Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 11-04; Quarry Creek; Update Geotechnical Investigation; 2015-02-24UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION QUARRY CREEK CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05 GROCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALSO 6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 • Fax 858.558.6159 Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015 Cornerstone Communities 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92121 Attention: Mr. Jack Robson Subject: UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION QUARRY CREEK CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Robson: In accordance with your authorization, we are pleased to submit the results of our update geotechnical investigation for the proposed Quarry Creek project. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on review of available published geotechnical reports and literature, observations during previous grading performed on the property for reclamation, previous subsurface geotechnical exploration and site reconnaissance of existing conditions. The eastern half of the property has been used for mining and crushing rock to produce commercial aggregates. As the result, the eastern half of the site is underlain by compacted fill, previously placed fill, undocumented fill, sedimentary, volcanic, and intrusive bedrock. Reclamation grading has occurred on this portion of the site. The western half of the site is in an ungraded natural condition. The accompanying report presents findings from our studies relative to geotechnical engineering aspects of developing the property. The site is considered suitable for the proposed improvements provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Ali Sadr CEG 1778 Rodney C. Mikesell GE 2533 AS:RCM:dmc (4/del) Addressee (2/del) The Corky McMillin Companies Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. PREVIOUS SITE USAGE AND GRADING ....................................................................................... 2 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 3 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 3 4.1 Compacted Fill (Qcf) .................................................................................................................. 4 4.2 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) ......................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Previously Placed Compacted Fill (Qpcf) .................................................................................. 4 4.4 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) ....................................................................................................... 5 4.5 Topsoil (Unmapped) ................................................................................................................... 5 4.6 Surficial Landslide Debris (Qlsf) ............................................................................................... 5 4.7 Alluvium (Qal) ........................................................................................................................... 5 4.8 Colluvium (Qc) ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.9 Terrace Deposits (Qt) ................................................................................................................. 6 4.10 Santiago Formation (Ts) ............................................................................................................. 6 4.11 Salto Intrusive (Jspi) ................................................................................................................... 7 5. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................................... 7 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ....................................................................................................................... 7 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity .............................................................................................................. 7 6.2 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................ 9 6.3 Flow Slide Potential ................................................................................................................. 10 6.4 Landslides ................................................................................................................................. 10 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 11 7.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 11 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ......................................................................................... 11 7.3 Subdrains .................................................................................................................................. 12 7.4 Grading ..................................................................................................................................... 13 7.5 Surcharge Fill ........................................................................................................................... 16 7.6 Settlement Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 16 7.7 Slope Stability .......................................................................................................................... 16 7.8 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 18 7.9 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations .................................................. 19 7.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations ........................................................................................... 24 7.11 Detention Basin and Bioswale Recommendations ................................................................... 26 7.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection .................................................................................... 27 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2 and 3, Geologic Map Figure 4, Geologic Cross Sections AA’ through DD’ Figure 5, Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail Figure 6, Typical Subdrain Cut-Off Wall Detail Figure 7, Typical Subdrain Outlet Headwall Detail Figure 8, Construction Detail for Lateral Extent of Removal Figure 9, Settlement Monument Figures 10 – 14, Slope Stability Analysis Figure 15, Typical buttress Fill Detail Figure 16, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1 – A-5, Logs of Large Diameter Borings Figures A-6 – A-27, Logs of Trenches Figures A-28 – A-33, Logs of Small Diameter Borings Figures A-34 – A-39, Logs of Trenches (Geocon 9-10-09) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Performed During Reclamation Grading Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Table B-VI, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results Performed During Reclamation Grading APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Table C-I, Summary of Soil Properties used for Slope Stability Analyses Table C-II, Summary of Slope Stability Analyses Figure C-1, Cut Slope Figures C-2 – C-3, Buttress Fill Slope APPENDIX D FLOW ANALYSIS Figure D-1, Stability Analysis for Flow Slide Potential Figure D-2, Stability Analysis to Determine Yield Coefficient APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES Project No. 07135-42-05 - 1 - February 24, 2015 UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of an update geotechnical investigation for the proposed Quarry Creek development. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to evaluate surface and subsurface soil conditions and general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may impact development of the property. In addition, the purpose of this report is to provide foundation design criteria, concrete flatwork recommendations, retaining wall recommendations, excavation and remedial grading considerations that can be utilized in developing project budgets. The scope of this investigation also included a review of readily available published and unpublished geologic literature, aerial photographs and the following documents previously prepared for the property: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek II, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 24, 2015 (Project No. 07135-42-03). 2. Foundation Report, Quarry Creek Bridge, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 21, 2014 (Project No. 07135-42-04A). 3. Mass Grading Plans for Quarry Creek, prepared by Project Design Consultants, undated. 4. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 4, 2013 (Project No. 07135-42-02). 5. Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek, Oceanside, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated March 11, 2013 (Project No. 07135-42-02). 6. Update Geotechnical Investigation, Amended Reclamation Plan, Quarry Creek Refined Alternative 3, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 10, 2009 (Project No. 07135-42-01). 7. Limited Geotechnical Investigation to Evaluate Hardrock Constraints for Quarry Creek, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 9, 2004 (Project No. 07135-42-01B. 8. EIR – Level Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance Quarry Creek II Carlsbad/Oceanside, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 20, 2011(Project No. 07135- 42-01B). The site is located south of State Route 78 and west of College Boulevard in Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The eastern portion of the site has been graded as part of the reclamation process. Geocon Incorporated performed compaction testing and observation services during the grading operations. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 2 - February 24, 2015 References 4 and 5 are the as-graded reports prepared for reclamation grading. As-graded conditions are shown on the Geologic Map (Figures 2 and 3). Previous field investigations were conducted in 2012 (Reference 1) and 2004 (Reference 7). These investigations included large-diameter borings, small-diameter boring, and exploratory trenches. Pertinent information, including boring and trench logs and other details of the field investigations are presented in Appendix A. We tested selected soil samples obtained during the previous field investigations to evaluate physical properties for engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading. Details of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the boring logs in Appendix A. The Geologic Map, Figures 2 and 3 also present the locations of the exploratory excavations. The base map used to generate Figures 2 and 3 is a CAD file of Reference 3. Other reports reviewed as part of this study are summarized on the List of References at the end of this report. 2. PREVIOUS SITE USAGE AND GRADING The Quarry Creek property has undergone many years of mining, crushing, and screening to produce commercial aggregate products. The majority of previous mining activity occurred in the eastern and southern portions of the site. Mining waste products were placed in canyon or pit areas to reclaim quarry excavations. This resulted in placement of mostly undocumented fill in depressions, as well as some compacted fill. A former concrete batch plant and base-coarse crushing and screening plant operated by Hanson Aggregates occupied the central portion of the property. Other portions of the property were previously used for storage purposes, which include stockpiles of concrete and asphalt rubble, bioremediation stockpiles, and other materials. Reclamation grading of the previously mined area commenced in July 2011 and was completed in December 2012. During reclamation grading, undocumented fills were removed and replaced as compacted fill. Alluvium, within the drainage area, was removed to approximately 3 feet above groundwater elevation and replaced with compacted fill. Drop structures, levees, and rock revetment slopes were constructed along and in Buena Vista Creek drainage. Reclamation grading has resulted in removal of undocumented fill and replacement with compacted fill on the south side of Buena Vista Creek and majority of the areas north of the creek. Reclamation grading resulted in large sheet- graded pads on the eastern half of the property on both the north and south sides of Buena Vista Creek. The western portion of the property has remained in an ungraded condition. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 3 - February 24, 2015 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The overall site slopes northward, southward, and westward, following the east-west natural drainage of Buena Vista Creek valley and its tributaries. The original valley-slope topography has been lowered by quarry operations and then regarded to the current sheet grade elevations during reclamation grading. Mining of rock in the northeast quadrant has created near-vertical rock slopes. The cut has exposed fractured rock, which is very strong and considered stable in its temporary steep condition. Recommendations for a permanent slope condition are provided in the slope stability section of this report. Slopes on the south side of the valley have been graded to permanent 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) cut slopes with benches, bench-drains and brow-ditches. On the north side of the property, reclamation grading has resulted in 2:1 cut slopes. Elevations in the eastern half of the property vary from approximately 80 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) to above 300 feet MSL in open-space areas. Sheet graded pad elevations vary from approximately 105 to 115 feet MSL. On the western ungraded portion of the site, existing site elevations vary from approximately 80 feet MSL to 160 feet MSL. Review of the grading plan for Quarry Creek indicates regrading in the eastern half of the property will generally consist of cuts up to approximately 35 feet and fills of 15 feet, respectively. Within the ungraded western portion, cuts and fills up to 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively will occur to create large sheet-graded pads. Development will also include the construction of a bridge across the creek, roadways, and utilities. A report specific to the bridge has been provided separately (see Reference 2). Final plans for development have not yet been completed, however, we understand plans are to construct 3-story multi-family buildings, 2-story single family attached units, affordable housing units, and a community facility. Plans include street improvements, utilities, and several neighborhood parks. Several water quality basins are planned within the development. The site description and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the available plans. If development plans differ significantly from those described herein, we should be contacted for review and possible revisions to this report. 4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Eight surficial soil deposits and four geologic formations were encountered and/or mapped on the property. Surficial soil deposits include undocumented fill, compacted fill, previously placed fill, topsoil (unmapped), surficial landslide debris, alluvium, and colluvium. Formational units include: Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits; Tertiary-age Santiago Formation; and Jurassic-age Salto Intrusive rock. Mapped limits of the geologic units are shown on the Geologic Maps (Figures 2 and 3). Project No. 07135-42-05 - 4 - February 24, 2015 Geologic Cross Sections are presented on Figure 4. The surficial soil types and geologic units are described below. 4.1 Compacted Fill (Qcf) Compacted fill placed during reclamation grading exists across the eastern half of the property. Observation and compaction testing of the fill has been performed by Geocon Incorporated. Report documenting compaction tests and as-graded conditions were prepared in 2013 (see References 4 and 5). The fill is predominately comprised of silty to clayey sand with varying amounts of rock fragments, soil rock fills, and windrows of oversize rock and concrete. A 10-foot hold-down for oversize rock was provided during reclamation grading. However, in the southwest portion of the reclamation grading area, the hold down was raised to 7 feet below finish grade. Compacted fill is considered suitable for support of additional fill and structural loads. 4.2 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) Undocumented fill exists in the northeast portion of the property beyond the reclamation grading limit and within the existing access road from Haymar Drive. The majority of this undocumented fill will likely be removed to achieve sheet grades based on proposed cuts shown on the project grading plans. However, we expect some remedial grading will be needed below proposed cut elevations to completely remove undocumented fill. A small amount of undocumented fill also exists just west of the graded reclamation parcels near the central portion of the project. Undocumented fill is unsuitable in its present condition, and will require removal and recompaction to support additional fill or structural improvements. Oversize materials encountered during remedial grading may require breaking down and special placement procedures in deeper fill areas. In the southwest portion of Lot 2, a limited amount of undocumented fill was left in-place during reclamation grading due to the presence of groundwater. Based on our observations during reclamation grading and potholes performed, we expect less than 3 to 5 feet of fill was left below groundwater in some areas. We do not expect the presence of the undocumented fill will impact future development. 4.3 Previously Placed Compacted Fill (Qpcf) Limited areas in the northeast and southeast portions of the property are underlain by previously placed compacted fill (see Geologic Map). According to a report by Ninyo and Moore (dated August 31, 2000), most of the approximately 10 feet of documented fill in the bottom of the northern pit area had been placed between approximately 1988 and 2000. The report describes the fill Project No. 07135-42-05 - 5 - February 24, 2015 as … interlayered, medium dense to dense, clayey and silty sand, clayey gravel and stiff sandy clay. Portions of the compacted fill were buried beneath stockpiles of oversize shot-rock that was removed during reclamation grading. The upper approximately 3 to 5 feet of previously placed compacted fill was removed during reclamation grading and recompacted. Previously placed compacted fill associated with the development of the eastern quarry (Wal-Mart shopping center) encroaches into the southeastern portion of the property. These materials were partially removed and recompacted during reclamation grading operations. Based on observations during reclamation grading, the fill appears to be relatively dense with adequate moisture content and considered suitable for support of structural improvements. 4.4 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) Previously placed fill exists near Haymar Drive and Highway 78 along the northern property boundary. The approximate limit of the previously placed fill is shown on Figure 2 (Geologic Map). These soils should not impact future development of the property. 4.5 Topsoil (Unmapped) Portions of the western side of the site are irregularly blanketed by 1 to 3 feet of topsoil consisting of loose, porous, dark brown, silty to clayey, fine sand. Topsoil is compressible and expansive, and will require removal and recompaction within areas of planned development. Expansive clays should be placed in deeper excavations during grading. 4.6 Surficial Landslide Debris (Qlsf) Several suspicious surficial landslides are mapped within the western portion of the site, along the south banks of the Buena Vista Creek basin. Due to the limited access to these areas, subsurface investigation was not practical at this time. Their existence will be verified when access is available or during the grading operations. Trench T-5 was excavated at one of these areas and showed approximately 5 feet of sandy clay material overlying bedrock formation. The surficial landslide debris, if they exist, are considered unsuitable for receiving fill or structures and require removal. 4.7 Alluvium (Qal) Alluvial deposits are present within the major east-west drainage of Buena Vista Creek, as well as in the northeastern and southwestern tributary canyons that converge with Buena Vista Creek in the central portion of the site. The alluvial soils generally consist of loose, porous dark gray to dark brown, very clayey, fine to medium sand, and clayey sand and silt with occasional layers of slightly silty sand. Areas of deepest alluvium are located in the central portion of the site adjacent to the Project No. 07135-42-05 - 6 - February 24, 2015 original channel of Buena Vista Creek and its tributaries. The alluvium is compressible and not suitable for support of additional fill and/or structural loads and will require partial (dependent upon groundwater depths) to complete removal. Remedial grading of the alluvium along the north and south sides of the main Buena Vista Creek drainage has occurred during the reclamation grading. Alluvium is expected to be encountered along the toe of the south facing fill slope at the west end of the property. 4.8 Colluvium (Qc) Colluvial deposits were encountered in the southwest portion of the site mostly along the sides of the draining tributary canyons. Colluvium is comprised of approximately 4 to 6 feet of loose dark brown, very clayey to silty, fine sand. Due to the loose unconsolidated condition of the colluvium, removal and recompaction will be required to provide suitable support for placement of compacted fill or structural improvements. 4.9 Terrace Deposits (Qt) Extensive and thick river terrace deposits consisting of medium-dense to dense, light reddish-brown to olive-brown, gravelly, silty to clayey, medium to coarse sand to cohesionless sand with occasional layers of silty clay are present in the western and southwest portions of the site. Except near depositional contacts (or unconformities) with older formations, this unit is typically massive to horizontally bedded, relatively dense and exhibits low compressibility characteristics. Terrace Deposits are most prevalent in the southwestern portion of the site. The sandy zones are suitable for support of fill and/ or structural loads in their present condition. The clayey zones, however, possess low shear strength and high expansion potential. Our large diameter boring LB-2 performed in the proposed cut slope located at the southwest boundary, adjacent to Simsbury Court, encountered materials consists of interbedded silty sand, cohessionless sand and clay layers which are occasionally partially remolded. We recommend a stability buttress be constructed along this cut slope to provide adequate slope stability. 4.10 Santiago Formation (Ts) The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation, consisting of dense, massive bedded light brown to greenish- gray sandstones and thin interbedded siltstones is present in the north-central and south-central portions of the site. The Santiago Formation is generally granular and possesses suitable geotechnical characteristics in either an undisturbed and/or properly compacted condition. However, the occurrence of clayey siltstones and claystone layers in this unit may generate moderate to highly Project No. 07135-42-05 - 7 - February 24, 2015 expansive materials, or localized expansive zones at grade. Where practical, clayey zones of the Santiago Formation should be placed at least 3 feet below proposed subgrade elevations. 4.11 Salto Intrusive (Jspi) The Jurassic-aged Salto Intrusive consists of a steeply jointed, dark gray, very strong tonalite to gabbro rock considered to be older than the Peninsular Range Batholith and more closely related to the formation of the Santiago Peak Volcanics (Larsen, 1948). This granitoid bedrock unit is present in the northeast and southeast corners of the property and is the predominant geologic unit that has been mined for aggregate on the property. Typically, this bedrock unit outcrops along the eastern or southeastern boundary of the site, or is covered by fill in the central portions of the site. Exploratory excavations encountered mostly buried intrusive rock that exhibited a variable weathering pattern ranging from intensely weathered and fractured material near contacts with the overlying sedimentary rocks, to fresh, extremely strong crystalline rock within quarried areas. 5. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in the major lower elevation drainage areas of Buena Vista Creek and its tributaries at elevations between 70 to 80 feet MSL. Depth of groundwater is subject to fluctuation from natural seasonal variations. The relationship between alluvial removals and the position of groundwater table and time of year remedial grading is performed are discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report. 6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1 Faulting and Seismicity Review of geologic literature, previous geotechnical reports for the property, and observations during our current field investigation indicates no active faults traverse the property. One fault was observed in Salto Intrusive rock across the quarry slope in the northeast corner of the property. However, an exploratory trench excavated through the Tertiary Santiago Formation across the fault confirmed the fault did not displace the Eocene-age sedimentary unit. As such, the fault is considered inactive and not a constraint to the property. According to the results of the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.62), 8 known active faults are located within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. The nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood- Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 6 miles east of the site and is the dominant source of potential ground motion. Earthquakes that might occur on the Newport- Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone or other faults within the southern California and northern Baja Project No. 07135-42-05 - 8 - February 24, 2015 California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. The estimated deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the Newport Inglewood –Rose Canyon Fault are 7.5 and 0.34 g, respectively. We used Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2008) NGA acceleration-attenuation relationships in the calculation of the peak ground accelerations (PGA). Table 6.1.1 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitudes and PGA’s for the most dominant faults for the site location calculated for Site Class D as defined by Table 1613A.5.3 of the 2010 CBC. TABLE 6.1.1 DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS Fault Name Distance from Site (miles) Maximum Earthquake Magnitude (Mw) Peak Ground Acceleration Boore- Atkinson 2008 (g) Campbell- Bozorgnia 2008 (g) Chiou- Youngs 2008 (g) Newport-Inglewood- Rose Canyon 6 7.50 0.30 0.26 0.34 Elsinore 21 7.85 0.21 0.15 0.19 Coronado Bank 23 7.40 0.18 0.12 0.14 Palos Verdes Connected 23 7.70 0.19 0.13 0.16 San Joaquin Hills Thrust 35 7.10 0.18 0.10 0.09 Earthquake Valley 42 6.80 0.13 0.09 0.11 San Jacinto 45 7.88 0.13 0.08 0.10 Chino 47 6.80 0.08 0.05 0.05 We used the computer program EZ-FRISK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The computer program EZ-FRISK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes on each mapped Quaternary fault is proportional to the fault slip rate. The program accounts for earthquake magnitude as a function of fault rupture length. Site acceleration estimates are made using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value. We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2008) in the Project No. 07135-42-05 - 9 - February 24, 2015 analysis. Table 6.1.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence for Site Class D. TABLE 6.1.2 PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS Probability of Exceedence Peak Ground Acceleration Boore-Atkinson, 2008 (g) Campbell-Bozorgnia, 2008 (g) Chiou-Youngs, 2008 (g) 2% in a 50 Year Period 0.52 0.42 0.47 5% in a 50 Year Period 0.39 0.32 0.35 10% in a 50 Year Period 0.31 0.25 0.27 The California Geologic Survey (CGS) provides a computer program that calculates the ground motion for a 10 percent of probability of exceedence in 50 years based on the average value of several attenuation relationships. Table 6.1.3 presents the calculated results from the Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page from the CGS website. TABLE 6.1.3 PROBABILISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED FAULTS CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY Calculated Acceleration (g) Firm Rock Calculated Acceleration (g) Soft Rock Calculated Acceleration (g) Alluvium 0.27 0.29 0.33 While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structures should be evaluated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines. 6.2 Liquefaction Liquefaction analyses were performed during Geocon’s 2009 report for reclamation grading. Results of the analyses indicate alluvial deposits below the groundwater should not liquefy for the design level acceleration. However, design accelerations for under current building codes have significantly increased over the last several years. Under current design accelerations, portions of the alluvium below groundwater could experience liquefaction. Liquefaction, should it occur, is expected to be limited to the area within the existing Buena Vista Creek drainage, and in the tributary drainage Project No. 07135-42-05 - 10 - February 24, 2015 southwest of the site. With respect to the alluvium left in place within Lot 2, the alluvium is likely less than 10 feet thick, has been surcharged with approximately 15 to 20 feet of fill, will receive an additional 5 feet of fill to achieve proposed sheet grades, and will be surcharged with an additional 5 feet of fill during regrading (see Section 7.5 of this report). In our opinion, liquefaction, if it were to occur in this area would not cause surface manifestations (i.e., sand boils). Settlement, should it occur is expected to be relatively uniform and less than 1-inch total. We estimate differential settlement as a result of liquefaction to be ½-inch or less. 6.3 Flow Slide Potential We analyzed flow slide potential for liquefaction conditions along the channel bank. We performed a slope stability analysis using residual shear strength parameters for the potentially liquefiable soils. Residual shear strengths were determined using information provided in Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California. It is our opinion that there is a low potential for flow slide impacts to structures at the locations shown on Figure 2. The results of the stability analysis are shown graphically in Appendix D (see Figures D-1 and D-2). 6.4 Landslides Review of 1995 published landslide maps of the California Geological Survey (formerly the Division of Mines and Geology) and a previous geotechnical report by Ninyo and Moore (August 23, 2000), suggested the presence of suspected landslide deposits in the southwest quadrant of the site. However, observations of intact outcrops and current subsurface investigation confirmed that the landslide does not exist. Several suspicious surficial landslides are mapped along the south bank of the creek. These areas were not accessible for subsurface investigation. These potential landslides, even if confirmed, should not have significant impact on the proposed development. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 11 - February 24, 2015 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.1.1 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in design and construction of the project. 7.1.2 Soil conditions identified during this study that may impact development include compressible surficial soils (undocumented fill, alluvium, colluvium, surficial landslide debris and topsoil) that will require remedial grading. Undocumented fill may contain large rock fragments that require special placement procedures. 7.1.3 The property is approximately 7 miles from the Newport Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault. It is our opinion active and potentially active faults do not extend across or trend toward the site. Risks associated with seismic activity consist of the potential for strong seismic shaking. Building setbacks will not be required for the planned development due to faulting. 7.1.4 Several potential surficial landslides are mapped along the north-facing slope within the western portion of the site. Due to the limited access, these areas could not be reached for subsurface investigation. If encountered during the grading operations, total removal of the slide debris within the grading area is recommended. 7.1.5 Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil/geologic conditions; however, some variations in subsurface conditions between trench and boring locations should be anticipated. 7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics 7.2.1 Excavation of the Terrace Deposits, Santiago Formation and weathered portion of the Salto Intrusive is expected to require a heavy to very heavy effort to excavate. Less weathered and fresh Salto Intrusive bedrock may require blasting or specialized rock breaking techniques to efficiently excavate and handle. Very heavy effort with possible refusal is expected for excavations into the volcanic and intrusive rocks. Oversize material may be generated which would require special handling or exportation from the site. 7.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be “expansive” (expansion index greater than 20) as defined by 2013 California Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 7.2 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. Based on Project No. 07135-42-05 - 12 - February 24, 2015 the results of our laboratory testing, presented in Appendix B, we expect the on-site materials will possess a “very low” to “very high” expansion potential (Expansion Index of 20 and greater). TABLE 7.2 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX ASTM 4829 AND 2013 CBC Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Classification ASTM 4829 2013 CBC Expansion Classification 0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive 21 – 50 Low Expansive 51 – 90 Medium 91 – 130 High Greater Than 130 Very High 7.2.3 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content tests are presented in Appendix B and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess “negligible” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-08 Sections 4.2 and 4.3. We recommend the requirements set forth by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318 be followed when determining the type of concrete to be used. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration. 7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned. 7.3 Subdrains 7.3.1 Canyon subdrains are recommended to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with observed and potential seepage conditions and to collect perched water that migrates along the contact between natural ground and fill surfaces. Figure 5 presents a typical canyon subdrain detail. Recommended subdrain locations are depicted on the Geologic Map, Figures 2 and 3. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 13 - February 24, 2015 7.3.2 The final 20-foot segment of a subdrain should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the non-perforated/perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the downslope side of the junction in accordance with Figure 6. Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure in accordance with Figure 7. 7.3.3 Final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. Upon completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an “as-built” map depicting the existing conditions. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading. The grading contractor may consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and to check that the pipe has not been crushed. As a minimum, we recommend the subdrain for the buttress fill be videoed. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains. 7.4 Grading 7.4.1 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix E. Where the recommendations of Appendix E conflict with this section of the report, the recommendations of this section take precedence. 7.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 7.4.3 Grading should be performed in conjunction with the observation and compaction testing services of Geocon Incorporated. Fill soil should be observed on a full-time basis during placement and tested to assess in-place dry density and moisture content. 7.4.4 Site preparation should begin with removal of all deleterious material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used for fill is relatively free of organic matter. Deleterious material generated during stripping and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. 7.4.5 Undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium and landslide debris within areas of planned grading should be removed to firm natural ground and properly compacted prior to placing additional fill and/or structural loads. The actual extent of unsuitable soil removals should be determined in the field by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. Overly Project No. 07135-42-05 - 14 - February 24, 2015 wet surficial materials, where encountered, will require drying and/or mixing with drier soils to facilitate proper compaction. 7.4.6 Alluvium should be removed down to competent formational bedrock or to within approximately 3 feet of the groundwater table, whichever occurs first. During excavation of the alluvium, test pits should be periodically excavated to determine groundwater depths. Dewatering and special equipment such as swamp cats, excavators, and top loading operations may be required to excavate the alluvium. Removals at the toe of slopes along the drainage channel at the southwest corner of the property should extend out at a 1:1 plane from the toe to the bottom of the removal. A typical lateral extent of removal is shown on Figure 8. 7.4.7 Graded areas may expose volcanic/intrusive rock at finish grade. The presence of hard rock may impact future development. We recommend hard rock be undercut to a depth of at least 5 feet below finish grade in building pads and 2 feet below utilities and a soil cap replaced. 7.4.8 After removal of unsuitable material as recommended above, the base of overexcavations and natural ground surfaces (including previous compacted fill soil) to receive additional fill should be scarified approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted. 7.4.9 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted in layers. In general, soils native to the site are suitable for re-use as fill if free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, backfill, and scarified ground surfaces should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill areas with in-place density test results indicating moisture contents less than optimum will require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. 7.4.10 To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion of building pads with cut-fill transitions be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced, where practical, with “very low” to “medium” expansive compacted fill soils. 7.4.11 Cut pads exposing concretions, cemented material, or expansive soil should be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted “very low” to “medium” expansive soil to facilitate excavation of foundations and shallow utilities. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 15 - February 24, 2015 7.4.12 Undercuts (overexcavations) performed on pads with cut-fill transitions, cemented sandstone, hard rock or expansive soil materials at grade should be undercut at a gradient of 1 percent toward the street or toward the deepest fill area to provide drainage for moisture migration along the contact between the native soil and compacted fill. 7.4.13 The on-site soil is suitable to be used as fill if relatively free of debris and organic material. The depth of removal should be such that dense natural ground is exposed at the base of the overexcavation. 7.4.14 Grading should be performed such that highly expansive soils are placed in the deeper fill areas and outside of slope zones. Materials within 3 feet of finish grade on lots and the upper 12 inches of subgrade within streets, where practical, should consist of very low to medium expansive soils (soil with an Expansion Index less than 90). 7.4.15 Cut and fill slopes should be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. An approximately 15-foot-high 1.5:1 cut slope in the Salto Intrusive is planned in the southeast portion of the property and an approximately 30-foot-high 1.5:1 cut slope in - Santiago Formation is planned at the northeast portion. These 1.5:1 slopes are acceptable provided they are free of adverse bedding. It is recommended that the slope excavations be observed during grading by a representative of Geocon Incorporated to check that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated and adverse bedding does not exist. 7.4.16 All fill slopes should be constructed of granular material and compacted out to the face of the finish slope. If complete removals cannot be performed outside the toe of slopes due to environmentally sensitive areas and/or groundwater conditions, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide recommendations. 7.4.17 Excavations in cemented zones of formational units will likely generate oversize rock chunks. Oversized materials can be placed in fill areas in accordance with the recommendations contained within the Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix D. Oversize materials (rocks or hard lumps in excess of 12 inches in least dimension) should be kept at least 10 feet below proposed finish grade within building pads and at least 2 feet below the deepest utility within street right-of-ways. Modifications to the hold down depths can be made at the owner’s desecration. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 16 - February 24, 2015 7.5 Surcharge Fill 7.5.1 In Lot 2 where undocumented fill and alluvium were left in-place below groundwater, we recommend a surcharge fill height of at least 5 above finish pad grade be placed. The approximate area of recommended surcharge is shown on Figure 2. The top of the surcharge fill should extend out to a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet beyond the limits where alluvium was left in-place. We recommend the bottom 1-foot of the surcharge fill be placed and compacted as structural fill. This will result in compacted fill at finish grade once settlement of the underlying alluvium occurs. 7.6 Settlement Monitoring 7.6.1 Settlement monitoring is recommended where surcharge fill is placed. Once rough pad grade is attained, we recommend surface monuments be installed to measure settlement. The locations and number of monuments should be determined by Geocon once building pad locations are known. A typical surface settlement monument detail is presented as Figure 9. 7.6.2 Surface settlement monuments should be read by the project surveyor every week for the first 4 weeks, and then every two weeks until measured settlement is within tolerable limits such that additional settlement will not impact site improvements. Based on our experience with similar soil conditions, we estimate 2 to 4 months of monitoring would be necessary to demonstrate that primary consolidation is essentially complete. 7.7 Slope Stability 7.7.1 Slope stability analyses, utilizing average drained direct shear strength parameters, indicate proposed fill slopes constructed with on-site granular materials and cut slopes within formational material should have calculated factors of safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions with respect to both deep-seated failure and shallow sloughing conditions. Results of the analyses are presented on Figures 10 through 14. Additionally, an inclination of 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) is acceptable for slopes excavated into the Salto Intrusive and Santiago Formation provided no adverse jointing, fractures, or bedding exist. All cut slopes should be observed by a geologist to assess if adverse bedding, jointing, or fractures exist. 7.7.2 There are steep to near vertical cut slopes within the northeast portion of the site. These slopes were excavated during mining operations. The stability of these slopes should be evaluated when ultimate grading and use of this area is known. Various options such as lay back, stability fill or soil nailing/rock bolting may be considered at the time. Alternatively, Project No. 07135-42-05 - 17 - February 24, 2015 slope set-backs and rock retention fences can be utilized. For preliminary planning purposes, we recommend a set-back for site improvements of 20 feet from the toe of slope in conjunction with the construction of a debris ditch and rock retention fence. Additionally, we recommend loose rock and accumulated soil on the slope face and at the top of the slope be removed. The construction of the debris ditch and rock retention fence should occur during fine grading of the pad once pad usage and improvement locations have been determined. 7.7.3 The proposed 45 feet high cut slope located at the southwest boundary, adjacent to Simsbury Court, will be excavated into Terrace Deposits. Our large diameter boring LB-2 encountered materials consisting of interbedded silty sand, cohessionless sand and clay layers which were occasionally partially remolded. Our analysis indicates that a buttress fill will be required to provide adequate slope stability. Based on our analysis, the stability buttress will need to have a minimum width of 30 feet to provide adequate stability. A typical buttress fill detail is provided in Figure 15. A discussion our stability analysis is presented in Appendix C. 7.7.4 Excavations including buttresses, shear keys, and stability fills should be observed during grading by an engineering geologist to evaluate whether soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those expected. Buttress shear key and associated subdrains should be surveyed during construction and depicted on the final as-built grading plans. 7.7.5 We performed the slope stability analyses based on the interpretation of geologic conditions encountered during our field investigation. In certain areas, the geologic conditions such as the localized or continuous features of the bedding plane shears may need to be further defined by additional field exploration based on our review of the 40-scale grading plans. 7.7.6 The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular “soil” fill to reduce the potential for surficial sloughing. 7.7.7 Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 3 feet and cut back to the design finish grades. Alternatively, fill slopes can be compacted by backrolling with a loaded sheepsfoot roller or tracked walked by sufficiently by a D-8 dozer or equivalent, at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet. Slope should be uniformly compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density to the face of the finished slope. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 18 - February 24, 2015 7.7.8 All slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, all slopes should be drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion. Slope planting should generally consist of drought tolerant plants having a variable root depth. Slope watering should be kept to a minimum to just support the plant growth. 7.8 Seismic Design Criteria 7.8.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 7.8.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2013 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2012 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7- 10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building structures and improvements should be designed using a Site Class C. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 7.8.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). TABLE 7.8.1 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value 2013 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 1613.3.2 MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.067g Figure 1613.3.1(1) MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.413g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Site Coefficient, FA 1.073 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, FV 1.587 Table 1613.3.3(2) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.145g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 0.656g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.763g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.437g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) 7.8.2 Table 7.8.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG). Project No. 07135-42-05 - 19 - February 24, 2015 TABLE 7.8.2 2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.407g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.093 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.445g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) 7.8.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.8.1 and 7.8.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. 7.9 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations 7.9.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- to three-story residential structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying fill soils as well as the expansion index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a particular building pad (or lot). Categories for each building pad or lot will be provided after the completion of grading once fill thickness is known and expansion index testing has been performed on finish grade soils. TABLE 7.9.1 FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA Foundation Category Maximum Fill Thickness, T (feet) Differential Fill Thickness, D (feet) Expansion Index (EI) I T<20 -- EI<50 II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90 III T>50 D>20 90<EI<130 7.9.2 Table 7.9.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for conventional foundation systems. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 20 - February 24, 2015 TABLE 7.9.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Category Minimum Footing Embedment Depth (inches) Continuous Footing Reinforcement Interior Slab Reinforcement I 12 Two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid-point II 18 Four No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, both directions III 24 Four No. 5 bars, two top and two bottom No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions 7.9.3 The embedment depths presented in Table 7.9.2 should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. The conventional foundations should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. 7.9.4 The concrete slab-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category III. 7.9.5 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM requirements, and in a manner that prevents puncture. The project architect or developer should specify the vapor retarder based on the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled environment. 7.9.6 The project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer should determine the thickness of bedding sand below the slab. In general, 3 to 4 inches of sand bedding is typically used. Geocon should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. 7.9.7 The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. The foundation design engineer should specify the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plan. It Project No. 07135-42-05 - 21 - February 24, 2015 is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations presented on the foundation plan. 7.9.8 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The 2013 CBC has updated the design requirements for post-tensioned foundation systems. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), Third Edition, as required by the 2013 CBC (Section 1805.8). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, we understand it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 7.9.3 for the particular Foundation Category designated. The parameters presented in Table 7.9.3 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual. TABLE 7.9.3 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Third Edition Design Parameters Foundation Category I II III Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9 Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9 Edge Lift, yM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58 Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0 Center Lift, yM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66 7.9.9 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than the 2013 CBC:  The criteria presented in Table 7.9.3 are still applicable.  Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.  The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.  The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches and 24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 22 - February 24, 2015 7.9.10 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and extend at least 6 inches below the clean sand or crushed rock layer. 7.9.11 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift, regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI design procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of the reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structures. 7.9.12 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system. 7.9.13 Category I, II, or III foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. The estimated maximum total and differential settlement for the planned structures due to foundation loads is 1- inch and ½-inch, respectively. Differential settlement is estimated to occur over a span of 40 feet. 7.9.14 We expect primary settlement of existing fills is essentially complete. However, we estimate that additional settlement as a result of hydro-consolidation to be approximately 0.2 to 0.3 percent of the total fill thickness. We expect hydro-consolidation to occur over a 20 year or more duration. We estimate a total fill settlement as a result of hydro- consolidation to be 1- inch or less in areas where compacted fill exists. A more refined estimate of total and differential fill thickness can be made once building locations on individual sheet graded pads are known. 7.9.15 Foundations will need to be designed to accommodate estimated total and differential fill settlement from both building loading and hydroconsolidation. In addition, building pads on Lot 2 where alluvium was left in-place should incorporate the estimated liquefaction settlement. Project No. 07135-42-05 - 23 - February 24, 2015 7.9.16 Isolated footings, including PT foundation systems where footings are not reinforced with PT cables, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional foundations (see Section 7.9.1 through 7.9.3) for a particular foundation category. The use of isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams. 7.9.17 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed five feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. 7.9.18 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation- and slab-subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be appropriate in any such concrete placement. 7.9.19 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.  For fill slopes less than 20 feet high or cut slopes regardless of height, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.  For fill slopes greater than 20 feet high, foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face of the slope. A post-tensioned slab and foundation system or mat foundation system can be used to help reduce potential foundation distress associated with slope creep and lateral fill extension. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined.  If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.  Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the Project No. 07135-42-05 - 24 - February 24, 2015 adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.  Although other improvements that are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 7.9.20 The exterior flatwork recommendations provided herein assumes that the near surface soils are very low to low expansive (EI < 50). Exterior slabs not subjected to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of four inches thick and reinforced with 6 x 6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be placed in the middle of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs. The contractor should take extra measures to provide proper mesh placement. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned at or slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM 1557. 7.9.21 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. The occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by: (1) limiting the slump of the concrete, (2) proper concrete placement and curing, and by (3) the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur. 7.9.22 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 7.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations 7.10.1 Retaining walls that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pcf. Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), an active Project No. 07135-42-05 - 25 - February 24, 2015 soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. Expansive soils should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. All soil placed for retaining wall backfill should have an Expansion Index less than 50. 7.10.2 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time Geocon Incorporated should obtain samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall designs will be used. 7.10.3 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and loads acting on the wall. The wall designer should provide appropriate lateral deflection quantities for planned retaining walls structures, if applicable. These lateral values should be considered when planning types of improvements above retaining wall structures. 7.10.4 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 8H psf should be added to the active soil pressure where the wall possesses a height of 8 feet or less and 12H where the wall is greater than 8 feet. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added (unit weight 130 pcf). 7.10.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (EI of less than 50) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. Figure 16 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 7.10.6 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in accordance with Section 1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design Project No. 07135-42-05 - 26 - February 24, 2015 category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 18.3.5.12 of the 2013 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 21H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.445g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33. 7.10.7 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall consists of compacted fill with an Expansion Index of less than 90. The allowable soil bearing pressure can be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing of 4,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. 7.10.8 Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by friction along the base of the wall foundation or by passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Allowable coefficients of friction of 0.35 are recommended for footings in compacted fill. Passive earth pressure may be taken as 150 pcf for walls founded on a 2:1 slope, and 300 pcf for horizontal ground in front of the wall. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 7.10.9 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 7.11 Detention Basin and Bioswale Recommendations 7.11.1 Any detention basins, bioswales and bio-remediation areas should be designed by the project civil engineer and reviewed by Geocon Incorporated. Typically, bioswales consist of a surface layer of vegetation underlain by clean sand. A subdrain should be provided beneath the sand layer. Prior to discharging into the storm drain pipe, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed at the interface between the subdrain and storm drain pipe. The Project No. 07135-42-05 - 27 - February 24, 2015 concrete cut-off wall should extend at least 6-inches beyond the perimeter of the gravel- packed subdrain system. 7.11.2 Distress may be caused to planned improvements and properties located hydrologically downstream or adjacent to these devices. The distress depends on the amount of water to be detained, its residence time, soil permeability, and other factors. We have not performed a hydrogeology study at the site. Downstream and adjacent properties may be subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration. Due to site soil and geologic conditions, permanent bioswales and bio-remediation areas should be lined with an impermeable barrier, such as a thick visqueen, to prevent water infiltration in to the underlying compacted fill. 7.11.3 The landscape architect should be consulted to provide the appropriate plant recommendations. If drought resistant plants are not used, irrigation may be required. 7.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 7.12.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 7.12.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water- proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage. 7.12.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time. 7.12.4 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed Project No. 07135-42-05 - 28 - February 24, 2015 away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record. 2. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. APPENDIX A Project No. 07135-42-05 - A-1 - February 24, 2015 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Fieldwork for our investigation included site visits, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on the Geologic Map, Figures 2 and 3. Boring and trenches were mainly excavated within the western portion of the project site. The logs of the excavations and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented in figures following the text in this appendix. We located the borings in the field using a measuring tape and existing reference points; therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly. We performed a field investigation on December 20 and 21, 2011, which consisted of drilling five large diameter exploratory borings to a maximum depth of approximately 56 feet below existing grade with an EZ Bore 2000 drill rig equipped with a 30-inch-diameter bucket auger. We obtained bulk and ring samples from the exploratory borings for future laboratory testing. We have also excavated 22 exploratory trenches to help mapping the surficial soils by using a John Deer 450 trackhoe. Bulk samples and relatively undisturbed chunk samples of prevailing soils were obtained for laboratory testing. As part of our previous study of the project site, Geocon had excavated 6 small diameter borings in the western portion of the site. The results were reported in 2004 (See list of references). We have included the boring logs herein. We obtained samples during our boring excavations using a California Sampler. The California sampler is composed of steel and is driven to obtain the soil ring samples. The California sampler has an inside diameter of 2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 2.875 inches. Up to 18 rings that are 2.4 inches in diameter and 1 inch in height are placed inside the sampler. We retained ring samples at appropriate intervals in moisture-tight containers and transported the samples to the laboratory for testing. We also obtained bulk samples from the borings for laboratory testing. The type of sample is noted on the exploratory boring logs. The Modified California Sampler was driven 12 inches into the bottom of the excavations with the use of the kelly bar and driven into the bottom of the excavation using the kelly bar ( weight ranging from approximately 4,500 to 2,500 pound) with a 12-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded. The penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot. The blow count values are not to be taken as N-values as adjustments have not been applied. We estimated Project No. 07135-42-05 - A-2 - February 24, 2015 elevations shown on the boring logs either from a topographic map or by using a benchmark. Each excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs. We visually examined the soil conditions encountered within the borings, classified, and logged in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A-1 through A-39. The logs depict the general soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which we obtained the samples. TERRACE DEPOSITS Dense, damp to moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; mottled-weathered -Becomes less silty with depth Becomes light brown, fine to medium SAND; trace silt interbedded with medium coarse cohesionless sand -Layer of coarse sand cohesionless; 1 foot thick, horizontal Dense, moist, grayish brown, fine to medium, Silty SAND; micaceous -Cross-bedded at 11 to 12 feet -A layer of fine sand, heavy managnese staining from 12-13 feet; horizontal -Becomes interbedded fine silty sand with fine to medium sand; horizontal contact Dense, wet, light brown/grayish gray, Silty, fine SAND Becomes fine to coarse cohesionless SAND -A thin layer of silt and gravel 6" thick at 23 feet SM SP SP-SM SM SP LB1-1 LB1-2 LB1-3 LB1-4 LB1-5 2.8 9.8 5.4 1 2 3 2 103.4 125.7 103.0 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-1, Log of Boring LB 1, Page 1 of 2 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 1 ELEV. (MSL.)134'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Dense, wet, brown, slightly Silty, fine to medium SAND; grades to cohesionless fine to medium sand, cross-bedded Dense, wet, brown, slightly Silty, fine to medium SAND; grades to cohesionless fine to medium sand, cross-bedded BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET Backfilled with cuttings SM-SP LB1-6 2 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-1, Log of Boring LB 1, Page 2 of 2 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)24 26 28 30 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 1 ELEV. (MSL.)134'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM Stiff, wet, dark brown, Sandy CLAY with roots to 2 feet TERRACE DEPOSITS Dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND -Stiff, wet, gray, clayey layer 1-2 inch thick, partially remolded, horizontal -Becomes very dark brown -Light brown to gray clay formed along fractures and random spots, from 6 to 10 feet Very stiff, wet, dark gray, CLAY, shiny parting surfaces, slickensided, partially remolded -Very dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, 1 foot thick-lens, north side of boring Grades into dark brown, Clayey SAND with occasional lenses of clay -Becomes sandier Interbeds of cohesionless SAND and dark gray Silty SAND Grades into dense, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; uniform -Dark gray clay lense, 4-6 inch thick at 19 feet SC SC CL SC SM-SP SM LB2-1 LB2-2 LB2-3 LB2-4 LB2-5 13.7 16.3 16.9 103.4 2 3 2 2 123.1 108.8 113.5 116.7 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-2, Log of Boring LB 2, Page 1 of 3 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 2 ELEV. (MSL.)167'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Interbeded stiff, moist, dark grayish brown, SILT and medium brown and gray cohesionless, fine to medium SAND Very stiff, moist, dark grayish brown, Sandy CLAY, shiny parting surface, no shearing evident, approximately 1 foot thick Dense, moist, medium brown, fine to medium, Silty SAND, grades into cohesionless SAND from 29 feet -Contact N55E, 10NW Hard, wet, dark brown, Silty CLAY, shiny parting surface Very dense, moist, brown, cohesionless SAND, sharp contact; one foot thick at 32 feet Hard, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY, shiny parting surfaces, carbonate spots and iron staining Grades into very dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, carbonate nodule and veinlets Grades into very stiff, moist, dark grayish brown, CLAY -Becomes sandy CLAY Grades into dense, moist, brown, Clayey SAND Grades into hard, very dark grayish brown, Silty CLAY to CLAY, shiny parting surface, slightly remolded, carbonate nodules and spots Grades into very dense, moist, light brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel ML-SP CL SM-SP CL SP CL SM CL SC CL SC LB2-6 LB2-7 LB2-8 LB2-9 LB2-10 LB2-11 9.1 28.5 18.1 10.6 25.6 2 2 5 5 4 103.4 98.1 112.1 126.1 100.5 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-2, Log of Boring LB 2, Page 2 of 3 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 2 ELEV. (MSL.)167'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Interbedded, dense, moist, light brown, Sandy SILT and Silty SAND Becomes very dense, moist, light brown, Silty SAND BORING TERMINATED AT 56 FEET Boring backfilled with cuttings, no seepage SM-ML SM LB2-12 LB2-13 16.2 19.4 5 10 117.9 113.9 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-2, Log of Boring LB 2, Page 3 of 3 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)48 50 52 54 56 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 2 ELEV. (MSL.)167'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM Stiff, moist, very dark grayish brown, Sandy CLAY, caliche veinlets nodule TERRACE DEPOSITS Very dense, moist, medium brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Grades into hard, moist, very dark brown, Silty CLAY, shiny parting surface Depositional contact irregular, near horizontal Very dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine SAND -A lense of brown, coarse clayey sand at 9.5 feet Interbeds of very dense, Clayey, fine to medium SAND and hard, moist, Silty CLAY Very dense, damp, medium brown, Clayey, fine SAND Interbeds of cohesionless SAND and Silty CLAY Very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND, transitional contact, lenses of dark gray silty clay -Becomes grayish brown Hard, moist, light brown, Sandy SILT Grades into very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND CL SM CL SM SC-CL SW SP-CL SM ML SM LB3-1 LB3-2 LB3-3 LB3-4 8.7 14.2 2.9 15.2 4 4 4 4 106.5 120.5 104.5 113.5 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-3, Log of Boring LB 3, Page 1 of 2 12-22-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 3 ELEV. (MSL.)148'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Grades into hard, moist, very dark brown, Silty CLAY to Sandy CLAY, shiny parting surfaces not sheared Very dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Very dense, moist, medium brown, fine to coarse SAND, near horizontal bedding with gravel lenses Grades into very dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET Boring backfilled with cuttings CL SM SP SM LB3-5 LB3-6 LB3-7 LB3-8 10.0 5.5 3.5 5 5 127.6 122.1 99.2 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-3, Log of Boring LB 3, Page 2 of 2 12-22-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 3 ELEV. (MSL.)148'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Stiff, wet, dark brown, Sand CLAY, root at the upper 1 foot TERRACE DEPOSIT Hard, moist, grayish brown, Silty CLAY with caliche veinlets and nodules Grades into very dense, moist, medium brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Grades into grayish brown, Silty, very fine SAND to Sandy SILT Grades into grayish brown and dark brown, Silty, fine SAND, with carbonate nodules up to 1 inch diameter Grades into very dense, yellowish brown, fine to medium SAND; cohesionless; cross bedded grades into light grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND Grades into Sandy SILT with lenses of dark grayish brown, Silty CLAY Grades into Silty, fine to medium SAND -A lense of yellowish brown sand cohesionless, on the south half of the boring Grades into very stiff, moist, very dark brown, Silty CLAY, shiny parting surfaces, caliche veinlets Grades into Silty, fine to medium SAND BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET Boring backfilled with cuttings CL CL SM SM-ML SM SP SM ML SM CL SM LB4-1 LB4-2 LB4-3 12.9 8.5 13.8 2 3 3 113.2 112.7 118.6 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-4, Log of Boring LB 4, Page 1 of 1 12-22-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 4 ELEV. (MSL.)140'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Firm, wet to moist, very dark brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSIT Dense, moist, grayish brown, Clayey, fine SAND, greenish gray along fractures Grades into dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -A lense of dark brown clay, 3 inch thick, north side of boring Hard, damp to moist, dark grayish brown, Silty CLAY and Clayey SILTSTONE Grades into hard dark brown, Sandy CLAY Very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -Becomes Silty, fine SAND -A layer of dense, damp, grayish brown, fine to coarse sand from 13½ to 14½ feet -Layer of fine to coarse sand, 8-12 inch thick at 15 feet -Interbedded with fine to medium cohesionless sand Very stiff, moist, dark gray to brown, Sandy SILT Very dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Very dense, moist, medium to coarse SAND Dense, moist, light greenish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND CL SC SM CL-ML CL SM ML SM SP SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-5, Log of Boring LB 5, Page 1 of 2 12-22-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 5 ELEV. (MSL.)137'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Grades into dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND -Lense of dark brown, clay at 26.5 feet Becomes very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET Boring backfilled with cuttings SP SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-5, Log of Boring LB 5, Page 2 of 2 12-22-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)24 26 28 30 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING LB 5 ELEV. (MSL.)137'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, wet, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -Becomes light brown -Strong seepage at 5 feet TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, wet to saturated, medium grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; little clay TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET Seepage encountered at 5 feet SM SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-6, Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 1 ELEV. (MSL.)96'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, saturated, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; roots and trash -Becomes loose, wet, yellowish brown TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, wet, yellowish brown, slightly Silty, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET Groundwater not encountered SC SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERA. SADR SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-7, Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 2 ELEV. (MSL.)105'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; some organics -Becomes light brown with fissile rootlets and pinhole porosity Dense, moist, light brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, yellowish to olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SANDSTONE; some gravel TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM SC SC T3-1 T3-2 T3-3 T3-4 3.9110.1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-8, Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 3 ELEV. (MSL.)80'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSITS Dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; slight cementation TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL SM T4-1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-9, Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 4 ELEV. (MSL.)120'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 SURFICIAL LANDSLIDE DEBRIS?? Soft, wet, brown, Sandy CLAY -Becomes stiff TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, light reddish brown, Clayey SAND; friable blocky texture with some fissile rootlets -Becomes dense, some pinhole porosity, some subrounded gravel, poorly cemented TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, wet, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 22 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL SC SC T5-1 T5-2 T5-3 13.7 14.3 113.8 113.4 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-10, Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 5 ELEV. (MSL.)100'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSITS Dense, moist, reddish brown to brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; blocky texture, lightly cemented Dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; some pinhole porosity -Pockets of medium dense, clayey sand with pinhole porosity -Lamination of sandy clay TRENCH TERMINATED AT 20 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL SC SM T6-1 T6-2 T6-3 T6-4 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-11, Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 6 ELEV. (MSL.)140'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Hard, moist, gray to olive brown, Sandy CLAY; blocky texture; some pinhole porosity with some fissile rootlets; structures slightly waxy appearance TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL SM CLT7-1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-12, Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 7 ELEV. (MSL.)90'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, light reddish, Silty to Clayey, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL SM/SC T8-1 T8-2 T8-3 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-13, Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 8 ELEV. (MSL.)128'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSITS Stiff to medium dense, moist, olive brown, Sandy CLAY to Clayey, fine to medium SAND; some subrounded gravel with trace pinhole porosity -Medium dense, moist, light brown, Clayey SAND; weak, some pinholes TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL CL-SCT9-1 T9-2 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERM. ERTWINE SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-14, Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1 12-20-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 9 ELEV. (MSL.)100'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM Firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY SANTIAGO FORMATION Firm to stiff, damp, mottled light gray to gay, Sandy SILT; highly weathered; ???? rootlet structure Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; weakly cemented TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL ML SM T10-1 T10-2 12.7108.6 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-15, Log of Trench T 10, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 10 ELEV. (MSL.)85'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Soft to firm, moist, brown to dark brown, Silty CLAY; few roots -Pockets of shell fragments at 2.5 feet Medium dense, moist, dark olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND Medium dense, moist, olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense to dense, moist, light olive brown to light gray, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10.5 FEET Groundwater not encountered CH SC SM SM T11-1 T11-2 T11-3 10.3111.1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-16, Log of Trench T 11, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 11 ELEV. (MSL.)82'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots Firm, damp to moist, brown to dark olive brown, Sandy CLAY; some pockets of light gray sandstone TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, mottled olive brown and gray and reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; pockets of claystone clasts Medium dense, moist, light olive brown and reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown and light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE TRENCH TERMINATED AT 15 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM CL SC SM SM T12-1 T12-2 T12-3 11.9117.2 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-17, Log of Trench T 12, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 12 ELEV. (MSL.)84'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; few rootlets -Excavates with some white stringers Medium dense, damp, brown to dark olive brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; few caliche staining TERRACE DEPOSITS Stiff, damp to moist, mottled yellowish brown and light olive brown and reddish brown, Sandy CLAY Medium dense, moist, mottled olive brown and reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10.5 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM CL SC CL SC T13-1 T13-2 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-18, Log of Trench T 13, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 13 ELEV. (MSL.)95'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots Firm to stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; some rootlets Medium dense, damp, brown to dark olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -Observed slight pinholes TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, damp to moist, yellowish brown to olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM CL SM SM T14-1 T14-2 T14-3 8.0112.9 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-19, Log of Trench T 14, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 14 ELEV. (MSL.)100'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; few roots Firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; little rootlets Medium dense, mist, dark olive brown to brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; some caliche staining TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, light olive brown to yellowish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET Groundwater not encountered SC CL SC SM T15-1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-20, Log of Trench T 15, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 15 ELEV. (MSL.)122'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, mist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; some rootlets Medium dense, moist, brown to dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; little caliche staining Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Loose to medium dense, mist, mottled light olive brown and yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few clay -Becomes medium dense to dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; weakly cemented TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM CL SC SM SM SMT16-1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-21, Log of Trench T 16, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 16 ELEV. (MSL.)115'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM Loose, moist, grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND -Becomes dry, light gray Medium dense, damp, mottled dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; some rootlets Medium dense, damp, brown to dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense to dense, damp, light gray and reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE Medium dense, damp, gray and light reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM SC SM SM SC T17-1 T17-2 T17-3 T17-4 9.7120.0 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-22, Log of Trench T 17, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 17 ELEV. (MSL.)140'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Soft to firm, dark brown, Silty CLAY Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown to olive brown and light reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown to light olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM CH SM SC SM T18-1 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-23, Log of Trench T 18, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 18 ELEV. (MSL.)110'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TOPSOIL Soft, moist, brown to reddish brown, Sandy CLAY TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, damp, yellowish brown and reddish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND Loose, moist, yellowish brown, fine to coarse SAND; little silt SANTIAGO FORMATION Medium dense, damp, light gray to light yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL SM SW SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-24, Log of Trench T 19, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 19 ELEV. (MSL.)106'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 ALLUVIUM Loose, moist, brown to dark brown, Silty, fine SAND Loose, moist, grayish brown, Clayey, fine SAND Stiff, damp, brown, Sandy CLAY; some caliche staining; some rootlets TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, moist, mottled olive and gray and light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; trace clay Stiff, moist, mottled gray and dark reddish brown, Sandy CLAY -Becomes mottled olive brown and gray and yellowish brown Medium dense, damp, mottled olive brown and reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; pinhole porosity TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM SC CL SM CL SM T20-1 T20-2 T20-3 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-25, Log of Trench T 20, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 20 ELEV. (MSL.)118'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -Becomes dry; porous Medium dense, damp, dark brown to grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, damp, mottled olive brown and reddish brown and gray, Silty, fine to coarse SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET Groundwater not encountered SM SC SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-26, Log of Trench T 21, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 21 ELEV. (MSL.)122'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM Soft, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY Stiff, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY Loose to medium dense, moist, olive brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; trace caliche staining Medium dense, damp, brown to olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense, damp, mottled olive brown and gray and light reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Groundwater not encountered CL CH SC SM SM 07135-42-03.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERN. BORJA SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-27, Log of Trench T 22, Page 1 of 1 12-21-2011 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD 450 TRACKHOE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 22 ELEV. (MSL.)120'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TERRACE DEPOSIT Medium dense, moist, dark orange brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with clay -Brown, clayey sand with silt Very stiff, moist, dark brown, fine to medium Sandy CLAY Medium dense, moist, light orange to brown, Silty, fine SAND; little cohesion -Dense, olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with little clay -Becomes hard drilling; some blue andesitic; volcanic rock fragments SM CL SM SB1-1 SB1-2 33 33 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-28, Log of Boring SB 1, Page 1 of 2 03-31-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 1 ELEV. (MSL.)140'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 -Damp, dark olive brown, Clayey, fine SAND; many pinholes -Olive brown, Silty, fine SAND with clay Dry to damp, light tan-brown, Silty, fine SAND; slightly cemented; easy drilling -Moist, olive brown, Clayey, fine SAND SANTIAGO FORMATION Very dense, damp to moist, pale olive white, Silty, fine to coarse SANDSTONE; well cemented BORING TERMINATED AT 45.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled 03-31-2004 45.5 to 8 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (13.1 cu ft) 8 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (1.75 cu ft) 3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft) SM SM SP SB1-3 SB1-4 SB1-5 39 48 50/5" FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-28, Log of Boring SB 1, Page 2 of 2 03-31-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 1 ELEV. (MSL.)140'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TERRACE DEPOSIT Medium dense, moist, orange brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND -Dense, damp to moist, Clayey, fine to medium SAND Medium dense, damp, light orange brown, Silty, fine SAND with trace clay -Little cohesion SC SM SB2-1 SB2-2 SB2-3 50 29 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-29, Log of Boring SB 2, Page 1 of 2 03-31-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 2 ELEV. (MSL.)145'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 -Fine to coarse -Dense, damp, light olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace clay, thin interbeds of pale olive sandy clay -Tan brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND; little cohesion -Light tan, fine to coarse cohesionless sand with some pebbles up to 2 cm diameter BORING TERMINATED AT 51 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled 03-31-2004 51 to 10 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (14.3 cu ft) 10 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (2.5 cu ft) 3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft) SM SW SB2-4 SB2-5 SB2-6 61 49 61 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-29, Log of Boring SB 2, Page 2 of 2 03-31-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 2 ELEV. (MSL.)145'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 -Light olive tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly cemented Very dense, moist, light olive gray with some orange, Silty, fine to coarse, well cemented SAND BORING TERMINATED AT 41 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled 03-31-2004 41 to 5 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (12.5 cu ft) 5 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft) 3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft) SM SB3-3 SB3-4 56 51/2" FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-30, Log of Boring SB 3, Page 2 of 2 03-31-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)30 32 34 36 38 40 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 3 ELEV. (MSL.)146'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TERRACE DEPOSIT Medium dense, damp, light orange brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with trace clay -Tan brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -Very stiff, moist, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY Dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly cemented SM CL SM SB3-1 SB3-2 40 45 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-30, Log of Boring SB 3, Page 1 of 2 03-31-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 3 ELEV. (MSL.)146'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TERRACE DEPOSIT Medium dense, moist, orange brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND -Damp, dark brown to brown, fine Sandy CLAY -Dry to damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -Dense, dry, light tan brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly cemented -Interbeds of dark brown clay alternating with light brown silty sand SC CL SM SB4-1 SB4-2 33 44 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-31, Log of Boring SB 4, Page 1 of 3 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 4 ELEV. (MSL.)151'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 -Damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay -Fine to coarse -Very dense, light tan brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND, little cohesion Hard, moist, brown to dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; slightly remolded zones 2 to 4 cm thick SM CL SB4-3 SB4-4 SB4-5 42 71 53 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-31, Log of Boring SB 4, Page 2 of 3 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 4 ELEV. (MSL.)151'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Dense, damp, olive gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay BORING TERMINATED AT 61 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled 04-01-2004 61 to 5 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (19.5 cu ft) 5 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft) 3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft) SMSB4-6 42 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-31, Log of Boring SB 4, Page 3 of 3 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)60 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 4 ELEV. (MSL.)151'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TERRACE DEPOSIT Medium dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Very stiff, damp, light orange brown, fine Sandy CLAY; slightly remolded zones 2 to 4 cm thick -Hard, orange brown and tan, fine to coarse Sandy CLAY; some small pinholes SM CL SB5-1 SB5-2 37 45 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-32, Log of Boring SB 5, Page 1 of 2 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 5 ELEV. (MSL.)132'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Very stiff, damp to moist, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; slightly remolded zones 1 to 2 cm thick BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled 04-01-2004 31 to 5 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (9.0 cu ft) 5 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft) 3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft) CLSB5-3 33 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-32, Log of Boring SB 5, Page 2 of 2 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)30 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 5 ELEV. (MSL.)132'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 TERRACE DEPOSIT Medium dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay Very stiff, damp, orange brown, fine Sandy CLAY Medium dense, orange brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with clay -Dry, light tan to gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND; little cohesion SM CL SM SB6-1 SB6-2 SB6-3 36 34 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-33, Log of Boring SB 6, Page 1 of 2 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 6 ELEV. (MSL.)126'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 Dense, damp, light tan gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND; little cohesion BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET No groundwater encountered Backfilled 04-01-2004 31 to 5 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (9.0 cu ft) 5 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft) 3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft) SMSB6-4 41 FROM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERD.GONSMAN SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-33, Log of Boring SB 6, Page 2 of 2 04-01-2004 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CME 55 PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)30 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT BORING SB 6 ELEV. (MSL.)126'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-03 COLLUVIUM Loose, damp, light to medium brown, Silty boulder GRAVEL; with some sand SANTIAGO FORMATION Very dense, damp, light gray - olive, Silty fine SANDSTONE; massive, trace clay TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET GM SM 07135-42-01.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERG. COPENHAVER SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-34, Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1 07/28/03 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD450 TRACK BACKHOE 24"PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 8 ELEV. (MSL.)160 MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-01 TOPSOIL Loose, damp, medium dark, very Gravelly, Clayey SAND SANTIAGO FORMATION Very dense, moist, light grayish - olive, Clayey fine SANDSTONE; some silt, massive Irregular depositional contact inclined westward approximately 45 degrees SALTO INTRUSIVE Weathered and fractured, medium yellow - olive to brown, moderately strong GRANITIC ROCK; some fractures have discontinuous polished shear surfaces TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET SC SM 07135-42-01.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERG. COPENHAVER SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-35, Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1 07/28/03 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD450 TRACK BACKHOE 24"PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 9 ELEV. (MSL.)165 MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-01 SANTIAGO FORMATION Hard, moist, medium olive, Silty CLAYSTONE Dense to very dense, damp, light brown to tan, very Silty, very fine-grained SANDSTONE; massive to horizontal bedding -Becomes more dense, but excavates slowly TRENCH TERMINATED AT 20 FEET CL SM 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERG. COPENHAVER SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-36, Log of Trench T - 9C, Page 1 of 1 05-05-2005 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CAT 330C PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T - 9C ELEV. (MSL.)155'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-01B UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, humid to damp, light to medium brown, Gravelly, Silty fine SAND; porous, with root fragments, asphalt and concrete chunks, crushed aggregate waste (yellow fill) Loose to medium dense, damp, medium to dark brown (mottled) Gravelly, Clayey fine SAND Large 24 inch diameter boulder at 12.5 feet TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13.5 FEET Refusal on oversize rock SM SC 07135-42-01.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERG. COPENHAVER SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-37, Log of Trench T 10, Page 1 of 1 07/28/03 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) JD450 TRACK BACKHOE 24"PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T 10 ELEV. (MSL.)136 MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-01 SANTIAGO FORMATION Dense, damp, light brown to olive, Silty fine SANDSTONE Very dense, moist, medium olive-brown, very Gravelly, Clayey SANDSTONE; with oversize rock, core stones (includes some very weathered granitic rock) SALTO INTRUSIVE Weathered, fractured, medium olive-brown, moderately strong GRANITIC ROCK TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET (Near refusal) SM SC-GC 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERG. COPENHAVER SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-38, Log of Trench T - 10C, Page 1 of 1 05-05-2005 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CAT 330C PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T - 10C ELEV. (MSL.)148'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-01B SANTIAGO FORMATION Dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE Dense, moist, light brown to olive, Silty to Clayey, fine SANDSTONE Very dense, moist, medium brown-olive, Gravelly, Clayey, fine SANDSTONE; "floater" boulders of oversize rock (includes corestones of weathered granitic rock) SALTO INTRUSIVE Weathered, fractured, moist to damp, medium olive-brown, moderately strong GRANITIC ROCK TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET (Near refusal) SM SM SC 07135-42-01B.GPJ MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONLITHOLOGY ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SOIL CLASS (USCS)GROUNDWATERG. COPENHAVER SAMPLE NO.CONTENT (%)Figure A-39, Log of Trench T - 11C, Page 1 of 1 05-05-2005 SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE DEPTH IN FEET ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) CAT 330C PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)0 2 4 6 8 10 ... CHUNK SAMPLE (P.C.F.)DATE COMPLETED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL DRY DENSITYEQUIPMENT TRENCH T - 11C ELEV. (MSL.)135'MOISTUREBY: ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE GEOCON NOTE: PROJECT NO. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 07135-42-01B APPENDIX B Project No. 07135-42-05 - B-1 - February 24, 2015 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING We performed the laboratory tests in accordance with the current versions of the generally accepted American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) procedures or other suggested procedures. We tested selected soil samples for their in-place density and moisture content, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, shear strength, expansion index, and water-soluble sulfate characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-I through B-VI and on the boring logs in Appendix A. Laboratory expansion index and soluble sulfate tests performed during reclamation grading and reported in Reference 4 are included in Table B-IV and B-VI. TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample No. Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) LB1-5 Grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 118.7 12.7 LB2-4 Reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 126.5 9.9 LB2-8 Dark brown, Silty CLAY 105.0 21.4 T8-3 Dark brown, Sandy CLAY 125.5 12.0 T14-1 Grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 127.8 9.3 TABLE B-II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080 Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Peak [Ultimate] Cohesion (psf) Peak [Ultimate] Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) Initial Final LB1-5* 106.5 13.1 17.7 500 [70] 33 [37] LB2-2 108.9 16.4 22.3 110 [0] 35 [36] LB2-7 98.1 28.4 34.7 670 [490] 20 [20] T8-3* 113.2 11.8 21.6 650 [600] 19 [19] T14-1* 114.9 9.4 18.6 275 [255] 30 [30] *Sample remolded to 90% relative compaction at or near optimum moisture content. Ultimate measured at 0.2 inch deflection. Project No. 07135-42-05 - B-2 - February 24, 2015 TABLE B-III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829 Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Expansion Classification Before Test After Test LB1-5 11.3 17.1 104.6 0 Very Low LB2-4 9.7 21.2 110.2 45 Low LB2-8 18.3 47.7 86.1 204 Very High T11-1 10.7 27.6 107.9 120 High T14-1 9.9 20.9 109.9 36 Low T18-1 12.3 31.4 101.2 131 Very High TABLE B-IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS PERFORMED DURING RECLAMATION GRADING ASTM D 4829 Sample No. Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Classification Before Test After Test EI-1 (north side) 8.9 19.1 113.0 30 Low EI-2 (north side) 10.5 17.7 110.0 7 Very Low EI-3 (north side) 9.3 17.3 112.9 8 Very Low EI-4 (north side) 9.4 17.8 112.5 0 Very Low EI-A (Import) 11.3 27.0 103.4 72 Medium EI-B (Import) 12.7 29.9 100.9 97 High EI-C (Import) 11.9 27.3 102.8 74 Medium EI-D 8.2 16.2 115.5 13 Very Low EI-E 8.2 17.9 114.9 18 Very Low EI-F (southeast lower pad) 8.9 21.1 112.4 51 Medium EI-G 9.2 20.1 111.5 38 Low EI-H 9.6 21.7 111.1 55 Medium EI-I 9.5 20.9 112.0 56 Medium EI-J (north pad) 8.5 18.2 115.1 19 Very Low EI-K (north pad) 8.4 16.7 115.6 16 Very Low EI-L 9.8 23.8 112.0 109 High EI-M 9.7 24.5 109.9 89 Medium 7 8.1 15.5 116.6 14 Very Low 9 (Import) 11.3 21.3 104.1 24 Low Project No. 07135-42-05 - B-3 - February 24, 2015 TABLE B-V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Classification LB1-5 0.007 Negligible T11-1 0.026 Negligible T18-1 0.046 Negligible T14-1 0.007 Negligible TABLE B-VI SUMMARY OF WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PERFORMED DURING RECLAMATION GRADING CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure EI-1 (north side) 0.022 Negligible EI-2 (north side) 0.020 Negligible EI-3 (north side) 0.017 Negligible EI-4 (north side) 0.046 Negligible EI-A (Import from High School) 0.052 Severe EI-D 0.051 Negligible EI-E 0.009 Negligible EI-F (southeast lower pad) 0.137 Moderate EI-G 0.116 Moderate EI-H 0.259 Severe EI-I 0.128 Moderate EI-J (north pad) 0.060 Negligible EI-K (north pad) 0.110 Moderate EI-L 0.333 Severe EI-M 0.310 Severe APPENDIX C Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015 APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES We performed the slope stability analyses using the two-dimensional computer software GeoStudio2007 developed by Geo-Slope International Ltd. We analyzed the critical modes of potential slip surfaces including rotational-mode and block-mode based on Spencer’s method. The soil parameters used, case conditions, and the calculated factors of safety are presented herein. Plots of analyses’ results, including the soil stratigraphy, potential failure surfaces, and calculated factors of safety, are attached within this appendix. We estimated the shear strength characteristics of the existing geologic units based on laboratory direct shear tests on samples obtained during our field investigation in accordance with ASTM D 3080 (see Appendix B). The soil parameters used for the stability analyses were presented in Table C-I. TABLE C-I SUMMARY OF SOIL PROPERTIES USED FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Geologic Unit/Material Density (pcf) Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (degrees) Sandy Layer 130 100 35 Clay Layer 125 200 10 Compacted Fill (Qcf) 125 300 30 We used Cross Section B-B′ to perform the slope stability analyses. Table C-II provides a summary of cases analyzed and calculated factors of safety. The case conditions, including the assumed buttresses, are also indicated in the table. A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 under static conditions is currently required by the City of Carlsbad for slope stability. Results of slope stability analyses are plotted on Figures C-1 through C-3. TABLE C-II SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Cross Section File Name Condition of Slope Stability Analyses Calculated Factor of Safety Figure Number B-B′ Case 1a 2:1 Cut Slope, block-mode analysis, static condition 1.16 C-1 B-B′ Case 2a 2:1 Fill slope and buttress (30’), block-mode analysis, static condition 1.55 C-2 B-B′ Case 3a 2:1 Fill slope and buttress (30’), block-mode analysis with single point exit, static condition 1.56 C-3 Clay LayerClay LayerClay LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerSandy Layer1.16Figure C-1Project Name: Quarry Creek IIProject No.: 07135-42-03Case 1a _ Cut Slope - 5deg.gszSLOPE/W: SpencerSlip Surface Option: BlockSandy Layer 130 pcf 100 psf 35 ° Clay Layer 125 pcf 200 psf 10 ° * Description: Cut slope condition on existing soil. Bottom clay layer has 5 degrees Out-of-Slope. Directory: X:\Engineering and Geology\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-03\Date: 1/26/2012, 10:32:06 AM21 5 degreesOut-of-SlopeDistance-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20080100120140160180Elevation80100120140160180 Clay LayerClay LayerClay LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerQcf1.55Figure C-2Project Name: Quarry Creek IIProject No.: 07135-42-03Case 2a _ Buttress - 5deg.gszSLOPE/W: SpencerSlip Surface Option: BlockQcf 125 pcf 300 psf 30 ° Sandy Layer 130 pcf 100 psf 35 ° Clay Layer 125 pcf 200 psf 10 ° * Description: Buttress fill slope condition on existing soil. Bottom clay layer has 5 degrees Out-of-Slope. Directory: X:\Engineering and Geology\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-03\Date: 1/26/2012, 10:33:57 AM21 5 degreesOut-of-Slope30' Buttress10'PLDistance-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20080100120140160180Elevation80100120140160180 Clay LayerClay LayerClay LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerSandy LayerQcf1.56Figure C-3Project Name: Quarry Creek IIProject No.: 07135-42-03Case 2a _ Buttress - 5deg(2).gszSLOPE/W: SpencerSlip Surface Option: BlockQcf 125 pcf 300 psf 30 ° Sandy Layer 130 pcf 100 psf 35 ° Clay Layer 125 pcf 200 psf 10 ° * Description: Buttress fill slope condition on existing soil. Bottom clay layer has 5 degrees Out-of-Slope. Directory: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-03 (Quarry Creek)\Date: 1/27/2012, 3:27:09 PM21 5 degreesOut-of-Slope30' Buttress10'PLDistance-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 20080100120140160180Elevation80100120140160180 APPENDIX D Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015 APPENDIX D FLOW ANALYSIS We analyzed flow slide potential for liquefaction conditions along the channel bank. The stability analysis was performed using SLOPEW (2007) computer software distributed by Geo-Slope International. This program uses conventional slope stability equations and a two-dimensional limit- equilibrium method to calculate the factor of safety against slope instability. For our analysis, Spencer’s Method with a circular failure mechanism was used. The results of the stability analysis indicate that under the expected residual shear strengths for liquefiable soils, the minimum factor of safety is 1.1 for the channel slope. The failure plane at a factor of safety of 1.1 is over 50 feet away from the edge of the sheet graded building pad area. At the building pad edge, the failure plane factor of safety is 1.3. It is our opinion that there is a low potential for flow slide impacts to structures. The results of the stability analysis are shown graphically on Figures D-1 and D-2. 1.1Quarry CreekProject No. 07135-42-05Name: Flow Slide Potential.gszDate: 2/20/2015 Name: Qcf Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 30 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Qal (Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 350 psf Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Jspi Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 500 psf Phi: 45 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Qal (Non-Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 25 ° Piezometric Line: 1 QcfQcfQal (Liq)QalJspiLot 2Figure D-1Bldg. Pad EdgeX:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-05\Distance, Feet0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 40020406080100120140Elevation, Feet20406080100120140 1.3Quarry CreekProject No. 07135-42-05Name: Flow Slide Potential (at Bldg. Edge).gszDate: 2/20/2015 Name: Qcf Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 30 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Qal (Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 350 psf Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Jspi Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 500 psf Phi: 45 ° Piezometric Line: 1 Name: Qal (Non-Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 25 ° Piezometric Line: 1 QcfQcfQal (Liq)QalJspiLot 2Figure D-2Bldg. Pad EdgeX:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-05\Distance, Feet0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 40020406080100120140Elevation, Feet20406080100120140 APPENDIX E APPENDIX E RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR QUARRY CREEK CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05 GI rev. 07/2013 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. GI rev. 07/2013 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than ¾ inch in size. 3.1.2 Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3 Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than ¾ inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. GI rev. 07/2013 3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1½ inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 07/2013 4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Consultant Finish Grade Original Ground Finish Slope Surface Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Varies “B” See Note 1 No Scale See Note 2 1 2 DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 07/2013 4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557-09. 6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. GI rev. 07/2013 6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-09. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. GI rev. 07/2013 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant. 6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the GI rev. 07/2013 required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196-09, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to observe that the minimum number of “passes” have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. 6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6 To reduce the potential for “piping” of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. 6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the Consultant. GI rev. 07/2013 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner’s representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. 7.5 The Consultant should observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: GI rev. 07/2013 7.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556-07, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938-08A, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557-09, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829-08A, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2 Rock Fills 7.6.2.1 Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1196-09 (Reapproved 1997) Standard Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. 07/2013 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015 LIST OF REFERENCES Anderson J. G. Synthesis of Seismicity and Geological Data in California, U.S. Geological Survey Open- file Report 84-424, 1984, pp. 1-186. Boore, D. M., and G. M Atkinson (2006), Boore-Atkinson NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters, Report Number PEER 2007/01, May 2007. Brain S. J. Chiou and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special Edition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008. Geocon Incorporated, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Amended Reclamation Plan, Quarry Creek Refined Alternative 3, Carlsbad, California, dated September 10, 2009 (Project No. 07135- 42-01). Geocon Incorporated, Limited Geotechnical Investigation to Evaluate Hardrock Constraints for Quarry Creek, Carlsbad, California, dated April 9, 2004 (Project No. 07135-42-01B. Geocon Incorporated, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek II, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California, dated February 24, 2015 (Project No. 07135-42-03). Geocon Incorporated, Foundation Report, Quarry Creek Bridge, Carlsbad, California, dated August 21, 2014 (Project No. 07135-42-04A). Geocon Incorporated, Geocon Incorporated, Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek, Carlsbad, California, dated April 4, 2013 (Project No. 07135- 42-02). Geocon Incorporated, Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek, Oceanside, California, dated March 11, 2013 (Project No. 07135-42-02). Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Publication, 1963. Jennings, C. W., Fault Activity Map of California And Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Geological Survey, formerly California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994. Larsen, E. S., Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore and San Luis Rey Quadrangle Southern California, Geological Society of America, Memoir 29, 1948. Ploessel, M. R., and J. E. Slosson, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations From Earthquakes, California Geology, September 1974. Project Design Consultants, Mass Grading Plans for Quarry Creek, prepared by Project Design Consultants, undated. Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, 2008. LIST OF REFERENCES (Concluded) Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015 Tan, S. S., and M. P. Kennedy, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File 96-02, 1996. Unpublished reports and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953 Stereoscopic Aerial Photographs. USGS computer program, 2002 Interactive Deaggregation, http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2002/index.php. USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra. Wesnousky, S. G., Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, 1986, pp. 12, 587-12, 631.