Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 96-03; PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES; REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY; 2000-01-03
SOIL &_T E iT I rii G INC - - -'- - - - PHONE -- pQBox600627 ([ (619) 280-4321 San Diego CA 92160 0627 • - - - TOLL FREE -- - - -- -(877) 2l54321 - 6280 Riverdale Street (( l[J' FAX ',San Diego CA 92120 (619) 280 4717 / wwwscst corn - REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES - PROPOSED UNITS- 1,2 '& 3 OF - - - - -- CARLSBAD TRACT J96-03 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I / -.- F • -5 - - S - 05 - - - - PREPARED FOR: I - - --- CONCORDIA HOMES I 7130 AVENIDA ENCINAS,SUITE 200 -. CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA t920094657 - F / - S 4 - • - - --: • - S - - - 5; - - -• -- S . - - -. i__• - -- - 1 - PREPARED BY / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING INC 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92120 I- -F Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 - - - - -- SOIL & TESTING. Thc. : P H 0 N E P.O.Box 600627 (619) 280-432 San Diego CA 92160-0627 TOLL FREE - (8747) 215-4321 6280 Riverdale Street cc ( --fi A X San Diego, CA 92120 (619) 280-4117 wwwscst corn January 3, 2000 -S S .- Concordia Homes SCS&T 9911167 2 7130 Avemda Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92009-4657- ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Ugar, Manager . Mr. Scott Dickson, Project Manager SUBJECT: Report Report of Preliminary Geotechrncal Study, Pacific View Estates, Proposed m Umts 1 Through 3 of Tract #96-03, Carlsbad, California Gent1emei' In accordance with your request we have completed the geotechnical study for the subject project TJeç findmgs and recommendations of our study are presented herewith In general, the fmdmgs of this study indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed development The mam geotechnical conditions affecting the proposed development of the property consist of compressible fill, topsoil, colluvium, slopewash and the top portion of terrace deposits Ao, the presence of a relatively steep cut slope at the eastern boundary of the project requires sp'ecial considerations durmg grading of the lots adjacent to the slope The above conditions will require special site preparations and foundation considerations as described -herein.' 4 . -4 - SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Page No 2 If you have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please dO not hesitate to contaét this. office. This opportunity, to be o . - professional service is sincerely appreciated Respectfully submitted, r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC co 0. EXR CHIA 0 CA EEl I - T M Kumar, R C E #43255 & R G E 12206 Principal Geotechmcal Engineer . • .•, • S .• ,•. - . S • • S -'.5 • S. -1 - •• S YrV/1 A R. High,CEG 37\ Senior Geologist 55 5 S TMK:JRH:mw cc: (6) Submitted .• • TABLE OF CONTENTS ,. ... -, ' PAGE. Introduction and'Project Description'. • ..................................1 Project Scope ....... . . . , ............ : .......... r .2 Findings 3 - Site Description, ......... . .......................................... - . 3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions .................................. 4 Geologic Setting 'arid Soil Description ........... 4 Fill Material (Qaf) ..............................4 Residuum ................................................ . ........ 5 Colluvium (Qcol) . ...................................... Terrace Deposits (Qt) ....... . .. .- 5 Santiago Formation (Tsa) . . . ................................ 6', - Tectonic Setting •. .: .................................... . 6 Geologic Hazards ........................................ . . . . ..... 7 . General............................................................'. .7 Groundshaking . . ., ........................... . ................... • Surfáé Rupture and Soil Cracking ......... .8 . 'Landsliding......................................................-. 8 Liquefaction ........................................................ 8 Tsunamis ..........................................................8 Seiches. .... .............................. ...... . . .' .........'8: Flooding .........., .. . ............ 8 Groundwater 8 Slope Stability Analyses •' .. Conclusioris., I I 9 Surficial Soils .................. 10 Cönl1uvial Deposits 10 Terrace Deposit 10 Cut/Fill Transitions 10 Recommendations 11 Grading.,," ,, ......... Site Preparation 11 Removal Limits 11 Transition Lots ,. ••. . .: ............................................. ii Processing of Fill Area 11 - Compaction and Method of Filling .. .. .: . . .- .-.. 12. Fill Slopes 13 Surface Dramage 13 Earthwork .............- . ;. 13 Slope Stability 14 Foundations 15 Geneiat - ' 15 Reinforcement I 15 Foundation Excavation Observation 16 Settlement Characteristics 16 Expansive Characteristics,. .. ...................... .. 4i6 Foundation and Grading Plans Review Slabs On-Grade TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE - Earth Retaining Walls. .................. 17 Foundations ..............• ..................................17 Passive Pressure ..................... .- .......................... -i'i Active Pressure .............................. ...................-17 Geogrid- Retaining Wall............................................ ........ Waterproofing and Su.drain.Observation . . . ........................ 18 Backfill ................ ...................................... 19 Factor of Safety 19 Limitations 19 Field Explorations 19 Laboratory Testing - I /...,20 References ....... ............... ........,.......... , ........... . 23 - - - ATTACHMENTS FIGURE - Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follo,s Page 1 PLATES •- -., . -,. •- Plate 1 Boring Location Map - - - Plates 2-3 Geologic Cross-Section and , Slope Stability Cr-Section E-E' Plate 4 Unified Soil Classification Chart, - • • Plates 5-9 - Boring Logs - - - - - - Plates - 10-31 Trench Logs - - -• . - - Plate 32 Maximum Dry Density & Optinum Moisture Content and Expansion Index Test Results Plates 33-38 Direct Shear Test Results Plates 39-41 Single Point Consolidation Test4Results Plate 42 Retaining' Wall Subdram Detail / APPENDICES - -- -- .* •:' .-- - A - Recommended Grading Specifications - Speci Provisions, - : - B - Results of Slope Stability Analyses .. - S - - .5•' S I - S - S S •• S - ,' S I , — -1 1 — - PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY 1 5. - S '• ,, .- ,.-. : -\ .' •S -• ' .. PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES • . • PROPOSED UNITS 1 2 & 3 OF CARLSBAD TRACT #96-03 —, s — - CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA S -.5--j I Si C • S t S , fl, S -INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' .. - . -S C This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechmcal study for the proposed residential • / subdivision to, be constructed adjacent and north of Carlsbad Village Drive near, the intersection .4 . - of Donna. Drive in Carlsbad, California: The site locatidn is shown on the following, Figure - - S . S - ¶S Number 1 - _ We underst.nd that the proposed develop l ment will consist of three units (Units 1 through 3) and _-iS• a borrow sith We understand that the proposed Unit 1 will consist of seven (7) single family, two-story sod-frame buildings. Development of Units 2 & 3 will consist of 12 and 7, single family, two story buildings, respecti'ely.'.Earthwork construction including construction of fill' and cut sloês'is planned The maximum height of the proposed cut and fill slopes would be approximatlyi45 feet The proposed maximum fill thickness would be less than 30 feet çonstructioof retaining walls, using keystone and geogrids, is also planned at ,the site The i4ti — details Of tile, retaining wall constructioñare unknown at this time. Development of associated ' 4.Sc,') . . '. . . . I access streets'ls also planned We understand that the maximum vertical load anticipated on the building foundtions will be less than 2,000 pounds per linear foot. The maximum floor load will" - - be less thàO,pounds per square foot. , - - - . . - . ' . . •.. • . . . — — S To assist ithe preparation of this report, we were provided with a tentative plan prepared by - R.D.G-. Consultants, dated January 29, 1998. We understand that the, plans are being modif d' by Dudek &Associates, with the modified plans to be provided to us at a later date for revi /.S S.'- 5-IS S - - - - . - .• '--5 -, •.1 - , S -• - -5 S. - . 5 5 -. - . -- .5 .- • S - - - . - . S -- •, I - 5,, -, - - - -S. •• - S •, S. '?ON \ "Z10 '2isITEH <•: CARLSM \y LOCATIOi1 CA ;: [A 'u co _ V3t yutsF PA' IN )01 F 'k \?\ \•. '2 WY '" / \• I -r \V ç , c' CI ' \ !S IN t • ç) \ ci LIB • VL- c1 rp I •. •,. 9' •'•..•. ')' . 4Lcd icS __ 4 Pi .J Z--- .L - 1 TL _ - - - - - • .' r% r-%- II .II II LI I I '.;1.;1 I I 11.111 IQO LII LJ. \JUIU '.JI I ..JI_1I WIll SITE LOCATION MAP JOB NUMBER: 9911114.1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES SOIL & TESTING, INC. CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 FIGURE 1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SCS&T 9911,167 .2 - January 3,, 2000.- Page No 2 The site configuration, topography, and the approximate locations of our test borings and trenches are shown on Plate Number 1 PROJECT SCOPE, '' 0 The geotechmcal study consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsujface explorations, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of available geologic literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of this report More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction - Evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the various strata which may -influence the proposed construction, including slope stability, bearing capacities, xpansive hteristics, and settlement potential - 0 , 0 0 0 c) , Describe the general geology at the site including, possible geologic hazards which could have an effect on the site development 0; 0 0 - 0 Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil ,conditions, groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide preliminary recommendations concermng these problems L'Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading, and provide "recommendations regarding the stability of cut and fill slopes SCS&T 9911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Page No 3 f) Recommend appropriate foundation systems. for' the type of structures and walls proposed, and develop preliminary soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation systems Our scope of services does not include laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially sulphate and corrosive impact to-on-grade concrete and below grade improvements If desired, we can obtain samples of representative soils and submit them to a chemical analysis laboratory for analysis We suggest that such samples be obtained after mass site grading is complete and the soils that can affect concrete and other improvements are in place Further, it should be understood that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc (SCS&T) does not practice corrosion engineering. SCS&T is not providing concrete mix design recommendations as a part of this investigation We can provide concrete mix design as an additional scope of work f9r an additional fee The concrete designer shall take in account the presence of sulphates in the near surface foundation soils FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION -' .- The subject site is an irregular-shaped parcel located north of the intersection ' of Carlsbad Village Drive and Donna Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California.The site is designated as "Carlsbad Tract No 96-03, Pacific View Estates,Umt 1 through 3." The site covers approximately 8 5 acres and is bounded on the north by residential properties, Wmtergreen Drive and Doreet Way, on the east by residential properties, on the west by Hosp Way, and on the south by Carlsbad Village Drive, undeveloped property and a large water tank that is designated as Elm Reservoir. ' - - -- ''' - - - Topographically, the site is comprised of a north-south trending ridge>crest near the center of the site with sloping terrain that descends away from the ridge crest in both a westerly and easterly SCS&T 9911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Page No 4 direction The flanks slope away at inclinations varying from approximate 12 1 [horizontal (H) to vertical (V)], to approximately 2 1, (H to V) Existing cut and fill slopes, that are both on-site And off-site, are located adjacent to most of the property boundaries The cut slopes descend away from the site and range up to heights of approximately 32 feet at slope ratios varying from approximately, 1.5: 1 (H to V), to approximately 2 1, (H to V) A relatively large fill slope located at the southeasterly corner of the site descends from Carlsbad Village drive toward the north, into the site This fill slope ranges up to approximately 27 feet in height at a slope ratio of approximately 1.5:1 (H to V) Elevations onsite range from approximately 288 feet (MSL) near the center of the site to an elevation of approximately 210 feet (MSL) on the northeastern portion of'the site and to an elevation of approximately 196 feet (MSL) at the southwestern corner of the site Drainage is via sheetfiow away from the ridge crest, in westerly and easterly directions Vegetation is comprised of a sparse to moderate growth of native grsses and mature .,trees and shrubs on the westerly portion of the site,, and of dense shrubs, grasses and mature trees on the easterly, portion of the site No structuréswere notedcsite, however1-duiiiped piles of soil exist on the southeasterly end of the ridge crest A 12 inch water main is located adjacent to the western and southwestern property imes This water main is associated-with the existing water reservoir located near the. intersection' of Donna Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive Other utility lines may exist on site GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -.L-< 0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Provmce of San Diego County .and is underlain by the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation, Quaternary-Age terrace deposits, associated residuum and artificial fill Brief descriptions of the soils encountered on site are presented below. • 0 • L • 0'. • "• Fill T1aterial (Qaf) The fill material (Qat) encountered on site are associated with 1) the consfruction of Carlsbad Village Drive along the southeasterly property boundary, 2) the - -: : - .- SCS&T 9911-167.2 January 3, 2000 Page No 5 t I water main along the westerly and southwesterly property boundaries, 3) an off-site building pad located near the northwesterly portion of the site and 4) the end-dumped fill located on the ridge crest Generally, the fills consisted of loose to medium dense, humid, brown silty sand The end-dumped fill is approximately 3.54eet thick. Asphalt debris: was noted at the contact between the fill and the -underlying, native terrace deposits The-end- dumped fill is unsuitable for the support of settlement sensitive Improvements in its existing condition The .remaining. fills are associated with existing improvements and recommendations for the treatment of these fills are presented-in the engineering section of this report The fills are underlam by residuum, colluviuniand/or terrace deposits I Residuum The residuum on site is comprised of colluvial/topsoil and subsoil The topsoil " varies from approximately one to three feet in thickness and consists of humid, loose, dark brown to brown, silty sand The subsoil is comprised of humid to moist, medium stiff to stiff, brown, sandy clay. The ubsoil encountered varied from' approximately one to two feet in thickness and is considered to be expansive The topsail and subsoil is underlain by terrace deposits and/or deits of the Santiago Formation. Colluvium (Qcol) Colluvial/topsoil deposits (Qcol) were encountered on the eastern portion of the site The colluviumltopsoil encountered ranges from approximately two feet to approximately six feet in thickness and is comprised of loose, humid, brown to. dark brown, silty sand. These materials appeared to be relatively'porous; The colluvial/topsoil - deposits are underlain by the terrace deposits and/or Santiago Formation deposits at depths rangmg from approximately two feet to approximately nine feet below the existmg ground surface The colluvial/topsoil deposits, in their present condition, are not suitable for the support of settlement sensitive improvements.I Terrace Deposits (Qt) The terrace deposits (Qt) were encountered at depths varying from approximately one foot (T-22) to approximately nine feet (T-3Tbelow the ground surface These materials are comprised of humid to'inoist, loose to dense, reddish-brown, light - •'.2 •. . SCS&T 9,911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Page No. 6 V. I, / browtan'or orangish-brown, silty sand and clayey sand These materials are slightly to IV.:. V moderately porous and yai from friable to moderately cemented. However, it should be anticiiâted that in local areas the terrace deposits may be highly cemented and excavations with light trenching equipment could be difficult (T-14 and T-19) It was noted that, I typically, the upper one to four feet of the terrace deposits are weathered, more porous and - 'V • •ir V V V • V V • - less consolidated The terrace deposits are underlain by the Santiago Formation V V •VV..V iVV V V_ V • V V V '• •I• •' •' V Santiago Formation (Tsa) The Santiago Formation (Tsa) was encountered east of the ridge crest m Trench Numbers T-4, T-10, T-1 1 and T-13 as well as Boring Numbers-.B-l' and The Santiago Formation is comprised of massive to thinly bedded, dense to very dense,çrnnst, tan, silty sand and hard, moist, grayish-brown, clayey siltstone The siltstone : V was encountered in Boring No. B-2 at an elevation of approximately 185 feet (MSL). The' V V VV VV_rI •V V • ' V V -- V V 'c'rntácVbetween the 'sandstone and the Vsiltstone appered to be ielatively horizbntai in ' V V V , •, V V BoriiiNo B-2 / are kno TECTONIC,,S i to traverse the subject site, but it should be noted that mucLpfSouthern California, includmg the San Diego County rea is characterized by a series of Qiiirnary-age fault zones which typically consist of several individual en echelon V faults that generally strike in a northrly to northwesterly V direction. Some of these fault zones V VV V V V VV V V V' V V V V V (and the individual faults within the zone) are Sciassified as active while • others are classified as V only potent4I accordin to the criteria of the California Division of Mmes and Geology active g Active fauij,jones are those which have shown conclusive evideice of faulting during the Holocene Epoh (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstratedmovement durmg the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million gears before the ,. V present) but no'movement during Holocene time. V ' V • V, • V V A review of, the available geologic literature indicates that no faults have been mapped on site The active k6sè Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 9 5 kilometers west of the s1ubject V V 'V t.'.Vi V V • V VV V V site.,Other- KtiVe fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the subject site include the V • 'V_V V T V V , • V • V 'V VV V., V VVr..( V V V - VV V V V VV V V V' V • - V ' V V V V V ' V -s V V ' V V V V V V • V V - VV VV'.V V.;' V • V V V •VV V V V V V V V - V V V - SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Page No 7 Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west, the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast, and the Agua Blanca and San Miguel Fault Zones to the south GEOLOGIC HAZARDS - GENERAL The site is located in an area that is relatively free of potential geologic hazards Hazards such as seiches, tsunamis and liquefaction should be considered negligible to nonexistent GROUNDSHAKING The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the fault zones mentioned above As per 'the 1997 UBC for I. active near-source fault zones, the followmg design values are presented for the subject site Seisniic Zone 4 Z = 0.40 SourcéTült Rose Caxyon Fault Zone Seismic Source Type B - Soil Profile Type SD Distance to Seismic Source 9.5 kilometers Near-Source Factor NA .= 1-0 Near-Source Factor N = 1.2., Seismic Coefficient CA = 0 44 Na Seismic Coefficient C, = 0.64 N - Probable groundshakmg levels at the site could range from slight to moderate depending, on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that __, S S_• - '<S the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed buildings.. r SCS&T 9011167.2 ' January 3, 2000 Page No 8 SURFACE RUPTURE AND SOIL CRACKING We believe that no active or potentially active faults are present at the subject site proper so' the site is not considered susceptible to surface rupture The probability of surface rupture or soil cracking caused by shaking from distance sources is considered nominal for the subject site LANDSLIDING: The site 'is located in AREA 3-1 as per th Landslide Hazard' Identification Map No 35 AREA 3-1 is classified as Generally Susceptible to slope instability. AREA 3-1 includes slopes that are at or near their stability limits due to a combination of weak materials and steep slopes (many slope angles exceed 15 degrees) Although most slopes within Area 3-1 do not currently contain landslides deposits, they can be expected to fail, locally, when adversely modified or large amounts of groundwater introduced.. LIQUEFACTION The materials at the site are not considered subject to liquefaction due to such factors as dense soil and lack of a shallow groundwater. TSUNAMIS is are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption Due.. to the elevation of the site and distance to the coast it is our opinion that the potential for a tsunarms to effect the site is considered to be negligible I - SEICHES Siches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of standing water such as lake, harbors, bays, or reservoirs The site is not considered susceptible to seiche hazards FLOODING We believe that the site is not located withm the boundaries of a 100 year or. 500 year flood plain ol -' ,'- / GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was noted in. Boring Number 'B-1 at '0 depth of roughly 28.5 feet below the existing ground surface or at an elevation of about 198.0 feet No groundwater was encountered in any of the trenches excavated at the site However, it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems could occur after development - - SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Page No 9 of a site even where no groundwater was present before development Generally, these are minor 0 phenomena and are Often the result of an alteration of the permeability characteristics of the. soil, an alteration in drainage patterns and an increase in irrigation water consumption We believe that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 00• p. SCS&T developed five cross-sections (A-A', B-B', C-C', D-D' and F_-E) which are shown on Plates 1 through 3., Based on the sections developed (Plates 1 through 3), and engineering experience and judgement, we selected. the steepest section E-E' for engineering analyses. The 0 0 0 S computer modeling of section E-E' is also shown on Plate I. Plate 3 shows the thicknesses of the various strata and engineering properties of the materials used in the analyses In the analyses, we assumed that groundwater will exist at an elevation of about 200 feet or 12 feet above the toe of the existing cut slope - - 0 - Section E-E' was analyzed for global stability umg circular failure analyses utilizing the modified version of PCSTABL5M computer. program (STABL6H by. Purdue University) The slope stability analyses indicated a Ininimum Factor-of-Safety (PS) of about 1.50 using the modified Bishop Method In addition, we performed slope stability analyses using the modified Al - Jambu Method, and it resulted in a minimum FS of 1.42 for the above section E-E' The results of our slope stability analyses are included in Appendix B - 4 1., - /CONCLUSIONS In general, no geotechnical conditions were encounird which would preclude the development - - ' of the site as presently proposed, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The main geotechmcal conditions encountered that will affect the development of the site as 0 0 .4 - - SCS&T 99111672 January 3, 2000 Page No 10 presently planned are the presence of potentially compressible surficial soils, colluvium, and cut/fill transitions. These conditions are discussed herein. -S Surlicial Soils The site is underlain by roughly 4 feet of potentially compressible fill, topsoils and subsoil deposits This material is considered unsuitable, in its present condition, for the support of settlement sensitive improvements, and will require removal and replacement by compacted fill Colluvial Deposits: Compressible colluvial deposits, could be subject -to excessive settlement and/or collapse upon saturation, were encountered at various locations These compressible colluvialdeposits may exceed 6 feet m maximum depth These materials are considered unsuitable in. their present condition, for the support of settlement- sensitive improvements and will require removal and replacement by compacted fill -- -- - Terrace Deposit In general, the top 1 to 3 feet of the terrace deposits may be present infse to medium dense, conditi6i However, the loose terrace deposit should be removed to its entirety. The depths of removals required will be determined during grading If the terrace deposit is present in a medium dense to dense condition, then processing of the terrace deposit in place can be performed This will require scarification of the terrace deposit, addition of water to the soil to raise the moisture content to at least 2 percent over the optimum moisture content and compaction of the ____ S S - - scarified material to at least 90 percent relative compaction CijtIFffl Transitions Some of the lots will be graded as cut/fill transition lots It is recommended that the cut portion of the loss be undercut and backfilled with compacted fill.. This procedure will mitigate the potential for differential -settlements of natural and • - - f!1so1l-and would facilitate future trenching and landscaping - - & SCS&T99111672 January, 3, 2000 Page No 11 RECOMMENDATIONS / GRADING SITE PREPARATION Site preparation should begin with the removal of any existing vegetation, roots, large cobbles, boulders and deleterious matter from the areas of the site to be graded and/or that will support new improvements It is recommended that the existing fill, topsoil, subsoil and colluvial deposits be removed in their entirety, as discussed in the conclusion section of this report Furthermore, the top 1 to 3 feet of the loose to medium dense terrace f deposits should be removed or processed .as discussed in the conclusion section of this report However, the depth of processmg rn-place should not exceed 12 inches. The depths of removals will be determined in the field The excavated soils should be moisture conditioned and be replaced as umformly compacted fill to 90 percent of their maximum dry densities and 2 percent over their optimum moisture contents as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557-91, Method A or C The soils exposed at the bottom of the excavations should be scarified t6 'a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned at least 2 percent over optiiñum moisture Content and recompacted to at least 90 percent prior to replacmg the fill All fill should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction - REMOVAL LIMITS The minimum horizontal removal limits should be ten feet away from the improvements (fill slopes and exterior improvements included) or property line. \ TRANSITION LOTS It is recommended that the cut portion of cut/fill lots be undercut to a minimum depth of four feet below pad grade The soil removed may be replaced as compacted fill The bottom of the excavation should"be sloped toward the fill portion of the slope PROCESSING OF FILL AREA Prior to placrng any excavated soils and/or filling over competent ground, the approved, exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, SCS&T 99111672 January 3, 2000 Page No 12 \ watered thoroughly to obtain moisture content of at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D-1557-91, Method A ,or -,C. Fills should be placed above the optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches loose thickness, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash, debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by the project geotechrncal engineer or the representative of the soils engmeer. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches, in maximum dimension Fills should be benched into all temporary slopes and into competent natural soils when the natural slope is steeper than an inclination of 5:4 (horizontal to vertical) Keys should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes The keys shouldextend at least one foot into firm natural ground and should be sl6l back at least two percent Fill keys should have a minimum width ofl5feet. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a mmimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compactçd to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and should not be part of the mass grading requirements All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordmance, the Uniform Building Code, and the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix A 1 ( if / & SCS&T 99111672 January 3, 2000 Page No 13 I FILL SLOPES Fill slopes may be constructed at an .inclination of 2:1 or flatter (horizontal to vertical) Compaction of slopes should be performed by back-rolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill is being placed, and track-walking the face of the slope when the slope is completed As an alternative, the fill slopes may be overfihled by at least three feet and cut back to the compacted core at the design line and grade Keys should be made at the toe of fill slopes in accordance with the recommendations presented above under "Compaction and Method Filling" Furthermore, expansive soils (E .I. > 30) should not be allowed within a distance from the face of fill slopes equal to ten feet or half the slope height, whichever is greater. SURFACE DRAINAGE The drainage around the proposed buildings and walls should be designed to c911ect and direct surface water away from proposed structures and the top of slopes toward approved drainage facilities Ram gutters that discharge runoff away from the buildings and toward the approved drainage devices are recommended The ground around the proposed 'structures should b6graded so that water flaws rapidly away from the structure without ponding In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to structures slope away at a gradient-of at least two percent Densely vegetated areas, where runoff can be impaired, should have a minimum gradient of at least five percent within the first five feet from the structures The client should be advised that drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should Pe maintained throughout the life of the proposed structures They should also be advised to limit site irrigation to the minimum necessary to sustain landscape growth Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater conditions may occur. / ( EARTHWORK All earthwork aiiid grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Gradmg Specifications and Special - F - SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Page No 14 Provisions (Appendix A) All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections abo'e will, supersede .those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All 0, embankrnents, structural fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction over optimum moisture content Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and 'should not be part of the mass grading requirements. .The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test D-1557-91, Method A or C. .' SLOPE STABILITY Due to the presence of sandy soils at the site, it is very likely that future irrigation water will infiltrate into the proposed fills, and into the underlying terrace deposits..The potential intrusion could n4u6rth,e shear strength values of the soils. The existing descending cut slope near the eastern boundary of the project (Section E-E') ' has a slope configuration 'of 1.75:1 '(H to V) or steeper.. C) Our subsurface exploration data (Borings B-i & B-2)0 indicate that the amount of removal required within the eastern portion of the project would be on the order of 6 to 8 feet Based on the above 3 items, slope stability analyses, and engineering experience and judgement, we believe that it would be prudent to increase the stability of the proposed slope along the eastern boundary of the project by incorporating one of the following two recommendations ' :' • ' ' • • ' • (I) Use of sleet grading (mixing of on-site clayey soil or, imported clayey soil with on-site soils) to obtain relatively clayey sandy fill within the eastern portion We believe the clayey I ) / I SCS&T 9.911167.2 - January 3,2000 . - Pàge No., 15 -. soil would reduce groundwater infiltration mto underlying materials Also, an increase of cohesion Values of the fill material will increase the slope stabilitysafety factor and reduce the surficial erosion potential This method will require testing prior to its application (2).. If select grading is not considered to be a viable alternate, then use of SR-2 Tensar Geogrid -' reinforcements (UX1500HS or higher tensile strength grid or equivalent) within the proposed fill between the terrace deposit and the geogrid wall system proposed above We recommend that the geogrid may be spaced vertically at an interval of 2-.5 to 3 feet Based on available data, we believe that about 4 layers of geogrid reinforcements will be required The width of geogrid required will extend about 50 feet into the slope (east-west direction) The length of geogird remforcements required would be about 250 feet or as mandated by the field conditions Placement and construction of geogrids shall be performed per the manufactures recommendations FOUNDATIONS / GENERAL Shallow foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed buildings. The footings should have a minimum depth of 12 and 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade (below interior slab-on-grade and sand blanket) for one- and two-story structures, respctively. The minimum recommended footing width is 12 inches for contmuous strip footing 1' and 24 inches for the isolated footmgs An allowal?le bearing capacity of 1,500 psf and 2,000 psf may be assumed, for 12 inches and 18 inches deep fobtings, respectively. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering wind and/or seismic forces Footmgs located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a minimum depth so that a minimum distance of seven feet exists between the bottom of the footing and the nearest face of the slope For retaining, wall footings a miumum setback of ten feet is recommended REINFORCEMENT Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least two No 5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and at least two No 5 bars - SCS&T 9911167 2 January, 3, 2000 '>Page. No 16 positioned near the top of the footing' This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. Lots that may require increased reinforcement, due to unforeseen conditions, will be determined by this office after grading. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by the project geotechnical engineer or the representative of the soil engineer prior to forming or placement of reinforcing steel SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlements for the proposed structures may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed For the design of footings, the designer should consider a total settlement of 3/4 of an inch and a differential settlement of ½ inch over a distance of 20 feet If the anticipated foundation loads and fill thicknesses increase considerably, then the above recommended settlement values may have to be increased. It should be recogniz&i that miiiFacks normallyiccur m concrete slabs and foundations due to shrmkage durmg curing or redistribution of stresses, and some cracks maybe anticipated Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements - .- •' -, -• '• -. -- EXPANSIVE CIL4RACTERISTICS: In general, the prevailing' foundation soils were found :' .-• ; to be low expansive soils The recommendations of this report reflect this If locally expansive / soils are encountered, then these soils should be removed and incorporated into non-structuraL fillarea FOUNDATION AND GRADING PLANS REVIEW The foundation and grading plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recomii-iendations contained in this S., S report have been implemented, and that no revised recommendations are necessary due to changes in tM development scheme SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Page No 17 SIABS-ON-GRADE The concrete slab-on-grade floor should have a thickness of at least four inches and be reinforced with at least No 3 reinforcing bars placed at 12 inches on center, both directions Slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab and extend at least 12 inches down into the footings The slab should be underlain by, 'a four-inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock This blanket should consist of 100 percent material passing the half-inch screen and uio more than ten percent and five percent passing the #100 and #200..sieves, respectively. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings and garage slab are planned, a visqueen barrier should be placed over the sand layer. A one-inch layer of sand should be placed over the visqueen to allow for proper concrete curmg EARTH RETAINING WALLS 1 FOUNDATIONS The recommendations provided in the foundation section of this report are also applicable to earth retaining striiiires PASSIVE PRESSURE The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth to a maximum value of 3,600 psf per foot of depth This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.32 for the resistance to lateral movement When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third The upper 12 mches of soil should not be considered when calculating passive pressures for exterior walls ACTIVE PRESSURE The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pcf may be assumed An additional 20 pcf should be added to said values for 2 1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping SCS&T 9911167 .2 ( January 3, 2000 Page No 18 conditions These pressures do not consider any other surcharge loads If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure This value assumes a granular and drained backfill condition Waterproofing specifications and details should be pro'ided by the project architect¼ A typical wall subdram detail is provided on he attached Plate Number 42 GEOGRID RETAINING WALL We understand that Geogrid Retaining Wall System, Inc., (GRWSI) has been contracted to design-build keystone/geogrid reinforced soil retaining walls for the subject project We further understand that the wall locations and other details will be provided to us at a later date However, at your request we have provided the following preliminary design values to GRWSI for the design of geogrid walls / "Angle of Internal Friction for the reinforced retained, and foundation soil is 32 degrees Cohesion yalue of on-site sandy soil is onsidered to be zero Total unit weight of on-site native, sandy soil may be considered as 120 pounds per cubic - - foot (pet) Total unit weight of 90 % relative compaction for typical sandy fill soil may be considered as 125 pcf - - An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf is recommended for the wall embedded into competent terrace deposits or bedrock We understand that GRWSI takes the complete responsibility for the design, construction and performanc of the proposed geogrid wall system WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN OBSERVATION The geotechmcal engineer should be requestedto verify that waterproofing has been applied and that the subdrain has been C January 3, 2000 Page No 19 viii not verify proper application of the waterproofing unless full time n is provided J soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction is should not be used for backfill material The wall should not be inry (if proposed) has reached an adequate strength The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing •, ' a factor of safety. Appropriate factors pf safety 'should be incorporated r' the walls from overturning and sliding 'LIMITATIONS' • • L are valid as of this date Changes in the condition of a property can, passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work t propertiéin addition, chiiges m the Standards-of-Practice and/or iy occur Due to such changes, the fmdmgs of this report may be part by changes beyond our control Therefore, this report should not od of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the ,endations FIELD EXPLORATIONS '• • • •• I, • • .'• •. '• xplorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate loiarions consisted of twenty-two backhoe trenches and three large-diameter ork was conducted under the supervision of our engineering geology - / SCS&T 9911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Page No 20 The explorations were carefully logged when made These trench A boring logs are presented on the following Plates Number 5 through 31 The soils are des .(.-,;.bed in accordance with the unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached si ified chart on Plate Number 4 In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the ap it moisuire and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular, soils is giv s either very 1oose lose, medium dense, dense or very dense The consistency of silts or ci given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard Disturbed and "undisturbed" samples of typical and represeni so.ilts were obtarned and returned to the laboratory for testing LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory, tests were performed in accordance with the general cepted American Society, for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested pr0 ircs '\ bi iet description of the, tests- performed is presented below: - CLASSIFICATION Field classifications were verif U in the laboratory by visual examination The final soil classifications are in accord nice with the Unified Soil Classification System MOISTURE-DENSITY In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples This information was an aid to classification and permitted recogmtlon of variations in material consistency with depth The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic toot and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil .'s di y- weight The results are summarized in-the boring and trench logs / - SCS&T99111672 January 3, 2000 Page No 21 C) ATTERBERG LIMITS The Plasticity Index (P1) which is defined as the liquid limit of a soil minus its plastic limit was determined for certain representative cohesive samples. The 1i4id limits and plastic limits were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-433-66 and D-242-59, respectively. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and trench logs COMPACTION TEST The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard - Test D-1557-91, Method A The results of these tests are presented on Plate Number 32. S EXPANSION INDEX TEST Expansion index tests on'remolded samples were performed on representative samples of soils likely to be present at finish grade The tests wre performed on the portion of the samples passing the #4 standard sieve The samples were brought to optimum moisture content and then dried back, to a constant moisture content Thr 12 hours at 230±9 degrees Fahrenheit The specimen were then compacted in a 4-inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturafioñ of approximately 50 percent The specimen were placed in a consohdometer with porous stones at the top and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pouiids was placed (144.7 psf), and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes The samples were allowed to become saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal The expansion indexes are reported on the attached Plate Number. 32 as the total vertical displacement times the fraction of the samples pasiig the #4 sieve times 1000. ,__ - SCS&T 9911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Page No 22 CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 1-20 very low 21-50 low 51-90 medium 91-130 _high Above 130 very high DIRECT SHEAR TESTS Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample havmg a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and 'a height of 1. .0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a. saturated moisture content The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately .,'0-..05 inch per minute. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate Numbers 33 through 38 - CONSOLIDATION TESTS Single point consolidation tests were performed on selected "undisturbed" samples The consolidation apparatus was designed to accommodate a 1-inch high by 2,375-inch or 2.500-inch diameter soil sample laterally confmed by a brass ring. Poroils stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore quid during testing Selected loads were applied to the samples and the resulting deformations were recorded The percent consolidation is reported as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height The test samples wee inundated to determine their behavior under the anticipated loads as soil moisture increases, The results of these tests are presented on Plate Numbers 39 through 41 ..... - - . / I - SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Page No 23 REFERENCES Anderson, J G , Rockwell, R K and Agnew, D C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance tothe San Diego, Region, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 5, No. 2, 1989. \ • S •• \• • Jennings, c.w., 1992, "Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File No 92-3 Eisenberg, L I , 1985, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County. 111 On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists Amlual Field Trip Guidebook, Editor P L Abbott - Kern, P:,'1989, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press, 73 pp Mualchin, L. and Jones, A.L., 1992, Peak Acceleration from .Maximum. Credible Earthquakes in California (Rock and Stiff-Soil Sites) California Division of Mmes and Geology Open-File Report 92-1 Tan, S.5., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mmes and Geology Open-File Report 95-03 ( • • • Unified Building Code, 1997, Chapter 16 and Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada Wesnousky, S G, 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California," .- . • S • • in Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November. : S • 1986. . • • S • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART ' SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES .1 COARSE GRAINED, more thari half ' of material is jqMgLr than No. 200 sieve size. flRAVF.I S CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand More than half of mixtures, little or no fines. coarse fraction is GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand larger than No. 4 mixtures, little or no fines. sieve size but smaller than 3". GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel- (Appreciable amount sand-silt mixtures. of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel- sand, clay mixtures. SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly sands, little More than half of or no fines. - coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little smaller than No. 4 or no fines. sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty • (Appreciable amount - mixtures. of fines) SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. FINE GRAINED, more than half of material is smaller. than No. 200 sieve size. SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, • rock flour, sandy silt or clayey-silt- sand mixtures with slight plasticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, • . gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS. MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous • . fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.. Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fa(lays. greater than 50 . OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. - Water level at time of excavation or as indicated . CK - Undisturbed chunk sample US - Undisturbed, driven ring sample or tube sample - Bulk Sample SC .- Sand Cone . . . SP - Standard penetration sample CON - Consolidation . DS - Direct Shear El - Expansion Index . . SA - Sieve Analysis MS . - Maximum Size of Parti&le P1 - Plastic Index• S MAX - Maximum Density RC - Relative Compaction ST - Shelby Tube . • . -. CONCORDIA HOMES, CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY: TMKIJBR/KMS DATE: . 11/11/99 SOIL & TESTING, INC. • JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NUMBER: 4 LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-I Date Excavated: 9/13/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: 24" Diameter Bucket Auger Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 226 Kelly Weight: 0'-27' 3500# 27'-55' 2400# SAMPLES -- co 0 it 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS oCO coiu D 00 >- 0 z —J. - SM Topsoil/Colluvium - Dark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND, with - - - - - Occasional Shell Fragments and some Coarse Sand _4 6 3.6 110.1 DS US -6 S — SM Terrace Deposits (Qt) - Light Brown, Humid, Loose To Medium - 8 Dense, SILTY SAND 10 US 2 3.9 101.1 CON 12 At 12' Becomes Medium Dense To Dense MAX 14 S US 4 7.7 116.8 OS • — Contact Strike N37E, Dip 10 degrees N 16 SM/ Santiago Formation (Ts) - Tan, Moist To Very Moist, Very Dense, 18 SC SILTY SAND with Trace to Some Clay 20 — US 5 13.0 118.8 22 5 5 5 5 5 24 -S.. -, 5 9.0 123.2 US 26 — 28 V 28.5' To 28.8' Minor Seepage 30— SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORD IA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 I S S SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TSW/JBRITMK IDATE: 10/26/99 I< IT> IJOB NUMBER 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 5 I LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-I continued Date Excavated: 9/13/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: 24" Diameter Bucket Auger Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 226' Kelly Weight: 0-27' 3500# 27'-55' 2400# SAMPLES _ C) Z_ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 0 Z a Z_ D Z W >.. : SC/ Santiago Formation (Ts) - Tan, Moist to Very Moist, Very. Dense, - - 32 SM SILTY SAND and CLAYEY SAND -34 US 8 9.4 122.2 DS ,36 -38 - 40 Gradational Conact - Nearly Horizontal 42 ML Grayish Brown, Moist, Hard, CLAYEY SILTSTONE 44 US 10/9" 12.3 122.5 46 48 50 - - - - - - - BORING ENDED AT 50 FT. 52 0 Minor Seepage. at 28.5' Hole Back Filled with On Site Materials -54 - 0 56 . 0 -58 60 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 0 CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 [1 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TSW/JBRrrMK DATE - 10/19/99 JOB NUMBE 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 6 LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-2 Date Excavated: 9/13/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: 24" Diameter Bucket Auger Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 219' Kelly Weight: 0-27' 3500# 27'-55' 2400# SAMPLES -- - 0 h SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - o miub co- - 0 SM Colluvium/Slopewash (Qcol/Qsw)- Dark Brown to Gray Brown, - - Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND _4 - -6 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Light Reddish Brown, Humid to MOist, - US us 3 3.7 109.0 MAX Loose, Massive SILTY SAND 10 ' 3/11 14.0 98.5' DS 12 - 14 At 12.5 FT.: Becomes Reddish Brown 4- US 3/10' 4.5 101.5 16 - - 18 20 ' .. - US 3/8" 8.7 102.0 DS 22 24 26 . .- -28 sci - ' ' LL=34 - 30 CL Becoming CLAYEY SAND/SANDY CLAY .. , P1=16. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 T SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER 9911167.1 PLATE NO LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-2 continued Date Excavated: 9113/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: 24" Diameter Bucket Auger Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +I- 219' Kelly Weight: 0-27' 3500# 27-55' 2400# SAMPLES 0 0 w Q) Z .>0,-:- Q- SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . o a z_ Z D • z W 2O a_ >- • - - a - - - - Contact Gradational and Horizontal - US - 4 SM/ sc Light Brown and Greenish Gray, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense, 32 SILTY SAND with Some Small Pockets of SANDY CLAY and CLAYEY SAND Massive .34 36 38 S 40 • • • 3/10" DS US SC Green-Tan, Saturated, Medium Dense to Dense, CLAYEY SAND with • 42 - Some SANDY CLAY, Contact Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION (Is), Tan, Moist to V&y • 44 . S Moist, Very Dense, Massive, SILTY SAND S 46 48 S BORING ENDED AT47 FT. • - - Hole Back Filled with Onsite Materials S 50 52. S S S 5 1 54 - •5 5 S 56 1 58 5 60- 5L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 BY: TSW/JBR/TMK • DATE 10/19/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 1PLATE NO.: 8 LOG OF BORING NUMBER B-3 Date Excavated: 9/13/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: 24" Diameter Bucket Auger Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 209' Kelly Weight: 0-27' 3500# 27-55 2400# SAMPLES - af C.) SUMMARYOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS • mLuö -iS - SM TOPSOIL Dark Red Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND - - - SM/ sc TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Humid, Loose, US Becoming CLAYEY SAND at 5' 4 CON/ 6 . LL/ • . . . P1=10 - 8 SM Tan, Humid to Moist, Very Dense, SILTY FINE-SAND/SAND with. Occasional Medium to Coarse Sand 10 US . . 12 CON 12 . •. 14 -. us io BORING ENDED AT 15 FT. 16 Back Filled with Onsite Materials S .18 .20 22 5 24 S • _-S • 26 S 28 - • 30— 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. [<ST BY: - TSW/JBR/TMK • DATE: • 10/19/99 JOB NUMBER 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 9 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-1 Date Excavated: 9/14/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: Backhoe wl 24" Bucket Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation(ft): +1- 283' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES 0 W - o 0 o. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS co . 2co SM FILL (Qafl - Dark Brown, Dry, Loose To Medium Dense, SILTY SAND. - 1 -2 . -3 - At 3.5 ft.: 3-Inch Discontinuous Layer of Asphaltic Concrete SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Dry To Humid, Bulk Max Medium Dense, SILTY SAND - Low to Moderate Cementation -6 -7— TRENCH ENDED AT7FT. - 8 Backfihled S -9 * S L - -d.- 10 (S /\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 Se.) SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 10 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-2 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE w/24" BUCKET Project Manager: -TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1-262 Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES a uJ - 0 o .- SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I... c/) SM TOPSOIL bark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -2 - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt)-Reddish Brown, Humid, Loose -to US Medium Dense, SILTY SAND -4 • At 4': Becomes Dense • -5 -6 -7- TRENCH ENDED AT 7 FT. - 8 Backfihled -9 -4 -10— - 5L SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 IBY: - JSW/JBRITMK IDATE: 10/26/99 I JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 [PLATE NO.: 11 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-3 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 253' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES C.) 0 - co SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SM FILL (Qaf) - Light Brown, Humid, Medium Dense, SILTY SAND -1 -2 -3— SM COLLUVIUM (Qcol) - Dark Brown, Humid to Moist, Loose, SILTY. SAND -4 -5 At 5.5 ft.: Becomes Loose to Medium Dense - 6 -7 -8 -9 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Red Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense SILTY SAND- 10 - . TRENCH. ENDED AT 10 FT. - - Backfihled SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 T SOIL& TESTING, INC. IBY: JSW/JBRITMK IDATE: 10/26/99 I NUMBER: 9911167.1I PLATE NO.: 12 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-4 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24 BUCKET Project Manager: .TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 254 Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES 0 W ' CL 0 - - SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS z 0 > -J 0 SM TOPSOIL-bark Brown, Humid, Loose, SILTY SAND SANTIAGO FORMATION(Ts)-Tan, Humid, Very Dense, US SM Massive, SILTY SANDSTONE -2 -- -4- TRENCH ENDED AT 4FT. Backfihled -5 .- -6 - -7 -8 9 'l I -10 — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & JESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: '13 CONCORDIA HOM ES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 JSW/JBR/TMK IDATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.11 PLATE NO 14 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL& TESTING, INC. LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-5 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE wl 24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 236' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES 0 - SUMMARYOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS co SM COLLUVIUM (Ocol) - Dark Brown, Humid, Loose, SILTY SAND -1 -2 -3 -4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Light Brown, Humid, Loose to US Medium Dense, SILTY SAND 3.1 111.9 US -7 US 3.4 118.9 -8 At 8 ft.: Becomes Mot .9 10 - TRENCH ENDED ATIIFT. Backfilled LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-6 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24' BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 225' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES W () SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 40 Lu D co SM TOPSOIL - bark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -1 -2 -3— SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Denser SILTY SAND' . -4 US • . ' 1.4 122.5 - At 4.5-ft.: Becomes Dense -7— ---S - TRENCH ENDED AT 7 FT. • Backfilled -8 • -9 5 -10--- /\ 'SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORD'IA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL& TESTING INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.11 PLATE NO.: ' 15 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER-T-7 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 220 Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES a W -CL- C) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . of Lu I— 2', SM TOPSOIL - DarkBrown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -1 -2 -3— SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY-SAND -4 -5 - US • -6 -7— TRENCH ENDED AT 7 FT. - - Backfilled -8 -9 5 -10— 5-- SOUTHERN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.11 PLATE NO.: 16 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-8 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 234' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES a W - - 0 a - Of SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . .0 . C/) DD - Z 0 >_ 00 z -j a SM TOPSOIL - Dark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -1 -2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Humid, Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND . -4 Medium Dense to Dense S -5 US 4.3 119.7 -6 ._ . -7 . -8 -9 TRENCH ENDED AT 9 FT. Backfilled -10 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.11 PLATE NO.: 17 4- LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-9 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +/- 251' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES WW 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS co D 00 SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol) - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND, Highly Porous To 3' - 1 us SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Dark Reddish Brown, Humid, US Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND -7 Medium Dense 1 -8' TRENCH ENDED AT8FT. Backfilled -9 - -10 — ------ - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.11 PLATE NO.: 18 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-10 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager:. . TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 264' - .. Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES LU = 0 •. .- . W SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . 7) D I— Cl) LU Z)Cl) Co 0 W o . - 2 00 0 > —J - a SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol) - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -1— sd RESIDUAL SOIL - Reddish Brown, Humid, Medium Stiff, - 2 CL SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND - Sc, SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - Tan, Hirnid To Moist, Very Dense, SM CLAYEY SANDSTONE/SILTY SANDSTSONE -4 - - .- — US 5.0 128.4 5 . . -6 -7—' - TRENCH ENDED AT FT. Backfihled -8 -9 . .• -. -10 — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NCJMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 19 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-11 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 253' Depth to Water (ft): N/A co M SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS a Q z 0 0 • SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol) -Park Gray Brown,Dry, - Loose, SILTY SAND - 1 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Js) - Tan, Humid, Very Dense, SILTY SANDSTONE - 2 -3 -4 S - -5 TRENCH ENDED AT 5 FT. Backfilled 10 I • 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA • CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL& TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 20 - LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-12. V Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOEw/ 24'! BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 235' - f,, Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES ca . . . w O (/) CL . . SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . W co I- 0... . - U) . . .. . z 0 > —J SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Ocol) - Dark Bown,Dry, Loose, SILTY-SAND -1 .J . -2 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Light Brown, Humid to Moist, - SM Loose to Medium Dense, SILTY SAND4' - 3 - • .- :> - $ .VC . US 2.5 1193 CON 4 • ,. ' - — --rr- - • 5 . •- . -6 . .• j•.,. Loose to Medium DehsiF US 3.8 110.6 7 At 7 ft. to 9 ft.: Becomes Gray Brown - • - - • /•.-- . - - • US • . -.' - -9 At 9 ft.: Becomes Reddish Brown -10 . . - . • ...4•. TRENCH ENDED AT-11 ft., .• Backfilled SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA C9NC9RDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: \ - JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER:• 991116 7.11 PLATE NO.: .21 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-13 Date Excavated: 9/15/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: Backhoe w/24" Bucket Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +/- 259' Depth to Water (ft): N/A 0 w D 0 c. - of >- SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SM ITOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol)-Dark Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND 1 2 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts) - Grayish Tan, Humid, Very Dense, SILTY SANDSTONE, Massive 3 US 4 -5 SM/ White, Humid To Moist, Very Dense, SILTY, Fine to Coarse, SP SAND! SANDSTSONE, Massive -7 — US -8 -9 -10 — TRENCH ENDED AT 12 FT. Backfilled SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBRITMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 22 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER 1-14 Date Excavated 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24. BUCKET ... Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 287' ? - --' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES - 0- SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE-CONDITIONS i. Cl) a ui ' 0 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown Dry, Medium Dense to Dense, SILTY SAND Cemented, SligtI5 derately Porous IL -3 ..--.- 4; REFUSAL WITH BACKiOE'@.5FT. BackfiIIed.ç, - 4 . - -5 _i ' . -. A -6 2 , _ • . 74 - -8 • 1. .14, -9 - 10 — - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONcORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL $,-TESTING, INC. BY: •JSWIJBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99' JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 23 -. . i-• ' . . *'. LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-1 5 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 253' Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES a W - C) >- Lu SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. o 2m z z 0 > < -j a SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol) - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -2 -3 -4 - -5 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Dry, Loose to Medium US 1.1 104.9 Dense, SILTY SAND -6 -7 US .1.4 105.2 -8 At 8 ft.: Becomes Humid to Moist, Loose to Medium Dense TRENCH ENDED AT9.FT. - Backfilled . -In - - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONDORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL'& TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBRJTMK I DATE: . 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.11 PLATE NO.: 24 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-16 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 226' ---. Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES co SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS S co SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol) - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND - -1 -2 WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Dark Reddish Brown, SM Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND, Moderately Porous -3 - -4----------------.------------------------------- SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Humid, - 5 Medium Dense To Dense, SILTY SAND US 1.4 115.1 - - - -6 At 6ft.: Becomes Very Dense to Dense 7 - TRENCH ENDED AT 7 FT. Backfihled -8 5 -9 S - -10 — ..-- • - __ - 4, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: .. JSW/JBR1MK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 25 M LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-17 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: . TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 246 Depth to Water (ft): N/A SAMPLES co SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS D Co a . z O• >< —J a SM TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM (Qcol) - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -2 - -3— - Sc WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS (Ot) - Dark Reddish Brown,. Humid, Loose, CLAYEY SAND - . . . . -4— SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Reddish Brown, Moist, Medium Dense,. SILTY SAND . 5 0 - MAX US -6 -7— TRENCH ENDED AT 7 FT. - - Backfihled . -8 . . . -9 -10 — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA . CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 s) SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBRJTMK DATE: . 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: . 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 26 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-18 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (It): +1- 229' - - Depth to Water (It): N/A SAMPLES UJ Ld SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM (Qcol)- Dark Brown. Dry. Loose. SILTY SAND 1 -2 CL RESIDUAL SOIL - Brown, Moist, Stiff, SANDY CLAY, El Gradual Contact -3 -4— - - TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Light Brown To Tan, Humid, SM Dense, SILTY SAND -5 NOW— U 4.1 131.9: -6 - - MAX 7 0• -8 T. -9 -10 TRENCH ENDED AT 12 FT. " Backfilled 11 0 ,\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 Si SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 27 -4 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-19 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment:• BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 220 Depth to Water (ft): N/A 0 w H '?U) Cl) n I— - W - C/) Z E5 - z. 0 D Of SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SM 1TOPSOIL- Dark Reddish Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND CU 2 sc RESIDUAL SOIL - Brown, Moist, Stiff, SANDY CLAY/ CLAYEY SAND SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) Dark Reddish Brown, Humid, Medium Dense to Dense, SILTY SAND 4— TRENCH ENDED AT4FT. Backfihled 5 6 7 8 9 -10 _11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 - SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 28 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-20 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (if): +1- 205 - - Depth to Water (if): N/A - . A () I(/) 0- . SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS _J W 0 - Z of D )_ - z 0 >. - a • SM - FILL (Qaf) -'Reddish Brown, Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND 1 SM TOPSOIL - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND 2 CL RESIDUAL SOIL - Brown,Humid To Moist, Stiff, SANDY CLAY! 3 CLAYEY SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) -.Dark Reddish Brown, Humid, -4 - ----- - SM Medium Dense to Dense, SILTY SAND - us I - 5 1 - 4 6—J _- - TRENCH ENDED AT6FT. Backfihled 7 -( —10 L11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA •CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 V11 SOIL,&JESTINGP INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 - • JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 29 1 -C LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-21 Date Excavated: 9/16/99 5 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: TMK Surface Elevation (if): +1- 243 Depth to Water (ft): N/A S L! SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . Lu SM TOPSOIL - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND -1 -2 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Orange Brown, Humid, SM Medium Dense to Dense, SILTY SAND S - 4 . S US 3.0 121.2 -5 - -6 5 - -7 -8 5 5 -9 -10 TRENCH ENDED AT 10 FT. . S I Backfilled S SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CAR LS BAD TRACT 96-03 - SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 30 LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-22 Date Excavated 9/16/99 Logged by: JBR Equipment: BACKHOE W/24" BUCKET Project Manager: •TMK Surface Elevation (ft): +1- 248 Depth to Water (ft): N/A _ • • 0 LU - 0 o. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Q - z 0 0 SM 4- TOPSOIL - Dark Brown,Dry, Loose, SILTY SAND • _ -1— • TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - Dark Reddish Brown, Humid, SM Medium Dense to Dense, SILTY SAND -2 3 4-. TRENCH ENDED AT 3 FT. Backfilled -4 -6 4 - -7 -8 4-.-- - —10 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES-CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 T SOIL.,&JESTING, INC. BY: JSW/JBR/TMK DATE: 10/26/99 - JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE NO.: 31 p Cl) I—C/) LU I- MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT JMETHOD- A I IASTM - D1557-91 SAMPLE Bi at 11'to 14' DESCRIPTION Light Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) MAXIMUM DENSITY 125.8 MO (pcf) P.8.8 B2 at 6' to 8' Light Reddish Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) 127.9 7.8 Ti at 4' to 6' Reddish Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) 123.6 10 T17.at4' to 5' Reddish Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) 125.1 10.1 Ti8 at 6' to 8' Light Brown to Tan, SILTY SAND (SM) 122.8 9.7 EXPANSION INDEX (El) TEST RESULTS SAMPLE El VALUE T18 at 2' to 3' :. 41 CONCORDIA HOMES- PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CARLSBAD TRACT#96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: KMS/TMK DATE: 12/12/99 JOB No.: 9911167.1 IPLATE No.: 32 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5000 4500 4000 3500 '-I U. - - C) 3000 Lu 2500 UJ 2000 1500 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] (2 13/32" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) Bi at 5' Dark Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) 34 0 100 Topsoil / Alluvium- - - 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 s7 -SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TMK/KMS DATE: 11/17/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 33 -I DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5000 4500 4000 3500 IL 3000 Cl) 2500 - UJ 2000 1500 1000 500 - S __ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 '5000 NORMAL STRESS [KSF] (2 3/8" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION 'INTERNAL S INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) Bi at 15 -Light.Brown, SILTY SAND (SM) ' 35 ° S 100 Terrace Deposit S , SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 ' (s)j SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TMK/KMS DATE: 11/17/99 S S JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 34 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 - J 2500 W2000 7,• 7' 1500 1000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 NORMAL STRESS [KSF] (23/8" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) 61* at 35' Tan, SILTY SAND (SM) and CLAYEY 32 0 200 SAND (SC) - Santiago Formation (Ts) B1** at 35' . Tan, SILTY SAND (SM) and CLAYEY 36 800 SAND (SC) - Santiago Formation (Ts) * Shear Strength at 0.200 in Horizontal Deformation ** Peak Shear Strength (1. sOUTHERN CALIFORNIII CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 (jJ SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TMK/KMS DATE: 11/17/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 35 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5000 4500 4000 3500 I- Cn 3000 Cl) 2500 W 2000 1500 'ldoo • 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 '5000, NORMAL STRESS [KSF] (2 3/8" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION. 'INTERNAL . INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) B2 at 10' Light Reddish Brown, SILTY ' 31 ° - 100 ' SAND (SM) '- , Terrace Deposit (Qt) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 la . SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TMK/KMS DATE: 11/17/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 36 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5000 4500 4000 3500 U) 3000 2500 I- Cl) W 2000 Cl) 1500 1.000 - .500 .44 0 500 1000 1500 2000. 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 NORMAL STRESS [KSF] (23/8" SAMPLE) - ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL S INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION - FRICTION (PSF) -U B2 at 20 Reddish Brown, SILTY SAID (SM) 32 ° 100 -4--- Terrace Deposit (Qt)' - -M -f - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA * CONçORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 S -SOIL &TESTING, INC. BY: ..TMK/KMS DATE: 11/17/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 37 - 54 - .-.--- -' ------\ - -'_•c • .7 7. -- 74 'S DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5000 4500 4000 3500 U- 3000 U) U) 2500 U) Ui 2000 .1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 '5000 NORMAL STRESS'[KSFJ (2 3/8" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION ' (PSF) B2 at 40' Light Brown and Greenish Gray, SILTY ' 29 ° 200 SAN D(SM), with Pockets of Sandy Clay (CL) and CLAYEY SAND - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ' CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TMK/KMS DATE: 11/17/99 - , ' JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 IPLATE NO.: 38 WATER ADDED --> 4 - cn 10 12 fit 14 15 0.1 0.5 ' 1.0 5.0 • 10.0 LOAD - flcip:/:sq. ft:) SAMPLELOCTIOF1 BI@10' SOUTJIERN CALIFORNIA -. CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL.'.& TETSTING, INC. TMK/KMS DATE: 12/29/99 JOB NUMBER: • 9911167.1 PLATE No: 39 .- M. . . jTEE ___ WATER ADDED CL _ 5 -- 2 I- 12 6 0 7 10 U) 2 08 10 9 10 I . I 12 I 13 14 1 5 - - - - - - - - - 0.1 0.5 1.0 5 5.0 10.0 LOAD (kip / sq. ft.) SAMPLE LOCATION B3@5.0' I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TETSTING, INC. CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 BY: TMK/KMS • DATE: 12/29/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE No: 40 0 1 2 3 12 6 I— I to (1) z 08 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 4 WATER ADDED 1 0.1 ¶ 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 LOAD (kip I sq. ft.) SAMPLE LOCATION 112@3.0' S I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES - CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 SOIL& TETSTING, INC. BY: TMK/KMS DATE: 12/29/99 JOB NUMBER: 9911167.1 PLATE No: 41 ( CRUSHED ROCK BACKFILL 3/4" HEIGHT OF WALL TT\j \ 6" 5 /• BACKCUTAS PER SOIL ENGINEER RECOMMENDATION 12" MINIMUM - SUBDRAIN 12" BELOW SLAB ON GRADE 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE SDR35 OR EQUIVALENT WITH FALL _WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL FOLLOWING ARCHITECT'S! ENGINEER'S SPECIFICATIONS 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK OR MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT TYPE 'B' FILTER FABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL 140N MIRAFAI OR EQUIVALENT TYPE 'A' TYP.ICAL RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale TYPE A 3 CUBIC YARDS / LINEAR FOOT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA HOMES, CARLSBAD TRACT 96-03 S+T SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: TMK/JBRJKMS ' DATE: 12/29/99 JOB NO: 9911114 1. PLATE NO: 42 ' \ V A - - - - - --V I - I - 1 - - .5S - L - .5 .. ;_., . 555 • _ .•: .V.•• -V S - - . . S. - . - . VSV '. ..S S - , 'VS : S ••' - S , _, -'S , - I-V - -, . -S • - .5 V •_ --V 5, - S. I -_•S - I. - - 5,• .1 '5 - -. 'V. '.• - -'--!•.. • . '.: - --_ '•'. 5_ ,V__S - 5- - S V V - V - . . r. . - - - - - -. - : , - -- V - A ' - - V - - V V I - - / V .. - -V - - -5- - V V -- V -V 'V •, VSS - - - '5'''' V V V 5, -VV - --••. -S.- N . - V_, V - S. -. SSV -. V S' -V .' 5, ', S_S •.. V.---.- 5 •S , - 'V V V\ V V_ 5 V S. V• 5_ .5 5, V V' • '" 5 55. - •• V '55, V, S-V -: -. - V' V 'S - I•._ .5 ,, V - -OC, S©IL HL uc -- I -96 :1 -' SCS&T 9911167 2 January 3, 2000 Appendix A, Page 1 PACIFIC VIEW ESTATES PROPOSED UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 OF TRACT #96-03, CARLSBAD RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL INTENT - - The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural - ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting ifil soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechrncal report fr which they are a part No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified m the geotechmcal report or in other written communication signed by the Geoteclmical Engineer OBSERVATION AND TESTING Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., shall be retained, as the Geotechrncal Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications It will be necessary that the Geotechmcal Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechrncal Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provided these opinions In th event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechmcal report are encountered during the grading operations The Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations - I / C. . SCS&T 9911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Appendix A, Page 2 If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer,' substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compact1on, adverse weather, etc. construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommended rejection of this work Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be per in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D-1557-91 Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoiig ASTM testing procedures PREPARATION oE AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL - 1 All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris / After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed o firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soils The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the - d SCS&T 9911167 .21 January 3r, 2000 Appendix A, Page 3 equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at .a gradient of not less than two pèrcënt. All other benches should be: at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted 0 natural ground. Ground 'slopes fltter, than 20 percent',Shall be benched, when considered 0 necessary by the Geotechnical Engmeer . Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any, proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resultmg depressions O from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted 0 to the requirements of the Geotechmcal Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach fines, storm drains and water lines. 'Any'buried structures 0 or utilities no to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechrncal Engineer / so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechmcal Engmeer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below.the bottom of footmg whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechmcal Engineer' and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechmcal Engmeer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered m the geotechmcal report or Special Provisions Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the / I SCS&T 9911,167 .2 January 3, 2000 Appendix A, Page 4 Geotechnical, Engineer. Any import. material shall be approved by,-the Geotecimical Engineer obefre being brought to the site - S S. • 5, •5, PLACING AND COMP1A6TION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness.: Each layej. shall have 'a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction-effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of 'compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliiniitary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled w1tlTsoil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved The maximum size and spacmg of rock permitted in structural fills and th,noii-structuralfillsis dis6ussed1n the geotechnical report,. when applicable Field observation and comãction tests to istim.ate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechmcal Engineer or his representative The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechmcal Engineer's discretion When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to - the satisfaction of the Geotechmcal Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained , • -5. .5 5 S Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be vertical intervals of not greater than four feet In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horiz6ntal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackro lied & SCS&T 9911167 .2 -January 3, 2000 Appendix A, Page 5 Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from. the fmishéd face of the slope having a r1ativë cmpactipn of 'at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable Density tests m the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written commumcation from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report " - If the method of 'achieving the required. slopecompaction' selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer CUT SLOPES The Engineer ng Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the gradmg operations at intervals determined at his discretion If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, Joints or fault planes are encountered during grading,, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary Unless otherwise speciflea in the geotechmcal report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than the allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency - It •' I &I.... SCS&T 9911167 .2 January 3, 2000 Appendix A, Page 6 ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction SEASON LIMITS - >. I Fill shall not be placed during uif4vorab1e weather conditions When work is interrupted by heavy ram, flllmg operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaled site conditions. resulting from weather or acts of. : God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRAT)ING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at leat 90 percent. For. stredt and parking lot subgrade, the upper six mchesshould be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction EXPANSIVE SOILS Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-C. . . OVERSIZED MATERIAL Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless SCS&T 9911167 2 January..3, 2000 Appendix A, Page 7 -V. recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No 4 U.S. Standard Sieve TRANSITION LOTS Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed buildmg pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required V . ( t - • ••• .- -. •.. . •. • .• I - — / ..••- . • •. • - ¼ I I - -. . .. : -'- - . •,. .. - . - . •. - - - - - .2 . . . - . - • -- . -: - - • .- -* - . I S --S - - -,. , . S S • - -- :. • — - '•. -5- -'-- - J ¼- - - - .1 - - • I I — I — / 4 -- - -: - - •- • r - . - - -- - - - - _ - . - S. I • -- S.-.- - -- - - - . - •- -- 5 . . - •• .•v - /7 . . - -- - - .5 - - .. -• - . S _•i• _, .-.-. S 5___ - :- - 'S - -•- - :..-• 5. .- -- .- . -. - H • -S.... -.•' . -- - --5-, •- -. ••• . . . . - S - •S -S -- . . . S -- • - -. - - •- I •• • - - 0 - 5- - - SO L X T E TO N Gq, lNd4.'- W6 - •.5_ I- - - -5----' :- - S — - __ - -5 — - . - :- -. - S_-S .-.--- - • -, S. -, . p - • s -• 5-5- / ** STABL6H by Purdue University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified JaPbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 12-14-99 Time of Run:, 2:27pm Run By: ' t.m.kumar Input Data Filename: C:PACIFIC.1 Output Filename: ' C:PACIFIC.OUT Plotted Output Filename: 'C:PACIFIC.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION concordia homes, Pacific view, Carlsbad job#9911167.1 BOUNDARY COORDINATES 'NOTE: 'User defined origin was specified.--' :Add 00.00 to X values and 110.0'0 -to Y values listed. 7 Top Boundaries 9;Total Boundaries , Boundary X.-Left ' Y-Left X-Right'' Y-Right Soil Type No. ' (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) , • Below Bnd 1 ' ' .00 78.50 20.00 "78.50 , ' 2 2 20.00 ' 78.50 45.00 ' , 95.00 , 2 3 45.00 95.00 53.00 98.00 2 ' 4 53.00 98.00 , 68.00 103.00 1 5 '68.00 103.00 , ' 68.50 109.00 , 1 ,6 68.50 ' 199.00 100.00 124.00 ' 1 7 100.00 124.00 200.00 124.00 1 8 53.00 98.00 , 200.00 .115.00 ' 2 9 . ..00 ' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 67.00 200.00 67.00 . 3 ' ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept . Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. . (pcf) ' (pcf). (psf) (deg) Param. ' '(psf) No.' 1 133.0 138.0 200.0 31.0 .00 .0 1 2 135.0 138.0 100.0 32.0 .00 '.0 1 3 135.0 138.0 300.0 32.0 .00 .0 ' 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 37.00 84.50 ' 2 200.00 84.50 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces,.Has Been Specified. 150 Trial Surf aHave Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground—Surface Between X = 20.00 ft. and X = 40.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates 'Between X = 53.00 ft. and X = 120.00 ft. Unless Further, Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y =* .00 ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial - , Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point .X-Surf. Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.86 80.39 2 . 27.86 80.36 3 32.85 80.59 4 37.83 81.08 5 42.77 81.83 6 47.67. 82.83 7 52.51 84.09 8 57.27 85.60 9 61.96 87.36 10 66.54 89.36 11 71.01 91.59 12 75.37 94.05 13 791.58 ' 96.7.4 14 83.65 99.64 15 87.57 102.75 16 ' 91.32 106.06 17 94.89 109.56 18 98.27 113.24 19 101.46 117.10 20 104.44 ' 121.11 • 21 ' 106.36 124.00 Circle Center At X -. 25..9 .; Y = 1,76.3 and Radius, 1.493 ' Failure Surface Specified By, 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. , (ft) (ft) 1 • 22.86 . 80.39 2 27.82 80.99 3. 32.76 . 81.78 4 37.66' 82.75 .5 42.53 83.91 6 47.34 7 52.10 86.78' 8 56.80 88.49 9 61.44 ' 90.37 10 66.00 . 92.42 11 . 70.47 94.65 12 74.86 97.04 13 79.16 , 99.60 14 83.35 102.32 is 87.44 105.20 16' ' 91.42 108.23 17 95.28 111.41 18 99.01 114.73 19 102.62 118.19 20 106.10 121.79 21 108.08 124.00 Circle Center At X = 9.5 ; Y= 211.7 and Radius, 132.0 1.498 *** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf No. . (ft) 1 22.86 2 27.79 3 32.68 4 0 3753 5 42.33 6 47.07 7 51.75 8 . 56.35 9 60.88 10 65.32 11 69.67 12 73.92 13 - 78.07 14 82.11 15 86.03 16 89.82 17 93.49 18 97.03 19. 100.42 20 101.80 Circle Center At X .Y-Surf (ft) 80.39 81.23 82.26 83.47 84.88 86.46 88.23 90.18 92.30 . 94.60 97.06 99.69 102.49 105.44 108.54 111.79 115.19 118.73 122.39 124 .00 3.5 ; Y = 208.7 and Radius, 129.7 1.503 .*** Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points. Point X-Surf Y--Surf No. (ft) . (ft) 01 20.00 78.50 .0.2 24.88 77.41 3 29.83 76.70 34.82 76.37 5 39.82 76.44 6 44.80 7 49.73 8 54.58 9 59.32. 10 63.92 11 68.3.6 12 72.60 13 14 80.41 15 83.93 16 87.17 17 90.09. 18 92.70 19 94.96 20 96.87 21 98.42 22 98.44 Circle Center AtX = 76.89 77. 72 78.94 80 .53 82.49 84.79 87.43 90.40 93.66 97.22 101.03 105.08 109.35 113.81 118.43 123.18 123.26 36.5 ; Y = 140.7 and Radius, 64.4 *** 1.537 *** Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf - Y-Surf . No. (ft) (ft) 1 24.29 81.33 2 29.28 81.19 . . 3 34.28 81.30 4 39.27 81.66 5 44.23 82.26 6 49.16 83.11 7 54.04 84.21 . 8 . 58.86 85.54. 9 . 63.60 . 87.11. . 10 . 68.27 . 88.92 11 72.83 90.95 . 12. 7729 93.21 13 81.64 95..69 . 14 85.85 98.38 15 89.93 101.28 16 93.85 104.37 17 97.62 107.66. . 18 101.22 111.13 19 104.65 . .. 114.78 . . . 20 .107.88 118.58 . . 21 110.93 122.55 22 111.93 . . 124.00 Circle Center At X = 29.6 ; Y = 181.9 and Radius, 100.7 *** 1.552 *** Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate POints Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 78.50 2 25.00 78.72 3 29.98 79.12 4 34.95 79.70 5 . 39.89 80.45 6 44.80 81.37 7 49.68 82.47 8 54.52 83.74 9 . 59.30 85.19 10 • . 64.04 86.80 11 68.71 88.58 12 73.32 90.52 13 77.85 92.63 14 82.31 94.89 15 86.68 97.31 16 . 90.97 99.89 17 95.16 102.61 18 99.25 105.49 19 103.24 108.50 20 .107.12 111.66 21 110.88 114.95 22 114.53 118.37 23 118.05 121.92 24 119.97 124.00 Circle Center At X = 16.3 ; Y = 219.4 and Radius, *** 1.563 *** 140.9 Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 78.50 2 24.88 77.40 • •• 3 •• 29.82 • 76.62 • • • • 4 34.80 76.16 • 39.79 • 76.03 • .6 • 44.79 • 76.22 7 49.76 76.74 . • 8. .69 , 77.58 . . 0 9 59.56 78.73 10 6434 80.20 . 11 69.01 81.98 S 12 73.56, 84.06 13 77.96 86.42 . 14 82.20 89.07 15 86.26 .91.99 . 16 90.12 95.17 17 93.77 98.59 18 97.19 102.24 19 100.36 106.10 20 103.28 110.16 21 . . 105.92 ' 114.41 5 22 108.29 118.81 23 110.36 . • 123.36 . S 24 110.60 124.00 S Circle Center At X = 39.3 ; Y = 153.0 and Radius, • 76;9 1.571 Failure Surface Specified By 21 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf 5 • No. . • (ft) . (ft) 5 1 27.14 -- ...21 . . 2 32.14 82.98 3 37.14 83.02 . • S •. 4 42.13 83.34 5 •. , 5 5 5. 47.09 83.94 • . , 5. 6 52.01 84.82 . S 7 56.88 85.97 . • . • . ' 8 . 61.67 87.39 9 • 66.38 89.07 . , . . • , .10 70.99 , ' 91.02 . S • 5 11 75.48 93.22' 5 . S. •. ' 12 ..79.84. 95.66 . . , • 13 84.06 ' 98.35' .. . . 14 ' • 88.12 101.26 15 ' 92.01 104.40 16 • 95.72 . ' 107.75 • . • S 17 99.24 111.30 " .• • • S S 18 102.56 115.05 • . S • 19 105.66 ' 118.97 20 108.53 123.06 5 5 5 5 5 21 109.12 . 124.00 5 5 S Circle Center At X = 33.9 ; Y = 172.5 and Radius, 89.6 • S 1.574 *** S S S • •, Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.71 82.27 2 30.71 82.53 3 35.69 82.99 4 40.64 83.65 5 45.57 84.51 6 50.46 85.57 7 55.30 86.82 8 60.08 88.27 9 64.80 89.91 10 69.46 91.74 11 74.03 93.76 12 78.52 95.96 13- 82.92 98.34 S 14 87.22 100.90 15 91.41 103.62 16 95.49 106.51 17 99.44 109.57 18 103.28 112.78 19 106.97 116.15 • • 20 110.53 119.66 21 ' 11395 123.31 22 114.54 124.00 • • S • Circle Center At X = 21.8 ;'Y = 206.0 and Radius, 123.8 1.578 **.* Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.43 79.44 2_ . 26.43 79.60 5 3 31.38. 80.29 4 36.23 81.50 5 40.93 83.21 6- -_45.42 85.41 7 49.65 88.08 • 8 153.58 91.17 5 9 .-57.15 5 94.67 10. 60.34 98.52 ' S,• 11 61.99 • 101.00 5 Circle CenterAt X = 22.4 ; Y 126.7 and Radius, 47.2 *** 1.587 *** V-Axis (ft) concordia homes, Pacific view,Carlsbad job#9911167.1 All surfaces evaluated.. C:PACIFIC.PLT By.: t.m.kumar 12-14-99 2:27pm 0 40 . •. 80 120 160 200 X-Axis (ft) Factors OfSafety Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 'concordia homes, Pacific view,Carlsbad job#9911167.1 Ten Most Critical. C:PACIFIC.PLT By: t.m.kumar 12-14-99 2:27pm I U £ .2 I # FS I Soil Total Saturated Cohe I sion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. a 1 .49 Label Tpe Unit Wt. Unit.Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface I 0' (pcf) (pcf) V (de1g) Parath (psf) No. b .50 Icoirp.fil 1 133 138 0 0 Wi c .50 I terrace 2 135 138 100 32 0 0 Wi d 1 .54 santiago 3 135 138 300 32 0 0 Wi a 1.55 f 1.56 g 1.57 a h 1.57 i 1 .58 ' I ?30 J 1.59 r ' I Y-Axis - - - - - - - - - - - - - wil (ft) 0 40 80 120 160 200 STABL6H FSmin1.49 X-Axis (ft) Factors Of Safety Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method ** STABL6H ** by ' Purdue University --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 12-14-99 Time of Run: 2:43pm Run By: t.m.kumar Input Data Filename: C:PACIFIC.2 Output Filename: C:PACIFIC.OUT Plotted 'Output Filename: C:PACIFIC.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION concordia homes, Pacific view.,Carlsbad 3ob#9911167.1 BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 110.00 to Y values listed.' 7 Top. Boundaries 9 Total Boundaries ' Boundary , X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. , (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 78.50 20.00 78.50 ' ' 2 2. 20.00 . 78.50 45.00 95.00 ' '2 3 45.00 95.00 53.00 98.00 2 4 . 53.00 . 98.00 68.00 103.00 1 5 68.00 103.00 ' 68.50 . .109.00 . ,1 6 68.50 109.00 100.00 124.00 , I 7 100.00 124.00 200.00 124.00 ' 1 8 53.00 . 98.00 200.00 115.00 ' 2 9 ' .00 . 67.00 ' 200.00 . 67.00 3 ' ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of-Soil Soil. Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) ' (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. ' (psf) I No. 1 133.0 138.0 200 .'0 31.0 .00 .0 1 2 135.0 138.0 100.0 32.0 .00 .0 :L 3 135.0 138.0 300.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED - Unit Weight of Water .= 62.40 PiezometricSurface No. I Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No, . (ft) . (ft) 1 - 37.00 84.50 2 , 200.00 84.50 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified 150 Trial' Surfaces Have-Been Generated. 10 Surfaced Initiate From Each Of 15 Points Equally Spaced Along. The Ground Surface. Between X,= 20.00 ft. and X = .53.00 ft. . Each Surface terminates Between X= 68.00 ft. ' ' and X = .130.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were' Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At' Which A Surface Extends Is Y = , .00. ft. 5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Dilayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial ' Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered '-''Most Critical •, First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu' Method ' * Failure Surface.Specified By 17 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.36 80.06 2 27.36 79.99 3 32.35 80.29 4 37.30 80.97 5 42.19 82.01 6 46.99 83.41 7 51.67 85.17 8 56.21 87.27 9 60.58 89.70 10 64.75 92.45 11 68.71 95.50 12 72.44 98.84 13 • 75.90 102.45 14 79.08 • 106.31 15 81.97 110.39 16 84.55 114.67 17 : 85.85 117.26 *•** 1.421 *** Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points • . • Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) : (ft) 1 22.36 80.06 • 2 27.14 78.58 3 32.02 77.50 : 4 36.97 76.81 5 • 41.96 76.52 6 4696 76.64 •. 7 51.93 77.16 8 56.85 78.08 • .9 61.67 • • 79.40 . 10 66.37 • 81.09 . 11 70.92 • 83.17 12 75.29 85.60 13 79.45 88.38 • 14 83.37 91.48 • • .15 87.03 • 94.89 16 90.40 98.58 .• 17 93.46 • 102.54 • 18 96.19 • 106.73 •0 19 98.57 111.12 • • 0 .20 100.60 • 115.69 • 21 102.24 120.41 • • • 22 103.18 124.00 • • • 0 *** 1.421 Failure Surface Specified By .17 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. .(ft) . (ft) 1 22.36 . 80.06 . . 2 27.22 78.88 S 3 32.17 .78'21 - 4 37.17 .78.05 5 42.16 78.41 • S S 6 47.08 79.29 7 51.89 . 80.67 8 56.52 82.53 • S - 9 60.95 84.87 10 65.10 87.65 11 68.95 90.84 . S 12 72.45 94.41 5 13 75.56 98.33 : • S 14 78.25 102.54 15 80.4.8 107.01 5 5 16 82.25 111.69 17 83.41. 116.10 1.422 5 5 Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points • 55 Point X-Surf Y-Surf • S-. S S No. (ft) (ft) •. S 1 22.-36 80.06 2 • 27.22 .78.91 3 32.18 78.28 5 5 5 4 3 7.18 78.18 5 . 5 •S S 5 42.16 78.62 • S 6 47.07 79.58 7 - 51.85 81.06- 8 56.44 83.04 5 5 5 9 60.79 . 85.50 .10 64ë6 .88.41 5 5 5 5 5 5 11 68.60 91.73 •S • S S 12, • 71.96 95 •435 S 13 74.91 99.47 5 14 77.41 103.80 S • 15 . 79.44 108.37 5 S . 16 . -. 80.97 113.13 17 81.38 115.14 5 5 *** 1.430 *** Failure Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 78.50 0 2 24.76 76.9.8 0 3 29.67 76.01 4 34.65 75.61 5 39.65 75.78 6 44.60 76.52 7 . 49.42 77.82 8 54.07 79.66 9 58.48 82.02 0 ; 10 62.59 84.87 11 66.35 88.16 0 12 . 69.71 91.87 13 72.63 95.93 14 .75.06 100.30 . 15 76.98 104.91 16 78.36 109.72 17 . 79.08 114.04 *** 1.432 ***' Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 0 0 1 20.00 78.50 2 24.86 . 77.32 . 3 . 29.78 76.45 4 34.75. 75.89 5 39.75 75.65 6 0 44.75 75.71 0 7 49.73 76.10 8 54.68 76.79 . 9. 59.58 77.80 10 . 64.40 79.11 •. 0 11 69.14 80.72 0 12 73.76 - 82.63 0 1.3 78.25 84.82 0 0 14 82.60 87.29 15 . 86.78 90.03 0 0 16 90.78 93.03 0 17 94'. 59 96.28 18 98.18' 99.75 19 ' 101.55 103.45 20 104.68 107.35 21 107.56 111.44 22 110.17 115.70 23 112.51 120.12 24 114.27 124.00 ***• 1.456 Failure -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surface Specified By 17 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. ' (ft) (ft) 1 27.07 83.17 ' 2 31.98 82.20 ' • ' ' ' • 3 36.96 81.75 ' 4 41.96 ' 81.81 5 '46.92 , 82.38 6 : 51.81 83.46 ' ' • ' 7 56.55 85.03 ' 8 61.11. 87.08 ' 9 65.44 - '89.59 10, 69.48 92.53 11 73.21 95.86 12 76.57 99.57 • ' •• ' 13. - 79.53 103.59 • 14 - 82.06 107.90 • 15 84.14 112.45 16 ' 85.74 '117.19 ' 17 - 85.75 117.21 • ' 1.487 *** • • Failure Surace Specified By 16 Coordinate Points • ' • Point - X-Surf Y-Surf' ' • No. - (ft) , (ft) • • • • 1 2707 ' 83.17 • • • 2 - • 32.07 83.23 ' • • ' • 3, 37.05 83.66' • ' ' 4 41.99 84.45 ' ' • • 5 46.85 85.61 ' " • 6 51.62 87.12 7 ' 56.26 ' 88.97 8 60.76 91.17 ' * 9 65.08 93.68 10 69.20 . 96.51 11 73.10 99.64 12 76.77 103.04 13 80.17 106.70 14 83.30 110.60. 15 . 86.13 114.73 16 88.28 118.42 *** 1.492 *** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. . (ft) (ft) 1 29.43 84.72 • 2 34.33 83.76 3 39.31 83.22 4 . 44.31 83.13 5 49.29 83.48 6 54.23 84.26 7 59.08 85.48 8 63.81 87.11 • . . . • • 9 68.37 • 89.16 10 72.73 • 91.60 11 76.86 94.42 12 80.73 97.58 13 84.31 101.08 14 87.56 104.87 15 90.47 108.94 • • 16 93.01 113.25 17. 95.16 117.76 18 96.91 122.45 19 96.93 122.54 *** 1.506 *** • Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf • . No. (ft) (ft) • . . 1 22.36 80.06 . .2 26.86 77.88 . :. .3 31.53 76.11 . . 4 36.34 74.74 • . ,. 5. . 41.25 73.79 . . 6 46.22 73.26 . . • 7 51.22 73.16 8 56.21 73.50 9 61.15 74.26 10 66.01 75.45 11 70.75 77.04 12 75.33 79.04 13 79.73 81.43 14 83.90 84.19 15 87.82 87.29 16 91.46 90.72 17 94.79 94.45 18 97.78 98.45 19 100.43' 102.70 20 102.69 107.15 21 104.57 111.79 22 106.04 116.57 S 23 107.09 121.45 5 5 24 107.41 124.00 1.507 *** A S S Y-Axis (ft) concordia homes,. Pacific view,Carlsbad job#9911167.1 All surfaces evaluated. .C:PACIFIC.PLT By:. t.m.kumar 12-14-99 2:43pm o . 40 - 80 .. 120 160 200 X-Axis (ft) . . Factors Of Safety Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method 4 Y-Axis (ft) concordia homes, Pacific view,Carlsbad job#9911167.1 Ten Most Critical. C:PACIFIC.PLT By: t.m.kumar 12-14-99 2:43pm - 0 40 80 120 160 STABL6H FSmin1 .42 X-Axis (ft) Factors Of Safety Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method