Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUP 06-12; ROBERTSON RANCH HABITAT CORRIDOR; GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2002-01-29- .,--..-- '•- -S. 'ARLS8AO -DPT GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH PROPERTY, CITY OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MCMILLIN CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2727 HOOVER AVENUE • . NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORN W.O. 3098-Al-SC . JANUARY 29, 2002 QIOL)'t .p 5"L(,5 (ç7) U? 1R17 W 10 rtPc çce \O. rvp Geotechnical • Geologic 9 Environmental GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH PROPERTY, CITY. OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR MCMILLIN CONSTRUCTION, INC. 2727 HOOVER AVENUE NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 91950 W.O. 3098-Al-SC JANUARY 29, 2002 Geotechnical -,Geologic - Environmental / 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 January 29, 2002 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Construction, Inc. 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Mitchell: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) has completed a geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the nature of earth materials underlying the site to determine the feasibility of residential and commercial construction from a geotechnical viewpoint. This report presents the findings of our work. Based on our findings and analyses, recommendations for site preparation, earthwork and foundations are provided for preliminary planning purposes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration (Appendix C), and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed construction appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented In the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: Earth materials unsuitable for the support of structures, settlement sensitive improvements, and/or compacted fill generally consist of existing artificial fill, colluvial soil, slump deposits, near-surface alluvium, and near-surface highly weathered formational earth materials (i.e., sedimentary and/or igneous bedrock). Complete to partial removals of tributary alluvium (on the order of 5 to 25 feet) should be anticipated. Partial removals within valley alluvial areas are anticipated to be on the order of approximately 5 to 6 feet, on to depths where saturated alluvial deposits are encountered. Removals on sloping areas, including colluvium and near-surface weathered formational earth materials are anticipated to be on the order of 3 to 5 feet thick throughout the majority of the site. An evaluation of rock hardness and rippability indicates that moderately difficult to very difficult ripping should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations in areas underlain by metavolcanics/granitics; however localized areas of shallower practical refusal should be anticipated. Rock requiring blasting to excavate will likely be encountered below these depths. Overexcavation should be considered in dense metavolcanic/granitics in proposed pads and street areas. Overexcavation is not a geotechnical requirement, however: Analysis performed to date indicates that the existing, west-facing natural slope located above Tamarack Drive is stable (i.e., factor of safety >1.0), but does not possess a minimum (per code, which is the industry standard).factor of safety of 1.5 (static) or 1.1 (seismic), typically required by most governing agencies. Tentatively, a minimum structural setback of at least 50± feet from the top of the existing slope will remove structures from areas with a factor Of safety of less than 1.5 (static), and provide appropriate mitigation. Additional work regarding natural slope stability is in progress Other than the above, planned cut and fill slopes are considered to be generally stable, assuming that these slopes are maintained and/or constructed in accordance with recommendations presented in this report; however, west-facing cut slopes constructed in sedimentary bedrock (Santiago Formation) may require stabilization due to adversebedding. Uquefaction analyses indicate that alluvial soils are generally susceptible to liquefaction; however, damaging deformations should be essentially mitigated by maintaining a minimum 10-to 15-feet thick, non-liquefiable soil layer beneath any proposed improvement. Groundwater was generally encountered at depths on the order of 6 to 30 feet below existing grades. Alluvial soils left in-place will settle due to the addition of foundation-and fill loads. The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed above the alluvium. For preliminary planning purposes, it may be anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the primary consolidation will occur within two to five months. For fill loads on the order of 15 to 25 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on. the order of 4 to 13± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 2 to 6± inches should be anticipated for this condition. For fill loads on the order of 5 to 10 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2± inches should be anticipated for this condition. Our experience in the site vicinity indicates that alluvial soils are generally represented by an uRn..value of 12, terrace deposits by 'an MR"-value of 19, and volcanic/granitic bedrock by an "R"-value of 45. Soils onsite have a generally low to high expansion potential, but should generally be in the low expansive range. McMillin ConstrucUon, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Fde:e:wp7\30OO\3098a1.geo • • Page Two GeoSoits, Inc. Site soils are anticipated to have a negligible to moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and are considered highly corrosive (when saturated) to buried metals, based on the available data. Conventional foundation. systems may be used for very low to medium expansive - soil conditions and relatively shallow fill areas (<30 feet). Post tension foundations may be used for all categories of expansive soil conditions, and are exclusively recommended for highly expansive soil conditions, deep fill areas (>30 feet), areas 1 with fill thickness differentials exceeding a ratio of 3:1, and in areas underlain with saturated alluvial sediments left in place. The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to. contact any of the undersigned. /FEl. Respectfully subrn)to\ . . '.-'/.' GeoSolls, Inc. Reviewe RCE 47857 1 L Ep.3UO) • * xp. <?~r7t G' n J74LjLLJ * vi W..SkeI 4b' Engineering Geolog Civil Engineer, RCE 4785?' RGC/DWS/JPF/EPL/Jh Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) T&B Planning Consultants, Attention: Mr. Joel Morse McMillin Construction, Inc. '• • W.O. 3098-Al-SC FiIe:e:\wp73000\3O98a1.geo . Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ......................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION .....................................................1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ..................................................1 FIELD WORK-FINDINGS ......................................................3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ....................................................4 EARTH MATERIALS .......................................................4 S Stockpile (Map Symbol - Stockpile) ................................... 4 Existing Fill (Map Symbol - afu) ...........................................4 Surficiat Slump Deposits (Map Symbol - QIs) ............................5 Colluvium (Not Mapped) .............................................5 Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA and QlB) .................................5 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) .....................................6 Santiago* Formation (Map Symbol - Tsa) ................................6 Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol - JsplKgr) ..................6 MASS WASTING .........................................................6 GROUNDWATER ........................................................7 REGIONAL SEISMICITY ..................................................7 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................9 Classification .......................................................9 Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density ..............................9 Expansion Index Testing ............................ . .................................. 11 11 • Direct Shear Tests ............................................ • .... ii. Consolidation Testing ...............................................11 Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Urnits ......................................11. Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity ...................................... .. 12 SEISMIC HAZARDS .........................................................12 • Liquefaction ................•........................................12 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS ..................................................14 Dynamic Settlements ...............................................14 SUBSIDENCE ....................•. ................. ......................15 GeoSoils, Inc. ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION . 15 Rock Hardness and Rippability ......................................15 SLOPE STABILITY .......................................................16 Gross Stability ......................................................16 Surflcial Stability ............................................16 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................16 General..........................................................16 RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION .......................17 General.........................................................17 Site. Preparation ...................................................17 Remávals .........................................................18 Overexcavation[rransitions ..........................................18 Fill Placement and Suitability ........................................19 Rock Disposal .....................................................19 Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less ............................19 Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter. 20 Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter .....................20 Rock Excavation and Fill ...........................................21 Subdrains.......................................................21 Earthwork Balance ................................................. 22 Shrinkage/Bulking ...........................................22 Erosion Control ...................................................22 Slope Considerations and Slope Design ..............................22 Graded Slopes ..............................................22 Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes ................................22 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................?3 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................23 General.........................................................23 RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS ......................23 General.........................................................23 Preliminary Foundation Design ......................................24 Bearing Value ..............................................24 Lateral Pressure .............................................24 Construction .....................................................24 POST TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN .........................................26 General.........................................................26 Subgrade Preparation • .. .......................................... 27 Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting ...................................28 Underslab Moisture Barrier .........................................28 McMillin Construction, Inc. Table of Contents File:e\wp7\3O00098a1.geo Page Ii GeoSoils, Inc. SETBACKS . 28 SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY .........................................29 SETTLEMENT...........................................................29 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS .....................29 General ............................................................ 29 Restrained Walls .....................................................30 Cantilevered Walls ..................................................30 Wall Backfill and Drainage .... . ........................................ .. ...................................... 31 Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ....................................31 . Top-of-Slope Walls ............................................32 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .......................................32 PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ., ............................... 33 General.........................................................33 Subgrade...........................................................34 . Base ............................................................ Paving ............................................................ 34 Drainage .......................................................... 35 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA .................35 Exterior Flatwork ..................................................35 Additional Site Improvements .......................................35 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ................................ 36 Drainage........................................................36 Trench Backfill ...................................................36 PLAN REVIEW ...........................................................37 LIMITATIONS ...... . . . .................. ........................,. ..........37 McMHIin Construction, Inc. . .• Table of Contents I FiIe:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo . . . . . . . Page ill GeoSoils, Inc. • .. FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map .........................................2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map .......................................10 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References ....................................Rear of Text Appendix B - Boring Logs and Test Pits ........................Rear of Text Appendix C - Boring Logs and Test Pits (GSI, 2001.c) ........... Rear of Text Appendix. D - Laboratory Data ...............................Rear of Text Appendix E - Laboratory Data (GSI, 2001 C). ...................... Rear of Text Appendix F - Slope Stability ....................................Rear of Text Appendix G - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines .........Rear of Text Plate 1 and 2- Geotechnical Maps ...................Rear of Text-in POcket LI / McMillin Construction, Inc. Table of Contents Fde:e:\wp7'3OOO\3098a1.geo • Page iv • •• GeoSoils, Inc. •.' GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF THE ROBERTSON RANCH PROPERTY, CITY OF CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: Review of readily'available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). Geologic site reconnaissance. Subsurface exploration consisting of six (6) small diameter borings with a hollow stem auger drill rig and 44 exploratory trench excavations using a rubber tire backhoe (Appendix B). Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program (Appendix D). Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is approximately 400 acres in size, consisting predominantly of several north to south trending ridgelines separated by intervening south flowing, alluviated drainages located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (See Site Location Map, Figure 1). Relief across ridges and the intervening drainages varies from approximately 40 to 50 feet within the eastern half of the property to approximately 100 to• 125 feet within the western portion of the site. Overall relief throughout the site varies from an approximate elevation of 200 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) within the northwestern portion of the property, down to an elevation of approximately 30 feet MSL within the south central portion of the-property. The largest of the drainage courses is-located along the eastern boundary of the site and appears to be occupied by an ephemeral creek. The majority of the site is used for farming, primarily within alluviated drainage areas and on gentle slopes. Steeper slopes are relatively undeveloped and support native vegetation. Site drainage is directed southward toward Agua Hedionda Creek and Lagoon. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on a review of.the 100-scale Tentative Lotting Study, prepared by T&B Planning Consultants (TBC), Robertson Ranch will be developed as a master planned community consisting of approximately 665 residential building sites,. 208 multi-family structures, 160 affordable housing units, commercial property, park/recreation property, a school site GeoSoils, Inc. 3.D TopoOuads Copyright 1999 DtLorm, Yarmouth. ME 040% Sourtr Data: USGS — - 9___ -----------------------, ,-------. -N331O5-- '. -_ __ijIi___...____-___ .. I.: . -- - .7 0 0 Watel -•:_ -I. — — - / Cerr4. de.IaiCaIavera \\ 0 0 ,; o•; ;. . \i jL Wefl - - \; ._1__ S1 T E - - - water, Tamarack Drive EAST WEST RANCHE 2 AZ T1i 0 _0 -.-Stioros CountryLfub - 0 / - Agua . 0.7_I • 0 • I .. ,_. 1 7/ - - - S I - - N33'B' ,•.. . .; . Alua / 357 0 - clmyoK 0 0o_ -_ ___-__t •0 Base Map: San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California--San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photorevised, 1975), by USGS, 1":2000' 0 1/2 1 Scale Miles 4 N W.O. GeoSous;TInc. 3098-Al-SC I SITE LOCATION MAP Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. ThIs map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whither for Personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. Figure 1 and open space. Associated roadways and underground improvements arealso planned. Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated in orderto create building pads. The tentative study (TBC, 2001) indicates that cut and fills on the order of 40 and 50 feet in height, respectively, may be constructed. Fill slopes, and cut slopes exposing sedimentary bedrock, are anticipated to be constructed at gradients on the order of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 30 feet. Cut slopes exposing dense undifferentiated volcanic/granitic bedrock may be constructed at gradients on the order of 1.5:1, or flatter, to maximum heights of approximately 20 feet. Maximum cut excavation appears to be on the order of 30 to 40 feet, while planned fills also appear to be on the order of 30 to 40 feet in thickness. Maximum fill thickness to be placed over areas where alluvium will be left in place appears to be on the order of 10 to 20 feet. Once remedial removals are completed in fill areas, the overall maximum fill depths may reach 40 to 60 feet. Planned grading quantities for the East Ranch area are 965,000 cubic yards (c.y.) of fill and 884,000 c.y. of cut over approximately 110 graded acres. Planned grading quantities for the West Ranch area are approximately 1,383,000 c.y. of fill and 1,467,000 c.y. of cut over approximately 160 graded acres. These quantities do not include remedial earthwork recommended in-this report. FIELD WORK-FINDINGS The findings presented below are based on work completed in preparation of this report and previous work completed by this office (GSI, 2001 C). This. body of field work consists of field mapping, seismic survey, backhoe test pits, and hollow stem auger drill rig borings, as well as laboratory testing. Subsurface conditions were explored for this study in October, 2001, and January, 2002, by excavating six (6) exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 44 exploratory test pits with a rubber tire backhoe. A previous study (GSI, 2001 c) completed. nine (9) exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 11 exploratory test pits with a backhoe. All exploratory excavations were completed in order to determine the soil and geologic profiles, obtain samples of representative materials, and delineate soil and geologic parameters that may affect the proposed development. Boring and excavation depths ranged from 2 feet to 511/2 feet below the existing ground surface. Logs of the borings and test pits are presented in Appendix B and Appendix C. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are indicated on the attached Geotechriical Maps, Plate 1 and Plate 2. Plate 1 and Plate 2 use the 100-scale tentative lotting study prepared by TBC (2001), as a base. In addition to our subsurface exploration, field mapping of earth material and a seismic refraction survey (GSI, 2001c) was performed. A discussion of seismic refraction field procedures is presented in a later section of this report. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-A-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7\3O00O98a.geo . Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc REGIONAL GEOLOGY The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, south to Baja California. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-Southeast oriented fault blocks: In the Peninsular Ranges, relatively younger sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas. Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore fault zone and the San Jacinto.fault zones trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province, whereas, a fault related to the San Andreas Transform Fault System, the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone exists near the western margin and Continental Borderland geomorphic province. As discussed in a later section of this report, the site is located east of the Rose Canyon fault zone. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials within the site consist predominantly of stockpile soil and rock, existing soil fill, surficial landslide (slump) deposits, colluvium, alluvium, Pleistocene-age terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Eocene-age Santiago Formation and undifferentiated Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age metavolcanic/ granitic (igneous) bedrock. Preliminary recommendations for site preparation and treatment of the earth materials encountered are discussed in the earthwork recommendations section of this report. The general distribution of earth materials are shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Stockpile (Man Symbol - Stockpile) A large stockpile of soils and rock fragments is boated within the eastern portion of the property. This material is not considered suitable for foundation and/or fill support unless it is removed, moisture conditioned and placed as properly compacted fill. Exlstln Fill (Map Symbol - afu) Minor amounts of existing fill are scattered throughout the project site as small embankments for dirt roads or level pads for existing farm structures. These materials typically consist of silts and sands derived from the underlying native soils and appear to be on the order of 1 t 5 feet thick where observed. Existing fills are not considered suitable for structural support unless these materials are removed, moisture conditioned and placed compacted fill. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-A-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp73000\3098a.geo S Page 4 GeoSosls, Inc. Surficial Slump Deposits (Map Symbol - Qis) Slump deposits were noted throughout the site in a previous feasibility study by Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985). The presence of these features were based solely on geomorphic expression (landforms), without the benefit of subsurface exploration.. Field mapping performed also noted several geomorphic features suggestive of slope instability. Where encountered in our exploratory excavations, these deposits consist of sandy clay. with fragments of sedimentary bedrock. Based on our field mapping and additional subsurface exploration, these "slump" deposits; are considered to be relatively shallow (i.e., less than approximately 10 feet) and should not significantly affect site development. These soils are not considered suitable for the support of fills and structures and should be removed and recompacted. Colluvlum (Not Mapped) Where encountered, colluvium is on the order of 2 to 6 feet thick, and consists of silty to clayey sand and sandy clay. These materials are typically dry to moist, loose to medium dense (sands), stiff (clays) and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for structural support unless these soils are removed, moisture conditioned and placed as compacted fill. Expansion testing (GSl, 2001 c) and this study, indicates that these Soils range from very low to medium expansive. Large dessicàtion cracks in colluvial soils are visible at the surface in some areas underlain with sedimentary bedrock(map symbol Tsa), and may indicate highly expansive soils. Alluvium (Map Symbol - QalA and Oak1) Alluvial soils onsite appear to occur within two distinct depositional environments onsite. One is characterized as tributary alluvium (QaI41), deposited within smaller canyons and gullies disecting slope areas, and valley alluvium (QaIB), deposited within the larger, broad flood plains located along the eastern and southern sides. of the project. Where encountered, alluvial sediments consist of sandy clay and clayey/silty sand. Clayey sands are typically loose to medium dense while sandy clays are stiff. Alluvium ranges from generally damp to wet abOve the groundwater table, to saturated at: and below .the groundwater table. Tributary alluvium is anticipated to range in thickness from approximately 5 to 35 feet, while valley alluvium was encountered to the depths explored (approximately 51 feet; this study, and GSI [2001 cfl. Alluvium soils above the groundwatertable is not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presence of groundwater, alluvial removals will be generally limited in depth. Complete to partial removals to saturated. sediments on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within areas underlain by tributary alluvium (Qal). Within areas underlain by valley alluvium (QaIB), complete alluvial removals are not feasible. Minimally, the uppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be McMillin Construction, Inc. . . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7\30003098a1.geo . Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. removed and recompacted. Alluvial materials left in place will require settlement monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Mid- to late-Pleistocene terrace deposits encountered onsite consist of earth materials which vary from silty sand to sandy/silty clay. These sediments are typically yellowish brown to brown and olive brown, slightly moist to moist and medium dense/stiff. Terrace deposits are generally considered suitable for the support of structures and engineered fill. Bedding structure observed within these materials in road cuts along El Camino Real display a generally massive to a weakly developed subhorizontal orientation. Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - isa) Sandstone, clayey siltstone and claystone sedimentary bedrock belonging to Eocene *-age Santiago Formation was encountered onsite. These deposits occur predominantly within the western half of the property. These materials are considered suitable for structural support. Bedding structure observed in our test pit excavations, road cuts along El Camino Real and in outcrop within canyon bottoms indicates a general northerly trend with an westerly dip on the order of 6 to 28 degrees. Locally, bedding was observed to trend northeasterly, dipping 2 southeast and 19 degrees northwest. Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Man Symbol - Js/Kpr) Undifferentiated igneous bedrock onsite consists of metavolcaniö rock belonging to the Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics and/or granitic rock belonging to the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. Where encountered in our exploratory test pits and observed in outcrop, these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular weathered zone (up to 21/2 to 4 feet thick) consisting of dry, medium dense materials which excavate to silty sand and angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Seismic refraction surveys .:in the area are discussed in the rock hardness and rippability section of this report. Fractures observed within this material are typicafly high angle (i.e., 45 degrees or steeper) and closely spaced, on the order of 1 to 30 inches. Fracture orientations appear to vary from east-northeast to northwest to north-south. MASS WASTING Field mapping and subsurface exploration performed in preparation of this report did not indicate the presence of any deep seated Iandsliding, and these features were not noted during our review of available published documents (Appendix A). A review of a previous feasibility evaluation completed by Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985) referred to several ulandformsn which may be suggestive of slumps and/or small landslides. These features were generally located within the toe areas of natural slopes developed in terrace deposits McMlIIln Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wpl\3000\3098a1.geo S • • Page 6 • GeoSo its, Inc. or the Santiago Formation. Field mapping, a review of aerial photographs and subsurface exploration completed by this office has further defined the extent of these features. Our findings indicate that these features are relatively shallow (i.e., 10 feet, or less), and are not anticipated to significantly affect site development. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in test pits and test borings completed in preparation of this report and in previous test borings (GSl,. 2001 c) within alluvial materials (map symbol - Qal) located along the southeastern and eastern margins of the site, as well as within the extreme western end of the site. Depths to groundwater encountered within alluvium (map symbol - QalB) ranged from approximately 6 feet to 14 feet below existing grades, with depths shallowing to the west. The presence of bedrock materials, with lower moisture content beneath the alluvium, suggest that groundwater is generally perched within the alluvial section. Groundwater was also locally encountered at depth within tributary alluvium (map symbol - Qal). The depth to groundwater in these deposits ranged from approximately 6 to 30 feet below grade; 'however, groundwater was not always encountered. In general, depths to groundwater are relatively shallow where tributary alluvium (Qal) feeds, or interfingers, with valley alluvium (QaIB), with the depth increasing as the alluvial deposits extend up into each tributary drainage. Thse observations reflect site conditions at the time of Our field evaluation and do not preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future from heavy irrigation or precipitation. REGIONAL SEISMICITY No known active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the site on published maps (Jennings, 1994). No evidence for active faulting was observed during field mapping; however, at least two lineaments- were observed and reported in Leighton and Associates (L&A, 1985).. One of these lineaments was mapped within a canyon area ..trending.northwestthrough the central portion of the property. Field mapping by this office did not encounter any faulting. This canyon, as well as many of the alluviated and/or incised drainages cutting portions of the site underlain by the Santiago Formation (see Plate 1 and Plate 2) trend approximately 5 to. 30 degrees west of due north. This orientation appears to be generally consistent with the trend of bedding structure, and may therefore, be controlled by bedding and not faulting. The eastern lineament was mapped (L&A, 1985) where alluvium is juxtaposed against undifferentiated igneous bedrock. Based on the general lack of geomorphic expression and the absence of faulted Holocene earth material, these features are not considered manifestations of active faulting, and are therefore not anticipated to affect site development. McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7000O3O98a1.geo . ' Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc.. There are a number of faults in the southern California area which are considered active and would have an effect on the site in .the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone and the Rose Canyon- Newport-Inglewood (RCNl) fault zone. The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking, at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982),. Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1-sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Bobre (1982),. Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989).. These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible") and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound (maximum credible) event may be. on the order of 0.31 g to 0.36g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.1 7g to 0.19g. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED .. - •.- FAULT NAME . . :. ..' APPROXIMATE DISTANCE . .. MILES. () Catalina Escarpment . 38 (61) Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca . . . . 23(37) Elsinore . 22 (36) t.aNacion . 23(37) Newport-IngIewood-Offshore . 10(.17) Rose Canyon 7(11) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol . 33(53) The possibility of ground shaking at the site may be considered similar to the southern California region as a whole. The relationship of the site location to these major mapped McMillin Construction, Inc. . . . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . . . . January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo . . Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. faults is indicated on the California Fault Map (Figure 2). Ourfleld observations and review of readily available geologic data indicate that no known active faults cross the site. A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using FR1SK89 (Blake, 1997). Based on this analysis, a range of peak horizontal ground accelerations from 0.1 9g,tb 0.28g should be used for seismic design. This value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 year return period). Selection of this design event is important as it is the level of risk assumed by the Uniform Building Code (UBC, 1997) minimum design requirements. This level of. ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of approximately 6.9. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics.. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density To determine the compaction characteristics of representative samples of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-1 557. Test results are presented in the following table: LOCATION*..**:*.MAXIMUM DENSITY . ... •::.-.• . aO :.-.: ::.. . ... . OPTIMUM. MOISTURE. . CONTENT HB-1 © 5-10' . 127.0 . . . 10.5 TP-26 © 2'4 114.0 . 13.0. *TP10 © 7' . 120.5 . 13.0 *132 @5' 128.0 10.0 *B.6@41 126.0 . 11.0 * Location and testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 C) McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3OOOO98a1.geo . Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. ' 0 50 100 \ / I I I SCALE 0 (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO • : ..• • •. SITE LOCATION (-4-): • Latitude - 33.1535 N • • Longitude - 117.2897 W • calavera hills • • • • CALIFORNIA. FAULT P • W.O.. 3098-Al-SC Expansion Index Testing Expansion index testing was performed on representative soil samples of colluvium and terrace deposits in general accordance with Standard No. 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The test results are presented below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC. LOCATION SOIL TYPE . T EXPANSION INDEX . EXPANSION I_ POTENTIAL TP-1 @ 0-3' Sandy CLAY 61 Medium TP-1 @ 4-5' 0 Sandy SILT. 25 Low TP-2 @ 3'-5' CLAY 60 Medium TP-38 © 3'5' . SAND 4 Very Low *TP.1 © 1'-2' Silty SAND 1 Very Low *TP..W © 7'81 Sandy CLAY 102 High 2 @ 50 Sandy CLAY 32 Low *5 @41 Silty SAND 19 . Very Low * Location and testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 C) Direct Shear Tests Shear testing was performed on a remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080. Results of shear-testing (this study) are presented as Plates D-1 through D-6 in Appendix D. Testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 C) is included in this report as Appendix E. -. Consolidation Testing Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D2435. Test results (this study) are presented as Plates D-7 through D-14 in Appendix D. Testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 c) is included in this report as Appendix E. Sieve Analysis/Atterbera Umits. Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM test method D-422. Atterberg Umits were determined in general McMillin Construction, Inc. 0 W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad 0 January29, 2002 File:e:wp7a000O98a1.geo 0 Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. accordance with ASTM test method 0-4318. Test results (this Study) are presented as Plates D-1 5 through D-25 in Appendix D. Testing completed in preparation of GSI (2001 C) is included in this report as Appendix E. Soluble Sulfates/pH Reslstivi A: representative sample of soil was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and potential corrosion to ferrous metals. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results, site soils appear to have a negligible potential for corrosion to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). The results of pH testing indicates, that site soils are neutral to slightly acidic. Resistivity test results indicate that site soils are highly corrosive to ferrous 1 metals when saturated. Highly corrosive soils are considered to be generally in the range of 1,000 to 2,000 ohms-cm. SEISMIC HAZARDS The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, typical site development procedures, and recommendations for mitigation provided herein: Surface Fault Rupture Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture Tsunami Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity. Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures .in relatively cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which. can lead to lateral • movement sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil, as excess pore water dissipates. McMillin Construction, Inc. • • W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad • 'January 29, 2002 flIe:e:wp73OOO\3o98aI.geo • • Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions must exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed large amount of cementation: 2) sediments must consist mainly of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience seismic event of a sufficient duration and large enough magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. At the subject site, all of the conditions which are necessary for liquefaction to occur exist: One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater normal effective stress acting on saturated sediments at any given depth and liquefaction susceptibility decreases with increased normal effective stress; and 2) age, cementation, and relative density of sediments generally increase with depth. Thus, as the depth to the water table increases, and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative density, and confining normal stresses increase, the less likely they are to liquefy during a seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential where groundwater is greater than 30 feet in depth and virtually unknown below 60 feet. Following an analysis of the laboratory data and boring logs, representative soil profiles were established to evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils onsite. The depth to groundwater encountered in our borings was used in the analyses (i.e., 9 to 14 feet). The liquefaction analyses were performed using a peak site acceleration of 0.28g for an upper bound event of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. A review of GSl (2001c) indicates that portions of the site underlain by alluvium have soil deposits that display a factor of safety of 1.25 or less. against liquefaction (note: a factor of safety of 1.25 is recommended by Seed and Idriss, 1982). Based on our analysis of the liquefaction potential within alluvial areas of the site, and the relationships of Ishihara (1985), it is our opinion that damaging deformations should not adversely affect the proposed development provided that a minimum 10 to 15 foot layer of non-liquefiable soil material (I.e., compacted fill plus alluvium above the water table) is provided beneath any given structure. This also assumes that the existing groundwater table does not significantly rise above its current level. Assuming that the recommendations presented in this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project, the potential for damage from liquefaction should be sufficiently mitigated. The .use of canyon subdrains will also aide the mitigation of the liquefaction potential onsite. -. . McMillin Construction, Inc. . . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad • . .. • January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp730003098a1.geo • . . . S Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. . .. SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS GSI has estimated the potential magnitudes of total settlement, differential settlement, and angular distortion for the site. The analyses were based on laboratory test results and subsurface data collected from borings completed in preparation of this study and. GSI (2001 C). Site specific conditions affecting settlement potential include depositional environment, grain size and lithology of sediments, cementing agents, stress history, moisture history, material shape, density, void ratio, etc Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression of the left-in-place alluvium. The total amount of settlement and time over which it occurs is dependent Upon various factors, including material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of subsurface materials. Compacted fills, to the thicknesses anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive settlement (on the order of 1/2 to 1 inch). Some post-construction settlement of the left-in-place alluvium is expected, however, with 50 percent consolidation occurring within approximately 2 to 5 months, and 90 percent consolidation occurring within approximately 4 to 18 months after grading has been completed. The magnitude of settlement will vary, based on the depth of fill placed above the alluvium. For preliminary planning purposes, it may be anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the primary consolidation will occur within 2 to 5 months. For fill loads on the order of 15 to 25 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 13± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 2 to 6± inches should be anticipated. For fill loads on the order of 5 to 10 feet, the expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 4± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 1 to 2 ± inches should be anticipated. This settlement should be monitored and revised based on actual field data. Settlement monuments are recommended during construction. Monument locations would be best provided during 40:-scale plan review. Work in progress will continue to delineate the magnitude of the settlement potential onsite. Dynamic Settlements Ground accelerations generated from a seismic event (or by some man made means) can produce settlements in sands both above and below the groundwater table. This phenomena is commonly referred to as dynamic settlement and is most prominent in relatively clean sands, but can also occur in other soil materials. The primary factor controlling earthquake induced settlement in saturated sand, is the cyclic stress ratio. In dry sands earthquake induced settlements are controlled by both cyclic shear strain and volumetric strain control. On site, the alluvial materials are loose and could generate- volumetric consolidation during a seismic event. An analysis of potential dynamic settlements, due to the occurrence of the identified maximum credible seismic event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, has been performed. Based on this analysis, ½ to 1 inch of settlement could occur within alluvium during a maximum credible seismic event. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad S January 29, 2002 Fde:e:\wp7\3OOO'O98a1.geo S Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. SUBSIDENCE Ll Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering of the ground surface occurs as a result of a number of processes. These include dynamic loading during grading, fill loading, fault activity or fault creep as well as groundwater withdrawal. An analysis of fill loading is presented in the previous section. Ground subsidence (consolidation) due to vibrations would depend on the equipment being used, the weight of the equipment, repetition of use and the dynamic effects of the eqUipment. Most of these factors cannot be determined and may be beyond ordinary estimating possibilities. However, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other that fill loading would be relatively minor (on the order of 1 inch or less, which should occur du'ring grading), and should not significantly affect site development. The effect of fill loading on alluvial soil has been evaluated in the previous section. ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION Rock Hardness and Rlppabilltv Field mapping and subsurface exploration indicate the presence of undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock at or near the surface within the northeastern portion of the site. Based on previous work performed by this office (GSl, 2001 c), comparisons of seismic velocities and ripping performance developed by Church (1982) and the Caterpillar Tractor Company (1983), the following conclusions regarding rock hardness and rippability are provided. In general, little ripping to soft ripping to process and excavate earth materials should be anticipated within approximately 2 to 3 feet of existing elevations. In general, soft to medium ripping to process and excavate earth materials should' be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing elevations. Undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic' bedrock requiring extremely hard ripping. or bIàstingto excavate may likely be encountered below depths on the order of 5 to 10 feet below existing elevations. It should be anticipated, that due to the presence of dense outcrops throughout thearea, however, isolated boulders or hard spots will be encountered at any depth during grading and trenching. These hard. zones Will likely require specialized equipment such as rock breakers or rock saws to excavate, and blasting may not be entirely precluded in areas where it .was not previously anticipated nor at any depth or location on the site. Overexcavation should be considered in dense rock in proposed street areas to approximately 1 foot below lowest utility 'invert in order to facilitate utility construction; however, this is not.a geotechnical requirement. McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . January 29, 2002 F1Ie:e:\wpT3OOO\3O98a1.9eo . . Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY Gross Stability Based on available data, including a review of GSl (2001c), it appears that graded fill slopes up to approximately 50 feet in height will be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Cut slopes constructed to heights on the order of 40 feet in terrace deposits and earth materials belonging to the Santiago Formation are anticipated to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance; however, west- facing cut slopes constructed in the Santiago Formation may exhibit adverse (out of slope) bedding -orientations and may require stabilization or buttressing. Cut slopes constructed to the anticipated heights in competent undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock should perform adequately at gradients of 1.5:1 (h:v) or flatter, and are considered to be generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. Stability of the existing west and northwest facing natural slope, located in the extreme western portion of the site was evaluated. This slope varies up to approximately 100 feet in height and achieves an approximate maximum slope gradient varying from approximately 1.5 to 2.5:1 to (h:v). Based on our recent analysis (Appendix F) using the available soil parameters, the slope appears to be stable; however, an inadequate to marginal factor of safety has been determined (i.e., 1.3 to 1.5 static and 1.0 to 1.1 seismic). The results of our slope stability analysis performed in preparation of this report.is included as Appendix F. Geologic cross sections used in our analysis of natural slope stability are included herein as Figures F-i through F-4. Site specific analysis is recommended once grading plans have been developed. All cut slope construction will require observation during grading in orderto verify the findings and conclusions presented herein and in subsequent reports. Our analysis assumes that graded slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines provided bythe City of Carlsbad, the Uniform Building Code and recommendations provided by this office. Surflclal Stability An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes constructed of compacted fills and/or bedrock material. Our analysis indicates that proposed slopes exhibit an adequate factor of safety (I.e., > 1.5) against surficial failure, provided that the slopes are properly constructed and maintained. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. General Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed development from McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Cailsbàd January 29,2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that recommendations presented in the following sections are.. incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material. Corrosion and expansion potential. Subsurface water and potential for perched water. - Rock hardness. Slope stability. Uquefaction potential. Settlement potential. Regional seismicity and faulting. The recommendations presented herein considerthese as well as other aspects of the site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the. conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix G, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report; Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of .GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and HealthAct, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site PreDaratlon Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp13000\3O98a1.geo . Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. Removals Alluvial soils above the groundwater table are not considered suitable for structural support and should be removed and re-compacted. Due to the presence of groundwater within areas of the site underlain with alluvium, removals will be generally limited in depth by the presence of groundwater. Removals on the order of 5 to 25 feet are anticipated within tributary canyon areas. Within areas underlain by valley alluvium, complete alluvial removals are not feasible. Minimally, the uppermost 5 to 6 feet of valley alluvium is not considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be removed and recompacted. Alluvial materials left in place. will require settlement - monitoring and site specific foundation design. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Typical removal depths within fill areas are also shown on Plate 1 and Plate 2. Stabilization of removal bottoms in valley alluvium maybe necessary prior to fill placement. Tentatively, stabilization methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inches of 11/2 inch crushed rock) with geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) may being considered and subsequently recommended, based on conditions exposed during grading. Removal depths on the order of 3 to 5 feet may be anticipated within areas underlain with terrace deposits (map symbol Qt), sedimentary bedrock (map symbol Tsa) and igneous bedrock (map symbol Jsp/Kgr). Deeper removal areas may occur locally and should be anticipated. Removal of slump deposits may vary on the order of 10 feet or less. Overexcavation/Transitlons In order to provide for the uniform support of structures, a minimum 3-foot thick fill blanket is recommended for lots containing plan transitions. Any cut portion of the pad for the residence-should be over excavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade. Areas with planned fills Iessthán 3 feet should be over excavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. Maximum to minimum fill thickness within a given lot should not exceed ratio of 3:1, if conventional foundations are desired. Overexcavation is also recommended for cut lots exposing claystones and/or heterogenous material types (i.e., sand/clay) or hard rock. In pad areas underlain with undifferentiated igneous rock and alluvial soil (East Ranch area), overexcavations on the order of 10 to 15 feet should be anticipated within the hard rock portion of the pad. Overexcavation depths should be determined in the field based on site conditions. In order to facilitate the construction of future utilities within areas underlain by hard igneous rock, cut areas may be overexcavated to at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert elevation. This may be achieved by either excavating the entire right of way or line McMillin Construction, Inc. . - W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad • January 29, 2002 File:e:wp7\3O003098a1.geo Page 18 GeoSods, Inc. shooting along a particular utility alignment. This is not a geotechnical requirement, however. Overexcavation in pad areas should be sloped to drain toward streets. Fill Placement and Suitability Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6 to 8± inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D-.1557-91. If soil importation is planned, samples of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing in order to assure compatibility with the. onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this report. Import soils should be relatively sandy and low expansive (i.e., expansion index less than 50). ROck DisposalS During the course of grading, materials generated from hard rock areas (map symbol Jsp/Kgr) are anticipated to be of varying dimensions. For the purpose of this report, the materials may be described as either 8 inches or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than 36 inches. These three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be placed. Tentatively, disposal areas for oversized materials (i.e., 12 inches or greater) appear to be limited to existing canyon areas. Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less Since rock fragments along with granular materials are a major part of the native materials used in the grading of the site, a criteria is needed to facilitate the plaâement of these materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough grading, post- grading improvements, and serve as suitable compacted fill. Fines and rock fragments 8 inches or less in one dimension may be placed as compacted-fill cap materials within the-building pads, slopes, and street areas as. described below. The rock fragments and fines should be brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. The purpose for the 8-inch-diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized., rock fragments into the fill under selected condition (optimum moisture or above) surrounded with compacted fines. The 8-inch-diameter size also allows a greater-volume. of the rock fragments to be handled during grading, while staying in reasonable limits for later onsite excavation equipment (i.e., backhoes) to excavate footings and utility lines. McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7'000098a1.geo Page 19 GeoSoiis, Inch 2. Fill materials 8 inches or less in one dimension should be placed (but not limited to) within the upper 5 feet of proposed fill pads, the upper 3 feet of overexcavated cut areas on cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width. Overexcavation is discussed later in this report. Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches In Diameter During the process of excavation, rock fragments or constituents larger than 8 inches in one dimension will be generated. These oversized materials, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, may be incorporated into the fills utilizing a series of rock blankets. 2. Each rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than 8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension along with sufficient fines generated from the proposed cuts and overburden materials generated from removal areas. The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 inches in thickness and should be placed with granular fines which are flooded into and around the rock fragments effectively, to fill all voids. 3.. Rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the lowest utility invert within the street right-of-way, 5 feet below finish grade on the proposed fill lots, and a minimum of 15 horizontal feet from any fill slope surface. Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wheel rolling methods with scrapers and water trucks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers. Equipment traffic should be routed over each lift. Given the rocky nature of this material, sand cone and nuclear densometer testing methods are often found to be ineffective. Where such testing methods are infeasible, the most effective means .to evaluate compaction efforts by the contractor would be to excavate test pits at random locations to check those factors pertinent to performance of rock fills; moisture content, gradation of rock fragments and matrix material and presence of any apparent void spaces. .. . Each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow. Materials Greater Than 36 Inches In Diameter Oversize--rock greater than 36 inches in one dimension should be placed in single rock windrows. The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width apart, whichever is greatest. The void spaces between rocks in windrows should be filled with the more granular soils by flooding them into place. . . McMillin Construction, Inc. WO. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . . . January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:wp7000O98a1.geo Page 20 GeoSods, Inc. A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock windrow should be maintained. Also, the windrows should be staggered from lift to lift. Rock windrows should not be placed closer than 15 feet from the face of fill slopes. Larger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into a dozer trench. Each trench should be excavated into the compacted fill or dense natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried. After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other), granular fill material should be flooded into the trench to fill the voids. The oversize rock trenches should be no closer together than 15 feet at a particular elevation and at least 15 feet from any slope face. Trenches at higher elevations should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of compacted fill between the top of one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. Placement of rock into these trenches should be under the full-time inspection of the soils engineer. Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space "green -. beir areas that would be designated as non-structural fills. Rock Excavation and Fill If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to proposed cut slopes and structural pad areas. Over-blasting of hard rock would result in weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the building pads and affected cut slopes. Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials which may otherwise require specialized burial techniques. If blasting is utilized it is recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials is produced and that sufficient lines (sands and gravel) to fill all void spaces are present. This procedure would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks produced.. . 0 Subdralns Based on a review of Plate 1 and Plate 2, subdrains will be recommended at the base of any canyon fill. A subsequent review of 40-scale plans (when available) should be performed to determine the need for subdrainage. If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and overburden materials, or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may require a subdrain system. In addition, the placement of rock blankets and windrows should also consider having a subdrain system to mitigate any perched water from collecting, and to outlet the water into a designed system, or other approved area. McMillin Construction, Inc. • W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 FIe:e:\wp73000'098a1.geo . Page 21 GeOSoils, Inc.. Earthwork Balance Shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters: Existing Artificial :Fill ......................................5% to 10% shrinkage Colluvium ...............................................3% to 8% shrinkage Alluvium ..............................................10% to 15% shrinkage Terrace Deposits ..................................2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk SantiagO Formation ................................2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk Rock (excavated) .............................................5% to 10% Bulk Rock (Shot) ...............................................15% to 200A Bulk It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Final earthwork balance factors could vary. in .this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project. Erosion Control Onsite soils are considered very erosive. Use of hay bales, silt fences, and/or sand/gravel bags should be considered, as appropriate. Temporary grades should be constructed to drain at 1 to 2 percent to a suitable temporary or permanent outlet. Evaluation of cuts during.grading will be.necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non-cohesive materials. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction remedial grading may be recommended; however no remedial measures are anticipated at this time. Sloe Considerations and Slope Design Graded Slopes All slopes should be designed and constructed in, accordance with the minimum requirements of City of Carlsbad/County of San Diego, the Uniform Building Code (current edition), and the recommendations in Appendix F. Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes The construction of stabilization and/or buttress slopes may be necessary for some west facing cut slopes. Such remedial slope construction will be recommended based upon a reviewof the 40-scale grading plans and/or conditions exposed in the field during grading. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wpl\3000\3098a1.geo Page 22 GeoSoils, Inc. Temporary Construction Slopes In general, temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a minimum slope-ratio of 1:1 (h :v) or flatter within alluvial soils and terrace deposits, and 1/2:1 or flatter for temporary slopes exposing dense sedimentary or metavolcanic/granitic bedrock without adverse (daylighted) bedding. or fracture surfaces. Excavations for removals, drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized conditions should be evaluated on an individual basis by the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance from this recommendation. Due to the nature of the materials anticipated, the engineering geologist should observe all excavations and fill conditions. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate recommendations should be presented. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. RECOMMENDATIONS - CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS General The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI. Recommendations for conventional foundation systems are provided in the following sections for bedrock, or fill on bedrock areas. The foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded in competent bearing material. Foundations should be founded entirely in compacted fill or rippable bedrock, with no exposed transitions. Conventional foundations systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions, where alluvial soil is left in place or where the maximum fill thickness exceeds a ration of 3:1. The Information and recommendations presented in this section. are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad •. . . . January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo . Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. Preliminary Foundation Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low to high expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value 1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code.; 2. An allowable bearing value of ,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and column footings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected by a grade beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 under the effects of temporary loading, such as seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.30 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Construction The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum criteria from a soils. engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potentials are generally in the very low to low (expansion index 0 to 50), to potentially high (expansion index 91 to 130) range. During grading of the site, we recommend that expansive material should not be placed within 3 feet of finish grade, if feasible. Therefore, it is anticipated that the finish grade materials will have a low (or medium) expansion potential. Conventional foundation systems are not recommended for high to very highly expansive soil conditions or where alluvial soil is left in place. Post-tension slab foundations are recommended for these conditions. McMillin Construction, Inc. . • . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 F1le:e:wp7000\3O98a1.geo . . . Page 24 GeoSosis, Inc. Recommendations by the projects design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineers recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading. Conventional foundation recommendations are presented in the following Table 1. TABLE 1 Conventloflal Perimeter Footings, and Slabs. Robertson Ranch FOUNDATION MINIMUM. INTERIOR REINFORCING INTERIOR UNDER- GARAGE CATEGORY FOOTING SLAB . STEEL SLAB . SLAB SLAB SIZE ThICKNESS S REINFORCEMENT TREATMENT REINFORCE- ________ MENT I 12'Widex 4"Thlcic 1-No.4 Bar Top No. 3 Bars @24' T Sand Over 6"x6' 12' Deep and Bottom D.C. 10-Mil (10/10) Both Directions Polyvinyl WWF Membrane Over? Sand Base II 12" Wide x 4' Thick 2-No. 4 Bars No.3 Bars @ 18" 2" Sand Over 6' x 6' 18" Deep Top D.C. 10-Mil (6/6) and Bottom Both Directions Polyvinyl WWF Membrane Over 2' Sand Base III 12" Wide x 4' Thick 2-No. 5 Bars No.3 Bars © 18' ?Sand Over Same as 24' Deep lop D.C. 10-Mil Interior Slab and Bottom Both Directions Polyvinyl Membrane Over? Sand Cateaory Criteria Category I:. Max. Fill Thickness. is less than 20' and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50 and Differential Fill Thickness is less than 10' (se note 1). Category II: Max. Fill Thickness is less than 30' and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90 or Differential Fill Thickness Is between 10 and 20' (see note 1). Category Ill: Max. Fill Thickness exceeds 30', or Expansion Index exceeds 90 but Is less than 130, or Differential Fill Thickness exceeds 20' (see note 1). Notes: 1. Post tension (PT) foundations are required where maximum fill exceeds 30', or the ratio of the maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness exceeds 3:1, or where the expansion index exceeds 90 or in areas underlain with alluvial soil left in place. Footing depth measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. Allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 PSF. Concrete for slabs and footings shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2,000 PSI McMillin Construction, Inc. ' W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad 5 January 29, 2002 File:e:wp73000\3098a1.geo Page 25 GeoSoils, Inc. (2,500 PSI for exterior flatwork), or adopted UBC mm., at 28 days, using 5 sacks of cement. Maximum-Slump shall be 5U Visqueen vapor barrier not required under garage slab. However, consideration should be given to future uses of the slab area, such as room conversion and/or storage of moisture- sensitive materials. S Isolated footings shall be connected to foundations per soils engineer's recommendations (see report). Sand.used for base under slabs shall be very low expansive, and have SE > 30. Additional exterior flatwork recommendations are presented in the text of this report. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints tocontrol.cracking. Joint spacing should be in accordance with correct industry standards and reviewed by the project structural engineer. POST TENSIONED SLAB DESIGN Post-tensioned slab foundation systems may be used to support the proposed buildings. Based on the potential differential settlement within areas of the site underlain by alluvium, post-tensioned slab foundations are recommended exclusively. General The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by a registered structural engineer or civil engineer familiar with post- tensioned slab design or corrosion engineering consultant. Upon request, GSI could provide additional data/consultation regarding soil parameters asrelated to post- tensioned slab design during grading. The post-tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Method. Alternatives to the PTI method may be used if equivalent systems can be proposed which accommodate the angular distortions, expansion potential and settlement noted for this site. Post-tensioned slabs should have sufficient stiffness to resist excessive bending due to non-uniform swell and shrinkage of subgrade soils. The differential movement can occur at the corner, edge, or center of slab. The potential for differential uplift can be evaluated using the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1816, based on design specifications of the Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method. Thomthwaite Moisture Index -20inches/year Correction Factor for Irrigation 20 inches/year Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5 feet Constant Soil Suction (pf) 3.6 McMlllln Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:wp7OOQ098a1.geo Page 26 .GeoSoils, Inc. The coefficients are considered minimums and may not be adequate to represent worst case conditions such as adverse drainage and/or improper landscaping and maintenance. The above parameters are applicable provided structures have gutters and downspouts and positive drainage is maintained away from structures. Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage, site maintenance, settlements, and effects of expansive soils be passed on to future owners... Based on the above parameters, design values were obtained from figures or tables of the 1997 Uniform Building Code Section 1816 and presented in Table 2. These values may not be appropriate to account for possible differential settlement of the slab due to other factors (i.e. fill settlement). If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. TABLE 2 POST TENSION FOUNDATIONS EXPANSION . POTENTIAL . . VERY LOW!!.TO LOW.. . . EXPANSIVE .. (El -50). MEDIUM.. EXPANSIVE (El= 51-90) HIGHLY • . EXPANSIVE (El =91-120) em center lift 5.0 feet 5.5 feet 5.5 feet em edge lift 2.5 feet 2.7 feet 3.0 feet Yrn center lift 1.1 inch 2.0 inch 2.5 inch Yin edge lift 0.35 Inch 0.55 Inch . 0.75 inch Bearing Value 1000 psf l000 psf 1000 psf Lateraf Pressure 225 psf 225 psf 225 psf Su grade Modulus (k) 100 pci/inch .85pci[inch 70 pci/Inch Perimeter footing embedment 0 12 inches . 18 inches 24 inches (1) Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be increased to 1 500 psf for a minimum embedment. of 12 inches, then by 20 percent for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 2,500 psf. As measured below .the lowest adjacent compacted subgrade surface. . . Foundations for very low expansive soil conditions may use the California Method (spanability method). Subcirade PreDaration The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the subgrade soils should be well moistened to at least optimum moisture content and verified by our field representative. McMillin Construction, Inc. • . • W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad • • January 29, 2002 Fi1e:e:\wp73O00\3O98a1.geo • • - . Page 27 GeoSozls, Inc. Perimeter Footings and Pre-Wetting From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a fairly common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is a significant fluctuation in the moisture content of soils underlying the perimeter of.the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possible phenomenon, a combination of soil pre- wetting and construction of a perimeter cut-off wall grade beam should be employed. Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. Embedment depths are presented in Table 2 for various soil expanaion conditions. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the structural engineer. Other applicable recommendations presented under conventional foundation recommendations in the referenced report should be adhered to during the design and construction phase of the project. Floor slab subgrade should be at, or above the soils optimum moisture content to a depth of 24 inches prior to pouring concrete, for existing soil conditions. Pre-wettiflg of the slab subgrade soil prior to placement of steel and concrete wilF likely be recommended and necessary, in order to achieve optimum moisture conditions. Soil moisture contents should be verified at least 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. Underslab Moisture Barrier A visqueen vapor barrier, a minimum 6 mils thick, should be placed underneath the slab in accordance with recommendations presented in the conventional foundation section of this report. This vapor barrier should be lapped adequately to provide a continuous waterproof barrier under the entire slab. Moisture barrier placement beneath the garage slab is optional. However, future uses of the garage slab area (room conversion, storage of moisture sensitive material) should be considered. SETBACKS All footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face of no less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6.inchesbelow the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below, a 1:1 projection from the-heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O: 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . S January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo S , Page 28 GeoSoils, Inc. SOLUBLE SULFATES/RESISTIVITY Based on our experience in the vicinity, the majority of site soils are anticipated to have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). Clay soils located in the vicinity of test pits TP-1 through TP-8 (this study) may present a moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and require the use of Type II cement. Site soils are also anticipated to be mildly corrosive to buried metal, but become highly corrosive when saturated. SETTLEMENT In addition to designing slab systems (PT or other) for the soil 'expansion conditions described herein, the estimated total and differential settlement values that an individual structure could be subject to should be evaluated by a structural engineer, and utilized in the foUndation design. The levels of angular distortion may be evaluated on a 40-foot length assumed as minimum dimension of buildings; if, from a structural standpoint, a decreased or increased length over which the differential is assumed to occur is justified, this change should be incorporated into the design. Please refer to the previous section T on settlement for a discussion of preliminary values to be used. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS General The following parameters are provided for conventional retaining walls only. Design parameters for special walls (i.e., crib, geogrid, Loffelstein, etc.) will be provided based on site specific conditions. The equivalent fluid pressure parameters provide for the use of low expansive select granular backfill to be utilized behind the proposed walls. The low expansive granular backfill, should be provided behind the wall at a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the heel of the foundation system. Low expansive fill is class 3 aggregate baserock or Class 2 permeable rock. Wall' backfilling. should be performed with relatively light equipment within the same 1:1. projection (i.e., hand tampers, walk behind compactors). Highly expansive soils should not be used to backfill any proposed walls. 'During. construction, materials should not be stockpiled behind nor in front of walls for a distance of 2H where H is the height of the wall. Foundation systems for any proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance vvith the recommendations presented in the Foundation Design section of this report. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. All walls should be properly designed in accordance with the recommendations presented below and seismically resistant per the UBC (1997). McMillin Construction, Inc. . . W.O. 3098-Al -SC Robertson Ranch, Cazlsbad\ January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7\30003O98a1.geo . ' Page 29 GeoSoils, Inc. Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement coUld cause some cracking depending upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce the potential for wall cracking, walls should be internally grouted and reinforced with steel. To mitigate this effect, the use of vertical crack control joints and expansion joints, spaced at 20 feet or less along the walls should be employed. Vertical expansion control joints should be mulled with a flexible grout Wall footings should be keyed or doweled across vertical expansion joints. Walls should be internally grouted and reinforced with steel. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that wilt be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. This restrained-wall, earth pressure value is for select backfill material only. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice.the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade or greater than 2 feet in height should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The wall should be drained as indicated in the following section. A seismic increment of 10H (uniform pressure) should be considered on walls for level backfill, and 20H for sloping backfill of 2:1, where H is defined as the height of retained material behind the wall. For structural footing loads within the 1:1 zone of influence behind wall backfill, refer to the following section. Cantilevered Walls These recommendations are for cantilevéred retaining walls up to 15 feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the Wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific-slope gradienté of the retained material. .These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, expansive soils, or adverse geologic conditions. McMillln Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad • January 29, 2002 AIe:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo • Page 30 GeoSoiJs, Inc. I SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT FOR SELECT L MATERIAL (horizontal to vertical) (Very low to low expansive) NATIVE SOIL* Level** S 45 2tol 60 *10 be increased by traffic, structural surcharge and seismic loading as needed. **Level wails are those where arades behind the wall are level for a distance of 2H. Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrain and outlet system (a minimum two outlets per wall and no greater than 100 feet art),to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. The very low expansive granular backfill should be provided behind the wall at a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the heel of the foundation element. Drain pipe should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe embedded in gravel. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 3/s-to 1-inch clean' crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafl 140 or equivalent) and 12 inches thick behind the wall. Where the void to be fitted is constrained by lot lines or property boundaries, the use of panel drains (Miradrain 5000 or equivalent) may be considered with the approval of the project geotechnical engineer. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Weeping of the walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet or less in height, weepholes should be nogreater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. A paved drainage channel (v-ditch or substitute), either conórete or asphaltic concrete, behind the top of the walls with sloping backfill should be considered to reduce the potential for surface water penetration. For level backfill, the grade shoUld be sloped such that drainage is toward .a, suitable outlet at 1 to 2 percent. Retalnlna Wall Footing TransItions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from formational bedrock to select fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: a) If transitions from native soil to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum 3-foot overexcavation for a distance of two times the height of the wall and increase overexcavation until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall S alignment. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 309&A1-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29 2002 File:e:\wp7\30O03098a1.geo S Page 31 GeoSoils, Inc Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H (where H = wall height in feet) on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. Embed the footings entirely into, a homogeneous' fill. Top-of-Slope Walls The geotechnical parameters previously provided may be utilized for top-of-slope sound walls, if planned, which are founded in either competent bedrock or compacted fill materials. The strength of the -concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar shoUld be provided along with the slump quantities. Additional design recommendations by the corrosion specialist should be followed. The placing of joints (expansion and crack control) should be incorporated into the wall layout. These expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center and should be reviewed by the civil engineer andstructural engineer of record. GSl anticipates distortions on the order of ½ to 1± inch in 50 feet for these walls located at the tops of low to medium expansive fill/cut slopes. To reduce this potential, the footings may be deepened and/or the use of piers may be employed. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on' the "R"-value data (to be verified by specific "R"-value testing at completion of grading) from a representative sample taken from the project area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City, of Carlsbad. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented on the following table. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, .Crtsbad January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 32 GeOSoils, Inc. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT TRAFFIC TRAFFIC SUBGRADE A.C. 1 CLASS 2 AREA INDEX ) *IRUVALUE THICKNESS AGGREGATE BASE (TI, Assumed) (Subgrade (Inches). THICKNESS") parent mate al)M (Inches) Cul Du Sac 4.5 12 (Qal) 4.0 5.0 4.5 19 (Qt or Tsa) 4.0 4.0 4.5 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Local Street 5.0 12 (Qal) 4.0 6.0 5.0 19 (Qt or isa) 4.0 5.0 5.0 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0 4.0 Collector 6.0 . 12 (Qal) 4.0 12.0 6.0 19 (Ot orisa) 4.0 11.0 6.0 .. 45 (Jsp/Kgr) 4.0. . 6.0 mDenótes standard Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base R > 78, SE > 22). Tl values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the design team during future plan development. Qal = Alluvium, Ot = terrace deposits, isa = Santiago Formation, Jsp/Kgr = Igneous bedrock The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended, as reflected by the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement section. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further"R"-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for the site. PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS General All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. McMillin Construction, Inc. - . . . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . .• . . January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo GeoSoils, Inc. . .. Page 33 Sub-grade Within street areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test method D-1 557. Deleterious material,, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. -. Base, Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined. by ASTM test method D-1 557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition. Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or subbase course. 1 Traffic is. not routed over completed base before paving. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October. The base is free of dirt and debris. If construction is performed during the wetseason of November through April, prime coat may be omitted if no rain occurs between. completion of base course and paving and the time between completion of base and paving Is reduced to three days, provided the base is free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base course, subbase course, and subgrade 'to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the soil engineer. McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 RIe:e:w73000O98a1.geo • Page 34 GeoSolls, Inc. • • Drainage Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards the area swale curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive Site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Exterior Flatwork Non-vehicular pavements (i.e., utility pads, sidewalks, etc.) using concrete slab on grade construction, should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria. Slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness. Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways to control this movement are; 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of.the slab, and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5- to 8-foot centers or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. 5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping should be graded to drain into the street, or other approved area: All surface water t. should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be sealed with flexible mastic. Additional Site lmrovements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This includes but is not limited to McMillin Construction, Inc. W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad January 29, 2002 File:e:\wp73O003098a1.geo S. . Page 35 GeoSoils, Inc. appurtenant structures (i.e., utility support pads). This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfihling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope 'stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided. Onsite soil materials should be maintained in a solid to semisolid, state. Brushed native and graded slopes (constructed within and utilizing onsite materials) would be potentially erosive*. Eroded debris may be minimized and surticial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. It order to minimize erosion on the slope face, an erosion control fabric (or other suitable method) should be considered. From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Moisture sensors, embedded into till slopes, should be considered to reduce the potential of overwatenng from automatic landscape watering systems. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed awayfrom foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area.. Landscaping should be gradëd•to drain into the street, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. Drainage behind top of walls should be accomplished along the length of the wall with a paved channel drainage v-ditch or substitute. Trench Backfill All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Exterior trenches should not be excavated below a 1:1 (h:v) projection from the bottom of any adjacent foundation system. If excavated, these trenches would undermine support for the.foundation system potentially creating adverse conditions. McMillin Construction, Inc. ' W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . January 29, 2002 FiIe:e:wp7,3OOO\3O98a1.geo . . Page36 GeoSoils, Inc. All utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas and beneath hardscape features should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory, standard. Observations, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a representative of this office to verify compactive efforts of the contractor. Soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent (ASTM D-1 557) if not removed from the site. Jetting of backfill is not recommended. The use of pipe jacking to place utilities is not recommended on this site. Bottoms of utility trenches should be sloped away from structures. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In. addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials, vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site grading and construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are sUbject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. McMillin Construction, Inc. . W.O. 3098-Al-SC Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad . January 29, 2002 Fle:e:wpoOoo9aa1.geo . Page 37 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 1997, EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISK 89, computer programs. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, volume Ill, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293. Frankel, Arthur D., Perkins, David M., and Mueller, Charles 5.,. 1996, Preliminary and working versions of draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United States showing peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response at 0.3 and 1.0- second site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent chance of exceedance in 50 years) for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado. GeoSoils, Inc., 2001 a, Preliminary Findings of the Geotechnical Evaluation, Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 3098-A-SC, dated July 31. 2001 b, Alluvial settlement potential in the viinity of a planned box culvert and existing sewer line, intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, Calavera Hills, District No. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated March 7. 2001c, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and Cannon Road Thoroughfare, DistrictNo. 4 (B&TD), City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2863-A-SC, dated January 24. 1998a, Addendum to feasibility of 1:1 cut slope in lieu of approved crib wall, station n. 29+00 to 31+50, College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-BSC, dated May 4. 1998b, Feasibility of 1:1 Cut Slope in lieu of Approved Cribwall, Station No. 29+00 to 31+50, College Boulevard, Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated April 10. 1998c, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera'Hills, Villages "Q"and UTfl City of Carlsbad, California, W.O. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. GeoSoils, Inc. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: A.A. Balkena Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Leighton and Associates, 1985, Geotechnical feasibility -evaluation, 403.3 acres at east corner of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad, California, Project Nb. 4850555-03, dated November 15. Undvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Undivall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on 'The seismic risk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon fault system. Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic seismic hazard maps of California. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", jijEarthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. T& B Planning Consultants, 2001, Tentative Lotting Study, Robertson Ranch, 2 Sheets, J.N. 533-002, dated November 13, Revised December 5. Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P.,.1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California, plate 2, geologic map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' quadrangles, San Diego County, California, scale 1:24,000, DMG Open-File Report 96-02. McMillln Construction, Inc. Appendix A Fu!e:e:\wp7000\3098a1.geo Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rosé Canyon fault zone southern California, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open- File Report 93-02. 1984, The Rose Canyon faUlt zone, a review and analysis, published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, cooperative agreement EMF-83-k-0148. United States Department of Agriculture, 1953) Black and white aerial photographs, AXN- 8M-76 and AXN-8M-77 S Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis :Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, University of California, Riverside: ..McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix A F11ê:e:\wp730000098a1.geo Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. • APPENDIX B • BORING LOGS AND TEST PITS W.O. 3098-Al -Sc McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST ' SAMPLE - FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUPS DEPTH, MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL .:.(%) . - ... (pcf) ••. . ... . ... . TP-1 0-3' CL 0-3' bulk COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft. 3141 . . WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDY CLAY, orange brown to brown, moist, medium stiff. 4151 4'-5' bulk SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY SILTSTONEI olive gray, damp, stiff; highly fractured. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-i W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 1• FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTh GROUP !DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION (ft.)' svMBOL ft:)d (pcI) : .. :.••• ______________ TP-2 0'-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist,.soft; rootlets. 24 WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE, light olive gray, moist, medium stiff. • ring03' SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYSTONE, olive gray, bulk@3'-5' moist, stiff to very stiff. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 • • • • • • • • PLATE B-2 W.O. 3098-Al -Sc McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST t , .SAMPLE I. FIELDDRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBL•.. (Pàf).-• : TP-3 0'4 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft; rootlets. • 3141 WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE, dark olive brown, moist, medium stiff. 4'4 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth = 6' • No Groundwater Encountered • • S Backlilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-3 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS . TEST r SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL. ::.:..(pcf) :,...' .:-....: TP-4 0'-21/2' CL . COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft; rootletS. 21h'-31/21 WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY . SANDSTONE TO SANDY CLAYSTONE, olive gray, moist, medium dense to medium stiff; orange iron oxide staining. . 3V2'-6' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE, olive S S gray, moist, stiff. S 'Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfihled 1/10/02 . S PLATE B-4 I W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies g) January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST - let SAMPLE-A,'FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH F GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL ft.). .(pc TP-5 0-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SAND CLAY, brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 2-4' CL • SAND CLAY, dark brown, moist, medium stiff; caliche. 4'-6' CL LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: SAND CLAY, brown to light brown, moist, medium stiff; rip up clasts of sedimentary bedrock. 6'-T ring©T SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY CLAYSTONE, olive gray, moist, stiff. S Total Depth = 7' • No Groundwater Encountered • • • • • Backtllled 1/10/02 rA PLATE B-5 W.O. 3098A1-Sc McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST . ' SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO"*DEPTHGROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION 'SvMsoL ft) TP-6 0'-2' Sc COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. . . 2-5' . riñg@3' . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive gray, moist, dense; orange Iron oxide. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled 1/10/02 FA PLATE 8-6 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST -. SAMPLE1 ' FIELD DRY PIT NO.:DEPTH GROUP DEPTH ' MOISTURE L DENSITY DESCRIPTION :SYM8OL:. :; (ft`* .j:;'(%) : 71, .•.. CO. :. ... TP7 0-2' SC COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; . rootlets. 2'-3' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive gray to light brown, moist, medium dense; orange Iron oxide. 3151 . SANTIAGO FORMATION SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. . Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backlllled 1/10/02 PLATE B-i W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT-NO..'.:DEPTH GROUP.. DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL (%) (pcf)'.':.:.::'' TP-8 0'-21/2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; rootlets. 21/2'-5' - UNDIFFERENTIATED VOLCANICS AND GRANITES: light brown to orange brown, moist, dense; granite floaters 6-12 inches. 5' GRUDES INTO METAMORPHIC AND VOLCANIC ROCK, orange brown, dry, very dense; randomly fractured. Practical Refusal @ 5' with 410D Backhoe No Groundwater Encountered Backfitled 1/10/02 11 PLATE 0-8 iieuous.i nc. , W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE ' .... ::.. .:.' FIELD DRY . .•• PIT NO DEPTH — GROUP ' DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION ........ . . (ft.) 7. . SYMBOL' . :ft.) . s (%): . 7..'...... . (pcf) : .... TP-9 0-3' SC . . COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3'4 SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, moist, medium dense. WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY CLAYSTONE, olive gray, moist, medium stiff. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY CLAYSTONE, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled 1/10/02 PLATE B-9 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 'SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTHS GROUP • DEPTH-t t MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION 'SYMBOL (ft ) ()•• ; pap ..:Y. . TP-1 0 0-3' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft. • 3'..5' ring@31/2' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, orange brown, moist, dense. • Total Depth = 5' S No Groundwater Encountered • S Backlilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-b W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH . GROUPS DEPTH MOISTURE 'DENSITY DESCRIPTION ::yi:• : (ft.).SYMBOL (it) .1(%) ...(pcf) ;2'';•. . .. TP-1 1 0'-6' SM O'-3' bulk COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. 6'-12 SM 6-8' bulk ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense. 12-13' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth = 13' No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled 1/10/02 II PLATE 8-Il c, W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 1 SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH I GROUP ' DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION (ft.) J .:SYMBOL: (pci) TP-12 0-11' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 1'-5' CL WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, medium stiff. 517S SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray to gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 7' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-12 - - - - - S • W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE! FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL TP-13 O'-5'. CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 5-13' SM - S ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. - 13'-14' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY CLAY, olive gray, moist, • __________ ___________ ___________ ______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ stiff. • Total Depth = 14' • No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-13 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST I rSAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH J1. MOISTURE. DENSITY DESCRIPTION (f .SYMBOLf TP-14 0-3' CL : COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; rootlets. 3-7' CL ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown to light brown, wet, medium stiff. 7'-10' SC TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAY, olive gray, wet, stiff. Total Depth = 10' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-14 W.O. 3098-Al -Sc McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP. ' 'DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION 7S(ft.). ;SYMBOL. (ft) (%) (pCf):... . . •. TP-1 5 01-4' SC . COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to dark brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 4-5' SC . ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to light brown, moist, medium dense. 5'-6' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist, stiff. Total Depth= 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-iS LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 : . TEST .; SAMPLE c. .c.• .. '.. FI ELD DRY s. s PIT NO ' ','-.DEPTHDEPTH' GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION .sSYMBOL: ••-'f°. cc. ;.(Pcf) :. . TP-16 0-3' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3'-5' SM . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. 5'-7' CL TERRACE DEPOSITS: CLAYEY SAND, olive brown, wet, dense. Total Depth = 71 No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled 1/10/02 PLATE B-16 - - - - - - - McMillin Companies January 23,2002 01. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY - PIT NO DEPTH 'GROUP DEPTH 'MOISTUREi DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMñOL (pot) TP-1 7 O'-2' CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft to medium stiff. 2-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium stiff to stiff. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered • Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE B-li oAk W.O. 098-A1-Sc McMillin companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE - "FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH 'MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION :.SyMBoL. (pcf) TP-18 04 CL S. COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown,.moist, loose; rootlets. 3'-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND TO CLAY, olive brown to brown, moist, dense to stiff. 0 0 Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfllled 1/10/02 PLATE B-18 - - McMillin Companies - January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS S.,;. TEST .: ••. . • "• :....... SAMPLE - , FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP JDEPTH MóISTURE ...' . .. ;. .... DENSITY DESCRIPTION : (ft)..." :::1SyMSO; (ft)4tryi ::. TP-19 0'-3' CL . COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; , roots, rootléts. 3'-5' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/10/02 PLATE 8-19 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS -TEST:..,:- 4 -4 SAMPLE J " FIELDDRY PIT NO i.DE4.PTH GROUP ' i DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION __SYMBOLE (fti*)ci (%): :. (pcf) TP-20 0-2 SM S S COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, loose; rootlets. SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, dry, medium dense. 4-5' SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, dense. 5'-6' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, very dense. S Practical Refusal = 6' No Groundwater Encountered• • • Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-20 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST .' .s... . SAMPLE •• .. . '.. .. FIELD DRY . .......' PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE 1 DENSITY DESCRIPTION .'SYMBOL :(ft)L '. :..'(paf)[. ':• , . ' TP-21 ' 0'-2 SM. . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. 2-3' . . WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense. 3-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dnse. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 . PLATE B-21 -I W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 23, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST ' SAMPLE FIELDDRY , PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION _______________ :•. (if) ¶'.•; SYMBOL'. TP-22 O'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. 24 SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, medium dense. 4'-6' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, olive brown, damp, dense to very dense with depth. Practical Refusal = 6' No Gioundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-22 - McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST -SAMPLE*--'FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION TP-23 0'-3' SM . . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; rootlets. - 31-4' SM . . WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, brown to light brown, damp to moist, medium dense. 4.6' SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense to dense with depth. Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-23 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS ri TEST T ._.. .. . •. I .' : SAMPLE, ç: ,':.;::'. ... ;:: .FIELD DRY .:.. PIT NO ' I DEPTH GROUP 'DEPTH tt MOISTURE.. DENSITY DESCRIPTION ..:syMsoL. .,. (ft)' .; ... (pcf) ... .. - ••.: TP-24 0'-3' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. • . . WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, damp, medium dense. • . TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SANDSTONE, light _________ __________ _________ • . brown, damp, medium dense to dense. • • • . Total Depth = 5' . . No Groundwater Encountered _______ • Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-24 .r•• •j•• W.O. 3098-Al -Sc McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST PIT NO DEPTH GROUP SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) --MOISTURE '.(%) ': FIELD DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION •• • TP-25 O'2! CL • S COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft. • 2'-5' TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY CLAYSTONE, olive gray, wet, stiff. • Total Depth= 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfihled 1/11/02 PLATE B-25 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE - FIELD DRY - PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MoISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION (PCf)::. S TP-26 0-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. S • 2-4' • SM 3-4' bulk • ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose; • friable sands. 4-12' SM SILTY SAND, light brown, moist to wet, loose to medium • _________ __________ _________ ____________ ____________ dense. 12' • • SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive • - __________ _________ ____________ ____________ gray'to gray, wet, medium dense to dense. S • • • Total Depth =. 12' • No Groundwater Encountered • S • S • Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B26 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS S TEST :'.'•.' SAMPLE . ..' .:.: . ••. FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GRÔUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION .(ft• :syMBoL TP-27 0'-2' SM S COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose;• rootlets. 2-10' . SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 10-111' . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive gray, moist, medium dense to dense. Total Depth =11' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-27 W.O. 3098-Al -Sc McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION (ft.) SYMBOL-':.(pcf) TP-28 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 24 SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, loose to medium dense. 8'-12' SM SILTY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense. 12-13' WEATHERED. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY _________ __________ • ____________ ____________ SANDSTONE, olive brown, moist, medium dense. 13'-14' • SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, olive . _____________ _____________ gray, moist, dense. • Total Depth = 14' No Groundwater Encountered • • Backfilled 1/11/02 -- PLATE 8-28 2!. - -• W.O. 3098-Al-SC ' McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST .' ... ':... - SAMPLE : . :.. FIELD DRY . . PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH. MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYBOL1 .4.. :.L.(%) :.: :.(pcf) ..: •.. TP-29 0-2 SM COLLUVIUM SILTY SAND, brown moist, loose; rootlets. 2-5' . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense to dense; Total Depth = 51. . • No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 I PLATE B-29 McMillin Companies 0 0 January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST - SAMPLE FIELDDRY PIT NO. DEPTH GROUP : DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION (péf) :...::. .•.•: TP-30 0-1' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND; brown, dry, loose. 1'31/2' SM SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose. 31/2'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, medium dense tá dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered - Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-30 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP , DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL".1?(ft.) (%) (pC. .•. 1:.. TP-31 0'-3' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense with depth. 31-4' ring04' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-31 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST - SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION ft.) : SYMBOL. (pcf) TP-32 0-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense; rootlets. 2-4' ring@3' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Encountered Backillled 1/11/02 PLATE B-32 W.O. 3098A1-Sc McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS .. TEST . : .: •,;:i' SAMPLE •••.••' . .•.. .. FIELD DRY ... PIT NO.:.DEPTH GROUP DEPTH,. MOISTURE L DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBoL.: f• (%) ••• •.• (P0 . . .1. :. : . •. . TP-33 0-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose; rootlets. 2-4' . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 4' • No Groundwater Encountered _________ • Backfiiled 1/11/02 S PLATE B-33 W.O. 3098A1 -Sc McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 'SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP' DEPTH ' MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION Lft .:.SYMBOL.; TP-34 0'-2' SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, browni moist, loose; roots and rootlets. 2-14' SM ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose to • medium dense. 14' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown S to olive gray, moist, dense. S Total Depth = 14' - No Groundwater Encountered S Backfilled 1/11/02 LI PLATE B-34 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS W.O. 3098A1-Sc McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 . . TEST .!:.:... ...... :-..' SAMPLE . . .:. , . .. ..... S FIELD DRY PIT NO .... DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE*:*DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL"' ft;):: .pc::.: . .• .• TP-35 0-2' . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose; rootlets. ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist to wet, medium. dense. 7'4 rin908' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, dense. Total Depth = 8' No Groundwater Encountered Backfllléd 1/11/02 5 - PLATE B-35 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 'SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE ..*..-':DENSITY.'!.DESCRIPTION (ft)." TP-36 0-2' SM . . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. SM• . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 9-10' . SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAY SANDSTONE, gray to light brown, very moist, medium dense. Total Depth = 10'• No Groundwater Encountred Backfilled 1/11/02 - PLATE B-36 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST ' SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO...DEPTH GROUP. DEPTH ., MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION (ft.)'• SYMBOL. ft.)• 1 L:.; ::;.(pC :... TP-37 0'-3' SM . COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; rootlets. 3'-1 0' SM . . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense. 10-12' SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, gray to light, brown, very moist, medium dense. Total Depth = 12' No Groundwater Encountered . Backfllled 1/1.1/02 PLATE B-37 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST %.:•. SAMPLE : ri ' FIELD,io DRY . . :.. . PIT NO DEPTH.:.::GROUP DEPTH? .......••. MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION MBöL fL)t :i(%)..•.•.. .f :.(pcf) :. : :; :.. TP-38 01-11 Sc COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown, moist, loose; porous, some organics. 1'-4' . . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, yellowish gray to light yellowish brown, wet, soft to medium dense; massive. 4'-6' . 41 SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, moist, medium dense; wearly cemented, massive to weakly bedded (N26W, 1OSW; N13W, 21 SW; NSOW, 6SW). Total Depth = 6' No Groundwater Encountered . Backfilled 1/11/02 . PLATE B-38 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE-::*FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH' GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE. , DENSITY DESCRIPTION (ft.) 43 L.*. (ft.) (%) ".;'. (pcf).: : TP-39 O'-6' SC/CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, very dark gray brown, moist, soft; dessicated, porous. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, light yellowish brown, damp, medium dense; weakly cemented, massive. 71-8' 7' • SANDSTONE/CLAYSTONE, yellowish brown and olive gray, moist, medium dense to stiff; interbedded bedding. N13W, 9SW. 8-10' • SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, damp, dense; cemented, • _________ __________ • ____________ bedding N25W, 11 SW. • Total Depth = 10' • • No Groundwater EncoUntered • Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE 0-39 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 TEST I SAMPLE . - :,FIELD OR PIT NO DEPTH GROUP 'DEPTH MOISTURE 1 DENSITY DESCRIPTION (ft.) ' ::SYMBOL..I. (ft.)Y:. :!?.'(%). (pcf) TP-40 0,-11 . COLLUVIUM: CLAY SAND, brown, moist, loose. 1-4' . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, damp, medium dense; bedding N14W, 10SW; N30W, 7SW, cemented. . Total Depth = 4' No Groundwater Enôountered • Backfllled 1/11/02. n PLATE B-40 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST I. 4 'SAMPLE - FIELD DRY' PIT NO DEPTH GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION .4 (p S TP-41 O'-5' SM . ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, very dark gray brown, moist, loose. 5'-10' SM SILTY SAND, very dark gray brown, loose wet; seepage at 6'-61/2'. 10'-11' SM . . SILTY SAND, very dark gray brown, loose, wet; groundwater at W. Total Depth =11' S Perched Groundwater @ 10' Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-41 W.O. 3098-Al -SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG' OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP. DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION :SYMBO ::':(%). ; '(c': ' ':': • ,: , • TP-42 0'-3' Sc • COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown, dry, loose; porous. 3-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, brown, • S __________ ____________ ____________ moist, medium dense. S Total Depth =5' No Groundwater Encountered • S , BackilIled 1/11/02 • L S PLATE B-42 W.O. 3098-Al-SC McMillin Companies January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO DEPTH GROUP' '--.DEPTH-:-':- MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION SYMBOL ••(ft;) (%) (Pei) TP-43 04 SM .. ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND,brown, moist, loose. SM , - SILTY SAND,brown, moist, loose, becomes wet. 9-10' SM SILTY SAND,brown, becomes saturated, groundwater encountered. Total Depth = 10' Groundwater Encountered @ 9' Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE B-43 W.O. 3098-Al -Sc McMillin Companies - January 17, 2002 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST - SAMPLE FIELD DRY PIT NO...DEPTH DEPTH MOISTURE DENSITY DESCRIPTION S ft.)S• SyMBôL: :..c•'., (pci) TP-44 0'4 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. 2-3' WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, medium dense. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, light brown, damp, dense. Total Depth = 5' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 1/11/02 PLATE 8-44 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. wo. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING 1-113-1 SHEET 1OF 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE E)(CA VA TED 10-2-01 — Sample — — SAMPLE METHOD: 13018 HAMMER @40" DROP sm Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage intohole ' Undisturbed, Ring Sample — . o2 2 CL -04 . .2 20 Description of Material SM : COLUVIUMITOPSOIL : @ 0' SILTY SAND, dry, loose; blocky. ALLUVIUM 15 SM : @4' SANDY SILT, light brown, moist, stiff. 10-19 CL — — SILTY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff. SM — SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense. :@ IT GOUND WATER. © 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturate and dense 15 34 20- 6 • © 20' NO RECOVERY SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose — 10 CL • — © 25' SILTY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. It [• . McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. • • PLATE 8-45 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-1 SHEET 20F 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE E)(CA VA TED 10-2.01 Sample - - SAMPLE METHOD: 130L8 HAMMER @4cr DROP Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed. Ring Sample I - o2C n CL A o -a - E .0 Description of Material . 11 t 'A © 30' SILTY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. 18 I CL © 35' SILTY CLAY, light brown, saturated, very stiff. I .' 20 I CL WEATHERED SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS © 40' SILTY CLAY, olive, saturated, very stiff; highly weathered. 70 wet, very dense. Total Depth = 46.5' Groundwater @ 13.0' Backfilled on 10/02/01 t I• . I I I I I II McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-46 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING 1-113-2 SHEET iOF 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch - DATE EXCA VA TEL) 10-2-01 - si.. - - - SAMPLE METHOD: 130L8 HAMMER 40" DROP StandaiJ Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole _:1 - - Undistufte4 Ring Sample S ca 34 0, ca co S Description of Material SM : COLUVIUMITOPSOIL : © 0' SILTY SAND, brown, moist, loose; roots and rootlets, blocky. ALLUVIUM : @3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, medium dense. 13 SM. © 5' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, moist, medium dense 13 . •• © 10' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; • A -: GROUNDWATER. 157 17 © 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense 20- 17 @20' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense 8 © 25' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose - - - Geo Soils, Inc.. McMillin, Robertson Ranch 8-41 BORING LOG GeoSods, Inc. WO. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING H13-2 SHEET 20F 2 McMillin; Robertson Ranch DATE E)(CA VA TED 10-2-01 - Sample -.. SAMPLE METHOD: 13018 HAMMER @40" DROP StandatdPenefration Test Water Seepage into hole Ring Sample Le UndLstwbed. : .j*1 , 2 to En , - - Description of .Material 12 SM © 30' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium. dense. -S. 28 SM © 35' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense i oiai uepui = 4U. Groundwater @ 10' Backfllled 10/02/01 J II I 1*--1 I L 0 McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-48 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING H83 SHEET 10F McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE VA TED 10-2-01 - Sample -. SAMPLE METHOD: 130L8 HAMMER @40k DROP Standard Penetration Test • - Water Seepage into hole UndLstinte4 Ring Sample 10- MC Description of Material SM COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL ..-.. © 0' SILTY SAND, light brown to brown, loose. 0,2 - ALLUVIUM --: © 3' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. • 10 : © 5' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist to wet, loose; coarse sands - : with silt 'S Y, dark grey, moist to wet, very stiff; oxidized oxidization. and granitics, dense; I iotai ueptn = Groundwater @ 10' Backfilled on 10/02/01 1.1 I 'I I •l .1 I 'I S McMlllin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc.' PLATE B-49 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT. BORING HB-4 SHEErJ.9F McMillin, Robertson Ranch • DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 - Sample - - - SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @4Cr DROP Standard Penefrabon Test S Water Seepage into hole CL I I to Description of Material SM : COLLUVIUM!TOPSOIL @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose - SM : ALLUVIUM 20 @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense moist medium dense. I E, olive brown to reddish brown, moist, I No Groundwater Backfllled 11111 II II S S McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. S Pz..4TE 9-50 28 i 15-f BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-5 SHEET 1OF 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 130LB HAMMER @40' DROP Standaid Penetration Test P Water Seepage into hole UndIsturbe4 Riiig Sample Q. 3 ,3.a US Description of Material SM : COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL © 0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry to moist, loose. 51 OWN 23 1 CL I I I WN-A-L—Lumum SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, very stiff. GROUNDWATER. 1 "7W 27 1 1 I J M © 10' SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff. 29 @SANDY CLAY, greenish brown to brown, wet, very stiff. 7 © 20' SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, medium stiff. 13 SM @25' SILTY SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. - S • • • McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 5-51 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. • WO. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-5 SIEET2OF 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch • DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 Sample - - SAMPLE METHOD: 130L8 HAMMER @4(r DROP Standard Penetration Test Water Seepage into hole - Undisturbed. Ring Sample CL :LC E FA - - - Description of Material W SM - © 30' SILTY SAND, olive brown, saturated, medium dense: orange • -: iron oxide. 14 • : © 35' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; orange • -• iron oxide. orange iron oxide. saturated, medium dense; I SAT1AGO FORMATION © 50' CLAYEY SILTSTONE, olive, dry to damp, hard. Total Depth = 51.5' Groundwater @6' Backfilled on 10/03/01 I I I I I I I• I I I I McMillin, Robertson Ranch GeoSoils, Inc. • p47 8-52 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. Wo, 3098-Al-SC PROJECT. BORING H8-6 SHEET J..QF McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 - Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 130L8 HAMMER @40' DROP Standard Penetration Test j Water Seepage into hate Undlsturbed Ring Sample - 5 . x 0 IO2 U3 3 3 Le Description of Material SM : COLLUVIUMITOPSOIL I I- @0' SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose. @ 4' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, loose. 19 :•@ 5'SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense. I 10- 39 © 10' SILTY SAND, light brown, moist, dense. 15 25 © 15' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense 20 24 ' © 20' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense 25 19 @25' SILTY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense - - - GeoSohs Inc. - McMillin, Robertson Ranch ,, -3• BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. wo. 3098-Al-SC PROJECT: BORING HB-6 SHEET 20F 2 McMillin, Robertson Ranch DATE EXCAVATED 10-3-01 - Sample - - SAMPLE METHOD: 130L8 HAMMER @40" DROP Standard Penetration Test FM A Water Seepage into hole Undish,rbe4 Ring Sample • - LD U) .3 CL 0 E - 5 ,. Description of Material - - 97 SM © 30' SILTY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense - 45 SANTIAGO FORMATION • © 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, green, wet, dense. - S Total Depth = 36.5' Groundwater © 30' - S Backfllled 10/02/01 40- 45- 50- '55- • - - GeoSoils, Inc. McMillin Ro bertson Ranch • • APPENDIX C. BORING LOGS AND TEST PITS (GSI, 2001C) - cw cP 1CM cc . S o - SC SW - - d U1 SP (.z - 1•_ SM SC 66' ML I I Highly Orpnle sails rr P4ATERAIL QUANTITY treak o - sa few 5-lOt little tO -23 2 same 25 -45 2 OTHER SYMBOL5 C Core saumle S SPY sample I Bulk ample JE GrOursatSr I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM I CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY I Croup F Major &vislons symbols Typical Scam CRITERIA Wdfl.giod.d pivela and pivel. mod mixtures, little or no ones Poorly graded gravels and gravol4and manures. little or no fines gravels, p*ve6esnd-,t clam _pivels, pavday ndxtom Wefliraded unds and gravelly little or no flees Poorly — muds nod gravelly 6 or no Lass Silty sank sand.dk m1zU,m - clam wamil~ mu4cley mes —Aba. yes, fins ua rods fimm silty or claysy flue Saudi Inorganic dqsof low to Mdbm P111sucity. pave days, mandy days, silty lean days Orpale silts and. ora sty Ch" of low PkIticity Inorganic siltt micamooss or Il1A...55$ fins muds or silts, 0630 silts IatpnL days Si high 'I".'y. Melnys 0rpnlcdays of medium to - ghpUty Peat, muck, and other highly — wilt Standard Penetration Tect Penetration Resisiinc N Relative (blows/It) Density 0-4 Very loose 4-30 Loose 10-30 Medium 30-50 Dense >50 Very dense Standard Penetration Test Penetz2uon Resistance N (blows/fl) Consistency <2 Very soft 2-4 Soft 4-8 Medium 8-15 Stiff 15-30 Very stiff >30 Hard Unconfined Compeesstve s— (tons/ft') 0.50-1.00 1.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 >4.00 -. S.l s... .. Unirued Cobbles Gravel I Sand J Of or Clay coon. I 'e sou classif. iccorse I medmm i n. MOISTURE CONDITIONS Dry absence of 501st: dusty, dry to thu taicti slightly below optimus moisture corMant moist for compaction Moist near optimum mointurscoftent V.ry moist above optimum moisture contm%t vat visible 1'res water, below water table BASIC LOG FORMAT: Group au.. Groun symbol. (Grain size). Color, Moisture. consistency or relative øsnalty Additional comments: odor, presence of roots • mica • gypsum, coarse grained oorticl.s etc. EXAMPLE: Sand tSP), fins to sodium grained, brown, moist. loomo, trace silt. little fin, gravel few Cobbles %&P to 4. In size, sans hair roots and roartlets BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-i SHEET 1OF 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCA VA TED 4-13-00 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb Hami'ner 30" drop 4- H- C Standard Penetration Test I 4- I '•- - C" L - 4- l Undisturbed, Ring Sample Ware, Seepage into hole .c # o (fl.O .IL 4- 5 L 0. a co • —10L1 c i 9-i 0 - US , 0 - o Z 9- • I' Description of Material SANDY CLAY, brown, damp, loose. 5 10 CL 104.1 19.9 89.3 @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff; roots and 5I rootlets. 16 CL 106.6 18.4 88.3 @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff, fine to medium grained well-sorted sand fraction. - 5 10 15 20 25 17 ISCI 111. 12 1 SP 131 I No 19 I SP I I I I I I I College & Cannon RoadlCalavera Hills t) 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular sands. '4I @ 14', Groundwater encountered. @ 15', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. © 20' No recovery. . @ 25', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; medium to coarse grained, well sorted, little fines. GeoSoils, Inc. . PLATE Ci • BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. • W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING B1 SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCA VA TED 4-13-00 - Sample - SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb Hammer 30" drop ' I 4 Standard Penetration Test U Water Seepage into hole U U D 3 4- L '. Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4- -fl 3 0 1.1.0 U 3 .0. -DL 0 c - LIE 3 31 4- Description of Material - 91 - No R cove ' @ 30', No recovery. - 91 • - .:; @ 35', CLAYEY SAND,light brown to tan, saturated, medium • dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular. - 4 15 SP 40', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium dense; fine grained.. - 15 SC V/A - - - @ 45', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained. 8 I Sc @ 50', CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, loose; fine to medium grained. Total Depth = 511/2'- Groundwater encountered @ 14' Backfllled 04-13-00 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills • GeoSoils, Inc. ' • • PLATE C-2 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING 8-2 SHEET 1 O 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-13-00 SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hamiher 30"drop Sample - a 'I 2 4. 3 Standard Penetration Test _ a .L c" 4- C Water Seepage into hole .c hasP m - o 4- L Undisturbed, Ring Sample 9- a l• —l'OLI —.I 3 0 t#.O (JE 5 - 4- 3 .0 z Ic il - o Description of Material a b.-I z t., I I ALLUVIUM I •/ @ 0', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, loose. 14 SC 107.4 14.0 68 OS @ 2 1 /2', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense; IX fine to coarse grained. XX 777.7 10 SC 97.4 6.5 24.6 @ 5', CLAYEY SAND; brown, wet, medium dense; fine to ;'/ coarse grained. - 101 - . 18 CL• 108.6 17.7 89.9 @ 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, stiff. @ 14', Groundwater encountered. 15 .1 1 ci. S @ 15', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. 14 CL 101.2 24.0 100 I'i @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff; orange II iron oxide staining. - • 1 27 GW o UUHOGK - METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish brown, saturated, medium dense; weathered. - .00 • . 0 - 0 GeoSoils College & Cannon Road/Calavera - ., Inc. •. . • • RA7E C- BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. S WO. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B2 SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-13-00 Sample - -. SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30'drop - g Standard Penetration Test i C Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample c Z - a 3*1 0 - - .30 0 N Description of Material F /5. - - ' @ 30',METAVOLCONIC BEDROCK, greenish gray todark c reddish brown, wet, very dense. Total Depth = 311/2' Groundwater encountered @ 14' Backfifled 04-13-00 45 5 College & Cannon RoadlCalavera Hills GeoSolls, Inc. S PLATEC-4 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CAlAVERA HILLS. 11, LLC BORING B-3 SHEET J .OF 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills • DATE EXCAVATED 4-13-00 SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop Sample x F. C Standard Penetration Test 4. L. a 4- t Water Seepage into hole .0 leol m .1.. 11 Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4- l. -al 3 •,.o 0 S. S 3 Ic -l0Ll i 0 - U E 3 L o 9- LAI Description of. Material :0 l4 -I 0 r. ALLUVIUM - vV @ 0', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose. - 14 Sc 109.0 10.2 52 X, @ 2 1/2', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense; / fine to coasre. - . 12 - t 96.7 94 r @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff. 101 1 18 I CL 1 108.4 118.51 93 @ 10', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff. .• I. @ 14', Groundwater encountered. •• . . . @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose. . 20 10 No A icove, @ 20', No recovery, loose -- 25 iW cUI1UI. @ 25', METAVOLCANIC ROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish brown, saturated, medium dense College & Cannon RoadlCalavera Hills . GeoSoils, • . PLATE BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING B-3 SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon RoadlCalavera Hills DATE EXCA VA TED 413-00 Sample 6, SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop • 4. • ' C 0 Standard Penettition Test c L 4- S Water Seepage into hole £ % ,• S S 5 - L Undisturbed, Ring sample 4- IL -.O 3 —OL 0 15.0 US IL 3 5 4- I • c - 3 c. o Description of Material 0 D# &I 0 - - :59 ? @ 30', METAVOLCANIC ROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish - -•- - --- brown, saturated, dense. ________________________ Total Depth = 311/2' Groundwater encountered at 14' - Backfilled 04-13-00 3 College& Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoi Inc. : PLATE _C-8 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CM.AVERA HILLS II, LLC S BORING B-4 SHEET 1 O 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-14-00 SAMPLE METHOD: 140b hammer 30"drop Sample a x II . 4 x Standard Penetration Test 4- '.. I 4-... C" L - 4- Water Seepage into hole .c lawi w 0 4- L Ej Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4- el-.ul a n a - a IL 0 a Ic —loLl al 0 - (15 (6 S L 5' o 4- Description of Material O 34-1 0 Z (.) @ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, damp to moist, loose. ' 1.5 CL. 108.9 12.4 63.3 @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff. 15 CL 96.7 25.6 94 @ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff; fine to medium grained, well sorted. loveL @ 9', Groundwater encountered. 4 CL No @ 10', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, soft. 13 I CL I 108.4 I 18.5 1100 @ 15', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. 15 1 CL @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff. J;J . - ' j•SC -@25';CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, z dense; medium to coarse grained, no recovery. .d. 01 . .. . . . S . :. College' & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills - GeOSOlIS, ' PLATE.__________ 5 10 15 20 fr BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2863-A-SC• PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 8-4 SHEET J...0F 2 College & Cannon floadlCalavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-14-00 Sample X SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b hammer 30drop 3 4 I. x C Standard Penetration Test 4- • C 9. L 0 9. (I Water Seepage into hole Z we to 0 no L J Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4- ] 0 .0 0. S. • — DL 0 c z - 05 03 W L - 0 4- d Description of Material oco Im4-Co o i k~,-1 CL1 - - @ 30', SANDY CLAY, olive green, saturated, very stiff; orange iron oxide staining: 14 CL @ 35', SANDY CLAY, olive green to brown, saturated, stiff. ri 14 1 CL I I I N @ 40', SANDY CLAY, light brown to olive green, saturated, stiff. 4: @ 45', CLAYSTONE, light brown to olive gray, saturated, tvery stiff. - Total Depth = 46 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 55 .111 I I I I II.. GeoSoils, Inc. College & Cannon Road/Calavera pills PLATE ca BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS U. LLC BORING B-5 SHEET lop 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-14-00 - Sample - S SAMPLE METHOD: 140U_ Hammer 30drop - - Standard Penetration Test iø .4. C ' I. 4. Water Seepage into hole Undisturbed, Ring Sample - - - - Description of Material - ALLUVIUM • @ 0', SAND, light brown, moist, loose. 8 SP @ 2 1/2', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse grained. 5- 7 SP @ 5', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse • grained. 0 - - Groundwater encountered. 101 ' 15 No recovery. -j-SC - : 15', CLAYEY. SAND,. light brown, saturated, medium - dense; fine to coarse grained. 27 I SC Fy21 @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; fine to medium grained. 25 28 SC College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense. GeoSolls, Inc. PLATE _C-9 - BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2863-A-Sc PROJECT: CALAVHA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-5 SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-14-00 Sample x SAMPLE METHOD: 1401bHammer30drop 4- • 3 ' C o Standard Penetration Test 4- C. 4- ( Water Seepage into hole a a a 3 4- C. Undisturbed. Ring sample 4- 0. —.D —DL 3 0 (ILD QE CL 3 0 4- • O c - ca e 3 no 0 C. 0d Description of Material .7 BEDROCK @ 30',CLAYEYSANDSTONE,lightbrown,saturated,dense. • Total Depth = 31 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 35. 5 GeoSoils, College & Cannon RoadlCalavera Hills Inc. PLATE C-1O BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863.A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING 8-6 SHEET 1 O 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 Sample X SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop • 3 'C C 0 Standard Penetration Test 10 L - 4- Water Seepage into hole .0 ,ev e 0 4- L Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4- Q. —O(. I—.l 3 0 ° LIE 1 — 4- o ic; - (,1 C. 0 0 Description of Material 1 6/5" CL ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose. ¼ ' @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, medium stiff; roots and rootlets, no recovery. : @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, wet, loose, no recovery. : @ 9', groundwater encountered. @ 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, stiff, fine to medium grained, orange iron oxide staining. ,14,, 15j 61 7 1 CL V</j @ 15'. SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, medium stiff. ) 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; medium to coarse grained. 6 SC 2 @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; orange Iron oxide staining. Cóllege&Cànnon Road/Calavéra Hills - GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-li BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING B-6 SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-17-00 Sample - - SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop - - " Standard Penetration Test i c 9- Water Seepage into hole Z - Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4. -D 3 IL - 13 L 0 fr 05 CL 3 a 4- 0 c 3 - Description of Material --3.0 SC 01 BEDROCK - - - • @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to brown, irated, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining. - - Total Depth = 311/2' - Groundwater encountered @ 9' Backfilled 04-14-00 35 45 'I I GeoSoils College& Cannon Aoad/Calavera Hills , Inc. PLATE 12 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. WO. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II. LLC BORING 8-7 SHEET .1 OF College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills 04 TE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 SAMPLE METHOD: 1401bHamMer30drop Sample a 10 a X a I I 4- C Standard Penetration Test 1 1+: S 0 - 4- Water Seepage into hole Ii lest \ - c e L Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4- I-.Ol l a 0 (II.0 4- 4- CL —lV Ic l o - U 3 - L o Description of Material D bl &e a c - - - ALLUVIUM @ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry, loose. 48 CL @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, hard. . 30 @ 5', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff; Calcium carbonate and orange iron oxide. @ 9', groundwater encountered. 1 •@ 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, manganese oxide staining. 16 CL 7_@_15', Groundwater encountered. @ 15', SANDY CLAY, brown, saturated, stiff. / / S 20 17 / @ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, very stiff. @ 25', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to olive green, saturated, very dense. Total Depth = 26 1/2' Groundwater encountered @ 15' Backfilled 04-17-00 GeoSoiIs, Collége& Cannon Road/Calavera Hills Inc. PLATE_-13 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVEAA HILLS II. LLC BORING B-8 SHEET 1 O 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 Sample x .1 SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop -' • 4- II. 4- " C Standard Penetration Test I I '.• \ .- C' I.. 4- Water Seepage into hole .0 lt .I iwwi ia - a 4- L Undisturbed, Ring Sample 4. 0. _F- I—.OI 3 0 t.,.o 05 IL - 4- • o c 4-I I - 3 i C. 0 0 Description of Material FZ7 ALLUVIUM I @ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry to damp, loose. 31 CL 119.8 11.1 77 @ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp to moist, very stiff, fine to coarse grained, well sorted, sub-angular. 5 WOW - 11 I VAP VVL,, II IjI.jUU DLII I. 10 I 23 I CL I 109.2 116.8 contact between sand and clay @11'' 15-f l . 18 CL J @ 15', Groundwater encountered. @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, very.stiff. 9 I CL @ 20', SANDY CLAY, olive gray to light brown, saturated, stiff. 18 I CL @ 25', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, very stiff. College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills •• • GeoSoils. Inc. • PLATE LI BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING Be SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DA TE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: 1401bHamiher 30" drop • 4- • 4. X C o Standard Penetration Test • I.. '... 4• 4- C' L - 4- A4 Water Seepage into hole iu - Undisturbed. Ring sample 4- 0. 3 - OL 0 0.0 05 IL 3 S - 4- • 0 i c - 4- C#) L o (#1 Description of Material 19 Sc :7;BEoRock • @ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive gray, saturated, medium - --• - - ense; fine grained, orange iron oxide. Total Depth = 311/2' - Groundwater encountered @ 15' Backfilled 04-17-00 3 145 5 55 GeoSoils College & Cannon RoadlCatavera Hills • • , Inc. PLATE BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS 1l.UC BORING B-9 SHEET 1 O 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCAVATED 4-17-00 SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30' drop Sample x .., • ((+: 4 _.. ' C 0 Standard Penetration Test 4- 9. I IiVI 19- 4- — ', m L — 4- I Water Seepage into hole Iwel \ m — C 3 3 4- L Undisturbed, Ring Sample .c 4- l —.al 3 0 (4.0 1 3. ______________________________________ 0. 3 Ic -l0Ll 31 0 — 05 (4 I. o 4- Description of Material C 0l4 -1 '4 0 E 14 V • . — U U • VWt U 7 . %U U Us,.aJ. 7. 65 GC 129.1 7.0 65 ' @ 2 112', CLAYEY GRAVEL, brown, damp to moist, very S dense; coarse grained sand, moderately sorted, sub-angular ,s gravels and sands. 5 GC @ 5', CLAYEY GRAVEL, dark brown, wet, loose; coarse grained gravels. - 10 wet, 4 I SC I I i'4 @ 15', CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, very loose. 4 1 sc . @ 20', CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, very loose. 25 11 CL (9) Z5', CLAY, olive gray, calcium carbonate stains. 5% College & Cannon Road/Catavera Hills Ge Soils Inc. PLATE C-16 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2863-A-SC PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC BORING B-9 SHEET 20F 2 College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills DATE EXCA VA TED 4-17-00 - Sample - - SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop S Standard Penetration Test - ., .j Water Seepage into hole I D - C W d .. Undisturbed. Ring Sample ulO e 0. .4- L 4- —.o 3 A IL 0. —L 0 05 I - 4- w c - Description of Material ' io- - - CL @ 30', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff; calcium • carbonate stains. 35- 15 CL . @ 35', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. -: 40- 8 CL @ 40', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. 9 CL . @ 45', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. • 5° 16 CL @ 50', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff. 4: / • Total Depth = 511/2'.. Groundwater encountered @ 15' • . Backfilled 04-17-00 155 1H I IHI College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE C-i? 070 W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 llll1k1 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST " ,SAMPLE ' 1 FIELD PlTç , 'DEPTH GROUP DEPTH4 MOISTURE ,' DRY DESCRIPTION NO (ft) • ISYMBOLI " (ft.) i - p (%) , DENSITY i .... :_::(pcf) ___________________________________________________________________________ TP-8 0-4 CL BULK © 0-1' COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry to damp, stiff; porous, roots and rootlets, blocky. 4-8 CL WEATHERED BEDROCK: CLAYEY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium dense; angular gravel to cobbles, orange iron oxide staining, caliche. 8-9 CL SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist to wet, medium dense; some angular gravels and cobbles, orange Iron oxide, few • ___________ ____________ ____________ __________ boulders. • • • BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC ROCK, gray, dry, very dense. Practical Refusal @4' Total Depth = 9' • No groundwater encountered flackfilled 05-12-00 41" MPH W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC r C• May 12, 2000 W. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST SAMPLE-' :" FIELD PIT DEPTHS GROUP DEPTH MOISTURE DRY DESCRIPTION NO. (ft) SYMBOL. - '.,)' (ft) . (%) ' DENSITY : .:. k. TP9 0-4 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, dry, loose; roots and rootléts, blocky 410 SC ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, medium dense; fine to coarse grained, well sorted, laminated clay and sand lenses, orange iron oxide, rounded. 10 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK, olive gray, . ____________ _________ damp to moist, dense; fractured. Practical Refusal @ 10' Total Depth = 10' • No groundwater encountered Bac*fllled Q5-1 2-00 W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12. 2000 LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST-'. I SAMPLE' FIELD I . •. • PIT, 'DEPTH'.. 'GROUP J DEPTH MOISTURE 'DRY DESCRIPTION SYMBOC. (if) ••'••' :.ri:; !.i(pc.. '. : . TP-10 0-2 SC COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, damp to moist, loose; roots and rootlets. 2-4 SC CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine to coarse, well sorted, rounded, caliche 4-7 ML TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY SILT, light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained, well sorted; massive 7-10 ML BULK @ 7-8 SANDY CLAY, gray, moist, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining, massive. Total Depth = 10' No groundwater encountered Backfllled 05-12-00 C-20 MOr W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 I LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST :sAMPLE; ..': ;'.•. FIELD ..• •. :. PIT DEPTH 'GROUP, f" DEPTH 'MOISTURE : DRY DESCRIPTION .4 .... NO c ". ..... DENSITY' 1: L• •. ' ••'•.. . . . . (pcf) • ••.• TP-1 1 0-2V2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light to reddish brown, dry to damp, loose; roots and rootlets. 21h-31h SC/SM CLAYEY SILT SAND, olive gray, moist, medium dense; roots and rootlets. 3Va-7 SM BULK @ 4-5' SILTY SAND, olive gray, moist, medium dense; abundant roots and rootlets, manganese, orange iron oxide. 7-10 BULK © 7-8' BEDROCK METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK light yellowish brown, damp, dense; fractured, breaks to silty sand and angular gravel upon excavation. Total Depth = 10' Rackfilled 05-12-00 ji No groundwater encountered C-21 W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC u1 May 12, 2000 . 4iL .J. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST , 1( 1 'SAMPLE FIELD PIT 'DEPTH GROUP DEPTH , r MOISTURE DRY L DESCRIPTION NO (ft) ' SYMBOL' (%) ,- DENSITY - • (pcf) - - TP-12 O-Y2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium gray, dry, loose; many roots, blocky, open dessication cracks, fine grained. /2-1 /2 SW SAND, dry, medium dense; few dessication cracks, fine to medium grained, some silt. 11/2 21/2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, slightly moist, brown, medium dense: weathered, few dessication cracks, fine grained, massive 21/2-8 SM • • SILTY SAND, yellow brown to olive brown, moist, medium dense; fine grained, massive to weak subhorizontal bedding Total Depth = 8' • No groundwater encountered Backfilled 05-12-00 C-22 I 4' W.O. 2863-A-SC Calavera Hills II, LLC May 12, 2000 J LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS TEST 'rSAMPLE ¼ PIT.*'DEPTh ' GROUP 'I DEPTH? MOISTURE -' DRY - DESCRIPTION NO (if) SYMBOL' ' (ft.) ,. (%)'. DENSITY (pcf) TP-13 0-2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium gray, dry, loose; many roots, blocky, open desslcation cracks, fine grained. 2-4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, slightly moist, medium dense; weathered, few desslcation cracks, fine graihed, massive. Total Depth =4' No groundwater. encountered Rckflhled 05.12.00 . . r C-23 APPENDIX 0 LABORATORY DATA ) 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 - 6.000 6,00C 5.00C 2,0CC 1.00C 4,0CC NORMAl. PRESSUREpsf Sample - Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% c ! 1 TP-02 3.0 Prirnafy Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1608 20 • TP-02 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.9 13.6 1345 20 i Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST I 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN tarlsbad, CA. 92008 ' Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number '3098-AI-SC I Fax: (760) 931-0915 • • • Date: January 2002 • Figure: D - 1 6,000 Ii 5,000 - 4.000 3,000 - 2,000 - 1,000 - e ______ ______ 0 1,000 2,000 3.000 4.000 5.000 ROan - . NORMAL PRESSURE, p1 Sample Depth/El. PrlmaiylResldual Shear Sample Type MC% c + f TP-10 3.5 Primary Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 531 29 • TP-10 3.5 Residual Shear Undisturbed 102.1 13.6 514 29 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN ., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number '3098-Al-SC 0 Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: January 2002 Figure: D -2 6,000 5.000 H — 4.000 N- I 3.000 2.000 1.000 0 NORMAL PRESSURE. psf "1 Sample - DepthIEl. PrlrarylResldual Shea! Sample Type 74 MC% c 4 ! 1 TP-26 3.0 Primary Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 130 31 • TP.26 3.0 Residual Shear Remolded 102.6 13.0 98 31 Ll Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc. ___________ DIRECT SHEAR TEST 5741 Palmer Way Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number 3098-Al -SC.: El Fax: (760)931-0915 Date: January 2002 . Figure: b -3 S..'' 6,00C - 5,00C"_________ S 4,000 3,D00 S ?.000. I 1.000 ,• .5 - .5 0 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 NORMAL PRESSURE. psf - Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% c + ! TP-32 3.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 1012 9.8 464 35 ! TP-32 3.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 101.2 9.8 361 36 0-1 Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing S DIRECT SHEAR TEST GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way ' ' S ', Project: MCMILLIN G=1 man Carlsbad, CA 92008 . . Telephone: (760) 438-3155" Number 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931-0915 . Date: January 2002 Figure: D-4 __ • __ ) 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 6,00( 5.00C 4,00C CL z LU 3.0OC 2.000 1.000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample - Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type -fd MC% c 4 • 1 TP-35 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 250 27 • TP-35 8.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 99.0 13.3 208 28 Note: Sample innundated prior to tesjThg V GeoSoils, Inc. ___________ DIRECT SHEAR TEST GS qp 5741 Palmer Way • Project MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008. • us Telephone: (760)438-3155 • • Number 3098-Al-SC Fax: (760) 931..0915• • • •• Date: January 2002 • Figure: D -5 'S ) 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 6,000 5,000 2,000 1,000 0 NORMAL PRESSURE. psf Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type ) MC% 'C f TP-39 8.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 3189 48 ! TP-39 80 Residual Shear Undisturbed 115.0 14.3 1007 29 LI Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing DIRECT SHEAR TEST S GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way • • Project: MCMILLIN Carlsbad, CA 92008 • • Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number. 3098-Al-SC • Fax: (760) 931-0915 • Date: January 2002 Figure: D'- 6 U, 11111111 ______Ahilik- --1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 ______II!!AI huH Is I ____ 1111111_-1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111__1111111 IIhIIIIUUIIhIHF 1111111 AilhilIl 1111111 IIIIII 1111111 111111 1111111 --I1hiiII 1111111 IIhIiI--__1111111 1111111 1111111 ______IIhIIIi!AiIIII__1111111 hIhiHi 1111111 III I III eoSoilsInc. . JoSd~ 5741 Palmer Way Carlsba* d. CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760) 931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST l tM''lII uIN Number 3098-Al-SC IflIiTJfii7D'III)' ITLII3U1 - Sample ' Visual Classification Initial ' MC Initial " MC Final' ' H20 • Ha-i 10.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 105.7 205 17.3 250 Dept G, Project h/El. I I I I Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification. Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 f 118-1 15.0 1 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) 107.7 19.5 18.7 720 GeoSolls, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way IDS. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760)438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project MCMILLIN • • Number 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 . • Figure: D -8 1111111_-111111 11111111 1111111 1111111 iAhIII_---1111111 $_ iiih'iiiUIflhIIII___ IIII[ _____IIuIIII- 111111 1111111 _____ 1111111 ____ 1111111•__--IIIIIII 1111111 • ______1111111_-IIIIIII 1111111 -1111111 1111111 • • __IIIIHI__IIIIIII--•__1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 1111111 __IIIIIII Iflifli,, - 1111111, --11111111 II GeoSoils, Inc. est 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 -Telephone: (760)14.Number 'I.] E1.1 II PAT [. TEST Project MCMILLIN 3098-Al-SC ' - f1,I'f1iJ'II}' Sample Depth/El. I Visual Classification ) Initial MC Initial ' MC Final H20 • HB-2 10.0 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) 100.9 20.8 18.3 250 I I I I I I -1 C -•---- iii:: .5 C 7 ------ ____ --.----.-" - 6 -- 9 SIC 11 100 11000 10,000 S 10 STRESS. psf Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification S Td Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 5.0 Silty Sand 100.6 9.5 18.0 2000 GeoSolls, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way !as& Carlsbad, CA 92008 AL Telephone: (760) 438-3155 8 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST• S PrOJect MCMILLIN Number 3098-Al -SC bate: January 2002 Figure Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification . Yd Initial MC initial MC Final H20 • HB-3 . 10.0 Sandy Clay 121.7 13.6 13.6 2500 GeoSoils,. Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Fax:(760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D -I I __ 11=11 11111 2 3 4 . ----.... 6 . 7 9 1. N 10 1111 IuI 111111 100 1,000 . 10,000 . 105 STRESS. psf Sample DepthlEl Visual Classification -fd Initial MC Initial MC Final H20 0 HB-5 15.0 102.7 23.3 20.8 250 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way %WSInc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 3 Fax: (760)931-0915 n CONSOLIDATION TEST Project: MCMILLIN Number 3098-Al-SC . Date: January 2002 Figure: D - 12 / Sample DepthlEl. Visual Classification . -fd Initial MC initial MC Final H20 HB6 5.0 Sandy Clay S 107.5 12.5 16.9 2000 ail GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project MCMILUN Number 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: b - 13 -1 1 - 0 -..----.- • 11 100 1,000 10,000 105 STRESS, psf Sample DepthlEl. Visual Classification 7 Initial MC Initial MC Final': H20 0 I1B-6 15.0 106.7 11.7 16.3 2500 GeoSoils, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way 0 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Inc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 8 • Fax: (760) 931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project MCMILLIN Number 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 • Figure: D -14 60 50 L0____ 40 . CL CH 74 00, 2C __ ______ / S / / /5 / IC ML MI-I CL-k1L 7 20 40 60. 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL P1 Fines Classification • HB-1 10.0 36 15 21 54 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • I HB-1 15.0 NP NP NP 5 POORLY GRADED SAND(SP) A HB-1 30.0 49 20 29 70 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) • HB-2 10.0 NP NP NP 6 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) • 1-113-2 25.0 32 16 16 42 CLAYEY SAND(SC) O 1-18-5 25.0 36 15 21 36 CLAYEY SAND(SC) CeoU GeoSoiis, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Fax: (160) 931-0915 ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS Project: MCMILLIN Number: 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D -24 60 50 CL CH ' 00, 6 40 20 0 ___' -* _30______ '000 7/ ML 0 MH CL-&1L o 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Sample Depth/El. LL PL P1 Fines. Classification • TP-01 0.0 51 15 36 • TP-02 3.0 43 25 18 Clay GeoSoils, Inc* 5741 Palmer Way S O$O'U.IIC. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 438-3155 ' . Fax: (760) 931-0915 ._S. ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS' Project: MCMILLIN Number 3098-Al-SC Date: January 2002 Figure: D -25 APPENDIX E LABORATORY DATA (GSI, 2001C) 10 9 8 7 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3" 3/4" 3/8" *4 *10 *20 *4.9*60 *1.00 *200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY. coarse tine coarsel medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTII DESCRIPTION B-01 15.0 8-91 20.0 A 0-02 10.0 0-02 20.0 PARTICLE SIZE August 2000 GeoSelis. Inc. . DISTRIBUTION . w.o.: 2863-SC Mct1ILLIN Figure E-1 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3" 3/4" 3/8, *4 *10 *20 *40*60 *100 *200 100 90 80 70 0 z 60 IL 50 I-. 2 w 0lz 40 IL 3, 20 10 0 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND -1 SILT CLAY coarse fine cearsel medium J fine EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTPI DESCRIPTION 8-03 25.0 37 21 Sc CLAYEY SAND 8-04 18.0 A 8-04 20.0 36 19 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 8-05 5.0 PARTICLE SIZE GeoSeils. Inc. DISTRIBUTION t1cMILLIN August 2000 11.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-2 10 9 S 7 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3 3,'4" 3/9" *4 *10 *20 *40*60 *100 *200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coareel medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS B-OS 25.0 B-OS 15.0 A B-OS 25.0 5-07 10.0 ASTPI DESCRIPTION I GeoSojis. Inc. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION I1cMILLIN August 2000 U.O.: 2963-SC Figure E-3 SIEVE ANALYSIS 3/4" 3/8" *4 *10 *20 *40*60 *100 *200 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse1 medium fine EXPLORATION DEPTH LL P1 CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION B-07 25.0 5-08 15.0 A B-09 10.0 B-09 30.0 PARTICLE. SIZE GeoSolis, Inc. . . DISTRIBUTION Mct1ILLIN August 2000 14.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-4 60 50 I-, CL 40 Ui a z H 30 I-s C.) H I.- C.., '. 20 0. 10 1 • CH /•' CL MH ML ML-CL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Be 90 100 11 0 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) EXPLORATION DEPTH (ft) LL PL P1 8-03 25.0 37 16 21 8-04 20.0 36. 16 19 ATTERBERG LIMITS GeoSolls, Inc.* TEST •RESULTS flcMILLIN August 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Figure E-5 3000 2500 500 1. - I a NOR •.i .• 1000 1500 2060 2500 30Bg NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 0-01 Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: Results: Primary Cohesion (ps?): 635 Test Method: Friction Angie: 22 Undisturbed Ring Residual • Cohesion Cps?): 58 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing Friction Angie: 21 DIRE-CT.-SHEAR • August 2000 . GeoSolIs. Inc. 'TEST RESULTS 2863-SC t1cMILLIN . . . . . . . • Figure E-6 3000 2500 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-02 Depth (ft): 5.0 Legend: Results: Primary Cohesion (09f): 623 Test Method: S Friction Angle: 23 Remoided to 98X of 128.0 pof 0 10-OX Residual Cohesion Cpsf): 612 Sample Innundated Prior To Testing S Friction Angie: 23 GeeSe I is. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST. RESULTS P1cMILLIN August 2000 11.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-7 3000 r- 2500 2000 F' a. I 1500 z w U- I., ILl I In 1000 500 H 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 30 as NORMAL STRESS CPSF) Exploration: 5-03 Depth (Pt): 5.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Undisturbed Ring . • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing. Results: Cohesion (psf): 511 Friction Angie: 12 Cohesion (pef): 805 Friction Angle: 12 DIRECT SHEAR GeoSolls. Inc. TEST.RES.ULTS tIcilILLIN August 2000 U.O.: 2863-SC FigureE-8 3000 2500 2000 U. SQ. I. 1500 2 LII ce - 0 Ui x 0 1000 500 0 0 . 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-03 Depth .(ft): 10.0 Legend: Results; Primary Cohesion (psf): 684 Test Method: Friction Angle: 22 Undisturbed Ring Residual Cohesion (pef): 685 Sample Iiinundatod Prior To Testing Friction Angle: 22 DIRECT SHEAR. GeoSolls. Inc. TEST RESULTS Mct1ILLXN August 2000 11.0.; 2063SC Figure E-9 3000 2500 2000 500 0L I I 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-04 Depth (It): 5.0 Legend: Primary Test Method: Undisturbed Ring I • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (pef): 169 Friction Angle: 28 Cohesion (psI): 123 Friction Angle: 29 GaoSoiis. Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Mct1ILLIN August 2000 11.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-10 3000 2500 2000 I C., 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 6-06 Depth (ft): 4.0 Legend: I Primary Test Method: -. Remolded to 90X of 126.5 pc? @ 11.13X • Residual Sample Innundated Prior To Testing 2500 3000 Results: Cohesion (pof): 431 Friction Angle: 25 Cohesion Cps?): 481 Friction Angie: 24 S DIRECT SHEAR August 2000 GeoSeils, Inc. TEST RESULT.S 2863-SC ¶ McMILLXN Figure E-11 0 I 2 100 2 4 6 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-01 Depth: 5.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample DrU Den8itU (pc?): 107.5 Water Content CX): 18.4 4 6 10000 2 Sample Innundatad • 750 ps? GeoSoils Inc. - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS lIcilILLIN August 2000 11.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-.12 August zeOe 11.0.: 2863-SC Figure E-13 GeoSoi Is Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS 11ct1ILLIN 0 2 6 7 8 9 low 2 4 5 1000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-01 Depth: 10.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pc?): 1-11.1 Water Content CX): 18.4 4 6 10000 2 Sample Innundated @ 1250 ps? 2 3 low Z 4 b luou 2 STRESS CPSF) Exploration: B-02 D.pth( 19.01 Undisturbed Ring Sample - Orw Danalty Cpcf): 109.6 Water Content CX): 17.7 4 6 10000 2 Sample Innundated @ 1250 pef GeoSeils Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS tIcIlILLIN Auguet 2000 W.O.: 2863-SC Figure E-14 ) 0 1 2 3 x. -I 2.. - U. 4 I-. 2 Iii U. 5 w a- 6 7 B 9 11 I L •1 I800. STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-03 Depth: 5.0 Und.iaturbed Ring Sample Dry Density Cpcf): 96;8 Sample Innundated 1750 pf Water Content CX): 25.2 GeoSolls. Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS i1cMILLIN August200B 2863-SC .FIqure E-15 I I 2 ••___ __ __-- CL 7 a _-----. £ Di ra ra ra Z 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: B-04 Depth: 15.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample S Oru Dansitu (pcf): 106.0 Sample Innundated 0 2000 ps? Water Content Cx): 21.9 CONSOLIDATION August 2099 GeoSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS S U.O.: S McMILLIN S • • S • Figure E-17 • 2 V IL . 5 . 1 ----- • 7 .8 9• _ ___ __ 100 .2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: .B-04 Depth: 5.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Orw Den.lt (pc): 105.9 Sample Innundated @ 750 pf Water Content (X): 19.4 GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS MellILLIN .August 2000 11.0. •: 2863-SC Figure E-18 I 0 1 2 6 100 2 .4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 z STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-07 Depth: 5.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pc): 118.1 Sample Innundated @750 pef Water Content (X): 14.3 CONSOLIDATION GeoSoils. Inc. TEST RESULTS August 2000 Mct1ILLIN. . 14.0.: 2863-SC FiàUre E-19 -' 3 6 7 8 9 100 2 4 6 1000 2 4 6 10000 .2 STRESS (PSF) Exploration: 8-08 Depth: .10.0 Undisturbed Ring Sample Dry Density (pef): 114.5 Sample Innundated 0 1250 pgf Water Content Cx): 11.1 CONSOLIDATION GeoSells, Inc. • TEST RESULTS • • MoPlILLIN August 2000 11.0.; 2863-SC Fiaurà F-.A I F' APPENDIX F SLOPE STABILITY A As 200 - PROPOSED GRADE.\ -200 — ul Ui LL EXISTING GRADE .z 100 - Tsa 100 LU -OaI8 0- Tsa -0 N86E LEGEND Afu Artificial fill, undocumented Gals Quaternary valley flood plain alluvium Tsa Tertiary Santiago formation Approximate location of geologic contact .LOSPMGE1ESCO. RNERSIDECO. -' N OGO co. Bedding LOGIC E33098-AI-SC CROSS ECTION A—A' DATE 1/02 SCALE 1=100 ,-,cure i--i EXISTING GRADE:,. .SEE 200 LU U. Z 100- -100 Tsa LU -0 • N49W • -r r• GEOLOGIC Cl • •• • • • SECTION ( • • • • W.O. 3098-Al-Se DATE 1/02 J Figure F D D' 300- -300 PROPOSED GRADE 200- 200 100- Tsa -100 UI TO 0- - 0 / EG LOS ANGELES COIRIVERSIDE CO. G4o i?$, "••SAN DIEGO CO. LOGIC CROSS ECTION D-D l-SC DATE 1/02 SCALE l:lO0 iigure r- MC MILLIN PROJECT SECTION A-A', STATIC, 5 TO 10 DEG.OUTSLP C:STEDWIN1V1CMItAABPI,2 Run Bv EOSOILS 1I19Ifl IIIIAM # FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Plez. a 1.33 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. intercept Angle Surface b 1.34 No. (pd) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. c 1.37 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 Anlso Aniso 0 d 1.40 FILL 2 120.0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 e 1.41 f 1.49 'g 1.50 h 1.51 I 1.51 11.53 250 - 200 150 - 100- 50 1 d e d ' i 0 I '1 (0 C 'I (n 0 1 I 'l• - I • I I 'I I I I I• I 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin1.33 STED Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method 100w— AM 350 300 350 '300 250 MC MILLIN PROJECT SECTION AA', STATIC, MASSIVE BEDROCK C:\STEDWIN\MCMILAA.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 10:52AM # FS Soil If Soil Total l_ Saturated Cohesion Friction I Piez. a 1.70 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surfac b 1.71 No. (pci) (pci) (psi) (deg) No. c 1.74 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 d 1.751 FILL 2 120.0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 el.77 f 1.79 g 1.79 h 1.81 I 1.81 i 1.81 200 150 1 100 0 21 . STED I I I 50 100 • 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 • 500 550 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.70 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method - - - - - MC MILLIN PROJECT SECTION A-A', SEISMIC, MASSIVE BEDROCK C:\STEDWIN\MCMILAA.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 10:53AM # FS I Soil I Soil -• Total 1 Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value a 1.19 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Horiz Egk 0.150 b 1.19 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. c 1.20 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 d 1.21 FILL 2 120.0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 e 1.21 I 1.23 g1.23 hl.23 i 1.24 I 125 '1 100 50 0' 0 STED 56 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=119 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 350 300 250 200 150 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION B-B', STATIC WITH CLAY SEAM C:STEDWlNMCMlLBB.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:14AM 500 400 300 200 100 0 # FS Soil Soil 600 Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. a 1.43 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit WI Intercept Angle Surface b 1.44 No. (pcf) (pci) (psi) (deg) No. C 1.44 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 d 1.45 CLAY LR 2 120.0 120.0 100.0 12.0 0 e 1.45 FILL 3 120.0 120.0 500.0 23.0 0 fl.45 • 9 1.45 h 1.45 il.46 J 1.46 12 0 STED xxgm 100 • 200 • 300 400 500 • 600 700 800 900 • S • GSTABL7 v.2 FSmIn=1.43 Safety FactoisAre Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0 1 0' 0 STED 40 I1 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION C-C', STATIC ,MASSIVE BEDRQCK C:\STEDWIN\MCMILCC.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:21AM 280 ____________ 240 200 # FS I -t Soil Soil Total I Saturated Cohesion Friction I Piez. .a 1.43 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surfac b 1.43 No. (pci) (pci) (psi) (deg) No. c 1.45 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0 dl.47 e 1.47 11.49 gl.50 hl.55 11.56 11.56 A GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.43 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION C-C', STATIC ,5 TO 10 DEG OUTSL C:STEDWlNMCMILCC.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:25AM # FS Soil Soil Total I Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. a 1.14 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt Intercept Angle Surface b 1.25 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. C 1.30 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 Anlso Aniso 0 d 1.33 el .37 11.42 gl.45 hl.46 11.47 11.48 200 - 160 - 120 - I 80 - 40 - 01 I I I I I I 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmIn=1.14 2! STED Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method -\ 280 240 6,7, cb d e . MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION C-C', SEISMIC ,5 TO 10 DEG OUTSL C:STEDWlNMCMlLCC.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:27AM Soil Total _l. Saturated COhesion Friction Plez. Load Value #. FSEfti c l a 0.86 Type UnitWt. UnitWt. Intercept Angle Surface Horlz Eqk 0.1509< b 0.92 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psi) (deg) No. C 0.95 K 1 120.0.. 120.0 Aniso. Aniso 0 do.96 e0.99 S S ,f l.06 gl.07 . a h 1.13 Ii 11.15 ICb e j1.15 I . I •. 1 1 I 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin0.86 STED Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method .••- 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 0 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION D-D'-STATIC, MASSIVE C:\STEDWIN\MCMILDD.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 11:35AM # FS I Soil Soil Total I Saturated Cohesion Friction I I Piez. a 1.72 Desc Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface b 1.74 No. (pci) (pci) (psi) (deg) No. c 1.75 BEDROCK 1 120.0. .120.0 200.0 28.0 0 dl.76 el.77 11.78 • • S gl.78 hl.80 il.81 jl.82 a.. 1 •- I I . . • I I . • 300 250 200 150 100 50 o 0 11 STED 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.72 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method 250 300 # FS Soil Soil Tote! Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. a 1.38 Desc. Type UnitWt. UnitWt. Intercept Angle Surface b 1.41 No. (Pct) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. C 1.44 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 dl.47 a 1.75 fl.79 91.80 hl.82 11.84• jl.84 MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION D-D'-STATIC, 5 TO 10 DEG. OUTSLO C:STEDWlNMCMlL.DD.PL2 Run By: GEOSOILS 1/18/02 12:38PM a 9 d c1 e 0' 0 STED 50 100 150 200 250 • 300 350 400 450 GSTABLT v.2 FSmln1.38 Safety FactOrs Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method -- MCMILLIN PROJECT SECTION D-D'-SEISMIC, 5 TO 10 DEG. OUTSL C:STEDWlNMCMlLDDF.PL2 Run Rv FOSOILS 111R102 124PM 250 200 150 100 0 # FS I Soil Soil Total 300 I Saturated Cohesion Friction Ple I z. Load Value a 1.04 Desc. Type UnitWt. UnitWt. Intercept Angle Surface Horiz Eqk 0.150 gc b 1.05 No. (pci) (pci) (psi) (deg) No. C 1.07 BEDROCK 1 120.0 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0 dl.0S e 1.23 fl.24 gl.26 h 1.26 11.27 ji.30 .5 I I I I 0 STED 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 GSTABL7 v.2 FSrnln=1.04 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method 400 450 APPENDIX G. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained inihe geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnlcal Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D- 1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D-1 556-82, D-2937 or 0-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. GeoSoils, Inc. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted bythe contractor, with observation bygeotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It isthe contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading 'plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided bythe contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G AIe:e:1wp700o\3098a1.geo Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction. as specified in these guidelines. : Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the 1 scarified ground is broughtto optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is' grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, Until the working surface is. reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1/2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, .and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in' the 'fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength McMillin Construction, Inc.' Appendix G FiIe:e:\wp7\30003098a1.geo . ' ' Page 3 GeoSoils,. Inc. characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.* Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock darived material. Benching operations should not result- in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. . . ( Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations.-- of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material. should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet. horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content-less than optimum should be watered andrnixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended With drier material.. -Moisture condition, blending, and• mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be. uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D-1557-7.8, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer; Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. . McMillin Construction, Inc. . - Appendix G Fiie:e:\wpl\3000\3098a1.geo . Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fihI or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet S horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed' steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special ,grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then I special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: An extra piece-of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes, continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicularto the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4.' After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then-re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be-grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the. contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to 'achieve compaction. Additional testing should be'perfàrmed to verify compaction. McMillin Construction, Inc. ' S , Appendix G FiIe:e:wp7\3oOo\3098a1.geo ' Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. : SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with .the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed. subdrains should be recorded by the..project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re-filling of cut-areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist priorto placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. . Unless. otherwise' specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. • -McMillin Construction, Inc. • • • Appendix G File:e:wp7'3OCO098a1.geo • • Page 6 GeoSolls, Inc. COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation bythe geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of.the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and 1111 slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as-soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented forthe safety'of field personnel on grading and construction. projects: N Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed. to .,attend*, contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. McMillin Construction, Inc. Appendix G F1Ie:e:\wp73O003O98a1.geo Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the McMillin Coflstructlon, Inc. Appendix G File:e:\wp7\3000\3098a1.geo Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractors responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. S Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence Of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All french excavations or vertical cuts Sin excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding. down" on the equipment. If the contractorfails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company. policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer On notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSl then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities. McMillin Construction, Inc. S . . Appendix G FiIe:e:\wp7\3003O98a1.geo . Page 9 GeoSoils, Iàc. F - _________ --- - - ---- / I L \\\ \ I \ 5' 1 1/ -4-- - - - - - : I / I I A\\\: '\ \\ /i 1T Qak - I - -1-- I - I - - - 4 / / I / 1 1/ l I) 2 - I [I /is : 1 / c II / ( ( / / / 1/ ' / / 1 1 - / - - - H/ ) / / N - - - / * c - I - :1 1 - -- - / J /I I I; - - ) / I / /,//// 1/ 3 I ? ' N / / I C - - ! 41 / 7 1 \ \ 'N 1, O, i/ / / / 1 p1 ' - IT 41 / /4 / I 4 I - //I / / Ii/ \\\ / I 1 !/ - / / / / I / / I / / - - __/ / /1 1/ / / /l 11 /4 I N 5 - S -- /C'I - - - - - - - / I2 \ IL - / I3 / / / / //// / / /1 /1 I II I r 1 1 11 - I 'N N I I / / / I / // "1 / // / I I - - - / I( II / // \ 8 - /1 I I , 1: (I / 1 I/ /7 I I I 0 a I B I I I / / I/ I 1/ // j - / / IIt / ( 1 - /l1 I / / 1 ) 6) / 11/ I 7 ///_/ H II 7/' / 1 / II / 1 I I / / / / 2 I / / - /1 - I / / / /1/ / I // I / I ) / I I I / i,I / J / / [ I / : J 1/ I I //4 /,//' I - / 4 \ 1 I / 1 // I I I I I I I \ I J / I / / I I / I 1 -Y I \ I I / / - - - / / / I I I I I I \ } I I i I / / I 1 '\ / / / / / /96H / 1 \ \f ' _3/ 1 I / / I / I \ ,/ k441 f4l 'N - 1 I 1% \I/1 \ J / / / / / / I I - N I I! - I I /\ / - — 4 4 - / I 1 / I I k Iq I/ I \\ / I H / / //1 I I I - / ' 7 /1 / 14d1 I ) / / II I I ." \ I ' / / '- I. I / I ) B V. fiB-i ?I 1 '1 N / I 1\I 4 / "'I_ - 1 11}1. I/I - / / - I / I\ II/ 7 / 7/\'_ 1 / + I /I\I I/IT1I/// I - - - I , / / 1 1 I \ 1 - / I / N - - 4 / I / / $ / I J/, / /1 // / / / \ I I / L P ( I / / / I I I 1 ti /1 1 I N 1 1 /\ I I 11 1 / / I I I I / 1 / I I ' / / 4' I 4 r$ a I I 4 'N I / '- I /4/ / / / I / - 1 I 0 a 18 1 1 I J JI I / I II 1/ II 3F UL fl7 lZO J I / / N N 1 'N I I I I I I 1 1 , I /jt /11" 2\t 1\4 I N / I \\,.ç/'/41N 1 I N / / I / I/1 .N/Njl .T -19 \ I:\; ,J .1li/I/.I,i4H:/1 I s N i/iI/ ' / / I I I N " II' I 1 1 1' L1 __i— - I / / / / /; 4 / I / I 0 a A / A / / I / ' - I t I I I I I I I - I \I /14\ I I I I / I / /1 \\ \ 18 f /7 -4- / - / 3 -'1—# TP14 I , 9/' 1 / - 4 j \ I I 1I/ I I - \ A- 9 - 4 V 1 - / / / / 7 / \ 9/ / I / / / / /9/ I / I N) enter ar g I I / / / k//Il L / 9 - / ' - a B - / yf - //,/ /\/ / //' , I l I I - I/ - I 5II I I Factor = 15 ¶ "Øt/ %/,')>' jc _;i 9/ /_ -'z 1 I Total Graded Area 7 (' I) - / // - / / - - : / i I - - I N / / / / / / /I / I - , 1 I - - I' - I - 4 I / / / / / / I - / / I I I /1 1/ - I \'t// ,,I I ?Y/// / I I I I I GEOTECHNICAL MAP 44 // '1 ///// + I I Plate 2of 2 N- - 1 - - I wo 3098-Al-SC DATE_1/02 SCALE_1".100 - / / I I SANTA ANA, CALI 9270S (714) 662774 . . / 1. - I '•••• pGu CAL 1/ 2/ (619) 546 366 ______ - - - - - I Date: 11/13/01 Revised 12/05/01 J N 533-002 - 1 - - - - - ___ - / - - - /1 /9 1 - -, /3 / & / ,-/ -- / 8 / - Af U Artificial fill, undocumnted / 7 / // ) / 0 alA Quaternary tributary cnyon auuvium / / / J / / J T( O ak Quaternary valley flood plain alluvium / / / ( \ \ 0 l Quaternary surficial sl imp deposits / / / \\ / \ N / I L Quaternary terrace de osits 4I ; / I / \ I 1 ( / ) \ / / Tsa Tertiary Santiago Fornation ... . : . •1 .. . . . . . . . .. :cLI t . ' . . T' S' / \ _; / ... . . . . // \ .1.. / . I / / t / / I / " / I I - Approximate location f geologic contact / // ,,/ j I / / / C / N / // // / ' / /,/ 1/ / / I / I / I ' ,. 1 NI * / ____ Attitude of bedding j /// / ' / ; I / I _/! t - I //// / / I /• ., ..............(7 . .. . . I / f / Attitudeofverticalfracture / / , 7// /// // [ TP_3\ \\ \ I 0 B9 Approximate location of borings (GSI, 2001c) // /7/hf -/ / 'N / \ I D AVV I / t / V / / / / I / / TP- / N J i:' /1j/ V/;/ /\ \').\:*/ y.! I .4V\... N ..t :,..:V .,.. .. .- ..- ...... : ': -. \/\V /V ' I/' 1/ /\/ \VI \ rV ...................... . .•. . / .1 ...\ N// . \//Z' /// \ \\ \ )\.\V . / . .. .. .. . /1 . 1 'I V/ r L ./ . ,/:/ .. 7 . 1 \N I .. .H 4:.7// V. \J; & / 21 / QalA /7/ / I ) 7 / I / // Q / / / // / I // / / I I N I / / / I N 11 O / / / 7 I N / / / / 1 1 'V N \ ///' . \F / . \W // . L í I /' TP-8 -" '": 1 1, // / /. '/ 'S V /V I \\\ \ 7Z /V4 Y.V/S ' V': . / S.. V 110', :2. .' ri// .S . .V - / V / / . V 7/ // N N $\ 5à N N / N I I k / ) _V N N L 42 / N I I / I / / I / 4 / / N / / / 1 - N / / P A 2 - / - - - --_ - (I' / I OPEN SPAC[ 1 8 AC N I I S N / / a I B B-7 S - ' QaIB '\V - V V(,/. GEOTECHNICAL MAP e ' / 1 / 117 Ac N) IS Plate I ot 2 Factor 6% N N I / (1ncdes Access Road N 1 - / / / N / 4 T&B Planning Conukants, 0 50 100* 200* \ \ N 89 / // ANTAANA, CAL1 97OS J1I662 2774 N / N I I N N N H / / / / - - N N // / 15 -