Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 14-10; POINSETTIA 61; RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (SECOND REVIEW); 2018-04-03 (2)April 3, 2018 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Alan Chik SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS (SECOND REVIEW) Poinsettia 61Development Carlsbad, Califrnia Mr. Chik: H We are roving herein our responses to the referenced second set of third party geotechnical reviewjcommnts for the Poinsettia 61 development in Carlsbad, California (Hetherington, 2018b). Each comment is reiterated below (in italics), followed by our responsE. Comment No. 1: The Consultant should review the building foundation plans when fihalized once the site is rough graded and confirm that the plans have been prepared in ,accordance with the geo!echnical recommendations. We plan to review the residential post-tension slab foundation plans prior to finalization, in order to confirm that they have been prepared per our recommendations, in accordance with the typical standards of practice. Note that the final foundation design should be based on the recommendations proviJes in the interim as-graded report, once the site is rough graded. Supplemental laboratortesting will be conducted during the grading operations to refine the post-tension slab design prameters recommended for the residential lots. -- Comment No. 2: The Consultant should review the "Poinsettia Bridges Foundation Plan ... (Reference 6), provide any additional geotechnical recommendations considered necessary, and confirm that the plas have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations. The Poinsettia Bridge Foundation Plan referenced in the secori2' review letter was dated October 0, 2017. We have reviewe'dthat plan previously, a 'd have incorporated the latest update.4othe plan dated December 22d into the Bridge Foundation Plan, Figure 2C, in the referenced Foundation Report (GDC, 2017d). No additional comments are deemed necessary, since we already reviewed this plan prior to submission of the FR. The Bridge Foundation Plan shown in Figure 2C was prepared in accordance withour geotechnical recommendations, and is consistent with the information provided in Tables 2A through 2D of the Foundation Report. Response to Geotechnical Review Comments (Second Review) GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development April 3, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 2 Comment No. 3: The Consultant should provide a comprehensive, current description of proposed development including grading, structures/improvements, drainage, use, foundation type, estimated structural loads, etc. (Second Request). Site development will include the construction of 122 lightly-loaded wood-framed single-family residential structures. The buildings will be supported by post-tension slab foundations, based on the as-graded design conditions. Various surface improvements will also be constructed, including asphalt concrete residential streets, cul-de-sacs, and alleys, Portland cement concrete sidewalks, and a variety of associated subsurface utilities. Extensive cut and fill grading will be needed to attain finish grades for the planned development. The rough grading plans indicate about 250,000 yd' of cut/fill grading. In addition, 12 Verdura-style mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls are proposed around the perimeter of the site, along with a number of smaller cantilever CMU walls within the interior of the development. Six HPDE lined bio- filtra:ion basins will also be constructed throughout the development to retain storm water. The rough grading plans for the site are shown on the updated Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Comment No. 4: The Consultant should provide an updated geotechnical map utilizing the latest grading plan for the project to clearly show (at a minimum) a) existing site topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades d) locations of the subsurface exploration, and e) geologic structure. (Second Request). The updated Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) is attached to this response letter. The Geotechnical Map shows the existing and proposed grades, the proposed building pads, retaining walls and streets, the locations of the borings, test pits and cross sections, and the geologic structure. Comment No. 5: The Consultant should provide updated geologic cross-section(s) utilizing the latest grading plan showing (at a minimum) a) existing site topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) geologic structure, contacts, etc., e) slope setbacks for near slope structures/improvements and f) locations of the subsurface exploration. Slope stability analyses output plots do not provide this data. (Second Request) Geologic Cross Sections are attached to this response letter (see Plate 2). The approximate cross section locations are shown on Plate 1. The Geologic Cross Sections show the existing and proposed grades, the proposed building pads, retaining walls and streets, the locations of the borings and test pits, and the geologic structure. Comment No. 6: The Consultant discusses two sheared claystone beds identified by Geocon at the site, but does not provide the subsurface exploration logs by Geocon. The Consultant should provde the exploration logs by Geocon. We have transmitted a PDF copy of the referenced report to the reviewer (Geocon, 2006). The report contains logs of the previous test pits and exploratory borings conducted at the site. DUP DD...1L'. N:\Projects\SD\SD412B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\18-0012\18-0012v2.doc 0 Response to Geotechnical Review Comments (Second Review) GDC Project No. 5D412B Poinsettia 61 Development April 3, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 3 In Section 3.1 of our 2014 Geotechnical Investigation report, we stated the following: "Two additional sheared claystone beds were previously encountered by others in large diameter borings at elevations of about 235 and 245 feet MSL (Geocon, 2006). These claystone beds may be continuous across the site, and may adversely impact cut slope stability. The location and extent of these claystone beds should be evaluated during grading." The logs for Borings B-i and B-3 (from 1999) in the referenced report (PDF Pages 46 and 50) show the claystone bed encountered near an elevation of 245 feet MSL in the large diameter borings located near the top of the cut slopes at Station 184+50 on Poinsettia Lane (Geocon, 2006). The approximate locations of Borings B-i and B-3 are shown on the attached Geotechnical Map (Plate i), as well as Figure 2 in the referenced report. In Boring B-i, the claystone bed was encountered between elevations of 246 and 250 feet MSL. In Boring B-3, the claystone was encouitered between elevations of 244 and 253 feet MSL. In the log for the supplemental Boring B-i (from 2004 on PDF Page 22) along the northern edge of the site, two 3 to 4-inch thick claystone beds were observed near elevation 245 feet MSL. These two thin beds were described as "...poorly developed and poorly remolded." We did not encounter sheared claystone in the targeted continuous sampling that we conducted between elevations of 243 and 247 feet MSL in the supplemental explorations in this area (GDC, 2014). Consequently, we did not model the claystone bed in our analyses of the northern cut slopes. The toes of the cut slopes along Poinsettia Lane near the 1999 Borings B-i and B-3 are currently located at elevations ranging from 240 to 246 feet MSL (these slopes were believed to have been graded in 2010). Note that if a sheared claystone bed with a very low residual strength does exist in the area of Borings B-i and B-3, we would have expected that the existing 2:1 cut slopes along Poinsettia Lane would show indications of these beds, since the sheared claystone bed would daylight within these cut slopes. We did not observe indications of a sheared claystone bed near the of the existing cut slopes along Poinsettia Lane. These cut slopes appear to have performed well over the last 8 years, and no failures were observed. E The second claystone bed noted by Geocon at an elevation of 235 feet was not encountered in their Borings B-i, B-2 or B-3 located within the northern part of the Poinsettia 61 development. This claystone bed at elevation 235 feet MSL was encountered in Boring B-3 from 2004 (see PDF Page 26). We did not encounter this claystone bed in our explorations, and this claystone bed is not expected to adversely impact the cut slope in the southwest portion of the site. Geologic observation will be used during grading to confirm that the claystone bed located near an elevation of 235 feet (if present), and does not adversely impact the stability of the proposed cut slopes in the southwest corner of the site (Lots 34 to 36), near the location where this bed was encountered (Geocon, 2006). • OWAQ. DLJP DEL .TA N:\Projects\SD\SD4128 Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\18-0012\18-0012v2.doc 0 Response to Geotechnical Review Comments (Second Review) GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development April 3, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 4 The location and extent of all of the claystone beds within the Santiago Formation should be evaluated during grading using geologic observation. Supplemental recommendations may be provided during grading, if a sheared claystone bed is encountered near the toe of the cut slope along the northern property boundary at elevation 245 feet MSL, or if a sheared claystone bed is encountered near elevation 235 feet in the southwest portion of the site. Prior to commencing with the planned 1:1 temporary cut slopes in these areas, the precise location and extent of these claystone beds should be determined. Exploratory dozer or test pit excavations should be conducted by the grading contractor to search for these claystone beds. Comment No. 7: The Consultant should provide all of the slope stability input/output files included in References 1 and 5. The initial slope stability cross sections developed for our 2014 investigation (Reference 1) did not include the 14 mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls that were later added around the perimeter of the site (GDC, 2014). Consequentially, those initial slope stability cross sections are not no longer valid, and are not provided for review. No additional slope stability analyses were needed to prepare References 2, 3 and 4 (GDC, 2015, 2016, 2017a). The currently proposed grading plan is shown on the updated Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The approximate locations of the eight cross sections we used to revise our slope stability analyses after the MSE walls were added are also shown on Plate 1. The supplemental stability analyses were described in detail in the MSE wall plan review letter, Reference 5 (GDC, 2017b). The input and output files for the SLOPE/W analyses from Reference 5 are attached for review. Comment No. 8: The Consultant should provide the as-graded report for the portion of future Poinsettia Lane that will extend through the Poinsettia 61 development that was reportedly graded in 2010. We have asked the City of Carlsbad to provide the as-graded report for the portion of Poinsettia Lane that was previously graded within the subject site. The City has not provided a copy of the as-graded report. The City indicated that the soil excavated from the large cut slopes along Poinsettia Lane was used to generate fill soil for grading of the SRWB Property located a few hundred feet north of the subject site. The geotechnical conditions at the SRWB property were described in the referenced reports (GeoTek, 2004, 2010). We discussed the SRWB project with Timothy Metcalfe at GeoTek, who indicated that remedial excavations were likely conducted prior to placing compacted fill in the area of Poinsettia Lane and elsewhere on the SRWB site. Mr. Metcalf indicated that he would review his records and search for any available as-graded reports for that area. However, no as-graded report has been provided to date for the previous grading operations in the northwest portion of the Poinsettia 61 development. Consequently, this fill is considered to be undocumented, and may potentially be compressible. AWQWI DLJP DEI....T4 N:\Projects\SD\SD412B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\18-0012\18-0012v2.doc 0 Response to Geotechnical Review Comments (Second Review) GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development April 3, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 5 As a minimum, we have recommended that 3-foot deep remedial excavations be conducted throughout the area of the existing undocumented fill in the northwest portion of the site, in order to help evaluate the quality of the fill using both a nuclear gauge and geologic observation (GDC, 2016). Note that the Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) that we previously advanced within the existing fill encountered in the northwest portion of the site indicated corrected blow counts (N60) of 25 or more (typically 30 or more), which is indcative of dense conditions consistent with a compacted fill. If pockets of loose, compressible fill or other deleterious materials are observed in the 3-foot deep remedial excavations, deeper excavations may be warranted, based on the conditions observed by our field personnel during grading. In order to help assess the compressibility of the existing undocumented fill in the northwest portion of the property, we recommend that three settlement monuments be installed during the remedial grading operations in that area. The precise locations of the settlement monuments should be determined during grading, in consultation with the grading contractor, to help avoid conflicts with the earthmoving equipment. The plate style monuments should be constructed and monitored in general accordance with California Test Method 112. The monuments should be installed the bottoms of the remedial excavations, prior, to placing new fill. The monuments should be surveyed daily while compacted fill is being placed in that area, and weekly thereafter, until the settlement is deemed substantially completed by the project geotechnical consultant. Settlement sensitive buildings and surface improvements including utilities, pavements and sidewalks should be delayed until after the fill settlemeit is completed. We estimate that this may require a 4-week waiting period after fill placement. Per Caltrans requirements, any existing fill and alluvium located near the proposed bridges at the southern terminus of Poinsettia Lane will need to be completely excavated and replaced as structural approach fill with at least 95 percent relative compaction. The compacted fill for this zone was described in the referenced bridge Foundation Report (GDC, 2017d). We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Please feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else An GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS _ VEMIFIED EXIL 12-31-19 Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 James C. Sanders, C.E.G. 2258 kOpCpJC Senior Geotechnical Engineer mrm Associate Engineering Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Alan Chik (Alan.Chik@lennar.com) (1) Hetherington, Mr. Mark Hetherington (mdh@hetheringtoneniineering.com) (1) O'Day Consultants, Mr. George O'Day (Georgeo@odayconsultants.com) (1) City of Carlsbad, Ms. Tecla Levy (Tecla.Levv@carlsbadca.gov) OW&CA.—W DI.JP DD...T N:\Projects\5D\5D412B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&0 of Earthwork Construction\5. Repcits\18-0012\18-0012v2.doc 0 REFERENCES 0 Geocon Incorporated (2006). Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance, The Bridges at Poinsettia, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 07381-32-02, June 22. Geotek, Inc. (2004). Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Building, SRWB Property, South 0 Side of Cassia Road, East of Poinsettia Lane, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 2555-SD3, April 13. Geotek, Inc. (2010). Geologic Update and Grading Plan Review, CT 14-10, Poinsettia Place, Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road, Carlsbad, CA, Project No. 3368-SD3, December 2. Group Delta Consultants (2014). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Poinsettia 61 Development, 11 Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. Group Delta Consultants (2015). Slope Stability Considerations, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 15-0029, March 6. Group Delta Consultants (2016). Remedial Grading Summary and Plan Review, Poinsettia Development (EIR 15-03), Carlsbad, California, Document No. 15-0102, September 21. Group Delta Consultants (2017a). Supplemental MSE Retaining Wall Recommendations, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0081, July 12. . Group Delta Consultants (2017b). Geotechnical Review of MSE Wall Plans, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0100, August 28. Group Delta Consultants (2017c). Supplemental Infiltration Information, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0145, December 8. 0 Group Delta Consultants (2017d). Foundation Report, Poinsettia Lane Bridges, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0065R, December 22. Hetherington Engineering (2018a). Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First Review), Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, GR2017-0052, 4 Pages, January 2. Hetherington Engineering (2018b). Third-Party Geotechnical Review (Second Review), Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, GR2017-0052, 3 Pages, March 5. O'Day Consultants (2017). Rough Grading, Storm Drain and Retaining Wall Plans and Details for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 1 through 38, August 21. 0 Moffatt and Nichol (2017). Poinsettia Bridge Foundation Plans, 2 Sheets, December 22. Soil Retention Designs Inc. (2017a). Verdura Retaining Wall Plans for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 21 through 38, August 18. . Soil Retention Designs Inc. (2017b). Verdura Retaining Wall Design Summary and Calculations for Poinsettia 61, SRD Project No. 1704-003, August 21. OW44".1 6RDLJP DEL—TA N:\Projects\SD\SD412B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\18-0012\18-0012v2.doc 0 PLATES EXPLANATION rr Tsa lear_a, - fit 19 AA TI I App—mat, mt— If -17004 DC 2017) Ts to __ HA: A (GDC 2014) 4 H dbyh 1' J/ \ / \BB It— BBli- I L 7 4 k Qya J.ylighl ftl a— fill LA H 7 on //J / H 11'• Tsa xX Qya // > GROUP DELTAX It Tsa 18-0012 Lennar - Poinsettia 61 Geolechnical Map AA a] J .aaw AA 0 . S 0 S S S S S EXPLANATION C,pfllflgir. t',nntanl lla4tell wraapproairrrata, queried where urroortain isa Santiago Formation Qya Alluvium Fill0 .1 111 here ,dow,e,t,d 1111 Approximate I000tlon of I GeOgnd Wall r6 A Approximate l000t;on or geotechnical boring with Pro niiertontnnnrorieena,nr location ant total deptfl rirdichtOd Stnke and dip Or beddgm bud I cirg, s is 1. z", BB GB TC aflo §1 60! Horizontal Scale 1" =60 Vertical Scale 30' 1"=30' @ full Size 22034" A IRDUP DELTA E4128 16-0012 Lennar- Poinsettia 61 (e1-tk'tiiir. (rnss Ser.tinns cc Ice cc GROUP DELTA January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Jamison Nakaya SUBJECT: ' RESPONSE TO GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS Poinsettia 61Development Carlsbad, California Mr. Nakaa\ We are proving herein our responses to the referenced third party geotechnical review comments regarding the Poinsettia 61 development in Carlsbad, California (Hetherington, 2018). Each comment is reiterated below (in italics), followed by our response. Comment No. 1: The Consultant should review the project grading, MSE retaining wall, and ,1foundation plans, provide any additional geotechnical recommendations considered necessary, and confirm that the plans have been prepared in accordance with the geotechnical recommendatidns. I We have previously reviewed the project grading and MSE retaining wall plans as described in the referenced reviewIetters (GDC, 2016, 2017b). We provided additional geotechnical recommendations rega4ng conformance testing of the soils that are proposed for use in the retainedone of the MSEwaIIs (GDC, 2017b). We confirmed that the geotechnical aspects of the jIaris conformed to the intent of the referenced recommendations (GDC, 2014, 2017a). Preliminary-geotechnical parameters for use in post-tension slab foundation design for the planned residential structures were provided in Section 6.4 of the referenced geotechnical investigation (GDC, 2014). We noted that our preliminary fouridationrecommendations should be considered subject to revision based on the conditions observd by Group Delta Consultants during mass grading of the site. In our opinion, the final foundation design parameters should / be provided in the as-graded geotechnical report after the site is graded. It should be noted that thefoundation plans for the residential structures have not yet been prepared. These foundation plans will be finalized and reviewed by Group Delta,, Consultants once the site is rough graded, and the as-graded conditions for each lot are known. . Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 2 Comment No. 2: The Consultant should provide a description of proposed development including grading, structures/improvements, drainage, use, foundation type, estimated structural loads, etc. We provided a description of the site conditions and proposed development in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of our geotechnical investigation report (GDC, 2014). Additional information regarding the proposed structures and improvements, drainage, foundation type and estimated structural loads were provided in the referenced supplemental documents (GDC, 2016, 2017abcd). Additional foundation recommendations for the residential structures will be provided in the as-graded geotechnical report after the site is mass graded. Comment No. 3: The Consultant should provide a detailed description of the site geologic structure (bedding, fracturing, faulting, etc.) including reported regional trends of bedding and faulting. The Geology and Subsurface Conditions at the site were described in detail in Sections 3.0 through 3.4 of the referenced geotechnical report (GDC, 2014). A Regional Geologic Map was presented in Figure 3A of the report. No consistent trends in the bedding within the site vicinity were apparent on the regional geologic map. Based on our geologic observations of the cut slopes along Poinsettia Lane within the project site, the bedding within the Santiago Formation on site appears to be relatively flat-lying. No faulting was observed on site, as described in Section 4.1 of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). Detailed fault maps were provided in Figures 4A and 4B of the report. The faults maps show that the active dextral faults in San Diego county generally strike northwest-southeast. Comment No. 4: The Consultant should provide a geotechnical map/plot plan utilizing the latest grading plan for the project to clearly show (at a minimum) a) existing site topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades d) locations of the subsurface exploration, and e) geologic structure. The Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) provided in the referenced geotechnical investigation showed all of the information requested by the reviewer, including (a) existing site topography, b) the proposed residential structures and road improvement, c) proposed finish grades, d) locations of the subsurface explorations (including the previous explorations completed by Geocon), and e) geologic structure (GDC, 2014). When the grading plans were modified in August of 2017 to include a variety of MSE walls around the site perimeter, we completed supplemental slope stability analyses evaluating the newly proposed structures and improvements, as well as the proposed finish grades for the perimeter slopes that were modified (GDC, 2017b). Note that the revised building pad grades do not vary substantially from the grades shown on the Geotechnical Map, outside of the MSE wall areas. In our opinion, revising the Geotechnical Map using the latest grading plan to show the revised grading throughout the site is unnecessary. ~ok,MEIIUF DELTA C:\Files\Projects\SD412B\18-0012.doc Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 3 Comment No. 5: The Consultant should provide geologic cross-section(s) utilizing the latest grading plan showing (at a minimum) a) existing site topography, b) proposed structures/improvements, c) proposed finished grades, d) geologic structure, contacts, etc., e) slope setbacks for near slope structures/improvements and f) locations of the subsurface exploration. Slope stability analyses output plots do not provide this data. • It is our opinion that preparation of additional geologic cross sections as requested by the reviewer is not necessary. We included nine geologic cross sections in the slope stability section (Appendix C) of the initial geotechnical investigation report (GDC, 2014). We prepared another eight geologic cross sections at key locations in the referenced MSE wall plan review letter (GDC, 2017b). Additional cross sections were also provided at the abutment locations in the referenced foundation report for the bridges (GDC, 2017d). All of the slope stability cross sections that we have prepared for this project do show the existing site topography (a), proposed structures/improvements where applicable (b), the proposed finished grades (c), and the geologic structure (d). Therefore, we disagree with the reviewer's assertion that the slope stability figures do not provide the necessary data. Our recommended slope setbacks (e) were described in detail in Section 6.4.4 of the referenced geotechnical investigation report, and do not need to be shown on the geologic cross sections, in our opinion. The locations of our subsurface explorations with respect to the cross sections were shown on the Rough Grading Plan (Figure 2A) in the referenced investigation, and do not need to be projected onto the cross sections used for our slope stability analyses (GDC, 2014). Comment No. 6: The Consultant should provide a statement as to the impact of the proposed grading and construction on adjacent properties. It is our opinion that the proposed grading and construction will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent properties. Most of the remedial excavations required to construct the perimeter slopes and walls can be completed without off-site grading. One area along the northern property boundary may require some off-site grading to construct the planned MSE walls, if approved by the adjacent property owner. If permission to grade off-site in that area is not granted, Lennar has developed an alternative plan to use temporary solider pile shoring to complete the required excavations without off-site grading in that area. Comment No. 7: The Consultant discusses two sheared claystone beds identified by Geocon at the site, but does not provide the subsurface exploration logs by Geocon or include these beds in the slope stability analyses models. The Consultant should provide the logs of all subsurface exploration, include the sheared claystone beds on the geologic cross-sections and slope stabiLity analyses models, and address required mitigation. • 4114Q., IDUP DELTA C:\Files\Projects\SD4I2B\18-0012.doc . Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 4 The basal elevations of the two "sheared" claystone beds noted by Geocon, as well as two additional claystone beds encountered in our subsurface explorations, were described in Section 3.1 of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). These four claystone beds were encountered at basal elevations of approximately 226, 235, 245 and 265 feet MSL. The geologic cross sections used for our slope stability analyses did model these claystone beds, which are shown in green on Cross Sections A, B, E, G, H and I from our initial investigation (GDC, 2014), as well as Cross Sections A, B, C and G from our MSE supplemental report (GDC, 2017b). Our geotechnical investigation included continuous sampling in Borings B-2 and B-3 at the elevation of the claystone beds. These borings were located near the top of the highest cut slopes proposed along the northern edge of the property. We did encounter a fissured sandy fat claystone (CH) bed located at an elevation of 265 feet in those borings, but the claystone did not appear to have been previously sheared. A sample of the claystone was tested for shear strength indicating a peak strength of 24e, and an ultimate strength of 190, as shown in Figure B-5.14 of the investigation (GDC, 2014). We used the shear strength from that test to model the fissured claystone beds in our slope stability analyses. Additional geologic observation and testing will be conducted during grading to confirm the anticipated geologic conditions that were incorporated into our stability analyses. It should be noted that 2:1 cut slopes up to 45-feet high were excavated along Poinsettia Lane in 2010, immediately adjacent to Geocon's 2006 borings 06GB-1 and 06GB-3, as shown on the Geotechnical Map in our investigation (GDC, 2014). These cut slopes extend down to an elevation of 247 feet along Poinsettia Lane, and expose the Santaigo Formiaton bedding that will be encountered in the highest cut slopes along the northern edge of the property. The cut slopes along Poinsettia Lane do not show indications of adverse bedding or slope instability that would occur if the claystone beds encountered by Geocon were in fact previously "sheared". Geocon's borings logs have previously been submitted to the City of Carlsbad, and should be available for review from the City (or they may be obtained directly from Geocon). We have provided an updated interpretation of the geologic conditions at the site based on our borings, 0 laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses (GDC, 2014). We do not feel that it is appropriate to reproduce Geocon's borings logs in our geotechnical report, as requested by the reviewer. Comment No. 8: The Consultant has recommended additional field exploration in order to provide bridge foundation recommendations. This work should be performed and reported, and should provide bridge foundation recommendations. The additional subsurface explorations and analyses have recently been completed for the propcsed bridges on Poinsettia Lane. The investigation included four borings at the three-span bridge support locations to depths of up to 100-feet below existing grades. Bridge foundation recommendations were provided in the referenced Foundation Report (GDC, 2017d). • A GROUP DELTA C:\Files\Projects\SD412B\18-0012.doc 0 Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 5 Comment No. 9: The Consultant should update/modify recommendations to reflect the 2016 California Building Code. In general, the geotechnical recommendations provided in our 2014 geotechnical investigation remain applicable to the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). Geotechnical parameters for use in post-tension slab designs that area consistent with the 2016 CBC will be provided in the as- graded report. The updated 2016 CBC seismic design parameters are shown in the attached Tables 1 and 2. Note that the seismic design parameters have not changed from the 2013 CBC. Comment No. 10: The Consultant should provide an opinion with respect to the stability of slopes including temporary, gross (static and seismic), and surficial stability. We addressed gross static, seismic and surficial slope stability in Section 6.3.9 and Appendix D of the referenced geotechnical investigation (GDC, 2014). We addressed temporary slope stability in Section 6.3.10 of the 2014 report. Provided that the site is graded in accordance with our recommendations, we concluded that the static, seismic and temporary slope stability would be adequate. Our analyses indicated that the static safety factor of the proposed slopes will exceed 1.5, and that the safety factor of the proposed temporary 1:1 cut slopes will exceed 1.2. Our analyses also indicated that the proposed slopes will experience less than 1 inch of total deformation due to the anticipated seismic loading. • Comment No. 11: The Consultant should provide and address global stability of the proposed MSE retaining walls. We provided supplemental slope stability analyses for the MSE walls in the referenced letter (GDC, 2017b). We came to the same conclusions described in Comment No. 10 above regarding the static, seismic and temporary stability of the proposed MSE walls. Our analyses indicated that the static safety factor of the proposed MSE walls and slopes will exceed 1.5, and that the safety factor of the proposed temporary 1:1 cut slopes will exceed 1.2. Our analyses also indicated that the proposed MSE walls and slopes will experience less than 1 inch of total deformation due to the anticipated seismic loading. It should be noted that an earthen buttress was initially recommended for the large cut slope along the northern edge of the property due to the presence of fissured claystone (GDC, 2014). Our supplemental analyses for the MSE walls indicate that proposed geogrid lengths will provide an equivalent buttressing effect and width as the unreinforced earthen buttress initially proposed in that area. A subsurface drainage system will also be provided for the MSE walls as shown on the wall plans. Comment No. 12: The Ccnsultant should provide a statement as to whether the foundation and slab recommendations are consistent with the requirements of Section 1808.6 (expansive soils) of the 2016 California Bui'ding Code. ~ — 0 Ili,& MIM aq 0 C:\Files\Projects\SD412B\18-0012.doc UJ Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 6 In general, most of the site soils are granular in nature, and have a very low to low expansion potential based on common criteria. The expansion index test results were provided in Figure B-2 of the referenced investigation (GDC, 2014). All of the samples we tested had an Expansion Index below 50 (most were below 20), with the exception of the claystone of the Santiago Formation, which was very highly expansive (El"154). In Section 6.3.3 of the referenced geotechnical investigation, we provided recommendations for the mitigation of expansive soils at the site (GDC, 2014). In areas where the claystone beds will remain at or near finish grades for the building pads, we recommended over-excavating the pads :o 4-feet below finish grade, and replacing with a low expansion soil (Ek50). The post- tension slab foundation recommendations that will be provided in the as-graded report will be consistent with the requirements of the 2016 CBC. Comment No. 13: The Consultant should provide a description of recommended foundation embedment material(s), minimum embedment, minimum width and minimum reinforcement. We have recommended that post-tensioned slabs bearing on low expansion materials (EI<50) be used to support the proposed residential structures. In our experience, the minimum embedment, width and reinforcement for post-tension slabs should be determined by the structural designer based on the geotechnical design parameters that we will provide in the as- grade report. For any conventional shallow foundations that may be associated with the structures, a minimum width of 12-inches and depth of 18-inches is recommended. Continuous foundations should be reinforced with at least two No. 5 bars at both top and bottom. Again, these parameters should be provided in the as-graded report, in our opinion. Comment No. 14: The Consultant should provide recommendations for cement type in accordance with AC/318. Corrosivity was discussed in Section 6.5.4, and the corrosivity test results were provided in Figure B-3 of the referenced investigation (GDC, 2014). Most of the samples we tested had a . negligible sulfate content based on common criteria. However, one sample of the existing fill we tested did have a severe soluble sulfate content (likely due to the previous agricultural use). For concrete that will be in contact with severely corrosive soils, a Type V cement should be used, along with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.45, and a minimum 28-day strength of 4,000 psi. The sulfate content of the finish grade soils within the building pads will be tested during grading (along with the expansion index). Recommendations for the mitigation of soil corrcsivity will be provided in the as-grade report based on the test results. Comment No. IS: The Consultant should provide a list of recommended geotechnical observations and testing during grading and construction. • lI ;.1 015 EV C:\Files\Projects\SD412B\18-0012.doc 0 Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 7 We described the required geotechnical tests and observations during grading and construction in detail in various sections of the referenced reports. In summary, the geotechnical consultant and geologist (or their designated field personnel) should test and observe all earthwork and fill placement for proper compaction and moisture. Geologic observations should be provided at the removal bottoms for the existing alluvium and fill, and at the required pad over-excavation bottoms for cut/fill transitions and expansive soils, prior to placing new fill. Geologic observation of the cut slopes and benching should also be provided. Continuous inspection and testing should be conducted for the geogrid walls, including grid type, location and length, and all subsurface drains, wall drains, and outlets should be observed prior to backfill. New pavements should be tested for compaction of subgrade, base and asphalt, and the materials used in the pavement sections should be sampled and tested for conformance to the specified gradation and quality parameters. Al foundation excavations should be observed prior to placing steel and concrete. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Please feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 James C. Sanders, C.E.G. 2258 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Associate Engineering Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Jamison Nakaya (Jamison.Nakaya@Lennar.com) (1) Hetherington, Mr. Mark Hetherington (mdh@hetheringtonengineering.com) (1) O'Day Consultants, Mr. George O'Day (Georgeo@odayconsultants.com) (1) City of Carlsbad, Ms. Tecla Levy (Tecla.Levy@carlsbadca.gov) '07 .wa SNDEE I No.225$ I CEffMED GNEER * GEOW5T Exp. 12-31-19 OF A L3WUP DELTAN C:\Files\Projects\S0412B\18-0012.doc Response to Geotechnical Review Comments GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsetha 61 Development January 24, 2018 Lennar Homes Page 8 REFERENCES Group Delta Consultants (2014). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. S Group Delta Consultants (2015). Slope Stability Considerations, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 15-0029, March 6. Group Delta Consultants (2016). Remedial Grading Summary and Plan Review, Poinsettia Development (EIR 15-03), Carlsbad, California, Document No. 15-0102, September 21. Group Delta Consultants (2017a). Supplemental MSE Retaining Wall Recommendations, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0081, July 12. Group Delta Consultants (2017b). Geotechnical Review of MSE Wall Plans, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0100, August 28. Group Delta Consultants (2017c). Supplemental Infiltration Information, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0145, December 8. Group Delta Consultants (2017d). Foundation Report, Poinsettia Lane Bridges, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0065R, December 22. Hetherington Engineering (2018). Third-Party Geotechnical Review (First Review), Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, GR2017-0052, 4 Pages, January 2. O'Day Consultants (2017). Rough Grading, Storm Drain and Retaining Wall Plans and Details for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 1 through 38, August 21. Moffatt and Nichol (2017). Poinsettia Bridge Foundation Plans, 2 Sheets, October 4. Soil Retention Designs Inc. (2017a). Verdura Retaining Wall Plans for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 21 through 38, August 18. Soil Retention Designs Inc. (2017b). Verdura Retaining Wall Design Summary and Calculations for Poinsettia 61, SRD Project No. 1704-003, August 21. A MOUP DELTA C:\Files\Projects\5D412B\18-0012.doc 0 TABLE I 2016 CBC ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA (SITE CLASS C) GDC PROJECT NO. SD412, Poinsettia 61 Development Site Latitude: 33.1106 Site Longitude: -117.2767 M - S5= S1= Site Class F= F= TL= SM= b- SDS S01= T0= T5= 1.075 g = short period (02 sec) mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (COC 2010 Fig. 1813.5(3) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) g = 1.0 sec period mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (CBC 2010 Fig. 1813.5(4) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) = Site Class definition based on CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.2 = Site Coefficient applied to S to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.6.3(1)) = Site Coefficient applied to S to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1813.5.312)) sec = Long Period Transition Period (ASCE 7-05 Figure 22-16) = site dccv modified short perinrl ((1? o) MCE cpm-irvi rnpnnn arrplp.rmfinn = F Y.S. (r.Rr 7fl1fl Fqn 1A.tR( = site class moarieo i.0 sec period MUE spectral response acceierarion = I-, vs1 )L.UL iuiu qn. 15-4!) = site class modified short period (02 sac) Design spectral response acceleration = 213X Sms (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-38) = site class modified 1.0 sec period Design spectral response acceleration = 2/3 x SMI (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-39) sec = 0.2 SD1/SDs = Control Period (left end of peak) for ARS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) sec = SS= = Control Period (right end of peak) for ARS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) 0.415 C 1.000 1.386 8.00 0. 0 - 1,075 u,utn 0,717 0,383 0.107 0,535 - Z ci a. - T (seconds) Design Sa (9) MCE Sa (g) 1.0 - < 0) 0.0 1.2 ------- 4.0 0.000 0.287 0.430 0.107 0.717 1.075 0535 0.717 1075 0600 0.639 0,959 0.700 0.548 0.822 - - - - - -Design 0.800 0.479 0.719 0.900 0426 0.639 1.000 0.383 0,575 1.100 0,349 0,523 1,200 0,320 0.479 1.300 0,295 0.442 0.8 ------ 1.400 0.274 0.411 1.500 0256 0.383 --- 1600 0.240 0.359 1.700 0,226 0,338 1.800 0213 0,320 1,900 0,202 0303 2.000 0192 0.288 .b 0.6 -- 2,100 0,183 0274 2.200 0,174 0.261 --- - 2.300 0,167 0250 2400 0.160 0240 2,500 0.153 0,230 0.4 ---------- 2,600 01.17 0,221 2.700 0.142 0,213 -, - • ---- - - - ZUUU CiIli/ U,ii2 2,900 0.132 0.198 3.000 0,128 0,192 -- - - 3100 0124 0,186 3.200 0.120 0,180 0.0 .-. 02 -- -- . 3.300 0.116 3.400 0,113 3.500 0,110 0.1654 0.5 1.0 1.5 Period (seconds) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.600 0.107 0.160 M.. 'A 7n0 1111)4 3.800 0101 3900 0098 4000 0090 0.1.1.1 4.000 0.096 0 144 TABLE 2 2016 CBC ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA (SITE CLASS D) GDC PROJECT NO. SD412, Poinsettia 61 Development Site Latitude: 33.1106 Site Longitude: -117.2767 - IL - S5 S, Site Class= F= F= TL= S,,,,,= S= S5S= S 1= T0= T5 1.075 g = short period (0.2 sec) mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (CBC 2010 Fig. 1613.5(3) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) g = 1.0 sec period mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (CBC 2010 Fig. 1613.5(4) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) = Site Class definition based on CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.2 = Site Coefficient applied to S to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.3(1)) = Site Coefficient applied to S1 to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.3(2)) sec = Long Period Transition Period (ASCE 7-05 Figure 22-16) = site class modified short period (0.2 sec) MCE spectral response acceleration = F x S (CBC ?fllfl Fqn 1A.16) = site class modified 1.0 sec period MCE spectral response acceleration = I- x S ((bL 2UU titin. lb-ti) = site class modified short period (0.2 sec) Design spectral response acceleration = 213 a 5is (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-38) = site class modified 1.0 sec period Design spectral response acceleration = 2/3 x SM1 (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-39) sec = 0.2 SDI/SDS = Control Period (left end of peak) for AIRS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) sec = SOS = Control Period (right end of peak) for AIRS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) 0,415 D 1.070 1,585 8.00 0 - 1 150 0,658 0,767 0,439 0.114 0,572 - Z o to - T (seconds) Design MCE 1.2 - 0 0.8 j 3 < 16 0.6 -- 0) CL 0.4 - - 0.2 0.0 0,346 4.0 Se (g) Sa (g) 0.000 0307 0.460 0.114 0,767 1.150 0,572 0,767 1,150 --------- 0,600 0.731 1,096 0.700 0.626 0,940 -Design _MCE 0.800 0,548 0.822 0,900 0,487 0,731 1.000 0439 0.658 1.0 -------- - 1.100 0,399 0596 1.200 0.365 0548 1,300 0,337 0.506 1,400 0,313 0,470 1.500 0.292 0,439 1.600 0.274 0,411 1.700 0.258 0.387 1.800 0.244 0,365 1.900 0.231 2.000 0219 0,329 2100 0.209 0,313 2,200 0.199 0,299 2.300 0,191 0286 2.400 0,183 0274 2,500 0.175 0263 - 2.600 0.169 0,253 2300 0.162 0,244 - - - .800 0.fb/ ---0'7Z3-5- 2.900 0.151 0.227 3,000 3100 0,146 0.141 0219 0,212 - 1200 0.137 0206 ---- 00 •------ -- 3300 0.133 0,199 3,400 0,129 0193 3500 0.125 0.188 0.5 1.0 1.5 Penod (seconds) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.600 0.122 0.183 3700 0119 0178 3,800 0,115 0.173 3900 0.112 0,169 4.000 0,110 0164 4.000 0.110 0164 GROUP DELTA December 8, 2017 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Jamison Nakaya • SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFILTRATION INFORMATION /\ Poinsettia 61Development Carlsbad, California References: Group Delta (2014). Report of Geotechnical lnvestigatior, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. Mr. Nakaya: In accordance with the request of Mr.Tim Carroll, we are summarizing herein the infiltration tsting we previously completed in 2014 for the Poinsettia 61 Development in Carlsbad. A /narrative describing the infiltration testing was provided in Paragraphs 3 and 4 in Section 2.0 of the referenced 2014 report (GDC, 2014). That narrative is summarized below for clarity. We also previously )providedkhe attached Appendix D, which was intended as an Eddendum to the 2014 report. Appendix D is attached to the end of this letter, and contains the boring logs and infiltration test results from the investigation, as well as Worksheet C.4-1 of the 2015 San Diego County BMDesign Manual. Worksheet C.4-1s identical to the City of Carlsbad Form 1-8. ,ff Two falling head percolation tests were conducted as part of our 2014 field investigation. The tests were located in cut areas where retention basins are proposed. Note that several other retention basins are also proposed 'in portions of the Poinsettia 61 site that were inaccessible to the drilling eqüiment,or in areas where deep cuts or fills will be needed to reach basin subgade elevations. Percolation tests were not conducted in those areas, since they would not be representative of the future as-graded conditions beneath the-basins. Additional percolation testing may be conducted once the basins are rough graded. For the percolation tests, 6-inch dianéter holes were drilled to depths of 5 or 10 feet below grade. -The boreholes were then filled with water, and the water surface drop was measured repeatedly at 15 to 60-minute time intervals. The percolation test data was initially presented in Figures A-20 and A-21 from Appendix A of the referenced 2014 investigation, and is also presented in the attached Appendix D. Supplemental Infiltration Information GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development December 8, 2017 Lennar Homes Page 2 The field percolation tests indicated that the unsaturated formational sandstone at the site may initially take water at a rate of about 5 to 7 minutes per inch. However, once the dense fine- grained sandstone becomes saturated, the infiltration rate drops to zero. We anticipate that the compacted fill soils proposed for the site may absorb more water than the dense sandstone that will be prevalent throughout the cut portions of the site. However, we have recommended that all of the basins be lined with an impermeable HDPE or PVC membrane to reduce the potential for slope instability. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS 7741rk)4 3 =it EqL 12-31-19 Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 ($4 Senior Geotechnical Engineer OF Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Mr. Jamison Nakaya (Jamison.Nakaya@Lennar.com) (1) Addressee, Mr. Mr. Tim Carroll (timc@odayconsultants.com) 40 OwAvc., DLJP DELTA N:\Projects\SO\50412B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\17-0145.doc APPENDIX D INFILTRATION ASSESSMENT 0 Appendix D: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Worksheet C.4-1: Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Part 1- Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this N Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: Percolation tests were conducted in cut areas where retention basins are proposed (see attached test data). Several other retention basins are also proposed in areas where fills are proposed. Percolation tests cannot be conducted in fill areas until the site is graded. The tests indicate that the formational material has an equilibriur infiltration rate below 0.5 in/hour. We recommend that basins located near the tops of proposed fill slopes be lined with an impermeable membrane to reduce the potential for slope instability. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be No mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: See response to Item 1 above. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 D-1 Appendix D: Geotecimical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot N 0 be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: See response to Item 1 above. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing potential water balance issues such as change of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of No contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: See response to Item 1 above. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability. If all answers to rows I - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility screening category is Full Infiltration Part 1 Result* If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally -De feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design. Proceed to Part 2 *To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in the MS4 Permit. Additional teSTing and/or studies may be required by City Engineer to substantiate findings. BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 D-2 Appendix D: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigation Requirements IN Part 2— Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated? Criteria Screening Question Yes No Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any 5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors No presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D. Provide basis: The percolation tests indicate that basins located within cut areas in the Santiago Formation will have a negligible equilibrium infiltration rate of about 0.0 inches per hour. We recommend that the basins proposed at the tops of the fill sloped be lined to reduce the potential for slope instability. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, 6 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot No be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2. Provide basis: See response to Item 5 above. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 D-3 Appendix D: Geotechnical and Groundwater Investigatic n Requirements Criteria Screening Question Yes No Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing significant risk for groundwater related concerns 7 (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other factors)? No The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: See response to Item 5 above. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Erovide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water 8 rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a No comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3. Provide basis: See response to Item 5 above. Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. F rovide narrative discussion of study/data source applicability and why it was not feasible to mitigate low infiltration rates. If all answers from row 1-4 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration. Result* If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration. *To e completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the cefinition of MEP in the M54 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substtntiate findings BMP Design Manual-Appendices December 2015 D-4 11 , , • ,.. RECORD ,_ ,. ,.. , , PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING tUFIINL Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development I SD412 P-I SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 1 10/31/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV GROUND WATER (fti Truck Rio (Wolverine) 6 1 5 1 247 1 Y N/A / na Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (ALtomatic) I ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N I Iz WI I 0-IIOo—Iz .IZwI I I I I I 1W >- I i- I I I w 1C I I I I0 I I I IL I>IzIZcDlI I I I .Iz -.IWI- I IoI I I I -j I- I u ti I I cr, I I I I- I D-Q I I DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION I 0_lW 1w I l0-IIWCI)O - Il<IZWjI 0 ..j >- I wl I I I W 0 I I a SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. Hole cleaned out to 5' with hand auger. Gravel added to bottom prior to filling with water. 5 See Figure A-20b for percolation test data. Total Depth: 5 feet No groundwater encountered 10 I—. I I I I I I I I I 10 15 I— I I I I I I I I I 15 20 I THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION I 1 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. I OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. I FIGURE I I SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER I I 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 ILOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION I I I WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA I A-20 a San Diego, CA 92126 I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I I fl . 0 FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST FIELD DATA SHEET Storm Water Infilitration 40 Project Name: Lennar Pi Dinsettia Job No.: SD412 Tested By: GMS Test Hole No: P-i Date Drilled: 10/31/2014 Date Tested: 10/31/2014 Drilling Method: 6" Hollow-Stem Auger Depth of Hole as Drilled: 5 Depth Before Test: 46" Depth After Test: 4 6 Reading Number Time Time Interval (mm.) Initial Depth of Water (ft.) Final Depth of Water (ft.) Change in Water Level (in.) Rate (min./in.) 1 8:16 0:15 4.00 4.04 8:31 0.50 6:00 2 8:31 0:15 4.04 4.04 8:46 0.00 0:00 3 8:46 0:30 4.04 4.04 9:16 0.00 0:00 4 9:16 0:30 4.04 4.04 9:46 0.00 0:00 5 9:46 0:29 4.04 4.04 10:15 0.00 0:00 6 10:15 0:30 4.04 4.04 10:45 0.00 0:00 7 10:45 1:00 4.04 4.04 11:45 0.00 0:00 8 11:45 1:00 4.04 4.04 12:45 0.00 0:00 9 10 11 12 13 14 -. 15 16 0 ~ 1 4 wp- uDUP DELTA PERCOLATION TEST DATA (P-I) Document No. 14-0188 Project No. SD412 FIGURE A-20 b C I BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 P-2 SITE LOCATION START I FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 I 10/31/2014 I 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) I 6 10 I 235 1 N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR —82%, N61 _82/60*N_ 1.37 * N Z a.0 Zw Z w > I- 0 >- I-. LU Z ZD I.- LL 0 ° D., E5 mci) z- .2 ' _j i_co '- CI) w'15 I-LJJ I- DESCRIPTIONAND CLASSIFICATION Q W W -J 0- -J 0 -J 5 Q- 0. Ui C) o w U)EL Cr 0 o SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE .5 (SM); light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. 5 —230 5 - Hole cleaned out with hand auger to 9'. Gravel added to — bottom prior to saturating the borehole. See Figure A-21b for percolation test data. 10 —225 10- - . Total Depth: 10 feet - No groundwater encountered 15 —220 15- 51 I I I I I I I I 20 I THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION I 1 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. I OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. I FIGURE I I SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER I I 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 ILOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION I I IWITH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA I A-21 a I San Diego, CA 92126 'PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I I 0 FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST FIELD DATA SHEET Storm Water Infilitration Project Name: Lennar Poinsettia Job No.: SD412 Tested By: GMS Test Hole No: P-2 Date Drilled: 10/31/2014 Date Tested: 10/31/2014 Drilling Method: 6' Hollow-Stem Auger Depth of Hole as Drilled: 10' Depth Before Test: 8-2" Depth After Test: 8' Reading Number Time Time Interval (mm.) Initial Depth of Water (ft.) Final Depth of Water (ft.) Change in Water Level (in.) Rate (minim.) 1 9:00 0:15 7.50 7.75 9:15 3.00 5:00 2 9:15 0:15 7.08 7.33 9:30 3.00 5:00 3 9:30 0:15 7.33 7.58 9:45 3.00 5:00 4 9:45 0:15 5.50 6.08 10:00 7.00 2:08 5 10:00 0:15 6.08 6.25 10:15 2.00 7:31 6 10:15 0:15 6.25 6.42 10:30 2.00 7:31 7 10:30 0:15 6.42 6.58 10:45 2.00 7:31 8 10:45 0:15 6.58 6.75 11:00 2.00 7:31 9 11:00 0:15 5.50 5.75 11:15 3.00 5:00 10 11:15 0:15 5.75 6.17 11:30 5.00 3:00 11 11:30 0:15 6.17 6.33 11:45 2.00 7:31 12 11:45 0:15 6.33 6.42 12:00 1.00 15:02 13 12:00 0:15 6.42 6.46 0.50 6:05 12:15 14 12:15 0:15 6.46 6.46 12:30 0.00 0:00 15 12:30 0:15 6.46 6.46 12:45 0.00 0:00 16 12:45 0:15 6.46 6.46 0.00 0:00 13:00 Document No. 14-0188 I AL LPDUP 00-TAX PERCOLATION TEST DATA (P-2) Project No. SD412 o4k, FIGURE A-21 b 0 1= I August 28, 2017 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Jamison Nakaya SUBJECT: ' GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF MSE WALL PLANS Poinsettia 61Development \\ Carlsbad, California \\ References: GrouP\ Delta (2014). Report of Geotechnical Investigation. Poinsettia 61 \Developrnent, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. Group Delta (2017). Supplemental MSE Retaining Wall Re:ommendations, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 17-0081, July 12. J O'Day Consultants (2017). Rough Grading, Storm Drain and Retaining Wall Plans / and Details for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 1 through 38, August 21. Soil Retedtion Designs Inc. (2017A). Verdura Retaining Wall Plans for Poinsettia 61 Sheets 21 through 38, August 18. / Soil Retention Designs Inc. (2017B). Verdura Retaining Wall Design Summary 11 and Calculations for Poinsettia 61, SRD Project No. 1704-003, August 21. / Mr. Nakaya: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the referenced Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wall plans for. the Poinsettia 61 Development in Carlsbad, California. We have also conducted global stability analyses for eight cross sections of the planned MSE walls and associated slopes, as shown in the attached figure.;. In general, our review indicates that the geotechnical aspects of the referencedMSE wall plans conform to the I intent of the geotechnical recommendations provided in our supplemental report (GDC, 2017). Specific -aspects of the MSE wall plan review and slope stability analyses are dis:ussed below. Geotechnical Review of MSE Wall Plans GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development August 28, 2017 Lenriar Homes Page 2 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Group Delta Consultants provided geotechnical recommendations to aid in design of the MSE walls in the referenced letter (GDC, 2017). In summary, we recommended that the existing fill soil in both the retained and foundation influence zones for the new MSE wall be assumed to have a friction angle of 32° with 100 lb/ft' cohesion, and a total unit weight of about 125 lb/ft3. Note that the MSE wall design neglected the cohesion component. We also recommended that the soil used in the reinforced zone have a minimum friction angle of 320 with a total unit weight of about 120 lb/ft3. The MSE wall backfill should also be a granular, free draining material with an Expansion Index of 20 or less, and should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry unit weight based on ASTM D1557. Our review of Table 3 on Sheet 21 of the MSE wall plans indicates that the MSE wall designer assumed a friction angle of 32° for both the retained and foundation zones, with a unit weight of 12.5 lb/ft3 for the retained soil, and a unit weight of 120 lb/ft3 for the reinforced zone. These values conform to our recommended soil parameters. Note that the proposed MSE wall backfill should be sampled and tested by Group Delta Consultants prior to placement in order to confirm that these criteria are satisfied. The compacted fill in the reinforced zone should have a friction angle of 320 or more when tested using ASTM D3080 with the test specimens remolded to approximately 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557. The test specimens should be remolded at near optimum moisture content, and then saturated prior to testing. Section 2.05 on Sheet 21 of the MSE wall plans indicates that the soil used in the retained zone should be less than %-inch in maximum dimension, and have no more than 35 percent fines per ASTM D6913. The plans also indicate that the reinforced soil should also have a Plasticity Index (P1) less than 20 per ASTM D4318, and an Expansion Index less than 20 per ASTM D4829 per our recommendations. Again, soil samples should be tested prior to placement to confirm that the material placed in the re:inforced zone meet these criteria. Note that although much of the on- site soil will meet these criteria, the clayey, fine grained soils will not (CL, ML and CH). Table 3 on Sheet 21 of the referenced plans also indicates that a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.30g was applied to the MSE wall design (taken as two-thirds of the PGAM value from the California Building Code). We have no objection to the PGA used for the MSE wall design. GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS The remainder of this document presents the results of our global stability analyses for the planned MSE walls. The general geotechnical conditions throughout the site were described in the referenced investigation report (GDC, 2014). Plan views of the proposed MSE walls and associated slopes are shown in the attached Figures A-i through H-i for Cross Sections A-A' through H-H', respectively (O'Day, 2017). The existing and proposed topography at each cross section location correspond to that shown on the grading plans in Figures A-i through H-i. A M DLJP DEI...Ttt N:\Projects\SD\5D412B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\17-0100\17-0100.doc Geotechnical Review of MSE Wall Plans GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development August 28, 2017 Lennar Homes Page 3 The proposed MSE wall configuration, geogrid type, and geogrid length at each cross section location correspond to that shown on the Verdura Retaining Wall Plans (Soil Retention, 2017A). The geogrid parameters used for our analyses were summarized in Table 4 on Sheet 21 of the wall plans, and were also summarized in the associated calculations (Soil Retention, 2017B). The planned MSE walls will be located in relatively close proximity to several of the borings and/or test pits conducted for the geotechnical investigation (GDC, 2014). The geologic conditions at each cross section location were estimated based on the conditions encountered in those nearby explorations. Based on the planned depths of excavation, we anticipate that the proposed MSE walls along the northern edge of the site will generally be underlain directly by dense sandstone of the Santiago Formation. However, along the remainder the site (where fills are proposed), the MSE walls will generally be underlain by alluvium that will first need to be excavated and replaced with compacted fill prior to building the planned MSE walls. Maximum temporary cut slope inclinations of 1:1 were recommended for the remedial excavations. However, the saturated alluvium will need to be dewatered prior to excavation. Samples of the various soils encountered in the subsurface explorations were tested as part of the geotechnical investigation, as described in Appendix B of that report (GDC, 2014). Based on those shear tests, we anticipate that compacted fill soils derived from the on-site materials will typically have a drained shear strength exceeding 320 with 100 lb/ft2 cohesion. By comparison, the lower bound of the peak shear strength of the sandstone of the Santiago Formation was estimated as 350 with 150 lb/ft2 cohesion. The shear tests also suggest a lower bound peak strength of 230 with 200 lb/ft2 cohesion for the intact claystone beds, and 190 with zero cohesion for the highly fissured claystone beds encountered in some of the explorations. The referenced MSE wall plans and associated structural calculations included detailed design parameters such as the exposed wall height, wall embedment, wall batter, geogrid type, geogrid length and geogrid locations (Soil Retention, 2017AB). The planned MSE walls will typically have a 1:4 (horizontal to vertical) batter, and will generally use a uniform length of Miragrid 8XT, 10XT or 20XT geogrid. The Verdura 40 blocks will typically be about 18-inches wide, 12-inches deep, and 8-inches high. The excavation along the base of each wall will be sloped back beneath the reinforced zone at a minimum 2-percent gradient to a collector subdrain, that will need to outlet to the storm drain system or other approved gravity outlet. The stability of the proposed MSE wall system was evaluated using the program SLOPE/W, incorporating the various soil and geogrid parameters described above. The stability analyses S were conducted using Spencer's Method of Slices, which satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. All of the critical failure surfaces were optimized. The analyses focused on the worst-case conditions, including the highest sections of the walls in close proximity to the highest sections of slope. Our stability analyses are presented in the figures immediately following each plan view (i.e. A-2 to A-3 through H-i to H-4). OL..JP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD4120 Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\17-0100\17-0100.doc Geotechnical Review of MSE Wall Plans GDC Project No. SD412B Poinsettia 61 Development August 28, 2017 Lennar Homes Page 4 For each cross section, we evaluated the long-term static stability of the planned MSE wall configuration. Out analyses indicate that the proposed MSE wall sections we analyzed had a long-term Factor of Safety (FS) in excess of the minimum required of 1.5 (FS ~! 1.5). In some cases, we also evaluated the temporary stability of the 1:1 forecuts that will be needed to remove the existing compressible alluvium beneath the development. These analyses indicated that the temporary stability of the 1:1 cut slopes up to 20-feet in height would exceed the minimum required of 1.2 (FS ~! 1.2), provided that the alluvium is first dewatered. For the seismic analyses, we varied the applied pseudo-static horizontal load (Kh) on the wall until the Facor of Safety of the critical failure surface was approximately equal to 1.0 (FS = 1.0). The Yield Acceleration (Ky) determined in this manner was then compared to the Design level Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.31g in order to estimate the lateral deformation (A) that the MSE wall and slope may experience during an earthquake. For most of the sections, the Yield Acceleration exceeded the Design level seismic demand, indicating that no seismic displacement would occur. For the remaining sections, the estimated seismic deformation was less than one inch, which would typically be deemed tolerable per the standards of practice. In summary, our global stability analyses indicate that the planned MSE walls and slopes will have an adequate safety factor against deep seated failure, provided that they are constructed in general accordance with our geotechnical recommendations. The worst-case cross section we analyzed had a long-term safety factor of 1.5, which is typically deemed adequate. Our seismic stability analyses also indicate the MSE walls will experience less than about one inch of lateral deformation due to the Design level earthquake, which is also deemed acceptable. LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. Feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS 77arAe&4 .12-31-17 , Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 Senior Geotechnical Engineer OF Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Mr. Jamison Nakaya (Jamison.Nakaya@Lennar.com) (1) Addressee, Mr. Mr. Andrew Han (andrew.han@lennar.com) DLJP D_..12 N:\Projects\5D\SD4I2B Lennar - Poinsettia 61, T&O of Earthwork Construction\5. Reports\17-0100\17-0100.doc FIGURES A' - 20, (lix 17) 310 300 260 270 60 w 260 260 240 00 100 110 120 lOU lOU 100 G RDU p , DELTA GROUP DELTA CONSULTANIB, INC. ENGINEERSAND GECDCG(STS 524S*CTIVI1'Y ROAD, SUITE 103 SDUOEGD.CA92120014)SOG-1000 POCECTUU0000 S0412B 17-0100 Poinoottie61 000&00(Toflt Lenno Honles DDUTDI04000 A-2 CROSS SECTION A-A' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 00 NOTES: The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section A-A does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F.S-2.17). S 0 10 20 30 40 00 00 70 80 80 100 110 120 130 140 150 NOTES: The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section A-A' is approximately 0.43g, which exceeds the Design level PGA of 0.31g. The estimated slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand is negligible (less than 1 inch). 308 298 288 278 LU 208 258 248 - 20'. (lix 17) 310 1.50 - 300 Temporary lo, 1:1 Backcut ANTIAGOFORMATION(350,15OpI Proposed 22' High 280 — Verdure MSE Wall N 270 w I =YTON1 Proposed W HIgh 260 - Verdure MSE Wall = — SANTIAGO FORMATION (35-,150 psf) 240 (-5,225) , I I I SectionBl.gSz I I 2 3C 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 NOTES 70 80 50 100 110 120 130 140 150 GROUP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. == 00 0 17-0100 The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section B-B' does meet the minimum required FS of 1,5 (F.S-1.50). (R55)530-)000 PO)fl9015061 D000kopoTent CROSS SECTION B-B' DELTA 1.00 310 300 290 230 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NOTES: The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section B-B' is approximately 0.30g. The slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand of 0.31g is estimated at less than 1 inch. 60 90 110, 110 120 130 140 150 260 U- 270 LU 260 259 240 - 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 NOTES: The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section C-C' does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F.S-1 .50). 310 - 300 - 000 000 00*1 Temporary 1:1 Backcut Proposed 22 High Verdure MSE Wail 280 - SANTIAGO FORMATION (350, 150 pat) °, 100 pat) U- 270 - Proposed 9 High Verdure MSE Wall 260 251 SANTIAGO FORMATION (350,150 pat) 240 - 230 (-5,225) SactionC2.gez I I 0 10 20 30 40 00 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 bC NOTES: GROUP DaTA CONSULTANTS, INC. GROUP UC CC The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section c-c, is approximately 0.31g. J% °l°°° 17-0100 Poinsettie6l D000topo,ent The slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand of 0.31g is estimated at less than 1 inch. LOnflU HOIGRO C-3 DELTA CROSS SECTION C-C' - --- P250.2 I I /\\i \ \ \ y 10 "P250 6 P252.3 PR/VASrCRY 5ol DRAIN LINE W, 252. fs SET SHiFT 16 \ I ( 24 olr so— GROUP SCALE: 1(il,i) DELTA CROSS SECTION D-D' 260 270 - - 8) 8) U- Co 260 250 240 - - 4 -fl i] 230 - Temporary PL 1:1 Forecut 220 210 ---------------------— SANTIAGO ------- FORMATION (350, 150 psf) secsionol.gsz (-5,195) I I - I 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 5e, 100 110 120 130 140 ISO NOTES: GROUP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC. DS 000UTS502001T6050 SD412B 17-0100 Test Pit TP-7 and Boring B-14 indicate that there is a considerable amount of loose saturated alluvium in this portion of the site (GDC, 2014). ' PoinNerne6lDev&oploent oua CROSS SECTION D-D' DELTA 0 S S S S S S S S 280 - 270 - 8) 8) U- 250 - 240 - w 230 - Temporary F 1:1 Forecut ii SANTIAGO FORMATION (350, 150 pall) 210 0 10 20 30 40 go BU 00 go im 110 120 130 140 150 NOTES: GROUP INGNEERS GROUP DELTA COHGULTANTh, INC. AND GEOLOGISTS E~ 17-0100 The alluvium is considered compressible and liquefiable, and should be excavated to expose dense formational materials throughout the site. S50EGOUG2IUO7U8)SU8-IOOO PoinGottle 61 DOvoiop,00nt LOnnO HOInOG The safety factor of the proposed temporary 1:1 cut slope will exceed 1.2, provided that the alluvium is dewatered as necessary. 4A D-3 DELTA CROSS SECTION D-D' 0 280 - 270 - 280 •- Co 240 FILL (3r,1O0ps LU 230 23. — Temporary P 1:1 Forecut F' -------------------------------- SANTIAGO FORMATION (350,150 psf) 210 (-6,195) I I SectionD3.gsz I I 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 115 120 130 140 lOU NOTES: GROUP 000up DaTA c005uLtnas, INC. == AC D 17-0100 The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section D-D' does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F.S-'-2.12). SO0GOCA92128(.5D)SN-lOOO th.61 041 Lenm Homes CROSS SECTION D-D' DELTA 280 - 270 250 - 1.00 a, 250 . 240- / FILL (32°,lOOpsf) 230- Temporary Pt. 1:1 Forecut - 220 210 SANTIAGO FORMATION (350, 150 psf) (-5,195) I I I SectlonD4.gsz I 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90 100 110 NOTES: 125 130 140 10 GROUP WGINEERSMD oou OELTACONSULTANIS, INC. 17-0100 The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section D-D' is approximately 0.40g, which exceeds the Design level PGA of 0.31g. PoioNottIN61 Developnloflt Lenfl9 HonSON - CCNCICICN 05 The estimated slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand is negligible (less than 1 inch). DELTA CROSS SECTION D-D' - 20'. (11x17) 270 - 260 - 250 - 240 - a, a, U- 230 - LU 220 - Temporary PL 1:1 Forecut 210 200 SANTIAGO FORMATION (35°, 150 ps m 0 1 130 1g00 40 100F , - 0 20 30 40 50 so 70 so so 100 110 120 isO NOTES: GROUP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC. Borings B-13 and B-14 indicate that there is a considerable amount of loose saturated alluvium in this portion of the site (GDC, 2014). So,U,US:o 17-0100 DELTA CROSS SECTION E-E' 270 260 - - flu 240 00 - - 230 - 220- iAQ Temporary PL 210 1:1 Forecut I. SANTIAGO FORMATION (35-, 150 pelf) SeCtlOnE2.9SZ 1 R185 -- 10 20 so 40 50 so TO go IDD NOTES: 110 120 130 140 ISO 6ROUP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS.INC. ENuREETSAplouE0STS CT 62120(6201000 I SD412B 17-0100 The alluvium is considered compressible and liquefiable, and should be excavated to expose dense formational materials throughout the site. Poinsettia 61OOTOlOpfllefll LOnER HOPERS TANTANAND E-3 The safety factor of the proposed temporary 1:1 cut slope will exceed 1.2, provided that the alluvium is dewatered as necessary. DELTA CROSS SECTION E-E' . 0 0 0 0 S S S I 210 - 200 018-8 - 250 - 240 - Proposed 8' High Verdure MSE Wail U- g 230 Proposed 8 HIgh Verdure MSE Wail 220 - Temporary PL - 1:1 Forecut 210 FILL (320, 100 pet) no SANTIAGO FORMATION (35-, 150 psf) SectionE3.gsz 100 0 10 20 30 60 NOTES: GROUP DELTA CONSULTANIB, INC. S0412B GROUP =5T080 The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section E E does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F S-i 88) _1 00 00 226018)500- °°° 17-0100 260 250 240 U- 230 Lu 220 210 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 98 100 110 120 130 1012 100 NOTES: The Yield Acceleration (1(y) for the proposed MSE wall at Section E-E' is approximately 0.34g, which exceeds the Design level PGA of 0.31g. The estimated slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand is negligible (less than 1 inch). 0 .1" - 20, (lix 17) 270 - 260 - 250 - 240 - 541 lL 230 - 21 LLEtIIttt±±ILJ211L±TiT 200 SANTIAGO FORMATION (350,150 psf) 0 10 20 30 40 50 so 70 80 go 100 110 120 13U 140 100 NOTES: GROUP GROUP nra coRsULT40Th, INC. =sIM S0412B 17-0100 Previous explorations indicate that there is a considerable amount of loose saturated alluvium in this portion of the site (GOC, 2014). EDCUGa(ssG)sUU-O F-2 (f'% - POinoettW611 0- topelont Lonre HorRoR CROSS SECTION F-F' DELTA 275 260 250 - 240 - 230 - LU 220 uJ.rizLIttt±±ILui2UtJ '>i 21 200 SANTIAGO FORMATION (350, 150 psf) I I SectionFi .gsz I 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 80 100 150 120 135 140 1.0 NOTES GROUP SUIM GROUP OELTAC008ULTUNTS. INC. 17-0100 Previous explorations indicate that there is a considerable amount of loose saturated alluvium in this portion of the site (GDC, 2014). 5350 Uo35eUI2o0sa)s36.I POlnsettlo6l Dovolopolent dilfl U\ Lenna Honton F-2 DELTL CROSS SECTION F-F' 210 - 280 - 1.98 - BASIN 4-1 (MTH LINER) 230 - FILL (32% 100 psf) LU I I LA 11 210 ----------------- ----------------- SANTIAGO FORMATION (350,150 psf) SectionF2.gsz - 190 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 10 80 90 NOTES: 100 110 120 130 140 150 GROUP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. EGOAEE980NDOECLOUISIS SD412B 17017 The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section F-F' does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F.S-1.98). SAA DIEGO. CA0UI20(0T8)T36'T020 PoinUotf pSIerd DELTLS CROSS SECTION F-F' 0 270 - 200 - 1.00 BASIN 4-1 (MTH LINER) -J no 210 ------------------------------------ SANTIAGO FORMATION (350 150 psf) SectionF4.gez 190 0 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 NOTES: 00 90 1101 110 120 130 140 100 6RDUP GROUP DELTA C069ULTANIS. INC. OSTU SD412B 17-0100 The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section F-F' is approximately 0.40g, which exceeds the Design level PGA of 0.31g. ) POInGOItA 61 oesolopn,enl F-4 The estimated slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand is negligible (less than 1 inch). LOIT1O HO,nOG DELTA CROSS SECTION F-F' / . 0 . NOTES: The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section G-G' does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F.S-2.14). 310 - 300 286- - 280 Ci - 270 - w .LQQ Temporary 260 Proposed 9 High Verdure MSE Wall jcut SANTIAGO FORMATION (350,150 psf) (-5, 225) I I SectIonG2.gsz 230 -- 0 10 20 30 40 80 60 70 80 80 180 NOTES: 110 120 130 140 ¶50 GROUP 9245 oup OEL LTANTS, INC. ENGINEERSM4D TACONSU GEaOGIsTs SD412B The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section G-G' is approximately 0.49g, which exceeds the Design level PGA of 0.31g. ACTIVITY SOAD SUITE ITT GO, CA02T2SES8)536.lOOO 17-8100 nsotti Polo 6l Developnsent Lenm HUTTON G-3 07A The estimated slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand is negligible (less than 1 inch). DELTA CROSS SECTION G-G' w 1"— (11cl7) e 280 270 200 200 a) a, 240 00 > 00 Lu 200 22( 22) 21) 10 20 30 40 00 60 70 60 NOTES: Boring B-9 indicates that there is about 8 to 10 feet of existing undocumented fill in this portion of the site (GDC, 2014). Compressible undocumented fill should be excavated and compacted as discussed in Seciton 6.3.2 of the geotechical investigation report (GDC, 2014). 200 - 270 200 - - 250 1.71 - @2 @3 U- 240 - FILL (32°, 100 paf) Ui Proposed 8' High Verdure MSE Wall 230 - Temporary PL 220 —_ 1:1Forect EXISTING FILL (30°, 100 psf) 210 SANTIAGO FORMATION (350,150 pat) (-5.195) I I I SectlonH2.gez 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90 NOTES: 100 110 120 130 140 150 GROUP GROUP OEM CONSULTANTS. INC. UC U 17-0100 The static safety factor for the proposed MSE wall at Section H-H' does meet the minimum required FS of 1.5 (F.S-1.71). sANOGOCU92I2O(.SU)SU.IUU0 P010S0O61 DOVWOpnOOt DELTA CROSS SECTION H-H' 21) 20) 25) a) a) LI 24) a) uJ 23) 22) 21) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 NOTES: The Yield Acceleration (Ky) for the proposed MSE wall at Section H-H' is approximately 0.34g. The slope deformation under the Design level seismic demand of 0.31g is estimated at less than 1 inch. 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 IROUF DELTA July 12, 2017 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Andrew Han N SUBJECT:. SUPPLEMENTAL MSE RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS , \ Poinsettia 61 DeeIopment \ Carlsbad, California 1*' ' References: Group Delta Consultants (2014). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Poinsettia Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. O'Day Consultants (2017). Poinsettia 61, Rough Grading Plan, 20 Sheets, Project / No. cT14-108, dated June 28. Mr. Han: In response to our recent project team meeting, we are providing herein supplemental geotechnical recommendations for use in the design of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining wallfs recently proposed at the Poinsettia 61 residential development in Carlsbad. Geotechnical parameters for the design of standard cantilever retaining walls were provided in Section 6.6'f the refere'n'ced geotechnical report (GDC, 2014). Those recommendations remain applicable to design of th'cast-in-place and masonry retaining walls proposed at the site. The following design parameters are provided for the Verdura style MSE walls that will be designed by Soil Retention Systems, as shown on the referenced rough grading plans (O'Day, 2017). The proposed MSE retaining walls will retain a variety of different soil conditions. In general, all of the MSE walls may be assumed to retain compacted fill soils thatwiIl primarily consist of silty and clayey sand (SM and SC). This assumption will be slightly conservative in the cut areas. The terraced MSE walls proposed along the northern property bound?y, as well as the MSE wall proposed in the cut area near the soiithwest corner of the site, will likely retain dense Santiago Formation, which mostly consists of silty or clayey sandstone (SM or SC). For design of these MSE walls, a higher shear strength than that of the fill may be applicable to the retained zone. However, several one to four-foot thick fat claystone (CH) beds were encountered within the Santiago Formation at the site. A buttress was previously recommended beh nd the northern MSE wall due to the presence of the fissured claystone. Once the preliminary MSE wall designs are completed by Soil Retention Systems assuming fill conditions, the global stability of the various cut slopes and MSE walls should be evaluated by Group Delta Consultants. Supplemental MSE Retaining Wall Recommendations GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development July 12, 2017 Lennar Homes Page 2 MSE retaining walls should be designed using soil parameters that reflect the. strength in the reinforced and retained zones. For design, we recommend that the retained and foundation area materials for all of the proposed MSE walls be assumed to consist of fill soil with a shear strength of 32° and 100 lb/ft3 cohesion, and a moist unit weight of 125 lb/f:3. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 lbs/ft2 may be assumed. For lateral resistance, a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and an allowable passive pressure of 300 lbs/ft2 is recommended. The bottom of the MSE wall should be deepened where needed to provide a minimum slope s€tback of 8 feet, measured horizontally from the bottom outside edge of the MSE wall units to the slope face. All MSE walls should contain an adequate drainage system to relieve the buildLp of hydrostatic pressure. Typical MSE wall drain details are provided in the attached Figure 1. The soil placed within the reinforced zone of the MSE walls should consist of granular soil with an Expansion Index less than 20 based on ASTM D4829. For design purposes, we recommend that the material in the retained zone be assumed to consist of granular fill soil with a minimum friction angle of 320 with zero cohesion, and a moist unit weight of 120 lb/ft3 Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557, and should be sampled and tested during construction for remolded shear strength per ASTM D3080 to confirm that the minimum required 320 friction angle is attained. Much of the on-site soil, including all of the poorly graded and silty sand (SP an J SM), as well as some of the clayey sand (SC) generated from the proposed excavations, may be suitable for use within the reinforced zone of the MSE walls, provided that these soils have an Expansion Index less than 20 based on ASTM D4829. The Expansion Index testing conducted previously for the investigation was summarized in Figure B-2 of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). Note that all of the on-site clay (CL and CH), as well as some of the clayey sand (SC), may have an Expansion Index above 20, and would be considered unsuitable for use as MSE wall backfill. We understand that seismic design is required for all earth retaining structures over 6 feet in height. The Design level peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the site may be taken as 40 percent of the short period spectral ordinate (SIDS), as shown in Tables 1 and 2 of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). One-half of the Design level PGA is typically used for pseudo-static seismic wall design, which would equate to 0.14g or 0.15g in this case, depending upon the wall location and underlying Site Class. For seismic design of retaining walls throughout the site, we have provided design parameters based on the higher PGA of 0.15g (corresponding to a Site Class D). We recommend that seismic retaining wall design be conducted using the Mononabe-Okabe solution which incorporates a pseudo-static horizontal load. The Mononabe-Okabe solution is based on active earth pressures, and requires that the retaining walls are free to yield at least 1/2 percent of the wall height. We recommend that the equivalent seismic pressue increment (re) of 13 PCF be added to the active earth pressure for seismic wall design. Note that the seismic pressure increment may be idealized as an inverted triangular pressure distribution with the resultant acting at a height of 0.6H above the base of the wall, as shown in Figure 2. DLJP DEL N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar- Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\17-008: MSE Walls\17-0081.doc 0 fl Supplemental MSE Retaining Wall Recommendations GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development July 12, 2017 Lennar Homes Page 3 We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS II1 I ENN 123117 Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Andrew Han (andrew.han@lennar.com) (1) Soil Retention Systems, Mr. Nick Jansson (nlansson@soilretention.com) (1) O'Day Consultants, Mr. Tim Carroll (timc@odayconsultants.com) 0WANC., GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\50412 Lennar - Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\17-0081 MSE Walls\17-0081.doc FIGURES ROCK BLANKET ALTERNATIVE Filter Fabric Minus 3/4" Surrounding Crushed Rock Interceptor Drain Consisting of Geocomposite Panel or Crushed Rock - Crushed Rock Blanket (SEE DETAIL) Approximate Crushed Rock Excavation t Least 2" of Line Surrounding Pipe / 4" Diameter Perforated Pipe, ABS or PVC, Height of Drain Draining to Gravity Outfall Equal to 2/3 Height of Wall GEOCOMPOSITE PANEL /1 ALTERNATIVE Geocomposite Panel Drain Ii Gravel Collector Approximate \.-'With Pipe Approximate Excavation At Least 2" of Excavation Line Line Crushed Rock Surrounding Pipe 4" Diameter Perforated NOTES /1- Pipe, ABS or PVC, Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1%. Draining to Gravity Outfall Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-1 5, or approved similar product. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches. INPUT PARAMETERS Unit Weight of Soil [PCF] Backfill Soil Friction Angle (4)) [s]: Wall Friction Angle (8) [0]: Soil Backfill Angle (a) [0]: Wall Batter Angle (13) [0]: Horizontal Acceleration (I<h) [g's]: Vertical Acceleration (l() [g's]: 120 32 21 0 90 0.15 0.00 Active Pressure Resultant: F. = 1/2 Ye H2 Earthquake Pressure Resultant: Fe = 1/2 Ye H2 CALCULATED PARAMETERS Active Pressure Coefficient (K0): 0.275 Equivalent Fluid Pressure (Ye): 33 Seismic Pressure Coefficient (I(): 0.380 Equivalent Fluid Pressure (yoe): 46 Equivalent Seismic Pressure (Ye): I 13 I Horizontal Component of Active Pressure Resultant Fah = F. cos(8+90.13) Horizontal Component of Seismic Pressure Resultant Feh = Fe cos(6+90-13) Granular Backfill 74) C=O 7 e H Fe T _ I /Ya + 7e y,-13 PCF H / Fa/ Fah 0.6 H H13 I 19 YaH September 21, 2016 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Andrew Han • SUBJECT: Remedial Grading Summary and Plan Review Poinsettia Development (EIR 15-03) Carlsbad, California / \ References: Group Delta Consultants (2014). Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Poinsettia Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. O'Day Consultants (2016). Vesting Tentative Map for Poinsettia, 10 Sheets, Job / No. 14108, revised September 19. / Mr. Han: Based on our recent conversation, it is our understanding that several changes in the Poinsettia development.' have occurred since the referenced subsurface investigation was completed (GDC, 2014). Specifically, two five-acre lots have been removed from the southeast portion of the site (APN 215-050-4500 and APN 215-050-4600), resulting in a revised total development area of50.4 acres. Note that no development was proposed for these lots at the time that the refe'eneed investigation was completed. Consequently, no change to our geotechnical recommendations is needed to reflect the deletion of these two 5-acre lots. In addition, the 17 lot neighborhood once; proposed in the southwest 'portion of the site will no longer be developed. The two 5-acre lots in the southwest portion of the site (APN 215-050-4400 and APN 215-050-4700) will remain as undeveloped. open space.-Consequently, the development will now have 123 lots, rather than the initial 140 lot develómént. The revised site layout is / shown in Figure 1. The development is shown in more detail in Figures 2A through 2E. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the recently revised Vesting Tentative Map for the development, and have provided our response to one review comment from the City of Carlsbad. The following report also summarizes our remediai.grding recommendations for the project. Each of these items is addressed separately below." . Remedial Grading Summary and Plan Review GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia Development September 21, 2016 Lennar Homes Page 2 PLAN REVIEW No grading notes are currently provided on the referenced Tentative Map (O'Day, 2016). However, it has been our experience that the final grading plans for projects within the City of Carlsbad will typically contain a Grading Note stating: "All grading shall be conducted in general accordance with the recommendations provided in the referenced soils report (GDC, 2014)." Provided that this note is shown on the final grading plans, it is our opinion that the preliminary grading shown on the referenced Tentative Map will adequately incorporate the intent of our referenced geotechnical recommendations. RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW COMMENT The City of Carlsbad has provided the following review comment: "As previously requested, provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the proposed preliminary grading (including remedial grading) shown on the preliminary site plan complies with the grading recommendations in the soils report section 6.3.3, requiring all alluvium within the area described by 1:1 plane extended down and out from the toe of the planned fill slopes, along the southern edge of the northern development, should be excavated." The requested letter was provided above. The comment illustrates the potential difficulties that may be encountered during remedial grading along the southern edge of the site. Note that the intent of our recommendations was to remove all alluvium beneath any settlement sensitive improvements located along the southern edge of the property. We anticipate that alluvium depths of 15 feet or more may be encountered along the southern property boundary east of the bridge, as shown in Figure 2C. The Tentative Map shows a 20-fcot wide grading easement along the southern property boundary beyond the toe of the fill slope. In some areas, the limits of grading extend up to 40 or 50-feet beyond the toe of the fill slope. In general, for areas with less than 10 feet of alluvium, the 20-foot wide easement should be adequate to remove all alluvium beneath the toe of the slope using 1:1 temporary excavations. Where deeper alluvium is encountered, we recommend starting the 1:1 temporary forecuts at the limits of grading, and extending the excavations northward into the development until all of the alluvium is removed. Group Delta should observe these excavations during grading, and provide remediation alternatives where needed, or evaluate the potential impact to settlement sensitive improvements. Improvements located north of the slope top should not be affected. It should be noted that we previously understood that cast-in-place (CIP) retaining walls would be used on the slopes along the southern edge of the site, as depicted in Cro;s Section E-E' in Appendix C of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). We understand that the prposed retaining walls shown on the revised Tentative Map will now consist of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls that can experience much more settlement than CIP walls without damage and cracking. Consequently, if some alluvium does remain near the toe of the subject fill slopes, the potential for damage to the proposed slope improvements will be substantially diminished. AQ DUP DEL—TL N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigaticn\15-0102\15-0102R.doc 0 Remedial Grading Summary and Plan Review GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia Development September 21, 2016 Lennar Homes Page 3 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL GRADING Our remedial grading recommendations were provided in Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.10 of the referenced geotechnical investigation report (GDC, 2014). In summary, we recommended that deleterious materials be removed from the site, including existing structures, improvements, trees, vegetation, trash and any demolition debris. We also recommended that compressible undocumented fill and alluvium be completely excavated throughout the site, cleared of deleterious materials, dried where necessary, and replaced as a uniformly compacted fill. Within the building pad areas, we recommended that cut/fill transitions, and deep fill transition lots be over-excavated. We also recommended that expansive clays be removed from finish pad grade (if encountered). Finally, we recommended that a buttress be constructed along the northern edge of the site, and that various fill slope keyways be constructed. The anticipated remedial excavations are summarized in the attached Figures 2A through 2E. Figure 2A shows the estimated configuration of the recommended buttress keyway excavation for the retaining walls and cut slope along the northern property line. As described in Section 6.3.9, and shown in Appendix C of the referenced report, the buttress is intended to stabilize the fissured clay bed encountered within the formational materials at an elevation of about 264 feet. The Tentative Map indicates that the base of the upper MSE wall on the northern slope is generally located at an elevation of about 262 to 263 feet. For the planned buttress, we recommended that a 1:1 temporary cut be excavated from about elevation 285 feet on the cut slope face, down to a few feet below the base of the MSE wall (and fissured clay bed). As shown in Figure 2A, the base of the cut slope should be located at least 15 feet behind the face of the MSE wall, and should provide sufficient room for the MSE wall geogrid reinforcement. A continuous subdrain is also recommended, as shown in Figure 2A (and detailed in Figure 8 of the referenced geotechnical report). The subdrains should be graded to flow at one percent or more to solid PVC collectors. The collector pipes should outlet into the storm drain system. Figures 213, 2C and 2D show the remedial excavations proposed in the alluvial drainage canyon along the eastern edge of the northern portion of the property. Estimated remedial excavation depths of 3, 5, 10 and 15 or more feet are shown on these figures. Note that a canyon subdrain is also recommended for this area, at the approximate location shown in Figures 2C and 2C. The canyon subdrain should outlet into the storm drain, or a natural gravity outlet. Note that in the areas of the deepest alluvium removals (shown in green), saturated soil and groundwater is anticipated. The saturated soils will need to be dried back to a moisture content suitable for placement as compacted fill. Dewatering may be needed to accomplish these remedial excavations. Note also that the remedial grading excavations will generally need to extend 30 to 40 feet beyond the toe of the proposed fill slopes, in order to remove all alluvium located within a 1:1 plane extended down and out beyond the toe of the fill slopes. Figure 2E shows the remedial grading proposed in the northwest portion of the site. In general, we have recommended that a minimum 15-foot wide keyway be constructed along the toe of the new fill slope proposed in that area. In addition, this portion of the site contains a large GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\15-0102\15-0102R.doc 0 Remedial Grading Summary and Plan Review GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia Development September 21, 2016 Lennar Homes Page area of previously placed fill. The SPT data from our borings indicates that the existing fill is generally medium dense to dense, and may be suitable for support of new fill and foundation loads. However, as a minimum, we have recommended three foot deep remedial excavations (below existing grades) throughout these existing fill areas. If pockets of loose, compressible fill or other deleterious materials are observed by Group Delta during these remedial excavations, deeper excavations may be warranted, as determined in the field by our personnel. Our remedial grading recommendations for cut/fill transitions were provided in Section 6.3.4 and Figure 5 of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). In general, cut/fill and deep fill transition lots should be over-excavated to a depth equal to half the maximum fill depth, with a minimum • over-excavation depth of three feet, and a maximum depth of 10 feet. Several cut/fill transition lots are shown in Figures 2B through 2E. The potential cut/fill lots include Lots 19, 24, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 50, 52, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 96, 97, 98, 99, 108, 113, 114, 119, 126, 128, 129, 134, 135 and 136. Additional cut/fill lots may need to be over-excavated during grading, based on the actual extent and depths of the remedial excavations needed to remove compressible soils. In addition to the remedial grading areas shown in Figure 2A through 2E of this report, some lots may expose expansive clays at or near finish grade. Our recommendations for expansive soils were provided in Section 6.3.3 of the referenced report. It is difficult to determine which lots may be affected by the presence of expansive clays near finish grade at this time. However, for such lots, we have recommended a maximum 4-foot deep over-excavation (where needed), based on the conditions observed by Group Delta during grading. Note that the Expansion Potential of the finish pad soils will be determined during grading. For remedial grading quantity estimation purposes, we recommend assuming that roughly 20 cut lots may need to be over-excavated at the site due to the presence of expansive clays. An average lot area, and an average remedial excavation depth of 3 feet may be assumed for estimation. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS 274rAao4 GE2569\\\ Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 James. C. Sanders, C.E.G. 2258 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Engineering Geologis Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Andrew Han (andrew.han@lennar.com) 1&1 .S \ NO 58 , (1) Ainslie Communities, Mr. John Sherritt (iohn@ainslie.co) CEAMMED (1) O'Day Consultants, Mr. Tim Carroll (timc@odayconsultants.com) ENGINEERING OF CP DLJP DEI_Ttl N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\15-0102\15-0102R.doc [IJ FIGURES LM LM LM - - .----- ,' 4 FSITE1 _\ - \. ;5 5 45 5,55 4 -' \JDEVELOPMENTEI Ilk 4 1 I - !- - I— — - - - - - 4- I U —I • 5 .5 ;Gs . • I 5' 50 0 APN-050-450J - * - - '- iY ..Al THESE TWO LOTS WILL I THESE TWO LOTS WERE REMAIN AS OPEN SPACE I ?3IIS --5- - REMOVED FROM THE SITE / 4 ,' APN2T 504700. APN 215-050-46001,— r All 11 OUF DD...TA SF PROJECT NUMB GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS SD412 SAN DIEGO, CA 92126 (8 7~g—ojEar NAME 15-010 -- - - - ., - •) •\ Poinsettia 61 Development FIGURE NUMBE - - - I Lennar Homes I - - . - NO SCALE SITE VICINITY PLAN LM 0 - JILI.L F4- E- V J r II ( -•. ..- -- ,1 /jtJ •/ I 1i - 1i. - - - .. j - I---- - /y (T -•-: .- ,/1 r f jJ1rfl - -- DESCRIPTION: N i Approximate location of buttress keyway (keyway elevation below clay and finish surface grades for MSE wall). Top of 1:1 cut at -285' MSL. Approximate location of perforated buttress subdrain and solid outlet pipes. Grade keyway and subdrains to outlets at 1 % gradient or more. Reference: O'Day Consultants (2014). Vesting Tentative Map for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 1to 10, September. NO SCALE El C C C DESCRIPTION: 15'+ Approximate remedial excavation depth (3', 5', 10' or I5'+). ......, ............,, Approximate location of perforated canyon subdrain. Reference: O'Day Consultants (2014). Vesting Tentative Map for Poinsettia 61, Sheets Ito 10, September. A NO SCALE . 0 DESCRIPTION: 15+ Approximate remedial excavation depth (3', 5', 10' or 15'+). ....., ....., ..... Approximate location of perforated canyon subdrain. Reference: O'Day Consultants (2014). Vesting Tentative Map for Poinsettia 61, Sheets Ito 10, September. A NO SCALE LM .. 1'.) f , 0111, 1 1/L W . M \ V\\\ V\ \ fl iii \\X\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\' ..2 W((i\\II iI;t sI:HI DESCRIPTION: Approximate remedial excavation depth (3', 5', 10' or 15'+). Reference: O'Day Consultants (2014). Vesting Tentative Map for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 1to 10, September. A NO SCALE DESCRIPTION: Approximate remedial excavation depth (3', 5', 10' or 15'+). Reference: O'Day Consultants (2014). Vesting Tentative Map for Poinsettia 61, Sheets 1to 10, September. NO SCALE March 6, 2015 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 Attention: Mr. Andrew Han N SUBJECT:. SLOPE STABILITY CONSIDERATIONS Poinsettia 61 Development \ Carlsbad, California Reference: Group Delta Consultants (2014). Report of Geotechnicalinvestiqation, Poinsettia 1 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Document No. 14-0188, November 20. Mr. Han: I /in accordance with the request of Mr. Tim Carroll with O'Day Consultants, Ae have prepared this letter regarding the need for benches within the slopes at the Poinsettia 61 development in Carlsbad, California. A variety of new slopes will be constructed as part of the planned subdivision. The slopes will be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and will have a maximum height of 50-feet or less (typically less than 40 feet). Slope stability was discussed in Sections 4.4, 6.3.9 and Appendix C of the referenced report (GDC, 2014). Our slope stability analyses indicated that the proposed2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut .and fill slopes at the siteslIould possess an adequate factor of safety against deep-seated failure (FS>1.5) for the plarihed heights. However, various buttresses and subdrains were recommended in the referenced report in order to help reduce the potential for future slope instabi ity. It should be noted that providing benches within a slope will increase the calculated safety factor against slope failure. This is primarily due to the overall decrease in slope inclination resulting from the benches. For example, a 40-foot high 2:1 slowill cover 83 horizontal feet. If a 10-foot wide flat bench is added to the 40-foot high slope, thehrizontal lEngth of the slope increases to 90 feet, and the overallslope inclination is effectively decreased to 2'h:1. This results-.in an increased safety factor calculated using a global limit equilibrium analysis. However, as noted above, it is our opinion that the proposed slopes at th€ site will already possess an adequate safety factor at a 2:1 inclination (provided that :)ur geotechnical recommendations are implemented during grading). Therefore, it is our oinion that slope benches are not needed for the proposed slopes at the subject site. 0 Slope Stability Considerations C-DC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development March 6, 2015 Lennar Homes Page 2 We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Feel free to contact the office with any questions or comments, or if you need anything else. GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS 274)43.1& 11t Thp. 12-31-15 Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 Senior Geotechnical Engineer OF Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Andrew Han (andrew.han@lennar.com) (1) Addressee, Mr. Tim Carroll (timc@odayconsultants.com) ~~-Vk GRDUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestiga:ion\15-0029\15-0029.doc 11 40 ELTA REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION POINSETTIA 61 DEVELOPMENT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I Prepared for LENNAR HOMES 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo, California 92656 N Prepared by GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 San Diego, California 92126 Project No. 5D412 November 20, 2014 November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes 25 Enterprise, Suite 300 Aliso Viejo;Cálifornia 92656 • Attenticn: Mr. Andrew Han SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Poinsettia 61 Development / Carlsbad, California Mr. Han: We are pleased to submit this preliminary geotechnical investigation for the propo;ed Poinsettia 61 development in Carlsbad, California. The development will include mass grading for 140 residential /lots with associated streets, retaining walls, and underground utilities. A future bridge is also proposed for the site. Specific conclusions regarding the potential geotechnical constraints at the site, and geotechnical recommendations for grading, foundation, retaining wall and pavement design are provided in the following report. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Feel free to contact the office with anyquestions or comments, or if you needanything else. AA GROUP/DELTA CONSULTANTS I 27aJ4 3 Matthew A. Fagan, G.E. 2569 James C. Sanders, _,C E.G. 2258 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Seio(Engineering3eologist / ••'• ______/\ Distribution: (1) Addressee, Mr. Andrew Han (andrew.han@lennar.com) (t! BqL 12-31-15 6EOLOGIST IT OF . [1 . Report of Geotechnical Investigation GEC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Scope of Services ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site Description ........................................................................................................2 1.3 Proposed Development............................................................................................2 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 2 3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................................3 3.1 Santiago Formation .................................................................................................4 3.2 Young Alluvial Deposits ..................................................................... ...................... 4 3.3 Fill .............................................................................................................................5 3.4 Groundwater............................................................................................................5 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ....................................................................................................5 4.1 Ground Rupture........................................................................................................5 4.2 Seismicity..................................................................................................................6 4.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement.....................................................................6 4.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads ................................................................................6 4.5 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding...............................................................................7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 8 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 10 6.1 Plan Review ............................................................................................................10 6.2 Excavation and Grading Observation.....................................................................10 6.3 Earthwork...............................................................................................................10 6.3.1 Site Preparation..........................................................................................10 6.3.2 Compressible Soils......................................................................................11 6.3.3 Expansive Soils ...................................................................... ..................... 11 6.3.4 Building Areas ....................................................................... ..................... 11 6.3.5 Fill Compaction...........................................................................................12 6.3.6 Bulk/Shrink Characteristics ........................................................................12 6.3.7 Surface Drainage ........................................................................................12 6.3.8 Subsurface Drainage...................................................................................13 044.1 DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigatbn\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GEC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page ii 6.3.9 Slope Stability.............................................................................................13 6.3.10 Temporary Excavations ..............................................................................15 6.4 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations ..........................................................15 6.4.1 Post-Tension Slab Foundations ..................................................................15 6.4.2 Settlement..................................................................................................16 6.4.3 Lateral Resistance.......................................................................................16 6.4.4 Slope Setback .............................................................................................16 6.4.5 Seismic Design............................................................................................16 6.5 On-Grade Slabs.......................................................................................................17 6.5.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs ...................................................................17 6.5.2 Exterior Slabs ......................................................................... .................... 18 6.5.3 Expansive Soils ....................................................................... .................... 18 6.5.4 Reactive Soils ......................................................................... .................... 19 6.6 Earth-Retaining Structures.....................................................................................19 6.7 Preliminary Pavement Design ................................................................................19 6.7.1 Asphalt Concrete........................................................................................20 6.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete.........................................................................20 6.7.3 Interlocking Concrete Paver Blocks............................................................20 6.8 Pipelines .................................................................................................................21 6.8.1 Thrust Blocks ..............................................................................................21 6.8.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction............................................................................21 El 6.8.3 Pipe Bedding...............................................................................................22 7.0 LIMITATIONS..............................................................................................................22 8.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................22 AX, GROUP DE3..T1 N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical I nvestigatic.n\14-0188\14-0188.doc L El S Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2013 CBC Acceleration Response Spectra (Site Class C) Table 2 2013 CBC Acceleration Response Spectra (Site Class D) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1A Site Location Map Figure lB Site Vicinity Plan Figure 2A Rough Grading Plan (North) Figure 2B Exploration Plan (North) Figure 2C Rough Grading Plan (South) Figure 2D Exploration Plan (South) Figure 3A Regional Geologic Map Figure 3B Regional Topography Figure 3C 100-Year Floodplain Figure 3D Tsunami Inundation Map Figure 4A Regional Fault Map Figure 4B Local Fault Map Figure 5 Lot Transition Details Figure 6 Canyon Subdrain Details Figure 7 Slope Grading Details Figure 8 Buttress Details Figure 9 Wall Drainage Details LIST OF PLATES Plate 1 Geotechnical Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Testing Appendix C Slope Stability Analysis DUP DE3-1L N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION POINSETTIA 61 DEVELOPMENT LENNAR HOMES 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed Poinsettia 61 development in Carlsbad, California. The property is located roughLy two miles east of Interstate 5 at the eastern terminus of Poinsettia Lane, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1A. The planned development will be located in both the northern and southwest portions of the property, as shown on the Site Vicinity Plan, Figure lB. The preliminary rough grading plans for the site are presented in Figures 2A and 2C. Aerial photographs showing the approximate locations of the borings we conducted for this study are provided in Figures 2B and 21). Our investigation was performed to provide an overview of the general geotechnical constraints to site development, and provide geotechnical recommendations for mass grading and the preliminary design of the proposed structures, pavements and surface improvements. The recommendations presented herein are based on our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, and previous experience with similar geologic conditions. 1.1 Scope of Services This report was prepared in general accordance with the provisions of the referenced proposal (GDC, 2014b). In summary, we provided the following scope of services. A geologic reconnaissance of the surface characteristics of the site and a review of the pertinent reports referenced in Section 8.0. A subsurface exploration of the site including 19 exploratory borings, 2 percolation tests, and 11 test pits. The approximate exploration locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Logs of the explorations are provided in Appendix A. Laboratory testing of soil samples collected from the borings and test pits. Laboratory tests included sieve analysis, Atterberg Limits, Expansion Index, pH, resistivity, soluble sulfate and chloride, maximum density, optimum moisture, direct shear and R-Value. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data to help develop preliminary recommendations for site preparation, remedial earthwork, slope stability, foundation, pavement and retaining wall design, soil reactivity, and site drainage and moisture protection. Our slope stability analyses are shown in Appendix C. Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for site development. DUP DE3_T2 N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 2 1.2 Site Description The subject site consists of a 61.4 acre parcel located southeast of the intersection between Poinsettia Lane and Cassia Road, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1A. The western edge of the site, and the central portion of the eastern edge of the site are bordered by existing residential developments. Most of the site is currently undeveloped, and the native chaparral was recently burned by a wildfire. The development will be primarily located in the northern portion of the site, within an area that was previously used for agriculture. A small 17 lot subdivision is also proposed in the southwest corner of the site, as shown on the Site Vicinity Plan, Figure lB. A new bridge is also proposed to extend Poinsettia Lane across the existing canyon through the site. The site configuration is shown on the Exploration Plans (although these aerial photographs were taken before the 2014 wildfire). A review of historic aerial photographs indicates that the 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopes along Poinsettia Lane were cut in 2010 to depths of 30-feet below the natural grades. The remaining portions of the site contain the remnants of previous agricultural 40 operations, including a variety of fences, unpaved roads, irrigation lines and structures. Much of the agricultural equipment was burnt, and will need to be removed from the site prior to grading. Site drainage flows to the south within a natural canyon, as shown in Figures 3A and 3B. A natural ridgeline crosses the site from the northeast to the southwest, as shown in Figure 3B. The top of the ridgeline is roughly coincident with an unpaved road at the site. Elevations along the ridgeline range from a high of about 305 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along the northern edge of the site, down to a low of about 260 feet MSL in the southwest portion of the development. The site slopes down from the ridgeline to a low of about 200 feet MSL in the northwest corner of the site, and to a low of about 210 feet MSL in the southeast corner of the northern development area. Much of the perimeter of the property is currently surrounded by fences. 1.3 Proposed Development We understand that site development will likely include the construction of 140 one or two-story wood-framed multi-family residential units. Various surface improvements are also anticipated, including asphalt concrete and paver block streets, Portland cement concrete sidewalks, and a variety of associated subsurface utilities. Extensive cut and fill grading, and numerous retaining walls will be needed to attain finish grades for the planned development. The preliminary rough grading plans for the site are also shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. 2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION The field investigation included a geologic reconnaissance of the site, the drilling of 19 exploratory borings, and the advancement of 11 exploratory test pits. The field investigation was conducted between October 27th and November 4th, 2014. The maximum depth of exploration was approximately 60 feet below grade. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Exploration Plans and Geotechnical Map. Logs of the explorations are provided in Appendix A. 04111.— DUP DE3..T4t1 N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Ll Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 3 Soil samples were collected from the borings for geotechnical testing and analysis. The geotechnical testing program included gradation analysis to aid in material classification using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed ring samples to help estimate the in-situ dry density and moisture content of the various soils. Direct shear tests were conducted on the ring samples to aid in soil strength characterization. R-Value tests were conducted on bulk samples to aid in preliminary pavement section design. Index tests were also conducted on the bulk samples to help evaluate the soil expansion potential and corrosivity. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. Two falling head percolation tests were also conducted as part of our field investigation. The tests were located in cut areas where retention basins are proposed, as shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Note that several other retention basins are also proposed in portions of the site that are currently inaccessible to the drilling equipment, or in areas where deep cuts or fills will be needed to reach basin subgrade elevations. Percolation tests were not conducted in those areas at this time. Additional percolation testing may be conducted once these basins are rough graded. For the percolation tests, 6-inch diameter holes were drilled to depths of 5 or 10 feet below grade. The boreholes were then filled with water, and the water surface drop was measured repeatedly at 15 to 60 minute time intervals. The percolation test data is presented in Figures A-20 and A-21 in Appendix A. The field percolation tests indicate that the unsaturated formational sandstone at the 11 site may initially take water at a rate of about 5 to 7 minutes per inch. Once the dense fine-grained sandstone becomes saturated, the infiltration rate drops to zero. We anticipate that the compacted fill soils proposed for the site will absorb more water than the dense sandstone that will be prevalent throughout the cut portions of the site. However, we recommend that all basins be lined with an impermeable HDPE or PVC membrane to reduce the potential for slope instability. C 3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by a series of northwest trending mountain ranges separated by valleys, with a coastal plain that includes subdued Iandforms. The mountain ranges are S underlain primarily by Mesozoic metamorphic rocks that were intruded by plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith, while the coastal plain is underlain by subsequently deposited marine and nonmarine sedimentary formations. The entire site is underlain at depth by the Eocene-age Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa). As observed on site, this formation generally consists of a massive fine-grained silty sandstone that contains beds of claystone. The bottom of the canyon in the northeastern portion of the site is filled with deep alluvial sediments that are characterized by loose to medium dense, poorly consolidated silty and clayey sand. Shallow groundwater was encountered within the alluvium. The general geology in the site vicinity is shown on the Regional Geologic Map, Figure 3A. The geologic conditions at the site are shown in more detail on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The various materials we encountered in our subsurface investigation are described in detail below. 041~. OUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GOC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lerinar -Iomes Page 4 3.1 Santiago Formation The Santiago Formation underlies the entire site at depth. As observed in our borings, the Santiago Formation primarily consists of silty or clayey sandstone (SM or SC). The sandstone is generally massive and relatively flat-lying. The sandstone is typically very light gray or light yellow brown in color, fine grained, and moderately cemented with a few strongly cemented lEyers. Over 100 Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted within the formation during our subsurface investigation. The corrected SPT blow counts (N60) within the formation were generally well above 50, and averaged 119. This indicates a very dense condition for the sandstone. The Santiago Formation at the subject site contains several continuous beds of lean to fat claystone (CL or CH), with a variable amount of fine-grained sand. These claystone beds were typically 1 t 4 feet thick, although thinner claystone beds were observed within several borings. The claystone is olive or reddish brown in color, with a medium to high plasticity, and is moderatel' indurated. Two distinct claystone beds were encountered in our explorations with basal elevations of about 226 and 265 feet (MSL). Two additional sheared claystone beds were previously encountered by others in large diameter borings at elevations of about 235 and 245 feet MSL (Geocoi, 2006). These claystone beds may be continuous across the site, and will adversely impact cut slope stability. The location and extent of these claystone beds should be evaluated during grading. Laboratory tests conducted on samples of the sandstone from the Santiago Formation collected during our subsurface investigation indicate that it is generally nonplastic to low in plasticity, with a negligible soluble sulfate content, and a very low to low expansion potential. By comparison, the claystone within the formation is very highly expansive, with a severe soluble sulfate content. The formational materials are all acidic and severely corrosive to metals, with a saturated resistivity typically below 1,000 ohm-cm, and a chloride content of 0.1 to 0.2 percent. Laboratory tests also indicate that the formational materials have an in-situ dry density that typically varies from about 98 to 115 lb/ft3 and averages 107 lb/ft3, with an average moisture content of 11 percent. 3.2 Young Alluvial Deposits Young alluvial deposits (Qya) cover the eastern portion of the site, as shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Alluvium was encountered in Borings B-4, B-7, B-13, B-14, TP-7 and TP-8. The alluvium was over 20 feet deep in some areas. As observed in our borings, the a luvium primarily consisted of fine to medium grained, silty or clayey sand (SM or SC). The alluviL m was generally moist, although saturated conditions were encountered at depths of 9 to 10 feet below grade in Boring B-14 and Test Pit TP-7. Corrected Standard Penetration Test blow counts (N60) within the alluvium ranged from 7 to 22, and averaged 14, indicating a loose to medium dense condition. Our analyses indicate that the alluvial deposits are moderately compressible, susceptible to liquefaction, and unsuitable for the direct support of new fill or foundation loads.. Laboratory tests indicate that the sandy alluvium has a very low expansion potential, and a negligible soluble sulfate content. The alluvium is highly corrosive to buried metals. 0411,4Q GROUP DE3_Tt. N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigafon\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 5 3.3 Fill Undocumented fill soils associated with the ongoing agricultural operations exist throughout much of the property. Undocumented fill soils were observed in Borings B-9, B-13, and Test Pit TP-5, TP-8 and TP-9. The undocumented fill contains a substantial amount of trash, cans, vegetation, burnt C equipment and demolition debris that should be removed from the site during grading. The undocumented fill throughout the site is considered to be loose and compressible. Compacted fill soils were also encountered in the northwestern portion of the property in Borings B-i, B-S and B-6. These fills were documented during placement, as described in the referenced report (Geocon, 2006). The compacted fill soils we encountered generally had corrected SPT blow counts (N60) above 25, indicating a medium dense to dense condition. The compacted fill is considered suitable for the support of new fill loads. Laboratory tests indicate that the fill has a low expansion potential, and a negligible sulfate content based on common criteria. 3.4 Groundwater The sandstone throughout the site was generally moist, with in-situ moisture contents ranging from about 7 to 15 percent. Significant quantities of groundwater seepage are not anticipated during excavations within the Santiago Formation. However, the alluvium within the eastern canyon drainage is saturated at 5 to 10 feet above the geologic contact with the underlying sandstone. Heavy groundwater seepage was observed in Boring B-14 and Test Pit TP-7, which were both located within this canyon. Remedial excavations along the southern edge of the northern development area may encounter heavy groundwater seepage. Note that groundwater levels may also fluctuate overtime due to changes in rainfall, site irrigation, or broken subsurface utility lines. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The site is located within a broad zone of northwest trending faults including the Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego Trough and San Clemente faults to the west, and the Elsinore and San Jacinto faults to the east, as shown on the Regional Fault Map, Figure 4A. The nearby active faults are shown in more detail in Figure 4B. Geologic hazards at the site will generally be associated with the potential for strong ground shaking due to an earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault zone. Each potential geologic hazard is described in more detail below. 4.1 Ground Rupture Ground rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the ground surface. The nearest known active faults are located within the Rose Canyon fault zone about 9/2 km west of the site, as shown on the Local Fault Map, Figure 4B. The Rose Canyon is a right-lateral strike-slip fault zone believed to be capable of producing an earthquake with a characteristic moment magnitude (M) of between 6.8 and 7.2. However, the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake C Fault Zone. Consequently, ground rupture is not considered to be a substantial geologic hazard. 0414Q.- DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 50412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 6 4.2 Seismicity The northern portion of the site is located at latitude 33.11060 north and longitude 117.2767° west. The United States Geologic Survey (USGS) has developed an interactive website that provides Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) probabilistic seismic analyses based on the site location and shear wave velocity (USGS, 2009). Using an estimated shear wave velocity of 365 m/s based on our previous experience in the site vicinity, the USGS data suggests that the peak ground accelerations with a 2, 5 and 10 percent probability of exceedence in a 50 year period are 0.45g, 0.32g and 0.25g, respectively. These risk levels are often referred to as the Maximum Considered, Upper Bound and Design Basis Earthquakes, respectively. 4.3 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction involves the sudden loss in strength of a saturated, cohesionless soil (sand and non- plastic silts) caused by the build-up of pore water pressure during cyclic loading, such as that produced by an earthquake. This increase in pore water pressure can temporarily transform the soil into a fluid mass, resulting in sand boils, settlement and lateral ground deformations. Typically, liquefaction occurs in areas where there are loose to medium dense sands and silts, and where the depth to groundwater is less than 50 feet from the ground surface. In summary, three simultaneous conditions are required for liquefaction: S • Historic high groundwater within 50 feet of the ground surface Liquefiable soils such as loose to medium dense sands Strong shaking, such as that caused by an earthquake Shallow groundwater was encountered within the loose alluvial soils along the eastern edge of the northern development area. Our analyses indicate that the potential does exist for liquefaction of the alluvium due to the design basis earthquake. However, we have recommended that the alluvium be completely excavated, dried or mixed with drier soil, and replaced as a dense compacted fill prior to site development. Assuming that the alluvium is excavated and compacted in accordance with our recommendations, the potential for liquefaction to adversely impact the proposed development is considered to be low. 4.4 Landslides and Lateral Spreads The site is located in an area where landslides are relatively common. Sheared claystone was encountered within the Santiago Formation during development of an adjacent community (Geotechnics, 2001). Sheared claystone was also observed within the large diameter borings that were down-hole logged by others at the site (Geocon, 2006). Consequently, test pits were excavated in selected portions of the site to search for landslides. No evidence of existing landslides was observed. Continuous drive samples were also collected from the borings at the elevations of the anticipated claystone beds. Four locally continuous claystone beds were encountered in the explorations at basal elevations of about 226, 235, 245 and 265 feet MSL. 0414Q., GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 7 Slope stability analyses were conducted using the program SLOPE/W at the nine cross section locations shown on the Rough Grading Plans, Figures 2A and 2C. The geology of each section was characterized using the general geotechnical conditions encountered in the nearby subsurface explorations, as well as our previous experience with similar geologic conditions. Laboratory tests were used to characterize the shear strength of the various geologic materials we encountered at the site, as shown in Appendix B. Our slope stability analyses are presented in Appendix C. Our analyses indicate that the proposed 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut and fill slopes at the site should possess an adequate factor of safety against deep-seated failure (FS>1.5) for the planned heights. However, several buttressing excavations, keyways, liners and subdrains will be needed. The presence of the highly fissured claystone beds within the formation creates the potential for future slope instabilities. Consequently, buttress fills are recommended for the northern cut slope, and deepened keyways are recommended for the planned fill slopes. Complete removal of the alluvium is recommended beneath the planned retaining walls within the eastern canyon drainage, in order to reduce the potential for settlement and failure of the wall during an earthquake. This may require dewatering of the alluvium. Any proposed retention basins located near the top of a fill slope should be lined with an impermeable HOPE or PVC membrane to reduce the potential for seepage related slope instability. Finally, a subdrain and outlet should be constructed at the bottom of the remedial excavations in the eastern canyon. The precise location and extent of the recommended buttresses and subsurface drainage improvements should be considered subject to revision based on the geologic conditions observed by Group Delta during site grading. 4.5 Tsunamis, Seiches and Flooding The site is not located within a FEMA 100-year flood zone or a dam inundation zone, as shown in Figure 3C. The site is not located below any lakes or confined bodies of water. Therefore, the potential for earthquake induced flooding at the site is considered to be low. The site is located about 2'A miles from the Pacific Ocean, as shown in Figure 3D. The proximity to the ocean suggests that the potential may exist for damage in the event of an earthquake induced tsunami. However, the California Emergency Management Agency's Tsunami Inundation Map indicates that the water surface runup from a tsunami would not extend beyond the eastern end of Batiquitos lagoon (an elevation of about 35 feet MSL), as shown in Figure 30. The subject site is located more than 200 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Given the elevation of the site, the potential for damage due to a tsunami is also considered to be remote. IWANC, DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical I nvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GCC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 8 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The planned development appears to be feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided that appropriate measures are implemented during construction. Several geotechnical conditions will need to be addressed during mass grading of the site. • Loose, compressible undocumented fill and alluvial soils cover much of the site. These materials are susceptible to settlement under increased loads, or due to an increase in moisture content from site irrigation or changes in drainage conditions. Consequently, these materials should be completely removed and replaced as compacted fill in areas which will be subjected to new fill or structural loads. Remedial grading recommendations are contained in the following section of this report. Excavation and compaction of the alluvium within the eastern canyon will be difficult to achieve due to shallow groundwater. Dewatering will be required. A dewatering contractor should be consulted to develop a specific dewatering plan. It maybe possible to collect the groundwater, and use it for the fill compaction operations. Note that even with dewatering wells, perched seepage zones may remain within the alluvium. The excavated alluvial soils will need to be dried back to a moisture content suitable for placement as compacted fill. Exploratory test pits were excavated in the southwest portion of the site in an area that was previously identified by others as potentially containing a landslide (Geocon, 2009ab). No evidence of existing landslides was observed in our exploratory test pits or borings. The unusual topographic expression in the southwest portion of the site appears to be related to differential erosion of the formational sandstone and claystone materials. Future irrigation of the development will introduce significant quantities of water into the underlying soil. This creates the potential for seepage to develop at the faces of slopes and at the geologic contact between fill and formation. Our percolation tests indicate that the formational materials at the site have a very low infiltration rate once they become saturated. Subsurface canyon drains and slope drains are recommended for those areas where the potential for seepage exists. Retention basins should be lined with an HDPE or PVC membrane to reduce the potential for seepage related slope instability. Development of the subdivision will result in numerous cut/fill transitions within the future building pad areas. In order to reduce the potential for distress associated with differential settlement, all building pads should be graded so that structures will not straddle cut/fill transitions. This may be accomplished by over-excavating the cut portion of the building pads so that foundations will bear entirely on compacted fill. Consideration may also be given to over-excavating cut pads to ease future foundation and utility excavations. • • [] DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical lnvestigaton GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 9 Excavations within the Santiago Formation are expected to generate predominately granular soils with very low to low expansion potential. However, excavations within the claystone portions of the Santiago Formation will produce very highly expansive material. Heave may occur if the expansive soils are placed or left within pavement, foundation, or slab subgrade. Consequently, selective grading should be conducted so that highly expansive materials are not left near finish grade throughout the site. In general, excavations at the site should be achievable using standard heavy earthmoving equipment. Some excavations within the Santiago Formation may generate large blocks of strongly cemented sandstone that may require extra effort to break down to a size suitable . for incorporation into compacted fill. The saturated alluvium within the eastern canyon will require special handling and drying prior to replacement as compacted fill. It has been our experience that deep fills, even if well compacted, wiil undergo some settlement over time. The amount of settlement is related to the fill depth, and the amount of surface irrigation and subsequent groundwater infiltration. For lots underlain by more than 30 feet of compacted fill, special foundation recommendations may be needed. Laboratory tests indicate that the near surface soils at the site primarily consist of silty and clayey sand (SM and SC) with a very low to low expansion potential. However, highly expansive clays do exist at the site, within relatively thin claystone beds in the Santiago Formation. Additional Expansion Index testing should be conducted during grading operations to confirm that the upper four feet of fill soil placed beneath each structure consists of a very low expansion sandy material (El<20). Additional remedial excavations will be recommended if expansive clays are encountered near finish pad grades. Laboratory tests indicate that the on-site soils are acidic, may present a severe potential for sulfate attack, and are very corrosive to buried metals. Additional testing should be conducted during mass grading of the site to determine the corrosion potential of the finish pad soils. Typical corrosion control measures should also be incorporated into the design. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific recommendations. There are no known active faults located beneath the subject site, and the potential for ground rupture to adversely impact the development is remote. Other geologic hazards that may impact site development are primarily associated with the potential for strong ground shaking from an earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault zone. The shaking hazard may be mitigated by structural design in accordance with the applicable building code. Borings B-12 and B-16 were conducted near the planned abutments for the future Poinsettia Lane bridge. Additional limited access borings should be drilled at the planned bent locations once they are established. A Preliminary Foundation Report should be prepared to aid in the bridge foundation design. e&14. DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 10 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and the preliminary design the proposed structures and improvements. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standards of practice in southern California. If these recommendations do not to cover a specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions. 6.1 Plan Review We recommend that the foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Group Delta prior to cons-, ruction. We anticipate that substantial changes in the development may occur from the preliminary design concepts used for this investigation. Such changes may require additional geotechnical evaluation, which may result in substantial modifications to the remedial grading recommendations provided in this report. 6.2 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation and grading excavations should be observed by Group Delta Consultants. During grading, Group Delta Consultants should provide observation and testing services continuously. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by this investigation, to adjust designs to the actual field conditions, and to determine that the remedial grading is accomplished in general accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Our recommendations are contingent upon Group Delta Consultants providing these services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill and backfill during grading and improvement operations to support our professional opinion as to compliance with the compaction recommendations. 6.3 Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in general accordance with the applicable local grading ordinance and the requirements of the current California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on the conditions observed by Group Delta Consultants during grading. 6.3.1 Site Preparation I General site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious materials from the site. Deleterious materials include existing structures, improvements, trees, vegetation, trash, cans, burnt equipment, contaminated soil and demolition debris. Existing subsurface utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed and the excavations backfilled and compacted as described in Section 6.3.5. Alternatively, the abandoned pipes may be grouted with a two-sack sand-cement slurry under the observation of Group Delta Consultants. DUP DELTA N:\Projects\5D\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investig2tion\14-0188\14-0188.doc 'A . Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 11 S 6.3.2 Compressible Soils The undocumented fill and alluvium at the site is compressible and susceptible to liquefaction, and should be completely excavated and replaced as a uniformly compacted fill in all areas that will be developed. Removal of the alluvium within the eastern canyon is recommended in order to reduce the potential for distress to the future retaining walls and buildings in that area. As a minimum, remedial excavations should include any alluvium which may adversely impact the stability of proposed fill slopes along the southern edge of the northern development area. In general, all alluvium within the area described by a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane extended down and out from the toe of the planned fill slopes should be excavated and replaced as a compacted fill. Removals should expose competent sandstone as determined by our personnel during grading. In general, alluvium and fill removals are anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 10 feet deep, although removals of 25 feet or more will be needed in the eastern canyon. The removed soil that is free of deleterious material may be replaced as a uniformly compacted fill to the proposed plan elevations. It should be noted that dewatering may be needed to complete the remedial excavations, and that much of the alluvium will have a very high moisture content, and will require drying or mixing with drier soils prior to inclusion in compacted fills. 6.3.3 Expansive Soils Soil heave may cause differential movement of foundations, slabs, flatwork, and other improvements. Figure B-2 summarizes the expansion index testing conducted at the site. In general, the sandstone of the Santiago Formation, the existing fill and alluvium are considered to have a low expansion potential (ERSO), whereas the formational claystone is very highly expansive. One to four foot thick claystone beds were encountered within the Santiago Formation with basal elevations of approximately 226, 235, 245, and 265 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Remedial grading for expansive soils should be anticipated for cut lots near these elevations. In order to reduce the potential for differential movement, we recommend that highly expansive soils not be left in cuts or placed in fills near finish grade. In areas where excavations expose highly expansive claystone near finish grade, we recommend that these materials be over-excavated to a minimum depth of four feet below finish pad grade. The expansive material should be placed in deeper fills, and replaced with a compacted sandy fill soil with a low expansion potential. Samples of the soils used to cap each lot should be tested during grading to confirm the low expansion potential. The actual extent of the over-excavations needed at the site may be better delineated in the design development phase, once 40-scale grading plans become available. 6.3.4 Building Areas Residential structures should not straddle cut/fill nor deep fill transitions, due to the potential for adverse differential settlement. Typical transition conditions are depicted in Figure 5. These conditions include lots with cut/fill transitions, as well as transitions between shallow and deep fills. 0WAQ4.1 GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 12 The approximate locations of the cut/fill transitions at the site are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our recommended lot remediation measures are shown in Figure 5. For both cut/fill and deep fill transition conditions, we recommend that remedial earthwork consist of excavating the formational materials beneath the building pad, and replacing them as uniformly compacted fill. The depth of the recommended over-excavation should be equal to a depth of H/2, where "H" is equal to the greatest depth of fill underlying the proposed structure. The depth of the over- excavation should not be less than 3 feet, and does not need to extend deeper than 10 feet below pad grades. Note that the over-excavation should extend at least 10 feet horizontally beyond the proposed building envelopes. The over-excavated building pads should be brought back to plan grade with compacted fill prepared as recommended in Section 6.3.5. 6.3.5 Fill Compaction All fill and backfill should be placed at slightly above optimum moisture content using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum recommended relative compaction is 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Group Delta Consultants so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Rocks or concrete fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension should not be used in structural fill. Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability for use. In general, imported fill materials should consist of granular soil with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on ASTM C136 and an Expansion Index less than 20 based on ASTM D4829. Samples of the proposed import should be tested by Group Delta in order to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use. During grading operations, soil types may be encountered by the contractor that do not appear to conform to those discussed within this report. Group Delta should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use. 6.3.6 Bulk/Shrink Characteristics We estimate that cuts in the Santiago Formation will bulk on the order of 5 to 10 percent when they are placed as compacted fill. However, excavations within the alluvium and undocumented fill may shrink on the order of 5 to 15 percent when excavated and replaced as compacted fill. It should be noted that the bulking and shrinking potential of soil can vary considerably based on variability in the in-situ density of the material. 6.3.7 Surface Drainage Slope, foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well surface runoff drains from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures and tops of slopes without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this may depend on the prevailing landscape. Ak- DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical I nvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 Repot of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 13 Planters should be built so that water will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. If roof drains are used, the drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, or discharge at least 10 feet from buildings. Irrigation should be limited to the minimum needed to sustain landscaping. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop within the soil. 6.3.8 Subsurface Drainage In order to reduce the potential for a variety of moisture-related problems, we recommend that a subdrain be constructed at the bottom of the remedial excavation within the alluvial canyon located along the eastern edge of the northern development area. The approximate location of the canyon subdrain is shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Typical canyon subdrain details are provided in Figure 6. All subdrains should be connected into permanent outlets such as a storm drain, brow ditch or a natural drainage course. If drains are outlet onto natural ground, a permanent headwall should be constructed around the outlet to reduce the potential for damaging or clogging the subdrain pipe. Note that the location and extent of all subsurface drainage improvements should be considered subject to revision based on the geologic conditions observed by the Group Delta Consultants during grading. Our experience with the long term performance of slopes on a graded site suggests that seepage may develop in time at any level within a slope face given substantial upslope irrigation. Where geologic conditions conducive to creating a perched water condition are observed during grading, recommendations for buttressing stabilization fills will be made, as discussed in Section 6.3.9. However, seepage may occur in areas where prediction is impossible, especially with high slopes in excess of 15 feet. These seepage problems are usually addressed if and when they occur, and mi:igation typically involves the construction of subdrains at the toe of the slope in question. However, it may be difficult to construct these subdrains after the residences are occupied. Consideration should therefore be given to the construction of subdrains at the toe of all slopes in excess of 15 feet in height in order to decrease the incidence of moisture related problems. Alternatively, rather than constructing slope toe drains during mass grading, provisions for construction of these drains at a later date may be considered. Construction of storm drain laterals and easements at regular intervals throughout the site would aid in the future installation of these subdrains on an as-needed basis. 6.3.9 Slope Stability Various new cut and fill slopes are propsoed throughout the site. We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fills over sloping ground should be constructed entirely on prepared bedrock. In areas where the ground surface slopes at more than a 5:1 gradient, it should be benched to produce a level area to receive the fill. Benches should be wide enough to provide complete coverage by the compaction equipment during fill placement. Typical slope construction and benching details are presented in Figure 7. 05A&W. DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 14 In order to characterize the behavior of the various geologic materials we encountered on site, representative samples were transported to our laboratory for direct shear testing. The results of these tests are presented in Figures B-5.1 through B-5.16 in Appendix B. Based on these results, conservative shear strength parameters were estimated for use in the slope stability analyses. Our analyses were conducted using the program SLOPE/W, and are presented in detail in the figures of Appendix C. The cross section locations are shown in the Rough Grading Plans, Figures 2A and 2C. As discussed previously, four locally continuous claystone beds were encountered at the site. These claystone beds may daylight in several of the planned cut slope faces. We anticipate that groundwater from future irrigation may collect on these claystone beds and migrate to the faces of the slopes. Our stability analyses suggest that the presence of the fissured claystone may also result in shallow slope failure. We recommend that a buttress fill be constructed wherever these claystone beds daylight in cut slopes. As a minimum, a buttress should be constructed for the entire cut slope proposed along the northern edge of the site. This buttress may be constructed by extending a 1:1 temporary cut slope from elevation 285 feet down to below the claystone bed at 264 feet, as shown in Appendix C. Typical details for the proposed buttress are shown in Figure 8. The buttress should contain a continuous backdrain, as shown in Figure 8. Note that the drainage panel coverage within the seepage zone, the depth of the keyway below the claystone beds, and the precise location of the outlets should be determined in the field by Group Delta Consultants. If heavy groundwater seepage or unanticipated geologic conditions are encountered during grading, additional recommendations may be warranted. In general, all slopes are subject to some creep, whether the slopes are natural or man-made. Slope creep is the very slow, down-slope movement of the near surface soil along the slope face. The degree and depth of the movement is influenced by soil type and the moisture conditions. This movement is typical in slopes and is not considered a hazard. However, it may affect structures built on or near the slope face. We recommend that settlement-sensitive structures not be located within 5 feet of the top of the slopes without specific evaluation by Group Delta Consultants. All slopes constructed at the site may also be susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion given substantial wetting of the slope face. The surficial slope stability may be enhanced by providing proper site drainage. The site should be graded so that water from the surrounding areas is not able to flow over the tops of the slopes. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite-lined swales or other appropriate devices to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with vegetation that will increase their stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. We recommend that vegetation include woody plants, along with ground cover. All plants should be adapted for growth in semi-arid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape architect should be consulted in order to develop a specific planting palate suitable for slope stabilization. 04111.- GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc • • 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GJC Project No. S0412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 15 6.3.10 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations area nticipated throughout the site, such as for the removal of the existing deleterious materials, trenches for the proposed utilities, and the construction of the stabilization fills and buttresses. All excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA guidelines. Temporary slopes at the site should be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) for heights up to 30 feet. Higher temporary slopes should be evaluated by Group Delta on a case by case basis during grading operations. Temporary excavations that encounter seepage or other potentially adverse conditions should also be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basi5 during grading. Remedial measures may include dewatering, shoring and flattening the temporary slope. 6.4 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations The design of the foundation system should be performed by the structural engineer, and should incorporate the geotechnical parameters provided in the as-graded geotechnical report prepared after site grading is completed. We anticipate two general design conditions at the site, based on the remedial grading recommendations we have provided. The design of foundations on lots underlain by sandstone or shallow fill will be controlled by the expansion potential of the near surface soils. Because of the selective grading we have recommended, we anticipate that soils having an expansion index of no greater than 50 (very low to low expansion) will be present in the foundation influence zone for these structures. The second design condition is expected to include lots having deep fill, or a steep change in fill depth across the building area. In general, deep fills are considered to be those in excess of 30 or 40 feet. The design of structures on these lots may be controlled by the potential for differential settlement. Higher relative compaction (93 percent) may be used on the deeper portions of the fills to help reduce the settlement potential. Based on the anticipated soil conditions, the potential for settlement, and the expected magnitude of the new structural loads, we anticipate that the lightly loaded residential structures at the site may be supported by post-tensioned slab foundations. Preliminary post-tension slab foundation design parameters are provided below. 6.4.1 Post-Tension Slab Foundations 40 Provided that remedial grading is conducted per our recommendations, most of the residential lots at the site will be underlain by compacted fill with a low expansion potential (Ek50). The following preliminary post-tension slab foundation design parameters are considered applicable to buildings that will be underlain by such conditions. Note that these recommendations should be considered preliminary, and subject to revision based on the conditions observed by Group Delta Consultants during grading of the site. The final foundation design parameters should be provided in the as- graded geotechnical report after the site is graded. 6129k DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigaticn\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 16 C Preliminary Post-Tension Slab Design Parameters: Moisture Variation, em: Differential Swell, ym Allowable Bearing: 6.4.2 Settlement Center Lift: 9.0 feet Edge Lift: 4.8feet Center Lift: 0.7 inches Edge Lift: 1.0 inches 2,000 psf at slab subgrade Provided that remedial grading is conducted as recommended, total and differential settlement of the proposed structures is generally not expected to exceed one inch and %-inch in 40 feet, respectively. However, more settlement may occur on deep fill lots. The potential for settlement should be better defined in the as-graded geotechnical report after the site is rough graded. 6.4.3 Lateral Resistance Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and slabs and the soil, and passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into fill or formational materials. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 and a passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth may be used. 6.4.4 Slope Setback As a minimum, all foundations should be setback from any descending slope at least 8 feet. The setback should be measured horizontally from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the slope face. The horizontal setback may be reduced by deepening the foundation to achieve the recommended setback distance projected from the footing bottom to the face of the slope. Note that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down-slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement sensitive structures not be constructed within 5 feet of the slope top without specific review by Group Delta. 6.45 Seismic Design The proposed structures should be designed in general accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) for a Seismic Design Category D. Based on the findings of our subsurface explorations at the site, it is our opinion that a 2013 CBC Site Class C will apply to many of the residential lots. The USGS mapped spectral ordinates Ss and Si equal 1.075 and 0.415, respectively. For a Site Class C, the acceleration and velocity coefficients Fa and F equal 1.000 and 1.386, and the spectral design parameters SDS and SDI equal 0.717 and 0.383. The peak ground acceleration from the design spectrum may be taken as 40 percent of Ss or 0.287g. The preliminary 2013 CBC Design and MCE Spectra for Site Class C are shown in Table 1. 4WAQ-.1 GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc C Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 17 Many of the lots located along the eastern edge of the site, and the northwest portions of the northern development area will be underlain by more than 30 feet of compacted fill. For these lots, a 2013 CBC Site Class D will likely apply. For a Site Class D, the acceleration and velocity coefficients Fa and Fv equal 1.070 and 1.585, respectively, and the spectral design parameters SDS and SDI equal 0.767 and 0.439, respectively. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the 2013 CBC Design Spectrum may be taken as 40 percent of SDS or 0.307g. The preliminary 2013 CBC Design and MCE Spectra for Site Class D are shown in Table 2. 6.5 On-Grade Slabs On-grade slabs should be designed by the project structural engineer. Building slabs should be at least 5'/~ inches thick, and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. Slab thickness, control joints, and reinforcement should be designed by the structural engineer and should conform to the requirements of the current CBC. The site soils are anticipated to be predominately granular with a low expansion potential. However, expansive clay soils, if present, have the potential to swell or shrink in response to changes in moisture. These volume changes can result in damage to slabs and hardscape. If expansive soils are encountered during grading, new slabs-on-grade may need to be thickened, heavily reinforced or post-tensioned, or additional stiffener beams may be added. Alternatively, two to four feet of non-expansive soils (EI<20) may be placed directly beneath the heave sensitive concrete slabs on-grade. 6.5.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs Concrete slabs constructed on grade ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tiles, or similar problems. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings, equipment, or other factors warrant. The most common moisture barriers in southern California consist of two inches of clean sand covered by 'visqueen' plastic sheeting. Two inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. The architect should review the estimated moisture transmission rates, since these values may be excessive for some applications, such as sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, or carpeting with impermeable backings that use water soluble adhesives. Sheet vinyl may develop discoloration or adhesive degradation due to excessive moisture. Wood flooring may swell and dome if exposed to excessive moisture. The architect should specify an appropriate moisture barrier based on the allowable moisture transmission rate for the flooring. This may require a "vapor barrier" or a "vapor retarder". 041, GROUP DE3..12 N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical lnvestigaton GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 18 The American Concrete Institute provides detailed recommendations for moisture protection systems (ACI 302.111-04). ACI defines a "vapor retarder" as having a minimum thickness of 10-mil, and a water transmissior rate of less than 0.3 perms when tested per ASTM E96. ACI defines a "vapor barrier" as having a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms or less (such as a 15 mil StegcWrap). The vapor membrane should be constructed in accordance with ASTM E1643 and E1745 guidelines. All laps or seams should be overlapped at least 6 inches or per the manufacturer recommendations. Joints and penetrations should be sealed with pressure sensitive tape, or the manufacturer's adhesive. The vapor membrane should be protected from puncture, and repaired per the manufacturer's recommendations if damaged. The vapor membrane is often placed over 4 inches of granular material. The materials should be a clean, fine graded sandy soil with roughly 10 to 30 percent passing the No. 100 sieve. The sand should not be contaminated with clay, silt, or organic material. The sand should be proof-rolled prior to placing the vapor membrane. Based on current ACI recommendations, concrete should be placed directly over the vapor membrane. The common practice of placing sand over the vapor membrane may increase moisture transmission through the slab, because it provides a reservoir for bleed water from the concrete to collect. The sand placed over the vapor membrane may also move prior to concrete placement, resulting in an irregular slab thickness. When placing concrete directly on an impervious membrane, it should be noted that finishing delays may occur. Care should be taken to assure that a low water to cement ratio is used and that the concrete is moist cured in accordance with ACI guidelines. 6.5.2 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs and sidewalks should be at least 4 inches thick. Crack control joints should be placed on a maximum spacing of 10-foot centers, each way, for slabs, and on 5-foot centers for sidewalks. The potential for differential movements across the control joints may be reduced by using steel reinforcement. Typical reinforcement for exterior slabs would consist of 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric placed securely at mid-height of the slab. 6.5.3 Expansive Soils The near surface soils observed during our field investigation primarily consisted of silty and clayey sand with a very low to low expansion potential based on common criteria (El<50). The Expansion Index (El) test results are shown in Figure B-2. It should be noted that thin beds of highly expansive claystone do exist throughout the site. If claystone is encountered near finish grade in building or heave sensitive improvement areas, the upper two to four feet of clayey soil should be excavated and replaced with a very low expansion sandy material (Elcz20). Additional expansion index testing should be conducted during mass grading of the site. • OUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 19 6.5.4 Reactive Soils In order to assess the sulfate exposure of concrete in contact with the site soils, samples were tested for water-soluble sulfate content, as shown in Figure B-3. The test results indicate that some of the on-site soils may present a severe potential for sulfate attack based on commonly accepted criteria. In order to assess the reactivity of the site soils with respect to buried metals, the pH, resistivity and soluble chloride contents of selected soil samples were also determined, as shown in Figure B-3. The tests suggest that the on-site soils are severely corrosive to buried metals. The sulfate content of the finish grade soils should be determined during mass grading. Typical corrosion control measures should be incorporated in the project design. These measures include providing the minimum clearances between reinforcing steel and soil as recommended in the building code, and providing sacrificial anodes (where needed) for buried metal structures. A corrosion consultant may be contacted for specific recommendations. 6.6 Earth-Retaining Structures Backlilling retaining walls with expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well beyond normal active pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backfilled with soil that has an Expansion Index of 20 or less. Much of the on-site soil appears to meet this criterion. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557. Backfill should not be placed until the retaining walls have achieved adequate strength. Heavy compaction equipment, which could cause distress to the walls, should not be used. For wall design, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 lbs/ft2, a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and a passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth is recommended. Cantilever retaining walls with level granular backfill may be designed using an active earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/ft3. The active pressure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least /2 percent of the wall height. Walls that are restrained so that such movement is not permitted, or walls with 2:1 sloping backfill, should be designed for an at-rest earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 lbs/ft3. These pressures do not include seepage forces or surcharges. All retaining walls should contain adequate backdrains to relieve hydrostatic pressures. Typical wall drain details are shown Figure 9. 6.7 Preliminary Pavement Design Alternatives are provided for asphalt concrete, Portland cement concrete, or paver blocks. In each case, the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade be scarified immediately prior to constructing the pavements, brought to optimum moisture, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. Aggregate base should also be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Aggregate base should conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (SSPWC), Section 200-2. Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 400-4 of the SSPWC and should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. 0411191..' GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Is Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsetia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 20 6.7.1 Asphalt Concrete Asphalt concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance with the Caltrans Design Method (Topic 608.4). R-Value tests were conducted on samples collected during the investigation in general accordance with CTM 301. The test results are presented in Figures B-6.1 through B-6.6. The tests indicated subgrade R-Values ranging from 15 to 32. Traffic Indices of 5.0 through 9.0 were assumed for preliminary design purposes. The project civil engineer should review these Traffic Indices and determine which apply to the various streets proposed for the development. Based on the minimum R-Value of 15 from our testing, and an assumed range of Traffic Indices for streets within the City of Carlsbad, the following preliminary pavement sections would apply. PAVEMENT TYPE (CITY OF CARLSBAD) TRAFFIC INDEX ASPHALT SECTION BASE SECTION Local Street 5.0 4 Inches 6 Inches Collector Streets 6.0 4 Inches 10 Inches Industrial Streets 7.0 4 Inches 13 Inches Secondary Arterial 8.0 5 Inches 15 Inches Prime Arterial 9.0 5 Inches 18 Inches 6.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete Concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance with the simplified design procedure of the Portland Cement Association. This methodology is based on a 20-year design life. For design, it was assumed that aggregate interlock would be used for load transfer across control joints. The subgrade materials were assumed to provide "low" support based on the R-Value testing. Based on these assumptions, and using the same traffic indices presented previously, we recommend that the PCC pavement sections at the site consist of at least 6 inches of concrete placed over 6 inches of compacted aggregate base. For heavier traffic areas (Traffic Index of 8.0 to 9.0), 7 inches of concrete over 6 inches of aggregate base is recommended. Crack control joints should be constructed for all PCC pavements on a maximum spacing of 10 feet, each way. Concentrated truck traffic areas, such as trash truck aprons and loading docks, should be reinforced with number 4 bars on 18-inch centers, each way. 6.7.3 Interlocking Concrete Paver Blocks Interlocking concrete paver blocks may be used in portions of the site. Interlocking concrete paver block design was conducted using Technical Specification No. 4 of the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPl) as a guideline. The paver blocks were assumed to be roughly equivalent to an equal thickness of asphalt concrete. For our design, we have assumed that the paver blocks will have a minimum nominal thickness of 80 mm, and will be placed over an average of 1 inch of bedding sand. The recommended paver block aggregate base sections are shown below. 0414" DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 21 PAVEMENT TYPE TRAFFIC INDEX PAVER SECTION BASE SECTION Cul-de-Sacs 5.0 80 mm / 1" Sand 8 Inc ies Residential Streets 6.0 80 mm / 1" Sand 12 Inches Residential Collectors 7.0 80 mm / 1" Sand 15 Inches The paver blocks should be installed in general accordance with the product manufacturer's recommendations. Once the aggregate base has been compacted, and th€ concrete edge restraints are in place, bedding sand should be screeded in an even layer over the base. The bedding sand should be at least % inch thick, but should not exceed 1% inches in thickness. The use of more than 1'/2 inches of bedding sand may result in undesirable settlement of the paver blocks. The paver blocks should be placed over the bedding sand, and vibrated into place using a high frequency plate compactor. The joint sand should then be swept over the payers and into the joints, and compacted. Typically, 4 to 6 passes with a compactor would be used to seat the interlocking paver blocks. The bedding sand should conform to the gradation requirements of ASTM C33. ICPI specifications indicate that the bedding sand should be "...as hard as practically available." We recommend that bedding sand be used with a durability exceeding 30 when tested in general accordance with ASTM D3744. A separate joint sand should be used which is finer than the bedding sand, and which conforms to the gradation requirements of ASTM C144. 6.8 Pipelines The development will include a variety of pipelines such as water, storm drain and sewer systems. Geotechnical aspects of pipeline design include lateral earth pressures for thrust b ocks, modulus of soil reaction, and pipe bedding. Each of these parameters is discussed separately below. 6.8.1 Thrust Blocks Lateral resistance for thrust blocks may be determined by a passive pressure value of 300 lbs/ft2 per foot of embedment, assuming a triangular distribution. This value may be used for thrust blocks embedded into compacted fill soils as well as formational materials. 6.8.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction The modulus of soil reaction (E') is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed along the sides of buried flexible pipelines. For the purpose of evaluating deflection due to the load associated with trench backfill over the pipe, a value of 1,500 lbs/in2 is recommended for the general conditions, assuming granular bedding material is placed around the pipe. 0414. GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical lnvestigaton\14-0188\14-0188.doc • 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. SD412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 22 6.8.3 Pipe Bedding Typical pipe bedding as specified in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction may be used. As a minimum, we recommend that pipes be supported on at least 4 inches of granular bedding material such as minus %-inch crushed rock or disintegrated granite. Where pipeline or trench excavations exceed a 15 percent gradient, we do not recommend that open graded rock be used for bedding or backfill because of the potential for piping and internal erosion. For sloping utilities, we recommend that coarse sand or sand-cement slurry be used for the bedding and pipe zone. The slurry should consist of a 2-sack mix having a slump no greater than 5 inches. 7.0 LIMITATIONS This report was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in similar localities. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. 8.0 REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (2006). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I); Volume 04.09 Soil and Rock (II); Geosynthetics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, Compact Disk. Anderson, J. G., Rockwell, T. K., Agnew, D. C. (1989). Past and Possible Future Earthquakes of Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp 299-335. APWA (2006). Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Section 200-2.2, Untreated Base Materials, Section 400-4, Asphalt Concrete: BNI, 761 p. Boore, D.M. and G.M. Atkinson (2008). Ground-Motion Prediction Equations for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV& 5% Damped PSA at Spectral Periods between 0. 01s and 10.0s, Earthquake Spectra, V.24, pp. 99-138. Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.: McGraw Hill 1175 p. 4414Q.— GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc • 0 Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsetia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 23 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (1992). Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. California Department of Transportation (2009). Caltrans ARS Online (V2.3.06), Based on the Average of (2) NGA Attenuation Relationships, Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008) & Chiou & Youngs (2008) from http://dap3.dot.ca.gov/ARS Online! Campbell, K.W. and V. Bozorgnia (2008). NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV and PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01s and lOs, Earthquake Spectra, V.24, pp. 139-172. Chiou, B. and R. Youngs (2008). An NGA Modelfor the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra, V.24, pp. 173-216. Geocon Incorporated (2006). Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance, the Bridges at Poinsettia, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 07381-32-02, dated June 22. Geocon Incorporated (2007). Update Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance, the Bridges at Poinsettia, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 07381-32-03, dated May 25. Geocon Incorporated (2009a). Limited Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance, Poinsettia Lane Bridge, The Bridges atAviara, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 07381-32-04, dated March 11. Geocon Incorporated (2009b). Update Geotechnical Report, Pontebello, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 07381-32-03, dated May 22. Geotechnics Incorporated (2001). Geotechnical Investigation, Aviara Community Park, Carlsbad, CA, Project No. 0669-001-00, October 12. Group Delta Consultants (2013). Geotechnical investigation, Tabata Development, Project No. 5D365, dated March 4. Group Delta Consultants (2014a). Preliminary Geotechnical Information, Carlsbad Poinsettia Development, Project No. EN015, dated February 6. Group Delta Consultants (2014b). Proposal for Geotechnical Investigation, Poinsettia 61 Development, Carlsbad, California, Proposal No. SD14-107, dated October 15. International Conference of Building Officials (2013). 2013 California Building Code. A%Q. GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc Report of Geotechnical Investigation GDC Project No. 5D412 Poinsettia 61 Development November 20, 2014 Lennar Homes Page 24 Jennings, C. W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. Kennedy, M. P., and Tan, S. S. (2005). Geologic Map of the San Diego 30'x60' Quadrangle, . California: California Geologic Survey, Scale 1:100,000. Pradel, D. (1998). Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake Induced Settlements in Dry Soils, Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 364 to 368. Southern California Earthquake Center (1999). Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG SP 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 60 p. Southern California Earthquake Center (2002). Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG SP1 17, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 110 p. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (1974). Tsunami Prediction for Pacific Coastal Communities, Hydraulics Laboratory, Vicksburg. United Stated Geological Survey (2009). Earthquake Hazards Program, Based on Three NGA Relationships, Boore & Atkinson (2008), Campbell & Bozorgnia (2008) & Chiou & Youngs (2008) from http://egint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008. Wesniousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B12, p. 12587-12631. Youd, T.L. et al. (2001). Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal . of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 4, April. Youd, T.L.; Hansen, C.M. and Bartlett, S.F. (2002). Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volume 128, No. 12, December 2002, pp. 1007-1017. Youngs, R.R. and Coopersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earthquake Recurrence Models to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 75, no. 4, pp. 939-964. GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical I nvestigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc . TABLES TABLE I 2013 CBC ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA (SITE CLASS C) GDC PROJECT NO. SD412, Poinsettia 61 Development Site Latitude: 33.1106 Site Longitude: -117.2767 - IL - - Ss= S= Site Class= F= F= TL S 5= SDI= T0= T5= 1,075 g = short period (0.2 sec) mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (CBC 2010 Fig. 1613.5(3) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) g = 1,0 sec period mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (CBC 2010 Fig. 1613.5(4) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) = Site Class definition based on CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.2 = Site Coefficient applied to S to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.3(1)) = Site Coefficient applied to S to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.3(2)) sec = Long Period Transition Period (ASCE 7-05 Figure 22-16) = site ciass moairiea snort pence (U.2 sac) rii. spectral response acceieration = C b ((2b2 zuiu tqn. le-Je) = site class modified 1.0 sec period MCE spectral response acceleration = F x S1 (CBC 2010 Eqn. 16-37) = site class modified short period (0.2 sec) Design spectral response acceleration = 2/3 x SMS (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-38) = site class modified 1.0 sec period Design spectral response acceleration = 2/3 x SMI (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-39) sec = 0.2 5C11505 Control Period (left and of peak) for ARS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) sec = SO'SDS = Control Period (right end of peak) for ARS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) 0.415 C 1.000 1.386 800 5M5 1.015 0575 0,717 0.383 0 107 0.535 - p 5 O Ir o. - T (seconds) Design MCE 1.2 - - 1.0 - 0.8 - < m 0.6 0.4 - - 0.0 Sa (g) Sa (9) 0000 0.287 0.430 0,107 0.717 1,075 0,535 0.717 1,075 --- _________ 0,600 0.639 0,959 0700 0.548 0.822 -Design -MCE 0.800 0.479 0,719 - 0.900 0.426 0.639 1,000 0.383 0575 -- -- 1100 0,349 0.523 1,200 0,320 0.479 1 300 0.295 0.442 ---------- 1.400 0.274 0411 1500 0.256 0.383 -- --- ----- - 1 600 0240 0359 1700 0.226 0,338 1.800 0.213 0320 1900 0,202 0,303 2.000 0,192 0288 ----- --- 2,100 0.183 0.274 2200. 0,174 0.261 --- ---- - 2,300 0.167 0,250 2400 0,160 0.240 2500 0.153 0.230 ------- - 2,600 0.147 0.221 2700 0.142 0,213 - 2,800 0.137 0205 2900 3 000 0.132 0126 0198 0. 192 . - 3100 0,124 0.186 3200 0.120 0.180 02 .--- -- .------. 3300 0,116 0.174 1rrrn fill niftn 0.110 0.0 3.500 09164 0.5 1.0 1.5 Period (seconds) 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 3600 0107 0.160 3.700 0104 0.155 3800 0101 0.151 I nnri 11 nRA 11147 4.000 0096 0.144 4.000 0,096 0.144 . . . TABLE 2 2013 CBC ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA (SITE CLASS D) GDC PROJECT NO. 5D412, Poinsettia 61 Development Site Latitude: 33.1106 Site Longitude: -117.2767 - o. - 0 - S5= S1= Site Class= F= F,= TL= S0 = S= T0= Ts= 1.075 g = short period (0.2 sec) mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B (CBC 2010 Fig. 1613.5(3) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) - g = 1.0 sec period mapped spectral response acceleration MCE Site Class B )CBC 2010 Fig. 1613.5(4) or USGS Ground Motion Calculator) = Site Class definition based on CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.2 = Site Coefficient applied to S. to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.3(1)) = Site Coefficient applied to S1 to account for soil type (CBC 2010 Table 1613.5.3(2)) sec = Long Period Transition Period (ASCE 7-05 Figure 22-16) = sits class modified short oeriod (0,7 sac) MCE spectral response acceleration = l- x SçCbt. U1U hqn. b-35) = site class modified 1.0 sec period MCE spectral response acceleration = F, x S1 (CBC 2010 Eqn. 16-37) = site class modified short period (0.2 sec) Design spectral response acceleration = 2/3 s SMS (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-38) = site class modified 1.0 sec period Design spectral response acceleration = 2/3 x SMI (CBC 2007 Eqn. 16-39) sec = 02 Soi/SDS = Control Period (left end of peak) for ARS Curve (Section 11.45 ASCE 7-05) sec = = Control Period (right end of peak) for ARS Curve (Section 11.4.5 ASCE 7-05) 0.415 D 1.070 1.585 8.00 I 1511 0.658 0 767 0,439 0,114 0,572 - P T conds) Design MCE , - Sa (g) Sa (g) 0000 0.307 0.460 0114 0.767 1.150 Z o C.) I-O Lu M 0.572 0.767 1.150 1.2 1.0 C o - 0.8 5 Q < i 0.6 CD 0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.600 0.731 1.096 0.700 0.626 0940 0.800 0.548 0.822 0.900 0,487 0.731 1.000 0.439 0.658 1.100 0.399 0.598 1.200 0,365 0.548 1 300 0.337 0.506 1.400 0313 0.470 1 500 0 292 0 439 1600 0274 0411 1700 0258 0.387 1800 0.244 0,365 1900 0.231 0,346 2000 0.219 0329 2100 0.209 0.313 2200 0.199 0,299 2,300 0.191 0.286 2,400 0.183 0274 2.500 0.175 0.263 2.600 2,700 0.169 0.162 0.253 6.244 2,800 0,157 0.235 29.00... 0.151 0,227 0,219 3000 0.146 3.100 0.141 0,212 3.200 0,137 0.206 3.300 0.133 0.199 3.400 0.129 0.193 3.500 0,125 0.188 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 36011 0122 0183 3700 0.119 0.178 3800 0.115 0.173 Period (seconds) 3900 0112 0 159 4000 0110 0164 - 4.000 0,110 0164 S FIGURES og 7-4 I Aw 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 A NO SCALE EXPLANATION: B-19 Approximate location of exploratory boring (ID—Total Depth). P.24 Approximate location of percolation test. A A' Approximate location of cross section. GROUP DEL71171 ACOPISULTANTS.INC. s AN' cEaoelsrs S0412 ROt SUITE 103 - - - - - 0 i 88 61 Developriorli nerHooros 2A JGH GRADING PLAN S S I 9 S S S S I ___ (TD-60 -. TD 21 I ' B Tfl irrT. 9 4. W1, NO SCALE I 1, - --- , EXPLANATION R,;-' ,.-' -, B-19 -4 of exploratory boring -Total Depth). IT :*J: Approximate Approximate location of percolation test I - GROUP DEI—CONSUI—Nn. INC. 1(TD;i'SAN S :\ • . (TD-5O I \' \ 'S / L \9 G i 1[H /1, ___ TD-32 / I • - -- EXPLANATION: B-19 * Approximate location of exploratory boring (TD--Total Depth). P24 Approximate location of percolation test. A A' Approximate location of cross section. N 412 A 01111 PoiflsottI61 OeveIop,,oflt Len— H—s 2C - NO SCALE ROUGH GRADING PLAN * - - 7* - 1t '1 - 10, - A • 7, r 4r b •• ' * S 9 S 0 9 0 0 S S S Tsa (Qya Qya 94 1*1 Tsa HZU f Tsa V/A Qya FYPI ANATIflN - .uIIo urnrn. tJ LJ dPO:I illkeorms, ad W,N JP ,rrnh!, A h;i.al IiWrnbcr hit i,n.kIor bull hid hhiiwtil.hl.gn . Ol.OM. bU4 le ENGINE " 024s001lupry ROAD, SUITE 103 100.050. -.W;0lSiI. Inll lSn•AIJ ,OOOI.i3OAOJ 14.4116161 ghnn.,U (ninndoSnt e,uirdI) p.Odi.intnlihttt4tt In 0110 01.1 pndk .I.pn.IIn. tlIi ..4 i..idbl.Ind duo In *1.1.1k [J kidhn.i.i, nad *il*nknk onus nudishlud Poinsotijo 61 0000loprnent I - .00.S ih.i sisal numllun noosdatu 1.> 4150 and Pl.Iunun.i—Sl.sat psntil' saihAd. 005k..5Al4 pu,nsa..6k. 4610.nusk)—L0Ojbond0 l4TETfl5Ah45I 6501001 0100055 lO05l Lernar E65nres 3A salt and prirpoup cwstnal III.. ounsislo .1 .0. roddish.hrrr.n. ,nroitinprcnd .Igao.11nc. botch. csuuurnc nooks i.&nqtltunesile. scindatsec Slit .ihdniwl I0IcII.ticicI - -- - Inc Itoil.4r,1005l. rnodanalAli oAllos.eod nkoso sanobon J.-IIuIdqoo.ssunposad ol .sltstotu dOono and U0500I till oouolotntt °4°V "1 NO SCALE REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP a. I Costa p j Cuot'y Pub6 CIS - Creek 1. N uUP DELTA A ronlurrnnnn ,r a crc11 IUI~ III 80112 1o1 118 I p 1t1e6100 lop Lenner ionroe B NO SCALE REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY S S S S S S S S i Cr S 7- ag UN \2O \tV) \\ \ \ ' A4 7 Cl 29 Ji \\\ " \\\\Nrk 'Trailer 28 \. BA j ,jQ UI 1' OS 33 EXPLANATION: Approximate topographic contours 01 the site In 1978 (feet). REFERENCE: Nabonal Geographi Hnlrtinçjs (200l) TURf)!. County of $8n Dieqo, Encinitas Quadrangle, Map Level 5. 74. Plntietlll W. Tsa ISIIII 81. Avmra-Pky—j Al L' ga4 Four Seo,Ii - Aviara R - Golf Club cxrLANATION: Approximate location of the FEMNDWR 100-Year Floodplain REFERENCE: California Emergency Management Agency (2013). County of San Diego, Encinitas Quadrangle, FEMA Flood Plains and California Specific FloodAreas. La N A GROUP DELTA A k".. I PoInseffia6lDe p Len-,Hoo.o 3C NO SCALE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN Tsa 20" ISITEl Vi.jj EXPLANATION: Approximate location of the recommended CEMA Tsunami Evacuation Area REFERENCE California Erneroency Management Agency (2013). County of San Diego, Encinitas Quadrangle, CEMA Tsunami Response Emergency Planning Zone. Sf 'I L F N GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC. PANCT A FCC.INFFR.S ANT r#c oolsrs S0412 gUasacriviTy ROAD SUITS 101 - - 500I0OSO000U.I00610I!TO.1000i 14-0188 Poinseoc 61 DovoloposOnl aaO t5Zo - Lennar trnes 31) NO SCALE TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP A via ra Golf Club .3 2 'ft S 0 0 S S . 0 0 0 S \ . rfi - N I N 15 / I 74 \\ 0 L\ \ N N Of N N" II N Ile 0\1 SITE \ N N + + \\ N J t ± N 2 33 16 Sate \ ,yunNS \ \ 5 S ••55 •..\ QTAiIO!fS \\ Holocene fault diaplasarnent (durIng past 10.000 years) without historic record. Geomorphic evidence foe Hol000ne faulting indudes sag ponds. svarps \ - showing little erosion, or the following features in 14ts0onne age deposits: offset N. -• - .- / . S stream courses, linear scamps, shutter ridgee, and trlanguier faceted spurs. N Recency of faulting offshore is based on the interpreted age of the youngest \\S 15\ l I d p1 cod by faulting.N aQua ornery teeN dtaptaeans:nt (during past 70000e1 7 1 32+ em less distird Faulting may be younger, but lads of younger ooedflg dopocitc toedudoc rrome accurate age rievsilcetnn. Qust.mary festit (age undifferentiated). Most faults of ff55 category show I \ " -- escegsoncseefaulIothaldlsetwno*unfuScJiffenenh&od lffio-tlolst000no ago .mi' -NI Sm r .v.. 0 " ' N OUP DL.TL 1, Appendix date Late Cenozoic faults within the Sierra Nevada Incloding, but not has niched nrc5 weoup nnLnscossertl route, tNN couwL suswvv to. the Faathllt. fault eyssnttt. I auus since uliubyiuylil., v,mmJlv, yv.S,S,o,elo; eI, ENS NEERSArcO sccwoslsrs SD412 nuidence for placement of late Miocene and Ptiocere deposits. By analogy, .S,.S,, S., r, cL/C. oul,5 Ito latyCerr000icfeultuimrffmdsystemnthathruebenrrinovsligated in data may hove foontoineocuoutvolesolsne.tsco 14-0188 been achve In mary time tumn -In —.1 Pulcsettlä b I U005tOjJttIOtlt r Pre.Ouaterrr.ey fault (elder than 1.6 mIllion yeses) en fault with Leone, Homes 4A ..- recognueed Orualernar dwofacoe,mnt Some faufs one shown on the category I thecauso the sourre of —ppin used was of moormaissenon nature, or was no' don, with the object nessoriIyiflacve of dafng 1ult dIsplauementc. Faults in this category are not NO SCALE REGIONAL FAULT MAP \ \ 'S St I '\ Del\, 'L *.11 ardit1'1,y -t -,I 5S / k k 'La Jolla F - \' Five pj6it \ \') S • . S S S I S / P:'in1 Jr Camp Pendleton L - r k\ " - S/ \ 12 It 4 f , °h,cUlat ( Escondido - Ramona T1 : 11 / I-' C6'.' ay I / se. • '. L Rancho ( Mceis :1. Winter State Park . . . '..' '\ Pine . •5 Illra ar rI Garile Alpine \ NahnaI \\ F ,• Forest / ri L \::s5' Base ' t) \ San Lui key \ \ 0cc Id \ "v' San .-iLd \ f.iarcos Vall Ce n Salt ':'n /. EXPLANATION: - Approximate location of active faults with evidence of historic displacement within the last 200 years. - Approximate location of active faults with indications of displacement within the last 11,700 years. DELTA N ENGINEERSANO GEOLOGISTS S0412 A GROU sett P DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC J ,,v,500 I COO UnlSnelSOO-0000 I 14-0188 Poinle Iii Development F- 1--Len- Homes 413 NO SCALE LOCAL FAULT MAP TYPICAL CUT/FILL TRANSITION TYPICAL DEEP FILL TRANSITION DD 1173 DOD 2% SLOPE FILL MAXIMUM FORMATION --- - - 2% SLOPE FILL DEPTH (H) OVER-EXCAVATE TRANSITION / / -------------- ' FILL TO A DEPTH OF H/2 FEET MAXIMUM / OVER-EXCAVATE TRANSITION (3 FEET MINIMUM) FILL DEPTH (H) TO A DEPTH OF H/2 FEET FORMATION (10 FEET MAXIMUM) NOTES 3tructures should not cro33 cut/fill nor deep fill tr0n3iti0n3, due to the potential for adver3e differential movement. For building pads underlain by both cut/fill and deep fill transitions, the cut portion of the pads should be over-excavated to a depth of H/2, where H is equal to the greatest depth of fill beneath the building. Over-excavations should extend at least 3 feet below pad grade, and do not need to extend more than 10 feet below pad grade. Over-excavations should extend at least 10 feet beyond the perimeters of the building foundations, including any isolated column footings. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS 17 '-. N N / /1" N Compacted Fill / REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I yiiCAL BENCHING - - / '_COMPETENT FORMATIONAL MATERIAL N INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN SEE DETAILS BELOW SUBDRAIN LENGTH (feet) PIPE DIAMETER SIZE (inches) first 100 4 (optional) 100-500 4 500-1000 6 >1000 Example: Subdrain length is 800 feet. From 0 to 100 feet pipe is optional, from 100 to 500 feet pipe is 4", and from 500 to 800 feet pipe is 6. TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAIL OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 9 CUBIC FEET APPROVED FILTER PER LINEAR FOOT OF - FABRIC 12-INCH APPROVED DRAIN MINIMUM OVERLAP MATERIAL MINIMUM OF 9 CUBIC FEET PER APPROVED FILTER 24 I '" --.-----LlNEAR FOOT OF APPROVED " FABRIC 12 INCH MINIMUM I DRAIN MATERIAL MINIMUM OVERLAP ,. PVC PERFORATED PIPE - V SHOULD BE BETWEEN (SEE TABLE FOR SIZE) 60T0 90 DEGREES - -,PVCPERFORATEDPIPE 24' MINIMUM (SEE TABLE FOR SIZE) NOTES The need for perforated pipe and pipe diameter to be determined by geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1%. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 12-inches. Drain material should consist of minus 11/2-inch, minus 1-inch, or minus 3h-inch crushed rock. Subdrain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling. FILL OVER CUT SLOPE FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM FINISH FILL SLOPE FINISH FILLSLOPE FINISH CUT SLOPE NATURAL SLOPE 115'MINIMUM (INCLINED MINIMUM INTO SLOPE) 15'MthHMUMQNCUNED 2% MINIMUM INTO SLOPE) 4' TYPICAL NOTES Where the existing ground surface slopes at more than a 5:1 gradient, benches should be constructed to provid level areas for fill placement. Benches should be wide enough to provide complete coverage by the compaction equipment. S S • . S • S S / COMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN " FABRIC SIDE FACING SEEPAGE (COVERAGE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT) 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC RECONSTRUCTED FILL WITH MINUS 3/4" CRUSHED ROCK SLOPE PER PLAN WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC / (1 CUBIC FT ROCK PER LINEAL FT, , 14I 2 2 FOOT Ell ME W1 zz~ III lilt lilt Ell IIII liii dli I TEMPORPRY BACKCUT - 2-INCHES OF CRUSHED ROCK COMPACTED FILL (1:1 GRADIENT MAXIMUM) BELOW PERFORATED PIPE BUTTRESS SEEPAGE OR SHEARED ZONE - 2% SLOPE lilt llif KEYWAY WIDTH AS DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT (15 FEET MINIMUM) NOTES Drainage panels should consist of prefabricated geocomposite drain such as Mirafi G100N, JDrain 400 or similar. Filter fabric should consist of spun bond, needle punched geosynthetic such as Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP or similar. Splices in panels should be as recommended by the manufacturer. Interlocking type panels should be overlapped at least 6 inches. Non-interlocking type should overlap at least 12 inches. Subdrains should outlet by a solid 4 inch PVC pipe to a storm drain system or suitable surface outlet. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1 percent. ROCK AND FABRIC PANEL DRAIN ALTERNATIVE DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- ALTERNATIVE PROOFING AS REQUIRED DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED '. GEOCOMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN COMPACTED COMPACTED , V - 12-INCH MINIMUM MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK ±'m . I CU. FT. PER LINEAR FOOT OF . . .. .• WEEP-HOLE MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED . . : . ALTERNATIVE -HOLE (MIRAFI 14ONL SUPAC 4NP OR ALTERNATIVE ROCK ENVELOPED IN APPROVED SIMILAR) •.• - FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC ......WEEP 77 77 71 77 4-INCH DIAM. PVC .777 4-INCH DIAM. PVC PERFORATED PIPE PERFORATED PIPE NOTES Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1%. As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep-holes may be constructed. Weep-holes should be at least 2 inches in diameter, spaced no greater than 8 feet, and be located just above grade at the bottom of wall. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches. Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-1 5, or approved similar product. Backfill should consist of granular soil with an Expansion Index of 20 or less, and 35 percent or less passing the No. 200 sieve. PM TES Ll / I / - Tsa Qya OR / I I Tsa Tsa IF Qya Tsa Oya — Tsa \ \ I — -- -- \ \ - •>. Qya isa FIH, z Fffl Qya Oya 10, .01 I - H'- // " Tsa / Tsa -: Tsa I N TP4 Tsa - Tsa Tsa Fill B-fl n , Tsa B II' Y) N • / -N, Tsa EzplanatlQ TI 11 9OGWI1 bY(O 2 App .*Ap,S.Ap*flpA.ObpAtGAAAA W9 OOG1P•14 +8_Is 5(#8tAIpp 8858Ap SOC ISIS — pppIo8s8ISspp.p4.AOOTPOAICOPC .P 2 AOPIISSASPIOOPOP.SOISOIS*I0OC 2514) IS 4IISI2S24yODSpC4S5S25 CS 4014 I3RDUF SC IEL W?s GEOTECHNICAL MAP APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX A S FIELD EXPLORATION Field exploration included a visual and geologic reconnaissance of the site, the drilling of 19 S exploratory borings and 2 percolation holes, and the excavation of ii exploratory test pits. The subsurface investigation was conducted by Group Delta Consultants personnel between October 27th and November 4th, 2014. The maximum depth of exploration was about 60 feet below surrounding grades. The approximate locations of the borings, percolation holes, and test pits are shown on the Exploration Plans. Logs describing the subsurface conditions we encountered are presented in Figures A-i through A-32, immediately after the Boring Record Legends. The 19 exploratory borings and 2 percolation holes were advanced by Pacific Drilling Company using both a track mounted limited access drill rig (the Fraste), and a truck mounted all-wheel drive drill rig (the Wolverine). Drive samples were collected by the Fraste and Wolverine rigs using automatic hammers with average Energy Transfer Ratios (ETR) of 83 and 82 percent, respectively. Disturbed samples were collected from the borings using a 2-inch outside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Less disturbed samples were collected using a 3-inch outside diameter ring lined sampler (a modified California sampler). These samples were sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. For each sample, the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inches was recorded on the logs. The field blow counts (Ni) were normalized to approximate the standard 60 percent ETR, as shown on the logs (N60). Bulk samples were also collected from the borings at selected intervals. The boring logs are presented in Figures A-i through A-19. Logs of the percolation test boreholes are shown in Figures A-20 and A-21. The 11 exploratory test pits were advanced by West-Tech Contracting using a John Deere 510D backhoe with a 24-inch wide bucket. The test pit excavations were logged by our project geologist. Bulk samples were collected from the test pits at selected locations for laboratory testing. The test pit logs are provided in Figures A-22 through A-32. Both the boring and test pit locations were determined by visually estimating, pacing and taping distances from landmarks shown on the Exploration Plans. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used and the scale of the map. The lines designating the interface between differing soil materials on the logs may be abrupt or gradational. Further, soil conditions at locations between the excavations may be substantially different from those at the specific locations we explored. It should be noted that the passage of time may also result If changes in 5 the soil conditions reported in the logs. DUP DEL..I1S1 N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc . HOLE IDENTIFICATION Holes are identified using the following convention: H - YY - NNN Where: H: Hole Type code VY: 2-digit year NNN: 3-digit number (001-999) Hole Type Code and Description Hole Type Code Description A Auger boring (hollow or solid stem, bucket) R Rotary drilled boring (conventional) RC Rotary core (self-cased wire-line, continuously-sampled) RW Rotary core (self-cased wire-line, not continuously sampled) P Rotary percussion boring (Air) HD Hand driven (1-Inch soil tube) HA Hand auger O Driven (dynamic cone penetrometer) CPT Cone Penetration Test o Other (note on LOTB) Description Sequence Examples: SANDY lean CLAY (CL); very stiff; yellowish brown; moist; mostly fines; some SAND, from fine to medium; few gravels; medium plasticity; PP=2.75. Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL and COBBLES (SW-SM); dense; brown; moist; mostly SAND, from fine to coarse; some fine GRAVEL; few fines; weak cementation; 10% GRANITE COBBLES; 3 to 6 inches; hard; subrounded. Clayey SAND (SC); medium dense, light brown; wet; mostly fine sand,; little fines; low plasticity. I I I I I I I SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE Refer to Section UI , Identification Components I crow p Name 2.5,2 3.2,2 • 2 Group Symbol 2.5,2 32.2 • Description Components Consistency of 3 - Cohesive Sol! - Apparent Density 4 of Cohesionless 2,5.4 SOil S Color 2.5.5 6 Moisture 2.5.6 Percent or Proportion of Soil 2.5 7 32,4 • Particle Size 2.5.8 2,5.8 • 0 Particle Angularity 2.5.9 0 Particle Shape 2.5.10 - S Plasticity (forf.ne- 2.5.11 3.2.5 0 grainecl soil) Dry Strength (for 25 - 0 (Tne- rained soil) Dilatency, (for fine'. 2 '' 13 gra-irled - 11 Tougllnoss(for (frie-grained sail) 2514 C 12 Structure 2 515 0 13 Cementation 2,5,15 Percent of Cobbles and 25-17 touIc1ers Description of Cobbles 81 2.5,18 Boulders Consistency Field , Test Result 16 Addftional Describe the soil using descriptive terms in the order shown Minimum Required Sequence: USCS Group Name (Group Symbol); Consistency or Density; Color; Moisture; Percent cr Proportion of Soil; Particle Size; Plasticity (optional). = optional for non-Caltrans projects Where applicable: Cementation; % cobbles & boulders; Description of cobbles & boulders; Consistency field test result REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010). 0 U GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES Graphic I Symbol, Group Names Graphic! Symbol — Group Names — GRAVEL ./'-' Loan CLAY GW CLAY wdl, SAND Ss. WoO-graded GRAVEL wot. SAND Lea,, CLAY w41, GRAVEL CL SANDY lean CLAY SANDY loan CLAY valh GRAVEL 00, PoIy graded GRAVEL GP GRAVELLY. loan CLAY e o Poorly graded GRAVEL vaIl. SAND —C— GRAVELLY lEnt CLAY with SAND Waded GRAVEL with SILT I I SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY oil. SAND Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND CL-MI. SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL SANDY SILTY CLAY SANDY SILTY CLAY wfll, GRAVEL WAS.AY Tadod GRAVEL 'vol. CLAY for SILTY CL • WoII-radnd GRAVEL vaIl, CLAY and SAND I GRAVELUYSILTYCLAY çnoSiLTYCLAYand SAND) I . GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAPID poorly ym dodGRAVEL-atthSILT T SILT GP.GM SILT with SAND 01 — poorly graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND _________________________ I I ML SILT with GRAVEL SANDY SILT SANDY SILT wSI, GRAVEL Poorlywaded GRAVEL w-nh CLAY o GP-GC (AL SILTY CLAY) Poo.ly goaded GRAVEL weE CLAY and SAND I GRAVELLY SILT o IOrSILT'YCLAYandSANDl GRAVELLYSILTwESAND SILTY GRAVEL ORGANIC IAaOCLAY CrCd GM ORGANIC loan CLAY with SAND SILTY GRAVEL w.IhSANO OIL ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY SANDY ORGANIC loan CLAY w,th GRAVEL W GC CLAVEY GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY CLAYEY GRAVEL weE SAND GRAVELLY ORGANIC loan CLAY with SAND SILTY. CLAYEY GRAVEL ORGANIC SILT GC-GM ORGANIC SILT will. SAND SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVELciE SAND ORGANIC SILT wol. GRAVEL OIL SANDY ORGANIC SILT SANDY ORGANIC SILT withGRAVEL W4lt.goadnd SAND SW GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT W0II-giSdod SAND WaIl GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT *01. SAND pooEj graded SAND Fat CLAY spi I-a, CLAY noah SAND -: poorly goaded SAND seth GRAVEL Sal CLAY ntilli GRAVEL SANDY tat CLAY SANDY It CLAY with GRAVEL Well-graded SAND edt. SILT SW.SM GRAVELLY lot CLAY - WelI-geadod SAPID onE SILT and GRAVEL GRAVELLY lot CLAY ih SAND Well-goaded SAND *01. CLAY (no SILTY CLAY) EloabO SILT • sw-Sc Woil-goadod SAND cdl. CLAY and GRAVEL —c SILT withSAND • a (go SILTY CLATond GRAVEL) MH Slants SILT will GRAVEL SANDY ebollo SILT SANDY ebth SILT -.Oh GRAVEL Ready goaded SAND atE SILT SPM ORA VELLY elastic SILT Pooelj goaded SAND with MT and GRAVEL - GRAVELLY nInI,c SILT -will SAND Pooifj graded SAND with CLAY (of SILTY CLAY) f' ORGANIC lot CLAY • 8p.SC ORGANICIaI CLAY vaIhSAIID Poorly qoadod AMID nail. CLAY and GRAVEL (ooSIL1'YCLAYandDRAVEL) w-i OH ORGANIC fat CLAY oath GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC ltd CLAY SANDY ORGANIC (at CLAY with GRAVEL SM SILTY SAND GRAVELLY ORGANIC 101 CLAY j .. SILTY SAND win GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC 101 CLAY edIt SAND CLAYEY SAND ORGANI elanOc SILT ORGANICC AIOOI,c SILT oath SAND SC CLAYEY SAND ..h GRAVEL OH ORGANIC e cI lonts SILT w,Ih GRAVEL SANDY niaN ELASTIC SILT SANDY ORGANIC olants SILT eall. GRAVEL SILTY. CLAYEY SAND SC-SM GRAVELLY ORGANIC dI0,lI SRI SILTY, CLAYEY SAlAD ciii. GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT win SAND ORGANIC SOIL PT PEAT ORGANIC SOIL oath SAND - ç ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL OLIOH SANDY ORGANIC SOIL SANDY ORGANIC SOIL nail. GRAVEL COBBLES CO B BLES and BOULDERS GRAVELLY ORGANI SOIL BOULDERS GRAVELLY ORGANIC C SOIL AntI, SAND DRILLING METHOD SYMBOLS Auger Drilling R 0 Rotary Drilling Dynamic Coneor Hand Driven ~ Diamond Core 0 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING C Consolidation (ASTM 0 2435) CL Collapse P01661151 (ASTM 0 5333) CP Compaction Curve (CTM 2(6) CR Corrosion, SUIIMOS. Chlorides (CIM 643, CTM 4 17, CThI 422) CU Consolidated UndraIned Triaxial (ASTM 0 4767) OS Direct Shear (ASTM 0 3080) El Expansion Index (ASTM 0 4829) M Moisture Content (ASTM 0 2216) OC Organic Content (ASTM 0 2974) P Permeability (CTM 220) PA Parl,cle Size Analysis (ASTM 0422) P1 Liquid Limit. Plastic Limit, Plasticity index )AASHTO T 89, AASHTO T 90) PL Point Load Index (ASTM 0 5731) PM Pressure Meter R R-Value (CTM 30 1) SE Sand Equivalent (CTM 217) SG Specific Gravity (AASHTO 1 100) SI. Shrinkage Limit (ASTM 0 427) SW Swell Potential (ASTM 0 4546) UC UflCOflllfled Compression - Sod (ASTM 0 2160) Unconfined Compression - Rock (ASIM 0 2938) UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxijil (ASTM 0 2850) UW Unit Weight (AETTO) 0 4767) I SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS I 0 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Standard California Sampler Modified California Sampler (2,4" SD, 3" OD) Shelby Tube Piston Sampler IEII NX Rock Core HQ Rock Core EM Im Bulk Sample IA Other (see remarks) WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS First Water Level Reading (during drilling) V Static Water Level Reading (after drilling, date) REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010). erAN Oe(inition SYnllbc( Mllrrl4l CILAITAIC in IYlA(ISi s b trvitd in th ssrnplr' ee oawo ATA) the (ocihilon of rte.at'5 charlILl! lIAR he,xt,,zitety ionted, Change In iwigriistsannOl be accurni0e - looted ghhoAi bltchAngo is graMlllcrlal . IOnfl(O(hWtVTIll of IImo:GIlrItTc of changt Ow dIo- Soil / Rock Ms:eIIIII dtanget. front goil LtIAr3CAriStiCS OuWLry ID rôA ctAorAc1cTiSto, f — CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS Description Shear Strength (tsf: Pocket Penetrometer, PP Torvane, TV. Vane Shear, VS. Measurement (tsf) Measurement (tsf) Measurement (tsf) Very Soft Less than 0.12 Less than 0.25 Less than 0.12 Less than 0.12 Soft 0.12-0.25 0.25-0.5 0.12-0.25 0.12-0.25 Medium Stiff 0.25-0.5 0.5-1 0.25-0.5 0.25-0.5 Stiff 0.5-1 1-2 0.5-1 0.5-1 Very Stiff 1-2 2-4 1-2 1-2 Hard Greater than 2 Greater than 4 Greater than 2 Greater than 2 S C C S S APPARENT DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS Description SPT Na (blows /12 inches) Very Loose 0 - 5 Loose 5-10 Medium Dense 10-30 Dense 30 -50 Very Dense Greater than 50 PERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILS Description Criteria Trace Particles are present but estimated to be less than 5% Few 5-10% Little 15-25% Some 30-45% Mostly 50-100% CEMENTATION Description Criteria Weak Crumbles or breaks wth handling or little finger pressure. Moderate Crumbles or breaks wth considerable finger pressure. Strong Will not crumble or break with finger pressure. REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010), with the exception of consistency of cohesive soils vs. N60. CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS DtitcriptiOn SP'l' N (blowsfl2 ir.ches) Very Soft 02 Soft 2-4 Mcdlvin Still 4 -8 Stiff 3-15 VeiyStWf 15 -30 Hwd (greater ihio 31 lic,Lec I1nrp, and 7harown. Et.1,. t'rthntj iñ p4 pnr.ic r cirt aita cn 4jtj shez:rzfqdt we umvailaiAr. } ch ,'.eIef 6i' air sm riftno. M.nol, 20!C. MOISTURE Description Criteria Dry No discernable moisture Moist Moisture present. but no free water Wet Visible free water PARTICLE SIZE Description Size (In) Boulder Greater than 12 Cobble 3-12 Gravel Coarse 314 -3 Fine 1/5-3/4 Sand Coarse 1/16-1/5 Medium 1164 -1/16 Fine 1/300-1/64 Silt and Clay Less than 1/300 Plasticity Description Criteria Nonpiastic A 1,8-in, thread cannot be rolled at any water content. Low The thread can barely be rolled and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit. Medium The thread is easy to roll and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit. The thread cannot be rerolled after reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit. High It takes considerable time rolling and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several times after reaching the plastic limit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit. 9 BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-01 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus, of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 11/3/2014 1 of I DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 21 226 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z ci zw__. Qo - z 6) I 0 >- Ui Z -J i-ZCO - . :),_. - w 2 6) 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION D_ Ui w -J 0 < WU)0 ZUJ 0 -J - >- oi- a- w W < C/) C/) W It CO m a a FILL: SILTY SAND (SM); brown; moist; mostly fine 225 B-I PA . . .. SAND; some fines; nonplastic. El (0% Gravel; 73% Sand; 27% Fines) X . S-2 8 25 3 SILTY SAND (SM); dense; light gray; moist; mostly fine - 12 .•. SAND; little to some fines; nonplastic. I —220 R-3 10 18 38 35 12.5 111 20 . —10 z 10 — CLAYEY 1215 22 30 SAND (SC); dense; light brownish gray; mostly fine SAND; little to some fines; nonplastic. 10 —15 1 - 15—/_____________ 14 4% SANTIAGO FORMAT1ON:SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); R-5 15 50 4 13.7 116 - 210 V ' 20 :. . : dense; light gray with orange staining; moist; mostly fine - 30 SAND; little to some fines; nonplastic. —20 - S-6 20 20— :•. Very dense. 50 100 137 • —205 - Total Depth: 21 feet - No groundwater encountered GROUP DELTA N ULTANTS, INC. GO CONSULTANTS, THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-I San Diego, A 0 1 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II L#I 6./, I. .J .L CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. F, BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-02 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/30/2014 I 10/30/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAE DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEII GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 36 282 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N 0 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N Z IL 0 2 Z LU 0 > Z I - (°Ir , S2 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION EL F oLU - -. B-I S-2 1 ?:I 53 72 SANTIAGO FORMATiON: SILTY SANDSTONE PA (SM); very dense; light yellowish to orangish brown; El :•. : moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. (0% Gravel; 76% Sand; 24% Fines) 0 S R-3 1 1 6 1 120 1 109 1 9.9 1 109 60 21 S-4 105 144 45 60 18 5-5 84 115 34 50 24 S-6 93 127 43 50 5 - Very light gray. 10_:: Very light greenish gray. Increase in moisture. 'Hi 10 15 0 B-7 S-B 120 164 60 50 20 — R-9 100 91 9.7 109 DS SANDY FAT CLAYSTONE (CH); light greenish gray; moist; mostly fines; some fine SAND; Imedium to high plasticity; orange staining. -------------------------- SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; very light greenish gray; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonpiastic. Some fines. I THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION I I 1 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. I OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. I FIGURE I I SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER I I 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 ILOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION I I 'NTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA I A-2 a I San Diego, CA 92126 I PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I I S BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-02 SITE LOCATION START FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/30/2014 I 10/30/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 36 I 282 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer 140 lbs. Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR _82%, N60 82/60*N_ 1.37 * N Z W o 0 ZuJ2 00— Z w .! 0 >- I- W z -J ZCD <<-.. - I- ë5 U) WI ! 0 Q W 0- z ._.- a& F-LJ I- CL °-O < DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W a -J w < 0 > O F- w a ( 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light yellowish to orangish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. • —255 : - 30—.. 31 ,. - R-10 75 150 137 10.0 111 05 • —250 . —35 - S11 36 120 164 35- :• : Very light gray to white. - 60 : • —245 Total Depth: 36 feet - No groundwater encountered —40 - 40— • —240 —45 - 45- -235 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-2 b San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. Ll BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-03 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/30/2014 I 10/30/2014 1 of 3 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHIELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 59.75 303 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z Ui 0 Qo— z Q >- z I-ZD 0- DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W -J 2 < WCO0 ZLJJ j Q -J 0 >- QI- 0 w E c o Ui < 0) W fl IL 0 SANTIAGO FORMA11ON: SILTY SANDSTONE — B-i PA .•. (SM); very dense; light yellowish gray with orange — R :. . stains; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. \J' S-2 12 55 75 : .: (0% Gravel; 65% Sand; 35% Fines) • -300 21 : 34 R-3 50 100 91 8.4 92 5 • -295 -10 10- 5-4 19 29 79 1C8 50 • —290 -15 - — R-5 150 137 6.8 102 OS 15- Yellow patches. - 75 • -285 —20 S-6 120 164 20 - . Orange staining. >< 60 -280 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. T -lIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-3 a S a " 1'eg" A I PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II 1.11 .1. CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-03 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/30/2014 10/30/2014 2 of 3 i)RILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELW GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 59.75 303 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic; ETR 82%, N 0 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z z .2? 2 >- z 2 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light yellowish gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. -275 : -30 - R-7 50 100 91 9.3 95 DS 30 - . Light gray with orange spots. -270 )x( I 58 18 31 77 105 46 - V FAT -C WST ONE rTh 1rgIi - - - / - /j greenish gray; moist; mostly fines; some SAND; high X 12 S-9 21 62 85 PA f plasticity. (0% Gravel; 37% Sand; 63% Fines) -265 41 .... >< s-io 27 120 16L. SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light gray with - 60 - . . : orange spots; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. -40 - R-11 50 100 91 10.3 102 DS 40- :•1..• : Very light gray to white with orange spots. -260 - - -255 - 1THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-3 b San Diego, C A I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL ego, L CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. S 0 BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-03 SITE LOCATION I START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/30/2014 1 10/30/2014 I 3 of 3 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAE DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPThELEII GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) I 6 59.75 I 303 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR -82%, N60 _82/60*N_ 1.37* N z Lii o ZW go- z LU >- 1- >- I- z -zo LL - c-. z. WI- 8 -I DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION O W W -J Q- jO 0 0 >- 01- H IL w x 0 0 - W - < C,) U) W jr CO In CL 0 Ir R-12 50 100 91 11898 DS SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very light gray with orange; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. -250 _55 - 55- S-13 23 Light gray. - >< 50 100 137 - S14 43 200 273 . Little fines. 100 • -245 . . >< S-15 150 205 >< - S-16 34 100 200 273 -60 - - 60- • - Total Depth: 59% feet No groundwater encountered —240 -65 - 65- -235 -70 - 70- -230 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. I I FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION I I WTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA I A-3 c San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I BORING RECORDI"'"" PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-04 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 I 10/31/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 20.5 248 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs.. Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z o 2 z 0 >- z I-° W - Ix cl' S () DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION S o >--- 0i- CL LU x W . CI) ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; light - B-i PA . . . gray to orangish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; some - R .• . fines; nonplastic. 14 R- 2 8 23 2 11.6 104 (0% Gravel; 66% Sand; 34% Fines) —245 10 13 - 3 5_•..;.: . .. Very light brown. 5-3 10 14 —240 - ... -10 - R-4 50 100 91 7.7 99 10- SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SAND (SM); very dense; very light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; little - . fines; nonplastic. —235 -15 - 15-. .•:. Verylightgreenishgray. • X 5-5 34 109 149 - _\ 75 - :. : Light gray with yellow staining; some fines. —230 - —20 - 50 20 Light greenish gray; increase in moisture content; little '4 R-6 100 91 9.6 90 - •. fines. - - Total Depth: 20% feet • —225 - No groundwater encountered GROUP DE CONSULTANTS,, INC. THIS LTA ANT , I SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WiTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-4 S a r A I PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. U BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-05 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 11/3/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPT-IELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 20.75 223 Y NA / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 Ibs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR — 82%, N60 — 82/60 * N — 1.37 * N tr Cl)c. Z U) Z) w 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION O W < Cd)ca g 9 5 >-.-- W 01•- CO CL .. a FILL: SILTY SAND ISM); orancish brown; moist; - B-i PA . mostly fine to coarse SAND; little fines; nonplastic. - (0% Gravel; 73% Sand; 27% Fines) — 220 14 R-2 r 15 17 35 32 13.4 110 - -------------------------- .J / CLAYEY SAND (SC); dense; light gray and light — 8 yellowish brown; moist; mostly fiie SAND; some fines; ... /. low plasticity. - — Medium dense; light gray with orangish brown and dark - )x( S-3 16 22 brown. —215 —10 — 10- — R-4 90 82 15.7 117 15 50 . . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE .. .. ..: (SM); very dense; light gray and light brown with orange - . .... . staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —210 . —15 - 15 — S-5 10 85 11635 - 50 —205 — — H R-6 40 150 137 9.6 109 20:.: . :.: Light gray. 75 — Total Depth: 20% feet No groundwater encountered —200 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-5 S a " D eg' A PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL '' I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. . BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-06 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 11/3/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 21 247 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs Drop: 30 in. (Automatic.) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z z z a, ! Q>- LL W Cn o z WI- I DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION CL EL z 5 > OF- D ci - W - < (1) U)W _____ - IL 0 - - - - - :• FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC); light brown; moist; mostly - B-i PA ./: fine SAND; some fines; low plasticity. I CR (0% Gravel, 52% Sand, 48% Fines) —245 - -2 18 25 El R XS 10 - SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE 00< - 10 (SC); very dense; brown and light gray; moist; mostly - R-3 50 100 91 16.3 112 - fine SAND; some fines; low to medium plasticity. —240 10 - _________________________ - X 1 - 14 12 31 42 SILTY SANDSTONE (SM) with thin interbeds of SANDY 19 - .. . lean CLAYSTONE (CL). SANDSTONE ISM); dense; .. .. . light gray with trace dark gray grains and orange —235 - .: : .. stanining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. CLAYSTONE (CL); gray; moist; mostly fines; some fine SAND; medium plasticity. 15 - R-5 50 100 91 10.9 110 15 - : . Very dense; very light gray. —230 - 31 20 - - >< S-6 150 20575 :. Total Depth: 22 feet • —225 - No groundwater encountered GROUP DELTA INC. P CONSULTANTS,, - THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-6 S ly A 1 an iego, PRESENTED ISA SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-07 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/30/2014 1 10/30/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 21.5 260 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N Z 0 0 Z LU .? 0 > H -j , W Z W i-ZCD u o ( z DC/) WF- 10 0 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION CL L,CL 2 0- it o LU < Co Z LU W M CO In 9 5 QH a C/) 0- . 0 ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; - B-i PA ././ . moderately brown to dark grayish brown; dry to moist; - OCK PI mostly fine SAND; little to some fines; low plasticity. S-2 13 26 36 Ell (0% Gravel; 81% Sand; 19% Fines) • - 13 13 1255 12 - • - 15 28 267.2 113 DS 1 13 : SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; moderate brown; dry to moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. -10 —250 10- :•. Light yellowish brown; few to little fines. - xS4 10 14 -15 -245 -1 15- Orange staining. - H 6 R-5 24 22 6.1 107 DS - 13 ..-20 240 - 20 - - >(565 12 13 - Total Depth: 21% feet No groundwater encountered UP DELTA LTANTS, INC.I • GROUP CONSULTANTS, HIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION NTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-7 S a ' Diego, A I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL 'I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-08 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 20.5 255 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 Ibs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, NRO - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z d ZW'' Qo - Z w aj 0 >- ' LLI Z w _j I.-ZW - z Wi- w - 10 ui -EL W U) D_ 2L1JU) - 4 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W -J W < < U) ZLJJ 0 WCO Q -J m > oi- Q. W 0 (I)CL 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE - B-i PA :. -. (SM); very dense; very light greenish brown; moist; OOK, PI CR mostly fine SAND; little fines; noriplastic. >< - S-2 33 60 120 164 El (0% Gravel; 80% Sand; 20% Fines) -5 _25O 5 - Very light greenish gray. - >( S3 20 65 89 37 -10 -245 R-4 21 120 109 17.3 110 10 - SILTY SANDSTONE with lean CLAY (SM); very dense; 60 :: . very light greenish gray with orange spots; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic to low plasticity; increase in moisture content. -15 -240 21 15 - :• SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; very light • S-5 50 100 137 :. greenish gray with yellow and orange staining; moist; - :. mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonpiastic. -20 - 235 50 20 - • Very light yellowish brown; little fines; increase in R-6 100 91 10.1 94 . moisture content. Total Depth: 20% feet — No groundwater encountered - - GO R UP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-8 S A I an Diego, PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL .. CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-09 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 11/3/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEII GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 21 221 Y N/Al na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N 0 z LU 0 I.-.- > Z W P0 <._ - u &5 z U) WH CL LU IL W(1)c 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a -J w <LU .( zw_J - a-W - > i- Ui a 0 a —220 i j.: FILL: SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; very light PA : gray to orangish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. S-2 14 1' :.: - 8 CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; grayish brown; - . moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; low plasticity. _5 - 5 - Brown; little to some fines. —215 R-3 15 1L 10.1 111 ::• —10 FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE • — 210 S-4 x 20 30 90 123 SANTIAGO — 60 .... (SM); very dense; very light gray with yellow staining; - moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —15 — R-5 75 150 137 — s - : . No recovery. —205 f : —20 - 17 20 - Orange staining. 50 100 17 —200 — Total Depth: 21 feet — No groundwater encountered THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-9 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-I 0 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 11/3/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 31.5 268 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs.. Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z d z Q>- z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W < Cn ca >- 01— Cd) a.0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE - 00( 00< B-i PA (SC); dense; light gray with light yellowish brown; moist; 00( PI CR mostly fine SAND; some fines; low plasticity. S-2 8 26 36 El ./i.) (0% Gravel; 58% Sand; 42% Fines) —265 12 . 14 - - Very dense; very light gray with orange staining. R-3 50 100 9 11.5 112 —260 —10 - 12 10 - ./ Very light gray and orange; fine to medium SAND. - S-4 19 39 53 . — ------------------------- / - 20 SILTY CLAYEY SANDSTONE (SM-SC); very dense; gray and light orangish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; low plasticity. —255 —15 — 15— --------------------------- :/:. R-5 13 66 6') 30.5 93 CLAYEY SANDSTONE (SC) moderately bedded with - 31 laminated layers of light yellowish fine SILTY SAND 35 /t ISM); very dense; dark brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; - - some fines; low to medium plasticity. —250 . —20 _ 20- .y ./. Trace crystalized material. S-6 15 18 39 53 .: 21 —245 GROUP DELTA Co N , IN . SU LTANTS THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WTH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-10 a San Diego, ('A 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORDI'Lennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-ID SITE LOCATION I START I FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 I 11/3/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) I GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) I 6 31.5 268 I Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR _82%, N60 .82/60*N_ 1.37 * N z o o ZW 00- Z > p >- I- W -J z -j o_ z I- << - 0 I- 5 W Z, o it U) LIJH I U)w DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Q W -J 0 U) ., 5 0 - H H Q - w It 0 W < U)LU 0 0 - - Cl) 0 Iptt!q R- 60 1213 109 16.7 109 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light gray and orange staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic; trace crystalized material. -240 : Interbedded with CLAYEY SANDSTONE (SC); very -30 - 30 - : dense; thin layers of gray and orangish brown; moist; - mostly fine SAND; some fines; low plasticity. - X 20 S-8 30 80 109 : 50 -235 Total Depth: 311,4 feet No groundwater encountered -35 - 35- -230 -40 - 40- -225 -45 - 45_ -220 - GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. I I FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 I SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION I I \N1THTHEPASSAGEOFTIME. THE DATA I A-1O b San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I 0 BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-Il SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/3/2014 11/3/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 20.5 246 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z w o Qo- z I 0 >- W Z ..J F-Z - c-. 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 9 8 ô 0— IL LU W 0 W < U) U) Ui M co CL 0 CE -245 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE B1 PA S (SM); light brown to light gray with orange stains; moist; :. :: . mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. • - R-2 75 35 150 137 10.6 119 .. (0% Gravel; 69% Sand; 31% Fines) 4 -5- 5- —240 S-3 28 29 69 95 :. - 40 ::•:: Brown. - : R4 60 25 120 109 21.7 104 CLAYEY SANDSTONE (SC); very dense; layered dark • -235 brown, brown, orangish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; low to medium plasticity; trace crystalized - . material. -15 32 15- >< S-5 60 120 1€4 SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light brownish -23 0 . . . S gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic; trace crystalized material. - Very light gray. -20 - R-6 50 100 91 11.0 20- 100 -225 Total Depth: 201,4 feet - No groundwater encountered THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WiTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-li San Diego, A 92126 'U CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development 3D412 B-12 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/4/2014 1 11/4/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 50 242 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 Ibs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N 0 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N G 0 Ui >- Z i-ZCD z - w DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 2 ö o'- LIJ C) Lii < U) CO LU X n M C) xC) SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE — B1 PA :. . (SM); very dense; very light gray with yellow staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —240 s. . 32 17 100 137 (0% Gravel 62% Sand 38% Fines) — 40 60 R-3 35 150 137 8.0 118 : Light yellowish gray. — 75 —235 . .. -10 - S-4 38 10 Very light gray. 60 120 16 —230 : -15 — R-5 60 120 10 10.0 96 15- • —225 : —20 - 50 100 17 20 - . Light yellowish gray. • —220 : GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road ' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-12 a S " " I PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL a '''-"'eg" '' - CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development 8D412 B-12 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/4/2014 11/4/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 50 242 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z W a ZLIJI Qo— z 6) 0 >- z p-ZCD - DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 5 >- - 0I CL W 0 - Ui - < CI) W Er co M 0 75 1 50 T3T SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very light gray with yellow staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —215 - -: —30 — 30 30 — — >< S-B 75 150 205 - —210 - — R-9 75 150 137 8.2 96 35— —205 -40 — 4030 -. - ><S-1 75 0 150 205 - —200 - — R-1 1 100 200 182 13.2 103 45 — . -. Light yellowish gray; mostly fine to medium SAND; — - :- increase in moisture content. —195 - — - :• •... Total Depth: 50 feet — - :•- 5: : . No groundwater encountered - - 50 100 JL GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-12 b San i A 0 Diego, PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL -, CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. S BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-I 3 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 I 10/31/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 21 215 Y N/A I na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR 82%, N 0 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N a; z a ZW 2o- Z LU . 0 >- Z uj .-Z(D o a-. z WI-. C.) 1 LLJ ±0 4 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 2 QI- U- W . J) ) W CL. 0 a FILL: SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; brown; — B-i PA - .. moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; — CID - :. . nonplastic. x S-2 9 12 (0% Gravel 75% Sand 25% Fines) — 4 J. ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark -..5 21O — .. brown with orange staining; moisi; mostly fine SAND; — R-3 17 15 10.4 103 - .:.• some fines; nonplastic. — 11 -10 -205 Very light gray and light yellow. x s-4 10 14 -15 -200 —21 R5 60 120 109 13.3 109 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; very light gray with yellow staining; moist to wet; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. -20 -195 23 20- - S-6 75 150 205 — Total Depth: 21 feet - - No groundwater encountered THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-i 3 S Diego,J. a' PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL ' I " II CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. ,.. ,. ,. , , ,.' , • , • , RECORD BORING riurcilNi., rcILL)lL) ILennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-14 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 I 10/31/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 26 212 Y 10.0 / 202.0 SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, NRO - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z d - z p >- H z w F- ZD H u o D U) z ($) wi- w DESCRIPTIONANDCLASSIFICATION Z 0 > OH IL W CD Ui < U) - 00( a a ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium — 00( B1 PA :. . s dense; light yellow brown with orange staining; moist; CR El mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic.-210 . ... . X S-2 4 5 7 ::. (0% Gravel; 71% Sand; 29% Fines) - 3 2 :. Interbedded with thin beds of CLAYEY SAND (SC); - . greenish gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; low 00( plasticity. —5 — 5_::.5: .. . Medium dense; light yellowish brown to orangish brown; R-3 U 11 N ... 10 14.9 82 . . : mostly fine SAND; trace medium SAND; increase in — 5 .. .. moisture content. —205 . —10 10— z — S-4 2 9 12 SILTY SAND (SM); loose to medium dense; light brown - :. . : 5 with orange staining and very thin layers of light gray; 5 . :. .. saturated; mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; —200 nonplastic. —15 - — 15— Y Loose. — R-5 10 N : 9 - -- . No recovery. 6 :. —195 . — — 20 - /.i /••/ staining; wet; mostly fine SAND; some fines; low - S-6 29 40 . plasticity. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE —190 26 .. . s (SM); very dense; light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY ATTHE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-14 a S a ri "1eg' A 0 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I U L# CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING SD412 B-14 SITE LOCATION I START I FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 I 10/31/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) I 6 i 26 I 212 I Y 10.0 / 202.0 SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR _82%, N60 82/60*N_ 1.37 * N z LU 0 oo- z LU > H a) o >- LU z LU -J çCD - Cl) -6 IV) OW Ct) I- CL 8 -J 0. a H z I-LU I I DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 0 LU -J 0 < W&50 Z o -J 0 01- 0. LU - LU U) CL a N R-7 50 34 100 91 18.0 113 - SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND. —185 Total Depth: 26 feet Groundwater @ 10 feet -30 — 30- -180 -35 — 35- -175 -40 - 40- -170 -45 — 45- -165 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS , INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-14 b San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-15 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 1 10/31/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL I MAE DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING 014. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHIELEV GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 21 259 Y N/A I na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs. Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N £ z Q >- o z ZW' Qo F-ZCD - z - 0 I I- Lii W o ° z WI- IØ DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION CL W LUI) - < W0 ZUJ -J - >- QH Q- W 0 W < U) U) W - a a SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE - B-I PA . . (SM); light reddish brown; dry; mostly fine SAND; some R . .. . fines; nonplastic. (0% Gravel; 73% Sand; 27% Fines) / X 5-2 8 19 26 CLAYSTONE with SAND (CL); very stiff; greenish gray; -9 moist; mostly fines; few fine SAND; low to medium 10 plasticity; moderately indurated. —255 - - R-3 22 60 120 109 10.5 115 DS - ------------------------- . .. . SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light gray and yellow; moist; mostly fine SAND; trace medium SAND; little to some fines; nonplastic. • —250 —10 10- >< 5-4 27 100 137 Very light gray; fine SAND; some fines. 50 • —245 .° -15 - - R-5 35 - 150 137 8.1 97 15- .-:- :- Yellow staining. 75 • —240 . -20 - 20 - 5-6 30 100 1-750 - Total Depth: 21 feet - No groundwater encountered • —235 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, I • THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-15 S a " D 'eg'- A I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II I r% .L CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-16 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/4/2014 11/4/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 50 253 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs Drop: 30 in. (Automatic ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z d 2 w 0 >- z S2 8 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o >--- - o IL Cr C) W < U) U) ca C) C) PAVEMENT: Six inches of ASPHALT CONCRETE. ------------------- O - - 15 inches of AGGREGATE BASE. — B-i PA - 20 P1 / SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE —250 S-2 33 75 103 CR - (SC); very dense; very light gray with yellow staining; 42 >•/.. moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; low plasticity. — - (0% Gravel; 71% Sand; 29% Fines) - R-3 30 - Slight increase in moisture content. 60 120 109 11.7 115 — -245 —10 10— >( S-4 19 30 75 103 45 -240 - —15 _ — R-5 37 60 120 109 8.7 114 -235 - -: -- SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; very light gray with yellow staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —20 20- X 1 S6 20 12 26 14 -230 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS E Co S S THIS , INC. SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-16 a a II PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL S ' Diego, A I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 0 BORING RECORD jLennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-16 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 11/4/2014 11/4/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 50 253 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 82%, N60 - 82/60 * N - 1.37 * N z a ZL1J Qo— z - Q r > Z i_ZCO - = Cn W (L a. : CL ~- U) 3: Cl) LU 6 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION < Ir co co Ir - - 60 20 OS 91.8 • 96 - - _______________________________________________ SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; very light gray with yellow staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —225 - S-B 30 150 205 30 - . Layer of orangish brown with trace fine GRAVEL. >< 75 • —220 - - R-9 50 100 91 19.2 107 Light gray; slight increase in moisture content. - —215 - S-10 50 100 137 40- • —210 —45 - R-11 60 120 109 -- - 45- .. - . . Orange staining; increase in fines content. - —205 . Total Depth: 50 feet • - - No groundwater encountered S-121 50 120 1 164 1 1 1 1 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION NTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-16 b San Diego,CA I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II .i. CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. S BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-17 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL I MAE DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTh.ELE1 GROUND WATER (ft] Limited Access Rig (Eraste) 6 30.5 241 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR - 83%, N60 - 83/60 * N - 1.38 * N z ci z H— >- H z w jz <H u o z WH Cl) w 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION O 5 OH 0 (ii < 0 a —240 Cl) 000 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDY LEAN 000. B-I PA . CLAYSTONE (CL); very light gray to greenish gray with 000 PI orange stains; dry to moist; mostly fines; some SAND; — f / low to medium plasticity. - S-2 g 17 24 . (0% Gravel; 40% Sand; 60% Fines) 5 — .: . R3 28 50 100 92 7.9 116 DS SANDSTONE with SILT (SP-SM; very dense; very light —235 ... orangish brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; trace to few fines; nonplastic. —10 — 10—..'. . .: . . Very light gray; moderately interbedded with thin beds of X 16 . : :: CLAYSTONE (CL); light greenish gray with dark orange —230 — 21 ::. SAND; moist; mostly fines; low plasticity. :. >< = 5-5 18 38 52 20 : :• S-6 14 28 66 9 7 - . - - - - - L fl Eg F~FegnThd —15 15- orange; moist; mostly fines; little SAND; low plasticity. — S-7 14 26 66 9 —225 — 40 . :: SANDSTONE with SILT (SP very dense; very light . .... orangish brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; — S-8 13 82 113 .. . trace to few fines; nonplastic. 32 50 >c( - s_9 15 120 166 — 60 —20 - 20- -220 - 0 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-17 a S a' Deg" ' I Di ego, PRESENTEDISASIMPLIFICATIONOFTHEACTUAL II %..d% .J L CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-17 SITE LOCATION I START I FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus, of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 I 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA.(in) ITOTAL DEPTH (ft)l GROUND ELEV(ft)I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Limited Access Rig (Fraste) 6 30.5 I 241 I I N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic, ETR _83%,N60_83/60*N_ 1.38 * N z LLI a ZuJ 00- Z W > I- 0 i >- I- z Ezco I- Ii- 05 . o WI- 8 E I-2 (/) IU) I 1- DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a- W W -J -m LU Cn 0 0 a > 01- (- W W CI)EL ct 0 10-4 '° 60 120 110 8.1 95 DS —215 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE with SILT (SP-SM); very dense; very light gray and dark orangish brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; trace to few — fines; nonplastic. -30 - 50 s- 100 138 —210 — Total Depth: 30% feet No groundwater encountered -35 — 35- -205 -40 — 40- -200 -45 — 45- -195 THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION NTH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-17 b San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development i SD412 B-1 8 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/28/2014 10/28/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (if) DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Limited Access Rig (Fraste) 6 41.5 273 Y N/Al na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 Ibs, Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR — 83%, N60 — 83/60 * N — 1.38 * N z a O z w 0 >- F-LU Z <~—x LL. o Liii- 2 I CL ±0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION B o W < U) Cl) IX) m IX 0 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE - B-i PA (SC); very dense; light gray to orange brown; moist; - PI ( >y. mostly fine SAND; few to little fines; nonplastic. 5-2 15 38 52 El - .. (0% Gravel; 57% Sand; 43% Fines) —270 17 - 21 — - R-3 26 60 120 110 10.3 116 .:. Light gray. —265 - I °i- x ..Y. S-4 13 59 81 SANDSTONE with SILT (SP-SM); very dense; light gray - — 26 with orange staining; moist; mostly fine SAND; trace to - - :.• few fines; nonplastic. —260 —15 - 25 15— .. Few fines. R-5 50 100 92 6.0 112 J. —255 - —20 — — 20— l..: - -------------------------- X S-6 14 37 51 SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; very light - 17 - :. . . greenish gray with yellow and dark orange staining; — —20 - . .. moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; nonplastic. —250 . THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS,, IN , . OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-18 a A r r fliy C 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL I L#I51, CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. S BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Poinsettia 61 Development 8D412 B-18 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassa Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/28/2014 1 10/28/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEiI GROUND WATER (ft Limited Access Rig (Fraste) 6 41.5 273 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic ETR - 83%, N60 - 83/60 * N - 1.38 * N z ci O z w 2 > z Ui zco LL o n—. Z 16 UJF DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION B ö > 0- IL x 0 Ui < C/) a a — N R- 28120 110 13.4 116 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE .•. (SM); very dense; very light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; few to little fines; nonplastic. —245 : —30 — — 30- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — X : :.. 5-8 20 56 77 SANDSTONE with SILT (SP-SM); very dense; very light - — 25 . :•: gray with dark orange spots; moist; mostly fine to 31 :. ..• :: medium SAND; trace to few fines; nonplastic. • —240 — 35 R-9 1 200 ::. SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); very dense; light greenish gray and light yellowish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; trace dark gray SAND; few to little fines; nonplastic. —235 . Light gray with orange staining; moderately interbedded —40 — - S. . with thin beds of CLAYSTONE (CL); very stiff; light . . : . greenish gray with orange; mostly fines; some fine z S-la 80 110 : SAND; low plasticity. — 4 35 5 —230 Total Depth: 41 'A feet No groundwater encountered —45 - 45- -225 GROUP DELTA CON ULTANT INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GO CONSULTANTS, , OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-18 b S lY A I an iego, PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL L CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-19 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cass a Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 1 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELE11 GROUND WATER (ft Limited Access Rig (Fraste) 6 31.5 270 Y NIA / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic ETR - 83%, N50 - 83/60 * N - 1.38 * N . z Q >- 0 z Zw Qo— I—ZCO z — DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 2 >- ° 0 W < U)CL U) UJ CE m ca a 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE - B-i PA . (SM); dense to very dense; very ight gray; moist; mostly — R fine SAND; few fines; nonplastic. S-2 10 34 47 (0% Gravel 57% Sand 43% Fins) - 14 20 —5 —265 5 - .: Very dense. - N R-3 34 62 57 11.0 98 . — :. . Light yellowish brown. -10 —260 to- Very light gray. - - S-4 28 18 28 58 80 .• . :. . . 30 .: - -15 —255 21 15- R-5 60 120 110 7.0 105 DS —20 —250 20- - 18 23 54 75 31 N , INC. GROUP DELTA CO S CONSULTANTS,, THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION NTH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-19 a San Diego, ft 1 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 B-19 SITE LOCATION I START FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 2 of 2 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELW GROUND WATER (ft Limited Access Rig (Fraste) I 6 31.5 I 270 Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR 83%, N60 83/60*N 1.38 * N z 0 LLI a- >- 0 Z Zw 00- Z(D z - IrU) I) w -j w <<- F-ce) ' i- CI) z- wt3 O. IC!) i--UJ wi- I- < DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION CL W w -J a- < Zw 1 -J 0 > 0- ° w ( o W < Cl) W XMm Cl) CL22 N R-7 100 92 14.0 113 . SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE - - 40 .... (SM); very dense; very light gray with orange stains; 60 . . moist; mostly fine SAND; few fines; nonplastic. -30 -240 30 -- - S-8 23 53 73 17 30 Total Depth: 31% feet - No groundwater encountered -35 -235 35- -40 -230 40 - -45 -225 45- THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OFTIME. THE DATA A-19 b San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. S S BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING I Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 P-I SITE LOCATION START I FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 I 10/31/2014 I 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling I Hollow Stem Auger TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH ()I GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELE%P GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) 6 5 I 247 I Y NIA / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer 140 lbs Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR _82%, N60 82/60*N_ 1.37* N z LU 0 w >- H a, 2 >- H Ui z -J zco <<- Hcn I- - o c— H zc WH S2 -3 CL to 2D CO &HW Lii ° ' H 0 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LU -J 0 < w50 0 -J > OH Q- 0 LU SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. —245 - -: — - -.. :.• :: Hole cleaned out to 5 with hand auger. Gravel added to bottom prior to filling with water. See Figure A-20b for percolation test data. — — - Total Depth: 5 feet — 240 - No groundwater encountered -10 — 10- -235 - -15 — 15- -230 - -20 — 20- -225 - GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION , OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-20 a PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL San Diego, CA 92126 CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 0 0 S S S FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST FIELD DATA SHEET Storm Water Infihitration Project Name: Lennar Poinsettia Job No.: SD412 Tested By: GMS Test Hole No: P-i Date Drilled: 10/31/2014 Date Tested: 10/31/2014 Drilling Method: €." Hollow-Stem Auger Depth of Hole as Drilled: 5 Depth Before Test: 4 6" Depth After Test: 4-6" Reading Number Time Time Interval . (min.) Initial Depth of Water (ft.) Final Depth of Water (ft.) Change in Water Level . (In.) Rate (min./in.) 1 0:15 4.00 4.04 0.50 6:00 2 0:15 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 3 8-46 0:30 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 4 0:30 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 5 0:29 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 6 0:30 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 7 1:00 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 8 1:00 4.04 4.04 0.00 0:00 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Document No. 14-0188 I ovdk LP(DUP DELTA PERCOLATION TEST DATA (P-I) Project No. SD412 I FIGURE A-20 b S 11 BORING RECORD ILennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING I Poinsettia 61 Development 8D412 P-2 SITE LOCATION I START I FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/31/2014 10/31/2014 I 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY Pacific Drilling Hollow Stem Auger I TSL MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (if) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Truck Rig (Wolverine) I 6 10 235 I Y N/A / na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Hammer 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in. (Automatic) ETR 82%,N60 _82/60*N_ 1.37 * N z w o 0 Z LLJ ' 00- Z w >- w Q >- I- Ui Z -J Z(D I- LL. c --. c ZC O W Q 1_u '- w o o., 'U) I-Ui I- DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION W o -J Ui < 01- 0- 0 CI) IL 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light gray; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. —5 —230 5 - Hole cleaned out with hand auger to 9'. Gravel added to - . . . bottom prior to saturating the borehole. See Figure A-21b for percolation test data. —10 —225 10-- Total Depth: 10 feet — No groundwater encountered —15 —220 15- -20 —215 20— THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-21 a San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. FALLING HEAD PERCOLATION TEST FIELD DATA SHEET Storm Water Infilitration Project Name: Lennar Poinsettia Job No.: SD412 Tested By: GMS Test Hole No: P-2 Date Drilled: 10/31/2014 Date Tested: 10/31/2014 Drilling Method: 6' Hollow-Stem Auger Depth of Hole as Drilled: 10 Depth Before Test: 8' 2' Depth After Test: 8 Time Initial Final Change in Reading Time Interval Depth of Water Depth of Water Water Level Rate Number (min./in.) (mm.) (ft.) (ft.) (in.) 1 9:00 0:15 7.50 7.75 3.00 5:00 9:15 2 9:15 0:15 7.08 7.33 3.00 5:00 9:30 3 9:30 0:15 7.33 7.58 3.00 5:00 9:45 4 9:45 0:15 5.50 6.08 7.00 2:08 10:00 5 10:00 0:15 6.08 6.25 2.00 7:31 10:15 6 10:15 0:15 6.25 6.42 2.00 7:31 10:30 7 10:30 0:15 6.42 6.58 2.00 7:31 10:45 8 10:45 0:15 6.58 6.75 2.00 7:31 11:00 9 11:00 0:15 5.50 5.75 3.00 5:00 11:15 10 11:15 0:15 5.75 6.17 5.00 3:00 11:30 11 11:30 0:15 6.17 6.33 2.00 7:31 11:45 12 11:45 0:15 6.33 6.42 1.00 15:02 12:00 13 12:00 0:15 6.42 6.46 0.50 6:05 12:15 14 12:15 0:15 6.46 6.46 0.00 0:00 12:30 15 12:30 0:15 6.46 6.46 0.00 0:00 12:45 16 12:45 0:15 6.46 6.46 0.00 0:00 13:00 Document No. 14-0188 6RDUP DELTA PERCOLATION TEST DATA (P-2) Project No. SD412 FIGURE A-21 b BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-01 SITE LOCATION START I FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit JCS I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe I 24 6 I 225 I Y N/A /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation 4) z 0 CL W ZW 00— Z > I- a) .92 2 H ID >- H W z iLl -j PZID << - ' WI- 10 -I O a 1- '° I-W 1 I- < DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 0 W -J .( a - Q 01- D W f 0 W < IEfl U) 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic; moderately cemented. • — E.. : . Light yellowish brown. —5 —220 5 - Total Depth: 6 feet — No groundwater encountered —10 —215 10 —15 —210 15- -20 —205 20 - THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-22 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING I Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-02 SITE LOCATION I START I FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 I i of 1 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit I JCS I MAE DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPThELEV GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe I 24 6 231 Y N/A /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation z w a 0 Z W F 00- 2: w >- i- i - 2.. >- F- W z -JW i_z - LL D 5 U) W I.- -J 0. z IU) I DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 0. W W -J 0- 0 0 OF- 0. W Cr () o W < (1)CL m 0 Wo —230 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE - (SM); light brown to yellowish brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. - - B-i PA 07 ni —FAT-CLAY-STONE (M4F'7 CLAY; little SAND; high plasticity. - P1 DS 5— - f roWi — — -' . El . .1 brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. -225 - - Total Depth: 6 feet - - No groundwater encountered —10 - 10_ —220 - —15 - 15- -215 - —20 - 20- -210 - THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WiTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-23 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD IPROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development, SD412 I TP-03 SITE LOCATION START I FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 I 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit I JCS MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft] Backhoe I 24 I 10 I 235 Y N/A/na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24 Wide Trench Excavation z LU . a ZW' 00- Z >- w .2 Q >- I- LU Z -J - X: CL -J -2 LU 0. W 1 I- 6 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Q LU W -J 0. ö O- Q Er - LU C!) LU CI) SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light brown to yellowish brown; dry to moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic; moderately to strongly cemented; stained layers. —5 —230 5 - —10 —225 10— - - Total Depth: 10 feet - - No groundwater encountered —15 —220 15- -20 —.215 20— THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-24 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD 11-ennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-04 SITE LOCATION I START I FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit I JCS MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) I GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe 24 5 240 Y NIA /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24 Wide Trench Excavation z W o oo- z W >- I- w Q >- F- W Z -J ZD <<- - F- LJ ° E5 z- rY-i WF- T0) .! I '. HUJ I- < DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION - W -J °- a'- 0- W 0 O Ui < /) LU it Ca 00 a a (I) SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE — : (SM); light brown to yellowish brown; dry to moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic; moderately • — :• : cemented. —5 —235 5 — Total Depth: 5 feet — No groundwater encountered -10 —230 10 -15 —225 15- -20 —220 20 - THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION W1TH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-25 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. I BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-05 SITE LOCATION START FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 I 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech I Test Pit JCS I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe 24 8 I 237 I Y N/A /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation z • 0 Zjjj 00— Z W >- I— a, . Q >- W z Ui —J FZCD - L&. Q DZ'& 5 ' wt3 1U) WI— '' a _co = I— DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Q W W —J 0- 8 5 0'- 0 0 W < U) U)LU X co co 0 0 FILL: SILTY SAND (SM); dark brown to brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; nonplastic; concrete fragments, trash, debris. -235 - -: SILTY SAND (SM); dark brown to brown; moist; mostly • fine to medium SAND; little fines; nonplastic, no trash. — 5•:::: —230 SANTIAGO FORMA11ON: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; — nonplastic; moderately cemented. — Total Depth: 8 feet lo - 10 - No groundwater encountered -225 - -15 - 15- -220 -20 - 20- -215 - C . THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, IN.. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-26 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-06 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 1 10/27/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit JCS MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEtI GROUND WATER (ft] Backhoe 24 15 250 Y N/A /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24 Wide Trench Excavation Z LU d ZW' Oo - z 2 >- z zo 8 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 9 ö > 0-CL LU It C) W (I) In C) a SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light brown to yellowish brown; moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; nonplastic; moderately cemented; massive, few iron oxide stained beds; occassionally strongly cemented zones -2 thick. -5 -245 5 - -10 -240 10- -15 -235 15- - Total Depth: 15 feet - No groundwater encountered -20 -230 20 - GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS , INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-27 San ''eg" A I PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II LI 1, CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-07 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit I JCS I MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe 24 14 227 1 9.0 /218.0 SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24 Wide Trench Excavation z 0 w 0 >- Z i' 2 8 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o >-- o- 0 W < U) U) 0 ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM); loose; brown to light brown; dry to moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; few fines; nonplastic. • —225 . - 5_.::..:. • —220 . ... -10 10 SILTY SAND (SM); loose; brown to light brown; - saturated; mostly fine to medium SAND; few fines; nonplastic. —215 . .. ... Caving. -15 - 15- Total Depth: 14 feet - Groudwater @ 9 feet —210 —20 - 20- -205 GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS , IN C. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WiTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-28 S a" Diego A 1' PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II L#U CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-08 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 1 10/27/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit JCS MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPTHaELE11 GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe 24 14 238 I N/A/na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation z a Zw Qo- z . Q >- z i-o ' - z DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ö 0- a w < (I) (I) W cr m C C FILL: SILTY SAND (SM); loose; light brown; dry to — . moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; few fines; — - :•. nonplastic; trash and debris. -235 - .1 ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND (SM) loose; light brown; dry to moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; few fines; nonplastic - -230 10 — 10 - 1 SANTIAGO FORMA11ON: SILTY SANDSTONE -225 (SM); light brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. -15 - 15- Total Depth: 14 feet — - No groundwater encountered -220 - -20 — 20- -215 - P DELTA N U LTANTS, INC. GROUP CONSULTANTS, THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION NTH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-29 a 'I I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL S D'eg" A I CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. . BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-09 SITE LOCATION START FINISH SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 10/27/2014 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit I JCS MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) GROUND ELEV (ft) DEPThELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe 24 14 215 Y N/A/na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation - z w a ZW2' Qo- z .92 9 >- z F- ZCD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION 0 Cl) EL 0 FILL: SILTY SAND (SM); light brown; dry to moist; - .. mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; nonplastic; concrete fragments, trash, debris. —5 —210 5 -10 —205 10— SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light brown; moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic. —15 —200 15— Total Depth: 14 feet - - No groundwater encountered —20 —195 20— GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road' Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-30 S a ' " A I PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL II L#I -' eg" CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD jLennar PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Poinsettia 61 Development 8D412 TP-10 SITE LOCATION I START . FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 I 1 of 1 DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD LOGGED BY CHECKED BY West-Tech I Test Pit I JCS I MAE DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) TOTAL DEPTH (ft) I GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPThELE11 GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe I 24 I 4 210 I Y N/AIna SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation Z LU Q. o Zw O— z LU > I— ! P >- H LU z -J zu < < -GD ? Z WI- S2 —J a- I_co ±0 CO a I—Ui I— °-O < DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION CL LU W -j Q < W )Q ZW j o -J 0 > OH a- LU (9 o LU < U) U) LLJ W In 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light brown; dry to moist; mostly fine SAND; little fines; nonplastic; moderately cemented. —5 —205 5 — Total Depth: 4 feet — No groundwater encountered —10 —200 io_ —15 —195 15- -20 —190 20— THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-31 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. BORING RECORD PROJECT NAME I PROJECT NUMBER I BORING Lennar Poinsettia 61 Development SD412 TP-11 SITE LOCATION START FINISH I SHEET NO. Southeast of Cassia Road at the Terminus of Poinsettia Road 10/27/2014 I 10/27/2014 I 1 of I DRILLING COMPANY I DRILLING METHOD I LOGGED BY I CHECKED BY West-Tech Test Pit JCS MAF DRILLING EQUIPMENT I BORING DIA. (in) I TOTAL DEPTH (ft) l GROUND ELEV (ft) I DEPTHELEV. GROUND WATER (ft Backhoe 24 4 204 I T N/A /na SAMPLING METHOD NOTES Shovel 24" Wide Trench Excavation z LU 0 ZijJ' o- z - LU >-H U) ! 0 9 >- H Z I-zco <<- QCI) - Z- WI- . Q 10 LU -J —j 0 > > ±0 - -oa,I--W LU ti 1(1) I- < DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION D W LU - o OF- Q LU (9 o LU < U) U) WWM co X 0 C SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE (SM); light gray; dry to moist; mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; nonplastic; moderately cemented. —200 —5 — 5— Total Depth: 4 feet — No groundwater encountered —195 - —10 — 10_ —190 - —15 — 15- -185 - -20 — 20- -180 - GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATION OF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING. FIGURE 9245 Activity Road, Suite 103 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA A-32 San Diego, CA 92126 PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING 9 APPENDIX B I I I I I . LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of the test results, or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method has been referenced, such as ASTM or Caltrans, the reference only applies to the specified laboratory test method, which has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of the test and not as a "Test Standard". A brief description of the various tests performed for this project follows. Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System as established by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing and classification using ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM D422, and were used to supplement visual soil classifications. The test results are summarized in Figures B-1.1 through B-1.21. Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318 was also used to determine the liquid limit and plasticity index of selected soil samples. The Atterberg Limits were used to refine the soil classifications as shown in Figures B-1.4, B-1.7, B-1.8, B-1.9, B-1.11, B-1.17, B-1.18, B-1.19 and B-1.21. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soil samples was estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test method D4829. The test results are summarized in Figure B-2. Figure B-2 also presents common criteria for evaluating the expansion potential based on the expansion index. PH and Resistivity: To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metals, selected soil samples were tested for pH and minimum resistivity using Caltrans test method 643. The corrosivity test results are summarized in Figure B-3. 0WAIC., GROUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\SD412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc I I APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING (Continued) Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with concrete, selected soil samples were tested for water soluble sulfate. The sulfate was extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The extracted solution was tested for water soluble sulfate in general accordance with ASTM 0516. The test results are also presented in Figure B-3, along with common criteria for evaluating soluble sulfate content. Chloride Content: Soil samples were also tested for water soluble chloride. The chloride was extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The extracted solution was then tested for water soluble chloride using a calibrated ion specific electronic probe. The test results are also shown in Figure B-3. Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture: The maximum density and optimum moisture content of selected soil samples were determined using ASTM D1557 (modified Proctor). The results were corrected for over-size material using ASTM D4718. The test results are summarized in Figure B-4. Direct Shear: The shear strengths of selected samples of the on-site soils were assessed using direct shear testing performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080. The individual shear test results are shown in Figures B-5.1 through B-5.14. The shear test results for ten samples of sandstone from the Santiago Formation that were collected from the subject site as a part of this investigation are summarized in Figure B-5.15. The shear test results for four samples of the claystone of the Santiago Formation that we recently tested from a nearby site are shown in Figure B-5.16 for reference (GDC, 2013). R-Value: R-Value tests were performed on selected samples of the on-site soils in general accordance with CTM 301. The test results are shown in Figures B-6.1 through B-6.6. Ii 0414.1 DUP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 h1 3/4 3/8'#4 #30 #50 #100 #200_____ 90 80 -c .270 ci) 50 50 LL 40 30 111111 :7 20 10 *--0% Gravel 73% Sand 27%Fines— - - - - - - - - I II I I 0 - - - - liii - - - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B—i LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.1 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes n co i nn 200 90 80 .2 70 >1 60 a) iZ C 50 C 20 10 A 100 IlL VA' qjg" .-. ----i----------, -g --- . - .. .- 88 42 - *--0% GraveI 76% Sand 24%Fines- - J100 10 . 0.1 0.01 0.001 I Grain Size in Millimeters I COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY I I I I GRAVEL I SAND [ SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS RflRIN( NO: -2 LIQUID LIMIT: [ SAMPLE DEPTH: 0' -5' DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. S0412 FIGURE B-1.2 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 90 80 ) 70 50 20 10 100 _______ ° 100 ü2fl0 W E60 '111111 57 - +-O% Gravel - 65% Sand *-* 35% Fines-+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'J100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters I COARSE I FINE I COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE I SILT AND I I CLAY I GRAVEL I SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO R-3 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'- 5 DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 ERDUF DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-1.3 0.01 0.001 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 - 1% /4' #4 #8 ..,,41R #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer 90 - 80 - -c .2' 70 - 60 C a) 40 C) - 0 30 - 20 - 10 - iiiuii__ ____ ____iiHi•U•____ iiuu•uu ____•iiu•i• ____ ____iIIII•U iiiiuu• ____uiii••u ____ iiiuiu• ____iiuuuii• ____IIIIIlPIIHIU•• ____IIIII••____ ____ IlUI•U._ iiuuui• uuiuu•iiiiiu•• ____iiuii•u____ uIuIIU• ____iiuiui• ____uuuuu IIIHIUU• ____IIIIIU•____ uIIu..._ iiiiui IIIuI.._____ ____uuiuu•u____ iuuui• ____uiiiuiiu____ uu•uu iiiui•• ____•uiiri ____uiiuu•• ____ ____ ____ uiiui• ____uiiiii• ____IIIl••• ____ IIHiU ____ uIII•••____ ____ iuiiiu• ____•iuuiiu____ IIIU••• _uiii•i• 50- ____IlIUU•• ____ _IiHU•U!ii••• ____ iiui• ____uiiuui• _IIuu... _u1u1uuu ____ uIuI.i. ____iiiUiI1• _IIUUU•• ____IIHIUUU ____ _uuii• ____ uuu1ii ____iiiiui• ____IIUIUI• _IIHIUU ____iiiui____ ____ iiiuii• _iiii•i• _iuiuu•• _IIHu_.__uuuu...qI uiiiu•• ____•iuiuiu _uuuui• ____iiuiu•u iuiii•• ____iiiiui ____IIII••• _IIHIUU ____ ____iiuuii• IIIu..._ iiii•i• iiiuuu• _•uiiuu•u ____uuul..._____ uiu•u• TI iui•iwi. ,,-0~16 Gavel i 3% ___•uui ___uuiiu• Fin ___ U - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE _FINE COARSE MEDIUM _FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CH ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-3 LIQUID LIMIT: 50 SAMPLE DEPTH: 37 DESCRIPTION: SANDY FAT CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: 19 PLASTICITY INDEX: 31 Document No. 14-0188 Ll GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-1.4 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ____ 100 311 _3I4 3/8 #100 #200 wu go 80 -c i50 40 0 30- 20 --- r66-%,/. 10 —O%Gravel Sand4-3 - 34% Fines--+ 0 II I - II I 11 1 I I I - - - - - - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-4 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0- 5 DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. S0412 oLl- FIGURE B-1.5 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 • U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 3 1% 3/4__3/8 L #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 - 90 80 a) 50 45 40 30 20 10 - +—O% Gravel - 73% Sand i-* - - - - - - - - 27% Fines--+ 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-5 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0--5- DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 8D412 FIGURE B-1.6 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 3I8_#& 0#50 #100 #200_jdq"tgL 100 90 80 .270- 67 60 ii50 - ------- ___ -------- ___ -------- ___ ___ ___ a) 40- :_ 30 - ------ ___ ---.---- 626 20- 24 10- ---- +--0% Gravel 52% Sand 48% Fines--+ - 0 - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Sc ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-6 LIQUID LIMIT: 39 SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 16 PLASTICITY INDEX: 23 Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 OL FIGURE B-1.7 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 3/4"3/8" #4 #30 #100 #20ft Hydrometer 100 -' - _h1 - - - _.#8.i16 - _#50 - - - 90 80 -c a) 60 j5 C ii50 ------ I ---I ---- C 40 30 20 IN 10 --O% Gravel 81% Sand 19% Fines--+ II I I I 0 - - - - - - liii - - - - - - I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters OARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY PGRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-7 LIQUID LIMIT: 25 SAMPLE DEPTH: 01-51 DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 18 PLASTICITY INDEX: 7 Document No. 14-0188 A GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.8 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3" 11/2 3/4" 3/8 #4 48 416 - #30 #50 #100 #200 90 80 -c . 70 a) 50 C 30 20 10 1 ------ ___ --- - __ I------ '60 - - —0% Gravel 80% Sand - - - - - - A - - 20% Fines---* '.1p 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: 8-8 LIQUID LIMIT: NP SAMPLE DEPTH: 01 -51 DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: NP PLASTICITY INDEX: NP Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.9 0.01 0.001 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 ' 11/2 3/4" 3/A' .rr #8 - #16 #0 #50 #100 200 90 80 270 ci) 50 a. 20 10 111111 -17 :11 kid~ 82 E60 34 +--0% Gravel 66% Sand 34%Fines—* - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE BORING NO: B-9 SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT: --- PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 5D412 OL FIGURE B-1.10 . 0 . 0 S S 0 S . U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 4fifl 3" 11/2 3/4" 3/8 #4 #8 #16 ) , #50 #100 #200 Hror'ter '1k Ivy 98 90 80 .270 62 E60 ii50 2 40 42 30 20- 10- 58% Sand 42% +--O% Grave I Fines--* 0- 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-b LIQUID LIMIT: 30 SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 19 PLASTICITY INDEX: 11 Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.11 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3 11/2 3/4 3/8 #4 . ,-#16 #30 #50 #100 #200 90 80 .270 a) ii: 50 C 20 10 ___ III IIii 67 EiIii ___ 111111 ___ 111111 ___ 82 60 *--0% GraveI 69% Sand A -- 31%Fines— I 0.1 100 10 . Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 0.001 I COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-il LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.12 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3 1/2 1 3/4 3/8 #4 48 ,...#16 - #30 #50 #100 #200 90 80 .2 70 U) it 50 20 10 E60 40 38%Fines—* - —O%Gravel Iii 62%Sand-* - - - - - - - - - - - -.---.-.- - - 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-12 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 01-5. DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 OL FIGURE B-1.13 0.01 0.001 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3 1% 3/4 3/8 #4 #8 . ,.416 #30 #50 #100 #200 90 80 .2 70 (D 50 30 20 10 i8 - 89 E60 47 1 - c—O% Gravel - 75% Sand - - - - - 1 - - - 25% Fines—* I I - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: 8-13 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 OL FIGURE B-1.14 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 i ' 3/8' #8 #i.6 #30 #50 #100 #200 - 90- 80- -c .270- ci) 60- 50 LL 30 20 10 - #-O% Gravel - 71% Sand 4-* - - - - - - - - - 1 29% Fines--+ 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-14 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 01 -51 DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.15 .0 . r - - 111111 -- iii 94 iii 1111111 111111 __ __ 11111111 __ iii jill iiiiiil 1111111 __ 67 \in Al 27 -4—O%Gravel Gravel liii I 73% Sand liii I 11 27%Fines-3 - - - A -,--T---T +—O% - - - I I I - - - J-1 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE I SILT AND CLAY k GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-15 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 5D412 OLI FIGURE B-1.16 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 " 1%" 3/4" 3/8 #4 416 #30 #0 #100 #281) 90 80 .2 70 a) 60 a) iEZ C 50 20 10 0.01 0.001 . . . 11111 __ i_a_ 94 1111111 E60 - —O% Gravel - 71% Sand - - - - - F n - 29% Fines—* - I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM J FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-16 LIQUID LIMIT: 33 SAMPLE DEPTH: 2'- 5' DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 19 PLASTICITY INDEX: 14 Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 5D412 OL- FIGURE B-1.17 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3" 1%" 3/4" 3/8" 4Ir #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 90 80 -c .2 70 ID 50 2 40 30 20 10 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3 1W3/4 318'_#4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200_mt 90 80 60 iZ 50 A M U) F; 40 30 6 20 10 - - - ___ --- ___ - ___ - —0% Gravel 40% Sand -+ - 60% - - - - - Fines—) 0 II - - - - -. - liii 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CL ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-17 LIQUID LIMIT: 47 SAMPLE DEPTH: 051 DESCRIPTION: SANDY LEAN CLAY PLASTIC LIMIT: 16 PLASTICITY INDEX: 31 Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 OL- FIGURE 6-1.18 0 0 0 tow q 114 E60 4-0% Giravel 57% Sand 43% Fines--+ A -- ------ ------------- 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE _FINE _MEDIUM I_FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL _COARSE SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Sc ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-18 LIQUID LIMIT: 34 SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 15 PLASTICITY INDEX: 19 Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 5D412 OA FIGURE B-1.19 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3 1%" 3/4" 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 • -- #50 #100 #200 H"1ror"eter 90 80 -c .070 Cl) 50 C Cl) 30 20 10 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 3" 1% 3/4" 3/8" #4 #2 .. ,#16 #30 - #50 #100 #200 90 80 U) 50 C a) C-) 40 30 20 10 -- 77 E60 0 +--0% Gravel 57%Sand+ '1'43% - 43%Fines—* 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 I Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: B-19 LIQUID LIMIT: SAMPLE DEPTH: 0'-5- DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 OL- FIGURE B-1.20 U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes 100 ' 1%' 3/4' 3/8" #4 #9 4^416 #30 #50 #100 #200 Hvdrometer 90 ---- ------- -----_ _ _ 80 LM 70 Z I or C iZ 50 40 -- a- 5 30 20 10 - - - - - - - +-0% Gravel - 18% Sand -+ - 82% - - - Fines--* 0 I - - - - - - liii - I I I I I I I ________ 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CH ATTERBERG LIMITS BORING NO: TP-2 LIQUID LIMIT: 76 SAMPLE DEPTH: 4' DESCRIPTION: FAT CLAY WITH SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: 25 PLASTICITY INDEX: 51 Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-1.21 EXPANSION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4829) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX B-i @ 0,— 5' Fill: Brown silty sand (SM). 13 B-2 @ 0'— 5' Santiago Formation: Light yellow brown silty sandstone (SM). 0 B-6 @ 0.— 5' Fill: Light brown clayey sand (SC). 48 B-7 @ 0'— 5' Alluvium: Brown clayey sand (SC). 0 B-8 @ 0'— 5' Santiago Fcrmation: Light olive brown silty sandstone (SM). 0 B-b @ 0'— 5' Santiago Formation: Light yellow brown clayey sandstone (SC). 12 B-14 @ 0'— 5' Alluvium: Brown silty sand (SM). 10 B-18 @ 0'— 5' Santiago Formation: Light gray clayey sandstone (SC). 22 TP-2 4' Santiago Formation: Olive brown fat claystone (CH). 154 EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 0to20 Very low 21t050 Low 51to90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 133 Very High A GROUP 100—TAN LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 14-0188 Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-2 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D516, CTM 643) SAMPLE pH RESISTIVITY [OHM-CM] SULFATE CONTENT [%] CHLORIDE CONTENT [%] B-i @ 0'- 5' 7.4 930 <0.01 0.18 B-6 @ 0'- 5' 4.1 370 0.38 0.20 B-7 @ 0'- 5' 6.5 730 <0.01 0.11 B-8 @ 0'- 5' 5.9 1,870 <0.01 0.11 B-10 @ 0'- 5' 5.4 690 0.02 0.18 B-14 @ 0'- 5' 4.6 1,560 0.01 0.18 B-16 @ 2'- 5' 5.6 1,620 <0.01 0.19 B-18 @ 0'- 5' 5.7 490 0.02 0.15 SULFATE CONTENT [%] SULFATE EXPOSURE CEMENT TYPE 0.00 to 0.10 Negligible - 0.10 to 0.20 Moderate II, IP(MS), IS(MS) 0.20 to 2.00 Severe V Above 2.00 Very Severe V plus pozzolan SOIL RESISTIVITY GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY TO FERROUS 0 to 1,000 Very Corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive 2,000 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive 5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive Above 10,000 Slightly Corrosive CHLORIDE (CI) CONTENT GENERAL DEGREE OF 0.00 to 0.03 Negligible 0.03 to 0.15 Corrosive Above 0.15 Severely Corrosive 0411C.- GROUP DELTA LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 14-0188 Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-3 MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE (ASTM D1557) MAXIMUM OPTIMUM SAMPLE ID DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE [Ib/ft3] [%J B-13 @ 0'— 5' Fill: Dark brown silty sand (SM). 120 111/2 040k.-, GROUP DELTA LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 14-0188 Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-4 rlm AN 6000 5000 4000 co U' 3000 IL Cn 2000 W 1000 Cn 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN /] 6000 5000 4000 U. U) 0O C CO 3000 I- U) 4 W ux 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-2 @ 20' PEAK ULTIMATE Santiago Formation: 40 ° 36 Light olive gray silty sandstone (SM). C 100 PSF bC PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/MIN I 108.5 PCF 108.5 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 9.7 % 21.6 % Document No. 14-0188 e2N,OUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Pr.:ject No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.1 FI M Peak Strergth Test Results —40 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results —36 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion I / V V /7 V I I I I I 600C LL 5000 a- 4000 ______________ U) 3000 2000 loUd I U) Ci I 111 1111 ________________________________ _________________________________________________ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN [%J 6000 5000 -. 4000 LL V)IL Co 3000 I- Cl) Ui 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6003 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-2 @ 30 PEAK ULTIMATE 'Santiago Formation: $ F 3 ° 33 I Light yellow brown silty sandstone (SM). I C [ 40C PSF I 10C PS I IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: 0.00301N/MIN I 111.4 PCF 111.4 POE (Sample was consolidated and drained) w 10.C' % I 19. % Document No. 14-0188 e2N OUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Prij€ct No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.2 Peak Strength Test Results —33 Degrees, 400 PSF Cohesion - • Ultimate Stength Test Results 33 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion .v LM DE AN 4000 LL 3000 U) CO) LU 2000 Cl) 1000 w I 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN (%] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —40 Degrees, 50 PSF Cohesion Ultimate St-ength Test Results 3000 - —37 Degrees, 50 PSF Cohesion 2500 U) U) LU I- 2000 U) 1500 I 1000 U) 500 / 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4C00 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-3 @ 15' PEAK ULTIMATE 'Santiago Formation: I 4 1 40 0 37 ILight yellow brown silty sandstone (3M). I C J 50 PSF I 50 DSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I_0.0030 IN/ MIN I [ Yd 102.2 PCF 102.2 DCF I (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 6.8% I_21.2% Documeit No. 14-0188 I3RDUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.3 4000 LL cL 300C U) 200C I— U) uJ I co 1000 C 111111 1 1111 11 li ii 111 11 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN /] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —36 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion - Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 - —36 Degrees, 150 PSF Cohesion 2500 IL coU) 2000 I- U) uJ 1500 I U) 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3C00 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-3 @ 30 PEAK ULTIMATE 'Santiago Formation: I 36 0 I 3€. 0 ILight gray silty sandstone (SM). I C 200 P5 I is: PSF I IN-SITU AS-TESTED PCF STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/MIN I Yd 1 94.8 PC L22.3 (Sample was consolidated and dained) w, 9.3 % % I Docurrent No. 14-0188 '- GROUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. 5D412 FIGURE 6-5.4 4000 LL iL 3000 Cl) U) 2000 I— U) 1000 W I U) 0 0.0 2.04.06.01111111118.0 10.0 STRAIN (%] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —37 Degrees, 150 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 35 Degrees, 150 PSF Cohesion - CO 5 2500 IL U) Lu I- 2000 U) U) 1500 I Cl) 1000 500 0 liii 1111 11 1 1111 1111 liii liii III 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3030 3500 LJOO NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-3 @ 40' PEAK ULTIMATE 'Santiago Formation: I 37 0 I350 ght gray silty sandstone (SM). I C 150 PSF I 150 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/MIN I Yd 102.0 PCF I 102. PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 10.3 % I 23.5 % I f, Document No. 14-0188 DUF DELTA ect No. 5D412 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Proj FIGURE B-5.5 LM LM AN 6000 LL 5000 co 4000 co Lu 3000 2000 LU 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN rio] 6000 5000 - 4000 LL U) (. U) U) 3000 CO) I— ix w 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6300 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-3 @ 50' PEAK ULTIMATE Santiago Formation: 340 340 Light gray silty sandstone (SM). C' 300 PSF 20C PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/MINI I Yd 97.6 PCF 97.E PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w,, 11.8 % L23.-1: % I. Document No. 14-0188 ) DUF DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-5.6 Peak Strength Test Results —34 Degrees, 300 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results 34 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion 4000 U. 3000 2000 1000 LU C.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN /] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —41 Degrees, 50 PSF Cohesion / - Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 - 2500 0. —38 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion LUL y" ,// Lu 2000 I— U) I I'Jvv U) 4rr / 1000 77 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 ZOCO NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-7 @ 5' PEAK ULTIMATE Alluvium: 41 ° 38 " Brown clayey sand (SC). C 50 PSF 0 FSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0030 IN/M Yd 113.0 PCF 113.0 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w,, 7.2 %__J 18.2 % ) Documri: No. 14-0188 ____ LPDUF DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-5.7 0 AN 0 LM LM rM 4000 -I U- 6. 3000 U) U) 2000 U) 1000 W I 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN [%] 4000 2500 CL U) U) 2000 I- U) I U) 1000 500 0 0 503 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4.000 'JORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-7 @ 15 PEAK ULTIMATE 'Alluvium: I 36 0 I I 36 ° ILight yellow brown silty sand (SM). I C 150 PSF I 5C PSF 1 IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/M114 Yd 106.6 PCF I 106.€ PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 6.1 % 20.1 % I ' Document No. 14-0188 OUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project Nc. SD412 FIGURE B-5.8 AN 3500 3000 Peak Strength Test Results —36 Degrees, 150 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results —36 Degrees, 50 PSF Cohesion - 1500 AV 4000 - co 3000 co 2000 1000 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN rio] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —33 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 —32 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion - ul 2000 1500 1000 - 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-13 @ 0'-5' PEAK ULTIMATE Fill: Brown silty sand (SM). 33 0 ] 32 Remolded to 90% Maximum @ Optmum. C. 200 PSF 100 :)SF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/M 'Yd 108.4 PCF 1 108.4 'CF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w 11.1 Yo ] 20.4 % ) Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Pro ect No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.9 4000 LL 3000 U) U) 2000 I— U) 1000 W 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN [%J 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —36 Degrees, 700 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 - —33 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion LL 5 2500 IL U) U) I— U) ul 2000 U< 1500 I U) 7' 1000 500 0 I!lI liii liii liii liii liii III! III 0 503 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 '-000 1ORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-15 @ 5 PEAK ULTIMATE 'Santiago Formation: Sandstone with 36 0 33 Ithin greenish gray claystone laminae (SC). I C 700 PSF I 1 O PSF I IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0040 IN/M Yd 115.4 PCF 1 I 115.4 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w 10.5 % j I 18.1 % Document No. 14-0188 GRDUF DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS PrDject No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.10 0 0 5000 LL 4000 0. --- 3000 2000 1000 t ii 1 11111 _ C'.O 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN rio] M. Peak Strength Test Results —45 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion 5000 • Ultimate Strength Test Results —38 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion — 4000 LL U)IL U) U) Lu 3000 I— U) uJ 2000 I 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-17 @ 5 PEAK ULTIMAE Santiago Formation: 45 0 38 0 Light yellow brown silty sandstone iSM). C 200 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0040 IN/MIN I Yd 116.1 PCF 116.1 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w 7.9 % 16.7% ) Document No. 4-0188 DUP DELTL DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Prcect No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.11 AN AN 4000 3000 U) U) 2000 0 1000 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN (%] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —34 Degrees 350 PSF Cohesion - Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 - —33 Degrees 300 PSF Cohesion 2500 0. U) LU 2000 CO) LU 1500 U) 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-17 @ 25 PEAK ULTIMATE Santia-go, Formation: I 1 34 0 I I 33 I Light gray si1y sandstone (SM). I C [ 350 PSF I 300 PSF I IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0030 IN/MIN I Yd 94.7 PCF I 94.7 PCF I (Sample was consolidated and draired) w, 8.1 % I 12.2% Documert No. 14-0188 DUF DL-LTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Projc: No. 3D412 FIGURE B-5.12 0 4000 a. 3000 co 2000 U) co 1000 w I U) _____ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN /] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —36 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion - Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 —36 Degrees, 50 PSF Cohesion - 2500 IL U) U) W 2000 I— U) < 1500 w I U) 1000 I 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 400 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-19 @ 15' PEAK ULTIMATE 'Santiago Formation: I 36 0 36 0 ILight gray silty sandstone (SM). I C 200 PSF I 5C PSF I IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: I 0.0030 IN/M Yd 105.2 PCF 105.2 PCF (Sample was consolidated and drained) w, 7.0 % I 20.2 % I Document No. 14-0188 L*(DUF DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Pro ect No. SD412 t*A' FIGURE B-5.13 4000 U- 3000 a. U) Cl) 2000 loo: 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 STRAIN (%] 4000 Peak Strength Test Results 3500 —24 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion Ultimate Strength Test Results 3000 - —19 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion 5 2500 IL coco 2000 1500 I U) - 1000 500 Iq W- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 -000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: TP-2 @ 4 PEAK ULTIMATE Santiago Formation: 24 ° 19 Olive brown fat claystone (CH). C 0 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED STRAIN RATE: 1 0.0003 IN/MIN I Yd 89.6 PCF 89.6 PCF (Sample was consolidated and dra ned) w 32.7 % 32.7 % Docum'nt No. 14-0188 0~;2'v E3RE3UF2 DEj_TAN DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Prcject No 8D412 FIGURE B-5.14 0 6000 Ultimate Values Peak ValLes 5000 - Ultimate Strength —Peak Strength 4000 U. U) CL U) U) LU 3000 I.- U) w U) 2000 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) IA summary of ten direct shear tests on I PEAK ULTIFATE Isamples o the intact sandstone from the I Santiago Fcrmation at the site, inclding I I I 35 ° I I 3 C I silty and clayey sandstone (SM and SC). I C 150 PSF I I 10: PSF I Docurrert No. 14-0188 6RDUF DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-5.15 0 LM 0 Lm 0 LM LM E1111111111111111 Ultimate Values 3500 • Peak ValLes -Ultimate strength —Peak Streigth 3000 2500 IL U) a- LU U) U) 2000 I- U) .( w 1500 1000 .11 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 503 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) A summary of four direct shear tests on PEAK ULTIMATE samples of :he intact claystone from the Santiago Formation in Carlsbad, including 24 0 23 both lean and fat claystone (CL aid CH). C. 300 PSF 200 DSF Docurn: No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Pqect No. SD412 FGIJREB-5.16 Lm BORING NO.: 8-3 SAMPLE DATE: 10/30/14 BORING DEPTH: 0-5' TEST DATE: 11/6/14 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Yellow brown silty sand (SM) LABORATORY TEST DATA 1 2 3 4 5 190 150 120 0.1 0.1 0.1 1200 1 1200 1200 100 111 124 8.3 9.3 10.3 8.4 9.3 10.4 2010.6 2010.3 2011.8 3063.1 3068.7 3085.5 1052.5 1058.4 1073.7 2.41 2.46 2.52 122.1 119.3 116.9 5842 4300 3430 466 343 274 36 48 54 81 110 122 4.38 4.53 5.02 36 20 13 34 20 13 0.0017 0.0009 0.0003 74 39 13 0.71 0.86 0.93 0.57 0.30 0.10 1] TEST SPECIMEN A COMPACTOR PRESSURE B INITIAL MOISTURE C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT D WATER ADDED E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) G MOLD WEIGHT H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT fl I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) L EXUDATION LOAD M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) N STABI LOMETER AT 1000 LBS 0 STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) S EXPANSION DIAL READING T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) U COVER BY STABILOMETER V COVER BY EXPANSION [PSI] [%] [G] [ML] [%] [%] [G] [G] [G] [IN] [PCF] [LB] [PSI] [PSI] [PSI] [Turns] [IN] [PSF] [Fl] [Fl] TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.49 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 15 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 40 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 15 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from required AC pavement section using CT301, Part 6.8.2. Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DE A LT R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-6.1a Sample B-3 @0'- 5 R-Value at Equilibrium: 15 100 2.5 90 80 70 LL 2.0 ________ / 60 Cl) 1.5 > 0) 40 1.0 30 20 0.5/. .00 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 .: 0.0 8 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Exudation Pressure [psi] Cover Thickness by Expansion [FT] Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. SD412 OL~ FIGURE B-6.11b BORING NO.: B-4 SAMPLE DATE: 10/31114 BORING DEPTH: 0'- 5' TEST DATE: 11/6/14 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Yellow brown silty sand (SM) LABORATORY TEST DATA Ll Ll . TEST SPECIMEN A COMPACTOR PRESSURE B INITIAL MOISTURE C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT D WATER ADDED E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) G MOLD WEIGHT H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/(( 100+F)*J)) L EXUDATION LOAD M EXUDATION PRESSURE (1112.54) N STABI LOMETER AT 1000 LBS 0 STABILOMETER AT 2000 1-130- P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) S EXPANSION DIAL READING T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) U COVER BY STABILOMETER V COVER BY EXPANSION 1 2 3 4 5 220 140 260 0.1 0.1 0.1 1200 1200 1200 120 132 105 10.0 11.0 8.8 10.1 11.1 8.8 2098.8 2112.3 2100.4 3139.8 3112.4 3129.9 1041.0 1000.1 1029.5 2.43 2.36 2.38 117.9 115.6 120.5 3784 2980 7434 302 238 593 40 47 30 88 105 63 4.36 4.87 4.10 32 21 48 29 20 44 0.0010 0.0003 0.0022 43 13 95 0.72 0.81 0.57 0.33 0.10 0.73 [PSI] [%] [G] [ML] [%] [%] [G] [G] [G] [IN] [PCF] [LB] [PSI] [PSI] [PSI] [Turns] [IN] [PSF] [FT] [Fl] fl Ll TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.58 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUCATION: 29 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 41 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 29 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from required AC pavement section using CT301 Part 6.13.2. Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-6.2a 40 Sample B-4 @0'- 5 R-Value at Equilibrium: 29 30 ________ 100 90 2.5__ 80 LL 70 2.0 60 o __ / __ ________ (I) 50 A > 40 1.0 30 20 10 0.5/__ _ 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Exudation Pressure [psi] Cover Thickness by Expansion [FTJ Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELYAN COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. SD412 OL FIGURE B-6.21b BORING NO.: B-6 SAMPLE DATE: 11/3/14 BORING DEPTH: 0-5' TEST DATE: 11/19/14 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Light brown clayey sand (SC) LABORATORY TEST DATA S S S S S TEST SPECIMEN A COMPACTOR PRESSURE B INITIAL MOISTURE C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT D WATER ADDED E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) G MOLD WEIGHT H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) L EXUDATION LOAD M EXUDATION PRESSURE (1112.54) N STABI LOMETER AT 1000 LBS 0 STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) S EXPANSION DIAL READING T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) U COVER BY STABILOMETER V COVER BY EXPANSION 1 2 3 4 5 220 170 120 6.6 6.6 6.6 1200 1 1200 1200 100 119 140 8.9 10.6 12.4 15.5 17.2 19.0 2108.7 2111.4 2108.1 3169.3 3142.7 3135.3 1060.6 1031.3 1027.2 2.41 2.40 2.46 115.5 111.1 106.3 8350 5055 3348 666 403 267 34 46 53 86 110 124 3.43 3.73 4.35 39 23 14 38 22 14 0.0086 0.0044 0.0014 372 191 61 0.59 0.74 0.82 2.87 1.47 0.47 [PSI] [%] [G] [ML] [%] [%] [G] [G] [G] [IN] [PCF] [LB] [PSI] [PSI] [PSI] [Turns] [IN] [PSF] [Fl] [Fl] P, S TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.68 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 16 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 16 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 16 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from required AC pavement section using CT301, Part 6.6.2. Document No. 14-0188 13RE3UF= DELTA R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-6.3a S C Sample B-6 @0'- 5 R-Value at Equilibrium: 16 30 ________ ________ 100 go 2.5 _ _ 80 70 LL 2.0 / 60 _ 7 _ _ _ _ _ CO ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ 50 I, 40 10 30 20 /. .. : 0.5 0.0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Exudation Pressure [psi] Cover Thickness by Expansion [FT] Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. SD412 ,L~ FIGURE B-6.3b BORING NO.: B-10 SAMPLE DATE: 11/3/14 BORING DEPTH: 0-5' TEST DATE: 11/19/14 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Light yellow brown clayey sand (SC) LABORATORY TEST DATA . [1 TEST SPECIMEN A COMPACTOR PRESSURE B INITIAL MOISTURE C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT D WATER ADDED E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)IC) F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) G MOLD WEIGHT H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) L EXUDATION LOAD M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 0 STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) S EXPANSION DIAL READING T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) U COVER BY STABILOMETER V COVER BY EXPANSION 1 2 3 4 5 100 160 350 3.0 3.0 3.0 1200 1 1200 1200 150 125 105 12.9 10.7 9.0 15.9 13.7 12.0 2098.6 2113.1 2112.1 3228.8 3213.6 3177.7 1130.2 1100.5 1065.6 2.65 2.54 2.43 111.5 115.4 118.6 1976 3742 7797 158 298 622 65 44 23 138 96 42 5.82 5.05 4.18 6 25 63 6 25 63 0.0007 0.0025 0.0064 30 108 277 0.86 0.69 0.34 0.23 0.83 2.13 1 [PSI] [%] [G] [ML] [%] [%] [G] [G] [G] [IN] [PCF] [LB] [PSI] [PSI] [PSI] [Turns] [IN] [PSF] FF11 [Fl] TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.74 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 24 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 22 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 22 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from required AC pavement section using CT30I, Part 6.13.2. Document No. 14-0188 6RDUF DELTA R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-6.4a Sample B-b @0 -5 R-Value at Equilibrium: 22 3.0 100 90 5 2 80 70 2.0___ / 11.5__ / _ :: 40 ' 1.0 30 / ____ 20 0.5 10 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Exudation Pressure [psi] Cnvr Thirknss hy Expansion (FT] Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-6.4b BORING NO.: B-15 SAMPLE DATE: 10/31/14 fl BORING DEPTH: 0'- 5' TEST DATE: 11/18/14 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Dark yellow brown clayey sand (SC) LABORATORY TEST DATA Ll TEST SPECIMEN A COMPACTOR PRESSURE B INITIAL MOISTURE C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT D WATER ADDED E WATER ADDED (D*(1 00+B)/C) F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) G MOLD WEIGHT H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) L EXUDATION LOAD M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 0 STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) S EXPANSION DIAL READING T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) U COVER BY STABILOMETER V COVER BY EXPANSION 1 2 3 4 5 110 150 195 3.9 3.9 3.9 1200 1 1200 1200 157 142 130 13.6 12.3 11.3 17.5 16.2 15.2 2108.6 2114.3 2100.3 3189.6 3194.8 3137.4 1081.0 1080.5 1037.1 2.52 2.49 2.39 110.6 113.2 114.2 1932 4047 5015 154 323 400 63 59 37 137 113 84 4.73 4.40 4.15 8 19 35 8 19 33 0.0002 0.0011 0.0020 9 48 87 0.99 0.87 0.72 __ 0.07 0.37 0.67 [PSI] [%] [G] [ML] [%] [%] [G] [G] [G] [IN] [PCF] [LB] [PSI] [PSI] [PSI] [Turns] [IN] [PSF] [FT] [Fl] C TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.49 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 17 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 35 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 17 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from required AC pavement section using CT301, Part 6.13.2. Document No. 14-0188 eL&~- GROUP DELTA R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project No. 5D412 FIGURE B-6.5a 0 Sample B-15 @0'- 5 R-Value at Equilibrium: 17 3.0 100 90 5 2 70 '- 80 2.0 / 60 ___ / _____ _ __ Cl) ________ ________ _________ ( _________ ________ 50 U) / __ 40 30 20 0.5 10 / 0.0 . 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Exudation Pressure [psi] Covcr Thickness by Expansion [FT] Document No. 14-0188 GROUP DELTA COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. SD412 054~~~w FIGURE B-6.5b BORING NO.: B-19 SAMPLE DATE: 10/27/14 BORING DEPTH: 0'- 5 TEST DATE: 11/6/14 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Light gray brown silty sand (SM) LABORATORY TEST DATA [] TEST SPECIMEN A COMPACTOR PRESSURE B INITIAL MOISTURE C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT D WATER ADDED E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) G MOLD WEIGHT H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) L EXUDATION LOAD M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 0 STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14) S EXPANSION DIAL READING T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) U COVER BY STABILOMETER V COVER BY EXPANSION 1 2 3 4 5 200 320 170 4.7 4.7 4.7 1100 1100 1100 121 108 132 11.5 10.3 12.6 16.2 15.0 17.3 2009.3 2006.3 2011.8 3032.2 3024.4 3038.1 1022.9 1018.1 1026.3 2.43 2.40 2.48 109.7 111.8 106.9 3775 5110 2948 301 407 235 33 25 50 75 50 104 5.20 4.75 5.99 35 54 18 33 52 18 0.0004 0.0029 0.0000 17 126 0 0.65 0.47 00 .8 0.13 0.97 0.00 [PSI] [%] [G] [ML] [%] [%] [G] [G] [G] [IN] [PCF] [LB] [PSI] [PSI] [PSI] [Turns] [IN] [PSF] FF11 [Fl] TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.64 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 32 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 43 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 32 *Note: Gravel factor estimated from required AC pavement section using CT301, Part 6.13.2. Document No. 14-0188 A OUP DELT R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Project No. SD412 FIGURE B-6.6a 0 Sample B-19 ©0 - R-Value at Equilibrium: 32 3.0 ________ - 100 25 / 90 80 70 2.0 ________ '- I / 60 1.5 40 1.0 I 30 20 057 .. 10 0.0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Exudation Pressure [psi] Cover Thickness by Expansion [FT] Document No. 14-0188 EDUF DELTA COVER AND EXUDATION CHARTS Project No. SD412 IL FIGURE B-6.6b APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Slope stability analyses were conducted using the program SLOPE/W at the nine cross section locations shown on the Rough Grading Plans, Figures 2A and 2C. Spencer's Method of Slices was used for all ofthe analyses. Spencer's method satisfies both force and moment equilibrium. All of the critical failure surfaces were optimized. The geology of each section was characterized using the general geotechnical conditions encountered in the nearby subsurface explorations, as well as our previous experience with similar geologic conditions. Our slope stability analyses for Cross Sections A-A' through I-I' are presented in Figures C-i through C-9, respectively. Laboratory tests were used to approximate the lower bound shear strengths of the various geologic materials encountered at the site for use in the slope stability analyses. Direct shear tests were conducted on relatively undisturbed samples of the on-site soils in general accordance with ASTM D3080. The shear test results were presented in Appendix B. Based on these test results and our previous experience with similar soils, the sandstone of the Santiago Formation was estimated to have an peak shear strength that generally exceeds 350 with 150 lb/ft2 cohesion, as shown in Figure B-5.15. The intact claystone of the Santiago Formation was estimated to have an ultimate shear strength that generally exceed 23° with 200 lb/ft2 cohesion (see Figure B-5.16). The remolded claystone of the formation was estimated to have a residual friction angle of 19° with zero cohesion, as shown in Figure B-5.14. A shear strength of 32° with 100 lb/ft2 was selected for the compacted fill soil, using remolded samples at 90 percent relative compaction (see Figure B-5.9). Three cases were evaluated for each cross section: temporary, static and seismic stability. Our temporary stability analyses indicate that the temporary 1:1 cut slopes that will be needed to complete the recommended remedial earthwork and construct the proposed buttresses and retaining walls should possess an adequate factor of safety for a temporary sloping condition (FS~:1.2) as shown in Figures C-i.i through C-9.1. Our static stability analyses indicate that the proposed 2:1 slopes and retaining walls should possess an adequate factor of safety against long- term deep-seated failure (FS~:1.5) as shown in Figures C-1.2 through C-9.2. Our seismic stability analyses indicate that the proposed slopes should generally experience less than 1 inch of lateral deformation given the design level peak ground acceleration of 0.31g presented in Table 2 for a Site Class D. Seismic slope deformations of this magnitude would generally be considered tolerable. The seismic stability analyses are summarized in Figures C-1.3 through C-9.3. 499)WWN.L-W DLJP DELTA N:\Projects\SD\5D412 Lennar Poinsettia Geotechnical Investigation\14-0188\14-0188.doc 0 320 - 1.17 310 - 290 0000 0 00 280 - Tsa.. Sandstone (35150PSF) 270- 260 - Tsa IN Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) ::: NOTES A OUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section A-A' is approximately 1.2 for the temporary, 34-foot high 1:1 cut slope (FS-1.2). GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. ENGINEERS*NO GEOLOGISTS SD412 2) The static Safety Factor for the temporary 1:1 cut slope is less than 1.2 for failures within the fissured claystone (if present). S DIEGO G 112126 1—) 8OO rnl500nla 61 r)sysonmenl soo IT LennorHoo,05 CROSS SECTION A-A' S S S • S S S S S 320 - 1.02 310 - 300 - LL 0 Co 280 - W Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 270 - 260 Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 250 NOTES A GROUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section A-A' is approximately 1.2 for the temporary, 34-foot high 1:1 cut slope (FS-1.2). OUP ELTA COO C ENOINEERSAND GEOLOGISTS 50412 I he static Safety Fu..Lui fur the temporary 1:1 cut slope is lsc than 1.2 for failures within the fissured claystone (if present). DIEM CA92126(M)~-IMIO ZnsEttla El Lleve101imors C-Il CROSS SECTION A-A' S 9 S • S S S S S 320 - 1.50 310 - 300 - I 000 P7LL 1.. 290 cu Fill (320, 100 PSF) LU Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) ::: 4I I I I I I ri r 260 - Tsa - Sandstone (35°, 150 PSF) 250 - NOTES GR DUP DD..Ttt The static Safety Factor for Section A-A' is approximately 1.5 for the proposed slope configuration with a retaining wall (FS-1.5). ENGINEERSAND oEaoeiStS SD412 The static Safety Factor for the proposed 2:1 cut slope remains above 1.5 for failures within the fissured claystone (if present). PolnsettN6lDevolopn,ont Lenner Homes C-1.2 - CROSS SECTION A-A' 320 - 1.53 .- 310 - 300 - 00 00-7 p 290 C 0 Fill (320, 100 PSF) 280 - iii Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 270 - 260 - Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 1:1 Cut 250 - NOTES GROUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section A-A' is approximately 1.5 for the proposed slope configuration with a retaining wall (FS-1.5). POELTACONsuLTAPITS. INC. ENGINEERS AND CEELOGISTS SD412 The static Safety Factor for the proposed 2:1 cut slope remains above 1.5 for failures within the fissured claystone (if present). NSACTNTTVROAO.SUTEIOS SAN DIEGO. CA52125 (558)538-IA® 14-0188 The analysis assumes that a 1:1 temporary excavation is cut down from elevation 285 feet on the slope to the base of the retaining wall backcut. P00se15e61 Developnlent LenrIarHon®u I 'F- 17 CROSS SECTION A-A 320 - 1.00 310 300 P7 LL 290- C 0 - Fill (320, 100 PSF) - 7 280 (35°, 150 PSF) Sandstone 270 260 Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 250 NOTES OUP D.TZt The yield acceleration under seismic loading for Section A-A' is approximately 0.32g, which exceeds the seismic demand for the site of 0.31g (see Table 2). --u— ENaINEERSA1JDcEasStS S0412 The seismic slope deformation is estimated to be less than 1 inch for the 0.31g seismic demand associated with the 2013 CBC design spectrum. MN DIEGO, C892126 (858)5384000 I GOGOr0000 140188 Potno00I8 61 Dooe)oprnont I Len— I'53,,,es I C-I .3 CROSS SECTION A-A' 0 S S 0 S S 0 0 5 320 - 310 - 1.26 S 300 - LL 290- 0 Co 280- W Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 270 - 260 - Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 250 - NOTES A GROUP DELTA 1) The static Safety Factor for Section B-B' is approximately 1.3 for the proposed 2:1 cut slope with fissured claystone (FS>1.2). OCOUTNC ENGINEERS AND GECEOGISTS SD412 SA4SAOTMTV ROAD, SUITE 103 S000IEDO,5592126 14-0188 PoinseTie 61 Development - --Len- Homnes C-2.1 CROSS SECTION B-B' 320 - 310 - 1.36 300 - PT I LL 290 - CID 280 - W Tsa - Sandstone (35°, 150 PSF) 270 - 260 - Tsa - Sandstone (35°, 150 PSF) 250 Fill NOTES A GROUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section B-B' is less than 1.5 with the critical failures on the fissured claystone encountered in Boring B-3. ENGINEERS AND GECIOSISTS S6412 A stabilization fill should be constructed to improve the static Safety Factor to 1.5. A 15-foot wide (minimum) buttress keyway is recommended. 14-0188 PTinsfdlLs1 PRVRIASmRfll EiNCRA5ARE Lonnar Homes CROSS SECTION B-B' . S S 320 310 - 1.55 300 - ca Fill (32°, andstone(35°,150PSF) Buttress Keyway 260 - (15 Feet Minimum) Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) 250L_ Fill NOTES GROUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section B-B' is less than 1.5 with the critical failures on the fissured claystone encountered in Boring B-3. GROUP DELTA 0008ULTANTS, INC. CUC]UOUR ENGINEERSAND GEaGRIsIS SD412 A buttress or stabilization fill should be constructed to improve the static Safety Factor to 1.5. A 15-foot wide (minimum) buttress keyway is recommended. 1nsotso61uovo1opnTent The buttress should contain adequate drainage, including a continuous panel drain as shown in Figure 8. p0 CROSS SECTION B-B' 320 - 310 - 1.00 300 - cc Fill (320, 100 PSF) 280 - f 1 7 j/V Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 270 Buttress Keyway MM 260 - (15 Feet Minimum) Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 250 - Fill NOTES GROUP DD..Tt The yield acceleration under seismic loading for Section B B with the recommended 15 foot wide buttress is approximately 0.21g. The seismic slope deformation with the recommended buttress is about 1 inch, which is generally considered to be tolerable. ENGINEERS PRO Goacoislo SD412 SORG 000 14-0188 PnnsL9 11 I)synkipmprfl Lenner Horses CROSS SECTION B-B' I 280 - LL 270 0 - Co 260 - i:i 250 - 240 - 230 11.99 220 —Existing Fill (32°, lOOPS FL EIt11tt4 Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 14-0188-D3.1.gsz 210 NOTES GROUP Drb. The static Safety Factor for Section C-C' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS. INC. O.LC)OER ENGINEERS A500EQ.00ISTS S0412 The new fill slope should be keyed into the existing fill. The fill keyway should be observed by Group Delta Consultants prior to fill placement. S2UCUCTIVirV000D. SUITE 103 50310050. CASUI2S 050)50-5000 I 14-0188 polnSolt)A61 Development LennerHontno I C-3.1 CROSS SECTION C-C' 280 P7 Li 270 0 CU 260 w 250 240 230 220 210 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section C-C' is above 1.5 for the proposed 25-foot high 2:1 fill slope. The new fill slope should be keyed into the existing fill. The fill keyway should be observed by Group Delta Consultants prior to fill placement. 280 - F LL - 270 - 0 cu 260 1.00 .- 250 - I 00 Fill (320, 100 PSF) 240 - 0000 00000 230 - I. 220 _Existing Fill (320, 100 PSF) Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 14-0188-D33.gsz 210 NOTES GROUP DELTA The yield acceleration under seismic loading for Section c-c, is approximately 0.27g. GROUP TACOlSfl.APC ENGINEERS AND GEoLOGIsTS 50412 The estimated seismic slope deformation under the 0.31g seismic demand is less than 1 inch, which is generally considered to be tolerable. ACTIVTYO IO103 OO 14-0188 polnsettlo 61 Dovetopnont IOuToRARAR Lenner Honros C-3.3 CROSS SECTION C-C' 250 240 230 p U— 220 0 Co 210 W 200 190 180 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section D-D' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). The new fill slope should be keyed into formational materials. The fill keyway should be observed by Group Delta Consultants prior to fill placement. . . . 250 240 230 P7 U- 220 Ca 210 W 200 190 180 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section D-D' is above 1.5 for the proposed 2:1 fill slope configuration (FS>1.5). The new fill slope should be keyed into formational materials. The fill slope keyway should be at least 15-feet wide. Any alluvium that may exist beneath the toe of the fill slope should be excavated during keyway construction. 250 - 1.39 240 - Fill (320, 100 PSF) WSE-231 Feet 230 - -•- - LL 220— 210 - ..--- -- w ----- - ---- - 200 1,00 - - -- - Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) Alluvium Fo A Keyy ray 190 180 NOTES ft 6Y.GROUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section D-D' is below 1.5 for the temporary condition with the basin full of water and 2-feet of freeboard (FS-1.4). ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS SD412 The stability of the proposed fill slope should be improved by providing a PVC or HDPE liner for the proposed basins. SO!?OO pfllflRoltL,NI flesRlnpnEnnl EISATODOGR -OGReS C-4.2 CROSS SECTION D-D' 250 240 230 LL 220 0 - cc 210 w 200 190 180 NOTES The yield acceleration under seismic loading for Section D-D' is about 0.279. The seismic slope deformation is estimated to be less than 1 inch for the 0.31g seismic demand. The stability of the proposed fill slope should be improved by providing a PVC or HDPE liner for the proposed basins. 26 25 24 23 LL 22 0 cc 21 W 20 19 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section E-E' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). Complete alluvium removals should be conducted beneath the retaining wall. The removal bottom should be observed by Group Delta prior to fill placement. 260 250 240 230 P7 U- 220 Co 210 w 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section E-E' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition, during the recommended remedial excavations. The new fill slope should be keyed into the existing sandstone. The fill keyway should be observed by Group Delta Consultants prior to fill placement. All alluvium within 10-feet of the retaining wall foundation should be excavated and replaced as compacted fill. S 260 250 240 230 p 220 Li.. C 0 Co 210 w 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section E-E' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition, including the 1:1 temporary excavation within the alluvium The new fill slope should be keyed into the existing sandstone. The fill keyway should be observed by Group Delta Consultants prior to fill placement. All alluvium within 10-fcct of the retaining wall foundation 3h0u1d be excavated and replaced as compacted fill. 260 - 1.52 Tsa - Claystone (23°, 200 PSF) 250- 240 - .000 V \ 320,150 PSF) 18-Foot High Wall C N 10 Feet cc Ej 200 Tsa Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 15-Foot Keyway 190 NOTES DUP DEL—TA The static Safety Factor for Section E-E' is above 1.5 for the proposed retaining wall and 2.1 fill slope (FS-1.5), assuming the wall is internally stable. EI,JG GEaIsrS SD412 The retaining wall foundations should be deepened as necessary to attain adequate global stability (FS>1.5). All alluvium within 10-feet of the retaining wall foundation should be excavated and replaced as compacted fill. Lenmrl-I—s `F-97Y CROSS SECTION E-E' 260 250 240 230 p U- 220 > 210 ED 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section E-E' is above 1.5 for the proposed retaining wall and 2:1 fill slope (FS-1.5), assuming the wall is internally stable. The retaining wall foundations should be deepened as necessary to attain adequate global stability (FS>1.5). All alluvium within 10-feet of the retaining wall foundation should be excavated and replaced as compacted fill. 260 - 1.36 Tsa - Claystone (230, 200 PSF) 250 240 --. — Fill 0 PSF) ,9 230 - -' -' 18-Foot High Wall P U-220 H 10 Feet O cc 0_ — - 210 W Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) 200 15-Foot Keyway 190 NOTES DUP DELTh The static Safety Factor for Section E-E is below 1.5 for the temporary condition with the basin full of water and 2-feet of freeboard (FS-1.4). ENGINEERSANO GEQcolsis SD412 The stability of the proposed fill slope should be improved by providing a PVC or HDPE liner for the proposed basins. G61O 14-0188 PolnoottG 61 DsGEtopn,snt noon, n,000n LennrHcn,es C-5.2 CROSS SECTION E-E' 260 250 240 230 F U- -- 220 0 Co 210 w 200 190 NOTES The yield acceleration for the slope is about 0.37g, which exceeds the seismic demand of 0.31g. Seismic deformation should be less than 1 inch. The stability of the proposed fill slope should be improved by providing a PVC or HOPE liner for the proposed basins. S S . 25 24 23 U- 22 0 (0 > G) 21 M 20 19 18 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section F-F' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). Complete alluvium removals should be conducted beneath the proposed slope. The removal bottom should be observed by Group Delta prior to fill placement. 250 - 00, 1 240 - 230 - Fill (320, 100 PSF) Alluvium (36°, 100 PSF) p LL 220 - 0 Co 210 200 19 180 NOTES A GROUP DEL.TA The static Safety Factor for Section F-F' is above 1.5 for the proposed 2:1 fill slope (FS>1 .5). PR— ENGINEERSAND GECIOGISTS SD412 In order to complete the remedial excavation of the loose, saturated alluvium, dewatering will be necessary. -0188 14 Ponsott6I Oovolop,Tent Lan,r IO,soS C-6.2 CROSS SECTION F-F' 25 24 23 I- U- 22 0 (0 > 21 a) W 20 19 18 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section F-F' remains above 1.5 with groundwater levels back at current elevations (FS>1.5). The alluvium should be completely removed to within 5 feet of the toe of the planned 2:1 fill slope. . 0 . . S . 250- 240 - Fill (320, 100 PSF) 230 - Alluvium (360, 100 PSF) P7 U-220 0 co 210 w 200 Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) 190 180 -- NOTES GROUP DELTA The yield acceleration for Section F-F is approximately 0.25g, which is less than the seismic demand of 0.31g. EROS ENGINEERS AND GEaCGISIS SD412 The seismic slope deformation is estimated at less than 1 inch for the 0.31 g seismic demand from the 2013 CBC. S(SOO1o3OO ro 14-0188 nooS(o 61 Dovolopn,ent -.— Len— Horses C-6.3 CROSS SECTION F-F' 260 250 240 230 P7 220 C 0 Co 210 ED 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section G-G' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). The new fill slope should be keyed into competent formational materials. The keyway should be observed by Group Delta prior to fill placement. . . . . 0 . 260 250 240 230 p1 U- 220 Co 210 w 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section G-G' is above 1.5 for the proposed 2:1 fill slope configuration (FS>1.5). The new fill slope should be keyed into competent formational materials. The keyway should be at least 15-feet wide. 260 250 240 230 F U- 220 C 0 210 w 200 190 NOTES The yield acceleration under seismic loading for Section G-G' is about 0.28g. The seismic slope deformation is estimated to be less than 1 inch for the 0.31g seismic demand. . . S 260 250 240 230 U- -. 220 0 CD 210 w 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section H-H' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). The new fill slope should be keyed into competent formational materials. The keyway should be observed by Group Delta prior to fill placement. S S S S • S S . 260 250 240 230 P7 LL 220 0 Co 210 w 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section H-H' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to fill slope construction). The new fill slope should be keyed into competent formational materials. The keyway should be observed by Group Delta prior to fill placement. 260 250 240 230 P7 LL 220 0 Co 210 w 200 190 NOTES The static Safety Factor for Section H-H' is above 1.5 for the proposed 2:1 fill slope configuration (FS>1.5). The new fill slope should be keyed into competent formational materials. The keyway should be at least 15-feet wide. S S S 260 250 240 230 F U- 220 C 0 4-. cc 210 M 200 190 NOTES The yield acceleration under seismic loading for SectionH-H is about 0.22g. The seismic slope deformation is estimated to be about 1 inch for the 0.31g seismic demand. 46.51 260 - 250 - Fissured Claystone OW, 0 PSF) Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) 240- 230 Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) Tsa - Sandstone (35°, 150 PSF) 220 - w 210 200 NOTES [AGROUP DELTA 1) The static Safety Factor for Section I-I' is above 1.2 for the temporary condition (prior to cut slope construction). I 2.55 270 260 2500 Fissured Claystone (19P1F) Tsa - Sandstone (35°, 150 PSF) 240 - --. 230 Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) CU Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) >w 220 210 200 NOTES OUP DELTA The static Safety Factor for Section I-I' is well above 1.5 for the proposed 2:1 cut slope (FS>1.5). E SD4 'ENGINEERS cEaooisrs 12 000 The tut slupe sl iuukl t ob3ccd by Croup Dolt3 Conu!nt ti-i rltArmine if additional playstpne beds are present.14-0188 Additional buttress recommendations may be provided if additional claystone beds are encountered. PolnseLttie6l voioPment CROSS SECTION 1.1' . . . 1.00 270 260 .0 2500 Fissured Claystone (19 0-.PSF) Tsa - Sandstone (350,150 PSF) 240 - Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 230 0 cc Tsa - Sandstone (350, 150 PSF) 220 Mu 210 200 NOTES GROUP DEL.TA The yield acceleration under seismic loading for Section I-I is above 0.52g. —UP DaTACONSULTMM, INC.I ENGINEERSANO GEO.OGISTN I S0412 The seismic slope deformation is estimated to be negligible for the 0.31g seismic demand. S DIEM kj PoInNotSa6l DeveIOpfleflt ANNEE Lonner HomeS C-9.3 CROSS SECTION I-i'