Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 14-09; UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH; UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT LOTS 29-32; 2017-04-24Ti .:: RECORD COPY _ilithi Date UPDATE REPORT AND CHANGE OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 . CARLSBAD,CALIFORNIA. • 0• PREPARED FOR •. • SHEA HOMES - 1 • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA :. . • ••• • • co. •. . .• .• . • .• • C.) APRIL 24, 2017 PROJECT NO G2108-32-01 GFOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS Project No. G2108-32-01 April 24, 2017 Shea Homes 9990 Mesa Rim Road San Diego, California 92121 Attention: Mr. Greg Ponce Subject: UPDATE REPORT AND CHANGE OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD BRESSI RANCH; LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA IM Dear Mr. Ponce: In accordance with your request, and our Proposal No. LG-17084, dated March 2, 2017, we have prepared this correspondence to document that Geocon Incorporated will accept the role of Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the subject project. As part of this acceptance, we have reviewed the following document and plan. Geotechnical Update Investigation, Lots 29 to 32 of Carlsbad Tract CT-02-15, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton & Associates, dated December 10, 2014. Vesting Tentative Map, Uptown Bressi-Carlsbad, CA, Sheets C-i through C-7, prepared by Rick Engineering Company, (Revision No. 3), dated May 27, 2016. Based on our review of the referenced report, we are in general concurrence with the geological characterization and geotechnical recommendations provided by Leighton & Associates. However, some modifications and additional recommendations are provided herein that should be considered as an update to the referenced report dated December 10, 2014: Where the recommendations of this report conflict with those in Reference No. 1, the recommendations contained herein shall take precedence. As. part of our due diligence in accepting the role of engineer of record, Geocon performed a limited geotechnical investigation to evaluate the suitability of the existing fill embankment in the southwest corner of the pad and compression/expansion characteristics of the formational materials exposed across the majority of the lots. The field work consisted of performing nine hollow-stem borings (see Appendix A) and collecting bulk and ring samples for laboratory testing to evaluate the in-situ moisture-density, expansion and compression characteristics of the primary embankment, and expansion and consolidation/swell characteristics of the formational materials near finish grade (see Appendix B). The Geologic Map, Figure 1 depicts the proposed development, as-graded geologic conditions obtained from Reference No. 1 and the approximate locations of our exploratory borings and trenches 6960 FIondéisDrive U Son Diego, CaliFornia 92121-2974 U Telephone 868.558.6900 0 Fax 858.558.6159 by Leighton & Associates. Logs for the trench excavations performed by Leighton & Associates are presented in Appendix C. MODIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 General Recommendations The primarily geotechnical consideration for site development is the presence of "high" to "very high" expansive soils identified in the recent and previous studies on the site. In order to reduce the effects of soil expansion on the proposed improvements, special design and remedial grading recommendations will be necessary. It should be noted that incorporation of the recommendations herein will not eliminate the potential for- impacts due to highly expansive soil, especially for lightweight improvements such as slabs-on grade, curb and gutter structures, etc. The upper two to three feet of soil/bedrock on the existing sheet graded pad contains "high" to "very high" expansive soils which have desiccated since the original pad grading. Based on the results of our laboratory testing, this material will require removal, moisture conditioning and compaction to reduce the potential for excessive swelling when wetted. In addition, bedrock areas exposed within the upper three feet of finish grade will require undercutting/processing and replacement to reduce the effects of the expansive soils. The remedial, grading should consist of removing a minimum of 3 feet of soil below the existing sheet graded 'pad (in proposed fill areas) or proposed finish graded pad subsequent' to fine grading. The resulting ground surface should be sdarified, moisture, conditioned to at least 3% above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Soil placed to achieve finish grade should be placed at a similar moisture content and relative compaction. Figure 2 presents a graphical representation of the proposed remedial grading recommendations. All grading should be performed in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading 'Specifications (Appendix D). All fill, including backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to at least 90 percent 'of maximum dry density and a minimum of 3% above optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557. Fill materials below 3% optimum moisture content will require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional 'fill. Site preparation should begin with the removal of all deleterious material and vegetation. The existing on site soils are suitable for re-use as fill if free from vegetation, debris' and other deleterious material. Exporting of the highly expansive soils is not necessary provided the client understands the inherent risks associated with placing expansive soils near finish grade. The' recommendations provided herein 'assume that select grading to cap the finish pad surface will not be performed. Project No. G2'108-32-01' -2,- ' ' ' ' ' April 24, 2017 Based on our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, the existing previously placed fill is suitable for support of additional fill andlor structural loading provided the remedial grading described above is accomplished. Loose or soft accumulated soils within the temporary detention basins will need to be removed and compacted prior to filling the basin. Abandoned storm drain pipes associated with the temporary basin, if any, should be removed and the resulting excavation backfilled in accordance with the recommendations presented herein. Specific undercutting recommendations for cut/fill transition areas should be evaluated once the fine grading plan has been finalized. Undercuts of 5 feet recommended in Reference No. 1 will not be required with the exception of residential Building Nos. 5 through 7 to reduce the differential fill thickness. These areas should also be evaluated once the grading plan is finalized. 2.0 Seismic Design Criteria We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 2.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2015 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 seconds. The values presented. in Table 2.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER). Based on soil conditions and planned grading, the building should be designed using a Site Class D. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. TABLE 2.1 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter . Value . 2016 CBC Reference Site Class D Section 16 13.3.2 NICER Ground Motion Spectral 1.039g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Response Acceleration - Class B (short), Ss NICER Ground Motion Spectral O.403g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Response Acceleration — Class B (1 sec), 1 Site Coefficient, FA 1.084 Table 1613.3.3(l) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.597 Table 1613.3.3(2) Site Class Modified NICER Spectral 127g .1. Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37) Response Acceleration (short), SMS Site Class Modified NICER Spectral . . 0.6449 . Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38) Response Acceleration (1 sec), SMI 5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0 751g . Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39) 5% Damped Design Spectral 0.429g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40) Response Acceleration (1 sec), S01 Project No: G2108-32-01 -3 - April 24, 2017 Table 2.2 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 (MCEo). TABLE 2.2 2016 CBC SITE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS Parameter Value, Site Class D ASCE 7-10 Reference Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.397g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.103 Table 11.8-1 Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.438g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1) Conformance to the criteria for seismic design does not constitute any guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a maximum level earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. 3.0 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations The following foundation recommendations are for proposed one- to three-story commercial/residential structures. The foundation recommendations have been separated into four categories based on either the maximum and differential fill thickness or Expansion Index. The foundation category criteria are presented in Table 3.1. ) TABLE 3.1 FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA Foundation Category Maximum Fill Thickness, T (feet) Differential Fill Thickness, D (feet) Expansion Index (El) I T<20 '-- EI<50 II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90 III T>50 D>20 90<EI<130 IV : -- -- EI>130 Final foundation categories for each building or lot will be provided after finish pad grades have been achieved and laboratory testing of the finish grade soil has been completed. Table 3.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for conventional foundation systems. 0 Project No. G2108-32-01 -4- April 24, 2017 TABLE 3.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Minimum Footing Embedment Depth Continuous Footing Interior Slab Category (inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement I 12 Two No. 4 bars, 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire one top and one bottom mesh at slab mid-point II 18 Four No. 4 bars, No. 3 bars at 24 inches on two top and two bottom center, both directions III 24 Four No. 5 bars, No. 3 bars at 18 inches on two top and two bottom center, both directions Note: Conventional foundations are not recommended for Foundation Category IV (see Table 3.3 for post- tension foundation recommendations for Category IV) The embedment depths presented in Table 3.2 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. A typical wall/column footing detail is presented on Figure 3. The concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Categories ifi and 1V. The concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by 4 inches and 3 inches of clean sand for 4-inch thick and 5-inch-thick slabs, respectively. Slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor inhibitor covered with at least 2 inches of clean sand or crushed rock. If crushed rock will be used, the thickness of the vapOr inhibitor should be at least 10 mil to prevent possible puncturing. As a substitute, the layer of clean sand (or crushed rock) beneath the vapor inhibitor recommended in the previous section can be omitted if a vapor inhibitor that meets or exceeds the requirements of ASTM E 1745-97 (Class A), and that exhibits permeance not greater than 0.012 perm (measured in accordance with ASTM E 96-95) is used. This vapor inhibitor may be placed directly on properly compacted fill or formational materials. The vapor inhibitor should be' installed in general conformance with ASTM E 1643-98 and the manufacturer's recommendations. Two inches of clean sand should then be placed on top of the vapor inhibitor to reduce the potential for differential curing, slab curl,' and cracking. Floor coverings should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 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 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) DC 10.5-12 Project No.. G2108-32-01 ' . -5 - April 24, 2017 Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRJ/CRSI Design of Slab-on-Ground Foundations, as required by the 2016 California Building Code (CBC Section 1808.6.2). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechmcal parameters presented in Table 3.3 for the particular Foundation Category designated The parameters presented in Table 3.3 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI DC 10.5 design manual TABLE 3.3 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI), Third Edition Design Parameters Foundation Category II HI iv :ThomthWajté Index -20 :20 -20 -20 Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 39 3.9 Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em(feet) 5.3 5.1 .. 4.9 3.8 Edge Lift, yM (inches). 0.61 1.10 158. 3.04 Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 9.0 9.0 7.0 Center Lift, YM (inches) - 0.30 0.47 0.66 1.07 Foundation systems for the lots that possess a foundation Category I and a "very low' expansion potential (expansion index of 20 or less) can be designed using the method described in Section 1808 of the 2016 CBC If post-tensioned foundations are planned, an alternative, commonly accepted design method (other than PTI DC 10.5) can be used. However, he post-tensioned foundation system should be designed with a total and differential deflection of 1 inch Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review the plans and provide additional information, if necessary. 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 below the clean sand or crushed rock layer. If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than PTI, Third Edition: The deflection criteria presented in Table 3.3 are still applicable Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II through IV The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches. Project No. G2108-32-01 -6- April 24, 2017 The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches, 24 inches, and 30 inches for foundation categories I, II, III, and IV, respectively. The embedment depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade. 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. During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints be allowed to form between the footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation system. Category I, II, III or TV 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. Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for conventional foundations 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 Categories III and IV. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the building foundation system with grade beams. For Foundation Categories III and IV, 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 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing' concrete; however, it is imperative 'that the exposed foundation and I slab subgrade soils be moisture conditioned regularly after grading and a moist condition is maintained until' the concrete, is placed. Additional testing/observation may be necessary to verify that the appropriate moisture content is being maintained. It is the responsibility of the client's project field management team to coordinate such testing/observation with Geocon representatives prior to concrete placement. Project No. G2108-32-01 -7- , April 24, 2017 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, building 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. When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) fill slope or steeper, the foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to H13 (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. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforcement. 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 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, which 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, which would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. The following recommendations apply to exterior flatwork where near surface soils are low to medium expansive (El less than 90). Exterior slabs not subjected to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of 4 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. Where highly expansive soils (El greater than 90) are present near finish grade, the following recommendations apply. Exterior slabs, should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel bars spaced 18 inches on center each direction positioned at the slab midpoint. Driveways should be constructed with a 6-inch deep slab edge (measured from the bottom of the slab). Slabs should be Project No. G2108-32-01 -8- April 24, 2017 doweled to the building foundation where they abut the stem wall. Sidewalks should 'be doweled to the curbs. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should scarified and moisture conditioned to a minimum of 3% above optimum moisture content just prior to placing the concrete. Moisture conditioning should be observed and checked by a representative of Geocon Incorporated. Consideration should be given to adding concrete cut-off walls beneath exterior flatwork supported by. highly expansive soils (EI:greater than 90). The cut-off walls are recommended where any water (e.g. landscape) may migrate laterally beneath the flatwork and cause adverse soil movement. The cut-off. walls should be located along the perimeter of the concrete slab adjacent to landscaping areas and extend at least 6-inches into the soil subgrade. Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACT) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. A 4-inch-thick slab should have a maximum joint spacing of 10 feet., Subgrade soil for exterior.-slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented above prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete. 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. Periotic maintenance such as slab replacement and/or grinding of elevated slab margins may be necessary due to the highly expansive soils. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the cncrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur: Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 4.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads Recommendations - Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic Project No. G2108-32-01 -9- April 24, 2017 foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index less than 50. Imported low expansion granular soil would be required. If moderately expansive soils (El greater than 50) are used for.backfill, the active earth pressure would increase to 80 pcf for level backfill and 95 pcf for backfill 1inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Ex'pansion Index less than 130. Backfill material exhibiting an Expansion Index greater than 130 shouldot be used. Retaining walls shall be designed to ensure stability, against overturning sliding, excessive foundation pressure and water uplift. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it, not necessary to consider active pressure on the keyway. Where walls are restrained from movement aythe top, an additioflal uniform pressure of 8H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) 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 to feet of fill soil should be added (total unit weight of soil should be taken as 130 pcf). •. 1/ i1 Soil contemplated for use. as retaining all 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 my 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. .. . . . . 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 H walls structures, if applicable. These lateral values should be considered when planning types of improvements above retaining wall structures: Project No. G2108-32-01 - 10- April 24, 2017 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate td 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. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is presented on Figure 4. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional ret'cmmpnrRitiri-ic - In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth of 24 inches and width of 12 inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The recommended allowable soil bearing pressure may 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 pressure 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. As a minimum, wall footings should be deepened such that the bottom outsid&edge of the footing is at least seven feet from the. face of slope when lOcated adjacent and/or at the top of descending slopes. . if The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in accordance with Section 1613.3.5 of the 2016 CBC orSecjion 11.6 of ASCE 7-10. For structures assigned to Seismic Design 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 1803.5.12 of the 2016 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, I IPGAm, of 0.438g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33. For resistance to lateral loads, a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed formational materials. The passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least five feet or. three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper .12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An ultimate friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. Project No. G2108-32-01 - 11 - April 24, 2017 • .. . The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 12 feet In the event that walls higher than 12 feet are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations 5.0 Grading and Foundation Plan Review The geotechnical engineer and engineering geoloould review the grading and foundation plans prior to final City submittal to check their comp(hance with the recommendations of this ILport and to determine the need for additional comments, recommendation and/or analysis.. 42 Should you have any questidns regarding, 'this correspondence or dcIiL additional informati . on j please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, •• •• 0 O • GEOCON INCORPORATED : :.. Troy K. cE.'Myers? e • idB.'iiis OS 0 0 0 CEG 240W • RCE 63773 CEG 1860 •• : • • 0 (e-mail),Addressee ENGINEERING An O. crw Project No G2108 32 01 12 April 24, 2017 •:• 000 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROPOSED FINISH GRADE"\_ EXISTING I SHEET GRADE CUT FILL G.o· _!:o·--------___ r __ -------- -------- D .... ZONE REQUIRING REMEDIAL GRADING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1 NO SCALE REMEDIAL GRADING EXHIBIT GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL• MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-297 4 PHONE 858 558-6900 -FAX 858 558-6159 RM /AML DSK/GTYPD BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 04 -24 -2017 I PROJECT NO. G2108 -32-01 I FIG. 2 Pk>ttect04124/2017 11:09AM I By.RUBEN AGUILAR I File Locatlon:V:\PROJECTS\G210S.32·01 (Bres5' Ranch)\OETAILS\Remedlal Gradirig Exhibil-Cut&FHl.dwg CONCRETE SLAB 7 774— PAD GRADE SAND AND VAPOR 44 RETARDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI \ 0 .....I— L 1T WIDTH. CONCRETE SLAB 0 . : SAND AND VAPOR / RETARDER IN .004 •0 ACCORDANCE WITH ACI • . - .-... I FOOTING WIDTH rcrurc I rum FOUNDATION ION WIDTH ri AI'JL) DEPTH I-I UOMMINUA I ION NO SCALE WALL / COLUMN. FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL' "GEOC ON INCORPORATED . . . GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE -SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 RM / AML DSK/GTYPD BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 04-24 -2017 I PROJECT NO. G2108 -32-01 I FIG. 3 Ptotted:0412412017 1046AM I By:RUBEN AGUILAR I File LocatlonY.lPROJECTS/G2108.32.01-(B,000l ROnch)\DETAILS/WoIl.Colernn Footing Dimension Dote/I (C0LF00T2).&on CONCRETE PROPOSED BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE RETAINING WALL PROPERLY CO PA TED I BACKFILL '\"' -_TEMPORARY BACKCUT WA PERARCHITECT TER PROOFING PER OSHA Hl 2/3 H - IMIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC V - I (OR EQUIVALENT) .. OPEN GRADED V V - V V 1" MAX. AGGREGATE -• GROUND SURFACE FOOTING DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE V : Yoxm/ L.___..1 , R_ 40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO V V V APPROVED OUTLET V V. V —12"--- V CONCRETE ,—GROUND SURFACE CONCRETE ,—GROUND SURFACE BROWDITCH 1 / V - BROWDITCH V RETAINING - tV - V RETAINING V V V V WALL WALL WATERPROOFING .. WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT V PER ARCHITECT DRAINAGE PANEL (MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT) V 2/3 H V V 2/ H DRAINAGEPANEL V 12" H V - (MIRADRAIN 6000 V 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK OR EQUIVALENT) - V /(1 CU.FT./FT.) V - i ,-FILTER FABRIC - 4 DIA SCHEDULE 40 PROPOSED - ENVELOPE PROPOSED - PERFORATED PVC PIPE GRADE\ ( MIRAFI 140N OR GRADE\ OR TOTAL DRAIN ______ EQUIVALENT EXTENDED TO FOOTING1 _ 4" DIAV SCHEDULE 40 '22 FOOTING APPROVED OUTLET V I PERFORATED PVC PIPE I I V OR TOTAL DRAIN - V EXTENDED TO V APPROVED OUTLET NOTE: V V DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET V V V V OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING NO SCALE TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL. .GEOCON INCORPORATED V GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. MATERIALS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 RM I AML - DSK/GTYPD BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 V V CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA DATE 04-24-2017 PROJECT NO. G2108 -32 -.01 FIG. 4 .., I ........... t.a...naocnucIMIcaIypIcar rcrnaining wall uralflagOUetall(KwUUA).awg • V '1 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on March 20, 2017, and consisted of a visual site reconnaissance and advancing nine exploratory borings (Boring Nos. B-i through B-9) at various locations across the subject site. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1. The small-diameter borings were performed by Baja Exploration and advanced to a maximum depth of 26 feet below existing grade using a CME- 95 rig equipped with 8-inch hollow-stem augers. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a California split-spoon (CAL) sampler into the "undisturbed" soil mass. The CAL sampler was equipped with 1-inch by 2%-inch, brass sampler rings to facilitate removal and testing. Bulk samples were also collected. Logs of the borings depicting the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained are presented on Figures A-i through A-9. The soils encountered in the excavations were visually classified and logged in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual Manual Procedure D 2488). • PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 BORING BI . 0 >LU- DEPTH SAMPLE j < SOIL I— z C') z IN NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)408.5' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 . 0 111 FEET 71 0 . U) Fn 0 UJI IX EQUIPMENT CME95 BY: T.REIST w of Co 20 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 ML PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf) Stiff, moist, gray and orange, fine, Sandy/CIaye SILT - - 2 B11 ,• ,, 16 96.6 23.5 BI-2 4. - B1-3 :'. :'.':'. - 24 108.4 18.1 -6 -8 . .': - 10 BI-4 ...//: -. SC Medium dense, damp to moist, orange, Clayey, fine to medium SAND with 61/11" 105.3 16.9 • S/f) concretions; blow counts not accurate due to concretions - - 12 - 14 - -Becomes orange-brown and fine to coarse with some gravel BI-5 .- - - - - --------------- - 16 ML Very stiff,, moist, gray, Clayey SILT - ' - 38 96.6 23.6 - 18 / S - - 20 - - -Contact observed at top of sample , ML, SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) , 35 102.2 22.1 BI-6 Very stiff, moist, gray with orange oxidation, fine, Sandy/Clayey - - 22 1 ' SILTSTONE - 24 - ' B1-7 : : -Becomes hard and less clayey . S - 65 - 26 BORING TERMINATED AT 26 FEET ,' 5 S Groundwater not encountered Figure A-I, S . Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of I • S S SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ' S - DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ....CHUNK SAMPLE • ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. S GE000N PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 BORING B2 >- g(.51— - DEPTH SAMPLE < SOIL . H z (j) Cl) H Z IN FEET NO. -j Z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)411.5' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 0 20 EQUIPMENT CME 95 BY: T. REIST . - • - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - - ML PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpf) Very st1ff, moist, light brown and orange, fine, Sandy to Clayey SILT - - - 132-1 ..:: . . - 34 116.3 15.4 B2-2 . -4- - - 132-3 :. -Becomes hard, damp and brown to orange . - 51 116.9 10.0 -6- ....... - - 8 - , - -,___:Contact based on drill rig efficiency SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) - - ::1: • Dense, damp, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SANDSTONE - - 10 - B24 46 BORING TERMINATED AT 11 FEET Groundwater not encountered Figure A-2, . - . G2108-32-01.GPJ Log of Boring B 2, Page 1 of I . Ii ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GE000N PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 Of BORING >- 0 - 0— (.5 i LU DEPTH SAMPLE 8 < SOIL H Z C/) (1) z IN FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)409.5' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 0 :i 0 w w_ ck 20 of EQUIPMENT CME 95 BY: T. REIST 0 C) • MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - :7.: - CL PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Qpt) - Stiff, moist, brown, Sandy to Silty CLAY - 2 - B3-1 . - ---------------------------------—la-_ . - :1 }I: SM Medium dense, moist, orange, Silty, fine to medium SAND - 4- .:... :1. .1.:.. . - 133-2 :: : ML Stiff, moist, orange and gray, Sandy/Clayey SILT 23 109.3 17.9 6- - 8- 10 B3-3 / / CL Very stiff, moist brown and orange, Silty/Sandy CLAY-with gravel; blow 62 1043 175 - - counts not accurate due to gravel - - 12 - t:'. -14- B3-4 1/. ML Stiff, damp, brown and gray, fine Sandy/Clayey SILT - 23 95.2 13.6 -16- - - • • .,• - - 18 - / - -Contact based on drill rig efficiency ML SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) - - Hard, damp to moist, gray, fine, Sandy SILTSTONE - 20 133-5 71 BORING TERMINATED AT 21 FEET Groundwater not encountered Figure A-3, . Log of Boring B 3, Page 1 of I • ILI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. • • GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 BORING IB4 z . o. - DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL . iiz IN FEET NO. NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)411.5' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 0 S 20 Of I . EQUIPMENT CME 95 . BY: T. REIST WX9 EL Ow MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SMISC SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Dense, damp, orange-brown, Silty/Clayey, fine to medium SANDSTONE - - 2 - 134-1 - CLJCH Very stiff, moist, green, highly plastic CLAYSTONE; waxy ' 999 259 Becomes hard below 3 feet 51 98.7 25.2 -40 134-3 - BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Groundwater not encountered Figure A-4, S -: Log of Boring B 4, Page 1 of I SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. 1.. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 BORING >- QOF- DEPTH SAMPLE o ..j < SOIL IZ (I) (O Z L .W Z IN NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)414.5' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 H Cl) C) 0 FEET (USCS) V - Of IEQUIPMENTCME95 BY:T.REIST Q. 0 - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) V - :•4: Dense, damp, orange-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE with - V ::: cemented fossilferous beds 2 - 135-1 _V - V V CLJCH Hard, moist, bluish green and orange,.plastic CLAYSTONE V 76 104.4 21.4, ML Dense, damp, orange-brown, Clayey, fine SILTSTONE 135-2 V V V V V '6- BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET V Groundwater not encountered V - Figure A-5, V V G2108-32-01.6PJ Log of Boring B 5, Page 1 of I • V . V Lii ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II VVV STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVESAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) V V V DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE .. CHUNK SAMPLE X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. V V V. V ' GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 BORING B6 - > . uJ DE IN PTH SAMPLE NO. z CS ELEV. (MSL.)419' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 ______ hj C) ° LU FEET H 71 o (USCS) CI) LU m w Q 0 z 20 • EQUIPMENT CME 95 BY: T. REIST 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION • 0 - :!•:: SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) - :.°::: : Dense, damp, orange-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE - -I-J-' 2 - B6-1 -- ---- SC - ---------------------------------- Very dense, damp, orange-brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SANDSTONE; 121 116.6 14.5 - B6-2 .,'," cemented - . 113/9' 110.9 13.0 .4. B6-3 CL/CH Hard, moist, dark green, highly plastic CLAYSTONE 6 BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Groundwater not encountered Figure A-6, . Log of Boring B 6, Page 1 of I • SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST . U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 BORING > DEPTH SAMPLE 9 af 0. 0 CLASS _____ IN 0 ELEV. (MSL.)423 DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 _______ 0 FEET 0 (USCS) w co 20 of EQUIPMENT CME 95 BY: T. REIST 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - 0 - Sc SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa). - - Dense, damp, dark gray to brown, clayey, fine to medium SANDSTONE - B7-I -2°- 61 112.3 17.1 - ' - F Hard moist, very dark gray, highly plastic cLAYSTONE 6d BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Groundwater not encountered - Figure A-7, ., ° ° . Log of Boring B 7, Page 1 of I : SAMPLE SYMBOLS 4 ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ° II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST . U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. GE000N. PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 - BORING . > SAMPLE j SOIL W DEPTH 1— Z < (I) 9 0) Iz . 2 IN NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)420' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 I— (I) 0 FEET (USCS) . it EQUIPMENT CME 95 . BY: T. REIST °- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) - :::j::: - Dense, damp, orange-brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE 2 . -Cemented fossilferous bed at 2 feet 100/3° B8-1 ML Hard, damp, dark gray, Clayey/fine, Sandy SILTSTONE with cemented 142/9' 119.4 13.6 4 - fossilferous beds - B8-2 -6- BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET Groundwater not encountered W Figure A-8, Log of Boring B 8, Page 1 of I ., 02108-32.01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS I ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL • III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) - ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE • •.. CHUNK SAMPLE • ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. • -GEOCON .. •, PROJECT NO. G2108-32-0 BORING B 9 . >- 0< . LU DEPTH SAMPLE 9 SOIL Z - (I) .of z IN NO. a CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)416' DATE COMPLETED 03-20-2017 H (I) 0 FEET I- 0 (USCS) .. . F,9 .it .- o z 20 IX EQUIPMENT CME 95 BY: T. REIST MATERIAL DESCRIPTION j - SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) - : Dense, damp, brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE 2 139-I CLICK 103.4 213 Poor recovery at 3 feet 86 / BORING TERMINATED AT 7 FEET - . Groundwater not encountered Hard, moist, pate green, highly plasticCLAYSTONE --65 Figure A-9, . G2108-32-01.GPJ Log of Boring B 9, Page 1 of I SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE, ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: 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. - . GE000N APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected bulk and ring samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content, expansion index, and consolidation characteristics. The in-place dry density and moisture content results are indicated on the exploratory boring logs and the other laboratory test results are summarized on Table B-I and Figures B-i through 13- 15. TABLE B-I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTMD4829 Sample No. Geologic Unit (Soil Class) Moisture Content Dry Density (pcI) Expansion Index Before Test (%) After Test (%) B1-2 Qpf(ML) 12.5 24.9 102.3 74 134-3 Tsa (L/CH) 13.4 32.5 97.8 140 135-2 Tsa (ML) 12.1 26.2 101.1 83 B6-3 Tsa (CL/CH) - 13.6 33.4 97.2 141 137-2 Tsa (CH) 14.1 39.6 95.5 210 139-3 Tsa (CL/CM) 13.3 30:5 98.9 137 PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 SAMPLE NO. B1-3 -101 z 0 I— a -J 0 0) z 0 0 I—z w 0. af a_ 4 '.1 . 10 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 107.0 Initial Water Content (%) 17.6 Initial Saturation (%) 1 1 85.1 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 4 CONSOLIDATION CURVE . - BRESSI RANCH . S LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 . S 5, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA . .. W . G21O8-3-01.GPJ Figure B-i • GE000N .. PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 SAMPLE NO. B1-4 -lOi I I H I I I I z .0 I- a -J 0 (I) z 0 0 F- z w 0 it a. APPLIEDPRESSURE (ksf) p 0 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 110.9 Initial Water Content (%) .15.9 Initial Saturation (%) . 85.3 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .250 CONSOLIDATION CURVE S BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 . . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA S w G2108-32-01.GPJ Figure B-2 GEOCON f PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 SAMPLE NO. B3-3 -10 . -8 -6 -4 z 0 o 0 (I) C o -1- z - w 0 c 2 Lii 4 6 -------- ____ ------ ____ ------ 8 -10 ____ ____ ____ 1 1U 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) : CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH . LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JZ IUOJtV Figure B73 GEOCON Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.5 Initial Water Content (%) 13.5 Initial Saturation -Sample Saturated at (ksl) 1.0 PROJECT NO. G2108-32-61 SAMPLE NO. B374 -10 -8 -6 C- _ z 0 I- 0 -J 0 10:1 11111 10 11=1 100 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA W G21OB-32-01OPJ - ._ GEOCON Initial Dry Density (pcf) 102.9 Initial Water Content (%) 13.1 Initial Saturation (%) 57.1 Sample Saturated at (ksf) 2.0 .• S PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 o 8 - 6 4 2 01 2 - 4 - 10 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 99.9 Initial Water Content (%) 25.9 CONSOLIDATION CURVE - BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA W G2108-32-01.GPJ I S - • Figure B-5 GEOCON SAMPLE NO. 64-1 -1 z 0 I- a -J 0 0) z 0 0 I- z w 0 - w 0 0 aturation Initial S (%) 100 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .250 PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 SAMPLE NO. B4-2 -10 ---- ____ _____ -8 -6 —4 z 0 I— a —J 0 )• Cl) z 046 F— z w o a 2 - w. 0. 4 * 'S 6 8 10 ___ ___ ____ 0.1 1 10 100 - APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Saturation (%) 98.4 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .350 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH c LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA - G2108-32.O1.GPJ o S Figure B-6 GEOCON Initial Dry Density (pcf) 98.7 Initial Water Content (%) 25.2 0 PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 _j .1 1 10 1 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) SAMPLE NO. 85-1 -1 z 0 I- 0 -J 0 Cl) z 0 C) I-z Li' C-) w 0 Initial Dry Density (pcf) • 104.4 Initial Water Content (%) 21.4 Initial Saturation (%) 96.4 Sample Saturated at (ksf .250 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA W G2108-32-01.GPJ •.: • Figure B-7 . . 4 GEOCON . : S PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 N 10 SAMPLE NO. B5-1A -10 -2 -6 -L1 0 z -2 I- -J 0 U) z 0 0 I.- z w (_) ,' af w 0. 4 C C W G2108.32-01.GPJ APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.1 Initial Water Content (%) 21.8 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-8 GEOCON Initial Saturation Sample Saturated at (ksf) .750 f PROJECT NO. G2108-32-Oi. _]Iiiii __ 11111 __ 11111 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) 0 Initial Dry Density(pcf) 116.6 Initial Water Content Initial Saturation (%) 91.1 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .250 CONSOLIbATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA W G21O-32-01.GPJ - . .. Figure B-9 GEOCON 0 Initial Saturation Sample Saturated at (ksf) .350 • f PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 4 SAMPLE NO. B6-2 -101 I I I I I 1.1 I Initial Dry Density (pcf) 110.9 Initial Water Content (%) 13.0 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-b. GEOCON z 0 a -J 0 z 0 (-) I- z w C-) a. SAMPLE NO. B7-1 -1 S PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 I ) APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) (tnitiaI Dry Density (pcf) :T 112.3 d I [initial Water Content (%) 17.1 CONSOLIDATION. CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Sample Saturated at (ksf) Initial Saturation (%)1 95.3 1 .250 - Figure B-il• GEOCON PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 SAMPLE NO. B8-1 -10 -n 0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 119.4 Initial Water Content (%) 13.6 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA W G2108-32.O1.GPJ - Figure B-12 S . GEOCON .- . Initial Saturation (%) 92.6 Sample Saturated at (ksf) - .250 OJECT NO. G2108-32-01 SAMPLE NO. B8-1A -10 -8 -6 -4 z 0 I- a -J 0 U) 0 0 0 F- z w it 2 4 6 8 10 0' • APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) Initial Dry Density (pcf) 118.5 Initial Water Content (%) 13. CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 0 Initial Saturation (%) 89.0 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .750 Figure B-13 GEOCON . ... ,. PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 . 0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) 103.4 Initial Saturation (%) . 97.9 22.3 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .10 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH '. LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA w G2108.32.O1.GPJ Figure B-14 GEOCON Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Water Content (%) PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 AOL 0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) 133.4 Initial Saturation (%) 86.2 7.9 Sample Saturated at (ksf) .75 CONSOLIDATION CURVE BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA W G2108-32-01.PJ Figure B-15 GEOCON Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Water Content (%) A bDIkIDIX • S. 5; 5:4 • • • • T. • .. S'S . L .: L : APPENDIX C • . TRENCH LOGSFROM DECEMBER 10, 2004 REPORT BYLEIGHTON& • S • ASSOCIATES • • FOR : BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA - • • PROJECT NO G2108-32-01 • • • • • 4 • 1 ,' 5. S S •S •• .;. S H • I S .S •'5 S 'S. S. • • S S S S ..•............................s•sss•i••.••. LOGOFTRENCH T-1 Project Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB/MDJ : Project Number 10881_001 Elevation Approim4teIy_415_17eet ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: 40F_Rrkhn _Location/Grid: _(See_C_ntethnirt_Mp_P't _I Sample Moture Density :GEOLOGIC DATE: -'11/13/14 ____DESCRIPTION_- GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES ARTIFICIAL FILL tAO S Af : B-i @0-2': Silty SAND to sandy. SILT: Orange-brown to lightbrown,.dryto damp,. ML! loose to medium dense rootlets upper 4" SM @'2'-1 1': Silty clayey SAND to sandy SILT: Orange-brown to brown, moist, : medium dense visible fill layers 3 thick 6" thick clay chunks, increased clay • at 6' V V .. •• . V Ts B-2 . TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Mall SM . @11'-12': Silty SAND: Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,:-:. .' . . mottled and weathered . . V . :. CL : @12'-13.5': _Silty CLAY: Olive, damp, _stiff__H . _: _•. . . . I GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1 =5 SURFACE SLOPE TREND V •• V - .. ..• V V, U •. VV S .SV .I \;*7 Total Depth 13.5 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered Packfilled: 11/13114 ...............•ss..•................S....•. LOG OF TRENCH: T-2 PrOject Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB/MDJ ENGINEERING1 PROPERTIES Project Number: 10881_001_- Elevation: _Approximately _416 _Feet Equipment: 40F_Ra'khne_ Location /Grid: _(Rep _enterhnitaI_ Map Plate_1) - -- Sample Moisture: Density DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC USCS No (%) (pcf) A -UNIT ARTIFICIAL FILL (At) •: Al •- : •• .• •. @ 0-11': Silty SAND to sandy SILT: Dry to moist, orange-brown to light - • SM! 0-4' brown, upper 3' dry and loose, 4-6" clay layer at 4' • • ML • • •• • : • - • B-2- •. - GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall IS.f......I.S.S..................ó.......... `LOG OF TRENCH: T-3 Project Name:' Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB/MDJ' ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation ApprôximteIy 411 Feet Equipment: 40 R'khn Location/Grid:' _(enfhnir'I_Mp-Pit _1) USCS Sample: No. Moisture (%) Density (pcfl GEOLOGIC ' ' ' '. ..GEOLOGIC . -ATTITUDES UNIT DATE:' 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION: , TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) ' ' Tsa B-i. © 04: Sandy CLAY to sandy SILT: Orange-brown, dry to damp,'Ioose to : : , CU 03' medium stiff; rootlet top 6" ' ' .' ." ' ' , ML @W-65: Silty CLAY Olive-gray damp to moist, very stiff to hard, calcium- B-2 carbonate blebs concretion 4'-5' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: South Wall SCALE: 1'5' - SURFACE SLOPE: 1Vest TREND: CA CO3 Total Depth 6.5 Feet No Ground Water 'Encountered Backfilled: 11/13/14 I........................................... LOG OF TRENCH: T-4 Project Name Shea Lots 29-32 Logged by ERB/MDJ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation Approximately 410 Feet Equipment 40F R'kho Location/Grid (See (enterhnir'l Mp PIite 1) Sample Moisture Density .GEOLOGIC :d'1''. No (%) (pc DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION:ATTITUDES TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) .. Tsa • @0- © 0-3.5': Silty CLAY: Olive-gray, dry to damp, fine to very fine grained, CL rootlets top 6" desiccation throughout oxidation . d. @ 3.5'-8': CLAY, Olive-gray, fine to very fine, moist, very stiff B2 8'. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE 1'=5 SURFACE SLOPE TREND Total Depth =8 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled 11/13114 I ........................................o.. LOG OF TRENCH T-5 Project Name; Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB/MDJ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10R81_001 Elevation ApproximatIy_417_Feet Equipment: 4.flF_Rrkhne_L6cation/Grid: _(See_(entprhnical_Map_Plate _1) uscs Sample No Moisture (%) Density (pcfi GEOLOGIC DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) . Tsa. B-i @ 0-2.5': Silty medium to coarse SAND Light orange-brown, damp, medium SM 0-2.5' dense to dense, cemented layer V-15, 5 top 8 to 12' loose dry, desiccated generally.., roots S horizontal @ 2.5'-4': Sandy SILT Gray-brown, damp, stiff to very stiff calcium- B-2 carbonate stringers . . . • . . • 254 @ 4': Cemented indurated fossiliferous bed, very difficult to excavate . CL] . ML Refusal at 4.2' . • ExcavatedlO minutes . . . . . . GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1=5'' SURFACE SLOPE: . TREND: _ - -. . . S 5.55 ,. ..• • 5 ... , ________ 5.: _. S • . • • : • • . .. , • Total Depth 4 Feet • S No Ground Water Encountered • . , S S .5 . Backfihied: 11/13/14 ...........................................: S S LOG OF TRENCH: T-6 Project Name: _- Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB/MDJ Project Number: 108810 1 Elevation: Approximately 415 Feet ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: 43017 R;arkhnp Location/Grid: (S ,eoteehniI __________________________________________________________________________ Mp PIt1) • USCS Sample No. Moisture (%)° • Density (pcf) _____________ GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION: ____________ GEOLOGIC UNIT TERTIARYSANTIAGOFORMATION(Tsa) isa B-i @ 0-2': Sandy clayey SILT: Olive brown, dry to damp, firm to stiff, yellow ML 0-2' limonite staining, desiccated top 16" @ 2'-3.5': Silty SAND, Orange-brown, fossiliferous, damp to moist, medium • SM dense to very dense, encountered refusal •• • @ 3.5 74.5': Sandy clayey SILT: Olive-brown,moist, very stiff - ML GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1=5' • • SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: • •• \ri=J • • • - • S • - Totat Depth = 4.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled: 11/13/14 ..••....f.................................. LOG OF. TRENCH: T-7 Project Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by ERB/MDJ . . ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation Approximately 418 Feet Equipment 40F Rkhne Location/Grid ScP CPfltP4hfllCl Mp Pi2te Sample Moisture Density GEOLOGIC DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC USCS No ATTITUDES UNIT: TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tsa @-0-7'--Silty SAND: Lightgrayto medium orange-gray, dry to moist, coarseto . 1s 2 fine grained, medium dense oxidation layers throughout trench SP 0-7' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1 =5 SURFACE SLOPE TREND - 4 / ILL 4. 4 4 4 . 4 . .• . . 4 4 4 Total Depth= 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered -. . . ... -- 4 4 --• Backfiiled; 11113/14 LOG OFTRENCH: 7-8 Project Name Shea/Lots 92-39 Logged by ERB/MDJ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation ApproxIm2tIy 4115 Feet USCS Sample No Moisture (%) Density (pcfl Equipment 430F Rkhn - Location/Grid (.qpp (enterhnirl Map Plt 1) GEOLOGIC DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC ' IT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) :. Tsa B-i © : @ 0-2': Silty SAND: White gray, dry, coarse to fine grained, becomes oxidized SM 0-2' with depth and increasing clay component •• B-2 © 2'-4' Silty CLAY Orange-brown, fossiliferous moist, stiff CL @ 4'-5': SILT: Light gray-brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense • ML :B-3. @ 5'-7': Silty CLAY Dark orangish-brown, moist very stiff CL 4-5 B-4 6-7' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE V=5' SURFACE SLOPE TREND • e ----- - ---=-- - - •• •• • • Total Depth = 7 Feet • • . No Ground Water Encountered • . • • • - : .Backfiuled: 11113114 LOG OF TRENCH: T-9 ProjectName: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB/MDJ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881_001 Elevation App mxmately_417_Feet Equipment 417117_Rc'kho _Location/Grid__(S _(pnterhntrI_Mp USCS Sample No Moisture (%) Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES UNIT TERTIARY'SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa), ' ' SM/ B-i ML' @ 0-6.5': Silty SAND to sandy SILT: Light gray to orarigish gray, damp to 0-6.5' - moist, coarse to very fine grained, medium dense to dense GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1 =5 SURFACE SLOPE TREND Total Depth = 6.5 Feet - ' No Ground Water Encountered Backtilled: 11/13114 I...............•.......à.....•... LOG OFTRENCH: T-10 Project Name; Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB I ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 10881_001 Elevation: _App roximately 415 Feet S Equipment: 430F Rarkhop Location/Grid: (See (entehnirl Map Rate 1) USCS Sample No. Moisture (%) Density (pc GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION: .. UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tsa @ 0-1' Silty SAND Light gray, dry, disturbed SM @ 1'-3':. Silty CLAY: Olive-gray, damp, firm to stiff, weathering desiccation CL B-i evident . @ 3'-4':. Silty SAND: Orange-brown to gray-brown, fossiliferous, damp to SM moist, medium dense to dense @ 4'-5.4': Sandy CLAY: Gray, moist, very stiff CL B-2 @ 55-6.5: Sandy SILT: Light brown, damp to moist, stiff to very stiff, ML 55- . apparent oxidation ....5 6.5' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE: S TREND: Total Depth = 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfiuied: 11/13/14 Project Name Shea/Lots 9A-19 Logged by ERR Project Number 10881 001 Elevation Approximptely 417 Ft ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: 41flF Rqrkhnp Location/Grid: (S enterhniral Mp Plt 1) Sample Moture Density ATTITUDES GEOLOGIC DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC • TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) • Tsa B-i @ 0-2 Silty SAND Light olive-gray, dry to damp medium dense, desiccation SM 0-2' throughout 0-2' • @ 2-7': Silty SAND: Light gray, damp to moist, medium dense . SM B-2 • .2-7' • GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1'5' • ............i.....o...........s............ LOG OF TRENCH: T-12 PrOject Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB . ... 'ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: . .10881_001._._._. Elevation: Approximately 415 Feet Equipment 4flF_Rakhoe_Location/Grid___(See_Geoterhnirai_MapPlate_1) .......... ......... . Sample Moisture : :Density GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: . 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION: .. .. . . .; GEOLOGIC USCS No. . . (%) . (pcf) UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tsa ,. B-i .0-7': Silty SAND: Light gray to light orange-brown, dry to damp, medium 'SM. 07' dense, coarse to fine grained, oxidation staining present . ,. .. GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1"5' . . SURFACE SLOPE: TREND:. Total Depth = 7 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backlilled: 11/13/14 00.04000,9000000000000000000009000000000,00000 LOG OFTRENCH: T-1 Project Name:_- Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB Project Number: 10881 001 Elevation:_.. Approximately 422 Feet. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES .. Equipment: 40F Rwkhn Location/Grid: (S (eotr.hnirl Map PIt 1) - Sample No. Moisture (%) Density (pcf ATTITUDES GEOLOGIC DATE: 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC. UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) . Tsa B-i : @0-2.5': Silty SAND: Light orange-brown, dry, loose to medium dense '. SM -0-1.5' 12" layer at 1.5' was cemented. and partial refusal encountered . . .. @ 2.5'-3.5': Silty CLAY: Dark olive-gray to gray, moist, stiff to-very stiff B-2 oxidation stains throughout . CL © . 25- 3..5'-6': Silty SAND, Light orange-brown, damp to moist, medium dense •.. . 3.5' SM .B-3 3.5'-6' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1"=5' . SURFACE SLOPE: • TREND: .- ., . ... . .. 'Fi Total Depth =6Feet • No Ground Water Encountered • • . • • Backtilled: 11/13/14 fS•f•••S•SS•••I•I••••SO•••S•S•••SSS•SI•••• - LOG OF TRENCH: T-14 Project Name: ShealLots 29-32 Logged by: ERR - - ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 108S1_001 Elevation Approxlm2teIy_419_Feet Equipment: 40F_Ri-khne_Location/Grid:___ (See _(enterhnitl_ Map _Plato _1) USCS Sample. No. Moisture (%) Density (pc i) GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC _11/13/14 ___DESCRIPTION: 1 DATE: UNIT • TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION _(Tsa). • •' isa. B-I • © 0-4.5': Silty SAND: White light gray to light orange, dry to damp, loose to SM 0-4.5' • medium dense • .: ..:. . . @4.5'-5': Carbonate layer, Very hard, refusal comes off in large chunks 6-2 @5•'-7'; Silty sandy CLAY, Dark olive gray, moist, very stiff to hard CL 5-7' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall • SCALE: 1"5':. •. • SURFACE SLOPE: . • TREND: - - 4C Total Depth = 7 Feet . •• . No Ground Water Encountered • • . • •• . . Backfiiled: 11113/14 .s.s...s..s.....i............i....ss.s...s. LOG OF TRENCH: T-15 Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by ERR ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 101381 001 Elevation: Approximately 417 Feet . USCS Sample No Moisture (%) Density (pcf Equipment:. 40F_Ratkhne_Location/Grid:__(See_aenter.hniral_ Map _Plate _1) DATE 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC UNIT ATTITUDES TERTIARY SANTIAGOFORMATION(Tsa) S . Tsa I B171 @ 071.5: Sandy CLAY, Dark olive-gray, dry to damp, stiff to hard CL 04.5' @ 1.5': Encountered very hard, carbonate layer, refusal GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE TREND S S S S Total Depth = 1.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled: 11/13114 ••S•••f•O•••S•••SIS•••••••••f••O•SSSS•ÔS•I• .11 - LOG OFTRENCH: T-16 Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 : - Logged by: ERR . ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number. 10881 001 - Elevation: Approximately 416 Feet - Equipment: 4OF Rarkhne Location/Grid: (SPP r,PotPrhni(I Map PItP 1) USCS Sample No. Moisture (%) Density (pcf) DATE: 11/13/14 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGOFORMATION(Tsa) 0 Tsa B-i : @ 0-3': Silty SAND: Light gray to light Orange-brown, gray, dry to damp, SM 93' • loose, desiccated, broken apart 073' •• • @ 3'-.6.5' Silty CLAY: .light to medium olive-gray: damp, stiff to very stiff, CL* B-2 • oxidation, limonite present . 3-6.5' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 11 5' - - SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: 0 • • 0 • 0 • Total Depth 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled: 11/13114 LOG OFTRENCH: T-17 Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number IORRI 001 Elevation Approximately 416 Feet Equipment:.4flF Rckhnø Location/Grid ((I;ee (eoterhntcI Mp PIt I) . USCS Sample.. No Moisture. (%) Density' (pc GEOLOGIC DATE 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tsa ,, © 0-3.5':. Sandy CLAY: Olive dark gray, dry to damp, loose to medium stiff, CL . B-i desiccation throughout, oxidation . . . generally @ 35-5: Silty CLAY: Dark brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, limonite (yellow . CL . horizontal staining) throughout layer, carbonate blebs micas present, friable, some trace . B-2. fossiliferous . . .. . . .@: 3.5'.-5" • @ 6-65: Clayey SILT: Dark gray, moist, stiff to very stiff, with interbedded • ML .' . • medium brown, micaceous, silty clay,in 4" layers .- • ::. B-3: • . • S . . S S S 5'-6.5.'.• GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1=5' • SURFACE SLOPE: • TREND: 5 55 5 . I If. :If I • • . 5 loo.****O*0000000000000g!*O00000,00,000000000000. LOG OFTRENCH: T-IA Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation:,.Approximately 417 Feet Equipment: 4flF Rarkhnp Location/Grid: (S (prtprhnici Mp Pi2tP 1) , USCS Sample No. Moisture, (%) Density (pci)' GEOLOGICDATE: ATTITUDES 11114114 DESCRIPTION: - GOLOGlC TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Isa) , Tsa - B-i @0-i": Silty SAND with clay: Light olive orangish-brown, fossiliferous, dry to .1 :' SM 04 damp loose to medium dense, interbedded with small olive-gray clay chunks @ l'"1.5': Silty SAND Light gray, dry very dense, carbonate blebs, trace SM 6-2 micas, concrete like appearance 5 V-1.5.' @ 1 .5'-4': Silty CLAY: Medium to dark olive-gray, damp, stiff, limonite, .' CL oxidation present, desiccated top foot @ 4 Encountered very hard whitish-gray carbonate layer and refusal GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1=5' SURFACE SLOPE: '• TREND: - Total Depth 4 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfiiied: 11/14/14 I., Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 Ofll Elevation ApproximtIy 420 Feat Equipment 4OF R.:;rkhnp Location/Grid:: (ertechnul Map Pit 1) USGS Sample No Moisture (%) Density (pcf) ,GEOLOGIC. 7. DATE 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC UNIT ATTITUDES TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (isa) :. Tsa . :. 671 .: @ 0-2.5': Silty SAND Light gray to orangish-gray, dry to damp, loose to SM 0-2.5f medium dense increased oxidation with depth, some clean sand (SP) @ 2 5'-4' Clayey SILT to silty CLAY Light to medium gray, damp to moist, ' ML! 6-2 stiff, fossil layer at bottom-of bed . . . . . . . ... CL. 2 . @ 4' Encountered hard whitish gray carbonate layer and refusal GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1 =5 SURFACE SLOPE TREND - Total Depth = 4 Feet No Ground Wfer Encountered Backfilled 11/14/14 ..i....s•.................................... LOG OF TRENCH: T-70 Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by:.ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation Approximately 423 Feet Equipment 4flF Rirkhne Location/Grid (see (entechnu-I Map Plate 1) Sample Moisture Density GEOLCC DATE 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC USCS No (%) (pcf) 'ATTITUDES ;.UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) .Tsa B-t. @ 0-4.51': Silty SAND Light to medium gray-brown fossiliferous dry to damp SM 0_4.15y loose to medium dense (with depth), thin (approximately 6") potential silty sandy clay layer approximately 2.5' -. . . . @:4.6':- Encountered hard whitish gray carbonate layeri refusal GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE TREND -•.—,•,_f , .. ....,..: -- -. —=--y . - •• • .•• • -•. - ••• .• • • • • . • •• • • • . • •. • •- • . • • Total Depth = 4.5 Feet . . • .. • •• • . • • •. • • No Ground Water Encountered • . • • • Backfluied: 1114I14 0 0016.0 0 9 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0.0 0 0 0 (to 00 0,0 0 0 00 0 0 0 oi&*o;_ S S LOG OF TRENCH: T-21 Project Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 10881_001 Elevation:,Approximately Equipment: 430F.Rrkhne Location/Grid: (,-,(,-,p,,c (entihnirl Mp Plt1) • 5; .. USCS Sample. No Moisture: (%) Density. (pd) GEOLOGIC DATE 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION .. . GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) .: : Tsa B-i : : @ @0-1': Silty SAND, Orange-brownfossiliferous, dry, loose*, some dark gray::. :: SM 0-1'. claystone inclusions (less than 6") B-2 @ 171.5': Silty SAND: Light gray, dry, very dense, hard to excavate, breaks SM @ apart in chunks, very fine grained, clay component (?) • . . :V-1.5"' : @ 1.5'- 5 2': . Sandy SILT: Light to medium gray fossiliferous,. darñp, stiff : ML B-3 @ 2'-2..5.':' CLAY Very dark gray moist, very stiff CL 1.-57 7'Z @2.5': Encountered whitish gray carbonate layer, very difficult to excavate, .. . . B-4 •. refusal . . , :. .....................': •• : ' '' 2'-2.5' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall • SCALE: 1=5' • . SURFACE SLOPE: : :. TREND:. • H . S S • s - :: - . ,• .. . • . - .... . . Total Depth = 2.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered - . .. Backfilled: 11114114 I .....s..........'....'.............,...'.........." LOG OF TRENCH: T-22 Project Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881_001 Elevation;_Approximately_420_Feel' Equipment: 4*1()F R2rkhrip Location/Grid: Spe C,nthnicI Map Plate I CS' Sample No. ' 'Moisture (%) ' Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC 'GEOLOGIC '.11/14/14 ''' DATE: DESCRIPTION:.: S UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa).' Tsa B-i © 0-1.5': Silty SAND: Light to medium gray brown fossiliferous with medium" ' SM 0-1.5' olive-gray inclusions (<2") dry to damp, loose to medium dense @ 1.5': Encountered, very hard, whitish gray carbonate layer, very difficult to ' S ' B-2 excavate, refusal 1.5' GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall ' SCALE: 1"=5' ' SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: S. - - - S - Total Depth 1.5 Feet S S ' No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled: 11114114 LOG OF TRENCH:T-7 Project Name:. Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB I ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number 10881 001 Elevation Approxlm2tely 424 Feet Equipment: 40F Rkhnc Location/Grid: (Sec ( nthnirl Map Pltp 1) Sample Moisture Density .GEOLOGIC DATE 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION:GEOLOGIC No (%) (pci) ATTITUDES UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tsa 6-1 @ 0-3 Silty CLAY Medium to dark gray, damp to moist, soft to medium stiff, CL 0-3 rootlets from 0-2' desiccation throughout oxidation throughout, gives orange- brown tint B-2 @ 3-4 Sandy SILT Dark gray fossiliferous damp to moist loose to medium ML dense, increasingly clayey with depth 0 0 3-4• 0 @ 4 Encountered hard fossiliferous carbonate layer, very difficult to excavate, refusal GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE TREND 0 Total Depth= 4 Feet 0 0 NO Ground Water Encountered - Backflifed: 11/14114 LOG OF TRENCH: T-24 Project Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: ERB 'ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 1ORRI_nOt Elevation:_Approximately_426_Feet . Equipment: 4OF_R2rkhnp_Location/Grid: _ntrhnirai_Map_Plate :1) USCS Sample No Moisture (%) Density. (pcO AD GEOLOGIC DATE 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION GEOLOGIC TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) . .' UNIT Tsa @ 0-3': Silty SAND: Light organish-brown fossiliferous, dry to damp, loose to. SM • medium dense, small claystone inclusions, oxidation increasing with depth @ 3'-7.5': Silty, sandy CLAY: Dark gray, damp to moist, stiff to very stiff, . CL oxidation throughout, some limonite . . . @ 75-95: Clayey SILT: Dark to very dark gray, wet, stiff.to soft at saturation,. CL! interbedded with medium brown micaceous silty clay in approximately 4' ML GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 15'' SURFACE SLOPE:. TREND: - ,- - - - Total Depth = 9.5 Feet Ground Water Encountered 9.5 Feet •. Backfliied: 1114/14 - LOG OFTRENCH: T-25 Project Name: Shea/Lots 29-32 . Logged by: ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: 10R81_001 Elevation: 'Approximately 497 Feet . S Equipment 430F R;arkhnp Location/Grid: (Se (nterhnic.al Map Plt 1) -Sample Moisture Density GEOLOGIC DES DATE: 11/14/14 DESCRIPTION: . SSGEOLOGI No. (%) (pcf) UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsai •. . - isa B-I. .5 _5 . © 0-2': Silty CLAY: Light to medium gray, dry, soft to medium stiff, . CL 0-2'. desiccation throughout, layer, oxidation present S •' •• 5 - S @:2.-2.5': Silty SAND: Light gray-brown fossiliferous • I.. • : • •. •• S SM @ 2.5': Encountered hard carbonate layer', refusal • • • S • - S - GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall - SCALE: 1"=5' SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: Total Depth = 2.5 Feet - No Ground Water Encountered Backfihled: 11114114 Project Name Shea/Lots 29-32 Logged by: -ERB ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Project Number: .10881 001 . Elevation: ... Approximately 423 Feet •.. . Equipment: "_40F_Rarkh6 _- _Location/Grid: (1,Rpp_rPnfP-rhnir;a1 Map Pit _1) uc 'Sample No. Moisture (%) " Density (pcf) GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION: .. .11/14/14 GEOLOGiC DATE:ATTITUDES . UNIT TERTIARY SANTIAGOFORMATION(Tsa) Isa © 0-3.5': Silty SAND Light orange gray-brown fossiliferous, dry to damp SM loose, rootlets along top 6", beach sand @ 2.5'A': Carbonate layer, 25 becomes moist more oxidized @ 4'-5': Sandy silty CLAY: Medium to dark gray, moist, soft to medium stiff,' CL.. oxidation throughout @5'-5.5': CLAY: Very dark gray, moist, very stiff .• .. : ......CL B-i GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION: North Wall SCALE: 1"=5 ..- SURFACE SLOPE: 'TREND:. .-. - - Total Depth = 5.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilied: 11114114' • • • . 0 • I S.. • • . .. • • : 0 APPENDIX • RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS . FOR : BRESSI RANCH • LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 0 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA • :0 . ' PROJECT NO. G2108-32-01 . 0 0 0• • S 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. 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, inthe opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, and/or 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 sitelgrading 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. 2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. GI rev. 07/2015 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 1/4 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 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. 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 rev. 07/2015 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 11/2 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. -, 4.2 - Asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly- - disposed at an approved off-site facility or in an acceptable area of the project evaluated by Geocon and the property owner. 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. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • 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 Finish Grade Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Consultant Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur Original Ground See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (l) Key width "B" should be a minimum of JO 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. 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. GI rev. 07/2015 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 fill shalibe 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. 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. 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. 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. GI rev. 07/2015 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: 6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be prcvided 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. GI rev. 07/2015 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 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, 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 GI rev. 07/2015 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 ofplate 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 detennined 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. 7. SUBDRAINS 7.1 The geologic units on the site may have permeability characteristics and/or fracture systems that could be susceptible under certain conditions to seepage. The use of canyon - subdrains may be necessary to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts associated with seepage conditions. Canyon subdrains with lengths in excess of 500 feet or extensions of - existing offsite subdrains should use 8-inch-diameter pipes. Canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length should use 6-inch-diameter pipes. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • TYPICAL CANYON DRAIN DETAIL NOTES: , •• ~ cw.rrtR, SOCDUI.C IO PVC PCRFOAAltD PIPC F<lf' FUS ti EXCESS Of",~ IN OCPJM OR APff LENGTW 0, LONGER ltwc 900 feET 2 •• ...a,t 0WiETtA. SO--S>IAE 40 PVC PERFOAA TED P;pt f'<lA AIU LESS 1WAH 1CIC).ffFI' IN DEPTH OR A PlPli UENon. 9IOR1'EA 'T)IAN 500 FEET BEDROCK HIP~ !'l'W. m'll" ..... ATOl/t\V ~-~~ NO SCALE 7.2 Slope drains within stability fill keyways should use 4-inch-diameter ( or lager) pipes . GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • • • TYPICAL STABILITY FILL DETAIL 7.3 1 OCAVATI aAt::ICCUT AT I I l'\IOUMll110'C (IJ~ OTUJIWWI NaTm). ? JIA!F OF IJTMVI J'IY f ll l TOl!F U1'"1 NlO fORMATION,t,1 WI~. 111 OPING ... _,w .. ~ M O a Ol'f' a. -.llMIUTY flJ. TO IE C:0V!IO$El) Of PIIOPl:11.. Y ec:lMIYC!S) c:IWUAA SOL. 4 -b-.cY DfW'CS 10 Ill~ PRU AOllk:JlflD OUMHL T MAl't l'NIU.S ('l9WlMIK 0... OH, LQUVIJ.i.Ml) tPACtll~TELV lOF'EET c:ain.'11'0 COlffi' AIC>~ FU'T W1D£. ClD8Ut IP1oCING W.Yta\Al;CllJIO> f' fifff'N:IF ta l'NCClliHTfRFD- 6.-fl. '!"EJUIATEIIIW.. TO 1£ M NQI, ~ CRUIHEJ> IIOO< E»la.Dll!D 1h ~ fl.Tai FAIIINC !MIRN'l l«IHC'; e .. .OOU.CC1CRH'i.. rolll. +4IOI MIMIMUM Ot.Wc.tt.H. P\.Rl()(~ltl>, T~WM.U.01'\'C~IC.OUU:. COR l!CIUIVAllhT,J.'ll>~TO ~ AT I 1'911C:81f ,.._~ l'O~OOT\.n. NO SCALE The actual subdrain locations will be evaluated in the field during the remedial grading operations. Additional drains may be necessary depending on the conditions observed and the requirements of the local regulatory agencies. Appropriate subdrain outlets should be evaluated prior to finalizing 40-scalc grading plans. 7.4 Rock fill or soil-rock fill areas may require subdrains along their down-slope perimeters to mitigate the potential for buildup of water from construction or landscape irrigation. The subdrains should be at least 6-inch-diameter pipes encapsulated in gravel and filter fabric. Rock fill drains should be constructed using the same requirements as canyon subdrains. GI rev. 07/2015 • • • • 7.5 Prior to outletting, the final 20-foot segment of a subdrain that will not be extended during future development 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 pipe. TYPICAL CUT OFF WALL DETAIL FRONT VIEW ' .. 4t r• -A • ,· . v·· .. ·.· .... . .. . ~ ~ J t.. . , . · .. "' I• •• •• • !f' # • , ..• I rli'IN. ... --~"-' .............. .:.•_..__+--.... . . . . . .. : . .""' . • • •• ' J #. • -~ , SIDE VIEW 7.6 Subdrains that discharge into a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent headwall structure. GI rev. 07/2015 • TYPICAL HEADWALL DETAIL FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW r<111r - NO'f1:. ~ IHOUU>oun£T AT TO! OI FU &LOPI! OR IHlO~rDSI.WN1CDM.~ ,r 7.7 The final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. After completion of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map showing the drain locations. The final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading operations. Subdrains that will be extended on adjacent projects after grading can be placed on formational material and a vertical riser should be placed at the end of the subdrain. The grading contractor should consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper installation and functionality. The contractor is responsible for the performance of the drains. Gr rev. 07/2015 8. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 8.1 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. 8.2 The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock'fihl 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. 8.3 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. 8.4 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. 8.5 We should observe the placement of subdrains, to check that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 8.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 8.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 8.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. GI rev. 07/2015 8.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 8.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 8.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829, Expansion I,idex Test. 9. PROTECTION OF WORK 9.1 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. 9.2 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. 10. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 10.1 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. 10.2 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. GI rev. 07/2015 I =ch!_j I I I ----- ----- GRAPHIC SCALE o· 25' 50· 75' 100· 150· 200· ~~l!!!!!!!!!!!!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!iii.i..~ SCALE 7"=50' (on 36x24) GEOCON LEGEND Qpf. ....... PREVIOUSLY PLACED COMPACTED FILL . (Testing and Observation Services Provided by Leighton and Associates, Inc., See Referenced Report Dated December 10, 2014) T sa ........ sANTIAGo FORMATION ,-....J ....... APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT B-96) ....... .APPROX. LOCATION OF SMALL DIAMETER BORING T-26 ......... .APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH PERFORMED BY LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, NOV. 2014 ~~~.::, ....... .APPROX.LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN 3'fs ....... .APPROX. ELEVATION OF SUBDRAJN I 399 f .•..... .APPROX. ELEVATION AT BASE OF FILL GEOLOGIC MAP BRESSI RANCH LOTS 29 THROUGH 32 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE ~ SCALE 1"=5Q' 04-24 -201 7 g~gs9,~ ~ PROJECTNO. G2108 _32 _01 .,Gu •• GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS 1 6960 Fl.ANDERS DRM • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 -297 A PHON.ES53558-6900-FAX858558-6159 SHEET 1 OF 1 P!otted:04.':24120i7 S;Z!AM I By ALVIN LAORIL.LON<l I Fh Loa,lion:V::\PROJECTS\G2108-32-01 (;:lresol Rllrw:h)ISHEETS\G210ll-32-01 Geo M>lp.dwg