5 - Information ItemsTO: CENTRAL RECORDS
FROM:_ ~~G~ ~ ~,~~~~u~nG s~a,..r,c~
(Name/ Bo~Or Com ' sion)
PLEASE add these items to Meeting Packet of:
/- /rl'-CJ/
(Date of Meeting)
January 15, 2001
Planning Board - City of Boulder
City of Boulder Planning Department
1739 Broadway - Suite 300
P. 0. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306-0791
RE; VILLAGE AT BOULDER CREEK
Ladies & Gentlemen
The proposed Village at Boulder Creek project has a variety of features
which, for want of a better reason, defy good sense.
1. The soil on the hill to the south is subject to movement based on
ground water leve7s and unstable composition. I have lived at
1270 26th Street, just south of the University Heights area, for 45
years. I observed the placing of a series of French drains used to
drain ground water to the brow of the hill. Retaining walls, even
with drainage openings, are a questionable solution.
In addition, I can show you evidence of fault lines along the top
of the hill area to the south.
2. It has been three years since the Planning Department authorized the
Moreland Cove PUD. It is now a fully established series of short-
term rentals in the middle of a low density zone. The Village at
Boulder Creek, even though it is proposed for an area of different
zoning, has all the earmarks of another tenement project which can
quickly develop occupancy overload.
There is no reason to believe that "one bedroom" means one person
and one car.
This project is faulty and should be denied as proposed.
~'~~~
J n B. Kline
1 70 26th Street
Boulder, CO 80302-6802
303-444-3388
„,. „
"^. ~'; r n
To: Boulder County Commissioners ° ~ ~~~~I
From: Al Gunter, Boulder Planning Board; Steve Pomerance, former City Council member
Re: Proposed BVCP Policy and Plan Amendment Changes _
Date: January 15, 2001
Introduction•
In general, the proposed policies have become less quantitative. The added policies and policy
rewrites have created more policy conflicts. These changes, together with the proposed loosened
Plan amendment procedures and the exemption of mixed use projects from rate control and impact
chazges, will lead to development-related decisions becoming more ad-hoc, less consistent and more
subject to current political pressure. Good comprehensive planning should do just the opposite.
Summarv - Policv Issues:
The City of Boulder has correctly identified jobs-housing balance, affordable housing and regional
transportation (Policy 1.07) as major issues that should be addressed in the policy update to the
BVCP. Unfortunately the City's proposed policy changes fail to address these issues, and in many
cases will lead to decisions that will make the situation worse.
The City's only solution, to date, as confirmed by ntunerous conversations, policy documents and
council actions, has been to promote the building of a few affordable housing units, at considerable
public expense, both financiai and from impacts. The City has, to this point, avoided addressing the
enormous expected increase in jobs, which will drive housing prices ever higher while multiplying
Boulder's already significant regional and local traffic problems. (The City already projects 45,000
more jobs to build-out; if job densification occurs as lease rates rise, total job numbers could increase
by significantly more. 200,000+ jobs in Boulder 30 years from now is the likely result.) Additionally,
the City is proposing to gut the substantive transportation requirements in the BVCP policies, making
it much more difficult to enswe that necessary transportation improvements will occur, or to turn
down or modify projects based on transportation impacts.
The Commissioners should put pressure on the City to take a much stronger approach:
• reduce job projeciions very significantly by down-zoning commercial and industrial properties;
• impose inclusionary zoning requirements on non-rasidential development, requiring the provision
of affordable housing by any commercial or industrial development that does occur; and
• set transportation impact fees adequate to address increased traffic from new development.
(The City Attorney has determined that non-residential inclusionary zoning is tegal; what remains to
be done is update certain studies to determine the level of housing that may be required.)
Summarv - Plan Amendment Issues:
The City is also proposing to alter the BVCP approval process for land use changes "providing for
more flexibility", as the City puts it. (City Council Agenda, January 2, 2001, Item 9, approved 7-0
without amendment.) Contrary to the cunent state-]eve] push to make comprehensive planning
mandatory and binding and to limit changes to a regular schedule, the City is expanding rather than
reducing the range of changes that may be made on demand and/or without County approva[.
The Commissioners should require the City to stick to a regular schedule for land use changes and go
through four-body review, unless the County agrees that the changes aze truly "minor." A
comprehensive plan is supposed to provide certainty - if the City is going to increase density every
time a developer promises a few affordable units, the pubiic will become exhausted trying to keep up,
or miss eniirely a change that may affect them.
~
Comments on Suecific Policies:
The following identifies some of the policy flaws in what the City is proposing, as they relate to the
three issues identified above, jobs-housing balance, affordable housing and regional transportation.
We have not tried to conect all of the proposed changes, but only to alert the Commissioners to some
of the problems.
Policy 1.14 Growth Requirements (sets conditions for fuMher growth)
This policy should set as the City's number one priority significantly reducing expected job growth.
It should require new non-residential development to provide affordable housing for workers (e.g.
through inclusionary zoning.) Targeting annexations as a source of affordable housing should be
eliminated, as it leads to high density growth on the periphery that increases traffic problems and
impacts existing County residents, who have very reasonable expectation of, at most, low density
development, given the current BVCP designations.
Policy 1.20 (c ) Annexation Policy
This policy change gives the issue of affordable housing in annexations a higher priority than any
other consideration, including TDR's, a County priority. This whole change should be dropped, and
the original language lefr intact.
Policy 2.13? New Policy on Accessory Units
This policy again pushes affordable housing without consideration of the cumulative impact.
Language should be added to require consideration of such impacts.
Policy 3.05 Growth to Pay Its Fair Share
This policy revision, as originally proposed, stated that "The City shall not permit additional
development if existing facilities aze inadequate to reasonably maintain current levels of service..."
The Council changed this to read, "When permitting additional development, the City shall consider
whether public facilities are adequate to reasonably maintain current levels of service..." The
language should be returned to the original proposal - the Council's "consider" language is
meaningless, to put it simply, and shows up the City's lack of commitment to keep the Comp Plan
strong and to maintain our transportation infrastructure.
Policy 5.02 Balance of Employment and Housing
This policy's new tool, "incentives to develop housing in non-residential zones" will be ineffectual in
significantly reducing projected job growth. And, the overall level of residential development that
would result would destroy Boulder as we know it. Worse, for the City, "incentives" for affordable
housing mean not only increased density, but fee waivers and additional commercial development to
support the developers, creating even more jobs. For example, the city is redeveloping the "Drive-In"
site, originally a housing project, and is now proposing commercial development on site to help pay
for it. This "grow our way out of the problem" approach ignores the increase in jobs as well as the
infrastructure impacts.
The language in this policy should emphasize that the 1997 industrial re-zoning was inadequate to
deal with projected job growth, and that more re-zoning is absolutely necessary. Note that, in only a
few yeazs, the job projections went up by 20,000, and that is without real consideration of the effects
of job densification. The Council-Planning Boazd Study Session on January 23 should provide some
illumination on what further actions the City is considering, and whether they are adequate.
Policy 5.08? New Policy - Economic Sustainability
This policy is so vague as to be meaningless. It should be dropped until something meaningful,
substantive and "sustainable" is proposed. As is, it looks like a further excuse to not address the
excessive job growth and to provide a basis for yet further economic development.
Policy 6.08 Transportation Impact
In general, the proposed transportation policies are basically "feel good" notions, without any real
teeth. For example, this policy requires "unacceptable community or environmental impacts" to be
"mitigated." However, what impacts aze "unacceptable" and when impacts aze "mitigated" is lefr
undefined. This policy should include a requirement to maintain LOS. Although maintaining LOS D
may not be possible (as in the old Policy 6.08, since we are already at LOS F in many places) it is
reasonable and necessary to require maintenance of current LOS. It appears that LOS requirements
have been removed to minimize resttictions Yo development, a serious mistake since traffic is the
number one public concem.
Policy 7.Q7 Permanently Affordable Housing
This policy again emphasizes use of subsidies and incentives, all of which cost the general public,
and over which they have no say. It also sets a 10% goal that the City has no reasonable way to meet,
and will force bad policy decisions, e.g. over annexations. The policy should focus on requiring new
non-residential development to provide affordable housing, and dtop the numerical goal. It is
interesting that other quantitative goals have been dtopped, but this one has been reinforced.
Policy 7.12? New Policy - Keeping Low and Moderate Income Workers in Boulder
This policy should be changed by replacing the words "The City shall explore...by considering the
conversion of commercially and industrially zoned land to residential use" to something like "shall
convert the majority of vacant and potentially re-developable commercially ..." The words "shall
explore ... by considering" demonstrate yet again the City's lack of commitment to addressing the
real problems.
Although most of the language proposed by the City is from the current BVCP, some weakening
changes have been made:
• The word "minor° has been removed for changes that may be considered at any time, making the
intentless clear.
• The criteria for minor service area boundary changes are now "based on the following criteria"
rather than "meets all of the following criteria" as in the past, severely weakening this
requirement.
• Minor service azea boundary changes may now be made in 10 acre increments, rather than using
the "contiguous request areas" language of the past. This opens the door for doing major changes
by increments, each of which is less than 10 acres, thus avoiding County review.
Given that the criteria aze so vague anyway (using words such as"significant" and "materially"),
decisions can occur essentially at the whim of the Couneil and Planning Board. This will further
damage public confidence in the BVCP, already weakened by the City's pushing land use changes
during 2000 without proper public process. Worse, it will force the County to sue to prevent abuses.
A much better approach, given the increasing public concem about growth and its impacts, would be
to have all such changes referred to the County for a 30 day waiting period. The County would then
determine if it agrees with the City that the proposed change really meets the BVCP standards for a
"minor" change. If the County disagrees with the City, the change would then go to four-body
review. This approach avoids requiring that all such changes go through four-body review, while at
the same time prevents abuse by the City. Without such an approach, such changes could lead to
annexations and/or up-zonings that aze impossible to legally reverse even if the County disagrees
with the City's interpretation, and avoids requiring the County to go to court to enforce this portion of
the BVCP.
Conclusion•
A real public debate is needed to illuminate the issue of the City's projected job growth and its effects
on transportation and housing prices, both regional and local, not just a City CouncillPlanning Board
study session, such as is planned for January 23. These BVCP policies need to be sent back to the
City to be corrected and updated based on some real solutions to the very real problems that exist.
The Commissioners could perform a great service by providing the wisdom and the incentive to get
the City to deal with these current problems that aze a legacy of our past planning choices.
4
K ,~ Jt~'oF '9h~ f ~~#''ti,ej3Y~"'~.5w'u^i~ ~ y e,l I~ .-., . . . -
: T~ T A N`l ~V ~ E`S`~fi M E:1V T,S T: L t C
.
,,.~ . .
. ~. . _ti ,~~ - ~ _...
January 15, 2001
Mr. Brent Bean
City of Boulder
Department of Community Design, Planning and Development
1739 Broadway, Suite 300
Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791
Re: Slope Analysis Report
CTL Thompson, Dated January 15, 2001
Village at Boulder Creek
Dear Mr. Bean,
Please find enclosed one copy of our Slopa Analysis Report by CTL/Thompson, dated
January 15, 2001. This report is being provided for your review and comments. Mr. Bob
Thompson of CTL/Thompson will be auailable during our next neighborhood meeting on
January 18, 2001 at 5:30 pm in the Good Samaritan Center, 2525 Taft Drive, to discuss
any specific questions regarding the report.
Should you need any additional information or have any questions prior to the meeting on
the 181h, please do not hesitaYe to call
Sincerely,
~ ~~ ~-.
~ ~
Anthony J. Patinella Jr
Executive Vice President and COO
cc: File
4725 South Monaco S~reel, Suite 340, Denver, CO 80237 Phone 720.528.7650 Fax 720.528.7654
~!~
January 15, 2001
American Campus - Titan LLC
4725 South Monaco Street, Suite 340
Denver, Colorado SOZ37
Attention: Mr. Tony Patinella
Subject: Slope Stability Analysis
The Village at Boulder Creek
28"' Street and Taft Drive
Boulder, Colorado
Job No. 32,342
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this report is to provide slope stability analysis for the subject
site and adjacent properties to the south. These analyzes were based upon boring
data, experience with similar conditions, and topography and knowledge of the site.
Based upon the analysis results, it appears the proposed cut for "The Village
of Boulder Creek" will not affect the stability of the slope. Analyzes also suggest the
slope above the property line is marginally stable as it currently exists under wet
conditions. We believe the stability of the slope can be improved using drains.
Details of the investigation and analyzes of slope stability are presented below.
Site Conditions
The Village at Boulder Creek site is located on the north and south sides of
Taft Drive between Folsom Avenue and 28"' Streets in Boulder, Colorado. The
development will involve signi£cant cuts into an existing slope along the southern
portion of the property. The slope rises 55 to 60 feet, crossing the south property
line and cresting near the rear of several existing residences in the University Heights
neighborhood.
On average, the slope exists at about 1.8:1 (horizontal:vertical). The slope is
generally steeper at the western portion, behind 2455, 2495 and 2505 University
Heights Avenue. The steepest portion occurs behind 2505. Behind 2555 University
Heights Avenue, a series of dry stacked rock landscape walls have been constructed
to terrace the rear yard. The slope fiattens to the east of the residence at 2555
University Heights Avenue. The slope is densely vegetated with brush and trees,
including large apple and cottonwood trees.
A parking lot was constructed at the toe of the slope on the western portion
of the property in 1989. Construction of the parking lot cut into the toe of the slope
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGIfVEERS
1971 WEST 12TH AVENUE • DENVER, GOLORADO 80204 ~(303) 825-0777
i ~~
~~~
increasing the inclination of the lower 18 feet to approximately 1.4:1. We understand,
during construction of the parking lot, 2455 University Heights Avenue sustained
damage Which was attributed by others to slope movement. We observed repairs to
the eastern exterior brick wall of this residence and the western exterior brick wall
of the residence at 2495 University Heights Avenue. We have not made sufficient
analysis of the slope or of these individual residences to determine the cause of
cracking.
We observed a 12-inch corrugated steel pipe at the rear of the lot behind 2505
University Heights Avenue, and a hole about 24 inches in diameter in the slope near
the westem edge of the residence's property line. The hole is eroded and does not
appear to have any structure buik around it. The pipe appears to coltect water which
discharges down the slope at the northeast corner of the residence's property. We
understand the residents have indicated the properties along University Heights
Avenue experisnce shallow ground water in the spring and summer months. We
observed erosion, and subtle hummocks and hulges of the slope below 2455, 2495
and 2505 University Heights Avenue.
Planned Construction
Development of the Village at Boulder Creek is planned to cut into the existing
slope. Retaining the slope with a tiered retaining wall system was shown on
preliminary site development plans. Three tiers are planned for the area of greatest
cut (behind 2505 University Heights Avenuei consisting of 2 landscaping walls,
approximately 8 feet high and the foundation wall of the structure. The foundation
walls are planned to retain about 10 feet of earth. The landscaping walls will diminish
in height to the east and west, as grades dictate.
Subsurtace Profile
We have drilled borings at the locations shown on Figure 1. The borings were
piped to aliow long-term monitoring of groundwater conditions. The shape of the
slope and the drilling indicates the upper part of the slope is formed of alluvial soils
to a depth of approximately 8 feet. The profile used in our analyzes is presented on
Figure 2. Logs of the exploratory borings are presented on Figure 3 and laboratory
test results are in Appendix A.
Samples recovered from TH-101 were tested in our laboratory for Atterberg
Limits and particle size analysis. The results of these tests are presented in Figs. A-1
and A-2.
Strength of the soils and bedrock was based on soil properties from our Feld
investigation, experience in evaluation of other slopes in Pierre Shale and data From
pubiished studies on similar soils and bedrock. Direct shear tests were performed
on remolded samples, Figures A-3 and A-4. The samples compacted at dry moisture
content similar to the field moisture conditions resulted in very high measured
AMERICAN CAMPUS - TITAN LLC
THE VILLAGE AT BOULDER CREEK ,z
CTLR JOB NO, 32,342
,I ~
strength parameters. Samples were prepared at 18% moisture which is near the
plastic limit and near optimum moisture content for standard Proctor compaction of
the material (Fig. A-3) and aY 10% moisture content, near the in-site moisture content
(Fig. A-4). These samples have residual friction angles ~ of 23° to 25° and cohesion
of 800 psf. For the analyzes, we used a friction angle of 20° and 1,000 psf cohesion.
The alluvial soils were modeled with a friction angle of 15° and a cohesion of
200 psf. The values were assigned based on our experience in analysis of slope
problems in similar geologic conditions and can be confirmed with laboratory tests.
The estimated valueS are believed to be conservative and result in a low factor of
safety when ground water occurs near the surtace.
S~ope Anaiysis
Our evaluation of the slope and proposed construct+on includes site
reconnaissance, survey of the slope, review of geologic mapping and aerial
photographs, subsurFace exploration by drilling and sampling of borings and review
of our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Village at Boulder
Creek ~Job No. 30,189, report dated 17/16199).
We made a field survey of a line approximately perpendicular to the slope
behind the wes} side of 2505 University Heights Avenue. The survey was performed
by a representative of our firm using a Sokkia Set 500 Total Station. Elevations were
referenced from preliminary topographic mapping of the site by Drexel Barrell and
Company (Job No. E-5187.2, dated November 2, 2000). Results of the fleld survey
have been used in analyticai models of the slope.
We reviewed aerial photography and geologic mapping of the slope. The
Geologic Map of the Boulder Quadrangle ~Wrucke and Wilson, 1967), indicates the
slope and terrace above are from the Upper Member of the Pierre Shale. Pierre Shale
is exposed in the cut for the parking lot. We measured strike of around N20W and
dips of 12 to 15 degrees on several outcrops on this cut. Aerial photographs indicate
a drainage may have existed below the cut area of the slope. The 12-inch pipe
behind 2505 University Heights may have been installed to redirect this drainage.
To analyze the relative stability of a slope k is necessary to define the existing
geometry and proposed changes in geometry, the sequence of soils or bedrock in
the slope, strength of the various materials and ground water condi4ions.
Stability analyzes compare the forces tending to cause movement to the
forces available to resist movement. The ratio of forces resisting divided by forces
causing movement is defined as the Factor of Safety (F.S.). Secause of the
uncertainty associated with strength, ground water and distribution of layers of soil,
the absolute factor of safety is rarely known.
AMERICAN CAMPUS • TITAN LLC
THE VILLAGE A7 BOULGER CREEH
CTLIT JOB NO. 32,342 3
~
Slopes for permanent structures are usually designed for a Factor of Safety
of 1.5 to account for the uncertainty in the analysis parameters. The computer
models yield very precise mathematical solutions but are entirely dependent on the
variability of the critical design parameters. Without this variability, slopes could be
designed at much lower factors of safety.
Conclusions
To demonstrate the impact of drainage on the slope, we pertormed a series
of analyzes using an estimated geometry for the slope before the 1989 cut, the
existing slope geometry and the proposed slope geometry. Each condition was
modeled for high groundwater and drained conditions. The purpose of these
comparative analyzes is to demonstrate the critical impact of ground water on slope
stability. Large cottonwood and apple trees growing on the slope indicate water is
available. The analyzes indicates the potential slope failures are all within the upper
alluvium. The critical circles shown on Figs. 4 through 9 indicate the planned cuts
for the project have minimai impact on the stability of the slope. The analyzes
strongly suggest the near surtace alluvial soils are near faiture under high
groundwater conditions. We recommend providing a drainage system in order to
keep the groundwater levels at or near the bedrock, which will significantly improve
the stability of the slope.
The proposed slope geometry indicates soil nail or anchored walls. Our
preliminary study indicates these walls can be designed with a factor safety of 1.5
provided easements can be obtained for the upper landscaping wall soil nails or
anchors. The foundation wall anchors can likely be constructed within the property
line. Design drawings should anticipate a required construction excavation sequence
of uphill drainage, then installation of landscaping walls, followed by installation of
anchored or nailed foundation walls, This sequence may require some modification
to accommodate access by the equipment.
1. For long•term protection of the proposed apartment buildings and
homes in the University Heights neighborhood and long-term slope
stability, the slope above the property should be stabilized. The
stability can be improved by either drainage or mechanical
stabilization. Drainage appears to be the most effective while aausing
the least disturbance of vegetation on the slope. While almost
impossible to quantify, it is generally recognized that the root systems
contribute to the stability of the near surtace soils. We believe a series
of horizontal drains spaced at approximately 50 feet on centers in the
critical area (behind 2455, 2495, 2505 and a portion of 2555 University
Heights Avenue) wili be the most effective method of stabilization.
2, We believe the toundation wall for the proposed buildings will requlre
design as permanent earth retention. Two systems are possible, either
an anchored system or permanent soil nailing.
AMERICAN CAMPUS - TITAN LLC
THE VILLACE AT BOULDER CREEK 4
CTLR JOB NO. 32,342
i ~ I'
~
~~
3. Both systems have advantages and limitations.
A. Soil nailing is conducted by excavation in about 5-foot
increments with very little risk of lost ground;
B. Soil nailing requires movement to develop the resistance of the
nails;
C. Permanent anchored walls could be constructed with drilled
and anchored piers. This system results in pre-loaded anchors
and is more determinate than soil nails;
D. There is more risk of loss of ground behind sheeting if a
permanent anchored wall is constructed;
E. Both systems require installation of drainage behind all
retaining walts.
4. Reducing the water in the slope will increase the stability. The
homeowners' have some risk of minor settlement resulting from
dewatering the slope.
5. Wall anchors or soil nails will encroach on the University Heights
properties, and drainage from the upper slope will flow onto The
Village at Boulder Creek property. To allow construction of the drains
on the upper siope and soil anchors/nails, cross easements for ali
affected properties will be necessary prior to construction.
Limitations
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report were based
upon drill data, laboratory test results, analyzes and our experience. 7he work was
accomplished using the standard of care consistent with local practices at the time
this report was prepared.
tf you have any questions or need additionai information, please cail.
Very truly yours,
CTLITHOMPSON, INC.
~ S~
Adam D. Tschida
Staff Engineer
AMERICAN CAMPUS. TITAN LLC
THE VILLAGE AT BOULDER CREEK 5
CTLIT JOB NO. 32,34Y
Reviewed }~; ,+
Darrel V. Holmquist, PE
Senior Principai
Robert W,
Chairman
AD7:DVH;RWTIIrlha
(15 copies senY)
~' i
M7ERICAN CqMPUS • TITAN LLC
THE ViLLqGE AT BOULDBR CREEK
CTLR ,IOg NO. 32,34p
Reviewed by;
I m
~ ~n sC'uE ~'= Ea
t
I ~M J l J ~
~ TAFT DRIVE
S ~
`~001 TH-1 ~ ~
I •
1
~ Tn~iot TM_2 .
I •
1
1
5310~____'____".____~._ '
5';70
5330
TH-102
5340
535p _
~~1 ~~~~,
~ 1
1 2455 ~ 1 2495 1
, `~~„'~ 1 L-~ f~~-L~,1
zaasl L,J
__,f TH-703
A
n{-a
ni-s
•
~
F ~w~+~aE ~~
BalaLfR
°~"'~ - ~SIiE ~
~.
~ .,~ ~ ~
~
~ ~
canwao .~r. ~
5290
NCINITY MAP
w...-• ~
_-'__~________ _______ ____.___ -__-___5300
53~0
~
-----1 r--
_t 53Zp
2505 ~ ~ ` -
~ ' _l
; r___l 53,I0
~J r zsss I j
1 ~ zeos ~ ~ L
-'r ~ ~
L_r----' ~ 2595 ~
L___Z
J ~ J i 2fi55 ~>
L___~ /
_ L_1 ~
UNIVERSIlY HEIGHTS AVENUE
9
$
anakd, c...wa-mm~. u.c
v.~o..m.i.a..~
~ Job No. 32.342
5350
`n
N
LEGEND:
TH-1 INDICATES LOCATION OF
~ IXPLORATORY BORING.
BORINGS TH-1 THROUGH
TH-5 WERE DRILLED FOR
OUR PREVIOUS REPORi
(JOB NO. 70,189, OATED
NOVEMBER 16, 1999.)
BM ~NCHMARK:
~ PROPERIV CORNER
PM! IN SIOEWALK
(ASSUNEO ELEV.=5292.0')
5290 INDICATES EXISTING GROUN~
SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET)
NOTE: CONTOURS BtSED
ON MAPPING BY
DREXEL BARRELL @ C0.
JOB N0. E-57872. DATED
SEPTEMBER 9, 2000.
Locations of
Exploratory
Borings
Flg. 1
- 5370
- 5350
- 5330
- 5310
- 5290
- 5270
s
~ N
Amertan Carey~m -Tten, LLC
~...~.,.o..
.bb o.32,342
I I 1 I I I I I I
~ 0 20 40 601 00 100 120 140
OISTANCE I (FEEf)
FROM REAR OF RESI~ENCE AT 2505 UNNERSITY HEIGHIS AVE. ALONG CRO55 SECTON A-A' (FlG.1)
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O O O O O O O ry O O O O ry
N N N N W ~ ~ ~ O m ~O Y
DISTPNCE (FEE7)
C~OSS
Section
A-A'
O
Flg. 2
~ ~
TH-701 TH-702
EI. 5290 F1- 5347
~
~
5
taon
t0014
~ ~
i 20 1aa1
TH-103
EI. 534B
0
13~12
5
3112
10
1W15
15
ioae
10011
i 20
LEGEND: ~
~ F~LL. CLFY, OCCASIONhL GRAVE4 MEOIUM ST~FF, VERY MOIST.9ROWN. ~MK BROWN.
~ CLqY, SANDY. STIFF TO VERY STIFF. MOIST. BROW N. CALGqREOUS (CL).
~ W EATHERED ClAYSTONE. STIFF, VEfiY MOIST, B0.0WN, GRAY, OLIVE. VARIEGATED.
B CL4YSiONE BE~ROCK HPRD TO VEHY HARD, SUGMLY MOIA. GRAY. BROWN.
DRNESMAPLE.THESTM00L50/11NDICATESTMAT50BLOWSOFAtdO-POUNOHNMMER
~
FPLLING 301NGHES WERE ftE~U~REO TO ORIVE A 2.5-INCM O.D. SAMPLER t INCHES.
ORNESMAPLE-THESYMBOL3GI121NDICATESiHAT%BLOWSOFA)0-PoUNOHhMMFR
~
FALLING 30 MCHES WERE FE~UIFEO TO ~RNE A 2SINCH OD. SAMPLER 121NCHE5.
4 WATERLEVELMEASUREDATTIMEOFORILpNG.
S WATEeLEVE4MEASUFEOSEVERAL~AYSAFtERORILLING.
NOTES:
zs 1. TH401 WAS ORILLEO ON OECEMeER E.20W U51NG 4-INCH CON~INUOlIS FIIGHT PUGER
PNO A TRUCK MOUNTED DR1LL RIG. TH-102 ANO TH-103 W ERE DR~LLEO ON JqNUART 10.
2001 USING 3~INCM CONPNUOUS PLIGHT AUGER AND A PORTpBLE OFILL ~RILL.
2. BORINGWERELOCATEOBYPREPRESEIJrATIVEOFOUftFIRMREFERENQNGEJ(ISTING
L4NOMARKS. EIEVAT10NS WERE ESTIMATED FftOM tOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING BV OREXEL
BMRELL PNO CO- (JOB NQ E518]2. OATE~ 3/51200~1.
3~ -
3. THESELOGSAfEESUBJECITOTHEE%PVWAT~ONS,LIMITATIONSFNOCONCWSIONS
CONTAINEOIN THIS R£PORT.
~ ~40
"a SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
zcaY c..~us. n,+.~+i.c
. eowoearnsek
35
40
FIG 3
, ' . ~.,; ' . .
, , • '. ' • •, .
Estimated Surface Before Cut for Parking Lot
High Ground Water Condition
I Description: Clay
Und Weight: 120
Cohesion:200
5~ Phi:15
5.355
5350 y
s.xs -- _ Description: The Vllage af Boulder Creek
m File Name: bldrerkuncut2log.slp
s.aao n m Last Saved Date: 1/~ 2l2001
, 5~3~ ~ . ~ a ~ Malysis Method: Bishop
o s.aao
°o s.azs
K 532J ~
~ 5.315
\
C
Q 5.310 \
`
~ 5.305 ~ -
. ~
~
>
m 5.3~D " . . . ~
W 5.235 ~~.~DCSQIP~OfI•~~18RBSI12I8_ . . ~. . . _ ~ . N
~
5.]90 ~,,{,~'
.,`UIIUWB~y..w.~3O f _ " .
, ;Fs .Cnh09bn 1WQ t,g ,s . , .--. .
szes -;p~ pp ~::t~ -r
~~~~ $ ~ . , ..
' 529(1 ~ .
~ .. . , ~
.
-
S.PS ~ . . .
. . .
.
590
I I I I ~ ~
I
j
I 5~
-m I I I
o m a so W~ tao im u0 ~sa teo
Distance (R)
_____ .. . .. .._. ~._ ._' _' r~__ c...,s:.... e e• rCn 11
?pp ~20
• . ~_.,,,' • .
Estimated Surface Before Cut for Parking Lot
Drained Condition
DescripGon: Clay
Unit Weight:'120
Cohesion: 200
s~ Phi:15
s.ass
s.aso y
s.xs Descriplion: The Vllage at Boultler Creek
m File Name: bldrerkuncu121ognosip
s.aao a m Last Savetl Date: 7/12I2001
5.335 0 ~
-~ a
Malysis Method: Bishop
s.vo
0
o
s325
~
J 53ID :'.,t
5.315 ~ k
~
v
C
O 5.310 ~ { j ~
': ~;'
-
W 5305 y _ 5
> - i
y 5300
W s.ass -Plerte SFm18 ~ -; .
~.DescrlPtlon: . N
s2~o ,
~ ~ `UMt Weight'T30 ~- ~ h ~.~. -:.
sms -,t
a ~'~'~x `~ ~ -_
' .~ i"s.~~¢~
~ °}`.~ ~''"~' '}i ,
~.,` ~ E ~' "
.
.
w ~.fPfll 20g~s _{i #~4rrn c~
A}~ ''" ~"~= ~
5280 .
y~:A~ Sa < _. ~ti 'pt _, - r
i ,+
~
11
~ L4 Y ~v~:.
~
~
~ _. . . ,
.
.
5315 .
'i w . .
f .. s-
r ,.
.
52~0
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
5365
_ p ~ ~ ~
0 20 LO 60 ~ 100 120 140 ifi0 180
Distance (H)
'__ ..' __ _..,__..__~ ... ocnc i i.a,.e.~~w ua~n~e evc rm Cmce Secticm A-A' lFia. 11.
~
xa
~
zzo ~I,. 5
' . ;,,,' • .
Existing Cut Slope
High Ground Water Condition
Description: Clay
Unit Weight: 120
Cohesion: 200
s.~ Phi:15
5 3S5
5.3W '
s.~as - _ Description: The Viliage at Boulder Creek
s xo r File Name: bldrerknow2logsip
s aas - o ~ Last Saved Date: 1l12I2001
s am
a
~
Analysis MeNOtl: Bishop
o
O 5325
K 5320
~ 5315
CO
~ 58ID `
m s.aos ' . \
>
W
s~ \
~
s.ms -
`c' Desaiplbn: Pierte Shala
`
~~ ~. . ~ - - ~ .
szva ~UnttWelgh4130
-. ~.. \
s.zes ~.'Coheslon:1q00, t } - '
-
-"
'~d zo -
-
s.~
=
:
? ;
2~5 , -~:
r
~ _.
... FN= . 9 _ .i- 4: w .
.. .. ~ . ..:..
*
.
.
.. „
..
..
;
.. i
, ... _ . ~ . . . . . : . ' -~,.:,
.. .. .., . , .. .... .... . ..
S.ZlO
5265 I I I I I I I I I '
-MI 0 20 10 fi0 80 100 130 ta0 160 t8p
Distance (ft)
~ ~
zoo ?m FI~. F~
• • I Sllfl ~ •
• t •
Existing Cut Slope
Drained Condition
Descriplion: Clay
Unit Weight: 120
Cohesion: 200
s.~ Phi:15
5355
53W y
s aas DescripGon: The V llage at Boulder Creek
s aao m File Name: bldrerknow2logno.slp
o ~ Last Saved Oate: t/122001
s.3as
~ ~ a` Analysis Method: Bishop
0
s.~o
O 5325
.
.
v 5320 .
~
.
~ 5315
. . ..~
C 5.310 -
O
~p
> 5305 ,. . .
W 5 300 . .. . , . . ..
~
s.zss -
,,DasWption:.PierteShale :: ~ . , ~
5.~ ; 'unnwe~er~`i3a ;: ,: ...;:,
~~ ;COh851011.10D~ r j
-
~
,
5285 4 f ~
~: ~ 20 _ ~
~
y
51&I i. . 4
_
53]5 k a
fi.. ~a es.~ . T.L.H ._.«.
f
h ..
° ,.~ .. . . . .. . . . . ..
53]0
5~ I I I I I I I I I I
-m o m ~o so eo iao im i~o iso ieo
Dishance (ft)
zoo zxo
FI~. 7
s.3so
s.ass
5350
5.345
s.xo
5335
l., s.~o
0
o s]2s
' 5320
x
~ 5.315
.L~'
~ 5.310
0
~ sws
>
m s.wo
w
s~ss
sa~o
s~as
s~eo
5 ~5
5.Tl0
s zss
-p
~ . i~iv '
. • ~ ~ ,
Proposed Slope
High Ground Water Condition
:ription: Clay
Weight: 120
:sion: 200
15
M
Descrip6on: The Vllage a[ Boulder Creek
Pile Name: bldrericwall2logslp
Last Saved Date: 7/15/2001
Analysis Method: Bishop
\
\ ~
I I I I
0 A ~0 80
Anchored or Soil Nailed Walls
I
~
~ ~
zoo zm FI~ a
• . ~.,,~' •
. . •
Proposed Slope
Drained Condition
5 aso
s.ass
5350
5.3C5
5 310
5 335
o s.~ao
°o s.au
K 5.3211
~ 53~5
C 5310
0
`~p 5305
m
_ 53W
W
5 295
529p
5285
5280
52]5
5 PO
SZ6i
_p
•siption: Clay
Weight: 720
>sion: 200
15
~ Descnption: The Vllage at Boulder Creek
r File Name: bldrerkwall2logno.slp
n m Last Saved Date: 1/12I2001
O c
.. a` ~ Analysis Meihod: Bishop
, _ ~-Anchored or Soil Nailed Walls
~
Oistance (ftl
~ ~ ~
180 200 2~0
~.
HYDROME7ER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25 HR. ~ HR. TIME READINGS 11.5.5TANDARO SERIES CLEAR SOUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 18 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 'Y00 '100 'S0 '40 '~0 96 YO 'B '< 3l8' 3l4' 1%' 3' S'6' 8'
I V
~
~ I I
I I I
1
I
~ ~~
l
I
~
~
,
I
, I
'
~ I Z~
~
~
' 70 I i
~
~
U
~ i i i 90
~ ~
~
a 60
~ V
- I ~
_~-i---1--1 40
r ~ ~
~
U 5~
w
6
I
50
I
~ ~
'~ 6~
-'
--I
30 ~ ~ i
I
10
20 O
B
I
~a ~ BO
i
a I ino
.001 0.002 .005 .pp9 .019 .03- .O14 d49 .297 580 149 2.0 2.78 4.76 9.52 19.1 96.1 76.Y 127 200
0.42 152
OfAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMEiERS
CLAY (PiASTlC~ TO SIL7 (NON~PLASTIC~ SANDS GRAVEI
FINE MEOIUM COARSE FINE COARSE C06BLE5
Sample of CLAYSTONE
From TH - 101 AT 4 FEET
GRAVEL 0 % SAND i °
SILT 8 CLAY 99 °/a LIOUIO LIMIT 5:+ '
PIASTICITY INDEX 3~ °.
HVDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANAIYSIS
YS HR. 7 HR. TIME ftEA01NGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAft SOUARE OPENINGS
45 MIN. 15 MIN, fi0 MIN. 79 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 'S0 '40 •30 98 •10 •B '4 3l8' ~14' 1%' 3' S'e' 8'
i9o I I ~ I ~ . , il ;
~
80 I ~ I
-
~ ~
z ~~
~
~
N
6 8~ ~
I
4
r
V 50 I- :
w
d 40 I
E
30 7
-
f
70 -
a s
i
o I ~ ~
.00 20
590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.54 19A ~84 76.Y 72;
1 0.002 .005 .009 .01B ,037 .WE .149 297 0
SZ
~42
OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CIAY
PIASTIqTO SILT (NON-PLASTIC SANDS GR4VEL
(
) FINE MEDIlIM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sample of CLAYSTONE
From TH - 701 AT 9 FEET
JOB N0. 32,342
GRAVEL 0 % SAND
SILT & CLAY 99 % LlQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITYINDEX
Gradation
Test Results
)
a
o '
7 '
~
I~
~
1
63
44
FIG
L_. ~ __
HVDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANAlY51S
25 HR. 1 HR. TIME ftEA01NGS U.S. STANDAftD SERIES CLEAR S~UARE OPENINGS
45MIN. iSMIN. fiOMIN.I9MIN. 4MIN. 1MIN. 'ZQO 900 '50'40•30 •16 '10'9 '4 3IB' 3l4' 7%' 3' S'fi'8'
i~.. - ~ i ~ , a
90 I
I I I I
~ 10
BO I I
~
20
c~ 70 I I' ~
I , ~ 30
~ fi0
N
~ ~
I
i
40
'-
w so ~ I
~
w
I ,
I I
a 4p '
~
1 (----~-~ 60
~ -
~
I I
I ~ 7a
~ ~
~ ' '~ I
i
80
10
90
o i ~ ~no
.00 1 0.002 .005 .008 .019 .031 .074 A49 .287
590 1.19 2.0 Y.3B 476 9.52 19.1 36.1 762 12
200
~qZ
;fi2
~IAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAV (PLASTIC~ TO SfLT (NON~PLASTIC) SANpS GRAVEL
FINE ME~IUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sample of CLAYSTONE
From TH - 101 AT 14 FEET
GRAVEL p %
SILT & CLAY 99 %
PLASTICITYINDEX
SAND 9 S
LIOUID LIMIT 71 °.
52 _n
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS
25HR. 1HR. TIMEREADINGS U.S.STAN~AR~SERIES CLEAR301JAREOPENINGS
A5 MIN. 15 MIN. fi0 MIN. 18 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 'S0 '40 '30 9fi •10 •8 •4 9le• 3I4' 1/^ ]' S' fi' 8"
~w ~
I ~ I ~~ V
90 ' I •
~
~
~
~
~
! ~
U' 70
z
N
a gp ~
~ I
- -~
' 3
4
w 50 ~
~
W
~ 40 ~
E
30 I - - 7
20
I
~_-'_ f
10 f
~
F
0 ~ ~
,00 1 0.002 ,905 .OOB .079 .037 .W4 .149 2W O4Z590 1.19 2.0 2.30 4.]6 9.52 19,1 3fiA 78.2 12;52Y0 0
DIAMFTER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAV (PLASTIC
TO SILT (NON•PLASTIC SANDS GRAVEL
)
) PINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES
Sample of CIAYSTONE
From TH -101 AT 19 FEET
JOB N0. 32,342
GRAVEL 0 % SAND
SILT 8 CLAY 99 % LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX
Gradation
Test Results
10
1
86
46
FIG.
s.o
5.0
4.0
3.0
LL
YZ.Q
N
N
K
y1.0
~
w
x
yOO
f
~.
~ '~t --' ,~
~
1
F
t~
~
'
i Sample ;
~ No. I
Boring
No. ;
~
; Depth
~(FT) ; Moisture
` Content (%)
~ Before '~ After ' Dry
Densit
(PCF3
~
{ 1•
110
~' 18
' 17.8 ~ 22.3 i
11(C:
i 2• i 110 18 '~ 17.8 ~: 20.8 ~ 11Q°
, 3`~ 110 18 17.8 ! 20.1 11~
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN.)
o.u
4
0
. •
0
2
0
.
D.D
u
v
Y
u
u
~
a
~
a
u
x
v
0,0 2.0 4.0 6.0
NORMAL STRESS (lLSF1
LL, %: 0 PI, %: 0 -200: 0
Thickness (in): 1.0 Diameter (in): 2.~
Strain Rate (inlmin): 0.0095
Peak ! Residual j
Normal '. Shear ~ Shear ~
Sample Stress Stress i Stress !
I
No. (KSF) I(KSF) ~ I(KSF) ~ j
1
1.44
, 2.449 i
I 1.54 {
2
2.88
2.827 i !
i 2.14
+
3
4.32
3.806 i
~ 2.38 '
Peak ~ (DEG}:
Residual ~ (DEG):
Peak C (PSF}:
Residual C (PSF):
25
23
1800
800
Sample Description: ____ PIERRE SHALE, DARK GRAY ~_
Sampie Type: f2EMOLD __
Remarks:
Direct Shear Test Res~~~~
Job No. 32,342
Fig. A • 3
s.o
5.0
a.o
3.0
Y2,0
N
W
y1.0
~
w
x
No.o
0 0.1 0,2 0.3 0.4
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (tN.)
Cl
~
~ ~ Moisture Dry
i Sample ; ~
Boring ~
Depth '
Content (%)
Densi~
1 No. ~
No. ~
(FT) ~ i
Before ~ After
,(PCF'
~ 1~~ 110 ! 10
; 10.5 ~ 18.1 I 109~ ~~
~ I
2~ ~
-' I
110 ! 90 ! 10.5 ~ 18.1 , 10~
~
:
3"~°
`
110 !
-.^. ,
10
10.5 19.7
-
j 10~!~
f
; ' ~ ~ .
0.5 o.s LL, %: 0 PI, %: 0 -200: 0
Thickness (in): 1.0 Diameter (in): 2.87`
Strain Rate (in/min): 0.0095
o.~
s
o
.
•
4
0
.
LL
w
Y
2
O
y
.
w
~
y
a
w
=0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0
NORMALSTRESS(KSF)
Sample Description: PIERRE
Sample Type: REMOLD
Remarks:
6.0 8.0
DARK GRAY
Peak Residual ~
i ~ Normal ; Shear ~ Shear
~ Sample Stress ! Stress ~ Stress j
! No. ! (KSF) j(KSFL~ I (KSF) ~ i
1 1.44 ~ 2.782 1.45 ~
' 2 i 2.88 i 3.5
1
7
~ 2.11 ~
3 ~ 4.32 -
-
-
-
5.342 ~ ~-
~
ii
~
Peak ~ (DEG): 27
Residual ~ (DEG): 25
Peak C (PSF): 2000
Residual C (PSF): 800
Direct Shear Test Resu"
Job No. 32,342 Fig. A• 4
~ •' \
M
~
l~~ . I ~
4~~ ~
_~~
~
~,,.; ~~~{- ~ ~~v y~ r: ~
, ~ _ +. C.
_ ~ ,~ , , ~^°, ~ ~ r~, ~ _ " , ,~ - ~ ,
~ ' '. ~ I vl^
~ -~ rj,t~ ~-=_ ~ _- ~ ~
_
~ ~~,: ~ , ... .
~, ' - :~- _. - -_
~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ --~ - ~r ~
~ .
- ~ -
____------ - - , _
-- -~ cc~~
..~ ~_~---~-1 _=- - -- =-_ .
- - . __
_, ~.
~ ~-
', _
\~
1 ~
~`~
~c ~ \`.
~ ~i
I;'~f _ ~ 1
--~- . ___~~ __ - .,_.
- -" - - ------ -- - : -
~ ~_ - ~_.~~
---- -. ~ - . _ J--_._ _ --
--------"` 28'" AND CANYON MIXED-USE PROJECT
DEILACAVA TEBO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LlC
HARTRONPi' FAURI ARCHITECTS, P.C.
~ Planning • Architeclure ' Interiors
CONCEPT "D"
~ ~ I~~~ I~~~II ~ ~ ~~ I~~I I ~ I ~ I~ I~ ~~I -~~tl ~
~ u ~ u~^ ~
~
~y
A-v ~x ~ S°' ~ n i ";. ..':. 8 r . ,? ry [ ?;' n ~ ~' ~ r . i"7 0"~, ~ e ' ~'" e _ . .
s .. . ~. .. T .~ ~~` - . ,
.. T ',: ,h~,' ~ ~,. . ~. ..;' ) ~ ~~ S , t . ~ ~: . .
n V s . v . ~' ' i Y. ~. F ~ ~ a a . . . Y. ~ ~ .. ~e . ' .
.,. _ . ... - ~ . .. _ . ... . _ . . . . . .. a. 9_. . . _ .. . .. .
~~ ` ,
80'~ MAIN ~$TREtT~~
~9,~~ti [ "~'.7'OU:".'
lairspuE, w amE~
. vors ~o3.s» f7B. ~ ,
: ;y~cr:, }a7:sa~ e3~a.
r~ I
~,.
> ';
~'
r.
A~'
~~
:
~~
~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~~"
~ C~~T.~'..~..
Sheet
*ova aerna~ nA.s sF. ' ,~
TMAL CFFLE~ 19pb~ SF.
i0iiy POAKIt#:10] SPKRS
N JIIWYi'