may be
necessary. In order te minimize the effects .of expansive soils, seils placed above
the undercut ShDUld be IDW expansive (EI. <50).
14. HydrDstatic pressure relief valves shDuld be incerper?ted inte the pool and spa
designs. A pool under-drain system ShDUld alsD be cDnsidered, with an ilpprDpriate
.outlet fDr discharge, depending en pDel IDcatiDn.
15. All fittings and pipe jDints, particularly fittings in the side .of the pool Dr spa, ShDUld
be preperly sealed tD prevent water frDm leaking into the adjaGent soils materials.
16. An elastic expansiDn/shrinkage jDint (waterproof sealant) ShDUld be installed to
prevent water frDm seeping intD the soil 8,t all deck jDints.
17. ReinfDrced grade beams ShDUld be placed areund skimmer inlets to proVide
sup pert and mitigate cracking arDund the skimmer face.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 2'( Robertson Ranch. East Village
File:e:\Wp9\5300\5353b 1.ror.pa21
w.o. 5353-B1-SC
November 24, 2008
Page 25
·----fIt-·_ .. _-_· .
18. Pool decking!flatwork should be pre-wet!pre-soaked perthe Foundation Section of
this report.
19. Regardless of the methods employed, once the pool/spa is filled with water, should
it be emptied, there exists some potential that if emptied, significant distress may
occur. Accordingly, once filled, the pool/spa should not be emptied unless
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative ofthis·firm subsequent t9
trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement The purpose of the
observatIons is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended beating
material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose·
or compressible materials are exposed within' the footing excavation, a deeper footing or
removaJ and recompaction ofthe subgrade materials would be recommended atthaltime.
Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removeq from the
site.
Trenching
Considering the nature of the on site soils, it should be anticipated tha:t caving or sloughing
could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. ShorIng or excavating the
trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and
should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives
and minimally conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utility Trench Backfill
1. All interior utility· trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above
optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a miniinum :relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative fot shallow
(12-inch to 18-lnch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of
30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probJng
and selective testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results.
2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1 :.1 plane
projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and aU trenches beneath
hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should
not be used in these backfill areas. Selective compaction testing and observations,
along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch. East Village
File:e;\wp9\5300\5353b ·1.ror.pl'l21
W.O: 5353-81 -SO
November .24, 2008
Page 26
I
I • I
............ · .... ·-e·· ..................... _-... . --_ .... .
3. All trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes.
4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass
below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass
through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations ofthe
structural engineer.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND ti:STING
We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:
• During grading/recerLification.
• After excavation of building footings, retainingwa/l footings, and free standing walls
footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
• Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoakingfpresaturation of building
pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforCing
steel, capillary break (Le., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders (Le., visqueen,
etc.), as necessary.
10 During retaining wall suf;:ldrain installation, priorto backfill placement.
• During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing; utility line trenches,
and retaining wall backfill, as necessary.
• During slope construction/repair.
• When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any Gonstruction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
• When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools,
walls, etc., are constructed.
• A report of geotechnical observation and testing and/or field-testing reports, should
be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages. as necessary, in order
to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply With
code requirements.
• GSI should review project sales documents to homeownef$/homeowners
associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices; the conditions
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch. East Vii/age
File:e:\wP9\5300\5353b1.ror .pa21
W.O. 5353-B'1~SC
November 24, 2008
P~ge27
e .. -------. "'-
outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. Atthat stage, G8J win provide homeowners
maintenance guidelines which should be. incorporated into such documents.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, lanqscape
archite.ct, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein,
incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit
reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum
design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable
to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs
by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer shoulq arJ~dyze
actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence,
and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other el.ements
in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible
that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer
should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If anaryses
by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided f16rein
as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is consider-ed likely
that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has
any ·questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise
transmittheir requests to GSt In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or
improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that
the proposed "foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differ(?ntial
settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein.
HOMEOWNERS/HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
It is recommended that the developer should notify, and/or make available tbe findings,
conclusions and recommendations presented in this report to c:lny homeowners or
homeowners association, in order to minimize any misunderstandings regarding the
design and performance of earth structures, and the design and performance of existing
and/or future or proposed improvements.
PLAN REVIEW
Any additional project plans generated for this project should be reviewed by this office,
prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations of this report.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East ViHage
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa2.1
W.O. 5353-81-8C
November 24, 2008
Page 28
-_ ................ _ ..... _ ................. .
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative ofthe area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character petween
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering anf;:!.lyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty.
either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction; or work performed when GSt is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to aU the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be .subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion ofthe project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days; unless
specifically requested by the Client, in writing.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.o. 5353-Bi-SC
November 24, 2008
Page~9
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call our office.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Reviewed by:
RGC/AT6/JPF/jh
Attachments:
Distribution:
..
Table 1 -Field Density Test Results
Table 2 -Pad Characteristics
Appendix -References
Plates 1 through 4 -Geotechnical Maps
(4) Addressee
(2) Q'Day Consultants, Attention: Mr. Keith Hansen
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch. East Vii/age
FlIe:e:\wp9\5300\5353b" .ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-B1-SC
Nevember 24. 200a
Page 30
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File: C:\excel\tables\53DO\5353b1.ror.pa21
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
w.o. 5353-B1-SC
Novemher 20Q8
Page 1
'" .. ",e-"" .. , ".'" .-, .. " '"", ... ,." , , .. '"' " " "-'" -,"" ,','
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY reST RESULTS
_~~:~i~if~i~~~!I'llJ_r..lI!llillg;
47' $[1{07 Glen Ave 17+60 PA-2i 55.0 1,2.6, 125.9, 94.0 NO F
181* 5/1/07 Pad EI. 78.4
181A* 5{3/07 Pad EI. 78.4
181B 5/3/07 Pad EI. 78.4
182* 5/1{07 Summit Trail Court
182A* 5/3/07 Summit Trail Court
182B 5/3/07 Summit Trail Court
189 5/3/Q7 Pad EI. 73.9
190 5/.'q/07 Pad El. 75.5
191 5/3/07 Pad EI. 88.9
192 5/3/07 Pad EI. 77.5
222 5/7/07 Pad EI. 82.5
223 5/7{07 Pad EI. 82.5
224 5/7/07 Pad EI. 84.0
225 $/7/07 Pad EL 84 .. 0
226 5/7/07 Pad EI. 80.7
244 5/8/07 Pad EI. 82.5
245 fi/8107 Pad EI. 88.9
248 5/8/07 Pad EL 78.4
249 518107 Glen Ave 17+00
251 518/07 Pad EI. 86.8
252 5/8/07 Pad EI. 86.8
253 5/8/07 Pad EI. 88.9
254 5/8/07 Pad EI. 88.9
255 5/8/07 Pad EI. 87.8
256 S/8/01 Pad EI. 87.B
260 5/9/07 A Street
262 5/9/07 Pad EI. 84.0
263 5/9/07 Pad EI. 84.0
264 5/9/07 A Street
265 5/9/07 Pad EI. 87.8
266 5/9/07 A Street
267 5/9/07 Pad El. 86.8
268 5/9/07 Pad EI. 88.9
269 519/07 Pad EI. 88.9
446* 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 143+50
446A 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 143+50
447* 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 143+30
447A 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 143+30
448 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 142+00 --, 449 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 141 +60
451 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 143+00
452 6/5/07 Cannon Rd 141 +00
454 6/6/07 Cannon Rd 142+75
Brookfield San Diego Builders. Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File: C:\excel\tables\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
PA-21 66.0
PA-21 66.0
PA-21 65.0
PA-21 68.0
PA-21 68.0
PA-21 67.5
PA-21 70.0
PA-21 70.0
PA-21 72.0
PA-21 72.0
PA-21 74.0
PA-21 74.0
PA-21 76.0
PA-21 76.0
PA-21 76.0
PA-21 74.0
PA-21 74.0
PA-21 72.0
PA-21 76.0
PA-21 76.0
PA-21 76.0
PA-21 78.Q
PA-21 78.0
PA-21 7ll.0
PA-21 80.0
PA-21 81.0
PA-21 81.0
PA-21 83.0
PA-21 ~3.0
PA-21 85.0
PA-21 85.0
PA-21 84.0
PA-21 85.0
PA-21 86.0
PA-21 64.0
PA-21 64.0
PA-21 64.0
PA-21 64;0
PA-21 62.0
PA-21 62.0
PA-21 66..0
PA-21 66.0
PA-21 68.0
13.2 '9S.!;J
15.8 97.9
19.3 100.8
14.1 96.8
14.9 96.5
18.7 101.2
13.0 108.7
13.7 109~3
11.2 114.6.
11:0 11'4.2
13.1 108.7
13.0 108.5
13.8 109.3
1.3.0 103:3
14.1 l.Q4.3
13.1 110.2
14.2 102:7
12,B 110.1
13.1 110.7
12.8 109;8
1'2.7 110.2
13.6 102.6
13~0 102.9
14.2 102.8
13.2 103.6
1;3.6 109.4
13.1 1'09.8
13,4 109.4
13.'0 1'10.1
13.1 102:9
13.2 103,5
'1'4.3 l02~7
14.2 10;:!,8
13,7 102.7
9.9 113.0
11.5 117.7
10.2 112.7
11.9 11].1
11.5 117.6
11,1 118.0
12.0 116.9
11.3 117.8
12.0 116.~
86A NO
a8.2 ND
90.8 NO
87.2 ND
86:9 NO
91.2 NO
,90.2 NO
90.7 NO
9Ui NO
90.6 NO
90.3 NO
90.0 Se
90.7 NO
90.t! NO
91.4 NO
91.1 NO
90.0 SC
91.0 ND
91.5 NO
90,7 ND
91.1 NO
90.0 N9
90.~ ND
~Q.1 ,$C
~O.9 NO
90.8 se
91 . .1 NO
~o.,e NO
91.4 ND
~0.3 SO
90.8 NO,
90.1 ; NO
90~;3 NO
90.1 NO
~.6 ND
93.4 ' j\.JD
89.4 NO
92;9', ND
93;3 NO
93,6 SC
92.7 No
93.4 sa
92.7 NO
W;O.53S3-B1-SC
No:vember 2008
Page 2
L
L
L ,.:
L
L
C
C
E
"E
C
C
C
B
B
J
B
J
J
J
J
B
B , ,
13
B
C
C
C
C
B
B
13
B
B
E
E
E
~
E
E, ,
E
E
E
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
455 6/6/07 Cannon Rd 141+50 PA-21 6,8.0 11.5 1.17.4 ~$ .. 1 ND' E
458 6/6/07 Cannon Rd 142+00 PA-21 72.0 11.9 117.0: 92..8 ND E
802 7/12/07 Glen Ave 18+50 PA-21 82.0 12.9 109.4 9i14 _. SC J
8~3 7/19/07 Glen Ave, Choker S. Side Lot 95 PA-21 7:3.0 12.2 118:3 93.8 ND .E
84" 7/2.3/07 Cannon Rd PA-21 66,0 .1.4j) 10£1.6, 90;:1 ND C
842 7/23/07 Pad EI. 76.5 PA-21 66.a 15,3 HO.1 1:)1.4 SC C
843 7/23/07 Cannon Rd PA~21 6RO 14.6 1,09.3 90.7 No C
844 7/2;3107 Cannon Rd PA-21 68.0 13.9 109.1 !;l0.5 ND' C
845 7/24/07 Pad EI. 75.5 PA-21 70.0 14.3 112.8 ~3.6 ND C
846 7/24/07 Pad EI. 76.5 PA-21 70.0 13.9 109,5 $0.9 ND' C'
847 7/24/07 Cannon Rd PA-21 71.0 14.2 111,.2 92.3 NO C
853 7/24/07 Glen Ave, Choker 14+40 PA-21 78.0 '13.1 114.3 Q2.9SG M
1--8::,-:5:-::-7-:-*-1-..;.;,7~/2:;,;;.5/,,:--O-=::7+-___ =-Pa_d~E=!_. 8:-:0-:.7:--__ -t-::P:-:A;;....-2:-:1-t---::7:-:4_.0_._-t-_"""6.-:7:---t-_1-:-.0,;,...5""':.6:-t_,8..-.7:-.6rl-~N:_:D::.-'--t-_C:-:--l
857A 7/25/07 Pad Ef. 80.7 PA-21 74.0 14 .. 2 109.5 flO;9 ND G
858 7/25/07 Pad EI. 80.7 PA-21 76.0 19.9 101,1 91.1 sq . L
859 7/25/07 Pad EI. 80.7 PA-21 78.0 20.6 100,3 9004 NO L
860 7/25/07 Glen Ave, s. Side Choker 15+00 PA-21 80.0 12.3 ill:3:2 93,8 ND E
861 7(25/07 Glen Ave, S. Side Choker 16+00 PA-21 80.0 11.8 118.8 94.2 NO E
862 7/2.5/07 Glen Ave, S. Side Choker 17+00 PA-21 82.0 11 .. 1 119:7 95.0 NO E
863 1/2,5/07 Glen Ave, S. Side Choker 18+00 PA-21 83.0 12.0 118.5 94.0 ND E
El64 7/25/Q7 Glen Ave, S. Side Choker 17+50 PA~21 84.0 12.£? 117.9 93.5. $C E
~-:-87_4 __ ~n':""'26~/~07~ ______ ~P_ad~EI-:.7~9:-.9:--____ -1-~P-:-A-~2-:-1+--=73= .. -:-0 __ r-_1 __ 3:-:.1~~_1~.l~2.~O-+-:9~2-:.6-r.~N~P:--r-~J-;
875 7/26/07 Pad EI. 79.9 PA-21 77.0 13.7 111.4 92.1 ND J
816 7/26/07 Pad EI. 87.8 PA-21 83.0 14.0 110.99:1·.7' SC J
an 7/26/07 Pad EI. 88.9 PA-21 83.0 12.9 112.4 92.9 ND J
881 7/27/07 Pad EI. 87.8 PA-21 84.0 13.7 110.0 90.9 ND J
882 7/27/07 Pad EI. 88.9 PA-21 85.0 1'3.0 1'10.8 91.6 ND J
883 7/27/07 Pad EI. 88.9 PA-21 86.0 12.7 tl1.3 92.0 ND J I-"'::"::";=--~=~+---'---::---::-:'::-:::---:-----l-~-:-:-+--::-:--:--+---:--:-::---r-~--:--t-~-::-ir---::-:=-+--::--l ~_88_4~~n_31~f"_07_~ ______ ~P~ad~E~I.~77~.~5 ______ ~P~A~-~21~ __ 7~2~.O=--~ __ 1~4~.6=--~_1~0~a~.4~_·~90~.O~ __ ~N~b~ .. I-C~ .. ~
885 7/~1/07 Pad EI. 77.5 PA-21 74.0 14.1 lOS.5 SO.9ND G
886 7/31/07 Pad EI. 77.5 PA-21 76.0 15.2 109.) 90.5 NO G
887 7/31/07 Pad EI. 77.5 PA-21 76.0 15.0 110,Q 91 .. 8 SC G 1--~9~08~~7~~~1/":--O~7+-------=-Pa-:-d~Er~.~75:-::-.5~---:-f':""'P~A~-2~1-t---7':""'4~.0~;---1-:4~.6--;-~1~:1~1.~8~-9~1~~~·+-~S~C:--;-~Q~·~
~--+-~~~------'~--~--------+~--~------+-------+-~~-+~~r------+-~ 909 7/31/07 Pad EI. 76.5 PA-21 74.0 13.9 1.10.8 90.8 SC Q
910 7/31/07 Pad EI. 77.1 PA-21 76.0 13.7 110,9 90.9 SC Q, I--~':""'-;-:-~~+-------=-~--=~------~~~r--~-:-:-~--~~-t~~=-~~-l---::~'-+-~~ 911 7/31/07 Pad El. 77.1 PA-21 76.0 14.8 l1Z.7 92A SC Q
924 8/1/07 Pad EI.77.5 PA-21 68.0 9.5 124.5 94.6 ND X .. 925 8/1/07 Pad EL76.5 PA-21 69.0 10.3 12;3.7 94.0 NP X
926 8/1/07 Pad E1.77.5 PA-21 70.0 10 .. 6 123.3 93.7 . SC X
927 8/1/07 Pad EL76.5 PA-21 71 .. 09.2 124.9 94.9 ND X
928 8/1/07 Pad EI.77.5 PA-21 72.0 9.0 12p.3~5.5 ND X
929 8/2/07 Pad E1.77.5 PA-21 70.0 9.2 1'24;9 94.~ ND X
930 8/2/07 Pad El.76.5 PA-21 71.0 9.0 125.2 95.2 hJD X
931 8/2107 Pad El.77.5 PA-21 72.0 9] 124.5 94,6 SC X
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch. East Village
File: C:\excel\tabJes\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353,B1-SC
November 2008
Page 3
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, East Village
File: C:\exceJ\tables\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
".--.. -.--~ .. " -,,' --....
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
W.o. 5353-B1-SC
NovE1mber 2008
Page 4
J
e· . '-"--"---_. __ .
Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
.fjl~'ri~·flll~~11InilJ~iI_~~~1~11J1
1019'-$ 8/17/07 Pad EL 78.8, Slope PA-21 76.0 14.0 . 2~8 90.2 NO.B
1020'-S
1 021 '-S
1022'-S
1023'-$
1030
1031
1032
1033
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1214*
1214A
1215*
1215A
1216*
1216A
1306-FG'
1349
1350
1351
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
8/17/07 Pad EI. 78.8, Slope
8/17/07 Pad E!. 78.8, Slope
8/17/07 Pad El. 78.8, Slope
8/17./07 Pad EI. 78.8, Slope
8/28/07 Pad E!. 86.8
8/28/07 Pad EI. 86.8
8/28/07 Pad EI. 86.8
8/28/07 Pad EI. 86.8
10/1/07 Pad E!. 73.9
in/i/07 Pad EI. 75.5
10/1/07 Pad EI. 77.1
10/1107 Pad EI. 77.1
10/1/07 Pad El. 80.7
10/19/07 Pad EI. 82.5
1/21/08 Pad EI. 82.5
10/19/07 Pad E!. 84.0'
1/21/Q8 Pad EL 84.0
10/19/07 Pad EL 86.8
1/21/08 Pad EI. 86.8
12/14/07 Pad EI. 77.1
3/12/08 Pad EI.85A
3/12/08 Pad EI. 73.9
3/12/08 Pad El. 82.5 --4/2/08 Pad EI. 86.8
4/2/08 Pad EI. 85.4
4/2/08 Pad El. 85.4
4/2108 Pad EI. 84.0
4/3/08 Pad EI. 82.5
4/3/08 Pad El. 82.5
LEGEND:
'= Repeated Test Number
* == Failed Test
A = Retest
FG = Finish Grade
NO == Nuclear Oensometer
S = Slope
SC = Sand Cone
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-41
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21 --PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
PA-21
74.0 13.7 103.4 ~O.7 NO
7.2.0 13.6 104.0 :91.2 NO
70.0 13:9 108.5 90.0 NO
75.0 13.7 109.2 90 .. 6 NO
75.0 10.3 122.5. 91.4-NO
76.0 9.8 124.1 92.6 NO
78.0 9.5 124.8 93.1 NO
77.0 10.8 123.3 92.0 SC
80.0 12.0 114.~ 91:1 NO
78.0 11.3 114.2 90.6 NO
82.0 11..8 113.5 90.1 NO
16.0 11.Q 114.4 90.8 NO
85.0 11.4 114.0 90~5 ND
80.5 8.2 10lW 90;4 NO
80.5 14.8 109.4 90:$ NO
80.5 8.0 109.3 90.7 NO
80.5 16.7 108.6 9O,) NO
80.5 8.1 109.4 S!.t8 NO
80.5 15.0 1.08.8 90.3 NO
11.0 1'1:8 1.19.4 9il8· ND
84.0 11.8 116.1 9;3.6 NO
~11.0 14.0 104.1 91.7 NO
81.5 11.5. .. 11.1.1 90.3 NO
86.8 11.4 n~ .. p -94:8 NO
85.4 11.0 120.0 95.2 No
85.4 11.7 119.1 94.$ NO
84.0 11.2 119.9 95.1 NO
82.5 '1'1.3 119;6 94.~ NO
82.5 11.0 120.1 S5.3 ND
Note: Test Locations, noted as based on O'Oay (2007). O'Day (20D?, Revised 2008) Wqs not
available during mass grading.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
PA 21 Robertson Ranch, EAst Vii/age
File: C:\excel\tables\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21
W.O. 5353-81-SC
November 2008
PageS
a
B c
G
H
H
i-I
H
E
E
E
E.
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
X
S
BB
AA
E
E
E
E
E
E -
i 69 Medium Negligible 26-32 3"5 il
2 69 Medium Negligible 26-32 3-5 II
3 69 Medium Negligible 26-32 3-5 1/
4 69 Medium Negligible 26-32 3-5 /I
5 69 Medium Negligible 26-32 3-5 /I
6 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3~5 II
7 69 Medium Negligible 26-32 3-5 II
8 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-5 /I
9 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-5 II
10 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 5-7 II
11 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-7 II
12 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 4-6 II
13 38 Low Negligible 16-20 20-30 III ..... -
14 38 Low Negtigible 16-20 16-38 III
15 38 Low Negligible 16-20 15-30 11/
16 38 Low Negligible 16-20 27-41 /Ill
17 38 Low Negligible 16-20 38-41 III
18 38 Low Negligible 16-20 32-41 III
19 38 Low Negligible 16-20 38-41 III
20 38 Low Negligible 16-20 39-43 III
21 38 Low Negligible 16-20 40'-44 III
22 38 Low Negligible 16-20 42-47 I!I
23 38 Low Negligible 16-20 32-40 III
24 38 Low Negligible 16~20 29-35 III,
25 38 Low Negligible 16-20 2H31 11/
26 38 Low Negligible 16-20 32-34 III
27 38 Low Negligible 16-20 40-45 III
28 38 Low Negligible 16-20 30-43 III
29 38 Low Negligible 16-20 26-34 III
30 38 LoW Negligible 16-20 15-27 II
31 25 Low Negligible 16-20 12-23 " 32 25 Low Negligible 16-20 13-23 :11
33 25 Low Negligible 12-16 20-30 /II
34-25 Low Negligible 12-16 19-30 /If
e· ........ ····· .... -·· ....................... .
35 25 Low Negligible 16-20 12~19
36 25 Low Negligible 16-20 7-13 I
37 21 Low Negligible ~15 25-30 III
38 21 Low Negligible ::;15 1.7. .. 30 11/
39 21 Low Negligible :s15 20-34 III
40 21 Low Negligible :s15 30-35 III
41 21 Low Negligible .:S:15 35-38 III
42 21 L9W Negligible ~15 32-36 III
43 21 Low Negligible ~15 36-39 III
44 21 Low Negligible ~15 36-39 III
45 21 Low Negligible ~15 27-37 UI
46 21 Low Negligible ~15 36-40 til
47 21 Low Negligible ~15 30-36 III
48 21 Low Negligible 16~20 22~27 II
49 21 Low Negligible 16-20 15-24 1/
50 21 Low Negligible .s15 20-30 III
51 21 Low Negligible 16-20 11-16 I
52 21 Low Negligible 16-20 12-14 I
53 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 4-8 Il
54 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 4-10 1.1
55 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 B-4 " 56 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-4 II
57 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-4 II
58 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-4 If
59 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-5 II
60 69 Medium Negligible 25-29 3-5 I'
61 21 Low Negligible .s15 3.,.9 I
62 21 Low Negligible .$15 4-8
63 21 Low Negligible .s15 3~5
64 21 Low Negligible ~15 3-4
65 <20 Very Low Negligible :s15 3-4
66 <20 Very Low Negligible :>15 3-4
67 <20 Very Low Negligible .s15 3-5
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. Table 2
File:e:\wp12\5300\5353b1.ror.pa21 Pag?2
~~t1fj)SQj)ii$\) i~~o
.. --.. e .. ·-.. --.... ·· ....... _.-............. -..... ,
68 <20 Very Low Negll!;Jible .$15 3-5
69 <20 Low Negligible 16-20 8-15
70 <20 Low Negligible 16-20 8-18
71 <20 Low Negligible 16-20 16~17 I
72 <20 Very Low Negligible :s:15 17-2'1 1/
73 <20 Very Low Negligible :d5 20-25 " 74 <20 Very Low Negligible :s:15 20-26 1/
75 <20 Very Low Negligible 5:15 26-27 /I
76 <20 Very Low Negligible .$15 24-31 til
77 <20 Very Low Negligible .$1.5 29-32 HI
78 <20 Very Low Negligible .$15 25-31 III
79 <20 Very Low Negligible .$15 30-32 III
80 <20 Very Low Negligible $15 32-33 III
81 <20 Very Low Negligible $15 30-33 III
82 <20 Very Low Negligible :s:15 25-33 III
83 <20 Very Low Negligible :;;15 33-34 11/
84 <20 Very Low Negligible .$15 33-34 III
Rec.* <20 Very Low Negligible s15 3-8 N/A Lot
(1) Per ASTM 4829.
(2) Per ACI318-0B. Tables 4 .. 2.1 and 4.3 .. 1 (C8C, 2007)
(3) The higher value in the range provided, should be used. for design purposes.
(4) Per GSI (2007b) ..
*" Recreation Area -Foundation design to be lot specific based on propo~ed use; will be provided upon
review of site development.
N/A -NotA licable
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
File:e:\wp12\5300\5353b1,ror.pa21
Table 2
Page 3
e-._ .... _ ........ ---.... _ ................................... _... .. .. .
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2008, Building code requirement for structural concrete
(ACI 318-08) and commentary, an ACI standard reported by ACI Committee 318,
dated January.
__ , 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab constrl,lctjon: reported by ACI Comm'ittee
302; Designation ACI 302.1 R-04, dated March 23.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998, Standard practice for installation of
water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granulctrfill under concrete slabs,
Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005).
__ , 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in 'contact with
soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved
2004).
California Building Standards Commission, 2007, California buildingcbde.
Caltrans, 1999, Interim corrosion guideline for foundation investigations, Corrosion and
Technology Section, Office of Materials and Foundations, dated May.
Carlsbad, City of, 1993, Standards for design and construction of public works
improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2008, Geotechnical update of seismic design criteria for Robertson Ranch,
East Village, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5353-8-SC, dated
March 17.
_. __ , 2007a, Compaction report of geotechnical observation and testing services, 84-inch
storm drain improvements for Cannon Road, Robertson Ranch East Village,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 5355-D-SC, dated August 16.
__ , 2007b, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch, East Village
Development, Carlsbad Tract 02-16, Drawing 433-6, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W.O. 5353-A-SC, dated January 15.
__ , 2006a, Supplemental recommendations regarding pier supported bridge
abutments, Robertson Ranch East Project, City of Carlsbaq, San Diego County,
Californial W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 30.
, 2006b, Memorandum: update of the geotechnical report with respect to site
grading and the current grading plan, Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad,
W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated November 15.
... e ...... -,--"-,, .... ,-----_ ...... , ..... -.. _ ..... _ .. , ... " -. , .....
, 2006c, Memorandum: discussIon of earthwork recommendations in the Vicinity
---of a planned 84-inch storm drain, Cannon Road, Stations 127+gQ to 136+32,
Improvements for Robertson Ranch East, City of Carlsbad, California,
W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated July 28.
, 2006d, Supplementto the update geotechnical'evaluation regarding the· distribution ----' of wick drains, Robertson Ranch East, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated June.
___ , 2006e, Report of rough grading, Calavera Hills If, College Boulevard and Cannon
Road Thoroughfare, District No.4 (B&TD), Carlsbad Tract 00-02, Drawing 390-9A,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, Califomia, W.O. 3459-82-SC, dated January 27.
___ ,2004, Updated geotechnical evaluation ofthe Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20 •.
__ ,2002, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A1-SC, dated January 29.
, 2001 a, Preliminary findings of the geotechnical evaluation, R0bertson Ranch -----Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31.
___ ,2001 b, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College B.oulevard and
Cannon Road Thoroughfare, District NO.4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California,
W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24.
Kanare, Howard, 2005, Concrete floors and moisture, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Illinois.
Nicho/s, Herbert L, Jr., 1976, Moving the Earth, The Workbook of EXcavation, 3fd Edition,
McGraw-Hili Publishing Company.
O'Day Consultants, 2007, Grading plans for Robertson Ranch PA 21, revised date
October 2008.
Project Design Consultants, 2007, Alluvial shots to date, 5/09/2007, Robertson Ranch, Job
No. 3481.
Romanoff, M., 1957, Underground corrosion, National Bureau of Standards Circular 579,
Published by National Association 0'1 Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Texas,
reprinted 1989.
State of California, Department of Transportation, 2006, Highway design manual of
instructions, sixth edition, September printing.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
File:e:\wp9\5300\5353bi .ror "pa21
Appendix
Page 2
10 ¥f
stItlI:: I~. 'JlI
i ... ~~OO!!.. o]>.~~ .~s~.I~~_~ .. !~~:,". _ ..... ,
BENCHMARK:
IXSCMDt .s.r-. .. »ntlETtDI1t1Ut£ 1flJ. __ ,
UlCI;IDt ~"'D..cw.v.trAI. ArDlllltl1K$S1A1ltlt1S#1I /fJIU,.../
IIttaDnat ~~U1fZ$(lttJ.caIt1'fsm:
ntWDt .f1l ,"lilt usc ~"
~s--~g~ -! \. ~-*, '~ ... ~
Af1IIR fJf:riIa.., -".,----
..... ~ ~
l:::J '<0
Af
Afo
at
Tsa
."" --.
:9-' -----
§J
X-14I2
LEGEND
ArIlI'IcItJfI, placed Utder tho p,nIowcf INiJ ..",..
ArtIIIc:ieJfI-older, pW:ed1Mct Ihcpu-vlew 01 as __ >
0Ia1emary terrace dcpooIb. '*ded 'IItM:ro ......
TertletyS~FortM.tb\ c:irclctdwmen, ......
App-olhlale 1oc4\1on 0( gsoIogIe eon!act, doIl~ -.""""
AttItudool~bedcIng
Approunaleloc4l!on 0( 8+di 8\bct'an
Approxmo.leloet.tion of remcdaI remc:lval
botlom(feotust.)
ApproDroe.t"locationCl/IieIc:l~IC8t
DlAiENS/ON NOTE.
/J1ItIENSDISFRCII8tJIlJJINCS 10 FEJKES a? lfAUS 1M ~1E: ACTfJAl.DIIIENSIONSU4YYAHYlII CONSTmJCTKW IJOCtAI£NTS roT JfIU. BEl{ SUlSTAH1W. ~
AlL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXiMATE
lHIdoCImdor",.,r.otapwtofhCcnllnt:1lon Downent..nd~notbe,-.ledl.,on .. b<=h.;alll -.nI.~ofdNV>.
-~cfm'l7;nc. ~)'-Z.";')"J-'RIVleRS!Deco. 0llANG1l<Xl, SAtmmooco.
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PA21 Plate 1 01,4
W.O. 5353-8-SC SCALE f-20'
:£~LS DESII:NiD a't':-lI&.-Dm:-lfBI....Z\U..
IlMWII 81:...l&.--SCALe~
1'ftO.ECl'~..I08~
_-::rF"': ~-I'-~-I '~ == 1KJtlfJo.tNIItlU..It. ~,~
'_~_'H'_' =r.i:=---~=.=.""";;~~::':-~_
e
:e
-..
:;g
~ ~ V)
~ V)
-~~ ===i ,... GLENAV£,/!ER ".No. 33-;6 ;,-~. ~ V-~."\\~o. .... --
.. '. --"-l( "" =L KPART .. =".. -~~ \ --~s'" • S· _ .-:; I r ~ ---;~.~£. """,!!,~.J;, I _,~ __ "" ",.~or--: l ,pt" tho. . ~
.'Y"" _\~ \'
1-'-"-'or-.
I
SEE SHEEt No. 7
BENCHMARK:
OESClIlPllOll:
''''''''
STAIrf)M() Jl...lb S1Rt£T WlTERU£ IlrUPCWVJJ(HT
aHTlGI.M oca CAMNO f/E)l ATl'NCIH!£R'SSTATlQY4SU91 PERR.Sfeoo-,
RECORtl i'lIOIJ. ctJiJNIY S£NCN IflfiS (NO. ClX/NTY feRl C&l1Na.IJAT,.,
\\~ \ \ \ \\~\ " t \l\p1
Ii \ _L_L
~t ~ ,. ",'
SCH.£:1".2tt
-\\1 \ \
\\ \ \ \
DIMENSION NOT£.
DIENSItl'iSFRalBIJIt/JINCS TO FlJK£$ m IIHUS Nif Nf'R(),7(fNATE. AClVAL lJIII£J&aISM4r YM'rcw
CI1iSTlNCTKW IJOCl.IIENTS BUr IfIU. «IN SV8STANTW. ~
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
1NI~or.o.bllOl .. partotIMCoIImJctIon Doc\InwoII.-rdlhotldnolbor.kd~ .. bMlgln ~.~ofdttbl.
"'~~1f. ~"~'Q~c. RIVERSIDE CO.
ORANGE CO.
SANDIEGOCO.
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
w.o.~
~IS
PA21 _2014'
SCAI.E 1""'10'
DISIONmIY:~M1t.~ DMwM rrn-Lt--$CIoI.[:~
I'fIO.Il:T~JOOttO~
RmS[f)< OCT(/J[R ;001 -~-=-,: ... ---""""""'-R(WS(fJ-.A!Y2f}(J7
, ...... t9.2~~8 O'O?y Co~s~I\?~~ •. I~.::" " ...... _ ._" __ """ .. _
ElEVA1IOH: 68.in 1141Ut usc of' as. f'G(PA/f£O'AI'1iIt2(1()6
T1~OTlfl' 0 C#MOU.., ~R. -:.=-:= ~ 5~351 -
e
;e
......................... " ... ,-" ... " -.-----... __ .... -._-..... _,... ............. -.... --_. ··==::~i:=~~==.--;.~Iii:f==~·;;;,-----
--
1:
1------
I !
I II --------~W/IK."'....& ~ --"--------'I~~ __RW_ -
___ ~Ir""~ ~l ~ _""'''''''''£ b -------
SECTION 'E-E'
ND.!CME SECTION 'F -F'
IIO.!CME
4·".. ...... £
~--
L ~3~ .. ~'o.~ C.~~~I~o~ts~ I~:.:.. ~ .... " •• " •• _" __ ". " ....... __ ~_N __ • ___ _ -.. -........ __ ..... _--." .... '--. __ ......... ,,,,,,,, .......... , ......... , .. " ... '" ................. ,,'" . "';"'--'
.9';/ .,;>
CANNON ROAD
RW--
BENCHMARK:
tecWIIDIt s.NIIW' .w SlaT aJIVUIC' ",, __ r
IJX'IiIQt CDI1l1IIEfJF4CAllllPAE4l; ATDIaIIllIft.m1lW1SH1t !fX/U,."..,
JEaIID nat CClMTfI/DlQtl£tflS{IKl. crutrrWll """", .. ",
Q.MIIXt .01 AllUIt 1Ut: ~ fa
.'7 ·1
;' J' -.--
"-
~
!:;:; ~ Vj
(::: Vj
6
I
ff_~_ 'l(f
10' -.t
SClU:16 _'/IJI
DI).fEN?lQN NQ[F'
/JIIENSIaiSFRfMBUllJINGS TO mas (If ...us ARe NfI'i'(l.UI(All:
-RW~ ---R
___ II .. J~J
~) -L-
AC1l/AL DtItIEN!K1IS ~r VARY lJ'I txIISTRlJClJtONDOCtItI£NlSBtlTJIflL lEIISlJ8STAHlW.~
~s--raQ~ -I \=-*, '~ ... ~ ---AE1CIIt • .IU.,
AU. LOCAllONS AAE APPROXIMATE
lhItdoalnenlor .... noI.~oI .... ~ Doc:onenttird~noI:btorMd~MbHIQ"" .ccwa1o~oI'~
~~ RIVERSIDE co.
"""';Y Q .. ' cd:. Co ORANGE CO. SANDIEGO co.
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PA21 _3014
W.O. 6363:II-SC I Do\TE 11108 I scw,.e '1"-Mr
~~~ D£SICttEi, lin': --lI.&.-MTE:--lfIIL.ZI!!L DIWftt~~~~ ~~,X)II~
znt __ .... ... -.......... --.. -.............. --
I
e
•
i I I
1 """ ... _-_. -TIIOntro.tNIftOLI.. ... "" ""., ---'" -_ ......... -_.-... _.--_ ..... -----.. _._-_ ... _._-. --.... __ ............ --'''-' j ==--==-~-=:.".::r:-~& ___ _
il .,
i
'I ,I --~ ~ RW-----l\ --: -: ~ .. J..;....£-
i! ~~ .... J -
~"H~'~~~~ H~~~.r. _Consunon~I .. I~_~ .. _ _
e ¢}/
\NOTA~:ftT
\ (,,,""Sf."'&' ~=== -------
~WA~W+ -trW-
Ir-----""""""'£ ~UMWA~_, _1 ___ _ ---
---~---;
o---~--
Ci!\
-L fl'f!':W.w.
=---I ~J 'i. -lOOU'~wl I
%$''''' .......... -~-,
"S1'UT-FACCIll.fJCr msr. CIMIJ· '&V1TOI
SECTIoN 'G-G'
/i05OOE
BENCHMARK:
SIAMWfI)JJ-IOS1Rt!fc:rHl!IiI.til 1l!U1I0NfJJIlH1
I.OOOIOIt aNTtR!IN(Va CAJeNOit!'Al AT £N(;1I£[R"S 5WlCH ~511n PlIfRSJeoo-l
RECORD FlWr.c CWNlY lJ(NOIlOfi5 (NO. ctXPIlY IfHl CfHTR(Z.(),tTA)
Et.EVmJ1t 6M79 fJATIJU. US.C.t/AS;
~/~ ~Q~ -! iolt_*, ~~~ ---_ "'MflI ,....., .....
'''''''''\---,
I
rL_S' 'lff
1a it
stltL&1·.1!I
ISICWS FR«tI /JIJIlIJIiCS TO
FlNCES (R IWJ1S ARE Ntli'IlWAlE: ..teTlIN. D/IIOI9{1IS u-tr VARY CW ctNS1RIJClKII DOCIIMENTS IJIJT JtIll. I£IIS1J8STANTIAI..~
ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
ThIIocba.tnetJl~"bl'lClt"pN1.ofb~ ~.lIIIldaholldnotben4ed~"b8lgNl ~'·~or~
G_~ RIVERSIDE CO. ORANGE eo. <":;y"o .~e. SAN DIEGO CO.
AS-GRADED
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PA21 PIoIo4014
w.o. 5363-B-SC IIIo\TE lllD8' 1 SCALE 1_
~~A~ 0E:!iICNE:D Jrr.-I:I.!.-Ml£::--IfBI..JUL
DfWitM an..l.L-scu:~ f'IIQCI'~.IOI~
.". ....... .... -"""",,<F_ -.. --,--.-=:.= -..., -",.,. .. --1IIOllf'f 0. CMRW. oIR. "'" "'" ---......... , ..... -... " ......... ·=====-~.=:i::i.-=a.;;;~-:.;:
..
.,.
,e
ie :
!