The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-4978 CN/EX/G I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ SOUTIlERN CALIFORNIA ~ SOIL&TESTING,INc. 6280 Riverda1e Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627 619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717 March 13, 1997 Sunland Home Foundation Post Office Box 1268 San Marcos, California 92079 SCS&T 9711028 Report No.1 SUBJECT: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Group Care Facility, 691 Sparta Drive, Encinitas, California. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The findings and recommendations of our study are presented herewith. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are followed. The geotechnical conditions affecting the proposed development include compressible fill and surficial soils, porous formational soils, expansive soils, and isolated water seepage areas as well as a proposed cutlfill transition for the building pad. These conditions will require special site preparation and/or foundation consideration as described hereinafter. If you should have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity IO be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, DBA:MF:mw cc: (6) Submitted Ml-1-~ II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description. ................................. 1 ProjectScope ....................................................1 Findings ...................................................... 2 SiteDescription ................................................. 2 SiteGeology ...................................................3 Geologic Setting and Subsurface Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 TectonicSetting ..............................................4 GeologicHazards ................................................4 General ...................................................4 Groundshaking ............................................... 4 Liquefaction.................................................5 Tsunamis ..................................................5 Seiches....................................................5 GroundCrackingandSurfaceRupture ................................5 Groundwater ................................................6 Conclusions...................................................,..6 General .,.................................................... 6 Compressible Soils ..........................................6 ExpansiveSoils ............................................7 Water Seepage.......................................... ...7 Recommendations..................................................7 Grading......................................................7 Site Preparation ..............................................7 ExistingFill.................................................7 ExpansiveSoils...............................................8 Utility and Exploratory Trench Excavations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Subdrain...................................................8 SurfaceDrainage..............................................8 Earthwork..................................................8 SlopeStability .................................................. 8 General ...................................................8 Special Conditions...................................... .......9 Foundations ...................................................9 General ...................................................9 Reinforcement ...............................................9 FoundationExcavationObservation ..................................9 Settlement Characteristics ........................................9 Slabs-on-Grade .................................................10 InteriorConcreteSlabs-on-Grade....................................10 GradingandFoundationPlanReview....................................10 Earth Retaining Walls .............................................10 Foundations.................................................lO Passive Pressure ..............................................10 ActivePressure...............................................10 Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Backfill....................................................11 Factor of Safety ..............................................11 Limitations ....,................................................. 11 Review, Observation and Testing ......................................11 UniformityofConditions ...........................................11 ChangeinScope.................................................12 TimeLimitations ................................................12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE Professional Standard.................................... ..........12 Client's Responsibility .............................................13 FieldExplorations..................................................13 LaboratoryTesting .................................................13 FIGURE Figure 1 PLA TES Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3-10 Plate 11 Plate 12 Plate Plate Plate Plate 13 14 15 16 APPENDIX ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 Plot Plan Unified Soil Classification Chart Trench Logs Grain Size Distribution Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Expansion Index Test Results Direct Shear Test Results Single Point Consolidation Subdrain Detail Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail Recommended Grading Specifications-General Provisions I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 'W" SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverda1e Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.o. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627 619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GROUP CARE HOME 691 SPARTA DRIVE LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project, to be constructed at 691 Sparta Drive, in the City of Encinitas, California. The site location is shown on the vicinity map provided as Figure Number 1 on the following page. It is our understanding that the site will be developed to receive a single-story, 20-room, 15,493-square- foot group care facility and related improvements. The structure will be of wood-frame construction. Shallow foundations and a conventional slab-on-grade floor system are proposed. Grading will consist of cuts and fills of less than about seven feet and four feet from existing grades, respectively. It is anticipated that approximately half of the material excavated during grading operations will be exported from the site. To assist in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a grading plan prepared by Tri- Dimensional Engineering, dated August 18, 1996, as well as a "Limited Soils Investigation, College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific;" prepared by Soils Engineering, Inc., dated August 16,1990. The sitè configuration, topography and approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are shown on Plate Number 1 of this report. PROJECT SCOPE The investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of available geological literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. I I I 'R~/ -, ~¡ ~ I ,~, / I I -L ,I ßATIOUITOS LAGbON '-..J I ì I I ~ I I I I I I I I I PACIFIC I OCEAN I I I I ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUP CARE HOME ~ SOIL & TESTING,INC. By:OBA/SD DÅTE: 02-21-97 I JOB NUMBER: 9711028 FIGURE NO.1 I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 2 I I I I b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent engineering properties of the various strata which will influence proposed development, including their bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards which could have an effect on the site development. d) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide design information regarding the stability of cut and fill slopes. e) Address potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems. t) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. It was not within the scope of our serVIces to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. If desired, we can obtain samples of representative soils and submit them to a chemical analysis laboratory for analysis. We suggest that such samples be obtained after mass site I I I grading is complete and the soils that can affect concrete and other improvements are in place. Further, it should be understood that Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is considered necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. I I I I I FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located south of and adjacent to Sparta Drive in the Leucadia area of Encinitas, California. The site is currently occupied by a number of greenhouses, commercial structures, and associated improvements, and is bordered by developed commercial lots on all sides. Site topography generally slopes gently to moderately downward toward the northwest. Maximum topographic relief is approximately 30 feet, with elevations ranging from 148 to 178 feet (MSL). Much of the site's eastern property line is bordered by a steep cut slope which descends to the level of the adjacent property to the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 3 east, while a portion of the western property line is delineated by a six-foot-high retaining wall separating the site from the lower property to the west. A fill-over-cut slope with variable gradients is present in the central portion of the site and separates a nearly level pad area in the northwest corner of the property from the gently to moderately sloping area in the southeast portion of the site. Vegetation consists primarily of native grasses and weeds, shrubs and a few large trees. A variety of trash and debris is present in various areas of the site. SITE GEOLOGY GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS: The project site is located within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County, and is underlain by artificially-placed fill soils, residual soils and Quaternary and Tertiary-age sedimentary deposits. Fill soils were encountered in the low-lying, northwest portion of the site, as well as in the slope which separates the upper and lower levels of the site. The fill consists mainly of dark brown, loose to very loose, silty sand and clayey, silty sand. The fill encountered in Trench Number 8 near the northeastern corner of the site was very moist to saturated, and contained significant quantities of trash such as plastic sheeting. The fill in this trench also had a blackish color and emitted a moderately strong, unidentified odor. The maximum fill thickness in the lower, northern portion of the site is likely to be on the order of five to ten feet, whereas the maximum fill thickness in the slope in the central portion of the site is estimated to be approximately ten feet. A topsoil layer consisting mainly of dark brown, very moist, loose, fine silty sand is present throughout nearly the entire site. The topsoil generally ranges in thickness from approximately two to four feet. As encountered in Trenches Number 1 through 5 the topsoil is underlain by subsoil and/or weathered terrace deposits consisting primarily of reddish-brown, humid to moist, very stiff to dense, sandy clayey and clayey sand. The clay content within this layer decreases with depth, and the contact with the underlying terrace deposits is gradational. The thickness of the subsoil/highly weathered layer generally ranges from six inches to twelve inches. The surficial fill and residual soils throughout most of the site are underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits consisting mainly of reddish-brown, humid to moist, medium dense to dense, fine silty sand. These deposits are generally moderately cemented, but locally well cemented. The terrace deposits are present in all areas except the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Sparta Drive. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 4 Sedimentary deposits of the Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone were encountered in Trenches Number 7 and 8 at the north end of the site, and are thought to underlie the terrace deposits throughout the site. The Torrey Sandstone materials consist mainly of gray to white, humid, dense, silty fine sand. The contact between the Torrey Sandstone and the overlying terrace deposits was encountered at an approximate elevation of 150 feet MSL in Trenches Number 7 and 8, and is likely to occur at similar elevations in other areas of the site. TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to exist within the general vicinity of the site. However, it should be noted that much of Southern California, including San Diego County, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately five miles west of the site. Other faults zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west and the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: The site is located in an area which is relatively free of potential geologic hazards. Specific geologic hazards are discussed in the following sections of this report. GROUNDSHAKING: One of the more likely geologic hazards to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 5 TABLE I Fault Zone Distance Maximum Probable Earthquake Maximum Bedrock Acceleration 5 miles 19 miles 26 miles 46 miles 53 miles 6.5 magnitude 7.0 magnitude 7.3 magnitude 7.5 magnitude 7.3 magnitude 0.47 g 0.22 g 0.20 g 0.12 g 0.08 g Rose Canyon Coronado Bank Elsinore San Jacinto San Clemente Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. Design accelerations are generally two-thirds of the peak bedrock accelerations. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and the local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity. LIQUEFACTION: The materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to the relative dense condition of the soils. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. Due to the site's location, it is not subject to tsunamis. SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays, or reservoirs. No such large bodies of standing water are located in an area that could possibly affect the subject site. GROUND CRACKING AND SURFACE RUPTURE: Due to the lack of evidence of active faults traversing the site, the risk of surface rupture from on-site faulting should be considered nominal. Ground cracking caused by shaking from distant seismic sources is considered to be unlikely. LANDSLIDING: The terrace deposits underlying the site are generally not susceptible to landsliding. In our opinion the potential for deep-seated slope instability is relatively minor. I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 6 GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was encountered in Trenches Number 2,3 and 8. The groundwater observed in Trench Number 8 occurred at a depth of approximately 2.5 feet below the surface, and is most likely associated with the natural drainage course near Sparta Drive. It is likely that similar groundwater conditions exist throughout the low-lying, northeast corner of the site. The groundwater seepage observed in Trench Number 2 was relatively light and highly localized, and is most likely associated with infiltration of surface rainwater. The groundwater seepage observed in Trench Number 3 was relatively heavy, but appeared to be limited to a utility trench which was encountered in that area. The source of this water is not known, but appears to be a localized phenomenon. Recommendations for mitigating potential adverse effects from groundwater are presented in a later section of this report. CONCLUSIONS I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I GENERAL In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the site as presently proposed, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The main geotechnical considerations for site development are the presence of compressible fill, surficial and formational soils, expansive soils and isolated water seepage areas. An additional consideration is proposed cut/fill transition for the building pad. Each of these conditions is discussed below. COMPRESSIBLE SOILS: The site is underlain by a relatively thin layer of compressible fill and topsoil deposits. Fill soils were encountered at the northern and central portions of the site. The fill extends to a maximum estimated depth of ten feet. In both cases the fill depth decreases rapidly to the south. As encountered in our trenches, the topsoil deposits extend to a combined maximum and average depth of about four feet and two feet to below existing grade, respectively. These materials are considered unsuitable in their present condition for the support of settlement sensitive improvements and will require removal and replacement as compacted fill in areas where settlement sensitive improvements are proposed. In addition, the terrace deposits underlying the surficial soils typically possess pockets and layers of friable soils and/or soils potentially collapsible upon saturation. In order to provide a more-uniform foundation soil condition, it is recommended that terrace deposits underlying the proposed buildin~ pad be partially removed as recommended in the site preparation portion of this report. This recommendation will also eliminate the cut/fill configuration of the proposed building pad. I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 7 EXPANSIVE SOILS: A layer of moderately to highly expansive subsoils was encountered in Trench Numbers 1 through 5. These deposits underlie the fill and topsoil and attain a thickness of about one foot. It is recommended that subsoil deposits within four feet from finish grade be exported from the site. WATER SEEPAGE: Water seepage was encountered in Trench Numbers 3 and 8. In Trench Number 3 the seepage was observed within a loosely backfilled utility trench. In Trench Number 8 the seepage was encountered at the contact between existing fill and topsoil deposits. Due to the granular characteristics of the on site soils the presence of future seepage conditions should be I I I I I I I I I I I II anticipated. It is therefore recommended that a subdrain be placed along the southern edge of the proposed building pad. This recommendation is further discussed in the site preparation portion of the report. Additional subdrains may be required based on conditions encountered during grading. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING SITE PREP ARA TION: Site preparation should begin with the demolition of existing improvements and the removal of the resulting debris as well as existing vegetation and deleterious matter. Existing fill and topsoil underlying proposed fill areas and settlement-sensitive improvements should be removed to firm natural ground (exterior patios, parking and driveway areas included). Based on our findings, it is anticipated that maximum and average topsoil removal depth will be about four feet, and two feet, respectively. Maximum fill removal depth will be about ten feet. In addition, terrace deposits within five feet from finish pad grade should be removed. Removal limits should extend at least five feet beyond the perimeter of the improvements or to property line, whichever is less. Removals along the portion of the western property line where a retaining wall exists should be limited to six feet from said wall. The soils exposed at the bottom of the excavations should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent as determined in accordance with ASTM D- 1557-91, Method A or C. The removed soils and/or soils obtained from on-site excavations may then be placed in thin compacted layers until desired elevations are reached. EXISTING FILL: The existing fill in Trench Number 8 was found to contain trash and have a moderate unidentified odor. It is recommended that this material be exported from the site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 8 EXPANSIVE SOILS: A one-foot-thick layer of expansive soils was encountered underlying the fill and/or topsoil in Trench Numbers 1 through 5. It is recommended that expansive soils within four feet from finish building pad grade, and two feet from finish parking lot and driveway subgrade be removed and exported from the site as part of the proposed export to balance the site earthwork. UTILITY AND EXPLORATORY TRENCH EXCA V A TIONS: It is recommended that the backfill soils of existing utility and exploratory trenches be removed and replaced as compacted fill. SUBDRAIN: It is recommended that a subdrain be installed along the southern edge of removal near the property line. The preliminary subdrain location and a typical detail are provided on Plates Number 1 and 16. Additional subdrains may be recommended based on the conditions encountered during grading. SURF ACE DRAINAGE: It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed away from the proposed improvements and the top of slopes. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to foundations. Rain gutters are recommended. Rain gutters should be connected to appropriate drainage devices. EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and should not be part of the mass grading requirements. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test D-1557-91, Method A or C. SLOPE STABILITY GENERAL: Although no significant slopes are anticipated, it is our opinion that cut and/or fill slopes constructed at a 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter inclination will possess an adequate factor-of-safety with respect to deep seated rotational failure. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 9 SPECIAL CONDITIONS: It is anticipated that an existing off-site natural slope located adjacent to the central eastern portion of the site will be improved as part of this project. The slope is near vertical and extends to a height of about ten feet. A drainage swale exists at the toe of the slope. It is recommended that the slQpe be fiatlelled to at 1 :5_:1. (horizontalt~~~!-~i~é~ll.Q!:Jlatter inclination. The toe of the slope should be protected from water erosion by the placement of riprap or gunite. Specific recommendations should be provided by a civil engineer with expertise in hydraulics. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Shallow foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed improvements. The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. A bearing capacity of 2500 psf may be assumed for said footings. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering wind and/or seismic forces. Footings located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet exists between the top of the footing and the face of the slope. Retaining walls in similar conditions should be reviewed by this office. REINFORCEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least one No.5 bar positioned near the bottom of the footing and at least one No.5 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by a representative from this office prior to forming or placement of reinforcing steel. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for the proposed improvements may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 10 SLABS-ON-GRADE INTERIOR CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE: Concrete floor slabs have a thickness of four inches and be reinforced with at least No.3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab. The slab should be underlain by a four-inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. This blanket should consist of 100 percent material passing the two-inch screen and no more than ten percent and five percent passing #100 and #200 sieve, respectively. Where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are plar...ned, a visqueen barrier should be placed over the sand layer. To allow for proper concrete curing, the visqueen should be overlain by at least one inch of sand. GRADING AND FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW The grading and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations contained in this report are implemented and no revised recommendations are necessary due to changes in the development scheme. EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS: The recommendations presented in the foundation section of this report are also applicable to earth retaining structures. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth up to a maximum of 1500 psf. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. The upper 12 inches of soil should not be considered when calculating passive pressures for exterior walls. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 33 pounds per cubic foot. For restrained walls an equivalent fluid pressure of 48 pcf may be assumed. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge loads. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. This value assumes a granular and drained backfill condition. II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 11 Waterproofing specifications and details should be provided by the project architect. A typical wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 16. WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN OBSERVATION: The geotechnical engmeer should be requested to verify that waterproofing has been applied and that the subdrain has been properly installed. However, unless specifically asked to do so, we will not verify proper application of the waterproofing. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing pressure, do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. LIMIT A TIONS REVIEW, OBSERV A TION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our reVIew of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 12 I I I may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. I I I I I I CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without I a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. I I I I I I ,I I PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 13 CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of Sunland Home Foundation, or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer I I I and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and their subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Eight subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on February 6, 1997. These explorations consisted of trenches excavated with a backhoe. The field work I I I was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The subsurface explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented on the following Plates Number 3 through 10. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification I System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate Number 2. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. I I I Disturbed and undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING I I I I I Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classifica- tion System. I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I II SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 14 b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the trench logs. c) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution was determined from representative samples of the native soils in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of these tests are presented on Plate Number 11. d) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil as determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557- 78, Method A. The results of this test are presented on Plate Number 12. e) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: Expansion index tests were performed on representative samples of soils likely to be present at finish grade. The tests were performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The samples were brought to optimum moisture content then dried back to a constant moisture content then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 + 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimen were then compacted in a 4-inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen were placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 pst), and the samples were allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The samples were allowed to become saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The ex;>ansion index of each sample tested is reported on the attached Plate Number 12 as the total vertical displacement times the fraction of the sample passing the #4 sieve times 1000. CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX 1-20 21-50 POTENTIAL EXPANSION very low low 51-90 91-30 Above 130 medium high very high I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Page 15 t) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: A direct shear test was performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented on the attached Plate Number 13. g) CONSOLIDATION TESTS: Single point consolidation tests were performed on selected "undisturbed" samples. The consolidation apparatus was designed to accommodate a 1- inch high by 2.375-inch or 2.500-inch diameter soil sample laterally confined by a brass ring. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore fluid during testing. Selected loads were applied to the samples and the resulting deformations were recorded. The percent consolidation is reported as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The test samples were inundated to determine their behavior under the anticipated loads as soil moisture increases. The results of these tests are presented on Plate Number 14. I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEl\l) I UNIFIED SOIL CL\SSìFIc.-\ TION CHART I SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP Sy,vfBOL TYPlc.-\L NAMES I 1. COARSE GR.-\INED. more than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size. GR.-\ VELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size but smaller than 3". CLEAN GR.-\ VELS GW GP Well graded gravels. gravel-sand mixtUres. little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels. gravel sand mixtUres, little or no fines. I GC Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel- sand-sill mixtUres. Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel- sand. clay mixtures. I GRA VELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of tines) GM I SP Well graded sand, gravelly sands. li[(Ie or no fines. Poorly graded sands. gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size. CLEAN SANDS SW I I SC Silty sands. poorly graded sand and silty mixtUres. Clayey sands. poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SM I II. FINE GRAINED, more than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size. SILTS AND CU. YS ML I Liquid Limit CL Inorganic sillS and very tine sands. rock flour. sandy silt or clayey-silt- sand mixtUres with slight plasticicy. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays. sandy clays. silty clays. lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity. InorganicsillS. micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic sillS. Inorganicclays ofhighpJasticicy. tàtclays. I OL I SILTS AND CLAYS MH Liquid Limit greater than 50 CH I OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Organic clays of medium to high plastic icy . Peat and other highly organic soils. I ¥- US - Water level at time of excavation or as indicated CK - UndistUrbed chunk sample Bulk Sample UndistUrbed, driven ring sample or tube sample ~- SP - Standard penetration sample I I ~ SOUTHERN CALIfORNIA SOIL & TEST'NG, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME Project No. 9711028 Plate No. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Equipment: Date Excavated: LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-l 2/6/97 174.0 Surface Elevation(ft): z '-' :r: E-< ~ u.J 0 I- 5 - - 10 I- 15 - ~ Ñ ¡:¡ . ~ \:) 0 ....¡ u æ ~ <: ~ 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL, Dark Red Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), Very Moist, Loose SUBSOIL, Red Brown, SANDY CLA Y/CLA YEY SAND (SC-CL), Humid to Moist, Dense and Very Stiff TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Red Brown to Grey, SILTY SAND (SM), Moderately Cemented, Numerous Sand Boils, Moist, Medium Dense to Dense . . . . ---- ---- Less Cemented, Medium Dense in Vertical Portion of Trench Trench Ended at 10 Feet ~ ~ ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA W SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Logged by: Project Manager: MF Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 u..¡ c:) ~ ~ E-< ~ ::.:: 0 ....¡ Z ~ ;:J c:) ~ f--- CK X> - CK % - CK - Project No. 9711028 8.1 113.5 ----- ~ '-' u.J ~ :::> E-< c:n Õ ::; DBA E- >- ~ cG E- ~ Z --< :::> cGc:n >-4:' g?;; cGu --<u.J 05 ....¡¡..... Plate No. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Date Excavated: Equipment: Surface Elevation(ft): z '-" d 0 .....J U æ 0... < ~ d ~ :I: f-o 0... ¡.¡,¡ 0 ~ ~ . . f- 5 -. . . - 10 f- 15 - ~ Ñ N LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-2 2/6/97 168.0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM-SC), Very Moist, Loose SUBSOIL, Red Brown, SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND (SC-CL), Moist, Dense and Very Stiff TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Red Brown to Grey SILTY SAND (SM), Discontinuous Sand Lens from 3.0' to 4.5' , Moderate Seepage at Localized Points at Bottom of Lens, Sand Boils - ~ Trench Ended at 10 Feet .. ~ ¡: ~SOUTHERNCAUFO~A W SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Logged by: MF DBA Project Manager: Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 ¡.¡,¡ a:¡ ~ ::J f-o ~ ~ 0 .....J Z ::J ~ a:¡ - CK - ~ - CK - Project No. 9711028 ii ¡.... >- '-" ~ ~ ¡.¡,¡ L.. 0 ~;:: f-o ~ Z <X: f-o::J ~CI) CI) >-ç §5t:; Õ ~u <X:u.1 :E 05 .....Jf-o Plate No. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ¡I I Date Excavated: Equipment: LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-3 2/6/97 173.0 Surface Elevation(ft): z '-' :I: E-< Q... t.z.:I 0 c:> 0 .....:¡ u æ Q... < ~ c:> ~ ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), Very Moist, Loose SUBSOIL, Red Brown, SANDY CLA Y/CLA YEY SAND (SC-CL), ~~;;;; 'l~ Moist, Dense and Very Stiff .. ~ ~ TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Red Brown to Grey, SILTY SAND .. ~ (SM), Humid to Moist, Medium Dense to Dense I- 5 - .'.' - 10 -: I- 15 - ~ Ñ ~ ~ '" . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ---- ---- Numerous Sand Boils . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . Trench Ended at 13 Feet Utility Trench Uncovered at South End of Trench, Heavy Seepage and Loose Backfill in Trench, 3' Wide and 7' + Deep !: ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA W SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Logged by: MF DBA Project Manager: Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 t.z.:I ¡:Q ~ :J E-< ~ ~ 0 ....J Z :J :J ¡:Q CK - CK - - ~ Project No. 9711028 ......... ~ '-' E-< >- ~ ~ E-< 0 - E-< Z < :J ~I;I) >-4:' ~E-< ¡Xu <1:2 05 ....JE-< t.z.:I ~ :J E-< 1;1) Õ ~ 9.1109.8 7.7 115.9 Plate No. S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Date Excavated: Equipment: Surface Elevation(ft): "'""" 4:: '-' 0 0 .....:¡ u Ea ø.. -< ez:: 0 :t E-< ø.. ¡,¡.¡ 0 . . LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-4 2/6/97 Logged by: 169.0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FILL (Qat), Dark Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), with Fill Debris, Very Moist, Loose ~ . TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), Very Moist, Loose t/. 'l 'l SUBSOIL, Red Brown, CLAYEY SAND/SANDY CLAY (SC-CL) , Moist, Dense and Very Stiff - 5 _t/. .' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Red Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), Moderately Cemented, Humid, Medium Dense to Dense . . . . . . - 10 _.~ .. . . . . - 15 - ~ Ñ ~ 8 ¡;; . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ Trench Ended at 11 Feet ¡: ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA W SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Project Manager: MF DBA Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 ¡,¡.¡ a:¡ ez:: ::J E-< ~ ~ 0 .....:¡ Z ;:J ::J a:¡ CK - - ~ Project No. 9711028 ~ E- >-< '-' ~ ~ ¡,¡.¡ L. 0 ~:::::; E-< ;:J Z -< E-<;:J ~c;t) c;t) >-<c ~~ Õ ~u <¡¡¡ :E 05 ""':¡E- 8.1 120.8 Plate No. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Date Excavated: Equipment: LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-5 2/6/97 Logged by: 176.0 Surface Elevation(ft): z '-' :I: E-o 0.. ~ 0 I- 5 - 10 - 15 - .... ~ c::: ¡:¡ ~ '" t.:) 0 ....¡ U ..... :I: 0.. < ~ t.:) ~~~ ~ ~~í SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . FILL (Qaf), Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM), with Gravel, Moist, Medium Dense SUBSOIL, Red Brown, SANDY CLAY (CL), Moist, Very Stiff TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Light Red Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), Cemented, Dry to Humid, Medium Dense to Dense Refusal at 2.5 Feet !: ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 'WI' SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Project Manager: MF DBA Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 ~ co ~ ;:) E-o ~ ~ 0 ....¡ Z ;:) ;:) co ~ CK Project No. 9711028 ----- ~ E-o >-0 '-' ~ ~ ~ L. 0 ~ ~ E-o ;:) Z < E-o;:) ~c:I) c:I) >-Oç ~~ Õ ~u <~ :E oð ""¡E-< ~ 6.3 125.6 Plate No. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-6 Date Excavated: 2/6/97 Equipment: Surface Elevation(ft): 159.0 Cì 0 ..J U ...... :I: ø.. < 0:: Cì 4? ....... SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS :I: E-< ø.. ~ 0 TOPSOIL, Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM-SC), Very Moist, Loose 5 .. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Red Brown to Grey, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM), Weathered, Moist to Very Moist, Medium Dense to ~. Dense ~ -Re,fËrõWn: ŠiLTŸ-SÄÑD(SM),-Moderaiëlÿ -Cëmeñte-d~ Mõist- - - - -- Trench Ended at 8 Feet 10 15 ~ ¡::; N ~ ¡: ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA W SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Logged by: MF Project Manager: DBA Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 ~ ~ a::: ~ E-< ~ ~ 0 ..J Z ::,) ~ ~ ~ ~ :>< ....... ~ 0::: ~ L.. 0 a::: c E-< ::,) Z -< E-<::,) 0::: V) V) :><ç ~t; Õ O:::u -<~ ~ 05 ..JE-< CK 12.2 117.4 Project No. 9711028 Plate No. g I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Date Excavated: Equipment: Surface Elevation(ft): \:) 0 ....:¡ U ...... ::r: p., -< ~ \:) 4? '-' ::r: E-< p., ~ 0 . . . .. 5 ~ ~ 10 15 ,.... !!: ¡;¡ N LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-7 2/6/97 151. 0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FILL (Qaf), Dark Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM-SC), Very Moist, Loose . ~ TOPSOIL, DArk Brown, SILTY SAND (SM), Very Moist, Loose TERRACE DEPOSITS (Td), Grey to Red Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC-SM), Weathered, Moist, Medium Dense TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt), White, SILTY SAND (SM), Moderately Cemented, Humid, Dense Trench Ended at 9 Feet ~ !: ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA W SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Logged by: Project Manager: MF DBA Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 ~ ~ ::J E-< ~ ~ 0 ....:¡ Z ::J ;:J co CK Project No. 9711028 ~ ~ >- '-' ~ ~ ~ L.. 0 ~ ~ E-< ::J Z -< E-<::J ~CI) CI) >-.-- g E-< Õ ~'t> -<f:3 :E 05 "":¡E-< Plate No. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Date Excavated: Equipment: LOG OF TEST TRENCH NUMBER T-8 2/6/97 Logged by: Surface Elevation(ft): c.? 0 .....1 U æ IJ,., <: ~ c.? z '-' =x:: E-o IJ,., u.:¡ 0 5 10 15 ~ ~ 150.0 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS FILL (Qat), Dark Brown Black, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SM-SC), with Plastic and Miscellaneous Debris Saturated TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, CLAYEY SILTY SAND (SC), Wet, Loose TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt), Grey White SILTY SAND (SM), Upper l' Weathered, Very Moist, Medium Dense ---- ---- Dense Trench Ended at 6.5 Feet ~ '" ~ ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 'WI' SOIL & TESTING, INC. Project Name: GROUP CARE HOME LEUCADIA Project Manager: MF DBA Depth to Water(ft): SAMPLES 0 u.:¡ 0::1 ~ ;:¡ E-o ~ ~ 0 .....1 Z ;:¡ ;:¡ 0::1 CK Project No. 9711028 ~ ~ >- '-' ~ ~ u.:¡ L.. 0 ~ ~ E-o ;:¡ Z <: E-;:¡ ~CZ) CZ) >-4:' ~t Õ ~u <:ú.î ::E 05 .....1E- Plate No. 10 - - - ~ en (.4 0 0 c - ... ,.. % .. III I 100 ... :D Z I 90 III (It (') I 80 ... - þ i 70 Z r- g - 60 .. 'fI i - 0 50 Z :D (') Z 10 . - Þ 30 20 t.. III 0 -C 10 III 2: I~ I I 0 c &: III m ]I .. ~ --...¡ .... G') .... ;0 0 0 N c:: CO -0 n )::0 -0 C ;0 --' .. m OJ rl- ., :J: ro m 0 .. 3: Z m 0 0 . W I .... 0 .... .þ I ~ --...¡ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U.S. STANDARD SIEVES HYDROMETER (MINUTES) 30' \8' 110 2' 1/2' 1/1' 120 \. 110 160 21' 12' 1110 130 1200 II' \.112' 11 116 160 1100 2 \80 3' 311' 316' 18 30 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : I' : : : : : " : : : : : : : : : : - , : : : : : : : : : 1: 2 6 : 1160 : \ - : : : .. : : : , ' : : : ~\ : ' , ; : : : : " " .. : " " : : : : : \. : ; : : ; : " - - " ': : : : : '- " : : .. " - .... : : : : : ; " í : - : : : ; : : : , : : . , 8876513 \000 9076513 10 2 2 2 9676543 0,\ 9876513 ,01 9676513 100 9076543 1.0 2 2 2 ,001 GRAIN SIZE (mm) PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS I GRAVEL' SAND I BOULDER COBBLE SILT OR CLAY i COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE ( 12") 3" No..40 No. 200 No.4 3/4" No. 10 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE T3 @ 3'-5' - - (50Gm) 410 (1000m) ... ... ~ l- V - W ~ - v W ..J -< V II' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAXIMUM DENSITY a OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 01557-91 METHOD A Maximum Optimum SAMPLE DESCRIPTION D~n5ít y Moi5tur~ (pet) Cant (010) T3@0-2' Dark Brown, Silty Sand 125.9 9.6 . EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS SAMPLE T3 @ 0-2' CONDITION Remolded INITIAL M.C. (0/.) 10.4 INITIAL DENSITY (PCF 107.6 FINAL M.C. (010) 22.0 NOR MAL STRESS (PSF) 144.7 EXPANSION INDEX 72 ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROUP CARE HOME ~ SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: DBA DATE: 03-04-97 JOB NUMBER: 9711028 Plate No. 12 I I I 5 I I 4 U. en I ~ - tn en 3 I UJ a: +- en I a: < 2 UJ :t: I en I 1 I I 0 I I I I I I I SAMPLE T3 @ 0 - 2' DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY , I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I 1 " I I I I I I , I " , I ' I ' I ' I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I : I I I I I ! I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I..Y I I I I I I I I I 1 I I"""", i I 1 1 I I I I I I YI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1/1 I I I I I I I I 1 ..., I I 1 I I I I I I I I yo I I I I I I I I I I "'" I I I I i I I I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 i I .... I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 ! I I I i I I I 1 I I I I I I"" I I I I I I I I ! I I I I 1 "i I I I I I I I I I I I I i..ot' 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I ... I I I I I I I 1 i I I 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I "f I I I I I I I I I I I I '" I I I ' I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i , I I 1 I I I ! I I I I I I I ! I I ' I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 2M L (0.518) 11.036) 2 2L 12.070) 5 3 4 NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 1h II SAMPLE) DESCRIPTION ANGLE Of INTERNAL fRICTION 34 COHESION INTERCEPT IPSfl 150 Remolded to 90% PROVING RING No. <$> GROUP CARE HOME SOUfHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 03-'04-97 BY: DBA DATE: JOB NUMBER: 9711028 PtATE No.: 13 --..,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT SAMPLE NO. T1 @ 7' 13 @ 61 T4 @ 51 - INITIAL MOISTURE, ~ 8.1 9.1 8.1 - INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 113.5 109.8 120.8 - ;6 CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1.1 1.8 1.0 - % CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 1.3 1.9 1.1 - FINAL MOISTURE, % 12.9 14.3 11. 5 - AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.58 2.58 2.58 k. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ SOIL & TESTING,INC. GROUP CARE HOME DBA DATE: 03-04-97 Plate No. 14 BY: JOB NUMBER: 9711028 I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I fLT£R fABRIC t--S\ AVE to . . . .' . . . . . , '. -' ' . . . , .' , . . . ,.. ." "".". .,#.. . .,..","S£LECTSOtL.".'.' .., ,'. '" . . . . . . '. ". . . . ' . . . "..". . . " . , . : ',' .' . .' , ' . , '. . , , . , , , ' . . . '. . , . ': '. ',' '. ", ','" ., 4' ~œATÐJ f"W ~ 2% - 20;0 - - - -- - SELECT GRADING AND UNDERCUT SUBDRAIN DETAIL ------~-- n_- No Sca4e ---~- ~-~-- ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ SOIL & TESTING,INC. GROUP CARE fACILITY BY: DBA/SO DATE: 03-13-97 JOB NUMBER: 9711028 Plate No, 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II [1¡- I I I I I I I I ~ 6" MIN. WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL PER ARCHtTECT'S SPECIFICATIONS 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL TOP OF GROUND OR CONCRETE SLAB MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL NO SCALE ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. GROUP CARE HOME 8V: DBA DATE: 03-04-97 Plate No. 16 JO8 NUII8Eft: 9711028 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPEND IX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Appendix, Page 1 GROUP CARE FACILITY 691 SPARTA DRIVE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERV A TION AND TESTING Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that my may provided his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provided these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.; construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommended rejection of this work. Tests used to detennine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Appendix, Page 2 Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D-1557-91 Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D-1556-90 or ASTM D-2922 All densities shall be expressed in tenns of Relative Compaction as detennined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a finn competent formational soils. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (20 percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, stonn drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities no to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Appendix, Page 3 All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Appendix, Page 4 than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. I I I Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over- built and cut-back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. I I I Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. I I I I I I I I I If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading" these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than the allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 March 13, 1997 Appendix, Page 5 ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Unifonn Building Code Standard 29-c. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No.4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTS FOR RELATIVE COMPACTION PROPOSED GROUP CARE HOME 691 SPARTA DRIVE LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: SUNLAND HOMES FOUNDATION c/o J. W. MILLET COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 1268 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92079 PREPARED BY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 ----- - --- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA '\]/I' SOIL & TESTING, INc. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.o. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627 619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717 November 4, 1997 Sunland Homes Foundation c/o J. W. Millet Company Post Office Box 1268 San Marcos, California 92079 SCS&T 9711028.4 SUBJECT: Summary of Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Group Care Home, 691 Sparta Drive, Leucadia, California. REFERENCE: "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Group Care Facility;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; March 13, 1997. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to summarize the results of field observations and tests for relative compaction performed at the subject site by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. These services were performed between August 7 and September 4, 1997. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located south of and adjacent to Sparta Drive in the Leucadia area of Encinitas, California. The site was occupied by a number of greenhouses, commercial structures, and associated improvements, and except for Sparta Drive it is bordered by developed commercial lots on all sides. The original site topography generally sloped gently to moderately downward toward the northwest. Maximum topographic relief was approximately 30 feet, with elevations ranging from 148 to 178 feet (MSL). Much of the site's eastern property line is bordered by a steep cut slope which descends to the level of the adjacent property to the east, while a portion of the western property line is delineated by a six-foot-high retaining wall separating the site from the lower property to the west. A fill-over-cut slope with variable gradients was present in the central portion of the site and separated a nearly level pad area in the northwest corner of the property from the gently to moderately sloping area in the southeast portion of the site. Vegetation consisted primarily of native grasses and weeds, shrubs and a few large trees. I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 November 4, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding that the site will be developed to receive a single-story, 20-room, 15,493- square-foot group care facility and related improvements. The structure will be of wood-frame construction. Shallow foundations and a conventional slab-on-grade floor system are proposed. Grading will consist of cuts and fills of less than about seven feet and four feet from existing grades, respectively. A V AILABLE PLANS I I I I I I I I I I I I I To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan prepared by Tri-Dimensional Engineering, Inc., dated July 21, 1997. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation began with the removal of existing fill deposits and compressible natural soils at the northwestern corner of the site. These deposits were removed until dense natural soils (older alluvium and/or terrace deposits) were encountered. The removed soils were stockpiled for future use. The bottom of the removal area was observed by a representative from this office. The depths and limits of the removals are shown on the attached Plate Number 1. The bottom of the removal areas was scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent. The soils removed were then replaced in thin compacted layers until desired grades were achieved. Site preparation operations continued in a similar fashion as previously described. Throughout the site the unsuitable surface soils were removed until terrace deposits were encountered. Due to the presence of existing improvements, the removal operations at the northwestern corner of the site were limited as shown on Plate Number 1. The construction of the proposed fill slope between the proposed building pad and parking lot required cutting a keyway as shown on Plate Number 1. The fill was benched into the firm natural ground as the slope height increased. Existing unsuitable soils underlying the proposed building pad were also removed. In addition, terrace deposits within five feet from finish pad grade were undercut. I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 November 4, 1997 Page 3 SUBDRAIN The proposed storm drain trenches surrounding the proposed structure were utilized as part of a subdrain system to mitigate the potential for water build-up underneath the proposed building pad. The combination storm drainlsubdrain system is shown on the attached Plate Number 4. EXISTING UNDERGROUND TANK An existing underground tank was removed prior to the start of grading operations. The excavation was backfilled with a two sack lean concrete mix to an elevation of about four feet from finish pad grade. The approximate location of the excavation is shown on Plate Number 1. FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING Field observation and density tests were performed by a representative of Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. during the mass grading operations. The density tests were taken according to ASTM D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). The results of those tests are shown on the attached plates. The accuracy of the in-situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which, together, we based our opinion as to whether the work essentially complies with the job requirements, local grading ordinances and the Uniform Building Code. LABORATORY TESTS Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted fills according to ASTM DI557-91, Method A. This method specifies that a four (4) inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in five (5) equallayers with each layer compacted by twenty-five (25) blows of a la-pound hammer with an IS-inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate Number 3, were I I I I SCS&T 9711028 November 4, 1997 Page 4 used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted fill. REMAINING WORK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Additional grading and backfill operations will be required for the backfilling of utility trenches and retaining walls and the preparation of the subgrade and base material placement in the parking areas. It is recommended that field observations and relative compaction tests be performed during these operations to verify that these operations are performed in accordance with job requirements and local grading ordinances. CONCLUSIONS Based on our field observations and the in-place density test results, it is the opinion of Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. that the grading work was performed substantially in accordance with the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical report, the City of Encinitas grading ordinance, and the Uniform Building Code. Recommendations for the minimum design of foundations, as presented in the referenced report, remain applicable. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Shallow foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed structure. The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. A bearing capacity of 2500 psf may be assumed for said footings. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering wind and/or seismic forces. Footings located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet exists between the top of the footing and the face of the slope. Retaining walls in similar conditions should be reviewed by this office. REINFORCEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least one No.5 bar positioned near the bottom of the footing and one No.5 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 November 4, 1997 Page 5 FOUNDATION EXCA V A TION OBSERVATION: It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by a representative from this office prior to forming or placement of reinforcing steel. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The prevailing foundation soils are nondetrimentally expansive. Recommendations contained in this report reflect this condition. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommenda- tions presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical I I I I I I I I I I I I movements. SLABS-ON-GRADE Concrete floor slabs have a thickness of four inches and be reinforced with at least No.3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab. The slab should be underlain by a four-inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. This blanket should consist of 100 percent material passing the 1/2-inch screen and no more than ten percent and five percent passing the #100 and #200 sieve, respectively. Where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen barrier should be overlain by at least one inch of sand. LIMIT A TI ONS This report covers only the services performed between August 7 and September 4, 1997. As limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinion presented herein is based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our service was performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the performance of those services nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCS&T 9711028 November 4, 1997 Page 6 If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. DBA:mw cc: (3) Submitted (4) Galvin Christilli Architects I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JOB NAME: GROUP CARE HOME JOB NUMBER: 9711028 . ................ .. .. ~.... .~.. ... ~.. .......~......~....~.. ~.....~............... ~....... ........... .~. .... ..................... ::::::/111/1:11:11111:1/111/:/1::1111:1111111111:/:1:1:::.:::11::1:/: 11:1::11:1111111 11:11:lj1111111j:I:1111 11:111111::liIIIIII11111111_111111:1111111111::I..11 TEST NO. DATE I LOCA nON ELEV A nON MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. (feet, MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) 146.0 1 146.0 11.0 119.0 2 94.6 147.5 12.8 118.5 2 94.2 149.5 10.2 114.5 1 90.9 150.0 11.3 116.2 2 92.4 152.0 11.7 117.8 2 93.6 153.0 11.9 119.3 2 94.8 146.0 11.5 121.3 2 96.4 148.0 10.8 119.9 2 95.3 150.0 10.9 116.5 1 92.5 152.0 10.1 122.3 2 97.2 154.0 8.5 114.2 1 90.7 155.0 9.3 123.7 2 98.3 149.0 9.3 117.2 2 93.2 150.5 9.5 113.0 2 89.8 150.5 9.7 118.6 2 94.3 152.5 12.3 118.6 2 94.3 153.5 11.1 116.9 2 92.9 153.0 9.7 119.3 2 94.8 154.0 10.2 119.8 2 95.2 155.0 8.9 117.7 2 93.6 153.5 12.6 119.1 2 94.7 155.0 11.6 119.4 2 94.9 158.0 12.2 118.8 2 94.4 160.0 11.8 120.0 2 95.4 161.5 10.5 117.1 2 93.1 163.5 11.3 118.1 2 93.9 164.0 9.6 113.9 2 90.5 15.0 11.0 118.0 2 93.8 166.0 11.4 114.7 2 91.2 166.0 10.9 113.3 2 90.1 165.5 12.8 114.0 2 90.6 163.5 P.G. 10.9 113.7 1 90.3 165.0 10.4 109.9 2 87.4 165.0 11.7 115.2 2 91.6 165.5 13.5 116.2 2 92.4 167.0 11.8 114.2 2 90.8 168.0 10.5 117.0 2 93.0 166.0 9.6 117.1 2 93.1 165.5 10.0 113.6 2 90.3 167.0 11.2 115.0 2 91.4 168.5 F.G. 9.0 117.0 2 93.0 PLATE NO.2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 8/7 /97 8/8/97 8/8/97 8/8/97 8/8/97 8/11/97 8/11/97 8/12/97 8/12/97 8/12/97 8/12/97 8/12/97 8/13/97 8/13/97 8/13/97 8/13/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/15/97 8/15/97 8/15/97 8/18/97 8/18/97 8/19/97 8/20/97 8/20/97 8/21/97 8/22/97 8/22/97 8/26/97 8/26/97 8/27/97 8/27/97 8/28/97 8/28/97 8/29/97 8/29/97 9/2/97 9/3/97 9/4/97 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 RETEST OF 15 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 RETEST OF 34 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 I I II TEST I NO. DATE I I I I I I I II I I ! I I I I I I JOB NAME: GROUP CARE HOME JOB NUMBER: 9711028 ....... . 43 44 45 46 9/4/97 9/4/97 9/4/97 9/4/97 ...... ~......~~ ~ ......~ ................................ ....~.. ....... .~.................. .~....................~.~. .................. ...................................................................................... ........ ................... """""......................~.....~.......~.................................... ............ ~.................. '~'.'~'.~.'.'.'.'~'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~'.~~~'~'~'.'.".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.'."'." "'.'..'.'..~.'.'.'.'.'.'~'..'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.~~."~'.~~~.".'.".'.~.'~'.~.'.~.'.'~'.'.'. ...................~..............~. ~.......~. .~.. ....~...... ...................... ...... ......... ......... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'t~'t' :::UT:}:ï:::ø.:t;(:>:: .n'lj;j(tëft'fp';:;t::..: ::mtii.'C!!T(ë>:.:.: .......... .:::::::::::::::~t']!;E~~M~,*M:;Çf1q~~!~Fi9:~.9 I LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP. (feet, MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent) 168.5 F.G. 9.3 115.3 2 91.7 168.5 F.G. 8.9 115.1 2 91.5 168.5 F.G. 10.1 117.6 2 93.5 168.5 F.G. 9.1 116.0 2 92.2 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 See Plate Number 1 MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE SUMMARY (ASTM D1557) Soil Type 2 Soil Description Optimum Maximum Moisture, % Density, pcf 9.6 125.9 10.0 125.8 Dark Brown, Silty Sand Red Brown, Grey, Silty Sand PLA TE NO.3 I I I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I I I COMPACTED SOil BACKFill ~ 3/4- CRUSHE ROCK . 0 0 D . . . .' '. 28 MIN. () . , . . 0 . 0 . . . 68 III" M1RAFf 140M or EQUIVAL£MT -, ".'.' 0..0'"0"'- SAND COMBINATION STORM DRAIN/SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale ~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~ SOIL & TESTING,INC. GROUP CARE FACILITY BY: DBA/SO DATE: 11-05-97 JOB NUMBER: 9711028 Plate No.4 . .' . . ~f: 1/1 ~ ~~! ., 8 8 ð ! !!~9! l!!~n~;o flc~ { ~['pi n~~r! '! ~Yø . /. '4fß' 1<:. HYDROLOGY STUDY Sunland Group Care Center Encinitas, CA March 19,1997 OFFSITE FLOWS: The drainage basin collecting runoff that runs through an existing drainage channel on the south side of Sparta Drive, then crosses under Sparta Drive via and underground structure to the west then continues westerly in a grass-lined channel, encompasses 64 acres, referred to as drainage area 'X' (see Drainage Map 'A'). The offsite drainage area that currently produces significant flows across the site encompasses an area of 32.6 acres, referred to as drainage area' A'. Flows from area' A' currently pond on the adjacent property in the northeast corner of the lot and sheet across this area. Off site flows are diverted around the site on the east, south, and west sides of the lot. A concrete drainage channel is proposed for the adjacent site and northeast corner of the lot to alleviate the problems caused by ponding, erosion, and erratic flows. The design considers two major drainage basins, A. 1 and A. 2. The analysis includes runoff from drainage area 'X minus A' to test for the adequacy of the existing channel along Sparta Drive. The Rational Method for computing storm water runoff was utilized. DRAINAGE AREA A.l: Q(A.l)loo = C * I * A A = 18.0 acres Cl = 0.45 (Table 2, S. D. County Runoff Coefficients, lots over Y2 acre, Soil Type D) Al = 11 ac. Area of rural residential lots Cz = 0.85 (Table 2, S. D. County Runoff Coefficients, impervious [greenhouse and nursery areas]) 80% Az = 7 ac. Area of 80% imperviousness ,-;;-! :I~ (:IJ i < i: 'I i, \..)I':,llJjl~l¡ I' n U 0 '- . '- , -..., U MAY 16 1997 C = (11/18)(.45)+ (7/18)(.85) = 0.60 ENGINEEF1iNC SERVICES Length of longest flow line, L = 2000' CITY OF ENC¡~'1!TÞ;S High point = 300' Low point = 150' P. O. Box 791 . Poway, CA 92074. (619) 748-8333 . Fax (619) 748-8412 May 12, 1997 Page 2 of 11 8 8 (see attached drainage basin map) MI = 300-150=150' Tc = 17 minutes (see attached San Diego County Tc nomograph) I = 2.75 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 17 minutes, 100 year storm) Q(A.l)IOO = (0.60)*(2.75)*(18) Q(A.l)loo= 29.7 CFS 29.7 cfs is currently collected in drainage area A.l in a l00-year storm. DRAINAGE AREA A.2: Q(A.2)loo = C * I * A A = 14.6 acres CI = 0.45 (Table 2, S.D. County Runoff Coefficients, lots over 1jz acre, Soil Type D) Al = 9.1 ac. Area of rural residential lots Cz = 0.85 (Table 2, S.D. County Runoff Coefficients, 80% impervious [greenhouse and nursery areas]) Az = 5.5 ac. Area of 80 % imperviousness C = (9.1/14.6)(.45)+(5.5/14.6)(.85) = 0.60 Length of longest flow line, L = 1700' High point = 255' Low point = 150' (see attached drainage basin map) MI = 255-150=105' Tc = 16.7 minutes (see attached San Diego County Tc nomograph) .. 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 3 of 11 I = 2.8 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 17 minutes, 100 year stonn) Q(A.2)100 = (0.60)*(2.8)*(14.6) Q(A.2)100 = 24.5 CFS 24.5 cfs is currently collected in drainage area A.2 in a 100-year storm. DRAINAGE AREA X minus A: Q(X-A)l00 = C * I * A A = 31 acres C = 0.55 (Table 2, S.D. County Runoff Coefficients, single family residential, Soil Type D) Length of longest flow line, L = 2700' High point = 275' Low point = 150' (see attached drainage basin map) MI = 275-150=125' Tc = 21.5 minutes (see attached San Diego County Tc nomograph) I = 2.45 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 17 minutes, 100 year stonn) Q(X-A)l00 = (0.55)*(2.45)*(21.5) Q(X-A)l00 = 29.0 CFS 29.0 cfs is currently collected in drainage area 'X-A' in a 100-year storm. ONSITE FLOWS: The on-site drainage will be handled by a private underground stonn drain system feeding into the existing Sparta Drive drainage channel (see Drainage Map 'ß', grading, and improvement plans). (Refer to Draina~e Map 'ß' for areas) DRAINAGE AREA S.l: Q(S.l)loo = C * I * A 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 4 of 11 C = 0.70 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients (Rational Method, Multi- units) Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) A = 0.23 acres Q(S.I)loo = (0.70)*(3.5)*(0.23) Q(S.I)l00 = 0.56 CFS 0.56 cfs is the runoff for S.1 in a lOO-year-storm. DRAINAGE AREA S.2: Q(8.2)100 = C * I * A C = 0.70 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients (Rational Method, Multi- units) Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) A = 0.29 acres Q(8.2)100 = (0.70)*(3.5)*(0.29) Q(8.2)100 = 0.71 CFS 0.71 cfs is the runoff for 8.2 in a loo-year-storm. DRAINAGE AREA 8.3: Q(8.3)100 = C * I * A C = 0.70 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients (Rational Method, Multi- units) Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 5 of 11 A = 0.3t acres Q(S.3)¡oo = (0.70)*(3.5)*(0.31) Q(S.3)¡oo = 0.76 CFS 0.76 cfs is the runoff for S.3 in a tOO-fear-storm. DRAINAGE AREA S.4: Q(S.4)¡oo = C * I * A C = 0.70 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients (Rational Method, Mu1ti- units) Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 fQf the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) A = 0.09 acres Q(S.4)¡oo = (0.70)*(3.5)*(0.09) Q(S.4)¡oo = 0.22 CFS 0.22 cfs is the runoff for S.4 in a tOO-fear-storm. DRAINAGE AREA S.5: Q(S.S)¡OO = C * I * A C = 0.70 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients (Rational Method, Multi- units) Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 fOf the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) A = 0.t7 acres Q(S.S)¡OO = (0.70)*(3.5)*(0.17) Q(S.S)¡OO = 0.42 CFS 0.42 cfs is the runoff for S.5 in a tOO-fear-storm. , , . ~ May 12, 1997 Page 6 of 11 8 8 DRAINAGE AREA S.6: Q(S.6)lOO = C * I * A C = 0.85 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients Commercial, 80 % impervious) (Rational Method, Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) A = 0.40 acres Q(S.6)lOO = (0.85)*(3.5)*(0.40) Q(S.6)lOO = 1.19 CFS 1.19 cfs is the ronoff for S.6 in a 100-year-storm. DRAINAGE AREA 8.0: Q(8.0)lOO = C * I * A C = 0.70 (Table 2, Runoff Coefficients (Rational Method, Multi- units) Tc = 10 minutes (lowest allowed by County nomograph) I = 3.5 for the County of San Diego, Time of Concentration equals 10 minutes, 100 year stonn) A = 0.20 acres Q(8.0)lOO = (0.70)*(3.5)*(0.20) Q(8.0)lOO = 0.49 CFS 0.49 cfs is the ronoff for 8.0 in a 100-year-storm. , \7', ,001:-.' :.JJY3S SMO1.:J 3J.IS- .:J.:JO d\7'W 3Ð\7'NI\7'~a \ "t!o' .~, ,. 'I_..~nl-- 3J.IS ONr1NflS L:: ~ z'r /1 'r - 3ÐO3 NIsr8 i 'li~I:1 ,r, NIsr8 3ÐrN/,(~O ,x, NIsr8 3ÐrN/,(~O ~ ON3937 ::::::::::::- :, 8'\ CQ 8'\ Q.CI) -q:~ ~~~ ....... II I: - lLJ~~ ~(/)5 -q: I CI) ~êš -q: C:::: Q "'- ............."'- --./ . ,HH- ) 7im~ 0/ conc~nlraIÚ)/7 Lt!!n9111 0/. wa/.:-rJ'l1.:-d /)1/I'~r~l7ce In 4!'/~vQ.l¡"on a/c/19 t!!/I'~clil'e S/p.De /in~ (.S'e~ .4l'l'e/1d1x Y.ð) ¡;. L C Mile's reel Novr.s M/nvles " 24t) Ft::~/ ere Jë. L . II. 8 1t7t7ð ~(}O 8/)0 71)0 .1)0 "- . , SOl) "- ~()O ~ ,,~ 't~ "- "'- "- , ., " , I " .5t)()tJ .. "~() 'o' .!()()/) , "- , , , .. ~-.------ ~8Wl I NOTE: I ADO TEN MINUTES TO UCOMPUTED TIME OF CON:]. CENTRATICN. ~- - -=---~ 5" H L .3 1St) 2 I;!LJ I I D t 1 ~ 11 ,..; SAN DI EGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES DES IGN MANUAL APPROVED '."'" 'r..' /,..,. "c;-...., 7é NOMOGRAPH FOR OETERMIN!.TICN OF TIME OF CCNCENTRAT¡C." (7c1 FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS DATE APPEN;)IX Sf¡ Gi~'--~-- f A_C TOR O-'~Oo lOO~ ~00-3000 1.25 '000-4000 142 8 4000-5000 1.60 '000- 6000 1.70 OESERT l.z~ To oblui" co".ct In'.n.",. ,"ultip'y '"hnli1, on chlll,I <X> W h foclo' 10' de,I9" e'ty0110n. z ..... n ~ 0 (f) C - Z -i -t n-< -<--c I 0 ~ 1:0 a < c "TI Im:O (f)(f) Þ » -t z - 0 0 Z rtï I G) ""f1, 0 :0 rrt 0 C ffl Z 8 i::Z.';f<> 5 10 M INUTESOURATI.ON 20 '0 40 ~O .. 5 II ., ø 9 I( H au R S 2 , :0 Þ - Z "11 Þ r r ~.O:rr~: :!IJI!f -, ! II~II ~~il~~~lil¡! r~[ ,I III I' ,:!: I:: -\ -, 40 ~ "" ;llU -,-" -"-~i--~'I-' .,...-, '~,: .It-- 1111,1,' 1;~'III_':'-"~L'~';~::-"'" 'I" 11+: t'¡:::,r,: I'. ....:..,::,. I; --,'; lj:';: ~: : ,:::., " :1-,"-':-.":"..... """'."~"II, 'I" ,.,.. 01- .'-, !"..I."'......~ ,I::..I"..:"! ,p:;1 .~':, : --~ , i'H,~ ,.' I. It ,-~ - .. - -,.. -. tt 'I., ,I. I' .. - - ~ t. L - _t . , ll[tb_, ,..'-- '" - "--f:"_. 4- " - ~,o-"""'" "".', .... .., """'a'I' '-- ": :::r;: ::.:::: 1,1; ~::, " -,: -- r-t' , :..:~: -+ r;' ; ~' 0 .I.~' -,......- L . ~--'---"1' ¡'I ,.........., -:r-.. 141....1:::;.... C) ..:~ ::-?i ~ ' :: _....:. ::¡ ." i .... "-.-::- t::: :-:-. : "I r .:: I ,. ~ -r::r: I'f' . !~; -+1r.:- T -, t I~:r -:, - ;g w :III":::::~::'!~ ~ ,.,:~~~::':;:,.I~j -'..:.:..- t.:.:t:", .~ 1.:::1"" 1 ":":""= 0- -"'I"""¡""~"'I -.... r ¡-. ,- ;11' 1"," '-I ,....... "..t,. I,. ,,-,¡L.......;..=I... - 2. v- ~.. - -, .J' , . - -.....L- ~'i -, - I . t- oo-- ... ,1, , ' .... ~+I- "~"'" . : . -' _i. - ~ -I-- - ~- I I I.' L. ,...J::::¡ ~"HIIn==F Z 0:: .."'-" ", ,I .......' -. ¡-. . """"'¡I- ~..- to - '-" -. . .. - . -I- ",'~""" ':':X"'" , .1.. .,1." ",.. ' ct:> ::Je,s"1 !.-,j-""" ,J..:._¡.. . p ~ . -¡..It'-' -¡.I ,..1,. 1 (/) 0 :.;:J - .., L: - ,. , I. '-- - . .... ' ....... I I ' J: .,,1_.._" '1.....--" ,......' ,It. ., 1- 1" ".,....' ----i- ,.,1:,-"", ló"""'¡' ~ I,_~~ ~"' : ~ ";, I ,01. ,.r [I ;;" i ,I 11 111111,.tt >-a:: ~:"-""I 'j':-' ",i'1-f...~",!,.'tollir ....,....~p '_1.~' "'\111' - -¡:r: ""w .'.'m-"-"" "'," "I~~ ,f¡t, ~ ~,~ """,,:.,.,"!j ~I :,' ': ..- -0..10 rrll" ,.' l'I""t--,,_.::!':i. .- . I ,,~,. ,-,:.:; t- ,I;:: (/) 0.9 .,~;; !::q . -- - i,i,., I ! ~ 1;1 I-:- :...--~ III ,'~ +ï: ; i~~ Z 08 H, 1.;JI1li'." _....' -' ~I,:' t . j ~ -~I1L.._. ,;1'lJll ~ ,~III =~I~I~:== WV'I' . ..!H ."- -' 1. I' . 'l'r~; tll ,I, - I ,= : 1::1:':1...' :"'" 21'1-"" .,,- ..=-,-=... rWOlill['I:'LII~:":="-"'l'l' ;'J-.:...~- 'Ht..¡ ;I~:..:..: ::-=-==;: x' " ",.. " , : ; 10." .... ,,;: , " ,- '-=- ' . Z ,:, :1,'.. .: ,'Ii; I ,:,1 :.; =.=== _\,)0.6';": TI:I: '-:11:-:'----:-' ilk 1::- ,-¡¡¡- ;,J. I ;:. ~ . ..'" Z '1'1"" ,-, ~.. ' "".- """ ,,:\:.- ,-.- - ' 'I - . , I""';;..,"" os :i. I.:: ,. I :1, -.: -~ - . , .. ,~! ~ (~ -. .1 1 ,~ 11 .... ..- ".'1"'" .' I' - "';" ~ ,-i---i , ,.." . ...' I, ~ ,r, I"'" I "~I" ,'.. --'," II I' I ~~ ~ 11 .: fij I.. .-:.-.= ~ 't-',:: 'I' -, - - , '1..1 'I'IIIIIJ "" . 1, t IJo ill..:.. ,- - - 0.41 ~I: ¡I,; - ~I I ---"'. -- " " "ir!" "..:-.: II:!!,:II_:_---',:, i ,,' ::::.:;'-..- t :I¡1".J.;. ~..- 1111, ,--,., ' 1 ,,'n _..,."-' ': I:¡ ',::',:,: , -- .. .; . :. .,-" 1==:1.5: o.,, h:I.II'.II.:.~':,,:~, ..1111' ..1':"':' --,' ~- i(. 1,1:;.lH~: IF-='~ Ii rl'I' I,., "" I,.t~ t ,I!'tii ".,.... 0,2 ill .UII! i I'¡!¡- ,- ' 111:,1,,11[1 J '! ~,~-' 1!t 'lliü :~~~ ~~'IIII'" 11'1 It I "T- "."~If;--'~ " I I I I of I " i' ~ ..- , ,- :ll II: !II',ll' J ,111111", ~ Il_uL_.ll~ UI..:I: .,~::! 30 40 ~o. I 2 ! .. ~ 6 7 8 «) IC ~ 10 ~20 MINUTEr ï ~ 1:+ ""': (\ , c.. . DURATIO~J HOURS 1> (t ø., I .... A Co E.. AI- f, p.. . A, I " , . .re:e:~ 8 S-"ðð Tc. (/l.kL J) ..ftJ5 8 ¡¿. 7lme: cl' ccnt:~/1lralÚ:J/'1 L. Lt!n9/h cl'. wa.l~rS'h~d It'. f)1/l::r~nc~ 1/7 t:!'/t!-vQIÚ::n a./Cn9 t!//~¡:J'/Yl! S/DDt: /in~ (.Jt:t: Jl?pf't:ndiX 1'.8) ¡; L t: M/lt:!'$ rt:l!!¡4 ./rIct/rs Minvlt:s 4 ¿4tJ .' .3 /8~ //J/JI} !loo SOO 700 .Of) , . "' $OtJ , ~OO ~ ,,~ 't~ " " , " ." " "- I 2 l2tJ I &0 " .5¡)()ð "- "~/) ,. J/)/)/) " , "' "' "' ru-u= ...... -=-- -=- "':' ........ -=-=1 I NOTE: I ADD TE.N MINUTES TOj ~ TIME OF CON- CENTRATION. =--.t:=' a=.---- :!J -r -;/0""."1 c... :: ,to. '1 ,...; I' It) .s 5" H L 7é NOMOGR~?I-I FOR DETERM I Nt-irCN OF TIME- OF CCNCENTRATIOf\; (7c) FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS SAN 01 EGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES DES IGN MANUAL APPROVED '.".'J 'r- ..' /.. .,. ,,"'7';-:.., DATE APPEN::>IX 0 f. HEV. fACTOR O-I~OO lOO ~00-3000 1.25 ]000-4000 142 "000-'000 1.60 .'000- 6000 1.10 DESERT 1a2S To oblui" correc' In..n"'r. multiply In""';1, on chcIF' (X) W ~,'actor tor '..I,n .I,y01101l. Z -i n ~ 0 (J) C - Z -i -i n-< -<...c I 0 ~ ,:0 0 < C "T1 IfTI;:O tn (J) Þ }> -t z - 0 0 Z r11 I G) "Tf. 0 :u fT1 0 C f'1 Z n (:: 2,9 10 ,..,NUTESDURATI.ON 20 ]0 40 50 8 1 8 9 10 HOURS 2 3 5 " 5 :u þ Z "TI Þ r r >-æ "'W ëñ Q. '.0 0.9 Z wen 0.8 W I- J: O. 7 Zu - Z 0.6 0.5 5 10 J 20 MINUT f 30 ..0 50 , 2 .! .. 5 6 7 8 CJ 10 HOURS DURATIO~j ì =/~.-:: "";,, c. Þ e. 1\ ",U", ~ ~ /V?-f-A A.L " F"t:~1 8 Tc S'",,1tJ ¡¿ . -I~L'I) ~ : . (/ltL..1) .-S8.5" lime- ,,/, t:"nc~nlrQ.rÚ;¡/7 Lt:"9/h cl. wQIe-r.r.he-á t)i/l'e-r~/1t:t: in t:"/e"VQllðn 12/"/19 t:/I'~cliY~ S/"Dt: /¡n~ (St:~ A'ppt:/1dtx )'.8) ¡;. L c ~ Mi/~s ,r.t:~~ 1I~~s Minvlt:s I ì?4tJ 8 .3 /8ð /t't'tJ gl)t) St)t) 7"" . ~(J(J " . "- S()I) " ~()ð ~ "'~ 't~ '" " "- " ., " , I l2a ,..- .-..----=--.- -=-~ --=1 I NOTE: I ADD TEN MINUTES TO I1COMPUTED TIME OF CONj CENTRATICN. ~==- =--=-=-- ~ = Zl.~ ",..:1'\ ~ H L 7é NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATIOII: (7c) FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS SAN 01 EGO COUNTY OEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES DESIGN MANUAL APPROVED '.'\. °, 'r-..' /...,.. ,,'"(¡-,. DATE APPENDIX 84 [LEY. FACTOR ~-I500 ~ 1500-1000 1.25 (':. 3000-4000 1.42 z..~ 4000-S000 1,60 5000-6000 1.10 DESERT 1.25 To obtain cornct 'n..n,",- multiply Int"'li1, on chart co \.oJ h faclor for '"Iln 11",0110n, :Þ -0 -0 fT1 Z 0 X 52 -t n ~ 0 (/) C - Z -t -t n-< -<...c 8 0 ~ 1::0 0 " <. c I(TI ;0 (/) 'en Þ Þ -t z - 0 0 Z iTi I (i) ". 0 :u fT1 0 c m z 0 -- 5 10 M IN UT E 5 D U RAT 1.0 N 20 10 40 50 4 5 . a ., 8 9 10 HOURS 2 5 :u þ Z " Þ r r ~ 0 m r'-1 - 4' 0 ~ 1!lli:: : : : IE::: _. t L ~Ul ~~ ~:~.~Iì I' ~ . .-- ~. 1 L t! In: H ii 1 ~ . .~ 1- t. ~ 'Jrpi' .~ t~II_~- . L'.9':~ ::"'.. 'I .. : " ¡::::j.: . ' . : :, . I ; ;; - . .:: :..¡ :.; I : : .l.: I-d : ; ; ,~:',':'..... ,.~.--',.~, 'l" " "'~ -- ,.-. ~.1"+k.;~ 'I"~ 1+"".',,1' ,-,. ...ltlll' 1'1 . . ,1ft" ¡c'. !"" . .lll--..~- ':-" . ... :. ; . -- - - .. --.... -. ..:: 1'1 ~.. (.. - .t=.. - -~ . -.. - rH'.'.~'I' .. ..,. ,~r:"'.' ,., I""..J.." 'II. --- - ..-.-. .-- -f~"'-.~----'-II' --, .--. .- 1 h_, I.,...'" , ,.-'..." - ,->-,., ---., ..- . .....f-~ ~ I-. -" t-- . 0 1 ~foo..L II J.... ' . ~ - - ..- -. I" f ' -.-,of- -:.J.oo 1~ It".. :t.., H.'f' - CJ .. ,-," : - - -: ,. --::- !"::: ::-. :.- :.:: ,. ..' I ,:-: r-:'; 1"'r.1:- T 1-::: r. ,.- - 1-,......,'- .r . -- '.l."'I'."'~"". --+- . ..' - - - 0- ^- .-"1 ~_::>Ok-:" I ¡::::k 't-- - " . ~ ,. 'II . -, f-. f 'r"" - r ~..~ ... t- - 2,v-Ri- -_.~., . ~~L. -.' t' .~ r . "-' ... ,1, , . ..... + - , "- . ; . - -- . - - 't- 1- -, 1-1,-J t- Z a: .. -, ... .1 ' -, t-- '. t- .... + - '-' - £ ~ -. t t . .. -W . -l-~- - d.. Es -..:..:!I II"-,~ to..: ~ ò., .. I . 't. ¡.t. . I~, 'I ..... ~t at' 11rt= _::J .- ....:-11,...1-""-.' ..... '."0'" ~ . -..1,1-1..' ...1-.11 cno - ,.' . - 'l¡ .,. ~ '~r- -.1: ,..'_.._,.~ ."".I,~ '1-.",.,.., . 11.1- t,I II.:"...., , --;- .,-!----" Ii" "'r-. . ~ l~-,i . ..ke :' ~ ',"'I; , ,d; i. !!~I ;!'. i -JlI1111111.j~t >-cr ..... ,,_.... ,. ",::-. ", IN...-:' .,1. 'NII~ -- I., ¡,.,,~þ ,--.... ."1 II~t~ UI -~ I-w ..'~'m"'-""'!_'-" "IIa...I'I¡I,l.Í.,.....~..:;."""-"",, ~~~~I'I'. ,..~" fl . ¡"",', I' ~~~ '~' -a. I 0 r' " - I' I ' - 1'!" -- ,.& .~ , 1 ::".' - ,~ :; II': ': ; , ..- en 0.9 ,t~.:!!:q _---I. 1m I ~':I-:-'...--- '! ~ ,1;1-'-- Z 08 t .I.¡illl,; li:'._.. -' +t" It I . j": ~I"'-,- .-.W ,!'I;I,~.~' I;~= W"" - .' ¡¡I, -..- -. '1 I 1-...;;,- '- ~' t 11 . I. '= I v, . I..t'.:. . ,'....,' II"" -.,- :~-=-".. ,-wol.if In':I~I!I¡II";-;""""':" .1: II ; .f -, .;.~,.-, .L:.t.:.; I:,':': :rz=:1 "'--.1:' . ,. . "U . r-.. ....,~ IT r" ,- ,.,toO'" ;1 :il:¡ =~ : I ...... I ,:,1':.: =- ~ U 0.6:;'; ll: I~, 1< II! ~ f- :. - : ,,- IJ : I .. ':-.... - 5i . xl - f ::~::! ':: Z I TI"I""'-'" I" ""1. I~ .~ '. 1-.- - -i ; : I :' - . , I. : I 1'. I." ~ I : : ' : + ._,'.. -., rt:i-ó I-" ,--~~ 'T . -. -- 0.5 : I::'I::,::!: ' . Ii: I ,~.....~.... - -.1 r; I~ 11. I 1j . = '-== I 1"'1""'---'" I II I ""~ ¡.......! "~~.. .---- .~ 't-.'.,, -----""ru If' ,~,. I' ,L; tiLL: ,-- fl::',';',: - If .1 . '--~---I~' .,'."If'. '."":=-~ .1.. ... ' -.-, - If .. I. ." ,I 1'1'-"" .~.. I" --..-" ~ 'I"~f'~ I ..- Iii; ;'.u'-. I ,,- -1:-,,1'> 1 : t I'~~ ,.. '" I II! I; I",: !I ::.~ .~t~ < . ~ : 11" l' - 1 f ::. -~, .1> : ~ ~ I~ _I'I 1',1 ~;1TÛl ~t ~¡E ~ ~ tlill I,.. ,,'1" II.. ' .t, t1ttl !!1~ ..~'- ..,...1,. 1,--, '£., t .,..~t rt?' ,~.~ - . - '-~! k :_~-= ,~ - 3 .. ~ 6 7 8 9 10 30 .. 0 50 I 2 5 10 20 MINUTES r ---rc. ;:. 2-1 . S- 0\ '" , 'þR.AIt~sA(,f- MEA 'X-A.' HOURS DURATION 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 7 of 11 HYDRAULIC STUDY DRAINAGE CHANNEL A.l: A triangular concrete channel is preferred to handle flows from drainage area A.l. The manning equation was used to detennine the flow velocity, depth and top width of the l00-year- flow detennined in the Hydrology Study. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The channel is designed as a triangular concrete channel, with side slopes of 4:1 and 6:1, with a drain slope of 2% (see grading and improvement plans). DRAINAGE CHANNEL A.l + 2: A trapezoidal concrete channel is preferred to handle flows from drainage area A.l + 2. The manning equation was used to detennine the flow velocity, depth and top width of the l00-year- flow detennined in the Hydrology Study. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The channel is designed as a trapezoidal concrete channel, with side slopes of 1.5:1, with a drain slope of 2% (see grading and improvement plans). DRAINAGE CHANNEL X-A: The existing channel along Sparta drive (upstream from the Channel A.l + 2 connection) was surveyed and detennined to have a cross section as shown on attached section 'X-A', at its narrowest portion (see attached 'Sparta Drainage Channel'). The manning equation was used to detennine the flow velocity, depth and top width of the l00-year-flow detennined in the Hydrology Study. A minimum slope of 4.0% was detennined. The manning n used was 0.030 (as appears in Chaudhry, M. Hanif, Open Channel Flow, 1993, p. 83, clean and straight natural channels with no appreciable rocks in the bed). The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The existing channel is adequate to carry the existing 100-year flow of 29.0 cfs through the Sparta Drive channel upstream from the concrete (D-70) connection (at a depth of 1.09 feet). 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 8 of 11 DRAINAGE CHANNEL X: The existing channel along Sparta drive (downstream from the Channel A.l + 2 connection) was surveyed and detennined to have a cross section as shown on attached section 'X', at its narrowest portion (see attached 'Sparta Drainage Channel'). The manning equation was used to detennine the flow velocity, depth and top width of the lOO-year-flow detennined in the Hydrology Study. A minimum slope of 4.0% was detennined. The manning n used was 0.030 (as appears in Chaudhry, M. Hanif, Open Channel Flow, 1993, p. 83, clean and straight natural channels with no appreciable rocks in the bed). The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The existing channel is adequate to carry the existing l00-year flow of 83.2 cfs through the Sparta Drive channel downstream from the concrete (D-70) connection (at a depth of 1.76 feet). DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.l: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.l. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.l is designed as a 6" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 2%. Q(S.1)100=O.56 cfs < Q(S.1)max=O.71 cfs (see attached S.l data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.2: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.2. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.2 is designed as a 6" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 3%. Q(S.2)100=O.71 cfs < Q(S.2)max=O.97 cfs (see attached S.2 data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.3: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.3. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.3 is designed as a 6" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 2.7%. 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 9 of 11 Q(S.3)loo=O.76 cfs < Q(S.3)max=O.92 cfs (see attached S.3 data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.S: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.5. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.S is designed as a 6" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 2%. ' Q(S.S)loo=O.42 cfs < Q(S.S)max=O.79 cfs (see attached S.5 data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.6: 'PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.6. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.6.is designed as a 8" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 2%. Q(S.6)loo=1.19 cfs < Q(S.6)max=1.71 cfs (see attached S.6 data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.l + 2: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.l +2. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.l +2 is designed as a 8" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 2%. Q(S.l +2)100=1.27 cfs < Q(S.l + 2)max = 1.71 cfs (see attached S.l +2 data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.1+2+3: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.l + 2 + 3. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.l +2+3 is designed as a 8" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 3%. 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 10 of 11 Q(S.1 +2+3)100=2.03 cfs < Q(S.1 +2+3)max=2.09 cfs (see attached S.l +2+3 data sheet) DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.I+2+3+4: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.l +2+3+4. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.I+2+3+4 is designed as a 8" PVC pipe with a minimum slope of 4%. Q(S.I+2+3+4)loo=2.25 cfs < Q(S.I+2+3+4)max=2.42 cfs data sheet) (see attached S.l +2+3+4 DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.I+2+3+4+5: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.l +2+3+4+5. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.I+2+3+4+5 is designed as a 8" PVC pipe with a slope of 12.8%. Q(S.I+2+3+4+5)loo=2.67 cfs < Q(S.I+2+3+4+5)max=4.32 cfs S.l +2+3+4+5 data sheet) (see attached DRAIN PIPE FLOW S.I+2+3+4+5+6: PVC pipe is preferred to handle flows from drainage area S.l +2+3+4+5+6. The manning equation was used to detennine the maximum flow quantity of the pipe sections. The full results appear on the following data sheets generated from a computer program utilizing the manning equation. The pipe for S.I+2+3+4+5+6 is designed as a 12" PVC pipe with a slope of 2%. Q(S.I+2+3+4+5+6)loo=3.86 cfs < Q(S.I+2+3+4+5+6)max=5.04 cfs S.l +2+3+4+5+6 data sheet) (see attached / . 8 8 May 12, 1997 Page 11 of 11 DRAIN PIPE FLOW 8.0: The current flows for drainage area S.O will remain virtually unchanged. Most of the runoff will flow directly down the slope to the existing Sparta Drive drainage channel. 8 8 2.9' 2.4' SECTION 'X-A' SCALE: ,"=2' 3.3' I ...= ~ :> STACKED BLOCK WALL 2.5' SECTION 'X' SCALE: "'=2' PROPOS£D TRAPEZOIDAL CONCRETE CHANNEL EXISTING SPARTA DRIVE CHANNEL \ \ ~ /' SPARTA DRAINAGE CHANNEL NO SCALE: , J ROJECT: CHANNEL X-A NVERT WIDTH (feet) ... LOPE (feet/foot) ..... EPTH (feet) .......... ELOCITY (fps) ........ REA (square feet) .... DEPTH. . . . . . . . VELOCITY. . . . . 8 8 TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 23:46:40 2.60 MANNINGS n ......... .0400 Q (cfs) ............ RIGHT SIDE SLOPE (X to 1) ..... 0.96 1. 09 TOP WIDTH (feet) ... VEL. HEAD (feet) ... 7.78 3.73 P + M (pounds) ..... CRITICAL SLOPE ..... 1. 37 5.85 FROUDE NUMBER ...... .030 29.00 0.55 4.24 0.94 554 0.0182 1.46 ROJECT: CHANNEL X NVERT WIDTH (feet) ... LOPE (feet/foot) ..... EFT SIDE LOPE (X to 1) ........ EPTH (feet) .......... ELOCITY (fps) ........ EA (square feet) ,... RITICAL DEPTH ........ RITICAL VELOCITY..... 48 8 TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 23:52:16 4.00 .0400 0.00 1.76 10.11 8.23 2.21 7.78 MANNINGS n ......... Q (cfs) ............ RIGHT SIDE SLOPE (X to 1) ..... TOP WIDTH (feet) ... VEL. HEAD (feet) ... P + M (pounds) ..... CRITICAL SLOPE ..... FROUDE NUMBER ...... .030 83.20 0.76 5.34 1. 59 2061 0.0196 1.44 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.l Diameter (inches) ... Slope (it/it) ....... depth (it) ....... ... Velocity (ips) ...... Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... Critical Depth ...... Critical Velocity... PIPE FLOW 6 0.0200 0.50 4.04 0.20 0.44 4.31 8 DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 00:25:36 Mannings n ....... .013 Q (cis) ........... 0.79 depth/diameter ... 1.00 Velocity head .... 0.25 Critical Slope ... 0.0179 Froude Number .... 0.00 .' . 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.2 Diameter (inches) ... Slope (ft/ft) ....... depth (ft) .......... Velocity (fps) ,..... Area (Sq, Ft.) ...... Critical Depth ,.,... Critical Velocity... PIPE FLOW 6 0.0300 0.50 4.95 0.20 0.47 5.08 8 DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 00:43:58 Mannings n ....... .013 Q (cfs) ........... 0.97 depth/diameter ... 1. 00 0.38 Velocity head .,.. Critical Slope ... 0.0259 0.00 Froude Number .... . .' , 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.3 Diameter (inches) ... Slope (ft/ft) ....... depth (ft) .... ...... Velocity (fps) ...... Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... Critical Depth ...... Critical Velocity... PIPE FLOW 6 0.0270 0.50 4.69 0.20 0.46 4.85 8 DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 00:43:04 Mannings n .... ... .013 Q (cfs) ........... 0.92 depth/diameter. .. 1. 00 0.34 Velocity head .... Critical Slope ... 0.0234 Froude Number .... 0.00 . " . 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.5 Diameter (inches) ... Slope (ft/ft) ....... depth (ft) ...... .... Velocity (fps) ...... Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... Critical Depth ...... Critical Velocity... PIPE FLOW 6 0.0200 0.50 4.04 0.20 0.44 4.31 8 DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 01:03:02 Mannings n ....... .013 0.79 Q (cfs) ........... depth/diameter ... 1. 00 Velocity head .... 0.25 Critical Slope ... 0.0179 Froude Number .... 0.00 . . , . 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.6 Diameter (inches) ... Slope (ft/ft) ....... depth (ft) .. ... ..... Velocity (fps) ...... Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... Critical Depth ...... Critical Velocity... PIPE FLOW 8 0.0200 0.67 4.89 0.35 0.60 5.16 8 DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 01:05:46 Mannings n . ...... .013 1. 71 Q (cfs) ........... depth/diameter ... 1.00 Velocity head .... 0.37 Critical Slope ... 0.0176 Froude Number .... 0.00 . 8 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.1+2 DATE: 05-12-1997 PIPE FLOW TIME: 00:46:58 Diameter (inches) ... 8 Mannings n ....... .013 Slope (ft/ft) ....... 0.0200 Q (cfs) ........... 1. 71 depth (ft) .......... 0.67 depth/diameter ... 1. 00 Velocity (fps) ...... 4.89 Velocity head .... 0.37 Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... 0.35 Critical Depth ...... 0.60 Critical Slope ... 0.0176 Critical Velocity ... 5.16 Froude Number .... 0.00 4. ~ 8 8 PROJECT: SUNLAND - S.1+2+3 DATE: 05-12-1997 PIPE FLOW TIME: 00:49:23 Diameter (inches) ... 8 Mannings n ....... .013 Slope (ft/ft) ....... 0.0300 Q (cfs) ........... 2.09 depth (ft) .......... 0.67 depth/diameter ... 1.00 Velocity (fps) ...... 5.99 Velocity head .... 0.56 Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... 0.35 Critical Depth ...... 0.63 Critical Slope ... 0.0259 Critical Velocity ... 6.11 Froude Number .... 0.00 .. " PROJECT: 8 SUNLAND S.1+2+3+4 Diameter (inches) ... Slope (ft/ft) ....... depth (ft) .......... Velocity (fps) ...... Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... Critical Depth ...... Critical Velocity... PIPE FLOW 8 0.0400 0.67 6.92 0.35 0.65 6.98 8 DATE: 05-12-1997 TIME: 00:51:41 Mannings n ....... .013 Q (cfs) ........... 2.42 depth/diameter ... 1. 00 Velocity head .... 0.74 Critical Slope ... 0.0352 Froude Number .... 0.00 ( "".. 8 8 PROJECT: SUN LAND - S.1+2+3+4+5 DATE: 05-12-1997 PIPE FLOW TIME: 00:55:28 Diameter (inches) ... 8 Mannings n ....... .013 Slope (ft/ft) ....... 0.1280 Q (cfs) ........... 4.32 depth (ft) .......... 0.67 depth/diameter ... 1. 00 Velocity (fps) ...... 12.38 Velocity head .... 2.38 Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... 0.35 Critical Depth ...... 0.66 Critical Slope ... 0.1221 Critical Velocity ... 12.38 Froude Number .... 0.00 0> ... . 8 8 PROJECT: SUN LAND - S.1+2+3+4+5+6 DATE: 05-12-1997 PIPE FLOW TIME: 00:57:30 Diameter (inches) ... 12 Mannings n ....... .013 Slope (it/it) ....... 0.0200 Q (cis) ........... 5.04 depth (it) .......... 1. 00 depth/diameter ... 1. 00 Velocity (ips) ...... 6.41 Velocity head .... 0.64 Area (Sq. Ft.) ...... 0.79 Critical Depth ...... 0.92 Critical Slope ... 0.0174 Critical Velocity ... 6.67 Froude Number .... 0.00 NoText NoText