Loading...
1991-1318 G/H Street Address _~l~S___ ~ 3dsgz~ Serial # Category 1310 C7 Name Description r ; American Engineering Laboratories Inc. j GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA D AUG 14 1991 CITY OF-ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS j ENGINEERING DEPT. PREPARED FOR: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 4800 CORBIN AVENUE TARZANA, CALIFORNIA,91356 i i I I' i I I I I San Diego Corona Modesto Yucca Valley 'I JOB NO.: 1-1-257 Apple Valley SEI'TEMBER 19, 1989 I `NOf PFpO p~' f1,r I O P u 1 t O American Engineering Laboratories, Inc. Corporate Office: 7940 Arjons Dr., Suite A, San Diego, CA 92126 (619) 695-3730 350 South Maple St., Unit K, Corona, CA 91720 (714) 272-4230 515 Galaxy Way, Modesto. CA 95356 (209) 576-0813 58945 Business Center Dr., Unit A, Yucca Valley, CA 92284 (619) 228-1754 13641 John Glenn Rd., Suite C, Apple Valley, CA 92307 (619) 247.8445 i 1 d ~D ~IND~ti \ i San Diego Modesto Corona Yucca Valley American Engineering Laboratories, Inc. i AT SCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 4800 Corbin Avenue Job No.: 1-1-257 Tarzana, California 91356 ATTENTION: Mr. Alan,Young SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Young: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotech- nical investigation at the subject site. The attached report discusses the soils engineering aspects of the project and I rovides conclusions and recommendations for site develop- i p ment. Our geotechnical investigation found that the site consists f of undocumented fill and alluvial soils to depths of 4 to 9 i feet below existing grade within the limits of the proposed structure. Underlying these loose to medium dense surficial soils are very dense bedrock materials. Surficial soils generally consist of silty sands, silty sand with clay, and well-graded sand with silt and clay possessing a low expansion potential and moderate strength and compressibility characteristics. From our investigation, testing and analysis of the subsur- face soils, we conclude that the proposed 4-story structure can be constructed if recommendations contained herein are implemented during construction. i The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you should have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INC. f" Stephen N. Bradley, RG4614 Geotechnical Department Manager i .q 7940 Arjons Dr., Suite A, San Diego, CA 92126 (619) 695-3730 515 Galaxy Way, Modesto, CA 95356 (209) 576-0813 1490 Rincon St., Unit Z, Corona, CA 91720 (714) 272-4230 ) 58945 Business Center Dr. Unit A, Yucca Valley, CA 92284 (619) 228-1754 t r L TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.. 1 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT..- 2 5.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 2 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM 2 7.0 GEOLOGY 3 7.1 Geologic Setting 3 7.2 Geologic units 3 7.2.1 Undocumented Fill 3 7.2.2 Alluvium 3 7.2.3 Torrey Sandstone 3 7.3 Geologic.Structure 3 I 7.4 Groundwater 4 4 8.0 SEISMICITY 8.1 Regional Seismicity 4 8.2 Earthquake Effects 5 8.2.1 Seismically Induced Settlement of Soils...... 5 8.2.2 Liquefaction 5 8.2.3 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture 5 L 8.2.4 Tsunamis and Seiches 5 8.2.5 Landsliding 5 8.2.6 Earthquake Accelerations 6 9.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION -o o. 6 9.1 Compressible Soils 6 9.2 Expansive Soils 6 9.3 Groundwater 6 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 10.1 General 7 10.2 Grading and Earthwork 7 10.2.1 Treatment of Compressible Soils 7 L ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED: SECTION PAGE 10.2.2 Preparation of Subgrade Soils........... 7 10.2.3 Compaction and Method of Filling 7 10.2.4 Transition Between Cut and Fill 8 10.3 Cut/Fill Slopes 8 10.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage 8 10.5 Preliminary Structure Foundation and Slab Recommendations 8 10.5.1 General 8 10.5.2 Structure Foundations 9 10.5.3 Structural Floor System.... 9 10.5.4 Lateral Load Resistance.... 9 10.5.5 Pavements.. 10 10.6 Retaining Walls............. 10 3.0.7 Trench Backfill............ 11 10.8 Plan Review 11 10.9 Geotechnical observation ....11 10.10 Foundation Observation 11 11.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION 12 APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - TEST RESULTS FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP j! FIGURE 2 GEOTECHNICAL MAP i i I' i i' i' I t r L1 i 1.0 INTRODUCTION I This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation of the Encinitas Office Building in Encinitas, California. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate ii the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the site. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services provided in this Geotechnical Investigation included: 2.1 Review of previous geologic and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the project area; 2.2 Geologic evaluation of existing exposures; 2.3 Subsurface exploration consisting of 7 borings ranging in depth from 7.4 to 26.0 feet; 2.4 Logging of soils observed in the borings and collection of samples for laboratory testing; 2.5 Laboratory testing of samples representative of those obtained during the,field.investigation; 2.6 Geologic and soils engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, which provide the basis for our conclusions and recommendations; 2.7 Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations., 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION • i The subject site is located on the north side of Encinitas Boulevard, east of Saxony Road in Encinitas, California (see Figure 1). The site is trapezoidal in shape and slopes at an average of 23 percent to the south. At the time of the investigation, a single-story house and garage were located on the north end of the site, on top of the existing mesa. The central-western portion of the site is within the I existing limits of the parking area of the adjacent bank. The remainder of the site is undeveloped and sparsely vegetated with grasses, shrubs and small trees. The house and garage are to be removed prior to commencement of grading operations. The materials underlying the proposed structure consist of loose to medium dense, undocumented fill and alluvium underlain by dense to very dense bedrock soils. I ~I I~ i i i j t i• dEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 2 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPME NT It is our understanding that the proposed site development is to consist of a two-story ground level structure with one to two levels of subterranean parking. Excavation from 10 to 40 feet below existing grade-will be required. Adjacent asphalt parking and driveway areas also are proposed. 5.0 SITE INVESTIGATION The site investigation, consisting of surficial reconnais- sance and subsurface exploration, was conducted on September 5, 1989. Subsurface exploration was conducted with an 8" hollow stem auger drilling rig. A maximum exploration depth of 26.0 feet was attained in Boring 7. Boring 2 was excavated to 7.4 feet, Boring 1 to 22.2 feet and Boring 3 through 5 were completed to depths c+f approximately 12.0 feet. The borings were located within the building limits of the proposed project to evaluate the soil conditions to depths that may be influenced by the structure and adjacent improvements (see attached Geotechnical Map, Plate 1). Figures B2 through B8 in Appendix B contain geologic logs of the borings. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a modified California sampler with an outside diameter of 3.0 inches and an inside diameter of 2:38 inches. A standard splitspoon sampler with an outside diameter of 2.0 inches and inner diameter of 1.5 inches was used to obtain disturbed, samples. The samplers were advanced into the native soil by a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches. For each sample, the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 6, 12 and 18 inches was recorded (see attached boring logs). Bulk repre- sentative samples of the various soil types encountered were taken for laboratory testing and are included in Appendix C. ! 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Samples typical of the soil types found during our field exploration were taken to our laboratory for testing. The testing program included in-place density and moisture con- tent, maximum density, particle size analysis, consolidation and direct shear analysis. Appendix C contains descriptions of the test methods and summaries of the results. ! i.. 1 1_! Ott GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 3~ ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 7.0 GEOLOGY 7.1 Geologic Setting The geologic units underlying the subject site are undocu- mented fill, alluvium and Torrey sandstone. The loose to medium dense surficial soils were logged to depths ranging from 4 to 9 feet below existing ground surface, as shown on our Boring Logs (Appendix B). Asphaltic concrete paving and two existing single-story structures were present on the subject site at the time of our investigation. 7.2 Geologic Units 7.2.1 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Ouf) Undocumented fill was found to overlie much of the south- eastern portion of the subject area. These soils consist of silty sands exhibiting moderate density characteristics. The maximum depth of undocumented fill observed was approximately 6 feet below existing grade. This may vary considerably due I~ to original surface topography prior to initial. site grading. ~I i~ 7.2.2 Alluvium (Map Symbol Oaf ! Alluvium was encountered overlying the bedrock unit in the ii eastern-central portion of the subject site. Alluvial brown, ii brownish-red to tan materials generally consist of orange to brown silty sands and silty sand with clays, which are moist and loose to medium dense in consistency. Maximum thickness of the alluvium unit encountered in our borings was approximately 4 feet. 7.2.3 Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol Ttl Eocene age Torrey Sandstone was found to be the underlying bedrock unit. Where encountered, the sandstone was red-brown to tannish-white in color, damp and massive to indistinctly cross-bedded. The material was very dense, as indicated by the blow counts shown on the boring logs. i 7.3 Geologic Structure No evidence of "active" faulting or faulting within the last 11,000 years was observed at the subject site during the investigation by our geologist. i I i 3. h GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 4 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 fI 7.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered to the depths explored in the investigation. 8.0 SEISMICITY 8.1 Regional Seismicity The site can be considered a seismically active area, as can all of southern California. There are, however, no, known active faults on or adjacent to the site. Seismic risk is i' considered low to moderate relative to other areas of southern California because of the type of soils underlying " the site and the distances to known active faults. Seismic hazards within the site can be attributed to groundshaking resulting from events on the distant active faults. Listed ? on Table I are the active and potentially active faults in the area which can effect the site. i TABLE I E SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS j ESTIMATED ESTIMATED(1) PEAK(2) REPEATABLE(3) j DISTANCE PROBABLE BEDROCK HIGH BEDROCK FAULT FROM SITE EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION ACCELERATION Elsinore 26 mi NE 7.5 0.22g 0.22g San Jacinto 52 mi NE 7.5 0.09g 0.098 San Andreas 74 mi NE 8.0 0.09g 0.09g San Clemente 51 mi SW 7.3 0.108 0.10g La Nacion * 22 mi SW 6.75 0.18g 0.18g i; Rose Canyon * 49 mi SW 7.0 0.53g 0.348 1. Seismic Safety Study, City of San Diego (1974) & Bonilla (1970) 2. Seed and Idriss (1983) 3. Ploessel and Slosson (1974) * = Potentially active i t I~ t 4i GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 5 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 I' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 8.2 Earthquake Effects 8.2.1 Seismically-Induced Settlement of Soils The soils underlying the site consist primarily of loose to medium dense fill and alluvium to depths of 0 to 9 feet below existing grade. Due to low to moderate in-place densities, topsoil, undocumented fill and alluvium are potentially subject to seismically induced settlement. Measures for controlling unconsolidated conditions are providod in the following Section 10.2.1, Treatment of Compressible Soils. 8.2.2 Liquefaction The soils underlying the site have a very low potential for liquefaction due to the dense nature of the existing bedrock soils and the absence of shallow groundwater. 8.2.3 L_ urchin aB ShallQw- G-round-B"ture ; Breaking.. of the ~ ground . because. of active .:.faulting is. not likely on the, site due .to the absence.: of - any - known active ~ faults. Cracking, due to shaking from distant events, is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site. 8.2.4 Tsunamis and Seiches I The site is not subject to inundation by tsunamis (seismic or "tidal waves") due to its distance from the coast and eleva- tion above sea level. There are no nearby contained bodies ' of water that could produce seiches ("tidal waves" in confined bodies of water) which may affect the site. 8.2.5 Landslidina Seismically induced landsliding is not considered a signifi- cant hazard on or adjacent to the site. The proposed development should not create natural fill slopes and should l not be susceptible to shallow earthquake induced landsliding. I i i i 1 'i I, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 6 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 i 8.2.6 Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible bedrock accelerations at the site. For the intended-use, it is our opinion that the most significant seismic event is a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the "active" Elsinore Fault Zone, approximately 26 miles to the northeast of the site. This event could produce an estimated 0.22g peak bedrock acceleration and a 0.22g repeatable high bedrock acceleration at the site. Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the govern- ing jurisdiction's building codes and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. i 9.0 CEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION ~ k S On the basis of our field exploration and our review of if available geotechnical information, a discussion of ii constraints and mitigative measures to develop the site are I~ as follows. 9.1 Compressible Soilps ~I Undocumented : fill, alluvium, , and. bedrock, materials, of .the Torrey Pines Formation were found-to underlie the:str.uctural limits of the proposed building. The formational material is~ dense to very dense and is not susceptible to settlement upon loading. Fill and alluvial soils are generally loose to medium dense and are susceptible to settlement. However, their presence in the area will not affect structure insta- bility as the pad elevation is to be established within the formational soil. i 9.2 Expansive Soils s The on-site materials, consisting predominantly of silty sands, will generally exhibit a low expansion potential. Therefore, the on-site soils may be used as structural fill and support for foundation. 9.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered at the time of our investigation. It is possible however, that over-saturated ground conditions in proposed cut slopes may develop at a i later date due to periods of heavy precipitation or irrigation. Mitigative measures regarding oversaturation resulting from improper surface drainage are discussed in Section 10.8. I i { f GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 7 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 'i ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 t !l 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 ene a Based on a review of geotechnical data collected during our investigation, we conclude that the proposed structure may be constructed from a geotechnical standpoint. The conclusions contained below are based on the geotechnical investigation performed and should be verified during construction by our geotechnical field representative. 10.2 Grading and Earthwork 10.2.1 Treatment of Compressible Soils j Information obtained during exploratory borings indicate that the loose to medium dense surficial soils present to- depths ranging from 0 to 9 feet below existing grade are susceptible to settlement upon loading. However, based on the proposed j pad elevation, treatment of these existing loose surf icial soils will not:: be ne.ces yarry.. Based on informakie:n available 4 at this time, :it appear that :the proposed, -structure will be founded entirely in. dense to very dense formational soil, from 10 to 40 feet below existing grade. ~a 10.2.2 Preparation of_Subarade Soils' Following site stripping or subgrade excavation, we recommend f that all areas to receive fill or to be used for the future support of structural loads be proof-rolled with a rubber tire loader or other heavy equipment •to locate any soft or b loose zones. All observed loose or soft zones should be compacted in-place or excavated and replaced with properly compacted backfill. Upon completion of proof-rolling and any I; P required overexcavation, backfill may be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the following section. 6 it 10.2.3 Compaction and Method of illing Backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, brought to near-optimum moisture content in-place, and compacted using mechanical means. Backfills ; should be placed to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557. 1 { 1 . 1 p I I P GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 8 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 I i Any fill and backfill soils should be predominantly granular, less than 6 inches in any dimension and free of organic and inorganic debris. Excavated on-site soils, the silty sand of the Torrey Pines formation, may be used in engineered fills and backfills. • ii 10.2.4 Transition Between Cut and Fill 1 Based on information available at this time, it appears that the proposed structure should be founded entirely in forma- tional soil. We recommend that the finish grade in but areas be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during excavation 1 to assure that a uniform bearing condition exists. i 10.3 Cut/Fill Slopes ! I I Temporary excavations in surficial soil and bedrock without surcharge loads or groundwater seepage should be constructed i~ no steeper than 0.7.5:1.0 (horizontal: vertical) to a maximum height .of*.5 feet. Slopes exceeding this height :should. be laid back at a 1.0:1.0 (horizontal: vertical) slope :ratio. Any permanent- cut slopes should.. be constructed with a, slope ratio of 2:l or flatter. Cut slopes should be constructed only within the bedrock material. 10.4 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface I' f waters away from the proposed structure to approved drainage facilities. For earth areas, a minimum gradient of 2 percent f should be maintained and drainage should be directed toward approved swales or drainage facilities. Drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the proposed structure. ~i 10.5 Preliminary Structure Foundation and Slab Recommendations 10.5.1 General i~ The footing configurations and reinforcement recommendations herein do not preclude more restrictive criteria by the governing agencies or structural considerations. A Structural Engineer should evaluate foundation configurations and rein- forcement requirements for structural loadings, shrinkage, and temperature stresses. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 9 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 i 10.5.2 Structure Foundations Continuous or isolated. footings may be used for support of the proposed structure. Spread footings should be placed a minimum of 2 feet below the lowest final adjacent grade. The footings should be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings founded entirely into the dense formational soil. Allowable bearing pressures will vary with footing embedment and width. The 3 minimum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of embedment, up to a maximum ! a allowable bearing value of 6,000 psf, provided anticipated settlements are at or below acceptable limits. The allowable bearing pressure is a net value. Therefore,' the weight of the foundation and the backfill over the foundation may be neglected when computing dead loads. The bearing pressure applies to dead plus live load and includes a calculated factor of safety of approximately 3. The allow- able pressure may be increased by 30 percent for short-term loading due to wind or seismic force. j 10.5.3 Structural Flop System A moisture barrier is recommended under all floor slabs in areas to be covered with moisture-sensitive floor coverings. N A plastic or vinyl membrane at least 6-mil thickness should be placed between two layers of moist, clean sand, each at w least 2 inches thick. For design of slabs and estimating slab deflections, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 400 kcf may be used. Settlement of the slab under the uniform design load is anticipated to be less than 1/8 inch. 10.5.4 Lateral Load Resistance Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by frictional resistance between the bottom of concrete foundation and the underlying soils, and by passive soil pressures against the sides of the foundation. The coefficient of friction between poured-in-place concrete foundations and the underlying soils may be taken as 0.40. Passive pressure available in compact- ed backf ill or undisturbed natural soils may be taken as equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weighing 400 pounds per cubic foot. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 10 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 10.5.5 Pavements R-value testing was performed on a soil sample believed to be representative of road. subgrade material. The test result showed an R-value of approximately 79. Based on this value and an assumed traffic index of 5.05, a pavement section consisting of 2.5 inches .of asphalt concrete overlying 4 inches of well-compacted Class II Base material, is adequate for the proposed traffic conditions. We recommend that the natural subgrade soils under pavement be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density, per ASTM D-1557, for a minimum of 12 inches. 10.6 Retaining Walls Restrained and cantilevered retaining walls may be designed in accordance with the following design criteria: . SOI LPRW_ FYALX!AZ FLU1'Q.:.k8.g ( P . Q. F. 1 « RESTRAINED CANT I LEV ERE D BACKFILL LEVEL SWPING LEVEL SLOPING SOIL TYPE BACKFILL 2:1 BACKFILL 2:1 On-site Sandy Soils 42 54 40 50 Import Select Sands 37 50 32 45 (sand equivalent greater than 30) Walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated surcharge pressure in the case of cantilev- ered walls, and one-half the anticipated surcharge in the case of restrained walls. Retaining wall footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Footings should be reinforced, as recommended by the structural engineer. Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. i t 'i GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 11 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures can result in excess wall movement (i.e., strains greater than those norm- j ally associated with the development of active conditions), and wall pressures exceeding design values. In this regard, I, the contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement. If granular backfill is used, it should be capped with 2 feet of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and prevent saturation run-off as recommended by the Structural Engineer.' Appropriate back drainage should be designed by the Project j y Civil Engineer to avoid excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. 10.7 Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill below proposed structures consisting of the on-site material type should be placed by mechanical compaction' to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory. maximum density (ASTM D-1557), or the minimum requirements of ~j the government, . whichever is greater.,. 10.8 Plan Review When foundation plans for the proposed development are completed, they should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to evaluate compliance with the recommendations presented herein. i' i 10.9 Geotechnical Observation Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during grading to confirm conditions anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. f E 10.10 Foundation Observation i All foundation excavations should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, or } concrete for determination of conformance with the intent of the recommendations herein. All excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose or unsuitable material f should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. i i i I I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE'12 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 ! Materials from footing excavations should not be spread in slab-on-grade areas unless compacted. Presaturation, if required, should be verified prior to the placement of concrete. I 11.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION . i. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Soils Engineers and Geologists practicing-in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between; borings, test pits, and surface outcrops. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation ' may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the Project Soils p Engineer and Geologist and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained, herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties.. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. I f i i ti GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE 13 ENCINITAS OFFICE BUILDING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of three years. I` AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INC. Steven N. Bradley Kathleen Harrison Geotechnical Department Manager Project Geologist qqqO E$S/01 i Charles Randle, PE RCE 22096 Vice President - Enviroiences CIVIV \ SNB/KH/CR/vr/R8 OF CAI i I i 1 I I i i I American Engineering Laboratories R -j %WM .i, ip \ NAPE N. .r APRI - Q o IZ o yyy ,JOE ~p° S E, DP I 2 ~F ` D a / I CIRCO Of VERDE 0 EOG Z 1 4~S + C 7~ CIRCO DEL PAROUE Q pC s ICA : P/.NOS SA OPD 3Q 691 G FS d o~{MI„ 1 ~ i sEO Pn Elu 1 DEL pN~ p 40 C(gUCU N R N H R N 'I. ST S• N 3 ~r..., Tom` f s 1i SA a4 p Y ; y LEN gON N Z z Q ~A T'+ p VCJS jl, I D EPA .•i 2 %G, I ANY m x41A 1AD S> S Y Nf1. W o i ^`11 oG LE IA > > 6L1 --,r--L -T 5T < I 1 i a ~VrypPA a r` P"tQj~, n ¢ Q W Q= RL I (I SEPTN IA }T u o S I _ lSj PUEB W 1 ' 1 1 PLANE".0 5~ UE OQ ~ ' W4 1 G~PEJS I Aah t°~"x 24 1 V , K 7- - POINSETTIA POINSETTIA PARK 51 TN I PARK S r ' 1 ENCINITAS BEACH t1? It Gl NIO ST EZEE3 I UNI N I ST . t1 s WNIO - - - COUNTY PARK A ~y I i r.iRD ON~h 2 ' QUAIL BOTANICAL - - - - SMslu ROEAS G) GARDENS t ` h COUNTY PAAK Y. 7 L Q BURI ~A < a O r > y z M S~SP FLORIZA B SI OLIIA $T p ~(A W ~ Ir`"o yie $ 1 8 ti O¢ -SITE s r SRW. • < . l IA = Is° ( DRA w t` `TEASE Y zl ` S9 EN lr o BLVD d I I MOONUGNT ST ~Ar 4 N1Dr r TMFWWSTO O' I .STATE BEACH a Z 4+0 i ~Li o FS Lai _ o E° N 5 7 whey NIL AV L ICONT Hs y 6 0 . J W ° cc ST o 0 o I ` W p¢ ¢I o ¢ NNU ut w u o L' v ¢ I HERDER&I fl a & I L 1, z S1 T V 200 SAN LOA m~ RO o a AEY 3 c¢ O ¢ x NOSP a = _ EAS~u { rte. T I¢ TR I i z SCRIPPS O K I °f C MEM HOSP O o La Ir Ir ■ SAN I t, o MINIMS ¢ ¢ O/EGIIIIO SITE LOCATION MAP OB N 1-1-257 D SEPT 1989 FIG 1 I, I Z N - e N ' Sir j~ ' sell% co 0 1.. G'• U ~ 1 lie `w.~ ~ cf) I Is % N I L S Co 1 ` r-,` I-_•z~$.._: ,'j 1 , i3 i~' _i .I .~M9/vti0 4w -aA -ilk OC) m -j o z a M z z va'TJ( O WW a oam❑ o F- ¢ O F- O V W w W _ z w • 09z Xw o333 / 1 i \ J as -p a? O❑❑ C, w o cc ❑ LL Q W 1S a s LL a _ = Q O O a O W F- ell I `p 04 CO) ss" 04 N r is O I / I L N' .7 N - - '~.a ' Alma 1 ~ i 1 1 W 1 1 K ~ -Er- v I t I 1 , , I 1 Lf) • 1 1.~ ' 1 LL W O z Q Z O s Q g W W a _z W F U a O J cr. U. ( Q a u Z _jmJ ~O z ~ z A F- Q F^ N V ~ Cc O W W W z N / 4` Q OF V m a W. W - Q Ol ~,y~ ` f Q H F- W W Z N 0. 0 ¢ z a a a O .4 ¢ w CL x U. 0 Now .>r-r ♦ W Q O N r O Q F W h .(lam- ~ _ Ify, 1 ~ r wr ~ ch S _ ' 1. _ ' • tl rid ~ Its, 7t_ • 7 C-' I A' REFERENCES 1. Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Efects, in Wiegel, R. L., ed., Earthquake Engineering: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice- Hall, p. 47-74. 2. Hart, E.W., 1980, Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California (with supplements): California i! Division of Mines and Geology Special I` Publication 42, 25 p. 3. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G. L., 1975. "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, 56 p. 4. MV Engineering, Inc., 1985, Preliminary Soil Investigation Proposed Encinitas office Building. Encinitas Boulevard. Easterly of Saxony Road, Encinitas, California, un- published report, dated December 18, 1985, 23 p. 5. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson', J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations for Earthquakes: California Geology, v. 27, no. 9, p. 195-199. 6. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes: i Berkeley, CA, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 134 p. i is ii i i f I I i i LABORATORY TESTING t Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed in accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted n standards. The following presents a brief description of the y various test methods used. N, Classification a Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supple- mented by laboratory testing of selected samples in accord- ance with ASTM D-2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Boring Logs, Figures B-2 through B-8. Particle Size Analysis Particle Size Analyses were performed on selected representa- tive samples in accordance with ASTM D-422. The results are shown on Figures C-5 through C-13. Moisture-Density Relationship Laboratory compaction tests were performed in, accordance with ASTM D-1557, Method A. A mechanically operated rammer was used during the compaction process. Test results are presented on Figure C-2, Table 1. In-Situ Moisture/Density The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of a 2.5 inch ID Modified California I' Sampler. The dry unit weight and moisture content are shown on the attached Boring Logs, Figures B-2 through B-8. I` i Direct Shear Tests A consolidated, drained, direct shear test was performed on an undisturbed sample in accordance with ASTM D-3080. The undisturbed sample was' tested in a saturated condition using normal loads of 1 ksf, 2 ksf, and 4 ksf. The result of the test is presented in the attached Figure C-1. Consolidation Test The gradual reduction in volume of a soil mass resulting from an increase in compressive stress was measured to determine the consolidation properties of a selected sample. The specimen is laterally confined in a ring in accordance with ASTM D-4186. The result of the Consolidation Test is presented in Figures C-3 and C-4. i i I DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN .O: GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no U) a MORE THAN GRAVELS lines. ' _j cr o (LESS THAN ' Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or Lu a HALF OF cv COARSE 5% FINES) GP no fines. 6 a O FRACTION IS GM Slily gravels, gravel-sand-slit mixtures, non-plastic p u. Z W GRAVEL fines. W O Z N LARGER THAN WITH FINES z w Q u) NO. 4 SIEVE GC IInasey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic _V-4 ~ _ CC W SANDS SANDS eeee SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands. little or no fines. z w F. MORE THAN (LESS THAN U) _ cc HALF OF 5% FINES) SP Poorly graded sends or gravelly sands, little or no fines. CC f- J COARSE N FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-slit mixtures, non-plastic tines. W Cr (j o SMALLER THAN WITH FINES M NO. 4 SIEVE SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. U) N ML Inorganic elite and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or J O w 0 SILTS AND CLAYS clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. W Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly J Q LIQUID LIMIT IS CL clays, sandy clays, lean clays. 4 M w LESS THAN 50% W = N O L Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Z z cn O Q i J MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy CC ~ a O SILTS AND CLAYS or silty soils, elastic silts. C7w¢z w ¢ W Z LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. a Q GREATER THAN 50% Z 2 Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. organic O H Bills. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. GRAIN SIZES SILTS AND CLAYS SAND GRAVEL COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE 200 40 10 4 3/4' 3" 12' U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS GROUND WATER LEVEL OR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. m LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A STANDARD SPLIT TUBE SAMPLER, 2-INCH O.D., 1-3/8-INCH I.D. DRIVEN WITH A 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES. LOCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER, [71 3-1/8-INCH O.D., WITH 2-1/2-INCH I.D. LINER RINGS. DRIVEN USING THE WEIGHT OF KELLY BAR (LARGE DIAMETER BORINGS) OR USING A 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING 30-INCHES (SMALL DIAMETER BORING). ® LOCATION OF, SAMPLE TAKEN USING A 3-INCH O.D. THIN-WALLED TUBE SAMPLER (SHELBY TUBE) HYDRAULICALLY PUSHED. ! X LOCATION OF BULK SAMPLE TAKEN FROM AUGER CUTTINGS. KEY TO LOGS - UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: 1-1-257 September 1989 B-1 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES DATE GOSEaVED: 9-5-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Mobile B-61 Dr- l - 0 ow em ` u r LOGGED OY: KH GROUND ELEVATION: 140± LOCATION: See Geotec nica Map p c W U. W j o oW cc o~ BORING NO. R-1 Ln t- Ns aZ; <L SOIL TEST Y p2 1, < N C6 W = O _ DESCRIPTION o a © v za UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Light-brown SILTY SAND, dry, medium dense A6' Myre/Density SM 37 3.9 107. Consolidation Maximum Density s SM ALLUVIUM: Brownish-red SILTY SAND, drto-slightly damp, medium dense { 59 TORREY SANDSTONE: SM @ 7 112 Whitish-tan SILTY SAND, 10slightly moist, dense 50@ 5.3 111. Mottled white and reddish-brown SILTY SAND, moist, very dense ?i ~s !I l 20 50@ i r TOTAL DEPTH: 22'3" 25 Backfilled: 9-5-89- 30 3s .o goo NO.: 1-1-257 LOG OF 8a RING FIGUAt: B-2 t E AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES DATE OBSERVED: 9-5-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Mobile B-61 Drill 8' Hollow Stem uQer LOGGED 6Y:KL-GROUNO ELEVATION: LOCATION:_ See Geotechnical Map r C W U o ¢I oa. BORING NO. B-2 SOIL TEST V7 r N < r ` _J da W ~ ° `n = o z w DESCRIPTION U A D V Eq + TOPSOIL: Brown SILTY SAND, dry, loose, SM minor organics TORREY SANDSTONE: Red-brown, slightly Sieve 80 moist, very dense, poorly graded SAND with silt s 500 'V Z' „ Maximum Density TOTAL DEPTH: 7'4" 10BACKFILLED: 9/15/89 t5 20- 25- 30- 35- JOB .o NO- 1-1-257 LOG OF BORING FIGUU: B-3 i i AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES i q/ b/ 89 DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLING: MO i 1 e B-61 Dri 1 Hollow Stem Auer LEGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION:_ See Geotechnica Map w j o AW oa BORING NO. R-3 y, 0.'- wv a < N N SOIL TEST x p = u► a Q. © zw o -u DESCRIPTION o ~ -o SM I UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Tan-brown SILTY Moisture Density SAND, dry, loose to medium dense, Sieve pieces of asphalt, gravel, minor 49- 3.0 104. organics s SM ALLUVIUM: Brown, SILTY SAND, slightly r 53 moist, dense SP TORREY SANDSTONE: Red-brown, poorly io graded SAND with silt, moist, dense i i 50@ . ' 6.5 104.3 Whitish-tan SILTY SAND, moist, very Moisture Density dense Sieve is TOTAL DEPTH: 12'2 1/2" BACKFILLED: 9-5-89 i 20- 25- 20- ! 95 j i s i i A01 you "C= 1-1-257 LOG OF BORING FicuRt: B : f AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES DATE OBSERVED: 9/5/89 METHOD OF DRILLING: Mobile B-61 Dri 11 Hollow Stem AUqer LOGGED BY: KH GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION- See Geotechnical Map o 1- 43 Uh w { o oW ov BORING NO. B-4 V ~ ~ a < ~ ~ W v 7 a` a N -c t SOIL TEST 33 Y "4 w < 0 _j o a = 0 z w DESCRIPTION J o D o v -o SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL: Light tan-brown, SILTY SAND, dry, loose to medium dense 20 s ' SM ALLUVIUM: Tan SILTY SAND with CLAY, Moisture Density Sc moi- s-f_,-Toose to medium dense 10.9 115.3 yo SM TORREY SANDSTONE: Whitish-tan, SILTY Sieve SAND, moist, very dense TOTAL DEPTH: 12' 4 1/2" j 15 BACKFILLED: 9/5/89 'i i I 20 . I 25 30 i 35 f i 40" SOU ►~a; 1-1-257 LOG OF BORING FIGU;Ie AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES DATE 00SEAVED: 9/5/89 METHOD OF GRILLING: Mobile B-61 Drill Hollow em Auger LOGGED BY: KH GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See e0 eC nica Map j? o oW CA. BORING NO. B-5 w N r- N N W V SOIL TEST -c t W ~n O A 4N O Q. W DESCRIPTION W J j SM TOPSOIL: Tan-brown, SILTY SAND dry, SW oose, minor organics 51 5.6 106.7 ALLUVIUM: Red-brown, well-graded, Moisture Density i slightly moist, medium dense, SAND with SILT and CLAY Sieve s SM TORREY SANDSTONE: Tan clayey SILTY SC SAND, moist, very dense ,f 50@ 5 " 10 4.5 " 8.1 103.9 Consolidation TOTAL DEPTH: 12'4 112" 15BACKFILLED: 9/5/89 20- 25- 30- s I 401 god "0= 1-1-257 LOG OF BORING FIGUAt: B-6 j 1, AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES - 9/5/89 061 uri 11 AIETHOD OF DRILLING: 1 e - DATE QD'SEAVED: LOGGED BY: KH GROUNO ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotechnical Map O c W U. 1 W< o W W~ c uj, BORING NO. B-6 u ¢ u y SOIL TEST r . L7 i N < ~ < a h O oU) J o u z W DESCRIPTION O O U Q .Q 1zm TOPSOIL: Tan, SILTY SAND, dry, loose, SM 4.5 minor organics TORREY SANDSTONE: Red-brown SILTY SAND 1 moist,.very dense s ' 50@ 9.7 116.0 Moisture Density 3„ I j ~o 63 I 50@ 8.8 109.5 Moisture Density i 61 TOTAL DEPTH: 16' 5" BACKFILLED: 9/5/89 20- 25- 30 4Q JOB tdO: 1-1-257 LOG OF BORING FIGuRe B- j AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES DATE ODSEAVED: 9/5/89 METHOD OF DRILLING: MO i e B-61 ri Hollow em u er LOGGED BY:K_GROUNO ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Geotec pica Map p 1.- LW !Z 0 oW nuv. BORING N0. B-7 u ~ ~a < W u} w in r u~ r , SOIL TEST in a to 0 ON J 4LI 4, < J =0 z DESCRIPTION J C7 O p V zW U 4 0 3" Asphalt ORREY SANDSTONE: Tannish-white, SILTY SAND, slightly moist, very dense ~A 2. ' s I - - - I 74 Reddish-brown and gray mottled, SILTY SAND, moist, very dense is- 20- 53@ Moisture Density 8.3 107.6 Sieve 25Refusal, very difficult drilling TOTAL DEPTH: 26.0' BACKFILLED: 9/5/89 30- 3s- ~r A01 JBoa 1-1-257 LOG OF 80RING FIGune B-8 j ` f SHEAR TEST RESULTS i _ 36 C.0 4 i rA .~c i v t ~ f Z W n I Ile ~ G w i = 1 ,I IF I 1 2 3 4 NORMAL PRESSURE (ksf) I' r: SOIL DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND JOB NO: 1-1-257 BORING NO: B4 - DEPTH: 7' PLATE. -1 ~ r. 1i i I i TABLE 1 RESULTS Or OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY DETERMINATIONS (ASTM: D-1557) p TEST MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM LOCATION DENSITY (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT B1 @ 2' 130.5 7.5 B2 @ 7' 118.2 7.8 B3 @ 2' 119.3 11.5 I; JOB NO. 1-1-257 DATE: September 1989 FIGURE: C2 BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION BI 21 FIELD MOISTURE SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND C 3.0 aR z O V) 2.0 z < x to 1.0 •t 0 t.o I i at r added 2.0 1 3.0 aR Co Z ' O 0 5.0 J ' 2 6.0 O U 7.0 i. i I 8.0 9.0 I 10:00 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a w IV in o 0 0 0 0 0 n ci Y h o NORMAL LOAD (PSF) JOB NO.: LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST FIGURE: 1-1-257 C3 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LAQCRATORIES 4. BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION { 65 @ 12 FIELD MOISTURE SAMPLE SATURATED REBOUND 3.0 Z O vi 2.0 2 a a , x w 1.0 i .K Water ~dd2d 1.o 2.0 3.0 aR 4.0 2 O a ~ C5.0 J O Z 8.0 ra O V 7.0 i i 8.0 9.0 t 10.0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O ^O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N M A O O O O O O O O O O O N l9 `r I O O O O O N P! IV N O NORMAL LOAD (PSF) t. r J08 NO.: LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST FIGURE: C4 1-1-257 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES f II PERCENT PASSING If ` 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W co m N V M N O p i p i } - I I U _I .,1 Z S O 1 U ~ h- O dS y < J j U i D 2 to fL Q H u W O O Z O W Q N x e ~ J W W 01 O^ N F}- Z co LL N _ N W J 7) I W U J W ¢ 4 v~ ~ a f- 0 2 J co O _2 O N W p J j .F:z~ J O d O ~ I W co O a: ~ ~ W O W U u' v =IN 4 W I > i O Q ' O 2~ I cc O C7 N C7 m 00 O O O O O O O O O O O Oo c0 m 1C1 V M N PERCENT PASSING JOB NO.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: 1-1-257 7 1 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES f i PERCENT PASSING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` 0 0 co N m O c7 N O p } O f < J i 9 n 1 11 ~ P z 0 o in + J < y O Q ~ _:.I a C) 0 (n J W C _ O :I Z 7 Z O O N r- Fr~ LL W N U N N J O ~1 W V J > ~ 0. W Q _i < f. N a 0. - i Z J ~ N ~ O O p X N 0 W o J ~ ~ JO Cs o ~ r W W N W W O 0. S 11~ a it W ~ - w O O t7 ('3 a ap t1t L tft tL, m 03 0 O O O O O O O O O O O Cv m w 0 h ~ 0 N ~ PERCENT PASSING d Jog NO.: 1-1-257 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: C6 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORAT 1 i ' l c i PERCENT PASSING o ° 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a on a~ r. n f o N ° o- o J U b I Z O t U { J N ~ < l J V i k 1 j 1 p O 1'~ Q t lI p ° ~ f Z N W N - J W M ~ ~ Z = to N 1 {L N h U i to J h W U_ < W ► d p a _ ' -3 -17 1 < J N ~ p D O p a o W O j O f O } i W N , N ; < W U uI N IV =I ~I :,r a J ~ W ~ O COI C7 N C U I I ~ - [t COI I m N °0 0 0 O o m A O b f A N ° ' PERCENT PASSING Jog No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: 1-1-257 C7 L MIERI ENGINEMING RATOMES 1 • PERCENT PASSING o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ao m m a f cv N O o ; o J i 0 P { U j F- rn J J N N J 'J O N ¢ ¢ < W I Z p _W < N Z X 1 co Z W O W 2 O N ~ W tq U N W F (/1 J (A W > ~ a (L W U a IL - o 2 J < G _j W O N 0 W O J ~ O W N r-J fA ' ' i a ~ < W i O U f x1 ILf J ~ W < I Q O O C7 N O O ID h ra h f 0) N O PERCENT PASSING I JOB NO.: 1-1-257 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE' C8' AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES i PERCENT PASSING 0 0 O 0 00 O co CD h t► (O N O 0 O 4 } 4 J U 2 O t A U J co Q to < N J U Gl 'CJ O y Q O < O W 00 F- a Z N w x O J W O J p vi z w w 3: z N N ~ lL w Q) V M W h- w J W U d w (L p a < J f~ C O O ~ O N w O J J O f. I d O } W N N d w O w U 1L v a , 4,k u-i w > -41 < O ~I• ~ O C7 N (g `f I I O ml 0 (10 0 0 O O O O O O O r. co p. CD W) V M N 0 O PERCENT PASSING JOB NO.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES PERCENT PASSING p O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Go t0 r. ap In ♦ O N O O J U T Rf V 0 U 3 _ r ~ J O J N y U ~ i a .O < w 3 00 Z O W < N Go ~ r J W J p vi ° z l•rs O 1 q+ W 1 _N 1-' z N W w m U _N y W ~ J N W U Q j ~ J w ¢ a rn a o z p co _O 0 04 - 2 W O J J j O to O } W CO) a < w Q w U W - ~f = (N f.. I ,bpi; w W i ~ 4 > O < i p I Q p si C7 N C7 co a• I ITT I I ¢I oO o 0 O O~ m N co IA f l'9 N r PERCENT PASSING t .loe No.: PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: 1-1-257 C10 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES- r • PERCENT PASSING 0 0 0 0 0 0 a co m u~ O IV O N ° C O } J U Z ' O < gal F U F- ° N J y fn < J V D Z Q O r- co ¢ CC ~ N 00 Z ° W N 1<- X y J W O :J p N _2 O ~ v W I O =4 Ir- W } _Z O _N 1- N W U co W f' J fA W U < w a ! _s co a < } O a - z < J O O _O 0 O N _Q W O J J O Z M O ~ r } W N N I -T < W O W U W ~ FIN CL V WI W > < o cr 1. o 0 I I mIm i0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O! CD h co N M N - i PERCENT PASSING JOB NO.: 1-1-257 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: C11 _ ANERICAN N INEERI A 0 PERCENT PASSING 0 O 0 0 0 co CD In V cl) O~ J U Z , O F- r w J O N y O J U D D ~ < ¢ 0 o w Z o w N W to ~ X r J W N C; J O j O z m 0 w I Z O W 1L w N N 03 f- w W J fq w v~ 0 ¢ o ° a z " < 0 c p c w O ~ O J J O O 0 r ~ } co w N LC ~ Q O w U W S~ 'v` a l J w + cc + o " " C7 N O r I I I 02 ty ` 'f ¢ M p O O O O O m r0 Cl aD 1. m b M N O O PERCENT PASSING PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: C J12 AMERICAN ENGINEERING LA MW PERCENT PASSING * to 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 ° cb ap r. rD 9) .t O n ° p 0 0 J , U 2 O U 4. 1- O to J IA tp < :i j U r O N •r Q Q N < W Z O W F<- N x N J W O O U) 2 O ~ W 'i _N 2 W yW to Lt _N• I to W ~ J N , W U < > F J w ¢ a < 'J N ~ O Off: O N O W O ~I O O O } W fn w CC r W < I O W u N ♦ =I N r I a f W I t Q: O ~I~OI C7 N m Y OI ~ I WI I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O o aD A O to Y P/ IN PERCENT PASSING roe No.: 1-1-257 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: C13 AlV"tCAN ENGINEEMN LAi3C1lATi5R! HYDROLOGICAL CALCULATIONS FOR SAN DEGUITO FINANCIAL CENTER 344 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD ( v ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: ALESCO DEVELOPMENT BY SAN DIEGO LAND SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING INC. 9474 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 907 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 (619) 565-8362 July 19, 1991 R.C.E. 46751 Exp. 6-30-95 PREPARED BY 7 ~9 DATE : / A0 JAM J. MILL RCE 46151 REGIS RATION EXPIRES 6-30-95 I C u" O uv OHMd'MM Ei aLn Ot M 9-4 sN r•I N N M z c~ H 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A I` r- w II . 0 0% N N N N N H 4-► II aocoo~°o E!; k 41 r4 4 H H r•( H O -#4 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 000000 O O H H ri r•i 9-4 >4 U , to 0 >r H (n W W U •U •r4 a' 0 m m v 0 a ld ••azzzzz 134- MN In lop, o o r4 V E d ~4 II II II II Ow ~Ln w • •rj . . . . . a a ~ 0) A In 00 Oo M M R W •r4 14 H 4 E ^00 00 V 1n In dP 00 r r 0% 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ I~ 4.) tD00M0 M01lnMNd'ONN H W IWMr- f-r- dwI-NMMOInco x " U - r-1 .co olnOM x WH000%0H . . A H O Or-1p00 z 400000 A NMMMMNOOO U W W MInr00r vr4Nw010r-0 G! a 101n(lMr- z U •o •NMInr-((- (Q a H Wr'( 0 0NMr•1 • N O • . •ON WV Sap 0H0 UW W w 000000 so HImtnM.-((-or0+ H(n v am%0NIn0% 44 1n vr-I N0%%DOMM . 1~ U •O •Osrln00 M • r40 N00 W W Wr•4 •OONr4 • . 01 N to ~i O (J1 O o O x 11 000 « r\I 10 r•I Q u as z z I~ H I%0 H ow n N o H a a Q .a v u w H a m04ci0 [W+ H a n Q QH ~ EA V ~r-+NMeMIn ~ xH u aw~ ~iu u u ato u 11 W HQac 11 ~ U H H Of G] UU UzQ 3V]~Ca (ff Y' DEPTH OF FLOW IN STORM DRAIN SUMMARY: Q = 1.49AR2/3S1/2 N CALCULATE DEPTH OF FLOW IN STORM DRAIN DESIGN PT- 1 5 MATERIAL - PVC PVC N = 0.013 0.013 DIA. (in.) = 12 12 depth (in) = 8.6 5.6 d/D = 72 47 AREA (sq-ft) = 0.61 0.36 WET PER. (ft) = 2.03 1.51 SLOPE = 2.00% 2.00% HYD. RAD. (ft) = 0.30 0.24 Qdes (cfs) = 4.4 2.3 Qcap (cfs) = 4.4 2.3 VELOCITY (fps) = 7.24 6.26 CALCULATE CAPACITY OF ENCINITAS BLVD GUTTER SECTION AND CAPACITY OF D-25 CURB OUTLET SEE SECTION A-A ON EXHIBIT A GUTTER CURB OUTLET CONSTANT 1.49 1.49 MANNING'S N = 0.013 0.013 Y normal = 0.28 ft 0.19 ft SIDESLOPE A = 0.3 :1 0 :1 SIDESLOPE B = 11 :1 0 :1 BOT WIDTH = 1.09 ft 3 ft TOP WIDTH = 4.3105 ft 3 ft AREA = 0.77 sq ft 0.56 sq ft WET PER. = 4.54 ft 3.38 ft SLOPE 0.0269 ft/ft 0.05 ft/ft HYD. RAD. = 0.17 ft 0.17 ft QUANTITY = 4.4 cfs 4.4 cfs VELOCITY = 5.76 fps 7.77 fps FROUDE # = 2.40 3.16 FLOW IS CAS' FLOW IS SUPERCRITICAL it t II ) ~ ~°r _ ! O - 1 go - 1 M ~ ~ ~ ~~T'•~=~- ~i li~ - ,i Sid -CM N I LL W l- ui J cu V L V DR Q 0J ' W/NDSD J 4 CYI i r ~ ` i v c L J tn 101 Q IW6 i7 f N ~ A G ~ • j • ~ T G A N t A I S moft N 0c ~ r - w 0-4 -C C%Q • j / N i' i i i K Qs w~~'" T j~ N 0 00 cz raft CD C* po -W L37 0 1 f~_'~1 J~ L~ :nom } n ~ Cm- Lry \ r t J -ft- act c4q M Gtr, f~~ J = "u7 ✓ w o N C14 1 4,a v >m o s z J, z L.j W F Z • Z Wa`~ -7 s u : z 8ov .o 0 l W a o 3, 91 a' W Z d co o ' NOS M a Zd O p` G W x Q O ' o a O 1AJ -j • a uu Y L M Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI-F i %o U '-I / V. CV r4 C*q w," GO L 420 `a L•j a• c~ _ o r'4 -4 rho- E20 C~- Uj C14 NN a M N tl N o< z ~ J W z' y ~ ~ x o ~n v • z W $ .t F ~ C) 0 UA z °r a vs - W < w. L CIO CA: • <u 0La 0 O W OJ a z V G U. O w '4 Y I Revised 1185 APPENDIX XI-'C I Ul 4-1 t7 rte- C) L• G N4 Z p U Z7 >)Ln .C .r. 4) at r~ S-%O to _ N Q r-- IC is tG <U U 4) L ^ kf) _O A a r-- Z Gl V- r CUJ r O W L M 0 412, S. '04-) 4J 40 +a C C• M 4 a r 4' 4-4- 0 4J •16. O 4J (D to . J C " O = 4J ~ i It 4J W 4J C 4) ^ • 40 C Cl C rp 1 i • N a • •C w- C O C. O W O G1. 4 N C C py N r 4J L O r C 0 4) C~ 4J 43 44 C to CN-0 OM r C C Nr~• N 0A 4j V 4.1 +j 4; C ~p A 4 1 to O to Q.4J {3 4./ 4i t 11 C L. - Q ; •r- M C .C U OOi CU= C• V aN r r0 QJ W"" ft- u C E C V G 4 CL 19 44 U X: U L O •4) C a 4 ~ L 7 L C. LL.. L. y +j per` r r i •0. = • gL" L O' a L O C 64 C 4J •r to O N O T~ C N • p C L b C-~ C v- L N i .C •C ~r- O 4J O ti. 11 4.1 L ~`t Id ~G .C L .C t~ ^ LL. N C• • r- C 4+ • at v01 ~p 41 17 V C Z i 0 21 O E .C N? C 4+ N 0 +J p 4J " U H r 4J 3:4J 4-3 L c1' t m C us N b t .C q n y_ L rO- to U b r0 N ~ N . LL. N F-• p C 4+ 4a 4~ 0-0 O C• F- 4=+ r N 4 Q 4 UU H C. p r N M Ln Q O M n N ~ i 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) o Ln o N o %n C el s♦ c c R - W us aY et cri ..r~ t 41 Ln .6 4-b -j 0. p i:. - I t . itlt O. I t T I 41 C%j 0 14 s1' 4r C3, 4w C:j W - Mir M + 41 _ • 4J ~ 1 "1" ' I I ' , ~ I I' 1 1 ~ •Or - ~r i t '-,,:~;''1 Ali ' d .d ~ ~ i I ~ ail I .@4: fem. i, I I ; i (jnotj /sayouj) Sitsuazur Revised 1/85 CHART 1-103.6 A CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS ASSUMED 2% CROWN. Q = 03L (A+Y)3/2 *A = 0.33 Y = HEIGHT OF WATER AT CURB FACE (0.4' MAXIMUM) REFER TO CHART 1-104.12 L = LENGTH OF CLEAR OPENING OF INLET *Use A=0 when the inlet is adjacent to traffic; i.e., for a Type "J" median inlet or where the parking lane is removed. REV. CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE SHT. NO. CAPACITY OF CURB OPEI4ING INLETS 13 J I . 1 • CHART 1-103.68 char MrhN NMe ~nNw~ i Grating I STANDARD GUTTER i = O.1 cis 02 03 04 NOTES. to --PARAMETERS- ~7 yh p 4 I N LN94/041I801 Oh" - fV". erCA"s ~ -K/ft -GRATE DATA- 1.0 Lo Clear I*"n - 354A' Y 0 09 Clear .INo MO-t4' O.e O 02 8006184 Nttees son - v 0• 02 10, t>~ee~ 1t' ~ a } 0 0.6 0 03. 0 0. -0.4 03 103 o Average depth of flow over the YOV grate measured upstream before _Y-g Sx drowdown starts i 0.1 0.10.! OJS 02 ,A AVERAGE DEPTH OF FLOW-FT. SHT. NO CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE REV. i CAPACITY CURVES FOR GRATING INLETS For compete h*ception vw the 9r0e,AU Bar Spocin9s 14