HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 15-05; QUARRY CREEK PA R-3; UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2015-02-249yG -5s vJ
UPDATE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 24, 2015
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05
RECEIVED
MAY 03 2016
LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING
S
S
GEOCON 5 INCORPORATED .
GEOtECH NICAI • E NV I RON.M.E.NTAL u.MATERIALS
Project No. 07135-42-05
February 24, 2015
I . ,...
S Cornerstone Communities
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 .. . . . .....
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
Subject: UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
O . . .
QUARRY CREEK .
CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Robson:
In accordance with your authorization, we are pleased to submit the results of our update
geotechnical investigation for the proposed Quarry Creek project. Conclusions and recommendations
presented herein are based on review of available published geotechnical reports and literature, 5 observations during previous grading performed on the property for reclamation, previous subsurface
geotechnical exploration and site reconnaissance of existing conditions.
5 The eastern half of the property has been used for mining and crushing rock to produce commercial
aggregates. As the result, the eastern half of the site is underlain by compacted fill, previously placed I fill, undocumented fill, sedimentary, volcanic, and intrusive bedrock. Reclamation grading has
5 . occurred on this portion of the site. The western half of the site is in an ungraded natural condition.
The accompanying report presents findings from our studies relative to geotechnical engineering
5 aspects of developing the property. The site is considered suitable for the proposed improvements
provided the recommendations of this report are followed. •
Should you have questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
S
Very truly yours, . . .: ..
GEOCON INCORPORATED . • • /4r AU ci ll
CEG 1778 SADR 01 Rodney1 C. IIikeseE
SSIO
RTIFIED (f9'
. A * ENGINEERING S:RCM:dmc
*
GEOLOGIST
(4/del) Addressee C . .
(2/del) The Corky McMillin Companies
Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell
OF C AM
6960 Flanders Drive I San Diego, California 92121-2974 S Telephone 858.558.6900 I Fo858.558.6159
S •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 1
PREVIOUS SITE USAGE AND GRADING ....................................................................................... 2
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................... ............................ 3
4. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................. .................................. 3
4.1 Compacted Fill (Qcf) ................................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) .........................................................................................................4
4.3 Previously Placed Compacted Fill (Qpcf) ................................................................................... 4
4.4 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) ....................................................................... ................................ 5
4.5 Topsoil (Unmapped) ................................................................................................................... 5
4.6 Surficial Landslide Debris (Qlsf) ...............................................................................................5
4.7 Alluvium (Qal) ...........................................................................................................................
4.8 Colluvium (Qc) ............................................................................................................................ 6
4.9 Terrace Deposits (Qt) ................................................................................................................ 6
4.10 Santiago Formation (Ts) .............................................................................................................. 6
4.11 'Salto Intrusive (Jspi)...................................................................................................................7
GROUNDWATER ...............................................................................................................................7
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.......................................................................................................................7
6.1 Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................ ................................................... 7
6.2 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................ 9
6.3 Flow Slide Potential .................................................................................................................10
6.4 Landslides ..................................... ............................................................................................ 10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 11
7.1 General .....................................................................................................................................11
7.2 Excavation and Soil Characteristics ........................................... .............................................. 11
7.3 Subdrains..................................................................................................................................12
7.4 Grading.....................................................................................................................................13
7.5 Surcharge Fill ...........................................................................................................................16
7.6 Settlement Monitoring..............................................................................................................16
7.7 Slope Stability ..........................................................................................................................16
7.8 Seismic Design Criteria ............................................................................................................ 18
7.9 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations..................................................19
7.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations...........................................................................................24
7.11 Detention Basin and Bioswale Recommendations...................................................................26
7.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ....................................................................................27
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2 and 3, Geologic Map
Figure 4, Geologic Cross Sections AA' through DD'
Figure 5, Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail
Figure 6, Typical Subdrain Cut-Off Wall Detail
Figure 7, Typical Subdrain Outlet Headwall Detail
Figure 8, Construction Detail for Lateral Extent of Removal
Figure 9, Settlement Monument
Figures 10 - 14, Slope Stability Analysis
Figure 15, Typical buttress Fill Detail
Figure 16, Typical Retaining Wall Drain Detail
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-i - A-5, Logs of Large Diameter Borings
Figures A-6 - A-27, Logs of Trenches
Figures A-28 - A-33, Logs of Small Diameter Borings
Figures A-34 - A-39, Logs of Trenches (Geocon 9-10-09)
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
Table B-TI, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-Ill, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Performed During Reclamation Grading
Table B-V, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Table B-VT, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
Performed During Reclamation Grading
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Table C-I, Summary of Soil Properties used for Slope Stability Analyses
Table C-IT, Summary of Slope Stability Analyses
Figure C-i, Cut Slope
Figures C-2 - C-3, Buttress Fill Slope
APPENDIX D
FLOW ANALYSIS
Figure D-1, Stability Analysis for Flow Slide Potential
Figure D-2, Stability Analysis to Determine Yield Coefficient
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
UPDATE GEOTECHN ICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of an update geotechnical investigation for the proposed Quarry
Creek development. The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to evaluate surface and
subsurface soil conditions and general site geology, and to identify geotechnical constraints that may
impact development of the property. In addition, the purpose of this report is to provide foundation
design criteria, concrete flatwork recommendations, retaining wall recommendations, excavation and
remedial grading considerations that can be utilized in developing project budgets. The scope of this
investigation also included a review of readily available published and unpublished geologic
literature, aerial photographs and the following documents previously prepared for the property:
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek II, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 24, 2015 (Project No. 07135-42-03).
Foundation Report, Quarry Creek Bridge, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, dated August 21, 2014 (Project No. 07135-42-04A).
Mass Grading Plans for Quarry Creek, prepared by Project Design Consultants, undated.
Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 4, 2013 (Project
No. 07135-42-02).
Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry Creek,
Oceanside, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated March 11, 2013 (Project
No. 07135-42-02).
Update Geotechnical Investigation, Amended Reclamation Plan, Quarry Creek Refined
Alternative 3, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 10,
2009 (Project No. 07135-42-01).
Limited Geotechnical Investigation to Evaluate Hardrock Constraints for Quarry Creek,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 9, 2004 (Project
No. 0713542-01B.
EIR - Level Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance Quarry Creek II Carlsbad/Oceanside,
California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated October 20, 2011(Project No. 07135-
42-0113).
The site is located south of State Route 78 and west of College Boulevard in Carlsbad, California
(see Vicinity Map, Figure 1).
The eastern portion of the site has been graded as part of the reclamation process. Geocon
Incorporated performed compaction testing and observation services during the grading operations.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - I - February 24, 2015
References 4 and 5 are the as-graded reports prepared for reclamation grading. As-graded conditions
are shown on the Geologic Map (Figures 2 and 3).
Previous field investigations were conducted in 2012 (Reference 1) and 2004 (Reference 7). These
investigations included large-diameter borings, small-diameter boring, and exploratory trenches.
Pertinent information, including boring and trench logs and other details of the field investigations
are presented in Appendix A.
We tested selected soil samples obtained during the previous field investigations to evaluate physical
properties for engineering analyses and to assist in providing recommendations for site grading. Details
of the laboratory tests and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the boring
logs in Appendix A. The Geologic Map, Figures 2 and 3 also present the locations of the exploratory
excavations. The base map used to generate Figures 2 and 3 is a CAD file of Reference 3.
Other reports reviewed as part of this study are summarized on the List of References at the end of
this report.
2. PREVIOUS SITE USAGE AND GRADING
The Quarry Creek property has undergone many years of mining, crushing, and screening to produce
commercial aggregate products. The majority of previous mining activity occurred in the eastern and
southern portions of the site. Mining waste products were placed in canyon or pit areas to reclaim
quarry excavations. This resulted in placement of mostly undocumented fill in depressions, as well as
some compacted fill. A former concrete batch plant and base-coarse crushing and screening plant
operated by Hanson Aggregates occupied the central portion of the property. Other portions of the
property were previously used for storage purposes, which include stockpiles of concrete and asphalt
rubble, bioremediation stockpiles, and other materials.
Reclamation grading of the previously mined area commenced in July 2011 and was completed in
December 2012. During reclamation grading, undocumented fills were removed and replaced as
compacted fill. Alluvium, within the drainage area, was removed to approximately 3 feet above
groundwater elevation and replaced with compacted fill. Drop structures, levees, and rock revetment
slopes were constructed along and in Buena Vista Creek drainage. Reclamation grading has resulted,
in removal of undocumented fill and replacement with compacted fill on the south side of Buena
Vista Creek and majority of the areas north of the creek. Reclamation grading resulted in large sheet-
graded pads on the eastern half of the property on both the north and south sides of Buena Vista
Creek. The western portion of the property has remained in an ungraded condition.
Project No. 07135-42-05 -2- February 24, 2015
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The overall site slopes northward, southward, and westward, following the east-west natural drainage
of Buena Vista Creek valley and its tributaries. The original Sialley-slope topography has been
lowered by quarry operations and then regarded to the current sheet grade elevations during
reclamation grading. Mining of rock in the northeast quadrant has created near-vertical rock slopes.
The cut has exposed fractured rock, which is very strong and considered stable in its temporary steep
condition. Recommendations for a permanent slope condition are provided in the slope stability
section of this report.
Slopes on the south side of the valley have been graded to permanent 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) cut
slopes with benches, bench-drains and brow-ditches. On the north side of the property, reclamation
grading has resulted in 2:1 cut slopes. Elevations in the eastern half of the property vary from
approximately 80 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) to above 300 feet MSL in open-space areas. Sheet
graded pad elevations vary from approximately 105 to 115 feet MSL. On the western ungraded
portion of the site, existing site elevations vary from approximately 80 feet MSL to 160 feet MSL.
Review of the grading plan for Quarry Creek indicates regrading in the eastern half of the property will
generally consist of cuts up to approximately 35 feet and fills of 15 feet, respectively. Within the
ungraded western portion, cuts and fills up to 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively will occur to create large
sheet-graded pads. Development will also include the construction of a bridge across the creek,
roadways, and utilities. A report specific to the bridge has been provided separately (see Reference 2).
Final plans for development have not yet been completed, however, we understand plans are to
construct 3-story multi-family buildings, 2-story single family attached units, affordable housing
units, and a community facility. Plans include street improvements, utilities, and several
neighborhood parks. Several water quality basins are planned within the development.
The site description and proposed development are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the
available plans. If development plans differ significantly from those described herein, we should be
contacted for review and possible revisions to this report.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Eight surficial soil deposits and four geologic formations were encountered and/or mapped on the
property. Surficial soil deposits include undocumented fill, compacted fill, previously placed fill,
topsoil (unmapped), surficial landslide debris, alluvium, and colluvium. Formational units include:
Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits; Tertiary-age Santiago Formation; and Jurassic-age Salto Intrusive
rock. Mapped limits of the geologic units are shown on the Geologic Maps (Figures 2 and 3).
Project No. 07135-42-05 -3- February 24, 2015
Geologic Cross Sections are presented on Figure 4. The surficial soil types and geologic units are
described below.
4.1 Compacted Fill (Qcf)
Compacted fill placed during reclamation grading exists across the eastern half of the property.
Observation and compaction testing of the fill has been performed by Geocon Incorporated. Report
documenting compaction tests and as-graded conditions were prepared in 2013 (see References 4 and
5). The fill is predominately comprised of silty to clayey sand with varying amounts of rock
fragments, soil rock fills, and windrows of oversize rock and concrete. A 10-foot hold-down for
oversize rock was provided during reclamation grading. However, in the southwest portion of the
reclamation grading area, the hold down was raised to 7 feet below finish grade. Compacted fill is
considered suitable for support of additional fill and structural loads.
4.2 Undocumented Fill (Qudf)
Undocumented fill exists in the northeast portion of the property beyond the reclamation grading
limit and within the existing access road from Haymar Drive. The majority of this undocumented fill
will likely be removed to achieve sheet grades based on proposed cuts shown on the project grading
plans. However, we expect some remedial grading will be needed below proposed cut elevations to
completely remove undocumented fill. A small amount of undocumented fill also exists just west of
the graded reclamation parcels near the central portion of the project. Undocumented fill is
unsuitable in its presentcondition, and will require removal and recompaction to support additional
fill or structural improvements. Oversize materials encountered during remedial grading may require
breaking down and special placement procedures in deeper fill areas.
In the southwest portion of Lot 2, a limited amount of undocumented fill was left in-place during
reclamation grading due to the presence of groundwater. Based on our observations during
reclamation grading and potholes performed, we expect less than 3 to 5 feet of fill was left below
groundwater in some areas. We do not expect the presence of the undocumented fill will impact
future development.
4.3 Previously Placed Compacted Fill (Qpcf)
Limited areas in the northeast and southeast portions of the property are underlain by previously
placed compacted fill (see Geologic Map). According to a report by Ninyo and Moore (dated
August 31, 2000), most of the approximately 10 feet of documented fill in the bottom of the northern
pit area had been placed between approximately 1988 and 2000. The report describes the fill
Project No. 07135-42-05 -4- February 24, 2015
as ... interlayered, medium dense to dense, clayey and silty sand, clayey gravel and stiff sandy clay.
Portions of the compacted fill were buried beneath stockpiles of oversize shot-rock that was removed
during reclamation grading. The upper approximately 3 to 5 feet of previously placed compacted fill
was removed during reclamation grading and recompacted.
Previously placed compacted fill associated with the development of the eastern quarry (Wal-Mart
shopping center) encroaches into the southeastern portion of the property. These materials were
partially removed and recompacted during reclamation grading operations. Based on observations
during reclamation grading, the fill appears to be relatively dense with adequate moisture content and
considered suitable for support of structural improvements.
4.4 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf)
Previously placed fill exists near Haymar Drive and Highway 78 along the northern property
boundary. The approximate limit of the previously placed fill is shown on Figure 2 (Geologic Map).
These soils should not impact future development of the property.
4.5 Topsoil (Unmapped)
Portions of the western side of the site are irregularly blanketed by 1 to 3 feet of topsoil consisting of
loose, porous, dark brown, silty to clayey, fine sand. Topsoil is compressible and expansive, and will
require removal and recompaction within areas of planned development. Expansive clays should be
placed in deeper excavations during grading.
4.6 Surficial Landslide Debris (Qlsf)
Several suspicious surficial landslides are mapped within the western portion of the site, along the
south banks of the Buena Vista Creek basin. Due to the limited access to these areas, subsurface
investigation was not practical at this time. Their existence will be verified when access is available
or during the grading operations.' Trench T-5 was excavated at one of these areas and showed
approximately 5 feet of sandy clay material overlying bedrock formation. The surficial landslide
debris, if they exist, are considered unsuitable for receiving fill or structures and require removal.
4.7 Alluvium (Qal)
Alluvial deposits are present within the major east-west drainage of Buena Vista Creek, as well as in
the northeastern and southwestern tributary canyons that converge with Buena Vista Creek in the
central portion of the site. The alluvial soils generally consist of loose, porous dark gray to dark
brown, very clayey, fine to medium sand, and clayey sand and silt with occasional layers of slightly
silty sand. Areas of deepest alluvium are located in the central portion of the site adjacent to the
Project No. 07135-42-05 -5- February 24, 2015
original channel of Buena Vista Creek and its tributaries. The alluvium is compressible and not
suitable for support of additional fill and/or structural loads and will require partial (dependent upon
groundwater depths) to complete removal. Remedial grading of the alluvium along the north and
south sides of the main Buena Vista Creek drainage has occurred during the reclamation grading.
Alluvium is expected to be encountered along the toe of the south facing fill slope at the west end of
the property.
4.8 Colluvium (Qc)
Colluvial deposits were encountered in the southwest portion of the site mostly along the sides of the
draining tributary canyons. Colluvium is comprised of approximately 4 to 6 feet of loose dark brown,
very clayey to silty, fine sand. Due to the loose unconsolidated condition of the colluvium, removal
and recompaction will be required to provide suitable support for placement of compacted fill or
structural improvements.
4.9 Terrace Deposits (Qt)
Extensive and thick river terrace deposits consisting of medium-dense to dense, light reddish-brown
to olive-brown, gravelly, silty to clayey, medium to coarse sand to cohesionless sand with occasional
layers of silty clay are present in the western and southwest portions of the site. Except near
depositional contacts (or unconformities) with older formations, this unit is typically massive to
horizontally bedded, relatively dense and exhibits low compressibility characteristics. Terrace
Deposits are most prevalent in the southwestern portion of the site. The sandy zones are suitable for
support of fill and/ or structural loads in their present condition. The clayey zones, however, possess
low shear strength and high expansion potential.
Our large diameter boring LB-2 performed in the proposed cut slope located at the southwest
boundary, adjacent to Simsbury Court, encountered materials consists of interbedded silty sand,
cohessionless sand and clay layers which are occasionally partially remolded. We recommend a
stability buttress be constructed along this cut slope to provide adequate slope stability.
4.10 Santiago Formation (Ts)
The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation, consisting of dense, massive bedded light brown to greenish-
gray sandstones and thin interbedded siltstones is present in the north-central and south-central
portions of the site. The Santiago Formation is generally granular and possesses suitable
geotechnical characteristics in either an undisturbed and/or properly compacted condition. However,
the occurrence of clayey siltstones and claystone layers in this unit may generate moderate to highly
Project No. 07135-42-05 -6- February 24, 2015
expansive materials, or localized expansive zones at grade. Where practical, clayey zones of the
Santiago Formation should be placed at least 3 feet below proposed subgrade elevations.
4.11 Salto Intrusive (Jspi)
The Jurassic-aged Salto Intrusive consists of a steeply jointed, dark gray, very strongtonalite to
gabbro rock considered to be older than the Peninsular Range Batholith and more closely related to
the formation of the Santiago Peak Volcanics (Larsen, 1948). This granitoid bedrock unit is present
in the northeast and southeast corners of the property and is the predominant geologic unit that has
been mined for aggregate on the property. Typically, this bedrock unit outcrops along the eastern or
southeastern boundary of the site, or is covered by fill in the central portions of the site. Exploratory
excavations encountered mostly buried intrusive rock that exhibited a variable weathering pattern
ranging from intensely weathered and fractured material near contacts with the overlying
sedimentary rocks, to fresh, extremely strong crystalline rock within quarried areas.
5. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in the major lower elevation drainage areas of Buena Vista Creek and
its tributaries at elevations between 70 to 80 feet MSL. Depth of groundwater is subject to
fluctuation from natural seasonal variations. The relationship between alluvial removals and the
position of groundwater table and time of year remedial grading is performed are discussed in the
Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report.
/
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Review of geologic literature, previous geotechnical reports for the property, and observations during
our current field investigation indicates no active faults traverse the property. One fault was observed
in Salto Intrusive rock across the quarry slope in the northeast corner of the property. However, an
exploratory trench excavated through the Tertiary Santiago Formation across the fault confirmed the
fault did not displace the Eocene-age sedimentary unit. As such, the fault is considered inactive and
not a constraint io the property.
According to the results of the computer program EZ-FRISK (Version 7.62), 8 known active faults
are located within a search radius of 50 miles from the property. The nearest known active fault is
the Newport-Inglewood- Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately 6 miles east of the site and
is the dominant source of potential ground motion. Earthquakes that might occur on the Newport-
Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone or other faults within the southern California and northern Baja
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 7 - February 24, 2015
California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site. The estimated
deterministic maximum earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration for the Newport
Inglewood -Rose Canyon Fault are 7.5 and 0.34 g, respectively.
We used Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008,
and Chiou-Youngs (2008) NGA acceleration-attenuation relationships in the calculation of the peak
ground accelerations (PGA). Table 6.1.1 lists the estimated maximum earthquake magnitudes and
PGA's for the most dominant faults for the site location calculated for Site Class D as defined by
Table 1613A.5.3 of the 2010 CBC.
TABLE 6.1.1
DETERMINISTIC SPECTRA SITE PARAMETERS
Fault Name
Distance
from Site
(miles)
Maximum
Earthquake
Magnitude
(Mw)
Peak Ground Acceleration
Boore-
Atkinson
2008 (g)
Campbell-
Bozorgma
2008 (g)
Chiou-
Youngs
2008 (g)
Newport-Inglewood- Rose Canyon 6 7.50 0.30 0.26 0.34
Elsinore 21 7.85 0.21 0.15 0.19
Coronado Bank 23 7.40 0.18 0.12 0.14
Palos Verdes Connected 23 7.70 0.19 0.13 0.16
San Joaquin Hills Thrust 35 7.10 0.18 0.10 0.09
Earthquake Valley 42 6.80 0.13 0.09 0.11
San Jacinto 45 7.88 0.13 0.08 0.10
Chino i 47 6.80 0.08 0.05 0.05
We used the computer program EZ-FRISK to perform a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. The
computer program EZ-FRISK operates under the assumption that the occurrence rate of earthquakes
on each mapped Quaternary fault is proportional to the fault slip rate. The program accounts for
earthquake magnitude as a function of fault rupture length. Site acceleration estimates are made
using the earthquake magnitude and distance from the site to the rupture zone. The program also
accounts for uncertainty in each of following: (1) earthquake magnitude, (2) rupture length for a
given magnitude, (3) location of the rupture zone, (4) maximum possible magnitude of a given
earthquake, and (5) acceleration at the site from a given earthquake along each fault. By calculating
the expected accelerations from considered earthquake sources, the program calculates the total
average annual expected number of occurrences of site acceleration greater than a specified value.
We utilized acceleration-attenuation relationships suggested by Boore-Atkinson (2008) NGA
USGS2008, Campbell-Bozorgnia (2008) NGA USGS 2008, and Chiou-Youngs (2008) in the
Project No. 07135-42-05 -8- 1 February 24, 2015
analysis. Table 6.1.2 presents the site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard parameters including
acceleration-attenuation relationships and the probability of exceedence for Site Class D.
TABLE 6.1.2
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD PARAMETERS
Probability of Exceedence
Peak Ground Acceleration
Boore-Atkinson,
2008 (g)
Campbell-Bozorgma,
2008 (g)
Chiou-Youngs,
2008 (g)
2% in a 50 Year Period 0.52 0.42 0.47
5% in a 50 Year Period 0.39 0.32 0.35
10% in a 50 Year Period 0.31 0.25 0.27
The California Geologic Survey (CGS) provides a computer program that calculates the ground
motion for a 10 percent of probability of exceedence in 50 years based on the average value of
several attenuation relationships. Table 6.1.3 presents the calculated results from the Probabilistic
Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page from the CGS website.
TABLE 6.1.3
PROBABILISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED FAULTS
CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY
Calculated Acceleration (g)
Firm Rock
Calculated Acceleration (g)
Soft Rock
Calculated Acceleration (g)
Alluvium
0.27 0.29 0.33
While listing peak accelerations is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a
region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including the frequency and duration of
motion and the soil conditions underlying the site. Seismic design of the structures should be
evaluated in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) guidelines.
6.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction analyses were performed during Geocon's 2009 report for reclamation grading. Results
of the analyses indicate alluvial deposits below the groundwater should not liquefy for the design
level acceleration. However, design accelerations for under current building codes have significantly
increased over the last several years. Under current design accelerations, portions of the alluvium
below groundwater could experience liquefaction. Liquefaction, should it occur, is expected to be
limited to the area within the existing Buena Vista Creek drainage, and in the tributary drainage
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 9 - February 24, 2015
southwest of the site. With respect to the alluvium left in place within Lot 2, the alluvium is likely
less than 10 feet thick, has been surcharged with approximately 15 to 20 feet of fill, will receive an
additional 5 feet of fill to achieve proposed sheet grades, and will be surcharged with an additional 5
feet of fill during regrading (see Section 7.5 of this report). In our opinion, liquefaction, if it were to
occur in this area would not cause surface manifestations (i.e., sand boils). Settlement, should it
occur is expected to be relatively uniform and less than 1-inch total. We estimate differential
settlement as a result of liquefaction to be '/2-inch or less.
6.3 Flow Slide Potential
We analyzed flow slide potential for liquefaction conditions along the channel bank. We performed a
slope stability analysis using residual shear strength parameters for the potentially liquefiable soils.
Residual shear strengths were determined using information provided in Recommended Procedures
for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction in California. It is our opinion that there is a low potential for flow slide impacts to
structures at the locations shown on Figure 2. The results of the stability analysis are shown
graphically in Appendix D (see Figures D-1 and D-2).
6.4 Landslides
Review of 1995 published landslide maps of the California Geological Survey (formerly the Division
of Mines and Geology) and a previous geotechnical report by Ninyo and Moore (August 23, 2000),
suggested the presence of suspected landslide deposits in the southwest quadrant of the site.
However, observations of intact outcrops and current subsurface investigation confirmed that the
landslide does not exist. Several suspicious surficial landslides are mapped along the south bank of
the creek. These areas were not accessible for subsurface investigation. These potential landslides,
even if confirmed, should not have significant impact on the proposed development.
Project No. 07135-42-05 -10- Fêbruary24, 2015
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
7.1.1 From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the
proposed development, provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented
in design and construction of the project.
7.1.2 Soil conditions identified during this study that may impact development include
compressible surficial soils (undocumented fill, alluvium, colluvium, surficial landslide
debris and topsoil) that will require remedial grading. Undocumented fill may contain
large rock fragments that require special placement procedures.
7.1.3 The property is approximately 7 miles from the Newport Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault. It
is our opinion active and potentially active faults do not extend across or trend toward the
site. Risks associated with seismic activity consist of the potential for strong seismic
shaking. Building setbacks will not be required for the planned development due to
faulting.
7.1.4 Several potential surficial landslides are mapped along the north-facing slope within the
western portion of the site. Due to the limited access, these areas could not be reached for
subsurface investigation. If encountered during the grading operations, total removal of the
slide debris within the grading area is recommended.
7.1.5 Subsurface conditions observed may be extrapolated to reflect general soil/geologic
conditions; however, some variations in subsurface conditions between trench and boring
locations should be anticipated.
72 Excavation and Soil Characteristics
7.2.1 Excavation of the Terrace Deposits, Santiago Formation and weathered portion of the
Salto Intrusive is expected to require a heavy to very heavy effort to excavate. Less
weathered and fresh Salto Intrusive bedrock may require blasting or specialized rock
breaking techniques to efficiently excavate and handle. Very heavy effort with possible
refusal is expected for excavations into the volcanic and intrusive rocks. Oversize material
may be generated which would require special handling or exportation from the site.
7.2.2 The soil encountered in the field investigation is considered to be "expansive" (expansion
index greater than 20) as defined by 2013 California Building Code (CBC) Section
1803.5.3. Table 7.2 presents soil classifications based on the expansion index. Based on
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 11 - February 24, 2015
the results of our laboratory testing, presented in Appendix B, we expect the on-site
materials will possess a "very low" to "very high" expansion potential (Expansion Index of
20 and greater).
TABLE 7.2
EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
ASTM 4829 AND 2013 CBC
Expansion Index (El) Expansion Classification
ASTM 4829
2013 CBC
Expansion Classification
0-20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21-50 Low
Expansive
Very High
51 —90 Medium
91-130 High
Greater Than 130
7.2.3 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage
of water-soluble sulfate content. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content
tests are presented in Appendix .B and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations
tested possess "negligible" sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2013 CBC
Section 1904 and ACI 318-08 Sections 4.2 and 4.3. We recommend the requirements set
forth by 2013 CBC Section 1904 and ACT 318 be followed when determining the type of
concrete to be used. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible
characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield different
concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of fertilizers
and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
7.2.4 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore,
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements that could
be susceptible to corrosion are planned.
7.3 Subdrains
7.3.1 Canyon subdrains are recommended to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts
associated with observed and potential seepage conditions and to collect perched water
that migrates along the contact between natural ground and fill surfaces. Figure 5 presents
a typical canyon subdrain detail. Recommended subdrain locations are depicted on the
Geologic Map, Figures 2 and 3.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 12 - February 24, 2015
7.3.2 The final 20-foot segment of a subdrain should consist of non-perforated drainpipe. At the
non-perforated/perforated interface, a seepage cutoff wall should be constructed on the
downslope side of the junction in accordance with Figure 6. Subdrains that discharge into
a natural drainage course or open space area should be provided with a permanent
headwall structure in accordance with Figure 7.
7.3.3 Final grading plans should show the location of the proposed subdrains. Upon completion
of remedial excavations and subdrain installation, the project civil engineer should survey
the drain locations and prepare an "as-built" map depicting the existing conditions. The
final outlet and connection locations should be determined during grading. The grading
contractor may consider videoing the subdrains shortly after burial to check proper
installation and to check that the pipe has not been crushed. As a minimum, we
recommend the subdrain for the buttress fill be videoed. The contractor is responsible for
the performance of the drains.
7.4 Grading
7.4.1 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix E. Where the recommendations of Appendix E
conflict with this section of the report, the recommendations of this section take
precedence.
7.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with
the owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in
attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
7.4.3 Grading should be performed in conjunction with the observation and compaction testing
services of Geocon Incorporated. Fill soil should be observed on a full-time basis during
placement and tested to assess in-place dry density and moisture content.
7.4.4 Site preparation should begin with removal of all deleterious material and vegetation. The
depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soil to be used for
fill is relatively free of organic matter. Deleterious material generated during stripping
and/or site demolition should be exported from the site.
7.4.5 Undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium and landslide debris within areas of
planned grading should be removed to firm natural ground and properly compacted prior to
placing additional fill and/or structural loads. The actual extent of unsuitable soil removals
should be determined in the field by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. Overly
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 13- February 24, 2015
wet surficial materials, where encountered, will require drying and/or mixing with drier
soils to facilitate proper compaction. *
7.4.6 Alluvium should be removed down to competent formational bedrock or to within
approximately 3 feet of the groundwater table, whichever occurs first. During excavation
of the alluvium, test pits should be periodically excavated to determine groundwater
depths. Dewatering and special equipment such as swamp cats, excavators, and top loading
operations may be required to excavate the alluvium. Removals at the toe of slopes along
the drainage channel at the southwest corner of the property should extend out at a 1:1
plane from the toe to the bottom of the removal. A typical lateral extent of removal is
shown on Figure 8.
7.4.7 Graded areas may expose volcanic/intrusive rock at finish grade. The presence of hard
rock may impact future development. We recommend hard rock be undercut to a depth of
at least 5 feet below finish grade in building pads and 2 feet below utilities and a soil cap
replaced.
7.4.8 After removal of unsuitable material as recommended above, the base of overexcavations
and natural ground surfaces (including previous compacted fill soil) to receive additional
fill should be scarified approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
7.4.9 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted
in layers. In general, soils native to the site are suitable for re-use as fill if free from
vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no thicker than
will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, backfill, and scarified ground
surfaces should be compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of maximum dry
density near to slightly above optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with
ASTM Test Procedure D 1557. Fill areas with in-place density test results indicating
moisture contents less than optimum will require additional moisture conditioning prior to
placing additional fill.
7.4.10 To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion
of building pads with cut-fill transitions be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced, where
practical, with "very low" to "medium" expansive compacted fill soils.
7.4.11 Cut pads exposing concretions, cemented material, or expansive soil should be undercut at
least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted "very low" to "medium" expansive soil
to facilitate excavation of foundations and shallow utilities.
Project No. 07135-42-05 -14- February 24, 2015
7.4.12 Undercuts (overexcavations) performed on pads with cut-fill transitions, cemented
sandstone, hard rock or expansive soil materials at grade should be undercut at a gradient
of 1 percent toward the Street or toward the deepest fill area to provide drainage for
moisture migration along the contact between the native soil and compacted fill.
7.4.13 The on-site soil is suitable to be used as fill if relatively free of debris and organic
material. The depth of removal should be such that dense natural ground is exposed at the
base of the overexcavation.
7.4.14 Grading should be performed such that highly expansive soils are placed in the deeper fill
areas and outside of slope zones. Materials within 3 feet of finish grade on lots and the
upper 12 inches of subgrade within streets, where practical, should consist of very low to
medium expansive soils (soil,with an Expansion Index less than 90).
7.4.15 Cut and fill slopes should be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or
flatter. An approximately 15-foot-high 1.5:1 cut slope in the Salto Intrusive is planned in
the southeast portion of the property and an approximately 30-foot-high 1.5:1 cut slope in -
Santiago Formation is planned at the northeast portion. These 1.5:1 slopes are acceptable
provided they are free of adverse bedding. It is recommended that the slope excavations be
observed during grading by a representative of Geocon Incorporated to check that soil and
geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated and adverse bedding
does not exist.
7.4.16 All fill slopes should be constructed of granular material and compacted out to the face of
the finish slope. If complete removals cannot be performed outside the toe of slopes due to
environmentally sensitive areas and/or groundwater conditions, Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted to provide recommendations.
7.4.17 Excavations in cemented zones of formational units will likely generate oversize rock
chunks. Oversized materials can be placed in fill areas in accordance with the
recommendations contained within the Recommended Grading Specifications in
Appendix D. Oversize materials (rocks or hard lumps in excess of 12 inches in least
dimension) should be kept at least 10 feet below proposed finish grade within building
pads and at least 2 feet below the deepest utility within street right-of-ways. Modifications
to the hold down depths can be made at the owner's desecration.
Project No. 07135-42-05 -15- February 24, 2015
7.5 Surcharge Fill
7.5.1 In Lot 2 where undocumented fill and alluvium were left in-place below groundwater, we
recommend a surcharge fill height of at least 5 above finish pad grade be placed. The
approximate area of recommended surcharge is shown on Figure 2. The top of the
surcharge fill should extend out to a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet beyond the
limits where alluvium was left in-place. We recommend the bottom 1-foot of the surcharge
fill be placed and compacted as structural fill. This will result in compacted fill at finish
grade once settlement of the underlying alluvium occurs.
7.6 Settlement Monitoring
7.6.1 Settlement monitoring is recommended where surcharge fill is placed. Once rough pad
grade is attained, we recommend surface monuments be installed to measure settlement.
The locations and number of monuments should be determined by Geocon once building
pad locations are known. A typical surface settlement monument detail is presented as
Figure 9.
7.6.2 Surface settlement monuments should be read by the project surveyor every week for the
first 4 weeks, and then every two weeks until measured settlement is within tolerable limits
such that additional settlement will not impact site improvements. Based on our experience
with similar soil conditions, we estimate 2 to 4 months of monitoring would be necessary
to demonstrate that primary consolidation is essentially complete.
7.7 Slope Stability
7.7.1 Slope stability analyses, utilizing average drained direct shear strength parameters, indicate
proposed fill slopes constructed with on-site granular materials and cut slopes within
formational material should have calculated factors of safety of at least 1.5 under static
conditions with respect to both deep-seated failure and shallow sloughing conditions.
Results of the analyses are presented on Figures 10 through 14. Additionally, an
inclination of 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) is acceptable for slopes excavated into the
Salto Intrusive and Santiago Formation provided no adverse jointing, fractures, or bedding
exist. All cut slopes should be observed by a geologist to assess if adverse bedding,
jointing, or fractures exist.
7.7.2 There are steep to near vertical cut slopes within the northeast portion of the site. These
slopes were excavated during mining operations. The stability of these slopes should be
evaluated when ultimate grading and use of this area is known. Various options such as lay
back, stability fill or soil nailing/rock bolting may be considered at the time. Alternatively,
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 16 - February 24, 2015
slope set-backs and rock retention fences can be utilized. For preliminary planning
purposes, we recommend a set-back for site improvements of 20 feet from the toe of slope
in conjunction with the construction of a debris ditch and rock retention fence.
Additionally, we recommend loose rock and accumulated soil on the slope face and at the
top of the slope be removed. The construction of the debris ditch and rock retention fence
should occur during fine grading of the pad once pad usage and improvement locations
have been determined.
7.7.3 The proposed 45 feet high cut slope located at the southwest boundary, adjacent to
Simsbury Court, will be excavated into Terrace Deposits. Our large diameter boring LB-2
encountered materials consisting of interbedded silty sand, cohessionless sand and clay
layers which were occasionally partially remolded. Our analysis indicates that a buttress
fill will be required to provide adequate slope stability. Based on our analysis, the stability
buttress will need to have a minimum width of 30 feet to provide adequate stability. A
typical buttress fill detail is provided in Figure 15. A discussion. our stability analysis is
presented inAppendix C.
7.7.4 Excavations including buttresses, shear keys, and stability fills should be observed during
grading by an engineering geologist to evaluate whether soil and geologic conditions do
not differ significantly from those expected. Buttress shear key and associated subdrains
should be surveyed during construction and depicted on the final as-built grading plans.
7.7.5 We performed the slope stability analyses based on the interpretation of geologic
conditions encountered during our field investigation. In certain areas, the geologic
conditions such as the localized or continuous features of the bedding plane shears may
need to be further defined by additional field exploration based on our review of the
40-scale grading plans.
7.7.6 The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill
slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular "soil" fill to reduce the
potential for surficial sloughing.
7.7.7 Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 3 feet and cut back to the design finish grades.
Alternatively, fill slopes can be compacted by backrolling with a loaded sheepsfoot roller
or tracked walked by sufficiently by a D-8 dozer or equivalent, at vertical intervals not to
exceed 4 feet. Slope should be uniformly compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density to the face of the finished slope.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 17- February 24, 2015
7.7.8 All slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation having variable root
depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, all slopes should be drained
and properly maintained to reduce erosion. Slope planting should generally consist of
drought tolerant plants having a variable root depth. Slope watering should be kept to a
minimum to just support the plant growth.
7.8 Seismic Design Criteria
7.8.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS.
Table 7.8.1 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2013 California
Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2012 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-
10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral
response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building structures and improvements should be
designed using a Site Class C. We evaluated the Site Class based on the discussion in
Section 1613.3.2 of the 2013 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10. The values presented
in Table 7.8.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER).
TABLE 7.8.1
2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2013 CRC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2
NICER Ground Motion Spectral Response l.067g Figure 1613.3.1(1) Acceleration — Class B (short), Ss
NICER Ground Motion Spectral Response 0.413g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Acceleration—Class B (1 see),
Site Coefficient, FA 1.073 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.587 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Class Modified NICER 1.145g Section 1613.3 .3 (Eqn 16-37) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS
Site Class Modified NICER
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 see), SMI 0.656g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SOS 0.763g Section 1613:3.4 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 see), 0.437g Section 16 13.3.4 (Eqn 16-40)
7.8.2 Table 7.8.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic
Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped
maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG).
Project No. 07135-42-05 . - 18- February 24, 2015
TABLE 7.8.2
2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.407g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.093 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG
Peak Ground _Acceleration, _PGAM
0.445g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
7.8.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 7.8.1 and 7.8.2 for seismic design does not constitute
any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will
not occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life,
not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
7.9 Foundation and Concrete Slab-On-Grade Recommendations
7.9.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- to three-story residential
structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of
the underlying fill soils as well as the expansion index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a
particular building pad (or lot). Categories for each building pad or lot will be provided
after the completion of grading once fill thickness is known and expansion index testing
has been performed on finish grade soils.
TABLE 7.9.1
FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation
Category
Maximum Fill
Thickness, T (feet)
Differential Fill
Thickness, D (feet)
Expansion
Index (El)
I T<20 -- EI<50
II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90
III T>50 D>20 90<EI<130
7.9.2 Table 7.9.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for
conventional foundation systems.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - 19- February 24, 2015
TABLE 7.9.2
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Footing
Embedment Depth Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category (inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, 6x6-10/10 welded wire
one top and one bottom mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No. 4 bars, No. 3 bars at 24 inches
two top and two bottom on center, both directions
III 24 Four No. 5 bars, No. 3 bars at 18 inches
two top and two bottom on center, both directions
7.9.3 The embedment depths presented in Table 7.9.2 should be measured from the lowest
adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. The conventional foundations
should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated
footings, respectively.
7.9.4 The concrete slab-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation
Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category III.
7.9.5 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to storemoisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should
be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Guide
for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-06). In
addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's
recommendations and ASTM requirements, and in a manner that prevents puncture. The
project architect or developer should specify the vapor retarder based on the type of floor
covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity controlled
environment.
7.9.6 The project foundation engineer, architect, and/or developer should determine the
thickness of bedding sand below the slab. In general, 3 to 4 inches of sand bedding is
typically used. Geocon should be contacted to provide recommendations if the bedding
sand is thicker than 6 inches.
7.9.7 The foundation design engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and
curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid
moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. The foundation design engineer
should specify the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plan. It
Project No. 07135-42-05 -20- February 24, 2015
is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations
presented on the foundation plan.
7.9.8 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be
given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the
proposed structures. The 2013 CBC has updated the design requirements for post-tensioned
foundation systems. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer
experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute
(PTI), Third Edition, as required by the 2013 CBC (Section 1805.8). Although this procedure
was developed for expansive soil conditions, we understand it can also be used to reduce the
potential for foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design
should incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented in Table 7.9.3 for the particular
Foundation Category designated. The parameters presented in Table 7.9.3 are based on the
guidelines presented in the PTI, Third Edition design manual.
TABLE 7.9.3
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Third Edition Design Parameters
Foundation Category
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, YM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, e (feet) 1 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, YM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
7.9.9 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than
the 2013 CBC:
The criteria presented in Table 7.9.3 are still applicable.
Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches
and 24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment
depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
Project No. 07135-42-05 -211 - February 24, 2015
7.9.10 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is
planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and
extend at least 6 inches below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
7.9.11 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift,
regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the
perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI
design procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the
placement of the reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after
tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer
should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the
proposed structures.
7.9.12 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be
placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints form between the
footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension foundation
system.
7.9.13 Category I, II, or III foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be
increased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. The estimated
maximum total and differential settlement for the planned structures due to foundation
loads is 1- inch and '/2-inch, respectively. Differential settlement is estimated to occur over
a span of 40 feet.
7.9.14 We expect primary settlement of existing fills is essentially complete. However, we
estimate that additional settlement as a result of hydro-consolidation to be approximately
0.2 to 0.3 percent of the total fill thickness. We expect hydro-consolidation to occur over a
20 year or more duration.. We estimate a total fill settlement as a result of hydro-
consolidation to be 1- inch or less in areas where compacted fill exists. A more refined
estimate of total and differential fill thickness can be made once building locations on
individual sheet graded pads are known. -
7.9.15 Foundations will need to be designed to accommodate estimated total and differential fill
settlement from both building loading and hydroconsolidation. In addition, building pads
on Lot 2 where alluvium was left in-place should incorporate the estimated liquefaction
settlement.
Project No*. 07135-42-05 -22- February 24, 2015
7.9.16 Isolated footings, including PT foundation systems where footings are not reinforced with
PT cables, should have the minimum embedment depth and width recommended for
conventional foundations (see Section 7.9.1 through 7.9.3) for a particular foundation
category. The use of isolated footings, which, are located beyond the perimeter of the
building and support structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended
for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be
connected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
7.9.17 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening
beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition,
consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed five feet in width, to
the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
7.9.18 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation- and slab-subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as
necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be appropriate in any such concrete
placement.
7.9.19 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper
than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are
recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high or cut slopes regardless of height, footings
should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
For fill slopes greater than 20 feet high, foundations should be extended to a depth
where the minimum horizontal distance is equal to H/3 (where H equals the
vertical distance from the top of the fill slope to the base of the fill soil) with a
minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet. The horizontal distance is
measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face of the slope. A
post-tensioned slab and foundation system or mat foundation system can be used
to help reduce potential foundation distress associated with slope creep and lateral
fill extension. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these
alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry
have been determined.
If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a
review of specific site conditions.
Swimming pools located within 7 feet' of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the
swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the
Project No. 07135-42-05 -23- February 24, 2015
adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill
slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming
pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional
recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted
for a review of specific site conditions.
Although other improvements that are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of
a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
7.9.20 The exterior flatwork recommendations provided herein assumes that the near surface soils
are very low to low expansive (El < 50). Exterior slabs not subjected to vehicular traffic
should be a minimum of four inches thick and reinforced with 6 x 6-6/6 welded wire mesh.
The mesh should be placed in the middle of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to
future performance of the slabs. The contractor should take extra measures to provide
proper mesh placement. Prior to construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade
soils should be moisture conditioned at or slightly above optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM 1557.
7.9.21 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. The
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by: (1) limiting the slump of the concrete,
(2) proper concrete placement and curing, and by (3) the placement of crack control joints
at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
7.9.22 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
7.10 Retaining Wall Recommendations
7.10.1 Retaining walls that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of
the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall and having a level backfill surface
should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid
density of 35 pcf. Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), an active
Project No. 07135-42-05 -24- February 24, 2015
soil pressure of 50 pcf is recommended. Expansive soils should not be used as backfill
material behind retaining walls. All soil placed for retaining wall backfill should have an
Expansion Index less than 50.
7.10.2 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be
identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time Geocon Incorporated should obtain
samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures
may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear
strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active
lateral earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as
backfill may or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if
standard wall designs will be used.
7.10.3 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount
of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall. The wall designer should provide appropriate lateral deflection
quantities for planned retaining walls structures, if applicable. These lateral values should
be considered when planning types of improvements above retaining wall structures.
7.10.4 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of
8H psf should be added to the active soil pressure where the wall possesses a height of
8 feet or less and 12H where the wall is greater than 8 feet. For retaining walls subject to
vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge
equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added (unit weight 130 pcf).
7.10.5 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended
where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent
to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular
(El of less than 50) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge load. Figure 16 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions
different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired,
Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
7.10.6 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in
accordance with Section .1613 of the CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design
Project No. 07135-42-05 -25 - February 24, 2015
category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support more than 6 feet of backfill should be
designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance with Section 18.3.5.12 of the 2013
CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained height where H is the height of the
wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per square foot (psf) exerted at the
base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic load of 2 1H should be used for
design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM, of
0.445g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied a pseudo-static coefficient
of 0.33.
7.10.7 . In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet
below the base of the wall consists of compacted fill with an Expansion Index of less
than 90. The allowable soil bearing pressure can be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for
each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum
allowable soil bearing of 4,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope
steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
7.10.8 Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by friction along the base of the wall
foundation or by passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Allowable
coefficients of friction of 0.35 are recommended for footings in compacted fill. Passive
earth pressure may be taken as 150 pcf for walls founded on a 2:1 slope, and 300 pcf for
horizontal ground in front of the wall. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal
surface extending at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure,
whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs
or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
7.10.9 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for
additional recommendations.
7.11 Detention Basin and Bioswale Recommendations
7.11.1 Any detention basins, bioswales and bio-remediation areas should be designed by the
project civil engineer and reviewed by Geocon Incorporated. Typically, bioswales consist
of a surface layer of vegetation underlain by clean sand. A subdrain should be provided
beneath the sand layer. Prior to discharging into the storm drain pipe, a seepage cutoff wall
should be constructed at the interface between the subdrain and storm drain pipe. The
Project No. 07135-42-05 -26 - February 24, 2015
concrete cut-off wall should extend at least 6-inches beyond the perimeter of the gravel-
packed subdrain system.
7.11.2 Distress may be caused to planned improvements, and properties located hydrologically
downstream or adjacent to these devices. The distress depends on the amount of water to
be detained, its residence time, soil permeability, and other factors. We have not
performed a hydrogeology study at the site. Downstream and adjacent properties may be
subjected to seeps, springs, slope instability, raised groundwater, movement of foundations
and slabs, or other impacts as a result of water infiltration. Due to site soil and geologic
conditions, permanent bioswales and bio-remediation areas should be lined with an
impermeable barrier, such as a thick visqueen, to prevent water infiltration in to the
underlying compacted fill.
7.11.3 The landscape architect should be consulted to provide the appropriate plant
recommendations. If drought resistant plants are not used, irrigation may be required.
7.12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
7.12.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage'
is directed away from structures in accordance with 2013 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be
directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
7.12.2 In the case of basement walls or building walls retaining landscaping areas, a water-
proofing system should be used on the wall and joints, and a Miradrain drainage panel (or
similar) should be placed over the waterproofing. The project architect or civil engineer
should provide detailed specifications on the plans for all waterproofing and drainage.
7.12.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of
time.
7.12.4 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded
after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed
Project No. 07135-42-05 . -27- February 24, 2015
away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage
devices.
Project No. 07135-42-05 -28 - February 24, 2015
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to
provide testing and observation services during construction to provide continuity of
geotechnical interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for
geotechnical aspects of site development are incorporated during site grading, construction
of improvements, and excavation of foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to
perform the testing and observation services during construction operations, that firm should
prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the responsibilities of project geotechnical
engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to the regulatory agency for their
records. In addition, that firm should provide revised recommendations concerning the
geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written acknowledgement of their
concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They should also perform
additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical Engineer of
Record.
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
Out such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015
THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH,
SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT IS
NOT INTENDED FOR CLIENTS USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENT
SHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULT
OF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT. NO SCALE
VICINITY MAP
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 47
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSKIGTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 24-2015 PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05 FIG. 1
PIotleth02j24/2015 12:23PM I 6y:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Locelon:Y:\PROJEC1S\07135-42.05 (Quarry Creek)\DETAILS\07135-42.05 VI, Mep.dwg
NATURAL GROUND
SEE DETAIL BELOW
--
ALLUVIUM AND
COLLUVIUM
REMOVAL
BEDROCK
NOTE: FINAL 20 OF PIPE AT OUTLET
SHALL BE NON-PERFORATED.
6" DIA. PERFORATED
SUBDRAIN PIPE
4.
9 CUBIC FEET FOOT OF OPEN
GRADED GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY
MIRAFI 140NC (OR EQUIVALENT)
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
1......6-INCH DIAMETER, SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE.
NO SCALE
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSK/GTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 5
PIotted02/24/2015 1158AM I ByALVIN LADRILLONO I File Loceilon:Y\PROJECTS\O7135-42-05 (Quarry Creek(\DETAJLS\Cerryon Drain Detail (TCSD2(.dwg
FRONT VIEW
SUBDRAIN
-0 CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL J iL
6 MIN
24
6' MIN.
NO SCALE
SIDE VIEW
CONCRETE MIN.
CUT-OFF WALL -.
MIN
SOLID SUBDRAIN PIPE PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE
6 MIN (NP)
NO SCALE
RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL DETAIL
GEOCON 0 INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSKIGTYPD
plolted:0212412015 11:50AM I ByALVIN LADRILLON
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 6
I File L,c,00n:Y:\PROJECTS\07135.42.05 (Oorry Creek5DETAILS\Reoornrnonded SbdraIn Cot.011 WD DeDU lRSCOWiA,,,
24"
6"0R8 4
SUBDIN
1
4.
NO SCALE
FRONT VIEW
SIDE \/
CONCRETE
HEADWALL
NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE NO SCALE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE
SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM I AML DSKJGTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05 FIG. 7
Potled02j24I2015 1144AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Loc,UonY4PROJECTS\D7135-42.05 (Oüerry Creek)\DETAILS\S,bdreln Headwall Detail (SOHD).dwg
ZPROPOSED GRADE
FILL Ii
j
EXISTNE
UNSUITABLE ALLUVIUM
REMOVAL
LIMITS OF
\\\
LEFT-IN-PLACE
FORMATIONAL MATERIAL
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE:
SLOPE OF BACKCUT MAY BE STEEPENED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SOILS
ENGINEER WHERE BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS LIMIT EXTENT OF REMOVALS
NO SCALE
CONSTRUCTION DETAIL FOR LATERAL EXTENT OF REMOVAL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM I AML DSKIGTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 8
Pl,tted:02/24/2015 11:57AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I Fli, LocAIon:V:\PROJECTS\0713542.05(Qu,,-y Creek)\DETAILS\l.,l,rA Extent ofR,r,o,oI.thvg
H
FINISH 4"0R6"DIA. -
PAD GRADE PLASTIC PIPE
1" M IN. DIA.
RIGID METAL PIPE
_U
6MIN. 1.0" PLYWOOD OR
/ \ 0.25" STEEL PLATE
7/
\ USE SILICA SAND TO
PROVIDE LEVEL BASE
2/
NOTES:
1 ...... LOCATION OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY NO SCALE
VISIBLE (RED FLAG) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS.
2......CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN 10-FOOT HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE FOR HEAVY
EQUIPMENT WITHIN 5 FEET (VERTICAL) OF PLATE BASE. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE
AREA SHALL BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED
BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED SOILS ENGINEER.
3......AFTER 5 FEET (VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN
5 FEET HORIZONTAL EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE. FILL IN CLEARANCE AREA SHALL BE
HAND COMPACTED (OR APPROVED ALTERNATIVE) IN VERTICAL INCREMENTS NOT TO
EXCEED 2 FEET.
4......IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM
EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN PRESCRIBED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTORS SHALL
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING
THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER.
NO SCALE
SETTLEMENT MONUMENT
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL• ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM I AML DSKIGTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24-2015 PROJECTNO.07135-42-05 FIG .9
PIotted02124/2015 1200PM I ByALVIN LADRILLONO I File Lo NoeYPROJECTS\O7135-42.O5 (Quarry Creek(\DETAILS\SeWement MonurrrentDetiLdwg
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
SLOPE HEIGHT H = 50 feet
SLOPE INCLINATION 2: 1 (Horizontal Vertical)
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL ^Yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION = 32 degrees
APPARENT COHESION C = 300 pounds per square foot
NO SEEPAGE FORCES =
ANALYSIS:
= H tan EQUATION (3-3), REFERENCE i
FS = NcfC EQUATION (3-2), REFERENCE 1
'YtH
Xc = 13.5. CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-3)
Ncf = 40 DETERMINED USING FIGURE 10, REFERENCE 2
FS = 1.84 FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
1......Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No. 46, 1954
2......Janbu, N., Discussion of J.M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS -CUT SLOPES
GE000N
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 . FAX 858.558-6159
RM / AML DSK/GTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 10
plotted:0212412015 11:47AM I ByALVIN LADRILLONO I File Loc,ljofl:Y:\PROJECTS\07135.42.05 (Quarry Creek)\DETAILS\Slope Steblilty Analyses-Cut.dwg
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
SLOPE HEIGHT H = 40 feet
SLOPE INCLINATION 1.5: 1 (Horizontal
Vertical)
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL = 130 pounds per cubic foot
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION = 32 degrees
APPARENT COHESION C = 300 pounds per square foot
NO SEEPAGE FORCES
ANALYSIS:
=H tan EQUATION (3-3), REFERENCE 1
FS = NcfC EQUATION (3-2), REFERENCE 'l
Xc = 10.8 CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-3)
Ncf = 27 DETERMINED USING FIGURE 10, REFERENCE 2
FS = 1.56 FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
1 ...... Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No. 46, 1954
2......Janbu, N., Discussion of J.M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.
j SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 1.5:1 CUT SLOPES
GEOCON
INCORPORATED I
GEOTECHNICAL U ENVIRONMENTAL . MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM/AML J DSKIGTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 4-2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 11
Plotted:0212412015 11:48AM I ByALVIN LAD RILLONO I File Locedoe:YDPROJECTS\07135-42.05 (Quarry Creek)\DETAILS\Slope StbIUlyAnIysee-Ct(1.5-l).dwg
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
SLOPE HEIGHT H = 50 feet
SLOPE INCLINATION 2 1 (Horizontal Vertical)
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL = 130 pounds per cubic foot
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION 4 = 30 degrees
APPARENT COHESION C = 300 pounds per square foot
NO SEEPAGE FORCES
ANALYSIS:
= 'YtHtan EQUATION (3-3), REFERENCE 1
FS = NcfC EQUATION (3-2), REFERENCE 1
Xcd = 12.5 CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-3)
Ncf = 35 DETERMINED USING FIGURE 10, REFERENCE 2
FS = 1.61 FACTOR OF SAFETY CALCULATED USING EQ. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
1......Janbu, N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters, Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No. 46, 1954
2......Janbu, N., Discussion of J.M. Bell, Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design, No. SM6, November 1967.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS -FILL SLOPES
GEOCON
INCORPORATED 400)_
GEOTECHNICALU ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSKJGTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 12
plotted:02/2412015 1146AM I ByALVIN LADRILLONO I File 1-oeeonY\PROJEC1S\O713542.05 (Qeeey Creek)\DETAILSiSIope Stability AneJy,e.Fl1l.dw9
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
SLOPE HEIGHT H = Infinite
DEPTH OF SATURATION Z = 3 feet
SLOPE INCLINATION 2:1 (Horizontal : Vertical)
SLOPE ANGLE i = 26.6 degrees
UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER '/w = 62A: pounds per cubic foot
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL. 'y. = 130 pounds per cubic foot
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION = 30 degrees
APPARENT COHESION C = 300 pounds per square foot
SLOPE SATURATED TO VERTICAL S DEPTH Z BELOW SLOPE FACE
SEEPAGE FORCES PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
ANALYSIS:
FS = C + ('V1 - 'Y) Z cos' 1 tan d? = 3.0
%/1 Z sin i cos i
REFERENCES:
1 ......Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc.
Second International Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62
2......Skempton, A. W., and F.A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay, Proc.
Fourth International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - 2:1 SLOPE
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSK]GTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24-2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 13
plotled:0212412015 11:45AM I 8y:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Loc45on:Y:\FROJECTS\07135-42.05 (Quarry Creek)\DETAILS\Slope Stability Analyaea.Surficlal (2.I).dWg
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
SLOPE HEIGHT H = Infinite
DEPTH OF SATURATION Z = 3 feet
SLOPE INCLINATION 1.5:1 (Horizontal
Vertical)
SLOPE ANGLE 1 = 33.7 degrees
UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION = 32 degrees
APPARENT COHESION C = 300 pounds per square foot
SLOPE SATURATED TO VERTICAL DEPTH Z BELOW SLOPE FACE
SEEPAGE FORCES PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
ANALYSIS:
FS = C + ('Y1 - 'Y4) Z i tan 2.2
"it Z sin i cos i
REFERENCES:
1 ......Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc.
Second International Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948, 1, 57-62
2......Skempton, A. W., and F.A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay, Proc.
Fourth International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2, 378-81
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS- 1.5:1 SLOPE
GEOCON
(low) INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL U ENVIRONMENTAL • MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM/AML DSK/GTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135 - 42 - 05 FIG. 14
PI,tted:02/2412015 1145AM I ByALVIN LADRILLONO I File LocotbonX\PROJECTS\07135-42.05 (Quarry Creek)\DETAILS\Slope Stability Ane ,.S,,,fl,I (1.5-1).dwg
10' MIN.
WHERE
PRACTICAL
(NOTE 7)
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
FINISHED NOTE 1 SLOPE
NOTE 4 FINISHED GRADE
NOTE 2
NOTE 4 SEE
20' FORMATIONAL
DETAIL SOIL
NOTE 5
/
NOTE6
1.5 •-> 5% Min.
MIN.
2" MIN:
DETAIL
NOTES:
1.....EXCAVATE BACKCUT AT 1:1 INCLINATION OR FLATTER.
2.....BASE OF BUTTRESS FILL TO BE AT LEAST 3 FEET INTO DENSE, FORMATIONAL SOILS SLOPING
A MINIMUM 5% INTO SLOPE.
3.....BUTTRESS FILL TO BE COMPOSED OF PROPERLY COMPACTED GRANULAR SOIL WITH MINIMUM
SHEAR STRENGTH OF 41=30°, C'= 3000 psf.
4.....WHERE SEEPAGE IS ENCOUNTERED IN BACKCUT, CHIMNEY DRAINS TO BE APPROVED PREFABRICATED
CHIMNEY DRAIN PANELS (MIRADRAIN, TENSAR, OR EQUIVALENT) SPACED APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET
CENTER TO CENTER OR 12-INCH BY 24-INCH SLOTS FILLED WITH FILTER MATERIAL (SEE NOTES).
DRAINS WILL BE REQUIRED WHERE AREAS OF SEEPAGE ARE ENCOUNTERED.
5.....FILTER MATERIAL TO BE 1-INCH, OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED ROCK ENCLOSED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC.
6.....COLLECTOR PIPE TO BE 4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER, PERFORATED, THICK-WALLED PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT, AND SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM TO APPROVED OUTLET. CHIMNEY DRAINS
MAY BE REQUIRED IF AREAS OF ACTIVE SEEPAGE ARE ENCOUNTERED.
7 I HORIZONTAL EXTENT OF GRADING CONSTRAINED (e.g., THE PRESENCE OF A PROPERTY LINE)
THE SLOPE SHOULD BE OVERBUILT, AT LEAST 4 FEET, AND TRIMMED BACK.
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED CEO)
GEOTECHNICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSK/GTYPD
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24-2015 PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05 FIG~15
Flotted:0212412015 11:43AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Loce4on:Y:\PR0JECTS07135-42-05 (Quarry Creek)\DETAILS\Typicol B4tlre,, FflLdwg
CONCRETE -
BROWDITCH GROUND SURFACE
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPERLY
COMPACTED
WATER PROOFING
PERARCHITECT
2/3 H - MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC
(OR EQUIVALENT)
OPEN GRADED
- 1 MAX. AGGREGATE
GROUND SURFACE _\
FOOTING 4 DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE
40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
CONCRETE ,—GROUND SURFACE CONCRETE j— GROUND SURFACE BROWDITCH 1 / BROWDITCH RETAINING RETAINING - __________________
WALL . -'' WALL
WATER PROOFING - WATER PROOFING
PER ARCHITECT . PER ARCHITECT
DRAINAGE PANEL
—(MIRADRAIN 6000 -
OR EQUIVALENT)
2/3 H 2/3 H DRAINAGE PANEL - 12 - (MIRADRAIN 6000
3/4 CRUSHED ROCK . OR EQUIVALENT)
- (1 CU.FTJFT.) -
i—FILTER FABRIC ..-4 DIA. SCHEDULE 40
PROPOSED ENVELOPE PROPOSED - PERFORATED PVC PIPE
GRADE\ { J.1 MIRAFI14ONOR GRADE \ OR TOTAL DRAIN
EQUIVALENT EXTENDED TO
E......-1 4 SCH EDULE F4fl I . APPROVED OUTLET
bUOIIN(, PERFORATED PVC PIPE I FOOTING I OR TOTAL DRAIN
EXTENDED TO
APPROVED OUTLET
NOTE:
DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLET
OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING NO SCALE
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL • ENVIRONMENTAL U MATERIALS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
RM / AML DSK/GTYPD
. QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 02-24- 2015 PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05 FIG. 16
Plolled:0212412015 11:36AM I By:ALVIN LADRILLONO I File Locatlon:Y:\PROJECTS\07135.42.05 (Quarry Creek(\DETAILSlTypIcal Retaining Well Drainage Detail (RWD07A).dwg
I . -. .4
. - .- .- --.- -.- .4 _•5'' - t. - _r _ - .. . _. •. *4?
w
._-
,-
S
p 4..
•
4. 4. .4. .1
44
tit
4.
. •4. 4. 4
w
S -
...
.. 41 ...p•
4. - 1 44.4
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Fieldwork for our investigation included site visits, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The
locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on the Geologic Map, Figures 2 and 3. Boring
and trenches were mainly excavated within the western portion of the project site. The logs of the
excavations and an explanation of the geologic units encountered are presented in figures following
the text in this appendix. We located the borings in the field using a measuring tape and existing
reference points; therefore, actual boring locations may deviate slightly.
We performed a field investigation on December 20 and 21, 2011, which consisted of drilling five large
diameter exploratory borings to a maximum depth of approximately 56 feet below existing grade with
an EZ Bore 2000 drill rig equipped with a 30-inch-diameter bucket auger. We obtained bulk and ring
samples from the exploratory borings for future laboratory testing.
We have also excavated 22 exploratory trenches to help mapping the surficial soils by using a John
Deer 450 trackhoe. Bulk samples and relatively undisturbed chunk samples of prevailing soils were
obtained for laboratory testing.
As part of our previous study of the project site, Geocon had excavated 6 small diameter borings in the
western portion of the site. The results were reported in 2004 (See list of references). We have included
the boring logs herein.
We obtained samples during our boring excavations using a California Sampler. The California
sampler is composed of steel and is driven to obtain the soil ring samples. The California sampler has
an inside diameter of 2.5 inches and an outside diameter of 2.875 inches. Up to 18 rings that are 2.4
inches in diameter and 1 inch in height are placed inside the sampler. We retained ring samples at
appropriate intervals in moisture-tight containers and transported the samples to the laboratory for
testing. We also obtained bulk samples from the borings for laboratory testing. The type of sample is
noted on the exploratory boring logs.
The Modified California Sampler was driven 12 inches into the bottom of the excavations with the
use of the kelly bar and driven into the bottom of the excavation using the kelly bar ( weight ranging
from approximately 4,500 to 2,500 pound) with a 12-inch drop. Blow counts are recorded. The
penetration resistances shown on the boring logs are shown in terms of blows per foot. The blow
count values are not to be taken as N-values as adjustments have not been applied. We estimated
Project No. 07135-42-05 - A-i - February 24, 2015
elevations shown on the boring logs either from a topographic map or by using a benchmark. Each
excavation was backfilled as noted on the boring logs.
We visually examined the soil conditions encountered within the borings, classified, and logged in
general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Logs of the borings are
presented on Figures A-i through A-39. The logs depict the general soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depth at which we obtained the samples.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - A-2 - February 24, 2015
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
IX BORING LB I .
DEPTH
>-
SOIL H z
IN SAMPLE _j -' o
FEET NO. (USCS) ELEV. (MSL.)134 DATE COMPLETED 12-21.2011 . 0
- . 0 LU W ca O 20
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG . BY: A. SADR
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
Dense, damp to moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; -
I. .: mottled-weathered
2 less silty with depth
SP Becomes light brown, fine to medium SAND; trace silt interbedded with
medium coarse cohesionless sand -
-
LB1-1
-6- .•.:. -
-8- ..... -
-Layer of coarse sand cohesionless; 1 foot thick, horizontal -
10 LB 1-2 .:1:I: SP-SM Dense, moist, grayish brown, fine to medium, Silty SAND; micaceous 2 103.4 2.8
-Cross-bedded at 11 to 12 feet
12
-A layer of fine sand, heavy managnese staining from 12-13 feet; horizontal
14 : I. ... -Becomes interbedded fine silty sand with fine to medium sand; horizontal
- - ..! . :. .•: contact -
LBI-3 .., . 3 125.7 9.8
- 16
-
18 - .J.- - - - - - -----------.
SM Dense wet light brown/grayish gray, Silty, fine SAND
H SP Becomes fine to coarse cohesionless SAND
20
- LBI-4 ::.: . - 2 103.0 5.4
LBI-5
- 22
- - - A thin layer of silt and gravel 6 thick at23feet -- -
Figure A-I, •
Log of Boring LB I, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 0713542-03
BORING LB I > QOF- LIJ DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL Z (I) ZLL
NO.
..j
ELEV.(MSL.)134' DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 . FEET
0 .20
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 24
- :TTTI: - SM-SP Dense, wet, brown, slightly Silty, fine to medium SAND; grades to
- cohesionless fine to medium sand, cross-bedded -
LB1-6 Dense, wet, brown, slightly Silty, fine to medium SAND; grades to 2
26 -
cohesionless fine to medium sand, cross-bedded -
28-
30 BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET
Backfihled with cuttings
Figure A-I,
Log of Boring LB 1, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 0... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
W 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. 0713542-03
Of UJI BORINGLB2 -
DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL Z LL
UJ
-J
ELEV. (MSL.)16T DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 FEET
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR °-
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
SC TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM
Stiff, wet dark brown, Sandy CLAY with roots to 2 feet
-2- -'
SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
Dense, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to SAND medium
- 4 - -
-Stiff, wet, gray, clayey layer 1-2 inch thick, partially remolded, horizontal
-Becomes very dark brown
LB24 2 123.1 13.7
6 - v/ -Light brown to gray clay formed along fractures and random spots, from 6 to
10 feet -
-8- -
- -
://
-10- -- --- - --.- LB2-2 / CL Very stiff, wet, dark gray, CLAY, shiny parting surfaces, slickensided, 3 108.8 16.3
- - partially remolded - -Very dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND, 1 foot thick-lens, north side
- 12 - of -
14 // - SC - - - - Grades into dark brown Clayey SAND with occasional lenses of clay
LB2-3 -Becomes sandier 2 113.5 16.9
- 16 -
:1..
--
SM-SP Interbeds of cohesionless SAND and dark gray Silty SAND
- -
LB2-4
--
S Grades into dense, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; uniform
-----
--
- 18
- 20 - .1. .. .
- -----------------------------------
-Dark gray clay lense, 4-6 inch thick at 19 feet -
LB2-5 :: L..:
- -------------------
. . . 2 - 116.7 103.4
-22-
__ :•.j•• ______________
.. -
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring LB 2, Page 1 of 3
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... 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. 07135-42-03
LU BORING LB 2 z
DEPTH -
SAMPLE
H < SOIL Qo - I-Z l)-•-Ir
FEET
0 ELEV. (MSL.)167IN CLASS ' DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011
- 0 zwLu Of 20
IX EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR
-24- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
LB26 2 1034 91
26 c1ni -
cohesionless, fine to medium SAND
Very stiff, moist dark grayish brown Sandy CLAY shiny parting surface no
28 ___
SM-SP Dense, moist, medium brown, fine to medium, Silty SAND, grades into
- -
sheanngevident, approxuriate1yi foot thick --------
cohesionless SAND from 29 feet = -
-
i -Contact N55E, IONW
30
- -
LB2-7 CL Hard, wet, dark brown, Silty CLAY, shiny parting surface 2 98.1 28.5
- 32 - -. SP Very dense, moist, brown, cohesionless SAND, sharp contact; one foot thick
at32 feet
LB2-8 Zy. CL Hard, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY, shiny parting surfaces, carbonate
34 //
- ----------
spots and iron staining -
LB29 / 5 1121 181
-36-
SM
- __________________________________
Grades into very dense, moist, light grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium
- 38 -
.1 SAND, carbonate nodule and veinlets -
lId --
40 - / / - ----------
- Grades into very stiff, moist, dark grayish brown, CLAY -
LB2-10 CL 5 126.1 10.6
- - 7/ -- -
-&esandy C--- - ---- // SC Grades into dense moist brown Clayey SAND
----
-42- ..
44 / / CL Grades into hard, very dark grayish brown, Silty CLAY to CLAY, shiny - -
- - / parting surface, slightly remolded, carbonate nodules and spots
LB2-ll / 4 100.5 "25.6
/ / SC - 46------------------------------------
Grades into very dense moist light brown Clayey, fine to medium SAND
---------------------
trace gravel .
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring LB 2, Page 2 of 3
III ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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. 0713542-03
LU BORING LB 2
1 Q- w DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL IZi: ) Z
NO.
j 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)16T DATE COMPLETED 12.21.2011 LU (j H2 LU
FEET
0 Ix 20
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR w.
48
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
50
-
./ /7
LB2-12 :1: - SM-ML Interbedded, dense, moist, light brown, Sandy SILT and Silty SAND 117.9 12
52
I - vi eI SD
54
- LB2-13 - 10 113.9 19.4
56- BORING TERMINATED AT 56 FEET
Boring backfilled with cuttings, no seepage
N
Figure A-2,
Log of Boring LB 2, Page 3 of 3
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Iii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE L ... 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. 0713542-03
Uj BORING LB 3
DEPTH
SAMPLE
> I —
SOIL
Qoi— I— Z t! (I) '
FEET NO.
CLASS
ELEV. (MSL.)148 DATE COMPLETED 12-22.2011
- 0 ZLU UJa:
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR a.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
CL TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM
- ..• Stiff, moist, very dark grayish brown, Sandy CLAY, caliche veinlets nodule -
2/
- - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
- : Very dense, moist, medium brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
LB3-1 4 106.5 8.7
:
CL Grades into hard, moist, very dark brown, Silty CLAY, shiny parting surface
SM Depositional contact irregular, near horizontal
Very dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine SAND -
- 10 .1.. -A lense of brown, coarse clayey sand at 9.5 feet
LB3-2 -- SC-CL Interbeds of very dense, Clayey, fine to medium SAND and hard, moist, Silty 4 120.5 142
- - CLAY -
-12- -- - - - - ---
SW Very dense, damp, medium brown, Clayey, fine SAND
- /
//•
- 14 - --
SP-C i _____________
1 16 1
LB3-3
-.
-
— — — — -
SM Very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND, transitional contact,
lenses of dark gray silty clay
- 18
- 20 . :1 -Becomes grayish brown -
L1334 4 113.5 15.2
ML Hard, moist, light brown, Sandy SILT - - - - - -
-22- -
SM Grades into very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND -
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring LB 3, Page 1 of 2
El ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... 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
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
BORING LB 3 Z W -
DEPTH >
SOIL Qo-.
I—
IN SAMPLE 0 CLASS
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)14W DATE COMPLETED 12-22-2011 H W 0 0
• o (USCS) Cl) —J W CO >- W z 20
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR 0
-- 24 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- -
- - -Ii-- I -----
LB3-5 parting surfaces not sheared 5 127.6 10.0
26 -
- -
----
SM Very dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
- 28 - -- -----
SP Very dense, moist, medium brown, fine to coarse SAND, near horizontal
- - : bedding with gravel lenses
30
- ------------
-
1 --:
-
- LB3-6
- - 5 122.1 5.5
LB3-7
-32-
i-- S Grades into very dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
-
- 1-133-8 :•-i :--: 99.2 3.5
- 36
- 38 -
-40- BORING TERMINATED AT 40 FEET
Boring backfilled with cuttings
Figure A-3,
Log of Boring LB 3, Page 2 of 2
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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
W BORING LB 4 >-
DEPTH SOIL SOIL . I- z U 0')
FEET
SA
NO. 0
MPLEIN Cl-ASS ELEV. (MSL.)140' DATE COMPLETED 12-22-2011 W6 W
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
CL TOPSOIL
7 Stiff, wet dark brown Sand CLAY root at the upper 1 foot
-2-
- -
K
- CL TERRACE DEPOSIT
- 4 -
Hard, moist, grayish brown, Silty CLAY with caliche veinlets and nodules -
SM Grades into very dense, moist, medium brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
6 L134-1 :1. J - - SM-ML Grades into grayish brown, Silty, very fine SAND to Sandy SILT 2 113.2 12.9
— — — — —
SM
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Grades into grayish brown and dark brown, Silty, fine SAND, with carbonate
— — --- — — — -- — — — -
- 8 - LJJ. -- nodules up to I inch diameter
SP Grades into very dense, yellowish brown, fine to medium SAND;
- - -:1 cohesionless; cross bedded -
10 LB4-2 :1J:11 SM grades into light grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND 3 112.7 8.5
12
/
ML Grades into Sandy SILT with lenses of dark grayish brown, Silty CLAY
14 SM Grades into Silty, fine to medium SAND
LB4-3 . 3 118.6 138.
- 16 -
--
- - -. — — — - -A lense of yellowish brown sand cohesionless, on the south half of the boring -
0 CL Grades into very stiff, moist, very dark brown, Silty CLAY, shiny parting
- 18 - surfaces, caliche veinlets
SM Grades into Silty, fine to medium SAND
-20-
- ----
BORING TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
Boring backfihled with cuttings
Figure A-4,
Log of Boring LB 4, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE V ... 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. 07135-42-03
UJI BORING LB 5 .
DEPTH SOIL
QoE-
i!z '
FEET
SAMPLEIN
NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)137 DATE COMPLETED 12.22-2011 0
IX EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR 0 0
- 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
77 - CL TOPSOIL
- .
Firm, wet to moist, very dark brown, Sandy CLAY
-2
- . - SC TERRACE DEPOSIT
• Dense, moist, grayish brown, Clayey, fine SAND, greenish gray along
- 4 - 2,/i fractures -
- - j SM Grades into dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
- 6 - I -A lense of dark brown clay, 3 inch thick, north side of boring -
CL-ML Hard, damp to moist, dark grayish brown, Silty CLAY and Clayey
- 8 -
SILTSTONE
CL Grades into hard dark brown, Sandy CLAY
SM Very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
10
-
TI
- I I -Becomes Silty, fine SAND -
12
-
- I I -A layer of dense, damp, grayish browii, fine to coarse sand from 13Y2 to 14/2 -
14- feet -
- -Layer of fine to coarse sand, 8-12 inch thick at 15 feet
16-. I .
-
1
18
- I -Interbedded with fine to medium cohesionless sand -
ML Very stiff, moist, dark gray to brown, Sandy SILT
20
-
Sm edense, moist, Silty, o medium 1I
22 - ----i— . -
SF Very dense, moist, medium to coarse SAND
£LL SM Dense, moist, light greenish brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring LB 5, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE V ... 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. 07135-42-03
LU BORING LB 5
DEPTH
>
< SOIL Z i4 QoF- ')
IN SAMPLE _, ciss I-'- W0 Z w
FEET F-
NO. 0 z ELEV. (MSL.)137 DATE COMPLETED 12-22-2011 - WV50 >- 0
:i
(USCS) 0 LU
z
EQUIPMENT 30" DIAM. BUCKET RIG BY: A. SADR a-
24
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
26 - -- .
1: 1 :: SP Grades into dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse SAND
-Lense of dark brown, clay at 26.5 feet -
28 - SM Becomes very dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND -
30-
- -------------------
BORING TERMINATED AT 30 FEET
Boring backfilled with cuttings
Figure A-5,
Log of Boring LB 5, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
...DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE CHUNK SAMPLE ...WATER TABLE ORSEEPAGE
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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH I
DEPTH
> 0 < SOIL IZLL
LIJ
IN SAMPLE CLASS ' FEET NO. (USCS) ELEV. (MSL.)960 DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011 0
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: A. SADR 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
- SM ALLUVIUM
-
..
Loose, wet, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
2
4
- :.I. .
-
-Becomes light brown
6 - S -Strong seepage at 5 feet
8
- S TERRACE DEPOSITS
Medium dense, wet to saturated, medium grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium -
SAND; little clay
10- TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
Seepage encountered at 5 feet
(
Figure A-6,
Log of Trench T 1, Page lofl
LII ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... 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. 07135-42-03
IX TRENCH T2
DEPTH < SOIL Qo
- Zik U)IX
IN SAMPLE 0 -j CLASS .s H
FEET NO. z ELEV. (MSL.)105 DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011 H Ci) 0 0 - :i 0 (LISCS) (I)
ww-C.)
>- z
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: A. SADR 0
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- SC ALLUVIUM
Loose, saturated, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; roots and trash -
2 - ... -
-Becomes loose, wet, yellowish brown
- -
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
6 - _______ - _______ Medium dense, wet, yellowish brown, slightly Silty, fine to medium SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-7,
Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of I
LI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... 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. 0713542-03
TRENCH 3
DEPTH
> H
SOIL QOI-
SAMPLE
NO.
IN Cl-ASS
FEET ELEV. (MSL.)80' . DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011
uj IX EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE - 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SM ALLUVIUM
Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; some organics -
- 2
- T3-1 110.1 3.9
- -Becomes light brown with fissile rootlets and pinhole porosity
- 6 :.j.
T3-2 SC -
Dense, moist, light brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
-----------
- .
- 8
- SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
- . Medium dense, yellowish to olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse
T3-3 SANDSTONE; some gravel
10 T3-4
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-8,
Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... 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. 07135-42-03
IX TRENCH T4 > LLJ
DEPTH
SAMPLE
0 < SOIL I- z
<(1)
C/)
Z U I- Z IN NO.
-J 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)120' DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011 H 0 FEET H (USCS) W 9 . IX 0 z 20 0 IX EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE a.0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- CL COLLUVHJM/TOPSOIL
- . Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY
2
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
I Dense, moist, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; slight 4 . cementation
T4-1
-6 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-9,
Log of Trench T 4, 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
ly TRENCH
°OI-
>-
DEPTH
IN SAMPLE 0
SOIL
CLASS '
-
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)100 DATE COMPLETED 12.20-2011 0
IX EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE 0 0
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 7•7 - CL SURFICL4L LANDSLIDE DEBRIS??
Soft, wet brown Sandy CLAY
-2- -
- -
/ -Becomes stiff
-
- SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
reddish - 6 - Medium dense, moist, light brown, Clayey SAND; friable blocky -
texture with some fissile rootlets
/
/ -8-
/
- 10 -
/
7 -
-
/ -12- T5-1 // -Becomes dense, some pinhole porosity, some subrounded gravel, poorly 113.8 13.7
- - /
'
cemented
- 14
- T5-2
- - .
- 16
- - /
-18- T5-3 / SC TERRACE DEPOSITS 113.4 14.3
Medium dense, wet, reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND -
-20-
//' - -
-22-
//
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 22 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-10,
Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
TRENCHT6 >-LU 2o- >
DEPTH
SAMPLE
< SOIL IZ Of
FEET ELEV. (MSL.)140 DATE COMPLETED 0
0
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE w. 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
CL TOPSOIL
-
Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY -
2
- - SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
- - :- Dense, moist, reddish brown to brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND; blocky -
texture, lightly cemented
T6-1 -4-
- - SM - - - - Dense mot, yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND, some pinhole
6 - porosity
8 T62
10
• 12 • -Pockets of medium dense, clayey sand with pinhole porosity -
14
- -
-
16
-
163
- : I. -Lamination of sandy clay -.
18
T6-4
20
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-I I,
Log of Trench T 6, Page I of I
LI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH - > 0 oI >-
uJ
DEPTH
SAMPLE
0
S < SOIL C/)' ZLL IN NO. o z css ELEV. (MSL.)90' DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011 I—> H Cl) W0
0
Hz w H FEET
i 0 (USCS) Cl) >- - 0 z
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE °- 8
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 - :7 CL TOPSOIL
- Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY -
2-
- : :1: — SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
- I Medium dense, moist, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
-6-
—
••
ii.•i••i....s•Iii.
-
-
-
-
8 - - T7-1 ./-/ CL Hard, moist, gray to olive brown, Sandy CLAY; blocky texture; some pinhole -
-
porosity with some fissile rootlets; structures slightly waxy appearance -
10 (S -
12 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-12,
Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of I
El 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
IX LLI TRENCH Lu
> I— 2w—
>-
DEPTH
SAMPLE r. < SOIL I— z (I) ZLL Ix I—
IN
NO.
_ 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)128 DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011 H 0 FEET F- 0 (USCS) W Z Lu cc 0 z 20 1
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE °-
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- T8-1 7: - CL TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist dark brown Sandy CLAY
-2-
-
- T8-2 - SMISC TERRACE DEPOSITS
: Medium dense, moist, light reddish, Silty to Clayey, fine to medium SAND
- - T8-3
- 6
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-13,
Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of I
SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Li ... 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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH . >-LU P0o
z
-
DEPTH
SAMPLE
< SOIL l)Of Z
NO. . CL'\SS ELEV. (MSL.)100 DATE COMPLETED 12-20-2011 FEET
. 20
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: M. ERTWINE 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
CL TOPSOIL
- Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY -
2 - -
- T9-1 ::: — CL-SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
Stiff to medium dense, moist, olive brown, Sandy CLAY to Clayey, fine to -
medium SAND; some subrounded gravel with trace pinhole porosity
6 -
8- .... -
- T9-2 .,/: -Medium dense, moist, light brown, Clayey SAND; weak, some pinholes -
10 - /. -
12 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 12 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-14,
Log of Trench T9, Page lofl
LI ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Iii ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... 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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH >- uj DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL Z LL Z LL 5
IN
FEET NO.
j
ELEV. (MSL.)85 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 w 0
I-LU
0 Z Lu IX 20
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA w. 13-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
CL COLLUVIUM
- Tb-i Firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY - 108.6 12.7
-
- 110-2 T - ML SANTIAGO FORMATION -
Firm to stiff, damp, mottled light gray to gay, Sandy SILT; highly weathered;
- ???? rootlet structure
S
-
- 6 - SM Dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; weakly - cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-15,
Log of Trench T 10, Page I of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST I ... 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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH TII >- w 0 DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL I- Zz Z IN
NO.
j
ELEV. (MSL.)8T DATE COMPLETED 12-21 -2011 0 FEET
20
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA wafe 0
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- /77 - CH ALLUVIUM
- T11-1 ® Soft to firm, moist, brown to dark brown, Silty CLAY; few roots -
: 0 -Pockets of shell fraents at 2.5 feet
SC Medium dense, moist, dark olive brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND
- -
TI 1-2 1 I.!.: SM Medium dense, moist, olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 111.1 10.3
- 8
-
- TI 1-3 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
- 10 - t: Medium dense to dense, moist, light olive brown to light gray, Silty, fine to -
medium SANDSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10.5 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-16,
Log of Trench Til, Page I of I
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.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
TRENCH Lu -
DEPTH
> 1 < SOIL Z
UJ
IN SAMPLE , 0 CLASS U) <(1) F— UI0 Z
FEET NO. z ELEV. (MSL.)84' DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 1— Cl) 0
0 z I— (USCS)
0 LU z _jW
Ca > W 20
Of EQUIPMENT JO 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0
- Tj1.T.1l.: - SM ALLUVIUM
- Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots -
- 2 - CL Firm, damp to moist, brown to dark olive brown, Sandy CLAY; some pockets -
T12-1 of light gray sandstone - 117.2 11.9
- -
7.71
- SC TERRACE DEPOSITS -
Medium dense, moist, mottled olive brown and gray and reddish brown,
: Clayey, fine to medium SAND; pockets of claystone clasts
- 6 - -
- - T12-2 SM Medium dense, moist, light olive brown and reddish brown, Silty, fine to - - - -.
medium SAND
-8-
- T12-3 -. - ----------------------------------
SM Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown and light reddish brown, Silty, fine to
- 10 medium SANDSTONE
12-
- .
- 14
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 15 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-17,
Log of Trench 112, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... 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. 07135-42-03
UJI TRENCH
DEPTH
SAMPLE 0
9
SOIL Z U)IX z u IN
NO. CLASS ELEV.(MSL.)95 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 FEET
of 20
Of EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA Ul
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SM ALLUVIUM
- :I Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots -
2 CL Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; few rootlets
- 4 -:/. . - - - - -Excavates with some white stringers - - - - - - —
T131 /'?• SC Medium dense, damp, brown to dark olive brown, Clayey, fine to medium
SAND; few caliche staining -
6- -
- /
8 - :7. - CL TERRACE DEPOSITS - T13-2 ,> Stiff, damp to moist, mottled yellowish brown and light olive brown and -
reddishbrown,SandyCLAY
- 10 - SC Medium dense, moist, mottled olive brown and reddish brown, Clayey, fine to -
medium SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10.5 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-18,
Log of Trench T13, Page l of
LI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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
S
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
IX TRENCH > LU
DEPTH
SAMPLE 0 SOIL I-Z ) ZLL IN
NO.
-j CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)100 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 0 FEET
0 IX 20 IX JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA LU ofEQUIPMENT 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SM ALLUVIUM
- : I Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots -
2 - T14-1 CL Firm to stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; some rootlets -
4- -.
SM Medium dense, damp, brown to dark olive brown, Silty, fine to medium
6 - SAND -
- T14-2 -Observed slight pinholes - 112.9 8.0
8 - -
-
10
T14-3 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
Medium dense, damp to moist, yellowish brown to olive brown, Silty, fine to
coarse SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-19,
Log of Trench T 14, Page 1 of I
LII ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
99 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE . ... CHUNK SAMPLE Y ...WATER TABLE ORSEEPAGE
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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH > 2w— LU DEPTH SOIL
FEET
SAMPLEIN NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)122 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA W W S
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Sc COLLUVIUM
-
/2
Loose, moist, dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; few roots -
- 2 - T15-1 :/:: CL Firm, moist, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; little rootlets -
4-
SC Medium dense, mist, dark olive brown to brown, Clayey, fine tomedium
SAND; some caliche staining
6- -
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
8 -
I Medium dense, moist, light olive brown to yellowish brown, Silty, fine to -
-_
coarse SAND
______________
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-20,
Log of Trench T 15, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE V WATER TABLE OR SFFPAOF
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. 07135-42-03
TRENCH
DEPTH
>
SOIL
- Qoi- H z U)
iu
I-
FEET
IN SAMPLE
NO. CLASS
0 ELEV. (MSL.)115' DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011
ZLL
W (j Hz
0 LU
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA °-
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
• 0
- SM ALLUVIUM
Loose, mist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; few roots - -
2 CL Stiff, damp, dark brown, Sandy CLAY; some rootlets
.4- -
- - . SC Medium dense, moist, brown to dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; -
little caliche staining
6 ----
:1..: SM Medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND
-
- — SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
- - : Loose to medium dense, mist, mottled light olive brown and yellowish brown, -
Silty, fine to medium SAND; few clay
- - T161 . SM -Becomes medium dense to dense, damp, light gray, Silty, fine to medium -
SANDSTONE; weakly cemented
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-21,
Log of Trench T 16, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... 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. 07135-42-03
LU TRENCH TI7 .
DEPTH
> 0 < SOIL
oo-
l-Zz I)-
SAMPLE -J 0 CLASS
ZLL
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)140' DATE COMPLETED 12-21 -2011 0
EQUIPMENT JO 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
SM COLLUVIIJM
Loose, moist, grayish brown, Silty, fine SAND -
2 - • --- -
117-1 SC Medium dense, damp, mottled dark brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; 120.0 9.7
- : some rootlets
-
-Becornesdty,lightgray
4 117-2 ::1 SM Medium dense, damp, brown to dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
6 - -
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS -
T17-3 Medium dense to dense, damp, light gray and reddish brown, Silty, fine to
-
medium SANDSTONE
8
- -
- 117-4 SC Medium dense, damp, gray and light reddish brown, Clayey, fine to medium
SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.5 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-22,
Log of Trench T 17, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... 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. 0713542-03
Of TRENCHTI8 Lu
DEPTH
>-
0 <SOIL . H Z (I) IX
SAMPLE j CLASS
ZLL
Lu
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)110 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 LLI 0
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
SM ALLUVIUM
Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -.
2 - CH Soft to firm, dark brown, Silty CLAY -
-
T18-1 4 - SM - --------------------._____________________
Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
- SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
6 - :j:/' Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown to olive brown and light reddish -
brown, o medium SAND
- 1. SM Medium dense, moist, yellowish brown to light olive brown, Silty, fine to -
medium SAND
8- TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-23,
Log of Trench T 18, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
TRENCH TI9 > 2oi- LIJ DEPTH
SAMPLE 9 SOIL Z ZLL. IN
NO. o 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)106 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 0 FEET
i (USCS) 0 Ix LU Cl) 9 z 20
EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
CL TOPSOIL
- . Soft, moist, brown to reddish brown, Sandy CLAY -
- 2 - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
-. — — — - Medium dense, damp, yellowish brown and reddish brown, Silty, fine to
- - SW coarse SAND
1 Loose, moist, yellowish brown, fine to coarse SAND; little silt
-4- ...: -
- - — SM SANTIAGO FORMATION -
Medium dense, damp, light gray to light yellowish brown, Silty, fine to
- 6 - ______ !J.: - ______ medium SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
---
-
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-24,
Log of Trench T 19, Page 1 of I
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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
TRENCH T20 >- >-
DEPTH
SAMPLE -J
SOIL I- Z LL
C/)
CO IX
Z IN
NO. ELEV. (MSL.)118' DATE COMPLETED 12.21.2011 FEET
0 EQUIPMENT Jo 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA
0-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TiT. SM ALLUVIUM
- .. Loose, moist, brown to dark brown, Silty, fine SAND -
- / SC Loose, moist, grayish brown, Clayey, fine SAND -
- 720-1 CL Stiff, damp, brown, Sandy CLAY; some caliche staining; some rootlets -
4 - - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
:. I. Medium dense, moist, mottled olive and gray and light reddish brown, Silty,
- 320-2 :=:!..; fine to medium SAND; trace clay -
6 - .
CL Stiff, moist, mottled gray and dark reddish brown, Sandy CLAY -
. -
T20-3
::E::. SM Medium dense, damp, mottled olive brown and reddish brown, Silty, fine to
medium SANDSTONE; pinhole porosity
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
---Becomesmottledohvebrownandgrayandyellowishbrown --
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-25,
Log of Trench T 20, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... 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. 07135-42-03
IX TRENCH T2I
DEPTH
>-
SOIL
- 201- F- Z LL. (I) w. IX
IN SAMPLE SAMPLE
NO. ELEV. (MSL.)122 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 1- FEET
0 (USCS)
Of EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
-
0 :Tj: - SM COLLUVIIJM
- 1 Loose, moist, dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
- 2 - :. .1.. -Becomes dry; porous -
4
:2 SC Medium dense, damp, dark brown to grayish brown, Clayey, fine to medium
7;
SAND -
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
- 8 - _______ - Medium dense, damp, mottled olive brown and reddish brown and gray, Silty,
- \ fine to coarse SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
Figure A-26,
Log of Trench T21, Page l of
SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS
99 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. 0713542-03
IX TRENCH UJI
DEPTH (9 1
SOIL
IN SAMPLE
NO.
_j a CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)120 DATE COMPLETED 12-21-2011 - FEET i....
0 (USCS) W 0 z
1 EQUIPMENT JD 450 TRACKHOE BY: N. BORJA a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
CL COLLUVIUM
. . •: Soft moist dark brown Sandy CLAY
2 2 1 1 III I I I I I
- SC Loose to medium dense, moist, olive brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND; -
trace caliche staining
- - - - - 4 . -- - ----------------------------------
-
SM Medium dense, damp, brown to olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
- SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
- 6 I . Medium dense, damp, mottled olive brown and gray and light reddish brown, -
Silty, fine to medium SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Groundwater not encountered
)
Figure A-27,
Log of Trench T 22, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... 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. 0713542-03
w BORING SBI
DEPTH
>-
< SOIL
0
Z ly
IN SAMPLE CLASS 0 I—
FEET NO. (USCS) ELEV. (MSL.)140 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
:3 0 w LU Co IX 20 EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0 - _____
- TERRACE DEPOSIT
Medium dense, moist, dark orange brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with -
clay
4- -
SM
8 - -Brown, clayey sand with silt -
10 - - ---- SBI-1 :7 Very stiff, moist, dark brown, fine to medium Sandy CLAY 33
12 - ••:. CL -
- 14 - -- — — — -
Medium dense, moist, light orange to brown, Silty, fine SAND; little cohesion
16 - -
18
- -----------------------------------
-
-
-
- ------------------------------
SB1-2 -
- 22
V •
1'
SM
V
- 24 - •
- 26 - V
-Dense, olive brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with little clay
- 28 • I r -Becomes hard drilling; some blue andesitic; volcanic rock fragments V
Figure A-28, FROM 07135-42-01 B.GPJ
Log of Boring SB 1, Page lof2 •
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
III BORING SB I
DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL
2oi— LiJ
IN
FEET NO. o 0 CLASS ELEV.(MSL.)140 DATE COMPLETED 03.31-2004 I- w O 0 2 (USCS) 0 LU -J Co
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN °-
30- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SB1-3 39
-Damp, dark olive brown, Clayey, fine SAND; many pinholes -
32
34
-
1. SM
-
- 36 -Olive brown, Silty, fine SAND with clay -
38 - -
40 -- - -
SB1-4 :17:1: Dry to damp, light tan-brown, Silty, fine SAND; slightly cemented; easy 48
drilling
42- SM
-Moist olive brown Clayey, fine SAND
44
- - SANTIAGO FORMATION
SP Very dense, damp to moist, pale olive white, Silty, fine to coarse
SANDSTONE; well cemented
BORING TERMINATED AT 45.5 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 03-31-2004
45.5 to 8 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (13.1 cu ft)
8 to 3 feet-backfihled with bentonite chips (1.75 cu ft)
3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu It)
Figure A-28, FROM
Log of Boring SB I, Page 2of2
LII ... 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. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 2
>- z >-
DEPTH
SAMPLE
< SOIL HZ I_
IN
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)145 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 o
I—
' o
.
20 IX EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONS MAN uj O
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TERRACE DEPOSIT
Medium dense, moist, orange brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND -
-2-
-4- -
SB2-1
-6- -
-8- -
10 -Dense, damp to moist, Clayey, fine to medium SAND 50
SC
12
- 14 -
- 16
- 18 - -
-20-
/
-- Medium dense, at trace clay
-- 22
-
I -
-
-24- II -
-
SB2-3 I 29
-26- SM -
I -Little cohesion
- 28 - - - -
Figure A-29, FROM
Log of Boring SB 2, Page 1 of 2
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.
GE000N
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 2
>-
>- LU 8_1
DEPTH
SAMPLE
0< SOIL I Z LL
H
IN
FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)145' DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 W )
0
(USCS)
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN 0
30
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
32 F I : -Fine to coarse
34 - ...:.. . -
- SB24 -Dense, damp, light olive brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with traceclay, - 61
36 - SI thin interbeds of pale olive sandy clay -
38
SM - -
- 40 - -
-42.-
44
-
SB2-5 1:.
- 49
46 I Tan brown Silty, fine to coarse SAND little cohesion -
48
-Light tan, fine to coarse cohesionless sand with some pebbles up to 2 cm
- 50 I diameter SB2-6 .•j. SW 61
BORING TERMINATED AT 51 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 03-31-2004
51 to 10 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (14.3 cu ft)
10 to 3 feet-backfihled with bentonite chips (2.5 cu ft)
3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft)
Figure A-29, FROM
Log of Boring SB 2, Page 2 of 2
LI ... SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 3
'uj
DEPTH
>
< SOIL I— ziiz SAMPLEIN
NO. CLASS ' ELEV. (MSL.)1460 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
ZLL
0 FEET
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN 0
30 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- SB3-3 TfTiT1: - 56
-Light olive tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly cemented -
32
-
- 34 - ,. A.. . . .•
-
- 36 - Ir:I.II SM -
38
40 SB3 Very dense, moist light olive gray with some orange Silty,fine to coarse well - 51/2
cemented SAND
BORING TERMINATED AT 41 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 03-31-2004
41 to 5 feet-backfilled with bentonite-cement slurry (12.5 cu ft)
5 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft)
3 to 0 feet-backfihled with soil (1.0 cu ft)
Figure A-30, FROM 07135-42-01 B.GPJ
Log of Boring SB 3, Page 2 of 2
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. 07135-42-03
LLI BORING 3 >
SOIL
W
DEPTH QoI- i,!Z Ix
SAMPLEIN
FEET NO. NO. ELEV. (MSL.)146' DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 LU 0
Of 20
W EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN Lu
-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
TERRACE DEPOSIT
- - I Medium dense, damp, light orange brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with, -
1 trace clay
- 2 -
-4- -
-
II SM
-
-6- II
- - I -Tan brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
-8- -
J - 10 -
SB3-1
-. ----
-Very stiff, moist, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY - 40
- 12 - -
- 14
-16- / CL
- -----------------------------------
-
- 18
/ - 20
- 5B3-2 - 45
- - 7 Z
I I
-.
Dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND; slightly cemented
-22-
-
I
- ------------------
-
-24-
I -
H
- - -
-26- H SM
-
-
-28- H -
Figure A-30, -
FROM
Log of Boring SB 3, Page 1 of 2 11
- ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNWSAMPLE ... 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.07135-42-03
of BORING SB 4 > z w -'
Qo - DEPTH SOIL I- SAMPLEIN NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)151' DATE COMPLETED 04-01-2004 FEET
1 0
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN -
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TERRACE DEPOSIT
- Medium dense, moist, orange brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND -
-2-
SC
.4-
-Damp, dark brown to brown, fine Sandy CLAY
8- CL -
10 - SB4-1 - 1T . ---- -
--------------------------------
- -Dry to damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 33
12 - -
14 - -
-
16-
-
18
- 20
- 5B4-2 SM -Dense, dry, light tan brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND; slightly cemented - 44
22 TI .
..
24
- I -Interbeds of dark brown clay alternating with light brown silty sand -
26 - -
28
- -
Figure A-31, FROM
Log of Boring SB 4, Page 1 of 3
El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL II ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... 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. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 4
H Z >
Qw- DEPTH
SAMPLE
< SOIL H z C) H
IN
FEET NO.
j 0 CLASS ( ELEV. (MSL.)151 DATE COMPLETED,04-01-2004 0
F- Lu H
LU IX 20 • EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN W . °-
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 30
- SB4-3 - 42
-Damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay
- 32 -
- 34 -
II
-36-
- -
I -Fine to coarse
38
- 40
- SB4 I SM -Very dense, light tan brown,.Silty, fine to coarse SAND, little cohesion 71
42
-44-
.111
-46- III II
I I
-48- III
-
Hard, moist, brown to dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; slightly remolded zones
- 50 - / 2to4cm thick - SB4-5 / 53
- 52 - -
54.
/ - . CL
- 56 -
i 58 i
Figure A-31, FROM
Log of Boring SB 4, Page 2 of 3
SAMPLE SYMBOLS El 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 4 8-1 >UJI 0 2 1-
DEPTH
SAMPLE .
< SOIL 1- Z ZLL H
NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)151 DATE COMPLETED 04-01-2004 FEET
IX EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
60
- SB4-6 TTT -
SM
Dense, damp, olive gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay 42
BORING TERMINATED AT 61 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfihled 04-01-2004
61 to 5 feet-backfihled with bentonite-cement slurry (19.5 cu ft)
5 to 3 feet-backfihled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft)
3 to 0 feet-backfihled with soil (1.0 cu ft)
Figure A-31, . FROM
Log of Boring SB 4, Page 3 of 3
SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... 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
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 5 >- zw—.
DEPTH
SAMPLEIN
SOIL I-
FEET NO. CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)13T DATE COMPLETED 04-01-2004
0 -
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
- - TERRACE DEPOSIT
- Medium dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND -
2-
.4- -
SM
-6- 1 -
- 8- - -
IJ 10 -
SB5-1 /7 / - _________________________________
Very stiff, damp, light orange brown, fine Sandy CLAY; slightly remolded 37
- ,/// zones 2 to 4 cm thick -
12-
14 - -
16 - -
18 - -
-20- SB5-2 / CL -Hard, orange brown and tan, fine to coarse Sandy CLAY; some small 45
- /,/ pinholes
22-
24 - -
26 - • -
28-
Figure A-32, FROM
Log of Boring SB 5, Page 1 of 2 .
LII ... 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. 07135-42-03
BORING SB 5
Qoi- LU DEPTH
SAMPLE
0 SOIL HZLL
<-
CO ly
z u IN
NO. a z css ELEV. (MSL.)132' DATE COMPLETED 04-01-2004 H 0 FEET I— 0 (USCS) W 0) 0
W Q z 20
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN 0 0
30
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- SB5-3 :3::: Very stiff, damp to moist, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY; slightly remolded 33
CT zones 1 to 2 cm thick
BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 04-01-2004
31 to 5 feet-backfihled with bentonite-cement slurry (9.0 cu It)
S to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft)
3 to 0 feet-backfihled with soil (1.0 cu It)
Figure A-32; . FROM
Log of Boring SB 5, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST • U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE L... CHUNK SAMPLE T ... 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. 07135-42-03
BORING SB6 > Qo,-.
>-
DEPTH
SAMPLE 0 SOIL LIZ
NO. ELEV. (MSL.)126 DATE COMPLETED 04-01-2004 FEET
0
10 EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
TERRACE DEPOSIT
Medium dense, damp, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace -
clay
2
-
SB6-1
1 -
6 - SM -
8- -
10
- SB6-2 :.i..JI..i - 36
Very stiff, damp orange brown fine Sandy CLAY
12
CL
14- -
- - - - - - - ------------
Medium dense, orange brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND with clay
- 16 -
18 - -
- 20
- SB6-3 -Thy, light tan to gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND; little cohesion - 34
- 22
- SM -
24 - -
26 - -
28- -
Figure A-33, FROM
Log of Boring SB 6, Page 1 of 2 -
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST U ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE .Y ... 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. 0713542-03
Of BORING SB 6
>- LLI
DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL I— z IL
(1)
Cl)
Z IN
NO. Z ELE LU V. (MSL.)126 DATE COMPLETED 04-01-2004 0
H
FEET
o of 20
EQUIPMENT CME 55 BY: D.GONSMAN
30
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
-
- SB6-4 - Dense, damp, light tan gray, Silty, fine to medium SAND; little cohesion 41
BORING TERMINATED AT 31 FEET
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 04-01-2004
31 to 5 feet-backfihled with bentonite-cement slurry (9.0 cu ft)
5 to 3 feet-backfilled with bentonite chips (0.75 cu ft)
3 to 0 feet-backfilled with soil (1.0 cu ft)
Figure A-33, FROM 07135-42-01 B.GPJ
Log of Boring SB 6, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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. .
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-01
TRENCH 8
DEPTH
>-
SOIL .0) Ix
SAMPLEIN CLASS
FEET NO. ELEV. (MSL.)160 DATE COMPLETED 07/28103
:5 0 20
EQUIPMENT JD450 TRACK BACKHOE 24" BY: C. COPENHAVI R 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0 - ____
- COLLUVIUM
- Loose, damp, light to medium brown, Silty boulder GRAVEL; with some
oQ GM sand .cc1
SANTIAGO FORMATION
4 • Very dense, damp, light gray'- olive, Silty fine SANDSTONE; massive, trace
clay
6
J SM
-8- [f 11
- 10
i.
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET
Figure A-34,
Log of Trench T8, Page lofl
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... CHUNK SAMPLE V... 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. 07135-42-01
LU TRENCH T9
1
z .
QOI-
>. - ui
DEPTH SOIL Of I- SAMPLEIN NO. 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)165 DATE COMPLETED 07/28/03 0 FEET
UJ IX 20
EQUIPMENT JD450 TRACK BACKHOE 24 BY: G. COPENHAVI R °-
_____ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
0
- 5X.T7 - TOPSOIL
- SC Loose, damp, medium dark, very Gravelly, Clayey SAND -
2-
SANTIAGO FORMATION
- Very dense, moist, light grayish - olive, Clayey fine SANDSTONE; some silt, -
4 - SM massive
-
+
6 - + + Irregular depositional contact inclined westward approximately 45 degrees -
+
- + + SALTO INTRUSIVE -
+ Weathered and fractured, medium yellow - olive to brown, moderately strong
8 - GRANITIC ROCK; some fractures have discontinuous polished shear _______
-
surfaces
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Figure A-35,
Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL Iii ... 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. 07135-42-01B
TRENCH T- 9C
>- 00 i UJ DEPTH
SAMPLE 5 < SOIL <CI)
C/ ZLL IN NO.
.. a z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)155 DATE COMPLETED 05-05-2005 H H CI)> LU 0 0 LO H FEET D 0 (USCS) LU 0 z
20
EQUIPMENT CAT 330C BY: C. COPENHAVI R ° 0 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
SANTIAGO FORMATION
-
PE01%
Hard, moist, medium olive, Silty CLAYSTONE - CL
2 I Dense to very dense, damp, light brown to tan, very Silty, very fine-grained
4 - ::E:::1: SANDSTONE; massive to horizontal bedding -
6
8
ST'vl
10 EE
12
14
- 16
-
X. -Becomes more dense, but excavates slowly
18
-20- TRENCH TERMINATED AT 20 FEET
Figure A-36,
Log of Trench T - 9C, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-01
> TRENCH TIO
DEPTH
SAMPLE SOIL 2w- Ix I-
IN
FEET NO. a 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.)136 DATE COMPLETED 07/28/03 H W U) B 0
0 I- — -J uscs> Wa WCk
>- Q Z 20
EQUIPMENT JD450 TRACK BACKHOE 24" BY: G. COPENHAV R °- 0
- 0
_____
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- UNDOCUMENTED FILL
- . 4 Loose, humid to damp, light to medium brown, Gravelly, Silty fine SAND; -
- porous, with root fragments, asphalt and concrete chunks, crushed aggregate
- 2 1 waste (yellow fill) -
4. SM -.
- 6
- 8 - - - - -. - ------------------- Loose to medium dense, damp,- medium to dark brown (mottled) Gravelly,
Clayey fine SAND -
- . 10 sc -
- 12 -
Large 24 inch diameter boulder at 12.5 feet
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 13.5 FEET
Refusal on oversize rock
Figure A-37, ' 0713542-01.GPJ
Log of Trench T 10, Page 1 of I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL III ... 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.
GEOCON
PROJECT NO. 0713542-01B
TRENCH T-IOC
DEPTH
> 2w— w.
IN SAMPLE
NO.
B
ELEV. (MSL.) 148 DATE COMPLETED 05-05-2005 ______ ________
0 FEET
0
(USCS) Ix 20
EQUIPMENT CAT 330C BY: G. COPENHAVI R 13-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0
- - SANTIAGO FORMATION
- ::E:::: Dense, damp, light brown to olive, Silty fine SANDSTONE -
2-
-
4
-
SM
8
10 -
-
- 12 - SC-GC Very dense, moist, medium olive-brown, very Gravelly, Clayey
SANDSTONE; with oversize rock, core stones (includes some very weathered
- - -
granitic rock)
+ + SALTO INTRUSIVE
- 14 Weathered, fractured, medium olive-brown, moderately strong GRANITIC ---- -
\ ROCK -
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET
ear refusal)
Figure A-38,
LogofTrenchT - IOC,Pagel of
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. 0713542-01B
>LU TRENCH T-IIC >
DEPTH 0 < SOIL I- Z
IN SAMPLE .j CLASS ELEV. 0 FEET NO. (MSL.)135 DATE COMPLETED 05-05-2005
0 LU IX 20
of EQUIPMENT CAT 330C BY: G. COPENHAVE R °-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
- 0
- ____ - SANTIAGO FORMATION SM Dense, moist, light brown, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE -
2 ---- Dense, moist, light brown to olive, Silty to Clayey, fine SANDSTONE
• SM
6
_
Very dense, moist, medium brown-olive, Gravelly, Clayey, fine
8 - SC SANDSTONE; "floater' boulders of oversize rock (includes corestones of
weathered granitic rock)
10 + + SALTO INTRUSIVE
Weathered, fractured, moist to damp, medium olive-brown, moderately strong
\ GRANITIC ROCK
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 11 FEET
ear refusal)
Figure A-39,
LogofTrenchT - IIC,Pagelofl
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... 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
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
We performed the laboratory tests in accordance with the current versions of the generally accepted
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) procedures or other suggested procedures. We tested
selected soil samples for their in-place density and moisture content, maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content, shear strength, expansion index, and water-soluble sulfate characteristics.
The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B-I through B-VI and on the boring logs in
Appendix A. Laboratory expansion index and soluble sulfate tests performed during reclamation
grading and reported in Reference 4 are included in Table B-IV and B-VI.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
Sample No. Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pci)
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% dry wt.)
LB 1-5 Grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 118.7 12.7
1,1324 Reddish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 126.5 9.9
L132-8 Dark brown, Silty CLAY 105.0 21.4
T8-3 Dark brown, Sandy CLAY 125.5 12.0
T14-1 Grayish brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 127.8 9.3
TABLE B-Il
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
Sample No. Dry Density
(pci)
Moisture Content (%) Peak
[Ultimate]
Cohesion (psi)
Peak [Ultimate]
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees) Initial Final
LB15* 106.5 13.1 17.7 500 [70] 33 [37]
L132-2 108.9 16.4 22.3 110 [0] 35 [36]
L132-7 98.1 28.4 34.7 670 [490] 20 [20]
T83* 113.2 11.8 21.6 650 [600] 1 19 [19]
T141* 114.9 9.4 18.6 275 [255] 30 [30]
*Sample remolded to 90% relative compaction at or near optimum moisture content.
Ultimate measured at 0.2 inch deflection.
Project No. 07135-42-05 - B-1 - February 24, 2015
TABLE B-Ill
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829
Sample No.
Moisture Content (°"°) Dry Density.
(pcf) Expansion Index Classification
Expansion
Before Test After Test
LB 1-5 11.3 17.1 104.6 0 Very Low
L132-4 9.7 21.2 110.2 45 Low
LB2-8 18.3 47.7 86.1 204 Very High
T11-1 10.7 27.6 107.9 120 High
T14-1 9.9 20.9 109.9 36 Low
T18-1 12.3 31.4 101.2 131 Very High
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
PERFORMED DURING RECLAMATION GRADING
ASTM D 4829
Sample
No.
Moisture Content (%) Dry
Density Expansion
Index Classification Before Test After Test
El-i (north side) 8.9 19.1 113.0 30 Low
EI-2 (north side) 10.5 17.7 110.0 7 Very Low
El-3 (north side) 9.3 17.3 112.9 8 Very Low
EI4 (north side) 9.4 17.8 112.5 0 Very Low
El-A (Import) 11.3 27.0 103.4 72 Medium
El-B (Import) 12.7 29.9 100.9 97 High
El-C(Import) 11.9 27.3 102.8 74 Medium
El-D 8.2 16.2 115.5 13 Very Low
El-E 8.2 17.9 114.9 18 Very Low
El-F (southeast lower pad) 8.9 21.1 112.4 51 Medium
El-G 9.2 20.1 111.5 .38 Low
El-H 9.6 21.7 111.1 55 Medium
El-1 9.5 20.9 112.0 56 Medium
El-J (north pad) 8.5 18.2 - 115.1 19 Very Low
El-K (north pad) 8.4 16.7 115.6 16 Very Low
El-L 9.8 23.8 112.0 109 High
El-M 9.7 24.5 109.9 89 Medium
7 8.1 15.5 116.6 14 Very Low
9(Import) 11.3 21.3 104.1 24 Low
Project No. 07135-42-05 - B-2 - - February 24, 2015
TABLE B-V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Classification
LB 1-5 0.007 Negligible
T11-1 0.026 Negligible
T18-1 0.046 Negligible
T14-1 0.007 Negligible
TABLE B-VI
SUMMARY OF WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PERFORMED DURING RECLAMATION GRADING
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
El-i (north side) 0.022 Negligible
El-2 (north side) 0.020 Negligible
El-3 (north side) 0.017 Negligible
EI4 (north side) 0.046 Negligible
El-A (Import from High School) 0.052 Severe
El-D 0.051 Negligible
El-E 0.009 Negligible
El-F (southeast lower pad) 0.137 Moderate
El-G 0.116 Moderate
El-H 0.259 Severe
El-1 0.128 Moderate
El-i (north pad) 0.060 Negligible
El-K (north pad) 0.110 Moderate
El-L 0.333 Severe
El-M 0.310 Severe
ect No. 07135-42-05 -B-3 - February 24, 2015
11 4
'4 -
4, 4." ', . 'k
, ,. ;'
£
b"J'4 '
'''.-' .'• ''''
-4 4
- '4 '4
11 4'4 4'
4. , 4,, .-4-' 74-
4' '4' '4'. VZ,, •':'
V''- -. '4'44" '
1.
-,•, ,V';.4 , '_r-_.-.'
J- ':-i :''-1: :' 4<L"'':'
-
-
S 1"'
",I, 74:
'$
7 '4'-'i,- —
!
: : -:
, .4
-•
-
2-;, :;:- ':--.::':,T -i:-
r : : :
.': :
1.' - '4-4 -4
'4 - 7-
r
I
-. '4'_1. 7- - 7-, 4- -
- -. . -
- 4, - 4 1. 4
- 44 ,'4 - 1 - '7- * -
s' 4'-' 1 --4. '4'-1 4-
W '1 - 4 Ff.
7-
4.
-'4
1 -'(
- .4 - - " V ' - ,-' - "
: '-
, 7-- 74'4.7 1 ,.'
447-
'-
7 4'
7.
I
-, -
4'
ft •'.'
-
p 4 4,1 4' 4
'4 1 '
5 '4 " - 4- " 7-4"4a '4 -. ,. 7' 4'
.4' . 7- -.
1> , , _._-4
4.' '4 '. -
- . •- .. 4 -4 4 . ,,., ,.. 4 - - .4 '4' .. -.7
'4- _ -'
1 4,4 4.' '4,. -4..
4 '
I 4 7--
-
'4 "
4'% 4' '4- p"-' 4"
4- '4 4, - 4-- - -7- --.4 V °' - 7- 7-
19
- -
.4
'4 4' 4-'- -4.
1
. 11
4'
-
-' 74
4. 7- 4'1*1 7-
7-
7
4.7
':4'7-''' __7
APPENDIX C
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
We performed the slope stability analyses using the two-dimensional computer software GeoStudio2007
developed by Geo-Slope International Ltd. We analyzed the critical modes of potential slip surfaces
including rotational-mode and block-mode based on Spencer's method. The soil parameters used, case
conditions, and the calculated factors of safety are presented herein. Plots of analyses' results, including
the soil stratigraphy, potential failure surfaces, and calculated factors of safety, are attached within this
appendix.
We estimated the shear strength characteristics of the existing geologic units based on laboratory direct
shear tests on samples obtained during our field investigation in accordance with ASTM D 3080 (see
Appendix B). The soil parameters used for the stability analyses were presented in Table C-I.
TABLE C-I
SUMMARY OF SOIL PROPERTIES USED FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Geologic Unit/Material Density(pci) Cohesion (psi) Friction Angle (degrees)
SandyLayer 130 100 35
Clay Layer 125 200 10
CompactedFill(Qcf) 125 300 30
We used Cross Section B-B' to perform the slope stability analyses. Table C-Il provides a summary of
cases analyzed and calculated factors of safety. The case conditions, including the assumed, buttresses,
are also indicated in the table. A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 under static conditions is currently
required by the City of Carlsbad for slope stability. Results of slope stability analyses are plotted on
Figures C-i through C-3.
TABLE C-Il
SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Cross Section File Name Condition of Slope Stability Analyses Calculated Figure Factor of Safety Number
B-B' Case la 2:1 Cut Slope, block-mode analysis, static' 1.16 Cl condition
B-B' Case 2a 2:1 Fill slope and buttress (30'), block-mode 1.55 C-2 analysis,staticcondition
B-B' Case 3a 2:1 Fill slope and buttress (30'), block-mode 1.56 C-3 analysiswithsinglepointexit,staticcondition
Project No. 07135-42-05 February 24, 2015
.......................i•........àà.s..... Project Name: Quarry Creek II
Project No.: 07135-42-03
Case la - Cut Slope - 5deg.gsz
SLOPEIW: Spencer
Slip Surface Option: Block
Sandy Layer 130 pcf 100 psf 350
Clay Layer 125 pcf 200 psf 10
* Description: Cut slope condition on existing soil.
Bottom clay layer has 5 degrees Out-of-Slope.
180
160
W 120
100
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Distance
Directory: X:\Engineeuing and Geology\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-03\ Date: 1/26/2012, 10:32:06 AM
80
-40
180
160
140
120
100
80
160 180 200
Figure C-i
PL 180
160
C 140
0
>
W 120
100
80
-40 -20 0 20
Directory: X:\Engineering and Geotogy\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-03\
Date: 1/26/2012, 10:33:57 AM
40 60 80 100 120 140
Distance
80
180 200
Figure C-2
160
180
160
140
120
100
Project Name: Quarry Creek II
Project No.: 07135-42-03
Case 2a - Buttress - 5deg.gsz
SLOPE/W: Spencer
Slip Surface Option: Block
Qcf 125 pcf 300 psf 30
Sandy Layer 130 pcf 100 psf 35
Clay Layer 125 pcf 200 psf 10 *
* Description: Buttress fill slope condition on existing soil.
Bottom clay layer has 5 degrees Out-of-Slope.
........................................... Project Name: Quarry Creek II
Project No.: 07135-42-03
Case 2a - Buttress - 5deg(2).gsz
SLOPE/W: Spencer
Slip Surface Option: Block
Qcf 125 pcf 300 psf 30 0
Sandy Layer 130 pcf 100 psf 35 0
Clay Layer 125 pcf 200 psf 100 :
* Description: Buttress fill slope condition on existing soil.
Bottom clay layer has 5 degrees Out-of-Slope.
PL 180 - 1.56 - 180
I I
160 Sandy Layel\j fl Is f'j" —,160
Sandyta yer
140 140
ay co Sandy L
W 120 4120
:5 degreas
Out-of S'ope 30 Buttress
100 - Sandy Layer
- 100
80 F-: ---:--I•-j. ---H I i--: 80
-40 -20 0 20, 40 60 80 100 120 140 . 160 180 200
Distance
Directory: X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-03 (Quarry Creek)\
Date: 1/27/2012, 3:27:09 PM Figure -
.4 1
- . 74
-:
le
•
'
TTT:11
ol
•
1 4- 4-4- 4 4-
4-4-
4- :
4
4- 1
APPENDIX D
FLOW ANALYSIS
We analyzed flow slide potential for liquefaction conditions along the channel bank. The stability
analysis was performed using SLOPEW (2007) computer software distributed by Geo-Slope
International. This program uses conventional slope stability equations and a two-dimensional limit-
equilibrium method to calculate the factor of safety against slope instability. For our analysis, Spencer's
Method with a circular failure mechanism was used. The results of the stability analysis indicate that
under the expected residual shear strengths for liquefiable soils, the minimum factor of safety is 1. 1 for
the channel slope. The failure plane at a factor of safety of 1.1 is over 50 feet away from the edge of the
sheet graded building pad area. At the building pad edge, the failure plane factor of safety is 1.3. It is our
opinion that there is a low potential for flow slide impacts to structures. The results of the stability
analysis are shown graphically on FiguresD- l and D-2.
......................i..........àà....i.S
Quarry Creek
Project No. 07135-42-05
Name: Flow Slide Potential .gsz
Date: 2/20/2015
Name: Qcf Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 30 Piezometric Line: 1
Name: Qal (Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 350 psf Piezometric Line: 1
Name: Jspi Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 500 psf Phi: 45 ° Piezometric Line: 1
Name: Qal (Non-Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 25 Piezometric Line: 1
140— —140
120
- Lot - 120
100
L QCf
co
40
E I I 120
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
Distance, Feet
X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-05\
Figure D-1
_....................................-a--...... Quarry Creek
Project No. 07135-42-05
Name: Flow Slide Potential. (at Bldg. Edge).gsz
Date: 2/20/2015
Name: Qcf Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 300 psf Phi: 30 ° Piezometric Line: 1
Name: Qal (Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 120 pcf Cohesion: 350 psf Piezometric Line: 1
Name: Jspi Unit Weight: 135 pcf Cohesion: 500 psf Phi: 45 0 Piezometric Line: 1
Name: Qal (Non-Liquefiable) Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 25 0 Piezometric Line: 1
Bldg. Pad Edge . 140
120
U) cl_) 100
U-
0 80
T 60
LU
40
20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Distance, Feet
X:\Engineering and Geology\ENGINEER PROGRAMS, GUIDES, ETC\EngrgPrg\GEO-SLOPE2007\Projects\07135-42-05\
• 1, ;' ::: 1. . a
.. j
- -
-.I&,, _~,~. ~ - __L", 11. ~, .
- " 41
/4~ IP- _... I
PENDI -IX -
~
, , ~
-,
I I IK -'';,~ ~ '' ~,2
I
1-:I~l
I
. ,
", __ -1 11 'L, , k: . -~ - I 0. ~_~ .- ~l ',,~-,-~:
I -
_ '' 7 ~ -,--: - , _
~ - , ,,- : - ~ ,~-, , v . - , ~: - - "."o'. 'i,~-*. - , " Z . _ ,.~.~
-- ~ , ~ --, ~, I", I - + I". I ~.' : ,
,
~ -", ,~ ,", ~ I ~ " ~ - ,,- ~,_, -,-. I --- L I ~ .11 ~ - " 11 f:_~ " ~ , I ~ -- I , , , , ,~ I
I'- -
"
I -~ ~ i__ IW , I- .. I "", -_ , . -
.'' , ~- ;-1— "'; . ~ .11
I - I
,_ " , -, ~ " " ~ , 11 -: . - 1~ , _: - - .~ ,~ ~ - - I ~, -~ ~., -', , . _ , I , . . , ___ I 1, , - ~ I ~ I ~ I - I." A, I , - ~ , I - ~ , - - ,~,, - 1. I __" .. , ~ -, ~ ., " , ,.:, ,- -,.%,_-,~ ~~,: - z , , .. " , , , I 1. "., ,~~ , ~ , " ~ , ~ , - , - - - 11 1~~,,;V'.,~. " . ~~ , I , 11 I 1~- ~ - - _~ . ~ ~_", -' , , _4 " - 11 .'. , 'j it, " o - --, , . " ,:,_"~ -, , , ,,, " --
,~
~1,1
"I
I
~ 11, ~ .1 - , ~ I - -: , ", .t - , ~ I - - -1 ~,:.l ~ ., ~ _~l __ .-v- - ,~~ I , -__ I - ~_ -1 - al " : - ~- I .1 . -1 2 ,;,~ . . - _~"_ ~'. I . *- I - , " I ,~ - ~, -- -
, - 11 , I .11" , I-, - , I I ~- - , ~, 11 . i -1 -..
., , ~
, ~ ~
~, ~ ,~-~_, I" - 1. "
I , I I,- -.- ~ ~ , , :_:
`
-
--1 7- " ` - - , '' f, ~ ~ ", -1 ~ , , __I'l ,.. ~ - ~-:, " " I - I - '' _.,,~~ ~',,r' `~- ~,,~; ~ - . . ,,,, :'T, '' ~ "'. , ~ " , ,,, ',~ ~ , , , :,: "I'l I . -. ~ , I " ~ ,~ - " - -~~-'~,, ',~ -
__ , _1
".. Aft.~ ~ ~ ~.~ ' -
- - , " ~ _-, -, , - -~ '! ", . ~ _'. ., -.% , ~l
- , - 1~~ . , " - - '' — -1 " ~ . .~ , ,~ - , - __ " I ~ I " ~~ - ,- I " - ,. I . ~ - ~.- , 1~~, , , .:- -,".". _:,,:~'~ , , ~ - I '' '' -~-. t', .,~ - I ,~ ~ 11
-_ ,. " -, - I - " ~' " , -
,
, " - -~,- ~ -, ~ ~: " ~ ~ ,- ,~- ~ , ~ -v,
, ~1~1 ~;
. , . . , , - - :,.", ~ " ~ , , I I _~~ - ~~ -~ .- ,
.-, - el -fl , - ~l - ill~l- .1, 1~ ~-, , I ~, ,l , -1 I -0. -t. z~--.', . ~ I ~ __.,~ ~-. ~ -0 A ; " 1, 11, I ~ '' I I ~. 1~~`, ,~, '_ - - _ 1,,~, : . 1, ~ 11 I . - ~,~. I _~, ~ ~ , 1~, ~ ll~ - - - ~ . .4~ 1 I ~ I - ~, - 1 11 . I .11 " ', ~~ ~ 1~~ "', - ~~ - I -~~ - - , "I , ,.- ", , - 11 ~ , ~: I .-I ; I , ": , ~ , .~ ,~ I , I - , , " ~
I , I ~ I -)~-;~ ~, . - .. - -1 , 4 1, I - " , ,~~,'~;v -, . . . ~ - . _.~. - - , - I - `;w__~` - I I ,--i- - - -, "I t~v.
, C. .~ __ i, '' : , - I ~ '_~ , ~l -_- - ~l 1, ". , , _~ ~ - ) , . -I 11 - - - "'. ", "- 1- I 1- 4 :- 1-~-~_ : ~_". ~ ~ - :, ---
- ~, ,~, -, ,., ; , - ,,, . r I " --,, ,,, , , ~ ': - 1-,~ I' . ,~ ~ %,
"
" , - , , - I - , , ~ ~ - ~ I , . I I , -
-"~, ,""' , - ,~ ~ I . - , _. ,~ _, . -,,,~'-~ --'- 1, "-I " ~ , ~ ~~,
'' ~ ,)L'~~ --:27 , '- I ,~ __ - , , . I ~ -, ... ",j.~- ,
1. ~ ~ ~', .. *,, -i"', .-:, , ,~ -- -- - - , ~~,,. , ,~M., ~CL" -_-~ ~~ - ~ 1~, , , _: Y "', ~~_ - ., ~~,- ~"' _- I . , - - - , ~~. , - .-, -, , _ " ~~: ~ ~', " " , , I - , - . I , _ ~ " '' ~ ~:v -~,f- - ~ , - 1-1 ,~' ,~: , _~- I - ~ - '- -~ , , "~ , -~ , , I - - ll~ ~. ~__ I- ~ I., - '. I ~_ "", - - -, 11 ~ I 1_',~_ , , . I 11 1: ~ I . - 1, .1 ~ " -', ~l - .. - . "__ - , _ , ~ "
, _- -', - ~ Z~ .,~~ , , - , -_ _,__., -,;L,- , _11~ . ~ ~ ,- '' ,p , ~,~ ", ~,,' ~, ~,,~ " , , , , , - , ~, ~ ~ .1 . ~ - :, , , ,~, . ~~ - ~ ,-, - , ~ , I, . - ~ - , ,;~:_ , , ~ . . - , " ~ ~ ti,
, -~'.
- , J, _., _.~. ~, I ,, , , - ,,~ ~-~_,~ - - - '-' ~ i ~!` A " -
, 4 "~,~.,;~,% - . - , I I -
'~l ~l , , - - ~ , - , " ~,' J , -_j, 4 4.,~ _~ - - , , . '-~ --. _ , I I , ~ , " - I , :" ", ~ - , - - - , " _ . , 11 . , -~ Z' "I 1 '~, . ], I ."'. .1 _ __ - , :~- 1, ~ ~- ~~l I , _ 11 11 I , '':-. ~ . I , .
" ;~
~-- ,,. - " - I -
- ,4 -, _ , , ~~l I ~ I I - , ~~ , '.
- J I " - 'i
_,~
~ , , 1'~_, I- ~ ~ , , , '. . I I ,~.: - : , -- - - , L - , I ",-l-, ~_~, ,,, ,, ,-,~~_ - ,.: 1~ I -:`i I ", I ~-_~: ;,-, , I ~11 , , , I -- ~ ~ - - —, , ~
S I . -
-
F I- - :
w - -I- . -' - - - I
I- . S - - I - I
. -4 . 4- - --- - -
_i4__ -' - _-t__ ------.-- -
APPENDIX E
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
QUARRY CREEK
CARLSBAD/OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 07135-42-05
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1 These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The
recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the
earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained
hereinafter in the case of conflict.
1.2 Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. The Consultant should provide adequate testing and observation services so
that they may assess whether, in their opinion, the work was performed in substantial
conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to
assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that
personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, result in a quality of work not in
conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the
work and recommend to the Owner that grading be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed. .
2.2 Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3 Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
GI rev. 07/2013
2.4 Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5 Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6 Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7 Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as
defined below.
3.1.1 Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than
12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 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.
GI rev. 07/2013
3.2 Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3 Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect
the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the
termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4 The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This
procedure may be utilized provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and
Consultant.
3.5 Samples of soil materials to be used for fill should be tested in the laboratory by the
Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where
appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6 During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 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.
GI rev. 07/2013
4.2 Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
4.3 After clearing and grubbing of organic matter and other unsuitable material, loose or
porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The
depth of removal and compaction should be observed and approved by a representative of
the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth
of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
Finish Grade A_--Original Ground
2
Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Consultant Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding I
oes Not Occur Varies
"B"
See Note 1 - See Note 2
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet, or sufficiently wide to permit
complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should
be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material
and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the
bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as
approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 07/2013
4.5 After areas to receive fill have been cleared and scarified, the surface should be moisture
conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in
Section 6 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1 Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers,, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers,, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2 Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1 Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1 Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock.
materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2 In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557-09.
6.1.3 When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4 When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev. 07/2013
6.1.5 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557-09. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6 Where practical, soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 should be placed
at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture
content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the
material.
6.1.7 Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8 As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2 Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1 Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2 Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
GI rev. 07/2013
6.2.3 For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4 For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and
4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5 Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry.
The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center
with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The
minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of
a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow.
6.2.6 Rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows should be continuously observed by the Consultant.
6.3 Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1 The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The
rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic
pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected
to controlled drainage facilities to control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2 Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev. 07/2013
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made should be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3 Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196-09, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the required
minimum number of passes of the compaction equipment. If performed, a
minimum of three plate bearing tests should be performed in the properly
compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing
tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes
and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes.
required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate
bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection
variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction
equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are
equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case
will the required number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4 A representative of the Consultant should be present during rock fill operations to
observe that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual
number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading.
6.3.5 Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in their opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6 To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
6.3.7 Rock fill placement should be continuously observed during placement by the
Consultant.
GI rev. 07/2013
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1 The Consultant shall be the Owner's representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling, and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill should be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
should be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2 . The Consultant should perform a sufficient distribution of field density tests of the
compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion whether the fill
material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted
materials below any disturbed surface. When these .tests indicate that the density of any
layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas
represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3 During placement of rock fill, the Consultant should observe that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant
should request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on
the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for
expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture
has been applied to the material. When observations indicate that a layer of rock fill or any
portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the
rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied.
7.4 A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be. as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
7.5 The Consultant should observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage
devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project
specifications.
7.6 Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
GI rev. 07/2013
7.6.1 Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1 Field Density Test, ASTM D 1556-07, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2 Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D 6938-08A, Density of Soil
and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3 Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D 1557-09, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using- 10-Pound
Hammer and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D 4829-08A, Expansion Index Test.
7.6.2 Rock Fills
7.6.2.1 Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D 1196-09 (Reapproved 1997)
Standard Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and
Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of
Airport and Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2 After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
GI rev. 07/2013
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1 Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2 The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev. 07/2013
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anderson J. G. Synthesis of Seismicity and Geological Data in California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-
file Report 84-424, 1984, PP. 1-186.
Boore, D. M., and G. M Atkinson (2006), Boore-Atkinson NGA Ground Motion Relations for the
Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectral Ground Motion Parameters,
Report Number PEER 2007/01, May 2007.
Brain S. J. Chiou and Robert R. Youngs, A NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak
Ground Motion and Response Spectra, preprint for article to be published in NGA Special
Edition for Earthquake Spectra, Spring 2008.
Geocon Incorporated, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Amended Reclamation Plan, Quarry Creek
Refined Alternative 3, Carlsbad, California, dated September 10,. 2009 (Project No. 07135--
42-01).
Geocon Incorporated, Limited Geotechnical Investigation to Evaluate Hardrock Constraints for Quarry
Creek, Carlsbad, California, dated April 9, 2004 (Project No. 07135-42-01B.
Geocon Incorporated, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Quarry Creek II, Carlsbad/Oceanside,
California, dated February 24, 2015 (Project No. 07135-42-03).
Geocon Incorporated, Foundation Report, Quarry Creek Bridge, Carlsbad, California, dated August 21,
2014 (Project No. 07135-42-04A).
Geocon Incorporated, Geocon Incorporated, Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During
Site Grading, Quarry Creek, Carlsbad, California, dated April 4, 2013 (Project No. 07135-
42-02).
Geocon Incorporated, Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading, Quarry
Creek, Oceanside, California, dated March 11, 2013 (Project No. 0713 5 -42-02).
Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology Publication, 1963.
Jennings, C. W., Fault Activity Map of California And Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent
Volcanic Eruptions, California Geological Survey, formerly California Division of Mines and
Geology, 1994.
Larsen, E. S., Batholith and Associated Rocks of Corona, Elsinore and San Luis Rey Quadrangle
Southern California, Geological Society of America, Memoir 29, 1948.
Ploessel, M. R., and J. E. Slosson, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations From Earthquakes, California
Geology, September 1974.
Project Design Consultants,. Mass Grading Plans for Quarry Creek, prepared by Project Design
Consultants, undated.
Risk Engineering, EZ-FRISK, 2008.
Project No. 07135-42-05 . February 24, 2015
LIST OF REFERENCES (Concluded)
Tan,. S. S., and M. P. Kennedy, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open File 96-02, 1996.
Unpublished reports and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1953 Stereoscopic Aerial Photographs.
USGS computer program, 2002 Interactive Deaggregation, http://egint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint12002/index.php.
USGS computer program, Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response Spectra.
Wesnousky, S. G., Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California, Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, 1986, pp. 12, 587-12, 631.
Project No. 07135-42-05 . - February 24, 2015