The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-7259 G/PE City 0 NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 4, 2003 Attn: United Commercial Bank 199 South Los Robles Avenue Suite 780 Pasadena, California 91101 RE: Mammoth Equities, LLC 20532 El Toro Rd. Ste. #302 Grading Permit 7259-G APN 258-111-24 Final release of security Permit 7259-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. Therefore, release of the security deposited is merited. Assignments of Account 63576847, in the amount of$40,336.80, and account number 63576847, in the amount of$13,445.60 have been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, C41 Masih Maher ?ayLemba/ch Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Mammoth Equities,LLC Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT I Capital Improvement Projects City of District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering April 4, 2003 Attn: American Motorist Insurance Co. 7470 No. Figueroa St. Los Angeles, CA 90041 RE: Mammoth Equities, LLC CDP 01-019 APN 258-111-24 Grading Plan 7259-G Final release of security Permit 7259-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 3SM 046 029 00, in the amount of$215,129.60, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, v' Masih Maher y Lembach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,FinanceManager Mammoth Equities,LLC Debra Geishart file enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 � recycled paper PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Quail II 171 Saxony Road Encinitas, California Prepared For: Mammoth Equities 25351 Alicia Parkway, Suite A Laguna Hills, California 92653-4956 Prepared By: MTGL, Inc. 2992 La Palma, Suite A Anaheim, California 92806 Project No. 1533-A04 Log No. 01-271 March 28, 2001 March 28, 2001 Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 25351 Alicia Parkway, Suite A Log No. 01-271 Laguna Hills, California 92653-4956 W Attention: Mr. Tucker Lewis SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Quail II 171 Saxony Road Encinitas, California In accordance with your request and authorization we have completed a Geotechnical investigation at the subject site. We are pleased to present the following report with our conclusions and recommendations for remedial grading and foundations. Although building plans or preliminary loads are not available at this time we have assumed lightly loaded foundations loading of 25 to 50 kips for pad footings and 1 to 3 kips for perimeter footings. If expected loads exceed these ranges we should be consulted for additional foundation recommendations. Our report concludes that the site is suitable for construction if the recommendations presented are incorporated into the plans and specifications for the proposed construction. The near surface soils are moist and loose with a very low potential for expansion. Some overexcavation and recompaction will be required for the support of foundations, slab-on-grade floor slabs, and hardscape. Proposed grades are not currently available although only minor grade changes are anticipated. Our overexcavation recommendations are a minimum of 3 to 4 feet from existing grade or a minimum of 2 foot below proposed foundations and slabs, whichever is lower. Hardscape areas will require 1 foot of overexcavation and recompaction. Special presoaking is not required. Type 2 cement for concrete in contact with the onsite soils is adequate. i Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 - Log No. 01-271 We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the planning and construction of the project. If you have any questions concerning our report or planned construction please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, SP QROFESSIO MTGL, Inc. W Nfto.380 EV-1Z131 Thomas C. Hare ct'J, F4�rGP�\P Chief Geotechnical Engineer R.G.E. 380 OF CAL�E�� Expiration Date: December 31, 2004 Distribution (3 plus original) Addressee ii Quail Il, Mammoth Equities Project No. 15')3-AO4 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION, _ . PLANNED CONSTRUCTION SCOPE............................................. SITE......................................................... FINDINGS.......................................................................... GEOTECHNICALCONDITIONS..............................................................................................................2 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................... GEOLOGY....................................... REGIONAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 3 ...................................... SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION.............................................................................................................4 SEISMIC HAZARDS 4 ......................................................................................... ..................................... URFACE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ...........................................................................4 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ....................................................................................................... .......... LANDSLIDE. MUDFLOW, AND FLOOD POTENTIAL TSUNAMI AND SEICHE HAZARD .................................................... SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATIONS..........................................................................................................6 SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT ......................................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS............................................... GENERAL CONCLUSIONS EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS/SHRINKAGE ........................................................................ SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 9 ....................................................................... ................................... EXPANSION POTENTIAL/FILL . . ................................................................................. SITE COEFFICIENT/SUBGRADE MODULUS iii Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 23, 2001 Log No. 01-271 RECOMMENDATIONS SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS SITE OVEREXCAVATION ...................................................................................................................... FOUNDATION AND BUILDING SLABS...................................................................................................9 • SPREAD FOOTINGS: • CONCRETE AND THE ON-SITE SOILS • RETAINING AND BASEMENT WALLS SLAB-ON-GRADE RECOMMENDATIONS 12 ....................................................................... PRESOAKING RECOMMENDATION PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION/TESTING OF EARTHWORK OPERATIONS ... 13 Appendix A - References Appendix B - Field Investigation Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Appendix D - Seismicity Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Figure 1 - Site Location Map -next page Figure 2 - Boring Location Plan-end of text iv SPNFOR y •.. ..v, li n `!!° / \�� is • Leucadia f i M �. 5� - ) ✓" - 'II `u`'� . .j }�,.� I!, •gip GU '• � v• 1• � \ '� -�' u � 1,. � l •\1 m , O `` � 11 I � 1 :"J ` �. `• -• •••\ � � 1" Ill r �� D fl �i- - \��J• I�I- . _.i �uul rl•-.� _/ 4 11. II �� F ;• ' lit rl� IO� 1 .• ••.• ' '�•• O III I�:=~ �� ' °oC • t li u n _ �# .I a?kei 1l �\• �.. �.• ' enter - ' 1. -P •,••I �f A I V• k Encinitas Beach County Park Sao,.�� •�7 '1'I y 'a'. ` ' '/ 1', _ ul `�. it Y.. �•.. II YYY!!l .� III II �` 1 card Seaside Gardens t o �✓ l \\z ®I�. I`11 Etke T;a�t 2ik County Park -i` ' � ;`m• P3� r� ` � i _ 1 \ l \• •• „• .� tl I.$Q[3aISd L�'as1,r n\ W `^," • 1f �- a, �� ' ��1�•` x i 1 OS i D•:: MOONLIGHT STATE BEACH t`• 11C %.fa I a Encinitas ac fic' t c �I :I� Wa (BM 91) ch it S � �!� •• u t I Encinitas 2. e Li I San Die ' 3 \1 I rZ i2 l •p .I I ion IWhis f c, Hoqal t I WT �t6,h .F 327 Sea Cliff\\\'yTTT County ?ark m o m \\ > a Ail ter di SOURCE: USGS, Encinitas 7.5 Minute Topographic Series, 1982 MAMMOTH EQUITIES - QUAIL II Project No. 1533-A04 Date: March-01 Figure 1 MTGL, INC. Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, MTGL, Inc. has completed a preliminary Geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The following report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations based on our investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering review. PLANNED CONSTRUCTION Current plans are to construct a two-story office building and adjacent site improvements. Preliminary foundation loads of 25 to 50 kips for pad footings and 1 to 3 kips for perimeter footings have been assumed for design purposes. It is anticipated that the improvements adjacent to the structure will be parking, access paving,hardscape, and utilities. SCOPE The scope of our Geotechnical services included the following: • Preliminary Geotechnical investigation consisting of excavating four hand-auger borings to detail subsurface conditions and sample for laboratory testing. (See Excavation Location Plan, Figure 2, and Appendix B, Field Investigation). • Laboratory testing of samples (See Appendix C). • Geotechnical engineering review of data and engineering recommendations. • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings and presenting our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed construction. 1 Quail II,Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 SITE The site is currently a vacant lot and an existing house located between the Quail Professional Building Saxony Road. The lot faces Seacrest Road to the south and a housing development to the north. FINDINGS Geotechnical Conditions All but one of the borings went directly through 6 inches of saturated soil from the recent rains and 6 inches of dry and loose surficial soils containing grass and roots, and then into approximately 3 to 4 feet of artificial fill. Boring B-4 was advanced through asphaltic concrete and then into the underlying artificial fill soils. The artificial fill overlies the native bedrock located in the site area. The fill soil materials are moist and loose at the surface and are denser with depth. Native soil materials are very dense and hard granitic materials. Refusal was encountered at approximately 5 feet in all the borings. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing was moisture density of the undisturbed samples and moisture content of the disturbed samples. The maximum density was determined on a sample of the near surface soils for shrinkage. Grain size analysis was completed on selected samples for classification purposes. Direct shear and consolidation testing was accomplished for foundation bearing determinations and settlement considerations. Expansion Index and Corrosivity Series in the near surface soils were determined for slab-on-grade and concrete recommendations. R-value testing was completed for hardscape and pavement recommendations. The results and expanded explanation of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. 2 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 GEOLOGY Regional Geologic Conditions The Eocene deposits, which overlie the pre-Eocene rocks in the site area, consist of rocks of the La Jolla Group. The La Jolla Group ranges from moderately deep-water fine-grained siltstone, to sandy beach and lagoonal facies, and coarse-grained continental sandstone and _. conglomerate. Five formations comprise the rocks of the La Jolla Group. These are Mount Soledad Formation, Delmar Formation, Torrey Sandstone, Ardath Shale, Scripps Formation, and the Friars Formation. The Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone occur at the site. Most of the Delmar Formation is dusky yellowish-green sandy claystone interbedded with medium-gray coarse-grained sandstone. The sandstone is typically composed of quartz, potassium feldspar, plagioclase, biotite, and a trace of hematite, topaz, glauconite, and pyroxene. The claystone is composed of montmorillonite and kaolinite. The Torrey Sandstone is composed of arkosic sandstone, which is white to light brown; medium to - coarse grained, subangular, and moderately well indurated. It is massive and broadly cross- bedded. It consists of quartz, orthoclase, plagioclase, biotite and a trace of hematite, epidote, zircon, tourmaline,pyroxene, and amphibole. Quaternary-age Terrace deposits located beneath the artificial fill overlie the Eocene deposits of the Del Mar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone. This native bedrock generally consists of dense, brownish-yellow to reddish-brown, silty to slightly clayey sands. These native materials are considered suitable for support of the planned structure and site improvements. There are no known bedrock faults or landslides in the immediate site area. Rocks in the site area dip very gently toward the west. According to Rogers, 1965, Eocene age rocks -. generally consisting of interbedded sandstone, siltstone and mudstone occur in the site region. These rocks may correlate to rocks of the Torrey Sandstone Formation mapped by Kennedy(1975) in the Del Mar quadrangle south of the site. Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 Subsurface Investigation Borings BI through B-3 (see Figure 1) were advanced at the previously graded vacant lot located at the site. B-4 was advanced through 3 inches of asphaltic concrete located west of the vacant lot in the parking area of an existing residential dwelling. All four borings encountered native sandstone and sand at an approximate depth of 3 to 4 feet below grade. Generally, the soils consisted of yellowish brown, moist, arkosic sandstone. Groundwater was not encountered at the depths excavated. Seismic Hazards The site is located within the seismically active area of southern California. However, no active faults appear to exist on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Seismic risk is considered relatively high as compared to other areas of southern California, mainly because of the close proximity to active faulting along the Imperial fault zone. The California Division of Mines and Geology publishes geologic reports and fault maps showing active and potentially active faults in California. According to these maps, the site is not crossed by any known active faults (CDMG, 1997). The closest known active fault is the Imperial fault located approximately five miles to the north and east. Surface and Groundwater Conditions No perennial surface water is located in the immediate site area. Groundwater was not encountered in the excavations. There are no lakes or surface water impoundments at the site or in the immediate site vicinity. Approximate site elevation of 120 feet above MSL. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction, the process by which water-saturated sediment loses strength and may fail during strong ground shaking, commonly accompanies moderate to great earthquakes throughout the world. Water-saturated, cohesionless, granular sediment situated at depths less than 40 to 50 feet beneath the surface constitutes the principal environs of the liquefaction process. Given the very dense granitics, which underlie the site, the potential for site liquefaction is considered remote. 4 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 Landslide. Mudflow. and Flood Potential According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (1998), the site is not located in a hillside area of the county where earthquake induced landslides could cause permanent ground displacements. No reported occurrences of landslides or mudflows are known to have recently affected the site. Therefore, the potential for landslides and mudflows is considered low. Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Due to the lack of surface water impoundments in the immediate site vicinity, the seiche potential is considered low. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Given the findings of the investigation, the site geology is suitable for the proposed construction. Based on the investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is safe against landslides and ground rupture from active faults. Grading and construction of the proposed project will not adversely affect the geologic stability of adjacent properties. The nature and extent of the investigation conducted for the purposes of this declaration are, in our opinion, in conformance with generally accepted practice in this area. Therefore, the proposed project appears to be feasible from a geologic standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are fully incorporated into the design and construction of the project. There appears to be no significant Geotechnical constraints onsite that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices. Specific conclusions pertaining to geologic conditions are summarized below: Due to proximity of the site to regional active and potentially active faults, the site could experience moderate to high levels of ground shaking from regional seismic events within the projected life of the building. A design performed in accordance with the current _.. Uniform Building Code and the seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California is expected to satisfactorily mitigate the effects of future ground shaking. 5 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 - The potential for active (on-site) faulting is considered low. Earthquake Accelerations The computer program EQFAULT (Reference 1) was used to evaluate ground acceleration potential at the site. Based on the results, it appears that a maximum credible peak site acceleration of 0.27698 would be produced from the maximum credible earthquake of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 3.2 miles away. Seismic Induced Settlement The potential for settlement due to ground shaking is considered to be low due to the density and stiffness of the on-site soils. Areas of poor compaction or loose native soils are considered to have moderate potential to settle appreciably in the event of strong ground shaking. CONCLUSIONS General Conclusions Based on our Geotechnical review of the planned construction, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction provided our conclusions are taken into consideration during design, and our recommendations are incorporated into the construction plans and specifications and implemented during grading and construction. Identification of the extent and/or concentration of the suspected petroleum hydrocarbons should be completed during development of the project. This task is beyond the scope of the current services. Excavation Characteristics/Shrinkage Based on the digging for the subsurface investigation, which was done by a backhoe, hard rock excavation problems should not be an issue in the area excavated. Shrinkage of the compacted fill is expected to be 15 percent. 6 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 Settlement Considerations For the anticipated loading maximum long-term settlement for planned footing stress is expected to be on the order of 1 inch. Total differential settlement should not exceed ''/z inch over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. Expansion Potential/Fill The onsite soils are suitable for use as fill if organic debris is removed prior to placement as fill. Expansion potential of the near surface soils is expected to very low. Site Coefficient/Subgrade Modulus -- The Subgrade Modulus may be taken as 250 psi per inch. In compliance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code the site is Type Sc and the Seismic Coefficients and Spectrum presented in Appendix D may be used. RECOMMENDATIONS Our recommendations are considered minimum and may be superseded by more conservative requirements of the architect, structural engineer, building code, or governing agencies. The foundation recommendations are based on the expansion index and shear strength of the onsite soils. Import soils, if necessary should not exceed the existing expansion potential and should be - approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing to the site. In addition to the recommendations in this section, additional general earthwork and grading specifications are included in Appendix E. Site Grading Recommendations General Compaction Standard: All fills should be compacted to at least 85 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-91. Fill materials should be placed in loose lifts, not thicker than 8 inches. Material should be moisture- conditioned as processed as necessary to achieve a uniform moisture content that is over 7 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 optimum and within moisture limits required to achieve adequate bonding between lifts and compaction. Site Overexcavation Building plans and foundation elevations are not available at this time. Overexcavations of the existing fill soils to depths of 3 to 4 feet are required. The proposed foundations should be founded directly on a minimum of 2 foot of compacted fill. Fill should be recompacted to 90 percent of ASTM D1557-91. Excavated materials are suitable for fill placement provided organic materials are removed. This overexcavation should extend to 3 feet beyond the building limits. Paving areas should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot: moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to 90 percent of ASTM D1557-91. Processing should extend to 1 foot outside the structural limits. Foundation and Building Slabs • Spread Footings: An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for conventional shallow footing having a minimum embedment in approved materials 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade and minimum width of 1 foot. In addition, this value may be increased by 450 psf per additional foot of embedment and 100 psf per foot of width for a total not to exceed 6,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading. Continuous footing should be reinforced with one #4 reinforcing steel bars, top and bottom. • Concrete and the On-Site Soils Based on testing and our experience, concrete in contact with the on-site soils may utilize type H Cement. 8 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 • Retaining and Basement Walls Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls as basement and swimming pools should be designed for the "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water table and backfilled with nonexpansive soils is provided below. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction(based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Recommended pressures are shown on Table 1. Table 1. Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcfl Condition Level 2:1 (H:V) Slope Active 35 65 At-Rest 45 90 Passive 300 140 (Maximum of 3 ksf) (Sloping Down) - It is recommended that the footings be embedded at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. In addition, the wall footings should be designed and reinforced with structural considerations. For walls less than 15 feet in height, the back cut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper and 1:1(H: V) slope inclination. 9 Quail II, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. In combining the total lateral resistance, either the passive pressure or the friction of resistance should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, the lateral passive resistance is taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time. The walls may be drained by a vertical layer of Miradrain 6200 with Mirafi 140 Geofabric, or equivalent, placed at the back of the wall; or by a minimum 12-inch width of 3/4 inch open-graded crushed gravel enveloped in Mirafi 140 Geofabric. Subdrains should consist of 4-inch diameter Schedule 40, PVC pipe or equivalent, embedded in approximately 1 ft 3/linear foot of 3/4-inch down open-graded gravel, enveloped in Mirafi 140 Geofabric Filter or equivalent, with the pipe being 3+ inches above the trench bottom; a gradient of at least I% being provided to the pipe and trench bottom; discharging into suitably protected outlets. Alternatively low retaining walls (less than 5 feet retained) may use weep holes. The Factor of Safety used in calculating the above fluid pressures and coefficient is 1.5. Slab-on-grade Recommendations The recommended minimum slab-on-grade should be a nominal 5-inch slab reinforced with 6x6 10/10 WWM placed at the center of the slab. As an alternative 43 reinforcing bars on 18-inch centers may be used. Where moisture sensitive flooring is anticipated the placement of an impervious membrane with 2 inches of free draining sand placed above and below the membrane is recommended. The membrane as a minimum should be 10-mil visqueen. Presoaking Recommendation The soils underlying the slab-on-grade should be prewetted to a depth of 6 inches prior to placing concrete. 10 Quail I1, Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 March 28, 2001 Log No. 01-271 Pavement Recommendations We have assumed a Traffic Index of 5 for access drives and 4 for parking areas. The pavement sections should be the following: Pavement Area AC Thickness Base Thickness Parking Areas 2 inches 4 inches Driveways 3 inches 4 inches Base or subgrade for paving should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum in accordance with the overexcavation section. Minimum reinforcing should be considered for the concrete and the concrete should be placed on subgrade compacted to 90 percent of ASTM D 1557. Geotechnical Observation/Testing of Earthwork Operations The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from the investigation. Our preliminary conclusion and recommendations should be reviewed and verified during site grading, and revised accordingly if exposed Geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations. The Geotechnical consultant should perform Geotechnical observation and testing during the following phases of grading and construction: - During site grading and overexcavation. - During foundation excavation and placement. - Upon completion of any foundation and retaining wall footing excavation prior to placing concrete. - During excavation and backfilling of all utility trenches - During processing and compaction of the subgrade for the access and parking areas and prior to construction of pavement sections. - When any unusual or unexpected Geotechnical conditions are encountered during any phase of construction. 11 N 101 od+�r r >3 - ... ory- - - - - - - - - - a o zer z �o 'z"' $ 1—' •zer O o ° -� O V M • 4�fV O 9 - �D v LU d _� +i zer _ O nrr, 3.ram - O ti Jr F 3.-£0460N - - - - - - - - - - P. �'7-�,� � tl V Q,d ANOW� 1D 3.�EA900N ��V 7 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Encinitas 7.5-minute Quadrangles,Encinitas, California: CDMG OFR 97-08. 3. U.S. Geological Survey, 1979, Topographic Map El Centro, California Quadrangles, Scale 1:24,000 4. Blake, Thomas F., 1994, "EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults 5. Hart, E.W., 1990, FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ZONES IN CALIFORNIA, Alquist- Priolo special Studies Zones Act of 1972, with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990 6. Blake, Thomas F., 1998, "UBCSEIS" 7. Joyner, W.B. and Boore. D.M., 1988, Measurement, characterization, and predication of strong ground motion: in Von Thun, J.L. editor, Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II - Recent advances in ground motion evaluation, American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20,p. 43-102. 8. Jennings, C.W., and Strand, R.G., 1977, Geologic Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology. Scale 1:750,000. 9. Kennedy, Michael P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: CDMG Bulletin 200, 56p. APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 4 hand-auger borings to a maximum depth of 6 feet below existing grade. The approximate locations of the excavations are shown on the Boring Location Plans, Figure 2. The field exploration was performed under the supervision of our Engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface soils encountered and obtained samples for laboratory testing. Subsurface conditions are summarized on the Excavation Logs. The soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (see Key to Logs, Figure B-0). The borings were located in the field by pacing and measuring, working from stet locations on a map. The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The borings were backfilled with cuttings, and compacted. DATE OBSERVED: 02/27/01 METHOD OF DRILLING: 6"Hand Auger LOGGED BY: BH GROUND ELEVATION: NA LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN Uj w W o } � O d. d W p v v z OU_ Q z y r BORING NO. HA-1_ SOIL TEST w cn < 0 g G CL UJ w p O z w U) m p m U DESCRIPTION 0 @ 0 to 3"- Disturbed Surficial Soils, grass @ 3"- Brown Silty SAND, Dry, Loose (SM) 1 @ 1'- Brown Silty SAND,Moist, Loose (SM) 2 B-1 5.9 97.6 @ 2'-Redish Brown Coarse SAND, (DG), Max Density D-1 50 slightly Moist, Very Hard (SP) *Native* Direct Shear Grain Size 3 @ 3'- Redish Brown Coarse SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) - 4 @ 4'- Redish Brown Coarse SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) 5 -Total Depth =4.5' -Hole Backfilled and compacted -No Groundwater 6 Project No. 1533-A04 LOG OF BORING Figure B-1 DATE OBSERVED: 02/27/01 METHOD OF DRILLING: 6" Hand Auger LOGGED BY: BH_ GROUND ELEVATION: NA LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN _ w LU U_ p la_ _j � — 0 Z O Q g � z u BORING NO. HA-2 SOIL TEST Uj ci "' < Imo- w 0 _ 0 z w 0 cQn m 0 m U DESCRIPTION O @ 0 to 3"-Disturbed Surficial Soils, grass @ 3"- Brown Clayey SAND, slightly Moist, Loose (SC) 1 B-1 @ 1'-Brown Clayey SAND, slightly Moist, R-Value Loose (SC) 2 @ 2' - Brown Clayey SAND, Moist, Hard (SC) 3 D-1 50 9.1 115.0 @ 3'- Brown Clayey SAND, Moist, Hard (SC) Consolidation Grain Size 4 @ 4'- Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) *Native* 5 @ 5'- Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) *Native* -Total Depth =5' -Hole Backfilled and compacted -No Groundwater 6 Project No. 1533-AO4 LOG OF BORING Figure B-2 DATE OBSERVED: 02/27/01 METHOD OF DRILLING: 6" Hand Aueer LOGGED BY: BH_ GROUND ELEVATION: NA LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN m _j W o U 0 a a.0 a UJ w OU_ < ¢ g BORING NO. HA-3 SOIL TEST Uj w a W = ov o 0 u1 m 0 m DESCRIPTION 0 @ 0 to 3"- Disturbed Surficial Soils, grass @ 3"- Brown Clayey SAND, Very Moist, Loose (SC) 1 B-1 @ 1'- Brown Clayey SAND, Very Moist, Expansion Loose (SC) Corrosivity 2 D-1 20 14.1 116.5 @ 2' -Brown Clayey SAND, Moist, Hard (SC) Consolidation 3 @ 3'-Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Dry, Very Hard (SP) *Native* 4 @ 4'- Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) 5 @ 5'- Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) *Native* -Total Depth =5' -Hole Backfilled and compacted - No Groundwater 6 Project No. 1533-A04 LOG OF BORING IFigure B-3 A M1 . DATE OBSERVED: 02/27/01 METHOD OF DRILLING: 6"Hand Auger LOGGED BY: BH_ GROUND ELEVATION: NA LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN _ w w ° U m p a _j C v D a LU U_ z wO Q g � z v BORING NO. HA-4 SOIL TEST w p > O z w v) m 0 m U DESCRIPTION 0 @ 0 to 3"-Asphaltic Concrete @ 3"-Light Brown Clayey SAND, Moist, Dense (SC) 1 B-1 @ 1'- Light Brown Silty SAND, Very Moist, Dense (SM) 2 D-1 30 @ 2'- Brown Sandy CLAY, Moist, Stiff (CL) 3 @3'-Brown Sandy CLAY, Moist, Stiff (CL) 4 @ 4'- Light Brown Silty SAND, Very Moist, Dense (SM) 5 @ 5'- Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) 6 @ 6'- Redish Brown Fine SAND, (DG), Moist, Very Hard (SP) 'Native' -Total Depth =6.5' -Hole Backfilled and compacted - No Groundwater Project No. 1533-AO4 LOG OF BORING Figure B-4 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES 1. Classification Soils were classified visually, generally according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Grain size analysis was completed on selected samples for classification purposes. Test Results shown on Figures C-1 and C-2. 2. Maximum Density A maximum density test was performed on a representative bag sample of the near surface soils in accordance with ASTM D1557. The test result is shown on Figure C-3. 3. Direct Shear Direct Shear Tests were performed on in-place and remolded samples of site soils in accordance with ASTM D3080. Test results are presented on Figures C-4 4. Consolidation Consolidation tests were performed on representative, relatively undisturbed samples of the underlying soils to determine compressibility characteristics in accordance with ASTM D2435. Test results are presented on Figure C-5 and C-6. 5. Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was completed in accordance with ASTM D4849(UBC 18-2). Test results were corrected to EI at 50 percent saturation and are presented below. Sample Location Expansion Index Expansive Potential HA-3 @ 1-3 feet 0 Very Low 6. Corrosivity Testing Corrosivity Series Testing was performed on representative samples in accordance with Cal Trans Methods 417, 422, & 643. Test results are presented below. Sample Location pH Soluble Sulfates Soluble Chlorides Minimum Resistivity (ppm) (ppm) (ohm-cm) HA-3 @ 1-3 feet 8.2 90 54 803 6. `R' Value Testing An `R' Value test was completed in substantial compliance with Caltrans Test Method 301. Test results are present on Figure C-7. o � M � � M � � p � z c o I , 60'0 O O — i --------- ---- ----------I--- -- -- --- --- Q Z N ~ T rnJ V V C m ! ._.. I ----I---- ---- ! --------I---------------1---- E tL- i I m U i i i I N .o ! 00'06 I I I j I i I i I I i I I I i W WOOL O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 CD to CD U')O O O O O O Nt M N 6uissed;ua3-1ad cs "� � a o � M -- z z o j U U i � I Wo ! cV .. CD CN � I i i ! — o v o U T i j i Q ■ Q < z aj 0n � ! I I ! I ! O nC G E j U cu I 1 N — ! I 00'01 cr 1 i •� ; w C) o 0 0 ° 00,00L °O rn °m ° c°o u°-) v M N ° ° 6Uissed;Ua3Jad a Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 Quail II Log No. 01-271 135 130 125 c,. U O. 120 T C U Q G 115 Q 110 105 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Moisture Content-%of Dry Weight Maximum Density Test Results Boring 1 @ 1 to 4 feet Brown Clayey SAND, Test Method ASTM D1557A, 1.5 % Retained on#4 Maximum Density= 130.2 pcf, Optimum Moisture= 8.9 % MTGL, INC. Figure C-3 Mammoth Equities Direct Shear Project No. 1533-A04 Quail II Test Data Log.No. 01-271 Direct Shear Stress/Strain i 4000.0 3500.0 I 3000.0 2500.0 a a 2000.0 m � 1500.0 i 1000.0 I 500.0 i 0.0 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 Strain(in) j Direct Shear Test Results 4000 I B-1, @ 2-5 feet 3500 3000 s Remolded/Saturated cc- I i Peak 2500 I = 38.5 -0 I � ' I m 2000 ,' I � c = 520 psf `m 1500 U) 1000 i 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO o �° °o i°n oo to o N N M M Normal Stress(psf) MTGL, Inc. Figure C-4 Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 Quaill II Log No. 01-271 0 -5 c 0 L c o° (D Q —10 —150.1 1 10 Load(tsfl Consolidation Test Results Water Added at 1 tsf, no collapse or swell reported Boring HA-2, @ 3.0 ft MTGL, Inc. - Figure C-5 Mammoth Equities Project No. 1533-A04 Quaill II Log No. 01-271 0 -s 0 C a Q —10 —150.1 1 10 Load(tso Consolidation Test Results Water Added at 1 tsf, collapse of less than .5% Boring HA-3 @ 2.0' MTGL, Inc. Figure C-6 Mammoth Equities R-Value Test Results Project No. 1533-A04 Quail II Log No. 0 1-2 71 R BY EXUDATION 63 R BY EXPANSION -TI=4 63 SAMPLE: Brown Silty SAND EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART 2.50 m i I d � I j E 0 2.00 —♦--- A � I y 1.50 -- N LL N c 1.00 O U I i 0.50 > 0 j v 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure-FT I I EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART I 100 i 90 • 1 80 ' 70 i a 60 I I I 50 j 40 30 I I I 20 10 0 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 j i EXUDATION PRESSURE-PSI I R= 63 MTGL, Inc. Figure C-7 APPENDIX D SEISMICITY APPENDIX D SEISMICITY *********************** * U B C S E I S * * * Version 1.03 * * *********************** COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 1533-A04 DATE: 03-15-2001 JOB NAME: Mammoth Equities - Quail II FP_ULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0510 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2855 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 44 .2 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 5.1 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1 . 0 Nv: 1.2 Ca: 0.40 Cv: 0.67 Ts: 0. 670 To: 0.134 CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 1100 Mammoth Equities-Quail II 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 SI -100 fill -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * Version 3. 00 * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 1533-A04 DATE: 03-15-2001 JOB NAME: Mammoth Equities - Quail II CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33. 0510 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2855 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 5) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - SOIL (310) UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp - SCOND: 0 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR: COMPUTE RHGA HORIZ. ACCEL. (FACTOR: 0. 65 DISTANCE: 20 miles) FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) : 0.0 -END OF SEARCH- 49 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. — THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 3.2 MILES (5.1 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.2769 g --------------- EQFAULT SUMMARY --------------- ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ------------------------------------------- I (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE 1 ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE ( MAXIMUM I RHGA JEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ROSE CANYON 1 3.2 ( 5. 1) 1 6. 9 1 0.277 1 IX NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 11.1 ( 17 .8) 1 6. 9 1 0. 137 1 VIII CORONADO BANK 1 18. 1 ( 29.1) 1 7. 4 1 0. 191 1 VIII ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 27.5 ( 44 .2) 1 7. 1 1 0. 119 1 VII ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 27.5 ( 44 .3) 1 6.8 1 0. 101 J VII PALOS VERDES I 41 . 1 ( 66.1) 1 7. 1 1 0. 087 1 VII - ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 41. 1 ( 66.1) 1 6.8 1 0.075 I VII EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 41.8 ( 67.2) 1 6.5 1 0.063 1 VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 50.3 ( 81.0) 1 7.2 1 0.079 1 VII SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 52.2 ( 84 .0) 1 6. 9 1 0.065 1 VI SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 53. 1 ( 85.4) 1 6. 8 1 0.061 1 VI NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 53.3 ( 85.8) 1 6. 9 1 0.064 I VI ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 53.8 ( 86. 6) 1 6. 8 1 0.060 1 VI CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 54 .8 ( 88 .2) 1 6.7 1 0. 069 1 VI WHITTIER 1 59. 1 ( 95. 1) 1 6.8 1 0.056 1 VI COMPTON THRUST 1 62. 9 ( 101.2) 1 6.8 1 0.065 1 VI SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 64 .1 ( 103. 1) 1 6. 6 1 0.048 1 VI ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 66.1 ( 106.3) 1 6.7 1 0.060 J VI SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO J 66.7 ( 107.4) 1 6.7 1 0.049 ( VI SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 1 70.2 ( 113.0) 1 7.3 1 0.064 J VI SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 70.2 ( 113.0) 1 7. 4 1 0. 067 1 VI SAN JOSE 1 75.9( 122.2) 1 6.5 1 0.048 I VI SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 1 76. 6 ( 123.2) 1 7. 1 J 0.054 1 VI PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 76.9 ( 123.7) 1 7. 0 1 0. 051 1 VI CUCAMONGA 1 78 .5 ( 126.4) 1 7.0 1 0.061 I VI SIERRA MADRE 1 78. 6 ( 126.5) 1 7.0 1 0. 061 1 VI SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 79.0 ( 127.2) 1 6. 6 1 0. 040 I V BURNT MTN. 1 81.2 ( 130. 6) 1 6. 4 1 0. 036 1 V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 82.2 ( 132 .3) 1 7. 0 1 0. 059 1 VI ELMORE RANCH 1 82. 9 ( 133.4) 1 6. 6 1 0. 039 1 V SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) ( 83. 9( 135.0) 1 6. 6 1 0.039 1 V EUREKA PEAK 1 83. 9 ( 135.0) 1 6.4 1 0.035 1 V LAGUNA SALADA 1 84 .3 ( 135.7) 1 7.0 1 0.047 1 VI CLEGHORN 1 84 . 6 ( 136.1) 1 6.5 1 0. 036 1 V NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 85.5 ( 137. 6) 1 6.7 1 0.049 1 VI RAYMOND 1 87. 7 ( 141. 1) 1 6.5 1 0. 043 1 VI CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 88. 0 ( 141.6) 1 6.5 1 0. 043 1 VI SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 88.2 ( 141. 9) 1 7.8 1 0.070 1 VI SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 1 88.2 ( 141. 9) 1 7. 1 1 0.048 1 VI VERDUGO 1 90. 0 ( 144. 8) 1 6.7 1 0.047 J VI ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ------------------------------------- IESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE 1 ------------------------------- ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I RHGA ZEST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) (EARTHQUAKE( SITE ( INTENSITY I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. HANDERS 1 91.8 ( 147.8) 1 7. 3 1 0.052 1 VI HOLLYWOOD 1 91. 9( 147. 9) 1 6.4 1 0.039 1 V BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.7 ( 150.8) 1 6. 4 1 0.032 1 V HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 94 .3 ( 151. 8) 1 7. 1 1 0.046 I VI SANTA MONICA 1 96.4 ( 155.2) 1 6. 6 1 0.042 1 VI LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 97. 6( 157.0) 1 7.3 1 0.050 1 VI MALIBU COAST 1 99.0 ( 159.3) 1 6.7 1 0. 043 1 VI EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 99.5 ( 160. 1) 1 6. 9 1 0.040 I V IMPERIAL 1 100.0 ( 160. 9) 1 7.0 1 0.042 1 VI APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL These specifications present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on the approved grading plans,including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill,installation of subdrains,and excavations. The recommendations contained in the attached geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the Consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations,which could supersede these specifications,or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. 2. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to the start of grading,a qualified Geotechnical Consultant(Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist)shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method (ASTM) D1557-91 or later revision. 3. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED _Clearing and Grubbing: All brush,vegetation and debris shall be removed or piled and otherwise disposed of. Processing: The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground,which is not satisfactory,shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Overexcavation: Soft, dry,spongy,highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground,extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition,shall be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the Consultant. Moisture conditioning' Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back,blended,and mixed as required to have a relatively uniform moisture content near the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Recom action: Overexcavated and processed soils,which have been mixed,and moisture conditioned uniformly shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of ASTM D1557. Ben_ chins: Where soils are placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. 4. FILL MATERIAL General: Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the Consultant. Oversize: Oversized material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches,shall not be buried or placed in fill,unless the location,material, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the Consultant. Oversize disposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur,and such that the oversize material is completely - surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction,unless specifically approved by the Consultant. - Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet the general requirements. - 5. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION Fill Lifts: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The Consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed,and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning and mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at uniform moisture content at or near optimum. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread,moisture conditioned,and mixed,it shall be uniformly compacted to not less that 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Fill Slopes: Compacting on slopes shall be accomplished,in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet as the fill is placed,or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. Compaction Testing- Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant's discretion. In general,these tests will be take at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise, and/or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition, on slope faces, at least one test shall be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face - and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems,if required,shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the Consultant. The Consultant,however,may - recommend and,upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade or materials. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys,prior to commencement of fill over the subdrain. 7. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the Consultant,further excavation or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas,and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill over cut slopes are to be graded,unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.