Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CMS00D Leucadia Blvd. Imps I-5 to Hwy. 101
GEOCO N INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS _ Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 Nolte Associates 15090 Avenue of Science, Suite 101 ' San Diego, California 92128 Attention: Mr. Abe Barhoumi SubjJ ect: LEUCADIA BOULEVARD WIDENING SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization of our proposal No. LG -02489 dated October 16, 2002, we are 1 submitting the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The accompanying report presents the findings and conclusions from our study. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the subject site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. If you have any questions regarding this investigation, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED Faten Khatib Joseph J. Vettel _ Michael S. Chapin co C FO Senior Staff Geologist GE 2401 Q a , CEG 1149 �5 �QH J. �Fj�F 0 MICHAEL NS. GQ FK:JJV:MSC:dmc �� r Z ir No. 1149 w No. 2401 m CERnnED �o * MI3 EXP.09/30 /O6 ENGINEER N� GEOLO(i1ST (6) Addressee v '4 CH� << 6960 Flanders Drive b San Diego, California 92121 -2974 0� Telephone (858) 558 -6900 V Fax (858) 558 -6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE . ..............................1 ................................................... ............................... 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................. ..............................1 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... .............................. 3.1 Undocumented Fill ( Qudf) ....................................................................... .............................. 3.2 Marine Terrace Deposits ......................................................................... ............................... 4. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................. ..............................2 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................... ..............................3 5.1 Liquefaction ................. ............................................................................ ..............................3 5.2 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Earthquake - Induced Flooding ........................... .............................. 5.3 Landsliding .............................................................................................. ..............................3 t 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. ..............................4 6.1 General ..................................................................................................... ..............................4 6.2 Seismic Design Criteria .......................................................................... ............................... 6.3 Grading ............................ ........................................................................ ..............................5 6.4 Slabs ......................................................................................................... ..............................6 6.5 Lateral Loading " " " " " " " " " " 6.6 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................ .............................. 6.7 Pavement Sections ................................................................................... .............................18 6.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................. ............................... 6.9 Foundation and Grading Plan Review .................................................... ............................. LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map j Figure 2, Site Plan Figure 3, Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Table A -I, Existing Conditions Figures A -1 — A -19, Logs of Borings APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B -I, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results Table B -II, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B -III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B -IV, Summary of Laboratory R -Value Test Results APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This P report resents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed widening of Leucadia P Boulevard between Vulcan and Eolus Avenues in Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to observe the prevailing soil conditions at the site and, based on conditions encountered, to provide recommendations relative to geotechnical aspects of developing t the alignment as proposed. The scope of our investigation included review of previous investigation(s) in the vicinity, site reconnaissance, field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and preparation of this report. The field investigation was performed on October 27, 2005, and consisted of drilling 19 j borings along Leucadia Boulevard as well as portions of Hymettus, Hermes, and Vulcan Avenues. Boring locations are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs of borings and other details of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained from the borings to determine their pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. A discussion pertaining to the laboratory testing and results is presented in Appendix B. 1 The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained from the exploratory borings, laboratory tests, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed improvements will be located on the segment of Leucadia Boulevard from several hundred feet east of Hymettus Avenue to Vulcan Avenue, in addition to the intersections of the following cross streets: Hymettus, Hermes, and Vulcan Avenues in Encinitas, California. Currently there is no curb and gutter or sidewalk along the subject streets We understand that the project scope includes: road widening of Leucadia Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue, traffic calming in the form of traffic circles at the intersections of Leucadia Boulevard and Hermes Avenue and Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue and beautification (landscaping) are planned for the alignment. Retaining walls are proposed at the four quadrants of the intersection of j Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue to accommodate the traffic circle. 1 November 22, 2005 Project No. 07070 -22 -01 1 r The ground surface along the alignment slopes moderately downward toward the Pacific Ocean. Surface elevations range from approximately 60 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near Vulcan Avenue to approximately 160 feet MSL at Eolus Avenue. 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The field investigation indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits. The soils encountered are described in detail below. 3.1 Undocumented Fill (Oudf) r Undocumented fill soils were encountered in borings for the retaining wall and is expected within existing utility trenches and other areas of existing improvements. These fill soils would likely be derived from on -site excavations and consist of fine sands and silty sands. These soils are considered unsuitable in their present condition for support of proposed structures and /or structural fills and will require partial removal and recompaction as outlined in the Grading section of this report. 3.2 Marine Terrace Deposits The entire site is underlain by Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits. These materials typically consist of moderately dense yellow to orange brown, silty sands. Localized areas of loose deposits were also observed, typically in the upper foot of borings B -12 through B -15. These localized, loose deposits are not considered suitable in their present condition for support of proposed structures and/or structural r fills and will require partial removal and recompaction. i 4. GROUNDWATER No groundwater was encountered during the field investigation. Groundwater is expected to be below 1 a level that will effect construction as presently proposed. However, it is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Existing pavement are ' performing very well despite being under designed. Introduction of landscaping and resultant irrigation water to subgrade soils could be very detrimental to the performance of pavements. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and rainwater will be critical to future performance of the project. r r 2 - November 22, 2005 Project No. 07070 -22 -01 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Liquefaction 1 The potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake is limited to relatively clean sandy soils in a loose unconsolidated condition and located below the water table. Due to the lack of a near- surface groundwater table and the dense nature of the terrace deposits, the potential for liquefaction is considered low. 5.2 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Earthquake - Induced Flooding The site is located approximately 0.2 miles from the coast, with an elevation ranging from approximately 160 feet to 60 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the potential for damage due to a tsunami (seismically- induced sea wave) is considered relatively low. Although the occurrence of tsunamis in southern California is very infrequent, documented accounts do exist. The site is not adjacent to or downstream of any lakes or confined bodies of water and, therefore, the possibility of earthquake- induced flooding due to seiches or dam failures is considered remote. 5.3 Landsliding No landslides were encountered during the site investigation, and none are known to exist on the property or at a location that would impact the proposed improvements. I 1 . t t Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -3 - November 22, 2005 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. General 1 6.1.1 Based upon the results of this investigation, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in the 1 design and construction of the project. 6.1.2 Our field investigation indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary -age terrace deposits. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the nineteen borings. 6.1.3 Minimal overlays are required to achieve the Traffic Indices proposed by the City of Encinitas on Hermes, Hymettus, and Vulcan Avenues; however, very thick overlays would be required for Leucadia Boulevard. Several pavement alternatives have been provided for Leucadia Boulevard. 6.1.4 Existing pavements are significantly under- designed yet are performing well. The introduction of irrigation for landscaping should be carefully controlled so that pavement ' subgrade soils are not wetted. 6.1.5 Retaining walls are proposed at the four quadrants of the intersection of Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue. Recommendations for retaining walls are presented. in subsequent sections of this report. 6.2 Seismic Design Criteria 6.2.1 The following table summarizes site design criteria obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 6.2 are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as a Type B fault. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 2.8 miles away from the site. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -4- November 22, 2005 TABLE 6.2 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16 -I Soil Profile Type SD Table 16 -J 1 Seismic Coefficient, C 0.46 Table 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient, C„ 0.80 Table 16 -R Near - Source Factor, N 1.0 Table 16 -S Near Source Factor, N,, 1.3 Table 16 -T Seismic Source B Table 16 -U 6.3 Grading 6.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of this report conflict with Appendix C, the recommendations of this section take precedence. 6.3.2 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon Incorporated. 6.3.3 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading ' operations with the owner, contractor, .civil engineer and soil engineer in attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. 6.3.4 Grading the site Q should commence with the removal of all existing vegetation and existing improvements from the areas to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood, asphalt and concrete should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill soils. All existing underground improvements within the improvement areas to be removed should be extracted and the resulting depressions properly backfilled in accordance with the procedures described herein. 1 6.3.5 Within retaining wall areas, we expect that the walls will be founded in dense terrace deposits. If undocumented fill soils are encountered at bottom of footing elevations, the fill I should be removed to expose competent terrace deposits. The ground surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density at about one to three percent above optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D 1557 -02. 5 _ November 22, 2005 ' Project No. 07070 -22 -01 6.3.6 Along road widenings, the ground surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 1 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density at about one to three percent above optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D 1557 -02. If areas of loose or wet soils are encountered, excavation should be deepened at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 1 6.3.7 Excavated soils generated from cut operations can be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned to a water content above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 -02. The upper 12 inches of fill beneath pavement should be moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. 6.3.8 Import fill soil should consist of granular materials with a "low" expansion potential (EI less than 50) free of deleterious material or stones larger than 3 inches and should be compacted as recommended above. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material. 6.3.9 Temporary slopes up to 15 feet high may be excavated no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) without shoring provided the top of the excavation is a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing buildings and other improvements. Excavations steeper than 1:1 or closer than 15 feet from an existing improvement should be shored in accordance with - applicable OSHA codes and regulations. 6.3.10 Permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1. Slopes, if any, will be composed of granular soils that are susceptible to surface erosion. Consideration should be given to the use of jute mesh or other surface treatment to minimize transport by runoff until adequate vegetation can take root. 6.4 Slabs ' 6.4.1 All exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations. Slab panels in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with 6 x 6 - W2.91W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -6- November 22, 2005 should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soils for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soils should be properly compacted and the moisture content of surficial soils should be verified prior to placing concrete. 1 'n are intended to reduce the 6.4.2 The recommendations presented herepotential for cracking of l P slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs will still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 6.5 Lateral Loading 6.5.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design of footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or firm native materials. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by pavement should not be included-in design for passive resistance. I 6.5.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.4 should be used for design. 6.6 Retaining Walls 6.6.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pcf. Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf recommended. Expansive soils should not be used as backfill material 1 behind retaining walls. All soil placed for retaining wall backfill should have an Expansion Index less than 50. i 6.6.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.0011-1 (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -7- November 22, 2005 1 restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 711 psf should be 1 added to the above active soil pressure. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a horizontal distance equal to two- thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added. 6.6.3 Retaining walls should be founded in properly compacted fill or native terrace deposits. An allowable bearing capacity for retaining wall foundations at least one foot wide and one foot below lowest adjacent grade can be taken as 2,500 psf. The values presented above are i for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one -third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 6.6.4 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent ' to the base of the wall. A drainage detail is presented on Figure 3. The above recom- mendations assume a properly compacted granular (EI less than 50) free - draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 6.6.5 Wall foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a 1 representative of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. I 6.7 Pavement Sections 6.7.1 Six R -Value tests were performed on near - surface samples and the measured R- Values range from 19 to 67. In general, the R- Values at the intersection of Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue and the area of Leucadia Boulevard between Vulcan and Hermes Avenues averaged approximately 20. R- Values on Vulcan Avenue averaged 67 and R- Values east of Hermes Avenue averaged approximately 45. 6.7.2 Subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction to a depth of 12 inches below rough grade. 6.7.3 Nineteen borings were drilled on October 27, 2005 at approximately the locations presented on Figure 2. Borings B -12 through B -15 were drilled for retaining walls and are Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - 8- November 22, 2005 1 not listed. The boring locations, soil types, and existing pavement sections are presented in Table 6.7.1 below: TABLE 6.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Boring No. Location Soil Type pavement Section B -1 Hymettus north of Leucadia Sand with trace clay 5 "AC * /0 "AB B -2 Hymettus south of Leucadia Silty Sand with trace clay 2'h "AC /0" AB B -3 Hermes south of Leucadia Silty Sand NA' B -4 Hermes north of Leucadia Silty Sand 4" AC /0" AB B -5 Leucadia east of Vulcan Silty Sand with trace clay 2V2" AC /0 "AB B -6 Leucadia west of Hermes Silty Sand with trace clay YAC /0 "AB B-7 Leucadia east of Hermes Silty Sand 2� /z" AC /0 "AB B -8 Leucadia east of Hygeia Silty Sand with trace clay 2' /z" AC/0 "AB B -9 Leucadia west of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /0 "AB B -10 Leucadia east of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /5 "AB B -11 Leucadia east end of project Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /4' /z "AB B -16 Vulcan south end Silty Sand 7'/2" AC /0 "AB B -17 Vulcan south of Leucadia Silty Sand 5'/2" AC /0 "AB B -18 Vulcan north of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 "AC /0 "AB B -19 Vulcan north end Silty Sand 5'h" AC /0 "AB *AC = Asphalt Concrete. 'AB = Aggregate Base. # NA = Not Accessible (City would not allow coring/drilling). 6.7.4 The existing pavements are performing well. There was little to no distress observed other than repaired trenches associated with utility maintenance. Therefore, we have prepared overlay recommendations as if the existing pavements were new with no reduction for aging or distress (i.e. we have designed only for structural adequacy and not deflection). 6.7.5 We are presenting two alternatives for overlays. For Alternative No. 1, we have used the Traffic Indices provided by the City. Traffic Indices of 8.0, 5.0, and 6.0 were recommended for Leucadia Boulevard, Hermes/Hymettus and Vulcan Avenues, respectively. Laboratory R- Values were obtained at numerous locations along the alignments and are presented in 1 Appendix B. Resultant overlays are presented in Table 6.7.2 below. As can be seen, the overlays on the minor streets are minor but the overlays for Leucadia Boulevard are quite thick ranging from 6 to 10 inches. In order to compare recommended pavement sections to existing pavement sections, we have converted the asphalt concrete and aggregate base into Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -9- November 22, 2005 "gravel equivalents" as outlined in the Caltrans design method. Gravel equivalent factors for asphalt concrete depend on the Traffic Indices and vary from 2.01 to 2.52. The gravel equivalent factor for aggregate base is 1.1. TABLE 6.7.2 REQUIRED OVERLAY FOR CITY TRAFFIC INDEX Required Location R -Value Traffic Index Overlay (inches) Hymettus north of Leucadia 20 5.0 1'h Hymettus south of Leucadia 20 5 . 0 4 Hermes south of Leucadia* 45 5 . 0 2 Hermes north of Leucadia 45 5.0 1 Leucadia east of Vulcan 20 8.0 10 -- Leucadia west of Hermes 20 8.0 9V2 Leucadia east of Hermes 45 8.0 6 ( Leucadia east of Hygeia 20 8.0 10 Leucadia west of Hymettus 20 8.0 9V2 Leucadia east of Hymettus 20 8.0 6V2 Leucadia east end of project 20 8 . 0 7 Vulcan south end 67 6.0 0 Vulcan south of Leucadia 67 6 . 0 0 Vulcan north of Leucadia 67 6.0 0 Vulcan north end 67 6.0 0 *Assumed as no coring allowed. 6.7.6 The pavement sections on Leucadia Boulevard currently consist of approximately 2'/2 to 3 inches of asphalt concrete with little or no aggregate base and are performing very well. No significant change in traffic is anticipated; therefore, thinner overlays than those recommended in Table 6.7.3 above will likely provide an adequate roadway surface with a 1 slightly shorter pavement life. Table 6.7.3 and 6.7.4 present 2 -inch and 4 -inch overlays, respectively across the entire project alignment, the corresponding Traffic Index for the overlay pavement section and the pavement life. It is important to recognize that the calculated life of the existing pavement sections on Leucadia Boulevard are less than 1 year and yet these segments of roadway are performing very well. 1 Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -10- November 22, 2005 1 TABLE 6.7.3 PAVEMENT LIFE FOR 2 -INCH OVERLAY Proposed Calculated Estimated Location R -Value Overlay Traffic ESAL ** Life ) (inches) Index (y Hymettus north of Leucadia 20 2 5.4 13,670 75 Hymettus south of Leucadia 20 2 3.7 570 3 Hermes south of Leucadia* 45 2 6.3 49,900 250 Hermes north of Leucadia 45 2 6.3 49,900 250 Leucadia east of Vulcan 20 2 3.7 570 <1 Leucadia west of Hermes 20 2 4.1 1,350 <1 Leucadia east of Hermes 45 2 5.2 9,950 1 �j Leucadia east of Hygeia 20 2 3.7 570 <1 Leucadia west of Hymettus 20 2 4.1 1,351 < Leucadia east of Hymettus 20 2 5.6 18,550 2 Leucadia east end of project 20 2 5.4 13,670 1.5 Vulcan south end 67 2 10.4 12,900,000 >500 Vulcan south of Leucadia 67 2 12.2 3,370,000 >500 Vulcan north of Leucadia 67 2 9.9 1 2,200,000 >500 Vulcan north end 67 2 1 10.1 2,600,000 >500 *Assumed as no coring allowed. * *ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Load (18,000 ponds). TABLE 6.7.4 PAVEMENT LIFE FOR 4 -INCH OVERLAY Proposed Calculated Estimated Location R -Value Overlay Traffic ESAL Life (inches) Index (years) Hymettus north of Leucadia 20 4 6.4 56,994 300 Hymettus south of Leucadia 20 4 1 5.1 8,457 50 Hermes south of Leucadia* 45 4 7.6 241,533 >500 Hermes north of Leucadia 45 4 7.6 241,533 >500 Leucadia east of Vulcan 20 4 5.3 11,684 1.5 Leucadia west of Hermes 20 4 5.5 15,950 1.7 Leucadia east of Hermes 45 4 6.5 64,925 7 Leucadia east of Hygeia 20 4 5.3 11,684 1.5 Leucadia west of Hymettus 20 4 5.4 13,671 1.5 Leucadia east of Hymettus 20 4 6.7 83,754 9 Leucadia east end of project 20 4 6.5 64,925 7 Vulcan south end 67 4 12.2 12,900,000 >500 Vulcan south of Leucadia 67 4 13.8 36,000,000 >500 1 Vulcan north of Leucadia 67 4 11.8 9,700,000 >500 Vulcan north end 67 4 12.2 12,900 >500 1 *Assumed as no coring allowed. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 11 November 22, 2005 6.7.7 Based on the data above, relatively minor overlays are expected on Vulcan Avenue, Hermes Avenue, and Hymettus Avenue regardless of the alternative design approach. However, thick overlays will be required along Leucadia Boulevard to accommodate a ' Traffic Index of 8.0. The existing thin pavement sections on Leucadia Boulevard point out the weakness of the design methodology and we recommend that the overlays be limited to 2 inches. This segment of Leucadia Boulevard should be placed in the City's maintenance schedule at the interval presented in the table above. However, we expect that the service life of the existing pavement section with a 2 -inch overlay will greatly exceed calculated design life based on observation of existing pavement performance. 6.7.8 New pavements will be required along the widening portion of the alignment. Table 6.7.5 presents new pavement sections for each segment where widening may occur. i TABLE 6.7.5 WIDENING PAVEMENT SECTIONS Class 2 City Asphalt Aggregate Location Traffic R -Value Concrete Base Index (inches) (inches) Hymettus Avenue 5.0 t67 3 7 Hermes Avenue 5.0 3 4 Vulcan Avenue 6.0 3 4 Leucadia Boulevard between S.0 20 4' /z 14 Vulcan and Hermes Avenue Leucadia Boulevard East of Hermes Avenue 8.0 45 4 1 /2 7 Leucadia Boulevard at Hymettus Avenue 8.0 20 4 /z 14 6.7.9 The performance of asphalt concrete pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. If planter islands are proposed, the islands should be sealed and the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the subgrade elevation of the adjacent pavement. In addition, `j the surface drainage within planters should be such that ponding will not occur. If the planter islands are not sealed, subdrains should be constructed to collect irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures. 6.7.10 Our experience indicates that even with these provisions, groundwater conditions can ! develop as a result of increased irrigation, landscaping and surface runoff. A subdrainage system should be constructed along the perimeter of pavement subgrade areas to reduce the Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - 12 - November 22, 2005 potential of pavement distress and subgrade failure due to infiltration and ponding of water within subgrade soils. The subdrain system should be designed to intercept irrigation water and surface runoff prior to entry into the pavement subgrade and carry the water to a suitable outlet. 6.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 6.8.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to pavements. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from pavement and the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Pavement drainage should be directed into conduits to carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 6.8.2 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for ' surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We recommend that subdrains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures, or impervious above -grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommended construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material. ' 6.9 Foundation and Grading Plan Review 6.9.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans and foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal to determine if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 13- November 22, 2005 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon ' the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated. herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the ' plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. ' The findings of thus report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the 3 g 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, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 o AV ROP •:;° � N •rte 1.TATEENlNN RD .' �"( �. Cl.000II• \� 1 \� �l — Np00.. 4N /iC D _.� 2S A s'f. PT1 0 / BL H AV r 'l �.�,� _ ��.,\ 25 J.. '" GTE _ P _.'-�}' P S. ,? m J \ c f v to \ RAVEAN q a o� I g£ s $ G` ��5 `r Nl lc W \�`(i A po Q. G < `1` •11'NOP`/ py S r �� n p � A �. a� •4r! CT �� ISJ N '� \ZOO y "' SEABLURE L/ f . a� v CA t µD L SL e g w �. Ev SUNRICH g ENCINIIA$ MUCUS $ D0. LN o 3 RANCH s l COURSE I tP r E�'�EgE pGVg ✓ L � NORMANDY a7 , °! Q �!r . SS E s S E$ BRITTANY RD Gp•AUCU$ c r �1Pp s` 7DO !� ��� LEUCADIA STATE SS BEACH �s�a $�� A cl LEUCADIA BLED auu r . a a �\ VA, E �b !{4p' F5 W W o SIDONIA . P g ST ST 0 �,. ml g y q ` Ty vvx ati sernA. w .c r 1 ENCINITAS ° 0 d �c s lyF\ ,NYRO �,.. EZEE ST BEACH U ION UNION ST -- COUNTY ,.. UNION' ORPNEUS' ; ST UNION ��:� i({�O d Si PARK �. ST Q " "� PARK !� STD ' _ VISO >� � ¢ •. B VPL PL sn VIA LlllM in m FOXGLOVE t $ S IDE S ` t MELL PAUL ECKE OUAli` $ ST Bp wank { 4 ^T CA ENS ; \� 0 5` ��o r� acsw VIEW SPORTS - U , BOTAIVIG( awlE u ao � a L.,.- �. \ F C TEx. PARK �i .G4RDENS NAYS �\\` PARK r rENgN dC - `..�_.n�yc g. SUNF ER ST g - y Si ,,, v ! S CREST " RD I• v 5NA ss f tNDgE P fi .: 5 NNY Q W ERRr RD =A ENCINI" A : E DR Q 4 OO eoo T S g eL WY MOONLIGHT C ST Fs sr 0 9 : R� c rAxr C� 5 p0 B LV 3 c� STATE $ w N ' E rrrresvr D ST BEACH ��jW D SOURCE: 2005 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP ' SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA N REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY NO SCALE OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION. GEOCOC VICINITY MAP I'�T � INCORPORATED LEUCADIA BOULEVARD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS CALIFORNIA 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 E N C I N ITAS, PHONE 851551-6900 - FAX 151558-6159 FK / RA DSK/GTYPD DATE 11-22-2005 PROJECT NO. 07070 - 22 - 01 FIG. 1 ViaMy Mop LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA VULCAN AVENUE I ; L 8 -19 APPROX. SCALE: 1"= 200' V 1 , -18 -17 i GEOCON LEGEND B -16 B -19 • ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING g E • SUGGESTED LOCATIONS OF BORI E DATE: 10/00/05 11ME: S03 P. m. L YPVFR'. NONE YRm- NONE y PAIN: N \STS01200 \GmE \Mafid\ F. ORAMING NAME PRPN. DNG PLOTTING NEN. NONE p'SIGNER. NONE PROJ. MGR: RI GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558.6900 - FAX 858 558.6159 PROJECT NO. 07070 - 22 - 01 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN DATE 11 -22 -2005 X: /07070- 22 -01/RA /FK 7070SFrEPLAN/DWG. ' GROUND 12^ SURFACE PROPERLY COMPACTED ' FILL ° a RETAINING WALL p° ° 17 ° d ° 4 3/4" CRUSHE ROCK d '6. d ° Q H d ° p p ° a 2 /3H a ° FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE a ° ° MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT a d d SAAB p a 4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED ° PVC PIPE - EXTEND TO A DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR SUMP PUMP FOOTING ° a SAND ' VISQUEEN (OPTIONAL) NOTE: IF DESIRED, WALL DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR EQUIVALENT t MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF EXTENDING GRAVEL TO TWO- THIRDS THE WALLS HEIGHT ' NO SCALE RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL 1 GEOCON LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ' INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS E N C I N ITAS, CALIFORNIA 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 ' PHONE 858 558 -6900 - FAX 858 558 -6159 AY / RA DSK /GTYPD ffDATE 11-22-2005 PROJECT NO. 07070-22 - 01. FIG. 3 X: /RI°TEMP /1 AUTOCAD PLATE TEMPLATE/1_DETAIURWI)D7 � APPENDIX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A ' FIELD INVESTIGATION ' The fie g field investigation was performed on October 27, 2005, and consisted of drilling 19 borings along Leucadia Boulevard, Hymettus Avenue, Hermes Avenue, and Vulcan Avenue. Boring locations are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Table A -1 presented the soil type encountered in the 15 borings drilled for pavement evaluation. Logs of Borings B -12 through B -15 drilled for the ' proposed retaining walls are presented as Figure A -1 through A-4. TABLE A -I EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing 1 Location Soil Type Boring No. Pavement Section B -1 Hymettus north of Leucadia Sand with trace clay 5 "AC * /0 "AB B -2 Hymettus south of Leucadia Silty Sand with trace clay 2 /z "AC /0" AB B -3 Hermes south of Leucadia Silty Sand NA' B -4 Hermes north of Leucadia Silty Sand 4" AC /0" AB B -5 Leucadia east of Vulcan Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -6 Leucadia west of Hermes Silty Sand with trace clay 3"AC /0 "AB B 7 Leucadia east of Hermes Silty Sand 2 AC /0 "AB B -8 Leucadia east of Hygeia Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B_9 Leucadia west of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /0 "AB B -10 Leucadia east of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /5 "AB B -11 Leucadia east end of project Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /4 /2 "AB B_16 Vulcan south end Silty Sand 7 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -17 Vulcan south of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B_18 Vulcan north of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 "AC /0 "AB B -19 Vulcan north end Silty Sand 5 /z" AC /0 "AB *AC = Asphalt Concrete. t AB = Aggregate Base. A NA = Not Accessible (City would not allow coring /drilling). Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 IX BORING B 12 0 ,. W W FZ<L ZW Ix DEPTH 2 O SOIL F W� U ~ W SAMPLE DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 W Cn p r a o z IN NO p z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) Z J FEET F = (USCS) W W Co 0 0 J IX EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER IL 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B12 -1 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS Slightly moist, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND 2 ,I a I . I BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A -1 , 07070- 22 -01.GPJ Log of Boring B 12, Page 1 of 1 F ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE 1 NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. ' PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 IX BORING B 13 o U W W ZW �^ �F DEPTH SAMPLE FQ 0O ¢ SOIL ¢ H � W U W IN o o CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 w U) o a o z FEET NO ' (USCS) d m Q O J EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B 13 -1 TOPSOIL \UNDOCUMENTED FILL 1 I. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS . Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty SAND 2 4 BORING TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered I 1 Figure A -2, 07070- 22- 01.GPJ Log of Boring B 13, Page 1 of 1 F ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ©... CHUNK SAMPLE WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. 1 i PROJECT NO. 07070-22-01 of BORING B 14 0 u i.- W W I_ z LL U) LL LL F DEPTH SAMPLE OJ SOIL N W V F- W IN o 0 CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 W U) o } a o z FEET NO. (USCS) W CD Q O of J EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 1314 -1 I SM TERRACE DEPOSITS - Medium dense, slightly moist, orange brown, Silty, fine SAND 2 1 4 I. 4 BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered 1 1 Figure A -3, 07070- 22- O1.GPJ Log of Boring B 14, Page 1 of 1 ' ❑ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. i PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 Z Lu r w BORING B 15 o Z LU F 1 DEPTH ¢ SOIL Q N w o Z SAMPLE J IN p o CLASS ELEV. ( MSL. ` DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 w U) p a o z FEET NO ' � (USCS) ` / W m Q v O J W EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER °' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 B15 -1 SP UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, dry, brown, SAND with trace silt I. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS I� Medium dense to dense, orange brown, Silty SAND I { .I I 2 1 1. I - I.II 1 I. I I I i BORING TERMINATED AT 3.5 FEET No groundwater encountered 1 1 i Figure A-4, 07070-22 -01 GPJ Log of Boring B 15, Page 1 of 1 [] ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1, ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. t L APPENDIX 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were tested for their shear strength, compaction, expansion, soluble sulfate and pavement support characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B -I through B -V. TABLE B -1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 1 Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear No. (pcf) ( %) (psf) Resistance (degrees) B12 -1* 124.2 6.8 350 36 *Remolded to approximately 90 percent relative compaction and optimum moisture content. r TABLE B -11 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Sample No. Description Density (pcf) Content (% dry wt.) B 12 -1 Silty SAND with trace clay 137.8 7.0 TABLE B -111 ' SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Moisture Content Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Before Test ( %) After Test ( %) B 14 -1 1 8.0 12.3 118.9 0 i Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - B -1 - November 22, 2005 TABLE B -V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER- SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 i Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate ( %) B13-1 0.008 TABLE B -IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY R -VALUE TEST RESULTS Sample No. R -Value B5 -1 21 B7 -1 44 B8 -1 19 1310-1 24 B 16 -1 67 B 19 -1 68 1 i i 1 Project No. 07070 -22 -01 B -2 - November 22, 2005 t t APPENDIX 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 s APPENDIX C ' RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07070-22-01 1 1 1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and ' observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the ' Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ' ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject_ the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable ' conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading ' work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. ' 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as- graded topography. GI rev. 07/02 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, ' who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on -site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. i 2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include ' a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil -rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 1 3.1.2. Soil -rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow r for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. GI rev. 07/02 1 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the 1 Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on -site, shall not contain hazardous materials as 1 defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous 1 materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil -rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track - walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory ' by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the 3.6 g g n g - _ Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man -made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried ' logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1 -1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 07/02 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off -site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. I 4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal: vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Original Ground ' 2 � Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Slope To Be Such That — Soil Engineer Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur I Varies See Note 1 See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the 1 key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. G1 rev. 07/02 4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1. Compaction of soil or soil -rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented -steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil -rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. i 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with I the following recommendations: 6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the i optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00. i 6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading /mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. GI rev. 07/02 r 6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in -place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557 -00. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. r 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over -built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track - walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8. As an alternative to over - building of slopes, slope faces may be back - rolled with a heavy -duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4 -foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track - walked with a D -8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least - twice. 6.2. Soil -rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance - with the following recommendations: I _ "6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. r r G1 rev. 07/02 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in t properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be ' filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open- face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center -to- center with a 5 -foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1. - The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains i shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post- - construction infiltration of water. lifts not exceeding 6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed m 1 g 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock ' trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with ' compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20 -ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be GI rev. 07/02 1 utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. r 6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D 1196 -93, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be 1 performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to ' 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, r in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In -place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2 -foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock ' should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. r GI rev. 07/02 6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, and filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil -rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil -rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil -rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. ' 7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits. will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most- recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a 1 basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient N moisture applied. 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. GI rev. 07102 1 7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1. Soil and Soil -Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556 -00, Density of Soil In -Place By the Sand -Cone Method. 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922 -96, Density of Soil and Soil - Aggregate In -Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557 -00, Moisture - Density Relations of Soils and Soil - Aggregate Mixtures Using 10 -Pound Hammer and 18 -Inch Drop. 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829 -95, Expansion Index Test. 1 7.6.2. Rock Fills 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196 -93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. 07/02 g. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of ' elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as -built plan 1 of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as- graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as- graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/02 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, version 3.00, 2000. 2. - - - - - -, FRISKSP, version 3.01b, 1998. 3. Geocon, Inc., Soil Investigation . and Geologic Reconnaissance for SDG AC- WW(T)- Leucadia Purchase Order No. 10464 ( Leucadia Cell Site) Encinitas, California, dated November 15, 1989 (Project No. D- 4456401). 4. Houston, J. R. and A. R. Garcia, Type 16 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predictions for Pacific Coastal Communities: U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report, H -74 -3, 1974. 1 5. Internal Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code (with California Amendments), Title 23, 1997. 6. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 60 p., 1999. 7. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. 1 1 Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 NoText \ �i� 4 �•' +v ; +a %' %`r'::YI �; `fit i !`..i .. 1 N s. rte, Enterprises, Ine. 2180 Garnet Avenue, Suite 2C San Diego, CA 92109 FAX Fax C,g+ -. -� r From• Shawn EMU _____ gate= General Building & Engineering Contractors -- License No.621125 Ph. 858 -272 -3191 Fx.858- 272 -6069 E. office @3d -ntcom j•d 68O9ZLZ8S8 sasiidialu3 CI-E 6O :21 LOOZ 9Z add DESIGNATION OF SUBCON'T'RACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BITS TT _MS CFo AccompanyProposab The Bidder - MUST complete each infbrmation field on. this form far each subcontractor that it proposes to. use. Additional copies of this forrii zay be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's; decision to use more than one subcontractor This form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's. sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid, s riort- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid.for the World and that the listed subcontractors will.be used to perform the portions of the Worlc 4esignated in the list in accordance with applicable -pypvisions.of the specifications and section et. sect. o the -Public Contracts Code. "Subletting and..Subcontracling Fair Practices Act.'. The.Bidder.fw lier. ci;eifies that no - a:dditional subcontractor. will.be allowed to. perform any portion of the Work .in excess. of' one -half of tine'percei.�t. (0.� % }. of tiZe Bidder'. s total bid or ten thot?sarCi$- dollars ($10,000) u►aicheYer iS . greater axrd tl3at.no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. ; Full:Compaxzy Name of Su beontractar::� - _� Subcontractor's Location of Business: Street • • City :State Zip contractor'.s Tee hone Number inOxidin Area Coale: -�' Snb. 1 P g _ Subcontractor's California State Conti actors License No. _ S UBCONTRACT OR' S ' B ID . ITEMS Bid Item No. Amo oun f — Amount of Work in Axnount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Itein.Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Includilig Contractor Excluding. & Profit it Bid Item . Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit . Overhead & Profi $ $ $ -... $ $ Explanation Column 1 -- Bid Item No. froze the bid proposal.,.page D -5. Column 2 -- The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C_4 2 •d GB09ZLZ8S8 sasiid -jalu3 a -E Go :aT L00a 9Z idd DESIGNATIgN OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete .each . inforMatioi1 field on this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to. use. Additional copies off this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's. decision to use more than one subconiaactor. 'This form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's sealed bid. Failure to complete and correct infonnatidn ma result in rejection of the bid as rion- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub - bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid. for the Work and that the listed subcontractors - will. be used to perform the portions of the Work. - as designated in the list in.accordance with applicable- provisions.of th -e: specifications. and section-4100 et. seq. -of the 'Public .Contracts Code . "Subletting and,.Subcontractu?g Fair Practices Act. ". T er he.Bidd.fn ther-.ecktifies that no additional subcontractor- will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work .iii excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %o). of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is. greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full: Company Name of Subcontractor: . *�_.:$......_. .1 Coe / �rq Subcontractor's :Location of Business: Street City State - - - Zip -- Subcontractor's 'Telephone Number including Area Cod- Subcontractor's California State Contractors l:icer;se No. SUBCONTRACT OR'S'13ID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Itein Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding &. Profit in Bid Item . Subcontractor's . Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit . _ �-) 70 $ Explanation Column 1 -- Bid Item No. from the bid proposal,.page D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be perfoi by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 6 •d 6B092La9GB sasTJJJaIu3 a -E 60 :al L00a 9Z .add DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each - information field on this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to. use. Additional copies of this form may be attached if required to :accommodate the Contractor's: decision to use'more than one subcontractor. This. form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's. sealed bid. Failure to, provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non - responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will be used to perform the portions of the Work. as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions of the specifications. and section-4100 et. seq., of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act The.Bidder.fiuther-. certifies that no additional subcontractor will -be allowed to peiforth any portion of the Work in excess of one - }calf of one percent (0.5% o) of. the Bidder's total bid or ten thousav dollars ($10,000) whichever is. greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Fvll:CompanyName of Subcontractor: �_t _P Subcontractor's Location of Business , _ � , - V ci � Street ..-° City .State Zip Subcontractor's -Telephone Nvimber including Area Code: 1 ZY Subcontractor's C2lifonua State Contractors License No. _ SUI3CONTRAC'TOR,'S BED ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Anmount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's . Overhead & Profit Ove rhead & Profi _ $- $ -- - - S - -- Explanation Column l — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal,_page D -5. Column 2 —The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor - Coltunn 3 —The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C.•4 �•d 6809 sasiudua4u3 Q -E 01 = L002 9 udd } DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS r .- (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each information field on. this form. for each subcontractor that it proposes to.,.use. A dditional copies of this form may be attached if required to :accommodate the Contractor's: decision to use - more than one subcontractor. 17his. form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's .seale.d bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as lion- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it- has used the sub -hid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will be used to perform the portions of the Work as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions.of the, specifications and section- 4100 et. seq.. of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and .Subcontracting Fair Practices Act.". The. Bidder. further. crertifies that no additional subcontractor. will -be allowed to. perform any portion of the Work in excess of one -llclf of one percent (0.3 %). of the Bidder' s total. bid or ten thousand, dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full-Copany Name of Subcontractor: �' " Subcontractor's Location.of Business: - -_- -_.- _. _ -___- street _ - -- City State z ip Subcontractor's Telephone .Number including Area Code; Subcontractor's California. State Contractors License No. SUBCONT:RACTOR'S BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Ainount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item hicluding Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's - Overhead & Profit O verhead & Profit _ -- - $ Ag $ $ Explanation Colunin 1 — Bid Item No. horn the bid proposal, .page D -S. Column 2 — The dollar an of the item to be performed by the Subcontnictor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to he performed by Contractor's own forces. CA 9 •d 6B09ZLZSSB sa51-adu94u3 a -E 01 2 1 LOOZ 9Z udd DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SLJ13CONTRACTOIZ'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each infornnation. field on. ibis form for each sitbcozltractor that it proposes to use. Additionai copies of this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's: decision to use more than one subcontractor. 'Phis form must be submitted. as a part of the Biddees.sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this .bid-for the Work and that the listed. subcontrac will . be used to perform the portions of the Work. as designated in the list in accordance with applicab]e provisions .of the. specifications. and section- 4100 ex. seq.. -of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and - Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. ". The.Bidder.farther. certifies that no additional subcontractor will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work .iii excess of one -half of one -percent (0.5 %0) of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand- dollars ($10,000) wlvcheyer is greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Fu11,Company Name of Subcontractor:. �^� -•� Subcontractor's Location.of Business: Street .. City State - - - -- .Zip Subcontractor's Telephone Number including Area Code: . Subcontractor's California State Contractors License No. SUBCOI1 BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amo of Amount of Work in Ainount of Subcontracted Bid }aid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Conti actor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit . _ Overhead & Pr ofit . $ $ $ $ $ Explanation Column 1 — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 9 •d 6809ZLZBss sas1udua -4u3 Q -C TT =ZT LO02 9 Z .add DE$IGNA PION OF OWNER OPERATORILESSOR AND AMOUNT OF OWNER OPERATOR/LPSSORWiORD LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEIVIBNTS o Accompany Proposal) . The Bidder certifies that has used the srib -bid of the followixig listed Owner Operator %Lessor in' preparing this -bid for the Work and that the listen 04vner Operator/Lessor will be used to perform. the portions of the Work as designated iir the list in accordance applicable provisions of the rdance with app specifications and. section 4100 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code "Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act." The: 3idder further certifies that no additional Owner Operator/Lessor. will be allowed to perform any portion of die . Worlc in excess of one-half of one. percent (0.5 %) of - the Bidders total bid ten thousmd dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater and that no changes in the owner Operator/Lessors listed work will be made except upon th prior approval of the A�per►cy_ : Full Owner operator/Lessor Name: — —_- Owner Operator/Lessor Location of Business Street Address ' - - -- : estate ___ - -- .. --- Zip ' City : Owner OperatorA essor Telephone Number including Area Code: Owner. Operator/Lesgor City of Encinitas. Business License No.: _ OWNER OPERATOR/LESSOR WORK ITEMS Bid Item No — Amount of 5 _nj_r Amount of Work in Amoiant of Operator/Lessor:Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Owner Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Operator Lessor's. Overhead & Profit Overhead & Pk of'it S $ Explanation Column 1 — Bid Item. No. from the bid paoposal, page D -15. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the- iteni to be performed by the Owner Op.erator/Lessor. Cohunn 3 – The dollar amount of the itern to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -G Z, •d 6B09ZLZSS6 sasijdua4u3 Q -g 11:21 L002 92 .rdd DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each information field on this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to. use. Additional copies of this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's decision to use more than one subcontractor. This. form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non - responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will be used to perform the portions of the Work, as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions .of the.. specifications. and section- 4100 et seq.. of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act." The. Bidder . further. certifies that no additional subcontractor. will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work in excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %). of the Bidder'. s total. bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full. Company Name of Subcontractor: Subcontractor's Location of Business: Street 4W City State Zip Subcontractor's Telephone Number including Area Code: Subcontractor's California State Contractors License No. SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit $ $ $ $ $ $ Explanation Column 1 — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, page D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) :. The Bidder MUST complete each information field on this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to use. Additional copies of this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's: decision to use more than one subcontractor. This, form must be submitted as a part of the Bidder's sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will be used to perform the portions of the Work. as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions .of the specifications and .section-4100 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and. Subcontracting Fair Practices Act." The Bidder. further. certifies that no additional subcontractor will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work .iii excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %). of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency, Full Company Name of Subcontractor: Subcontractor's Location of Business: Street 4W City State Zip Subcontractor's Telephone Number, including Area Code: Subcontractor's California State Contractors License No. SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit Explanation Column 1 — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, page D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each information field on. this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to_, use. Additional copies of this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's decision to use more than one subcontractor. This. form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's. sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will. be used to perform the portions of the Work. as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions of the specifications and section-4100 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code ."Subletting and :Subcontracting Fair Practices Act." The Bidder..further. certifies that no additional subcontractor. will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work in excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %) of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand, dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full Company Name of Subcontractor: Subcontractor's Location of Business: Street 4W City State Zip Subcontractor's Telephone Number including Area Code: Subcontractor's California State Contractors License No. SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit Explanation Column 1 — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, page D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each information field on this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to. use. Additional copies of this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's decision to use more than one subcontractor. This form must be submitted as a part of the Bidder's. sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non- responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will be used to perform the portions of the Work, as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions .of the. specifications and section �4100 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and :Subcontracting Fair Practices Act The. Bidder. further. certifies that no additional subcontractor, will .be allowed to perform any portion of the Work .in excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %). of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is. greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full Company Name of Subcontractor: Subcontractor's Location of Business: Street City State Zip Subcontractor's Telephone Number including Area Code: Subcontractor's California State Contractors License No. SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Perfonned by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit $ $ $ Explanation Column 1 — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, page D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder MUST complete each information field on this form for each subcontractor that it proposes to. use. Additional copies of this form may be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's decision to use more than one subcontractor. This. form must be submitted. as a part of the Bidder's sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non - responsive. The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed subcontractors in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed subcontractors will.be used to perform the portions of the Work. as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions of the specifications and section- 4100 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code . "Subletting and .Subcontracting Fair Practices Act The. Bidder. further certifies that no additional subcontractor will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work in excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %). of the Bidder's total. bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is. greater and that no changes in the subcontractors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full Company Name of Subcontractor: Subcontractor's Location of Business: Street City State Zip Subcontractor's Telephone Number including Area Code: Subcontractor's California State Contractors License No. SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Amount of Work in Amount of Subcontracted Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit Explanation Column I — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, page D -5. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Subcontractor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -4 REFERENCES The following are the names, addresses, and phone numbers for three references for which - BIDDER has performed similar work within the past two years: 1. Name and address of owner Name and telephone number of person familiar, with project Contract amount Type of work Date completed 2. Name and address of owner Name and telephone number of person familiar with project Contract amount Type of work Date completed 3. Name and address of owner Name and telephone number of person familiar with project Contract amount Type of work Date completed C -18 BIDDER'S INFORMATION BIDDER declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the representations made hereto are true and correct. Bidder's Name 1 ✓t�� ��'1� Business Address Telephone `y Z- State Contractor's License No. and Class 2- Original Date Issued Expiration Date (0 -1 5 D -7 C -19 Excavation Notice "In the event Contractor is required to dig any trench or excavation that extends deeper than four feet below the surface in order to perform the work authorized under this contract, contractor agrees to promptly notify City in writing and before further disturbing the site if any of the conditions set forth below are discovered: 1. Material that the Contractor believes may be material that is hazardous waste; as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II, or Class III disposal site in accordance with the provisions of existing law. 2. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated. 3. Unknown physical" conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the work of the character provided for in this contract. A. City agrees to promptly investigate the conditions, and if City finds that the conditions do materially differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in contractor's cost of, or the time required 'for, performance of any part of the work, shall issue a change order under the procedures described in this Contract. B. That, in the event a dispute arises between City and Contractor as to whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste, or cause a decrease or increase in Contractor's cost of, or time required for, perfor- mance of any part of the work, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for in this Contract, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under the Contract. Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided either by this contract or by law which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between contracting parties." C -2o IN wITNEss wnEREoF, BIDDER executes and submits this proposal with the names, title, hands and seals of all forenamed principals this ' day of 520—. BIDDER Subscribed and sworn to this day of , 20 NOTARY PUBLIC C -21 PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE In accordance with Public Contract Code Section 10162, the Bidder shall: complete, under penalty of perjury, the following questionnaire: Has the bidder, any officer of the bidder, or any employee of the bidder who has a proprietary interest in the bidder, ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal, state, or local government project because of a violation of law or a safety regulation? Yes ❑ No If the answer is yes, explain the circumstances in the following space. C -22 Proposal Guarantee for Leucadia Boulevard Improvements *Strike out inapplicable phrases. * , in the form of legal currency of the United States of America in the amount of dollars ($ ) . A *certi c eck, properly made payable to the City of Encinitas for dollars ($ ) . A *bond in favor of the City of Encinitas for dollars ($ ) which amount is not less than ten percent (10 %0) of the total amount of this bid, is. attached hereto to guarantee the selected bidder will enter into a contract with the City of Encinitas in accordance with the proposal submitted. Receipt is hereby acknowledged of Addenda No(s). — f . The undersigned further agrees that in case of default in executing the required contract with necessary bonds and insurance .certificate(s) within eight (8) days, not including Saturdays, 'Sundays, and holidays, after having received notice of award that the bidder's guarantee accompanying his bid shall become the property of the City of Encinitas. Licensed in accordance with an act prow' 'ng for the registration of Contractors, License No. �� Class Signature of Bidder C -23 (If an individual, so state. If a firm or co- partnership, state the firm name and give the names of all individual co- partners composing the firm. If a corporation; state legal name of corporation, name of state under which corporation was chartered, and the names and business addresses of president, treasurer, and manager thereof) Firm Name State 1 7 / l lyt -c,c.� Fp D ame Title 2( D Dirt o 9 v I f l 2-72-3111 Business Address Phone Number Dated: /?i`f , 20 c) C -24 NON- COLLUSION AFFIDAVIT TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID j To the City of Encinitas, State of California: The undersigned in submitting a bid for Leucadia Boulevard Improvements, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he has not, either directly or indirectly, entered into any agreement, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with such contract. That the only persons or parties interested in this proposal as principals are those named herein; that no officer, agent, or employee of the CITY is. personally interested, directly or indirectly, in this proposal; that this proposal is made without connection to any other individual, firm or corporation making a bid for the same work and that this proposal is in all fa' and without collusion or Signature of Bidder 21�� �' �✓ f2 0 g-2-/ , P 7 Business Address l J� Place of Residence Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 Notary Public in and for the County of , State of California. My Commission Expires - '20 C -16 CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of SAN DIEGO On A PRIL 24, 2007 before me, Jam_ TE SEIDL, N PUBLIC 02te Name and Tine of Officer (e.g.. 'Jam Me. Notary P%k4cl personally appeared SHARROKT3 ELUIU Names) of signers) N personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(l) whose name(/;) isfav subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that IDL Wshe/they executed the same in 4Wher/t r* mttssl Coron # 1579632 authorized capacity(aas), and that by 46therAheir Notary KjWC - Carrarwo signature($) on the instrument the person(b), or the son Diego Canty entity upon behalf of which the person( ,A) acted, WWOV( E> 17. 2W9 executed the instrument. W ESS in hand and official seal. / t Place Notary seat Pbare Signature of Notary PubFc OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by taw, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this fort to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual O Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General _J Attorney in Fact Tap of lvxnb here ❑ Attorney in Fact Top or thurnb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS & SUPPLIERS BIDDER is required to furnish the following information relative to the subcontractors and suppliers he proposes to use. If all work is to be done without subcontractors, write "none" in the following space: Name, Address & Phone Number of Subcontractors, Suppliers and Vendors Portion of Work Materials or Equipment 00 �f PG► W � �Yl� P� �X1C ` 4,,W C C -17 GUIDE FOR COMPLETING THE "DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTOR AND AMOUNT OF SUBCONTRACTOR'S BID ITEMS" AND "DESIGNATION OF OWNER OPERATOR/LESSOR AND AMOUNT OF OWNER OPERATOR/LESSOR WORK" FORMS LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS REFERENCES Prior to preparation of the following Subcontractor and Owner Operator /Lessor disclosure forms Bidders are urged to review the definitions in section 1 -2 of the SSPWC and of the Special Provisions to this Contract especially, "Bid ", `Bidder", `.`Contract ", "Contractor", "Contract Price ", "Contract Unit "Price ", "Engineer", "Subcontractor" and "Work" and the definitions in Section 1 -2 of the Special Provisions especially "Owner Organization" and "Owner Operator/Lessor". Bidders are further urged to review sections 2 -3 SUBCONTRACTS of the SSPWC and section 2 -3.1 of these Special Provisions. CAUTIONS These forms will be used by the Agency to determine the percentage of work that the Bidder proposes to perform. Bidders are cautioned that failure to provide complete and correct. information may result in rejection of the bid as non - responsive. Any bid that proposes performance of more than 50 percent of the work by subcontractors or owner operator/lessors or otherwise to be performed by forces other than the Bidder's own organization will be rejected as non- responsive. Specialty items of work that may be so designated by the Engineer on the "Contractor's Proposal" are not included in computing the percentage of work proposed to be - performed by the Bidder. INSTRUCTIONS The Bidder shall set forth the name and location of business of each and every subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor who the Bidder proposes to perform work or labor or render service in or about the work or improvement, and every subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor licensed as a contractor by the State of California who the Bidder proposes to specially fabricate and install any portion of the work or improvement according to detailed drawings contained in the plans and specifications in excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %) of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater. Said name(s) and location(s) of business of subcontractor(s) shall be set forth and included as an integral part of the bid offer. Bidder shall use separate disclosure forms for each Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor of manpower and equipment that it proposed to use to complete the Work. Additional copies of the forms must be attached if required to accommodate the Contractor's decision to use more than one Subcontractor or Owner Operator /Lessor. All items of information must be completely filled out. These forms must be submitted as a part of the Bidder's sealed bid. Failure to provide complete and correct information may result in rejection of the bid as non - responsive. Neither the amount, in dollars, of work performed by the Bidder's own forces (as Contractor) not the Bidder's overhead and profit for subcontracted items of the work is included to compute the percentage of the work performed by Subcontractors or Owner Operators/Lessors.. C -2 When the Bidder proposes that any bid item will be installed by a Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor the amount, in dollars, of the bid item installed by each Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor must be entered under the columns "Amount of Subcontracted Bid Item. Including Subcontractor's Overhead & Profit" or "Amount of Owner Operator/Lessor Bid Item Including Owner Operator/Lessor's Overhead & Profit" unless the dollar amount of all work performed by any Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor is less than one -half of one percent (0.5 %) of the Bidder's total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater. If a Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor installs or constructs any portion of a bid item the entire amount of the Contract Unit Price, less.the Bidder's overhead and profit, shall be multiplied by the. Quantity of the bid item that the Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor installs to compute the amount of work so installed.. Suppliers of materials from sources outside the limits of work are not subcontractors. The value of materials and transport of materials from sources outside the limits of work, as shown on the plans, shall be assigned to the Contractor, the Subcontractor, or the Owner Operator/Lessor, as the case may be, that the Bidder proposes as installer of said materials. The value of material incorporated in any. Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor installed bid item that is supplied bythe Bidder shall be included. as a part of the work that the Bidder proposes to be performed by the Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor installing said item. The item number from the "CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL" (Bid Sheets) shall be entered in the "Bid Item No." column. When a Subcontractor or Owner Operator/Lessor has an Encinitas business license the number must be entered on the form. If the Subcontractor does not have a valid business license enter "NONE" in the appropriate space. Bidders shall make any additional copies of the disclosure forms as may be necessary to provide the required information. The page number and total number of additional form pages shall be entered in the location provided on each type of form so duplicated. When the Bidder proposes using a subcontractor or owner operator/Less to construct or install less than 100 percent of a bid item the Bidder shall attach an explanation sheet to the designation of subcontractor or designation of Owner Operator/Lessor forms as applicable. The explanation sheet . shall be provided by the Contractor to clearly apprise the Agency of the specific tasks that show the Bidder proposes to perform no less than fifty percent (50 %) of the work with its own forces. Determination of the subcontract and Owner Operator /Lessor amounts for purposes of award of the contract shall be determined by the City Council in conformance with the provisions of the contract documents and these Special Provisions. The decision of the City Council shall be final. C -3 Column 4 — The dollar amount of the Contractor's overhead and profit for work done by both the Contractor's and the Subcontractor's forces on the item. Total dollar amount of Columns 2, 3, and 4 must be equal to the dollar amount in the bid price of the item on bid proposal page D -15. C -5 DESIGNATION OF OWNER OPERATOR/LESSOR AND AMOUNT OF OWNER OPERATOR/LESSOR WORK LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS (To Accompany Proposal) The Bidder certifies that it has used the sub -bid of the following listed Owner Operator/Lessor in preparing this bid for the Work and that the listed Owner Operator/Lessor will be used to perform the portions of the Work as designated in the list in accordance with applicable provisions of the specifications and section 4100 et seq. of the Public Contracts Code "Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act." The Bidder further certifies that no additional Owner Operator/Lessor will be allowed to perform any portion of the Work in excess of one -half of one percent (0.5 %) of the Bidders total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) whichever is greater and that no changes in the Owner Operator/Lessors listed work will be made except upon the prior approval of the Agency. Full Owner Operator/Lessor Name: .Owner Operator/Lessor Location of Business Street Address City State Zip Owner Operator /Lessor Telephone Number including Area Code: ( _� Owner Operator /Lessor City of Encinitas Business License No.: OWNER OPERATOR/LESSOR WORK ITEMS Bid Item No. Amount of Owner Amount of Work in Amount of Operator/Lessor Bid Bid Item Performed by Contractor's Overhead Item Including Owner Contractor Excluding & Profit in Bid Item Operator Lessor's Overhead & Profit Overhead & Profit $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Explanation Column I — Bid Item No. from the bid proposal, page D -15. Column 2 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by the Owner Operator/Lessor. Column 3 — The dollar amount of the item to be performed by Contractor's own forces. C -6 Column 4 — The dollar amount of the Contractor's overhead and profit for work done by both the Contractor's and the Subcontractor's forces on the item. Total dollar amount of Columns 2, 3, and 4 must be.equal to the dollar amount in the bid price of the item on bid proposal page D -15. C -7 BIDDER'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (To Accompany Proposal) LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS Copies of the latest Annual Report, audited financial statements or Balance Sheets may be submitted under separate cover marked CONFIDENTIAL. C -8 BIDDER'S. STATEMENT'OF TECHNICAL ABILITY AND EXPERIENCE (To Accompany Proposal) LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS The Bidder is required to state what work of a similar character to that included iri the proposed- Contract he/she has successfully performed and give references, with telephone numbers, which will enable the City to judge his/her responsibility, experience and skill. An attachment can be used. Date Contract Name & Address Name & Phone Type of Work Amount of Completed of the Employer No. of Person to Contract Contract C -9 Sao CD r'nz,� orn y off► < rn p oa rn 3Zz ,F, S z �7 n 3 1° o �V � � 8 Z ° 3 z a U) z T I cz p T c�rni O ° gos� o ;5: rn o� rn ° o N m o' o' i Co.., A ,fa z z O 0 O V a' U7 o P; o a ►-• n o v N N co 3 0 O1 w rn o z Oi � $n v�rns'6o 3 c .. N�V1� voa o� N toz 3 ,r O ►� ON W � V g A Fn o rn z a -v n� bap °O' °obi �� 3v0 z w� a. 2 z � z � z Z -1 z rn 7 V n rn %V 4�6 w rn � F . O N o° p ` o w W 0 � 0 2 0� y Ins ° Q p ° `° 0 o W A C O N v ° O al ►.. ° O O° 2 ; w ° O d1 I.a N N " � a O ° p N 0 a (� a hi Z Cl tv Gf Cn O p N O ; N V► cO O° J%i ON ' �t ti O 0 z D r"r- g� A 0 CD z c) S2() a o x A n n 2 C rn n � �rn N N U u LLI G ► � O M MO M M pM M M p N O O Z M N • ri r a w p N O N O N N O O N N N N O N r4 r1i Z a z a m Q Q cW a U D r1 Q d n n n (N LL a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0 O O Q A 9 D D O O O o o O o o Co O o 0 o O o 0 0 Q� WNi LA GD r ri ri a% ri YI t0 t0 rNi t0 In m V F p p p p $ O O O O O p O O O t0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N z O p O O O V p O O O O O O O O I`. ri c O 00 %D rl� V m 00 9 .O Pl% N r�i r-I-I co d' ca co m n N N N U) Ln 14 r-j 0 d' cc Ok -U 4A, jpr 40r APo- 4A- 4U' 40V iA .1 ri .i O U U z z dS w w c� a z w i _. 3 ° r O z O O O " �� > ac W ' F O a a z z a > � a 6 to w Ln co n In Ln 0% N O ZZ O OO 0 U LA 0 .-� O> r♦ n n Q� Ln O O O O V CD en C> m Q Q M 0 z to � 1011 m z r U') 1`` t m 6 OD w� 8 M M v- > - Z �rj 1- fn z = tfi $� a_^ 2 P^, °^ mM �O� oCp� M uj M O 00 Nh N ON 2 ' V mMmM r wd. � �ttf (/)M QM rR Q Qi > 00 CT � p Zoo � 00 C CTi Qi = 0 O O p Co p co o w 0 Z q S V �-- t0 0 m t0 � %0 � co 1: 0 C7 � tp tC � h � OD O 0 0� 0 r� O � 1� G r o Z a p� LL LL a LL Q W W � z _ j t7 _ ,. V U .. o . S ° O Z LL U oG O a g z a Ln 8 ui Z 00 = to zQ ui =o� w z � > z°� Q) CL a w y d cn z ° c c=7 oZS a S 2 '-' ,f , J ° v d W 'J 5 �z =O z - - � z Zu1N !f Y �� Ul LLJ 2: _ O i }t z O �C c� O Q a J a ° m a�� 3��a c����u Z �� Vr) � � k � � K 2 u 3 k J � k k D k § 0 \ _\ \ \ _� q � 2 2 § 0 C k k k § r JW ( m .�2 . . A § \ \ K k U —C O �) k R w �� w E 2 m $ § z § 2 a -/ » _ -5 L9 Lu _ Ln o § o ON lw 2� 77 �7 r M . & � J 2� JL 2C4 �2 � m � §� Ln C4 to p ON ¥G� m %d Go 206 R2 0 2 2 �n 3q 200 � � z � � � O 2 �q y z 3 c o § q z < O u $ � a / tn 7 z } \ � / 1-, m �$ Z 2 2§ n �a �� �K k\ k§ O z§ CL ( § 2@ 2 2 � m R R R k J k Z k BIDDER'S CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FOR GENERAL LIABILITY, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY, AUTOMOTIVE LIABILITY AND WORKER'S COMPENSATION (To Accompany Proposal) LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS As a required part of the Bidder's proposal the Bidder must attach either of the following to this page. I . Certificates of insurance showing conformancevith the requirements herein for: Comprehensive General Liability Automobile Liability Workers Compensation Employer's Liability 2. Statement with an insurance carrier's notarized signature stating that the carrier can, and upon payment of fees and/or premiums by the Bidder, will issue to the Bidder Policies of insurance for Comprehensive General Liability, Automobile Liability, Workers Compensation, and Employer's Liability in conformance with the requirements herein and Certificates of Insurance to the Agency showing conformance with the requirements herein. All certificates of insurance and statements of willingness to issue insurance for auto policies offered to meet the specification of this contract must: (1) Meet the conditions stated in the Notice Inviting Bids, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and the Special Provisions for this project for each insurance company that the Contractor proposes. (2) Cover any vehicle used in the performance of the contract, used onsite or offsite, whether owned, non - owned, or hired, and whether scheduled or non - scheduled. The auto insurance certificate must state the coverage is "any auto" and cannot be limited in any manner. K� C -10 ACORD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE D IDD/YYYY) 02 /07 PRODUCER LIC #0525512 1 - 619 - 464 - 6851 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ague Insurance Agency Inc. ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR JO Spring Street ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. 4th Floor La Mesa, CA 91941 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Thomas Geisbush INSURED INSURER A Insurance CO 3 -D Enterprises, Inc. INSURER 8: Redwood Fire & Casualty 2180 Garnet #2C INSURERC:Great American Insurance San Diego, CA 92109 INSURERD: e- INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. rC SR POLICYNUMBER POLK:YEFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS hm TYPE OF INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY GLP471849301 06/17/06 06/17/07 EACHOCCURRENCE $1,000,000 D AMAGE TO RENTED 3 50,000 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PREMISES Ea occurence $ CLAIMS MADE OCCUR MED IX rty P (A one person) $excluded X Co ntrac t ual Liability PERSONAL &ADV INJURY $1,000,000 % XCU GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS -COMPIOPAGG $2,000,000 POLICY R PRO- LOC B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY CAA000376 06/30/06 06/30/07 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $1,000,000 X ANYAUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ (Par person) SCHEDULEDAUTOS X HIREDAUTOS BODILY INJURY $ (Per accident) % NON-OWNEDAUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGELIABILITY - AUTO ONLY -EA ACCIDENT $ ANYAUTO OTHERTHAN EAACC $ AUTO ONLY: AGG $ A EXCESS/UMBRELLALIABILITY CUL01012906 06/17/06 06/17/07 EACH OCCURRENCE $5,000,000 $ OCCUR CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ 5,000,000 DEDUCTIBLE $ 1 0 RETENTION $ 10,000 $ WCSTATU- OTH- LIM ORY WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY -1 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/IXECUTIVE Q•� �I3 /O L �/ O I OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? b 12 I (� 3 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ It yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES 1 EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS Certificate is issued as Proof of Insurance only. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION City of San Marcos DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR Civic Center Drive REPRESENTATIVES. �j M San Marcos, CA 92069 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE y � USA 1� ACORD 25 (2001108) scalhoun © ACORD CORPORATION 1988 5704914 CERTHOLDER COPY SD STATE P.O. BOX 420807, SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94142 -0807 COMPENSATION I N S U R A N C E FUND CERTIFICATE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE ISSUE DATE: 01 -10 -2007 GROUP: 000046 POLICY NUMBER: 0012163 -2006 CERTIFICATE ID: 97 CERTIFICATE EXPIRES: 08 -03 -2007 08 -03- 2006/08 -03 -2007 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO SD JOB:KO72897C, CONSTRUCTION OF EL CAJON BLVD ITS OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS 1200 3RD AVE STE 200 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 -4195 This is to certify that we have issued a valid Workers' Compensation insurance policy in a form approved by the California Insurance Commissioner to the employer named below for the policy period indicated. This policy is not subject to cancellation by the Fund except upon30 days advance written notice to the employer. We will also give you 30days advance notice should this policy be cancelled prior to its normal expiration. This certificate of insurance is not an insurance policy and does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed herein. Notwithstanding any requirement, term or condition of any contract or other document with respect to which this certificate of insurance may be issued or to which it may pertain, the insurance afforded by the policy described herein is subject to all the terms, exclusions, and conditions, of such policy. �THORIZEDREPRESENTATI41EJ PRESIDENT EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY LIMIT INCLUDING DEFENSE COSTS: $1,000,000 PER OCCURRENCE. ENDORSEMENT #1600 - SHAHROKHA ELIHU PRESIDENT - EXCLUDED. ENDORSEMENT #1600 - DORIS ELGHANAYAN TREAS SECRETARY - EXCLUDED. ENDORSEMENT #2065 ENTITLED CERTIFICATE HOLDERS' NOTICE EFFECTIVE 08 -03 -2004 IS ATTACHED TO AND FORMS A PART OF THIS POLICY. ENDORSEMENT #2570 ENTITLED WAIVER OF SUBROGATION EFFECTIVE 2006 -12 -11 IS ____A TTACHED TO AND FORMS A PART OF THIS POLICY. THIRD PARTY NAME: THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO EMPLOYER 3 -13 ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED SO 2180 GARNET AVE STE 2C SAN DIEGO CA 92109 [B18,SD] (REV.2 - 05) PRINTED 01- 10-2007 BIDDER'S STATEMENT REFERENCE DEBARMENT (To Accompany Proposal) LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS 1. Have you or any of your subcontractors ever been debarred as an irresponsible bidder by another jurisdiction in the State of California? yes no 2. if yes, what was /were the name(s) of the agency(ies) and what Was/were the period(s) of debarment(s)? Attach additional copies of this page to accommodate more than two debarments. party debarred party debarred agency agency period of debarment period of debarment BY CONTRACTOR: (name of con ctor) By: (sign her - (print name /title) C -11 BIDDERS DISCLOSURE OF DISCIPLINE RECORD (To Accompany Proposal) LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractor's State License Board which has jurisdiction to investigate complaints against contractors if a complaint regarding a patent act or omission is filed within four years of the date of the alleged violation. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar, Contractor's State License Board, P.O. Box 26000, Sacramento, CA 95826. 1. Have you or any of your subcontractors ever been debarred as an irresponsible bidder by another jurisdiction in the State of Cali rnia? yes no 2. If yes, what was/were the name(s) of the agency(ies) and what was/were_the period(s) of debarment(s)? Attach additional copies of this page to accommodate more than two debarments. party debarred party debarred agency agency period of debarment period of debarment BY CONTRACTOR: (name of contractor) By: s here 1 vvw (print name/titl 6. If the answer to either 2 or 4 above is yes, fully identify, in. each and every case, the party whose discipline was stayed, the date of the violation that the disciplinary action pertains to, describe the nature of the violation and the condition (if any) upon which the disciplinary action was stayed. C -12 (Attach additional sheets if necessary) BY: CONTRACTOR (name of Contractor) By: (sign here) (print name/title) C -13 BID FORMS PROPOSAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ENCINITAS CALIFORNIA FOR LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS NAME OF BIDDER BUSINESS ADDRESS �i � f� /'� �` �� • PLACE OF RESIDENCE The work to be done consists of famishing all labor, equipment and materials necessary for construction of LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS within the City of Encinitas as described in these Special Provisions. The undersigned, as Bidder, declares that he has carefully examined the locations of the proposed work and the annexed proposed form of contract, and he proposes, and agrees if this _. proposal is accepted, that he will contract with the City of Encinitas, in the form of the copy of the contract annexed hereto, to provide all necessary machinery, tools, apparatus and other means of construction, and to do all the work and furnish all the materials specified in the contract, in the manner and time therein prescribed, and according to the requirements of the Engineer as therein set forth, and that he will take in full payment therefor the following item prices, listed both in figures and in words. (In case of discrepancy between the words and figures, the words shall govern and the figures shall be disregarded.) The bidder understands that the following quantities are approximate only, being given as a basis for the comparison of bids and the City does I not, expressly or by. implication, agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith, but reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any class or portion of-the work or to omit portions of the work as may be deemed necessary or advisable and in the best interests of the City by the Engineer.. Receipt is hereby acknowledged of Addenda No(s). l� . C -14 CITY OF ENCINITAS CONTRACTOR'S PROPOSAL LEUCADIA BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS BID SCHEDULE Price(s) given above are firm for 90 days after date of bid opening. C -15 04/18/2007 11:10 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS 2003/009 City of Encinitas Addendum IV April 17, 2007 Leucadia Boulevard Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Improvements Bid Schedule: Base Bid - Work West of Hermes Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost: 1 Mobilization LS A _ l 2 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 3 Tree Removal EA 12 Le) 4 Concrete Removal SF 1,113 5 Asphalt Concrete Removal SF 16,881 6 AC Sawcut LF 1,746 7 Unclassified Excavation/ Export CY 1,388 8 Unclassified Fill CY 20 9 1" Cold Plane of AC Pavement SF 17,398 10 Tapered Grind of AC Pavement SY 622 Cl!. 11 AC Dike. Type A RSD G -5 LF 1.146 12 AC Dike. Type E RSD G -5 LF 126 13 2' halt Concrete Sidewalk TNS 63 f 14 2" ARHM Rubberized Asphalt Concrete TNS 741 15 Asphalt Concrete Paving TNS 316 7(0. 16 AC driveways 4" TNS 76 d` vCJ 17 Class II Aggregate Base CY 388 �v 18 Minor Concrete (Type G Curb & Gutter LF 1,674 `: 19 Minor Concrete (Type B -1 Median LF 551 20 Minor Concrete Roundabout Curbs LF 252 Minor Concrete (Pedestrian /Sidewalk 21 Ram s, Type I,II,II I or RSD G -27 ) EA 10 2 y o 0 00 22 Minor Concrete Pedestrian Median Ram EA 4 2 co r 23 Minor Concrete Bike Ram EA 4 r SOD �00 Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 1 of 7 April 17, 2007 C-1 5A 04/18/2007 11:11 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS 0004 /009 _. q�q q. 50 24 Minor Concrete Sidewalk Integral Color SF 7,906 . J 25 Minor Concrete (Driveway) SF 1,747 CD o 26 Minor Concrete Cross Gutter SF 1,404 27 Minor Concrete Concrete Lug) EA 1 28 Roundabout Concrete Pavers 80 mm SF 948 29 Concrete Sub grade for Concrete Pavers CY 23 30 Roundabout Planter Wall CY 4 31 Retaining Wall RSD C -1 w /Scratch Coating SF 402 �.© 32 Decorative Site Wall per Appendix I SF 360 J 33 Ad'ust Manhole Cover EA 3 Z0 Q o pO..dO 34 Adjust Valve Cover to Grade EA 15 Z 35 Relocate Water Service move or lower EA 17 36 Replace Water Service remove and reinstall EA 2 37 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA 1 38 12" PVC Storm Drain Pie C -900 LF 173 �o 30 Type G Catch Basin RSD D -8 w /Filter 116 C w 39 Basket EA 1 40 TVDe B Curb Inlet RSD D -2 w/ Filter Basket EA 3 27 41 Type A Curb Inlet RSD D -1 w/ Filter Basket EA 42 42" Black Vinyl Chain Link Fence LF 55� 43 Top Soil, Class A 4" Planting Areas)* CY 110 a 44 Sidewalk-Stamped Concrete-Integral Color SF 1,315 !0 �- Maintenance Strip- Stamped Concrete- cL 45 Inte at color SF 473 T 46 Boulders EA 5 1 <� 47 Trees - 48" box EA 1 Zcoc 10 48 Trees - 36" box EA 6 WB 49 Shrubs - 15 gallon I EA 13 16 /' 0 d Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 2 of 7 April 17 2007 C-1 5A 04/18/2007 11:11 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS Q005/009 50 Shrubs - 5 gallon EA 132 C , 51 Shrubs - 1 gallon EA 34 52 Ground cover- 1 Gallon EA 3,140 53 Ground cover - Flats SF 5,192 54 Fine Qradinq & bark mulch SF 8.334 "� t ` 55 F inish Gra ding and Soil Preparation SF 8.334 56 1 1/2" Water M eter with 2" Water Service EA 1 q0I 00 0 57 Backflow Preventer EA 1 00 58 Automatic Irrigation System SF 8,334 9� 59 Irrigation Controller A w /Power & Phone EA 1 (0, (—)00 )00 60 Landscape Lighting System, Low Level LS 1 61 Traffic Control Plan, Flagg ing, and Materials LS 1 S0000 -( ?. 62 Traffic Signal Modifications LS 1 t 0 0 0 f � CAD Jack and Bore 100 Feet of 12" Steel Casing _ 63 wl2 Conduits in NCTD R/W LS 1 0C aO� X00 i r_ 64 Signing and Striping �� LS 1 :�C�0 65 Street lights w /Conduits and Wire EA 13 Cy.` v C O 66 Landscape Maintenance - 90 days LS 1 C)o Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan & / t F 67 Permit (WPCP) LS Total amount of Base Bid in numbers: S f� J 00 Total amount of Base Bid in words: 01 H C,C,, O(\) -rA-q 4U AQV ' AD 49 X � Dollars and Cents Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 3 of 7 April 17, 2007 C -15A 04/18/2007 11:11 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS 0006/009 City of Encinitas Addendum II April 11, 2007 Leucadia Boulevard Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Improvements Bid List: Alternate 1 - Work (East of Hermes (Hymettus Roundabout) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost . . 24 607 1 Clearing and Grubbing LS 1 2 Tree Removal EA 2 /DDC7 ��C7 3 Concrete Removal SF 480 2 4 Asphalt Concrete Removal SF 16,829 5 AC Sawcut LF 589 6 Tapered Grind of AC Pave SY 168 �- 7 Unclassified Excavation/ Export CY 1.401 8 Unclassified Fill CY 334� 9 AC Dike, Type A RSD G -5 LF 285 1 0 10 2" Asphalt Concrete Sidewalks TNS 66 7O 11 2" ARHM Rubberized Asphalt Concrete TNS 172 Z) 12 Asphalt Concrete Paving TNS 400 13 Class 11 Aggregate Base (6 ") CY 645 14 Minor Concrete (Type G Curb & Gutter) LF 625 15 Minor Concrete (Type B -1 Median) LF 373 Z� 16 Minor Concrete (Roundabout Curbs) LF 346 Minor Concrete (Pedestrian /Sidewalk .*l 17 Ramps, Type 1,11,111 or RSD G -27) EA 8 !i �O 18 Minor Concrete Pedestrian Median Ram EA 4(� ©o 19 Minor Concrete Bike Ram EA 4 ZQQ 20 Minor Concrete Sidewalk Integral Color SF 758 21 Minor Concrete (Driveway) SF 435�t' 22 Roundabout Concrete Pavers 88mm SF 995 J �. 23 Concrete Subgrade for Concrete Pavers CY 25 Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 4 of 7 April 17 2007 C - 1 5A 04/18/2007 11:11 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS 10007/009 24 Roundabout Planter Wall CY 4 - ZZ00 Retaining Wall /Sound Wall RSD C -1 �O 25 w /Scratch Coat Sht. 18 SF 864 26 Decorative Site Wall per Appendix I SF 380 27 Ad'ust Valve Cover to Grade EA 5 28 Relocate Fire Hydrant EA 29 42" Black Vint Chain Link Fence LF 500 - 30 Top Soil Class A 4" Planting Areas CY 52 31 1 1/2" Water Meter with 2" Water Service EA 32 Sidewalk-Stamped Concrete-Integral color SF 1,314 Maintenance Strip- Stamped Concrete - 33 Integral color SF 240 34 Boulders EA 5 I too C %`-'�✓� 35 Trees - 48" box EA 1 S O (YO.� 36 Trees - 36" box EA 4 37 Shrubs - 15 gallon EA 8 " goo. 38 Shrubs - 5 gallon EA 66 �` [! 39 Shrubs - 1 gallon EA 17 L [_ 40 Ground cover- 1 Gallon EA 1.570 G 6 6 41 Ground cover -Flats SF 2,598 42 Vine: Creepi Fig - 1 Gallon (3ft h x 1ft w EA 18 ` . 43 Fine grading &bark mulch SF 4.486 i 44 Finish Grading and Soil Preparation SF 4,486 �J 45 1 1/2" Water Meter and Service EA 1 1 5000 46 Backflow Preventer EA 1 5 �7 47 Automatic Irrigation S stem SF 4,486 48 Irrigation Controller B w /Power and Phone EA 1 11) Goo d d 1'70 49 Landscape Lighting System, Low Level LS 1 l Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 5 of 7 April 17, 2007 C-1 5A 04/18/2007 11:12 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS 008/009 50 Traffic Control Plan, Flagging and Materials LS 1 51 SiQninq and Striping LS 1 ( U 6 52 Street Lights w /Conduits and Wire EA 5 Conduits and Wire for 858 Hymettus 53 Driveway Gate LF 110 v `' 54 Landscape Maintenance - 90 days LS Total amount of Alternate I Bid in numbers: 118 / Total amount of Alternate I Bid in words: Dollars and Cents City of Encinitas Addendum IV April 11, 2007 Leucadia Boulevard Traffic Safety and Pedestrian Improvements Bid List: Alternate 11- Sewer in Leucadia and Hymettus Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Cost 1 Traffic Control Plan, Flagging and Materials LS 2 8" PVC C -900 Sewer Pie LF 125 3 8" PVC SDR -35 Sewer Pipe LF 142 7)� i 4 Sewer Manholes per LWD Dw S -4 EA 2 5 Sewer Cleanouts per LWD Dw S -8 EA 1� 6 Trench Shoring due to Depth LF 1 375 Total amount of Alternate II Bid in numbers: Total amount of Alternate II Bid in words: oot v O E l}�2tJ P I TS E t t✓7 t h� c?LL P� Dollars and Cents Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 6 of 7 April 17, 2007 C-1 5A 04/18/2007 11:12 FAX 760 633 2818 CITY OF ENCINITAS Q009/009 Total amount of Base Bid in numbers: S C) V ; d-b Total amount of Alternate I Bid in numbers: .80 , Total amount of Alternate II Bid in numbers: Total amount of All Bids in numbers: Total amount of All Bids in words: - 11oo l LLA CAN OBE Dollars and 00 Cents Bid Schedule Addendum IV Page 7 of 7 April 17, 2007 C -15A BID Boren FOR Leucadia Boulevard Improvements, . KNOW ALL MENBynMSBPttBSENTS 3 - D ENTERPRISES, .INC.. as' BIDDER, and . INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST , as SURETY, are held and firmly bound uhtolhe City. 'of Encinitas; in the penal stun o $ EN PERCENT: OF xSE TOTA :.,A� 6' OF* dollars ($ 10Z -OF BID AAOUNT= - ) which is ten percent (106%) of the total amount hid . *THE -B by BIDDER to the CITY for the above stated' project, for the payment .of which sum, BIDDER and SURETY agree to be bound, jointly and severally, family by these - presents_ THE CONDITIONS OF THIS OBLIGATION ARE SUCH -that, whereas, BIDDEN is about1b sub mit - a: bid to the crrY for the :above stated projeet, if said'bid is rejected;` or •i f said bid is accepted and a contract is awarded and entered into by BIDDER iii the mariner and time specified, then this obligation shall be null ands void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect favor of the CITY. PROJECT: Leucadia Boulevard Traffic. Safety and Pedestrian Improvements . ITT w= -_s-S wHEREoF t part ies Hereto have set their names; titles; hands, and seals this 24T day of APRIL . 20 07 BIDDER 3 -D ENT , RISE BY: SURETY INSURANC ONPAN F THE WEST BY JEANS E SEIDL (A RNEY -IN- FACT)' ACKNowLEDGMENT of Execution by BIDDER and SURETY in the'proper format, shall be attached to this bond. C -25 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss. County of SAN DIEGO APRIL 24, 2007 before me, B. LAFRENZ NOTARY PUBLIC On _ Name and iAle of officer (e.g.. "Jane Doe. Notary Public Date rRANF'1TE SEIDL personally appeared Name(s) of Signer(s) X] personally known to me VAFREIy ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence &�S092 MF to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed P PLY PU 9 U�2o� .� ;., ac,�d to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ° he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their as authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the )/,fPr G , �e entity upon behalf of which the p erson(s) acted, ti � 0• kPines r:� executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Place Notary Seal Above gnature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Number of Pages: Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General M Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Attorney in Fact Top of thumb here ❑ Trustee ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: SURETY No. 0001128 ICW GROUP Power of Attorney F Insurance Company of the West Explorer Insurance Company Independence Casualty and Surety Company re KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Insurance Company of the West a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the Sta te Corporation o o duly o ganized insurance Company, a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of California and Independence Casualty and Surety Company, under the laws of the State of Texas, (collectively referred to as the "Companies "), do hereby appoint LARRY D. COGDILL, INGRID ERIKA CROSBY, BROOKE LAFRENZ, MICHAEL W. THOMAS, JEANETTE S EIDL their true and lawful Attomey(s )-in -Fact with authority to date, execute, sign, seal, and deliver on behalf of the Companies, fidelity and surety bonds, undertakings, and other similar contracts of suretyship, and any related documents. In witness whereof the Companies have caused these presents to be executed by its duty authorized officers this 1 st day of November, 2005. SU � pµPµYp ' ° 1 1 � �Q� opvo n 46 A- e �.y INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST �p0UMM1Fp C c ° EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY S EAL_ a9 0 a s INDEPENDENCE CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY WFp11, 'J���RpYNLY'`�? �1(IFUIlP� v 4.y � y�e' Jeffrey D. Sweeney, Assistant Secretary John L. Hannum, Executive Vice President State of California } ss. County of San Diego On June 5, 2006 before me, Mary Cobb, Notary Public, personally appeared John executed the s m and Jeffrey same in their authorized Sweeney, personally known to me capacities, and that by their to at the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they execut the sthir signatures on the instrument, the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. - Mmy cm 0"o cotoTy ER206 = Mary Cobb, Notary Public RESOLUTIONS This Power of Attorney is granted and is signed, sealed and notarized with facsimile signatures and seals under authority of the following resolutions adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of each of the Companies: with 'RESOLVED: That the President, an Executive or Senior Vice President of n th ao any, t o eth n -Fact to date, execoute, s ign, s seal, and deliver on hereby autho to execute Powers of Attorney appointing behalf of the Company, fidelity and surety bonds, undertakings, and other similar contracts of suretyship, and any related documents. RESOLVED FURTHER: That the signatures of the officers making the appointment, and the signature of any officer certifying the validity and current status of the appointment, may be facsimile representations of those signatures; and the signature and seal of any notary, and the seal of the Company, may be facsimile representations of those signatures and seals, and such facsimile representations shall have the same force and effect as if manually affixed. The facsimile representations referred to herein may be affixed by stamping, printing, typing, photocopying." CERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Assistant Secretary of Insurance Company of the West, Explorer insurance Company, ify and Independence Casualty and Surety Company, do hereby cert that the foregoing Power of Attorney is in full force and effect, and has not been revoked, and that the above resolutions were duly adopted by the respective Boards of Directors of the Companies, and are now in full force. APRIL 2007 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand this 24 TH day of Jeffrey D. Sweeney, Assistant Secretary Attorney you may call 1 -800- 877 -1111 and ask for the Surety Division. Please refer to the Power of Attorney Number, the above To verify the authenticity of this Power of Att is attached. For information or filing claims, please contact Surety Claims, ICW Group, 11455 El Camino named individual(s) and details of the bond t which the power Real, San Diego, CA 92130 -2045 or call (858) 350 -2400. LEUCADIA BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (CMSOOD) MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD DRAINAGE STUDY e } Prepared By: Nolte Associates, Inc. 15070 Avenue of Science, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92128 a t.. October 2006 g LEUCADIA BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (CMSOOD) MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD DRAINAGE STUDY Prepared For: Prepared By: City of Encinitas Nolte Associates, Inc. 505 South Vulcan Avenue 15070 Avenue of Science, Suite 100 Encinitas, CA 92024 San Diego, CA 92128 G• 86'q F son Atwood q p m Under supervision of No. 1 3 Exp. CN Scott Berkebile, P.E., CFM October 2006 M odified Rational Method Drainage Study TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 . INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. .. * "* * *........................ , * "*........... 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... ...................... "* *, * "* ** "*, *..1 1 .2 SCOPE .......................................................................................................................... . " * * *........................ 2 . DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED ................................................................................... .............................. 2.1 AREA CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................... .............................. 2.2 SOIL TYPE ..................................................................................................................... .............................. 3 . METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... .....................*** 3.1 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ..................................................................................... .............................. 3.2 STORM FREQUENCY ..................................................................................................... ............................... 3 4 . SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................""**.......... .............................. 4.1 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ .............................. 5 . REFERENCES ................................................................................................................** * * "............ * " "*........... 6. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE ............................................................ .............................. 7. APPENDICES APPENDIX A RATIONAL METHOD SUPPORTING TABLES AND FIGURES APPENDIX B CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C MAP N: \SD601200 \HH \Drainage Report.doc II Modified Rational Method Drainage Study 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Leucadia Boulevard Streetscape and Traffic Safety Improvements project consists of the addition of two roundabouts located at the intersections of Hymettus Avenue and Leucadia Boulevard and Hermes Avenue and Leucadia Boulevard, respectively. A hydrologic model was developed using industry- standard engineering practices. First, watershed boundaries, points of flow concentrations and land uses were established. The data was then entered into hydrologic modeling software and the 100 -year, 6 -hour peak storm flows were calculated. Finally, a hydrology exhibit was prepared to illustrate the modeling procedure and hydrologic characteristics of the ultimate condition. 1.2 Scope This study involves the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of Leucadia Boulevard between Vulcan Avenue and Interstate 5 and the existing storm drain system. This study includes the sizing of four proposed storm drain inlets. 2. DESCRIPTION OF WATERSHED 2.1 Area Characteristics The 0.5 mile stretch of Leucadia Boulevard between Vulcan Avenue and Interstate 5 ranges in slopes between 1.5 — 7.5 %. There is an existing curb and gutter system on both sides of the street. 2.2 Soil Type The soil classification used in this analysis was Type "D ". The San Diego County Hydrology Manual recommends that soil type "D" be assumed for all urban areas when determining runoff coefficients. Type "D" describes soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wet. They have also been classified as severely - erodibile- requiring protective and corrective measures prior to and during soil disturbances. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Modified Rational Method Per the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual (dated June 2003) for watersheds less than 1 square mile with stream junctions, we used the modified rational formula, as excerpted below. Applicable tables and charts for this method can be found in Appendix A of this report. Computer calculations were prepared using AES software. The calculations are included in Appendix B. NASD601200 \HH \Drainage Report.doc Modified Rational Method Drainage Study From the Hydrology Manual, this method is as follows: Q = CIA, where: Q is the discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs) C is a runoff coefficient, proportion of the rainfall that runs off the surface (no units). I is the average rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration (Tc) of the contributing drainage area. A is the drainage area in acres tributary to design point. Runoff Coefficient, C Proposed conditions runoff coefficient (C) values where chosen as follows: 0.45 for pervious areas and 0.95 for pavement. Weighted C values were calculated by the following equation: C = [0.45 x (% pervious) + 0.95 x (% pavement)] / Total Area. See Appendix B for calculations. Rainfall Intensity, I Using the computed time of concentration and 6 -hour precipitation, the rainfall intensity is obtained from the Intensity - Duration Chart. Time of Concentration, Tc The time of concentration is the time required for runoff to flow from the most remote part of the watershed to the outlet point under consideration. Methods of calculation differ for natural watersheds (non - urbanized) and for urban drainage systems. Also, when designing storm drain systems, the designer must consider the possibility that an existing natural watershed may become urbanized during the useful life of the storm drain system. a) Natural watersheds: Obtain T from the natural watershed nomograph. b) Urban drainage systems: In the case of urban drainage systems, the time of concentration at any point within the drainage area is given by: T c = T; + Tf where T; is the inlet time or the time required for the storm water to flow to the first inlet in the system. It is the sum of time in overland flow across lots and in the street gutter. Tf is the travel time or the time required for the storm water to flow in the storm drain from the most upstream inlet to the point in question. Travel Time, Tf, is computed by dividing the length of storm drain by the computed flow velocity. Since the velocity normally changes at each inlet because of changes NASD601200 \HH \Drainage Report.doc 2 Modified Rational Method Drainage Study in flow rate or slope, total travel time must be computed as the sum of the travel times for each section of the storm drain. The overland flow component of inlet time, T may be estimated by the use of the Urban Areas Overland Time of Flow Curves. Use the Gutter and Roadway Discharge — Velocity Chart to estimate time of travel for street gutter flow. The rational method calculations were performed using Advanced Engineering Software (AES) RATSCx 2006 program, version 13.0. The model output is provided in Appendix B of this report. The model was developed from the drainage boundaries and points of storm flow concentration shown on Hydrology Map (Appendix Q. These were determined using the preliminary site plans, topographic maps, and field investigations. 3.2 Storm Frequency Per the requirements of the County Hydrology Manual, this study used the 100 -year frequency storm. The 100 -year, six -hour rainfall amount of 2.5 inches was determined from the rainfall isopluvial map shown in Appendix A. 3.3 Inlet Sizing Using the resulting flows from the AES calculations, FlowMaster was used in order to properly size each inlet at its proposed location. 4. SUMMARY 4.1 Results A summary of results are summarized in Table 4. 1.1 below. The complete rational method calculations and all inlet sizing calculations can be found in Appendix B of this report. The node numbers, watershed boundaries, and drainage system discussed in this section are shown on the map located in Appendix C. Table 4.1.1— Summary of Results Node Contributing Flow Used Bypass Inlet Size & Type Flow (cfs) Inlet (cfs) Flow (cfs) 102 2.7 3.0 0 10' Curb (Proposed) 202 1.9 2.0 0 10' Curb (Proposed) 301 0.8 4.0 0 15' Curb (Proposed) 403 15.5 16.0 0 3'x3' Grate (Existing) 502 4.8 5.0 2.8 5' Curb (Existing) 603 8.3 8.5 1.1 18' Curb (Existing) While conducting a field investigation it was found that the existing 3'x3' storm drain grate inlet near the southwest comer of Fulvia Street and Leucadia Boulevard (Node 403) has been clogged by silty sand. Our downstream hydraulic calculations assume that this inlet is operating at 100% N: \SD601200 \HH \Drainage Report.doc 3 Modified Rational Method Drainage Study efficiency. It is recommended that the City initiate a regular maintenance program for their storm drain inlets. It has also been assumed that the combination of the existing curb inlet and grate inlet, both located on the northeast corners of Hygeia Avenue and Leucadia Boulevard (Node 603) capture all flows upstream of these inlets. As shown in Table 4.1.1, the existing 5 -foot inlet located on the south side of Leucadia Blvd., between Hermes Ave. and Hygeia Ave. (Node 502) is not sized to capture flows generated by a 100 -year storm. It was calculated that approximately 3 cfs will bypass this inlet. We have taken this bypass flow into account when sizing the downstream inlet located near the southeast corner of Luecadia Blvd. and Hermes Ave. (Node 301). The southern watershed boundary of Leucadia Blvd. was used when designing both inlets near Vulcan Ave. (Node 102). Both areas have the same runoff coefficient, but the southern watershed has a greater area, thus a larger flow. All final inlet sizing's and type's can be found on the plans. NASD601200 \HH \Drainage Report.doc 4 Modified Rational Method Drainage Study 5. REFERENCES AES Advanced Engineering Software, Rational Method Hydrology System Model June 2006 Bentley Systems, Inc., Haestad Methods Solution Center, FlowMaster 2005 March 2005 County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Flood Control Section, San Diego County Hydrology Manual June 2003 6. DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I, hereby declare that I am the civil engineer of work for this project, that I have exercised responsible charge over the design of the project as defined in section 6703 of the Business and Professions Code, and that the design is consistent with current design. I understand that the check of project drawings and specifications by the City of San Diego is confined to a review only and does not relieve me, as engineer of work, of my responsibilities for ro e t esi O 1 21 C, Scott Berkebile Date RCE 66153, Exp. 06/30/08 NASD601200 \HH\Drainage Report.doc 5 r • r - ErCOMr� � .�1- .� •• - nr rr� -� i-r �w�i► �r�rrrrr�s .�Cs�CT��CiiinCC.1iCiiarErE�.i_ a= , - .� w�- �•- ��r.rr.rr,a— r�r,r.rCrurrn.rrrrws�r r �.� �.r�.rir-.r_. � -.... ■.. r.. - -rare sr ■■r -w' rr= wrrrrrr■rr�s�- rrrarr = ■orrCrrrsa rr =a w� r a rrr rrr�ww,.■�■�r� v�r u'.srrrw Jr��rr ra ■ _�r_r�.rrrwirr.ws•ir■ rru ►r Ir rrrr r��w �� E�■�EEE.� �� r rA r ► s O s �E ���Ii ■ ■ ■■... ■rE E�ES�■■ an �����■rrrsr.�. J =r���r��r■rrrrr�r■■■■��■t�r■� • �■■Er� r /�� / r//■ Cdr .�r�■��. ■ ■ ■ ■.'J.. ■ ■ ■ ■rEE■lEM' _ �i•� rirrr.��r�� r/ I � / %r�rJ•��i11 / /rdiiM / /rlf...i, /� 12irr M irria / / /.li,/.I�r /�r_rr��r��/.►i �.� r� �� �Jrr� r��rrrrarrrra //������ . �r. i= iii people 11 %It /� MIN' nm i /�+�lt // ■iii ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ME • IL i/ • - liii i�i�iiii.i�li /I /�J•II��I /�I�11 l� ■ ■ ■t1.�Me c: E - �m■�i �■!l1�� ►nci�, ►J■�rri�rlr long ■ •MW•'/ /rss•■AWMIMW IJ�IIII /IIIIIIII�i.� ■■� _!� • . l_! _E /_ /NI - =o" = ~ OE_ _ __• cam _= ==- _-_ = =_= FA FAME ME rrrrrTrLirr■iir •�.��.. -.C�. -� �.- �•�C.CC.'C� -� MErawr�rw �_r wirl` %rillrriir �rrrwrp•rrrri'=�MM Arwr2� 9•iiiiwi■��iiiuirli�� Wi...� rrrr rwrr r i ri�Crr.■ r.wrrr�rr..Cr�'i wr �rE+�rrr■rr■�rrEi� w r ■.r rrsrrrrrrrlii ■1r rrirrwC �r��rr. r��r� .r.rrrrrrr■��wr.rTirE .r... r..r.■r■r�� rrirrwrrr wrrrrr��r■/r�rlr�'rr.� rrwrr 'rrwr� / �� ■ � - � r.rrrr■ .rr . - irrrrr r•rr. �r.rw�.rww�rr r►�.M, �rr.���►�r�rr.r �rw rr►wr ��.u.r■■urrrsrrrr��r� _ �� rrrr ■rrrrr� ►I�IIr `� /�� /I��_ / -- rur.■■rar rrsrrrMac= r�n/I�C 17 A � /r /��FA,= 75=1101 rrrrrrr�rrrr■ morn■ En�Mr�rrrl 01 �rrrr.rn�rnn�rrr�r�ry �nn�n■n�nr■�rrrr/�rrr ■ /�a �-��� rO■■1■��n� /�rr�i��r� �rrr�rr.r� ��r�n��rrrrr�rrrrC�r��n■�i rte C� L?LC.CGrG:..r�Q: GQ;a .'� :."-'Q��� �- C "QCC.:QGr -- Ci`a. -•-• E�ira; r�iE .i_� i_� '_W'rE.rE. �r -�- E A_A F �' —_� — � r �r. ��E— �a0 rrrrrrri�� ON O =�■rrrr r rr� -- r rrw..�rwwi �-� —r .•■..i...r r■rEEE Mme_ E-� n■■■.... rrrrEE� M■. C �_r✓rwrr/i ■trr•r rE'�r� ►�r WWI= FI � . p .��' ■ ■ ■■■. =..rr ■r n■. =F CW wr�� ■rrE� � , rAM10w s•�E��■ ■ .iiiii.i�rii0EEEEr■z= �� � �■ 1 / /rim �r■1� ����r—il� r■I�n����■��� �rr�r ��arrrrrrrr nnnl�n���1r _ � r1 �i �� ii►► i �� �r•��rr� Ir /rri� /��. 1�.. E i r//���rr��lri/�/Ji�r./��■w5'r� 1 ■��i ' ��1! /iri .■■■.C..'■� r.0 M /�rrirl � rrrrrl� i� rrirrrr.rrrrrlrll! n iC ■ /■ ■rl....� C.n/ I /1!J /fir/ fir. /S�r��C�����U1�CrrIi��■ ■v�n��i CC W. "lr ilrst ' ""'D" ill CCiii iii" ME I IVA IN .....������ r�WW r�■riit■Iir1 � ii ■ �IIII IIIIIII Ii�NINE �� /! /�� � =� 111111 � � ■ _ _ _ C N���� I I 2.50% slope 2.0 0 0 100 1 ��' p ry0 G �i O• p 75 30 1.0 G� ,4"� bo .50 G Oy Lu w V 0 I Z 0 G r ' z 20 1 z OgO w I � � U W C _ 0 gp o I 0. � �.. � Cr g 10 o z W O I 0 I EXAMPLE: Given: Watercourse Distance (D) = 70 Feet Slope (s) =1.3% 1.8 (1.1 -C) Runoff Coefficient (C) = 0.41 T = I Overland Flow Time (T) = 9.5 Minutes 3S I SOURCE: Airport Drainage, Federal Aviation Administration, 1965 F I G U R E Rational Formula - Overland Time of Flow Nomograph 3111111113 E EQUATION Tc 11.9L 0.385 Feet QE 5000 Tc = Time of concentration (hours) L = Watercourse Distance (miles) 4000 AE = Change in elevation along 3000 effective slope line (See Figure , 5)(teet) Tc Hours Minutes 2000 4 240 3 180 1000 900 800 2 120 'Y.00 600 100 \ 90 500 \ 80 400 \ ♦ 70 \ 1 60 300 ♦%o ♦ 50 200 \ ♦ 40 \ L ♦ Miles Feet \ 30 \ 100 \ 4000 20 ♦ 18 3000 16 50 .0.5 ♦ 14 40 2000 \ ♦ 12 1800 30 1600 \ 10 1400 ♦ g 1200 8 20 1000 7 900 800 6 700 600 5 10 500 A 400 300 3 5 200 A E L Tc SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirpich (1940) F I G L) R E Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 3 -4 I <- 1.5' —�• I F —n = .015 —� 2 0 /0 � n = .0175 2% Concrete Gutter �Depth-0.13 Paved RESIDENTIAL STREET ONE SIDE ONLY 20 18 16 10 f 72f p•s A•s 14 12 10 8fp•S 9 8 j 7 �� 6 �. � 6f 5 O ry 4� a O�Q �� S fp s• a � 0 O' [n 3 2 w b• 0 2 O• 1.8 h0 1.6 �\ O' 1.4 3fpS OoQ �Qj w 0 1.0 �\ ?SfpS O�Q O 0.9 0.8 Q� 0.7 0.6 `2f p•S 0.5 (/ a . ........... 1 ,Sf p•s 0.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 Discharge (C.F.S.) EXAMPLE: Given: Q = 10 S=2.5% Chart gives: Depth = 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 f.p.s. SOURCE: San Diego County Department of Special District Services Design Manual F I G U R E Gutter and Roadway Discharge - Velocity Chart 3 -6 EQUATION: V = 1.49 R S "z n 0.3 0.2 [ 50 0.2 � 40 0.15 0.3 C 30 10.4 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.5 20 0.07 0.06 0.6 0.05 0 0.04 0.8 \ 0.02 0.03 0.9 1.0 `p 1 9 1 0.02 f , c - o 8 , 0.03 1 6 12 7 O c J N c3 N 6 N CL a o 0.04 0.01 U O 0.009 < 2 5 U) E 1 0.008 \�,q W 0.05 W 0.007 J \ 4 = D_ p 0.006 Q / U U' 0.06 07 0.005 Q 3 O O } LU Of -0.07 0.004 p� _ > 3 0.08 / 4 0.003 0.09 0.002 1 5 12 1 0.10 6 7 8 0.001 9 0.0009 10 1.0 0.2 0.0008 0.0007 0.9 0.0006 0.8 0.0005 0.7 0.0004 0.3 0.6 0.0003 120 0.5 0.4 GENERAL SOLUTION SOURCE: USDOT, FHWA, HDS -3 (1961) F I G U R E Manning's Equation Nomograph 3 -7 M County of San Diego unty o 33'3 ' oran I Hydrology Manual Co Rainfall Isopluvials 33'15" 100 Year Rainfall Event - 6 Hours S/IST " OCEANSIDE'�� X Isopluvial (inches) CARLSBAD n ENCINITAS 33 °00' SOLANA BEACH`. 0 DEL MAR, n 0 j Y 32 °45' DPW GIS SMiGIS e.oaron.n NPdicHUaa N'c H aves San I3icgn C;cncrcd! N THIS MAP IS PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS -- OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright SanGIS. All Rights Reserved. Thia produn6 may contain information from the SANDAG Regional E Information System =h cannot be reproduced without the written permission of SANDAG. This Product may contain infomration which has been reproduced with 32 permission granted by Thomas Brothers Maps. c S -- ti 3 0 3 Miles LEUCADIA.RES RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003 1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) copyright 1982 -2006 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1504 Analysis prepared by: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: LEUCADIA.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 11:42 10/18/2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 8.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.85 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: CONSIDER ALL CONFLUENCE STREAM COMBINATIONS FOR ALL DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER- GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT - /PARK HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 25.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.50 1.50 0.0313 0.125 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 101.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS ««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (4.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 7500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 88.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 73.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 71.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 4.629 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 77.05 (Reference: Table 3 -1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN TC CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC = 5- MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 102.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< >>>>>( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED) « «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 71.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 65.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 444.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 Page 1 LEUCADIA.RES END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.37 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.02 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT * FT /SEC.) = 0.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 202.00 = 539.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 79.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 73.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 5.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 1.688 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 97.32 (Reference: Table 3 -1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN TC CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC = 5- MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.81 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.81 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II).= 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 176.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.177 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 65.00 (Reference: Table 3 -1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC = 5- MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.44 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 401.00 TO NODE 402.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA « «< »»>( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 176.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 149.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 634.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning'S FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow 5ection(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning'S FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.63 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.24 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 6.21 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.50 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT * FT /SEC.) = 0.84 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 3.02 TC(MIN.) = 5.19 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.427 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (4.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500 Page 3 LEUCADIA.RES OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.66 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.07 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.69 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.20 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.26 TC(MIN.) = 2.58 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC = 5- MINUTE. *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (7.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 AREA - AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.675 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.98 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.20 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.07 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 4.76 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.30 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 9.34 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.29 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.57 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 502.00 = 447.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 600.00 TO NODE 601.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): RESIDENTAIL (4.3 DU /AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 9500 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 97.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 177.00. DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 175.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 1.50 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN.) = 2.028 WARNING: INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW PATH LENGTH IS GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH = 75.46 (Reference: Table 3 -1B of Hydrology Manual) THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH IS USED IN TC CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON TC = 5- MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.63 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 601.00 TO NODE 602.00 IS CODE = 62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>( STREET TABLE SECTION # 1 USED)««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 175.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 150.50 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 572.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 25.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 20.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.018 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(CUrb -to -curb) = 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 2.32 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.26 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.38 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.81 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.00 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 2.50 TC(MIN.) = 4.53 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5- MINUTE. *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): Page 5 NoText Curb Inlet On Grade - West (Node 102) Project: Description Solve For Efficiency Input Data Discharge 2.70 ft /s Slope 0.01600 ft/ft Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slope 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.02 ft/ft Roughness Coefficient 0.015 Curb Opening Length 10.00 ft Local Depression 4.00 in Local Depression Width 1.50 ft Results ex Efficiency 100.00 Intercepted Flow 2.70 ft /s Bypass Flow 0.00 ft /S Spread 8.68 ft Depth 0.27 ft Flow Area 0.82 ftz Gutter Depression 0.09 ft Total Depression 0.43 ft Velocity 3.28 ft/s Equivalent Cross Slope 0.16527 ft/ft Length Factor 1.04 Total Interception Length 9.64 ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.05800] 10119/2006 10:45:45 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1- 203 - 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Curb Inlet On Grade - N. Hermes (Node 202) Project Description Solve For Curb Opening Length Input Data ? Discharge 2.00 ft /s Slope 0.03500 ft/ft Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slope 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.02 ft/ft Roughness Coefficient 0.015 Efficiency 100.00 Local Depression 4.00 in Local Depression Width 1 ft Results Curb Opening Length 9.32 ft Intercepted Flow 2.00 ft /s Bypass Flow 0.00 ft /s Spread 6.30 ft Depth 0.22 ft Flow Area 0.47 ftz Gutter Depression 0.09 ft Total Depression 0.43 ft Velocity 4.27 ft/s Equivalent Cross Slope 0.20957 ft/ft Length Factor 1.00 Total Interception Length 9.32 ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.00] 10/19/2006 10:46:17 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1 -203- 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Curb Inlet On Grade - S. Hermes (Node 301) Project Description Solve For Curb Opening Length Input;,Data Discharge 4.00 ft /s Slope 0.03500 ft/ft Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slope 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.02 ft/ft Roughness Coefficient 0.015 Efficiency 100.00 % Local Depression 4.00 in Local Depression Width 1.50 ft .Results n , Curb Opening Length 14.38 ft Intercepted Flow 4.00 ft =/s Bypass Flow 0.00 ft /s Spread 8.68 ft Depth 0.27 ft Flow Area 0.83 ftz Gutter Depression 0.09 ft Total Depression 0.43 ft Velocity 4.85 ft/s Equivalent Cross Slope 0.16517 ft/ft Length Factor 1.00 Total Interception Length 14.38 ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.00] 10119/2006 10:46:36 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1- 203 - 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Trapezoidal Channel (Node 403) Project Description Friction Method Manning Formula Solve For Normal Depth Input Data, Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.03500 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.00 ft/ft (H:V) Right Side Slope 3.00 ft/ft (H:V) Bottom Width 0.75 ft Discharge 16.00 ft' /s Results Normal Depth 0.60 ft Flow Area 1.54 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 4.56 ft Top Width 4 ft Critical Depth 1.00 ft Critical Slope 0.00319 fUft Velocity 10.38 ft/s Velocity Head 1.67 ft Specific Energy 2 ft Froude Number 3.08 Flow Type Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth 0.00 ft Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF OutputData Upstream Depth 0.00 ft Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 0.60 ft Critical Depth 1.00 ft Channel Slope 0.03500 ft/ft Critical Slope 0.00319 fUft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster [08.01.058.00] 10/1912006 10:52:28 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1 -203- 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Ditch Inlet In Sag (Node 403) �Project °Des "caption Solve For Spread Input Data Discharge 16.00 ft /s Left Side Slope 1.00 ft/ft (H:V) H:V 00 ft/ft Right Side Slope 1. ( ) Bottom Width 3.00 ft Grate Width 3.00 ft Grate Length 3.00 ft Local Depression 0.00 in Local Depression Width 0.00 ft Grate Type P -50 mm (P- 1 -7/8 ") Clogging 0.00 % Spread 4.16 ft Depth 0.58 ft Wetted Perimeter 4.65 ft Top Width 4.16 ft Open Grate Area 8.10 ft Active Grate Weir Length 12.00 ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center FlowMaster 108.01.058.00] 10/24/2006 10:55:19 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1- 203 - 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Curb Inlet On Grade - EX 5 -ft (Node 502) Project Description Solve For Efficiency Input. Data Discharge Slope 5.00 ft' /s Gutter Width 0.05000 ft/ft Gutter Cross Slope 1.50 ft Road Cross Slope 0.08 ft/ft Roughness Coefficient 0.02 ft/ft Curb Opening Length 0.015 Local Depression 5.00 ft Local Depression Width 4.00 in 1.50 ft Results n , Efficiency Intercepted Flow 44.89 Bypass Flow 2.24 ft - /s Spread 2.76 ft - /s Depth 8.85 ft Flow Area 0.27 ft Gutter Depression 0.86 ft2 Total Depression 0.09 ft Velocity 0.43 ft 5.85 ft/s Equivalent Cross Slope 0.16261 ft/ft Length Factor Total Interception Length 0.28 17.74 ft Sysms, In c. 10/1912006 10:47:01 AM 27 Siemons C m Drive Suite 200 WeWa Watertown, CT 06795 USA Center +1 -203- 755 -1666 FlowMaster [08.01.058.00] Page 1 of 1 Curb Inlet On Grade - EX 18 -ft (Node 603) j Proje it" d9briO . F Solve For Efficiency Discharge 8.50 ft' /s Slope 0.07500 ft/ft Gutter Width 1.50 ft Gutter Cross Slope 0.08 ft/ft Road Cross Slope 0.02 ft/ft Roughness Coefficient 0.015 Curb Opening Length 18.00 ft Local Depression 4.00 in Local Depression Width 1.50 ft Rest ItS o y �, - a�..,e. Z ,'" r - , av, w ...... Efficiency 86.48 Intercepted Flow 7.35 ft' /s Bypass Flow 1.15 ft' /s Spread 10.19 ft Depth 0.30 ft Flow Area 1.11 ft2 Gutter Depression 0 ft Total Depression 0.43 ft Velocity 7.67 ft/s Equivalent Cross Slope 0.14501 ft/ft Length Factor 0.67 Total Interception Length 26.82 ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center 10/24/2006 10:54:25 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1 -203- 755 -1666 FlowMast [08.01.05 Pa I Page 1 of f 1 I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION L LEUCADIA BOULEVARD S ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA I_ n� I- C Co IR I k T E I PREPARED FOR NOLTE ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA I _L NOVEMBER 22, 2005 I PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 I GEOCON I N C O R P O R A T E D GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS - I WIF Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 Nolte Associates 15090 Avenue of Science, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92128 Attention: Mr. Abe Barhoumi Subject: LEUCADIA BOULEVARD WIDENING SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION -- Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorization of our proposal No. LG -02489 dated October 16, 2002, we are i submitting the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The accompanying report presents the findings and conclusions from our study. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the subject site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. If you have any questions regarding this investigation, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCONINCORPORATED Faten Khatib Joseph J. Vettel Michael S. Cha in `O NAL r Senior Staff Geologist GE 2401 Q a G CEG 1149 55 S . 0 H J. �Fr� k� MICHAEL S. 'C7p FK:JJV:MSC:dmc =' �� Q CHA 14 N w No. 2401 < m CL CER7IFlED °C EXP.09/30 /06 �' e (6) Addressee * * pFCpL�� 6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558 -6900 ■ Fax (858) 558 -6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS I . PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................... ..............................1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................. ..............................1 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... ..............................2 3.1 Undocumented Fill ( Qudf) ....................................................................... ..............................2 3.2 Marine Terrace Deposits .......................................................................... ..............................2 4. GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................. ..............................2 5. EOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................... ..............................3 5.1 Liquefaction ............................................................................................. ..............................3 5.2 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Earthquake- Induced Flooding ........................... ..............................3 5.3 Landsliding .............................................................................................. ..............................3 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. ..............................4 6.1 General ..................................................................................................... ..............................4 6.2 Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................... ..............................4 6.3 Grading .................................................................................................... ..............................5 _. -- 6.4 Slabs ......................................................................................................... ..............................6 6.5 Lateral Loading ........................................................................................ ..............................7 6.6 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................ ..............................7 6.7 Pavement Sections ................................................................................... ..............................8 6.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection ................................................... .............................13 6.9 Foundation and Grading Plan Review .................................................... .............................13 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2, Site Plan Figure 3, Retaining Wall Drain Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Table A -I, Existing Conditions Figures A -1 — A -19, Logs of Borings APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B -1, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results Table B -II, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B -III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table B -IV, Summary of Laboratory R -Value Test Results APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed widening of Leucadia Boulevard between Vulcan and Eolus Avenues in Encinitas, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to observe the prevailing soil conditions at the site and, based on conditions encountered, to provide recommendations relative to geotechnical aspects of developing the alignment as proposed. The scope of our investigation included review of previous investigation(s) in the vicinity, site reconnaissance, field investigation, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and preparation of this report. The field investigation was performed on October 27, 2005, and consisted of drilling 19 borings along Leucadia Boulevard as well as portions of Hymettus, Hermes, and Vulcan Avenues. Boring locations are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs of borings and other details of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained from the borings to determine their pertinent physical properties for engineering analyses. A discussion pertaining to the laboratory testing and results is presented in Appendix B. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of the data obtained from the exploratory borings, laboratory tests, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed improvements will be located on the segment of Leucadia Boulevard from several hundred feet east of Hymettus Avenue to Vulcan Avenue, in addition to the intersections of the following cross streets: Hymettus, Hermes, and Vulcan Avenues in Encinitas, California. Currently there is no curb and gutter or sidewalk along the subject streets We understand that the project scope includes: road widening of Leucadia Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue, traffic calming in the form of traffic circles at the intersections of Leucadia Boulevard and Hermes Avenue and Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue and beautification (landscaping) are planned for the alignment. Retaining walls are proposed at the four quadrants of the intersection of Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue to accommodate the traffic circle. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - 1 - November 22, 2005 The ground surface along the alignment slopes moderately downward toward the Pacific Ocean. Surface elevations range from approximately 60 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) near Vulcan Avenue to approximately 160 feet MSL at Eolus Avenue. 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The field investigation indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary -age marine terrace deposits. The soils encountered are described in detail below. - 3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) Undocumented fill soils were encountered in borings for the retaining wall and is expected within existing utility trenches and other areas of existing improvements. These fill soils would likely be derived from on -site excavations and consist of fine sands and silty sands. These soils are considered unsuitable in their present condition for support of proposed structures and/or structural fills and will require partial removal and recompaction as outlined in the Grading section of this report. 3.2 Marine Terrace Deposits The entire site is underlain by Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits. These materials typically consist of moderately dense yellow to orange brown, silty sands. Localized areas of loose deposits were also observed, typically in the upper foot of borings B -12 through B -15. These localized, loose deposits are not considered suitable in their present condition for support of proposed structures and/or structural fills and will require partial removal and recompaction. 4. GROUNDWATER No groundwater was encountered during the field investigation. Groundwater is expected to be below a level that will effect construction as presently proposed. However, it is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none previously existed. Existing pavement are performing very well despite being under designed. Introduction of landscaping and resultant irrigation water to subgrade soils could be very detrimental to the performance of pavements. Proper surface drainage of irrigation and rainwater will be critical to future performance of the project. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -2- November 22, 2005 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction during a strong earthquake is limited to relatively clean sandy soils in a loose unconsolidated condition and located below the water table. Due to the lack of a near - surface groundwater table and the dense nature of the terrace deposits, the potential for liquefaction is considered low. 5.2 Tsunamis, Seiches, and Earthquake - Induced Flooding The site is located approximately 0.2 miles from the coast, with an elevation ranging from approximately 160 feet to 60 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the potential for damage due to a tsunami (seismically- induced sea wave) is considered relatively low. Although the occurrence of tsunamis in southern California is very infrequent, documented accounts do exist. The site is not adjacent to or downstream of any lakes or confined bodies of water and, therefore, the possibility of earthquake- induced flooding due to seiches or dam failures is considered remote. 5.3 Landsliding No landslides were encountered during the site investigation, and none are known to exist on the property or at a location that would impact the proposed improvements. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -3 - November 22, 2005 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General 6.1.1 Based upon the results of this investigation, the site is suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented in the design and construction of the project. 6.1.2 Our field investigation indicates that the site is underlain by Quaternary -age terrace deposits. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the nineteen borings. 6.1.3 Minimal overlays are required to achieve the Traffic Indices proposed by the City of Encinitas on Hermes, Hymettus, and Vulcan Avenues; however, very thick overlays would be required for Leucadia Boulevard. Several pavement alternatives have been provided for Leucadia Boulevard. 6.1.4 Existing pavements are significantly under - designed yet are performing well. The introduction of irrigation for landscaping should be carefully controlled so that pavement subgrade soils are not wetted. 6.1.5 Retaining walls are proposed at the four quadrants of the intersection of Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue. Recommendations for retaining walls are presented in subsequent sections of this report. 6.2 Seismic Design Criteria 6.2.1 The following table summarizes site design criteria obtained from the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The values listed in Table 6.2 are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as a Type B fault. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 2.8 miles away from the site. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -4- November 22, 2005 TABLE 6.2 UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor 0.40 Table 16 -I Soil Profile Type S Table 16 -J Seismic Coefficient, C 0.46 Table 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient, C,, 0.80 Table 16 -R Near - Source Factor, N 1.0 Table 16 -S Near Source Factor, N„ 1.3 Table 16 -T Seismic Source B Table 16 -U 6.3 Grading 6.3.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of this report conflict with Appendix C, the recommendations of this section take precedence. 6.3.2 Earthwork should be observed, and compacted fill tested by representatives of Geocon Incorporated. 6.3.3 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and soil engineer in attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time. 6.3.4 Grading of the site should commence with the removal of all existing vegetation and existing improvements from the areas to be graded. Deleterious debris such as wood, asphalt and concrete should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill soils. All existing underground improvements within the improvement areas to be removed should be extracted and the resulting depressions properly backfilled in accordance with the procedures described herein. 6.3.5 Within retaining wall areas, we expect that the walls will be founded in dense terrace deposits. If undocumented fill soils are encountered at bottom of footing elevations, the fill should be removed to expose competent terrace deposits. The ground surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density at about one to three percent above optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D 1557 -02. r_. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -5- November 22, 2005 6.3.6 Along road widenings, the ground surface should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry - density at about one to three percent above optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D 1557 -02. If areas of loose or wet soils are encountered, excavation should be deepened at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 6.3.7 Excavated soils generated from cut operations can be placed and compacted in layers to the design finish grade elevations. All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 8 inches thick, moisture conditioned to a water content above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 -02. The upper 12 inches of fill beneath pavement should be moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. 6.3.8 Import fill soil should consist of granular materials with a "low" expansion potential (EI less than 50) free of deleterious material or stones larger than 3 inches and should be compacted as recommended above. Geocon Incorporated should be notified of the import soil source and should perform laboratory testing of import soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its suitability as fill material. 6.3.9 Temporary slopes up to 15 feet high may be excavated no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) without shoring provided the top of the excavation is a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of existing buildings and other improvements. Excavations steeper than 1:1 or closer than 15 feet from an existing improvement should be shored in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations. 6.3.10 Permanent cut and/or fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1. Slopes, if any, will be _4 composed of granular soils that are susceptible to surface erosion. Consideration should be given to the use of jute mesh or other surface treatment to minimize transport by runoff until adequate vegetation can take root. 6.4 Slabs 6.4.1 All exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and constructed in accordance with the following recommendations. Slab panels in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with 6 x 6 - W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -6- November 22, 2005 should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soils for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soils should be properly compacted and the moisture content of surficial soils should be verified prior to placing concrete. 6.4.2 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs as a result of differential movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, slabs will still exhibit some cracking. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the soil supporting characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, the use of crack control joints and proper concrete placement and curing. Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet. Literature provided by the Portland Concrete Association (PCA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) present _. recommendations for proper concrete mix, construction, and curing practices, and should be incorporated into project construction. 6.5 Lateral Loading 6.5.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design of footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or firm native materials. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 6.5.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.4 should be used for design. 6.6 Retaining Walls 6.6.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be _. designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 35 pcf. Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 pcf recommended. Expansive soils should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. All soil placed for retaining wall backfill should have an Expansion Index less than 50. 6.6.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - 7 - November 22, 2005 restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should be added to the above active soil pressure. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads - within a horizontal distance equal to two - thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of fill soil should be added. 6.6.3 Retaining walls should be founded in properly compacted fill or native terrace deposits. An allowable bearing capacity for retaining wall foundations at least one foot wide and one foot below lowest adjacent grade can be taken as 2,500 psf. The values presented above are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one -third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 6.6.4 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup - of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall. A drainage detail is presented on Figure 3. The above recom- mendations assume a properly compacted granular (EI less than 50) free - draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 6.6.5 Wall foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer (a representative of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required. 6.7 Pavement Sections 6.7.1 Six R -Value tests were performed on near - surface samples and the measured R- Values range from 19 to 67. In general, the R- Values at the intersection of Leucadia Boulevard and Hymettus Avenue and the area of Leucadia Boulevard between Vulcan and Hermes Avenues averaged approximately 20. R- Values on Vulcan Avenue averaged 67 and R- Values east of Hermes Avenue averaged approximately 45. 6.7.2 Subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction to a depth of 12 inches below rough grade. 6.7.3 Nineteen borings were drilled on October 27, 2005 at approximately the locations presented on Figure 2. Borings B -12 through B -15 were drilled for retaining walls and are Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -8- November 22, 2005 not listed. The boring locations, soil types, and existing pavement sections are presented in Table 6.7.1 below: TABLE 6.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Boring No. Location Soil Type Existing Pavement Section B -1 Hymettus north of Leucadia Sand with trace clay 5 "AC * /0 "AB B -2 Hymettus south of Leucadia Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2 "AC 10" AB B -3 Hermes south of Leucadia Silty Sand NA' B -4 Hermes north of Leucadia Silty Sand 4" AC /0" AB B -5 Leucadia east of Vulcan Silty Sand with trace clay 2 /z" AC /0 "AB B -6 Leucadia west of Hermes Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /0 "AB B -7 Leucadia east of Hermes Silty Sand 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -8 Leucadia east of Hygeia Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -9 Leucadia west of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /0 "AB B -10 Leucadia east of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /5 "AB B -11 Leucadia east end of project Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /4 1 /2 "AB B -16 Vulcan south end Silty Sand 7 1 /2" AC /0 "AB -- B -17 Vulcan south of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -18 Vulcan north of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 "AC /0 "AB B -19 Vulcan north end Silty Sand 5 1 /2" AC /0 "AB *AC = Asphalt Concrete. t AB = Aggregate Base. * NA = Not Accessible (City would not allow coring/drilling). 6.7.4 The existing pavements are performing well. There was little to no distress observed other than repaired trenches associated with utility maintenance. Therefore, we have prepared overlay recommendations as if the existing pavements were new with no reduction for aging or distress (i.e. we have designed only for structural adequacy and not deflection). 6.7.5 We are presenting two alternatives for overlays. For Alternative No. 1, we have used the Traffic Indices provided by the City. Traffic Indices of 8.0, 5.0, and 6.0 were recommended for Leucadia Boulevard, Hermes /Hymettus and Vulcan Avenues, respectively. Laboratory R- Values were obtained at numerous locations along the alignments and are presented in Appendix B. Resultant overlays are presented in Table 6.7.2 below. As can be seen, the overlays on the minor streets are minor but the overlays for Leucadia Boulevard are quite thick ranging from 6 to 10 inches. In order to compare recommended pavement sections to existing pavement sections, we have converted the asphalt concrete and aggregate base into Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -9- November 22, 2005 "gravel equivalents" as outlined in the Caltrans design method. Gravel equivalent factors for asphalt concrete depend on the Traffic Indices and vary from 2.01 to 2.52. The gravel - equivalent factor for aggregate base is 1.1. TABLE 6.7.2 REQUIRED OVERLAY FOR CITY TRAFFIC INDEX Location R -Value Traffic Index Required Overlay (inches) Hymettus north of Leucadia 20 5.0 1'/2 -- Hymettus south of Leucadia 20 5.0 4 Hermes south of Leucadia* 45 5.0 2 Hermes north of Leucadia 45 5.0 1 Leucadia east of Vulcan 20 8.0 10 Leucadia west of Hermes 20 8.0 9'/2 - Leucadia east of Hermes 45 8.0 6 Leucadia east of Hygeia 20 8.0 10 Leucadia west of Hymettus 20 8.0 9'h Leucadia east of Hymettus 20 8.0 6'h Leucadia east end of project 20 8.0 7 Vulcan south end 67 6.0 0 Vulcan south of Leucadia 67 6.0 0 Vulcan north of Leucadia 67 6.0 0 Vulcan north end 67 6.0 0 *Assumed as no coring allowed. 6.7.6 The pavement sections on Leucadia Boulevard currently consist of approximately 2'/2 to 3 inches of asphalt concrete with little or no aggregate base and are performing very well. No significant change in traffic is anticipated; therefore, thinner overlays than those recommended in Table 6.7.3 above will likely provide an adequate roadway surface with a slightly shorter pavement life. Table 6.7.3 and 6.7.4 present 2 -inch and 4 -inch overlays, respectively across the entire project alignment, the corresponding Traffic Index for the overlay pavement section and the pavement life. It is important to recognize that the calculated life of the existing pavement sections on Leucadia Boulevard are less than 1 year and yet these segments of roadway are performing very well. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 -10- November 22, 2005 TABLE 6.7.3 PAVEMENT LIFE FOR 2 -INCH OVERLAY Proposed Calculated Estimated Location R -Value Overlay Traffic ESAL ** Life (inches) Index (years) Hymettus north of Leucadia 20 2 5.4 13,670 75 Hymettus south of Leucadia 20 2 3.7 570 3 Hermes south of Leucadia* 45 2 6.3 49,900 250 Hermes north of Leucadia 45 2 6.3 49,900 250 Leucadia east of Vulcan 20 2 3.7 570 <1 Leucadia west of Hermes 20 2 4.1 1,350 <1 Leucadia east of Hermes 45 2 5.2 9,950 1 Leucadia east of Hygeia 20 2 3.7 570 <1 Leucadia west of Hymettus 20 2 4.1 1,351 < Leucadia east of Hymettus 20 2 5.6 18,550 2 Leucadia east end of project 20 2 5.4 13,670 1.5 Vulcan south end 67 2 10.4 12,900,000 >500 Vulcan south of Leucadia 67 2 12.2 3,370,000 >500 Vulcan north of Leucadia 67 2 9.9 2,200,000 >500 Vulcan north end 67 2 10.1 2,600,000 >500 *Assumed as no coring allowed. * *ESAL = Equivalent Single Axle Load (18,000 ponds). TABLE 6.7.4 - PAVEMENT LIFE FOR 4 -INCH OVERLAY Proposed Calculated Estimated Location R -Value Overlay Traffic ESAL Life (inches) Index (years) Hymettus north of Leucadia 20 4 6.4 56,994 300 Hymettus south of Leucadia 20 4 5.1 8,457 50 Hermes south of Leucadia* 45 4 7.6 241,533 >500 Hermes north of Leucadia 45 4 7.6 241,533 >500 Leucadia east of Vulcan 20 4 5.3 11,684 1.5 Leucadia west of Hermes 20 4 5.5 15,950 1.7 Leucadia east of Hermes 45 4 6.5 64,925 7 Leucadia east of Hygeia 20 4 5.3 11,684 1.5 Leucadia west of Hymettus 20 4 5.4 13,671 1.5 Leucadia east of Hymettus 20 4 6.7 83,754 9 Leucadia east end of project 20 4 6.5 64,925 7 Vulcan south end 67 4 12.2 12,900,000 >500 Vulcan south of Leucadia 67 4 13.8 36,000,000 >500 Vulcan north of Leucadia 67 4 11.8 9,700,000 >500 Vulcan north end 67 4 12.2 12,900,000 >500 *Assumed as no coring allowed. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - I 1 - November 22, 2005 6.7.7 Based on the data above, relatively minor overlays are expected on Vulcan Avenue, Hermes Avenue, and Hymettus Avenue regardless of the alternative design approach. However, thick overlays will be required along Leucadia Boulevard to accommodate a Traffic Index of 8.0. The existing thin pavement sections on Leucadia Boulevard point out the weakness of the design methodology and we recommend that the overlays be limited to 2 inches. This segment of Leucadia Boulevard should be placed in the City's maintenance schedule at the interval presented in the table above. However, we expect that the service life of the existing pavement section with a 2 -inch overlay will greatly exceed calculated design life based on observation of existing pavement performance. 6.7.8 New pavements will be required along the widening portion of the alignment. Table 6.7.5 presents new pavement sections for each segment where widening may occur. TABLE 6.7.5 WIDENING PAVEMENT SECTIONS City Asphalt Class 2 Location Traffic R -Value Concrete Aggregate Index (inches) Base (inches) Hymettus Avenue 5.0 20 3 7 Hermes Avenue 5.0 45 3 4 Vulcan Avenue 6.0 67 3 4 Leucadia Boulevard between 8.0 20 4' /z 14 Vulcan and Hermes Avenue Leucadia Boulevard East of Hermes Avenue 8.0 45 4'/z 7 Leucadia Boulevard at Hymettus Avenue 8.0 20 4 1 /z 14 6.7.9 The performance of asphalt concrete pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. If planter islands are proposed, the islands should be sealed and the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the subgrade elevation of the adjacent pavement. In addition, the surface drainage within planters should be such that ponding will not occur. If the planter islands are not sealed, subdrains should be constructed to collect irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures. 6.7.10 Our experience indicates that even with these provisions, groundwater conditions can develop as a result of increased irrigation, landscaping and surface runoff. A subdrainage system should be constructed along the perimeter of pavement subgrade areas to reduce the Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - 12 - November 22, 2005 potential of pavement distress and subgrade failure due to infiltration and ponding of water within subgrade soils. The subdrain system should be designed to intercept irrigation water and surface runoff prior to entry into the pavement subgrade and carry the water to a suitable outlet. 6.8 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection 6.8.1 Adequate drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to pavements. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is directed away from pavement and the top of slopes into swales or other controlled drainage devices. Pavement drainage should be directed into conduits to carry runoff away from the proposed structure. 6.8.2 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We recommend that subdrains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures, or impervious above -grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommended construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material. 6.9 Foundation and Grading Plan Review 6.9.1 Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans and foundation plans for the project ` '+ prior to final design submittal to determine if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - 13 - November 22, 2005 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or - -. identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. 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, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 7% -� `R RD nr ,,., 1 � / 1.7A 4? `i^ `Y \.\ 4 2` `, �_ :'A- z. � Z �` R \ c/p` > -L�Gns 2S:Y lra ' n -` + - °a - ER _ • _Ja KPpBI>f. : LX PAI�RII G am- BL E AV r 'l Js 8 � ,.. RB `g X152 P if NAxR1GYA �' 0'8 S. 3 i ,.. VEAN 4 / M_ o Y D\ 1 �/ G yat R� --L"? 1 un piA��i p ,c ' 4 {— `�. CT SEA \BWfFEZ �L/ _ boo �' r •4R ........• ` /CBEs P �, �a ' T , HOOD SL 1N 600 SUNRICH g g1 E GLAUCIIS ° o a LN m v ENCINITAS v\ ��ER� ` 4�i DST 5p n DR o \ v ' RANCH 4 - I q, S w `lam o y g A GO o � g E (� NORMANDY GI-AIiCUS E s 6uol a B RD LEUCADIA \ yG ST1 > NAt� 0 i� STATE alAN 5S y . �oF RD B EACH ( BLVD 4— P amp LEUCADIA 5 �.. �� roros/uE ca J d$ y I7 SS ` - 8 o W PAR[FL a PASEO 1 PE - _._ \ PA c�aE sz4o� fs 'd` W W o w SIDDNIA 1 EB /8 \ \ E MYP SEREiq'. rn ST P B 0 } ' `. ' St c m Par I ENCINITAS °o y PAW c90 SErr- M11 E TIA Pc BEACH o QEE ST `I \ki Q xoxx 9 ION UNION ST - -- COUNTY � � � UNION pRPHEUB ST UNION 600 PARK 57 PARK.i. ST Q a' ,JL II. STONE \� :> y EM, ER STES ego LVISO w GTSW :9rtEI:B PL z VIA LINDA O IW • 9FR PL m Maw SEA IDE' FOXGLOVE o GA PAUL 'ECKE IX/AIL' m ST BuBxrxs , v CT acE.w rta SPORTS BOTAA(IGI„ LN PARK \i=� FLDRt� Y^ < Ex. �j ' PARK, ti G4ROEN5 NAYS Ws,� 4 ' �I= �I� I 3z c `., EBEnA c ARROYO ro SUNF OxER >i g ST ��NORE RD S NNY NY d RD " s S r 3 A _ T ERRY ST < <Cl ST ENCINITAS:` � DR Q a eooR , \ gBU rmnterr N 1 ,nr uwnmv � 00 s °L aw 3 yuv O� . MOONLIGHT C ST FS n 1 a:R i 7U1 PAAr BLVv tAN BLUFF IA IL 0 STATE s �' ^i E 4 PA D ST x aF Co SOO \ i i BEACH D ST s ue N g g " o ®m. __ --- - 9 T z o _ z 4/ I� SOURCE: 2005 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. , THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS, R IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR NO SCALE RESALE, WITHOUT PERMISSION. GEOCON VICINITY MAP — INCORPORATED QP GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS LEUCADIA BOULEVARD 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 E N C I N ITAS, CALIFORNIA PHONE 858 558 -6900 - FAX 858 558 -6159 FK / RA DSK/GTYPD DATE 11-22-2005 PROJECT NO. 07070 - 22 - 01 FIG. 1 V;c�ry AAop LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA VULCAN AVENUE 'B -19 L. APPROX. SCALE: 1" = 200' -18 ,f t B -5 ,f -17 GEOCON LEGEND B -16 B -19 • ........APPROX. LOCATION OF BORING a W • SUGGESTED LOCATIONS OF BOR F L DATE: 10/05/05 PME: 103 0. SENM NW SE MCL NOW ' - }j P41N: N: \50501]00 \LMa \Mn f \ F DRAMiNG NAME: 'Aft .OMG �n PLOnNG VIEW: NDNF DESIGNER. NONF_ ppp�. MCR iD GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558 -6900 - FAX 858 558 -6159 PROJECT NO. 07070 - 22 - 01 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN DATE 11 -22 -2005 __ K:/ 07070- 22 -01 /RA /FK_7070SITE PLAN/DWG. GROUND SURFACE 12" —I PROPERLY COMPACTED FILL o a RETAINING WALL a te° dd ° d Ll 3 /4 "CRUSHE ROCK d oQ d Q d d a o H d d d a ° 2/3H ° d d d a 41 FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE ° ° a MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT d SLAB d a 4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE - EXTEND TO A DRAINAGE •"- "r` SYSTEM OR SUMP PUMP a ;.....�.. :..,..,.> ,. FOOTING a SAND VISQUEEN (OPTIONAL) NOTE: IF DESIRED, WALL DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR EQUIVALENT MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF EXTENDING GRAVEL TO TWO- THIRDS THE WALLS HEIGHT NO SCALE RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL GEOCON (4 00 INCORPORATED LEUCADIA BOULEVARD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS E N C I N ITAS, CALIFORNIA 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 858 558 -6900 - FAX 858 558 -6159 AY / RA DSK /GTYPD DATE 1 1 - 22 -2005 PROJECT NO. 07070-22-01 FIG. 3 X:/R14TEMP /I AIJ�OCAD PLATE TEMPLATE /1 DETAIL/RWDD7 APPENDIX APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on October 27, 2005, and consisted of drilling 19 borings - along Leucadia Boulevard, Hymettus Avenue, Hermes Avenue, and Vulcan Avenue. Boring locations are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Table A -1 presented the soil type encountered in the 15 borings drilled for pavement evaluation. Logs of Borings B -12 through B -15 drilled for the proposed retaining walls are presented as Figure A -1 through A-4. TABLE A -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Boring No. Location Soil Type Existing Pavement Section B -1 Hymettus north of Leucadia Sand with trace clay 5 "AC * /0 "AB B -2 Hymettus south of Leucadia Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2 "AC /0" AB B -3 Hermes south of Leucadia Silty Sand NA B -4 Hermes north of Leucadia Silty Sand 4" AC /0" AB B -5 Leucadia east of Vulcan Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -6 Leucadia west of Hermes Silty Sand with trace clay 3"AC /0 "AB B -7 Leucadia east of Hermes Silty Sand 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -8 Leucadia east of Hygeia Silty Sand with trace clay 2 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -9 Leucadia west of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /0 "AB B -10 Leucadia east of Hymettus Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /5 "AB _e B -11 Leucadia east end of project Silty Sand with trace clay 3" AC /4 /2 "AB B -16 Vulcan south end Silty Sand 7 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -17 Vulcan south of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 1 /2" AC /0 "AB B -18 Vulcan north of Leucadia Silty Sand 5 "AC /0 "AB B -19 Vulcan north end Silty Sand 5 1 /2" AC /0 "AB *AC = Asphalt Concrete. t AB = Aggregate Base. $ NA = Not Accessible (City would not allow coring /drilling). __ Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005 PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 r w BORING B 12 Z _ DEPTH 0 Q SOIL U f- H w SAMPLE 0 Z co Ir Z O CLASS FEET NO ° Z ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 10 - 27 -2005 F 0 0 w =) (USCS) w J 0 W r a 0 z J EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER a m o 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B12-1 {- - SM TERRACE DEPOSITS Slightly moist, light yellowish brown, Silty, fine SAND I ! I I. I l�I a I BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A -1 , 07070- 22 -01.GPJ Log of Boring B 12, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ . CHUNK SAMPLE 1 . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 w BORING B 13 Z LU DEPTH SAMPLE O SOIL Z LL_ IN J ° CLASS H Z U " Z FEET No. = z ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 w `" o ° LLI a `" w :3 (USCS) Z Wm � 2O J EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -- 1313 -1 TOPSOILIUNDOCUMENTED FILL �. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS I Medium dense, moist, reddish brown, Silty SAND 2 - 1�I 4 BORING TERMINATED AT 4 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A -2 , 07070- 22- 01.GPJ Log of Boring B 13, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE _ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 w BORING B 14 Z _ Lu DEPTH O Q O V H H W SOIL FZ U_ (p IN SAMPLE -j Q Z LL = Z LIJ FEET No. oz z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 w `U o ° a `" LU F- (USCS) - J a wpm a 20 c� EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER a ° U 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B14 -1 �_ SM TERRACE DEPOSITS I Medium dense, slightly moist, orange brown, Silty, fine SAND I I.� { i I II ICI 1� 1�I BORING TERMINATED AT 5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A -3 , 07070- 22- 01.GPJ Log of Boring B 14, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 11 .. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 W BORING B 15 Z LU DEPTH U Q SOIL LO Z F - � UJI F IN FEET S NO ° Z CLASS ELEV. (MSL.) DATE COMPLETED 10 -27 -2005 � u) o o a N W =) (USCS) c� EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER ° V 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION B15 -1 SP UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, dry, brown, SAND with trace silt �. SM TERRACE DEPOSITS Medium dense to dense, orange brown, Silty SAND 2 BORING TERMINATED AT 3.5 FEET No groundwater encountered Figure A-4 07070- 22- 01.GPJ Log of Boring B 15, Page 1 of 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS El SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ❑ ... CHUNK SAMPLE 1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED, IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were tested for their shear strength, compaction, expansion, soluble sulfate and pavement support characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented on Tables B -I through B -V. TABLE B -1 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear No. (pcf) ( %) (psf) Resistance (degrees) B 12 -1 * 124.2 6.8 350 36 *Remolded to approximately 90 percent relative compaction and optimum moisture content. TABLE B -II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS Sample No. Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Density (pcf) Content (% dry wt.) B12 -1 Silty SAND with trace clay 137.8 7.0 TABLE B -III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Moisture Content -- Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Before Test ( %) After Test ( %) B 14 -1 8.0 12.3 118.9 0 Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - B -1 - November 22, 2005 TABLE B -V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER- SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417 Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate ( %) B13-1 0.008 -- TABLE B -IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY R -VALUE TEST RESULTS _- Sample No. R -Value B5 -1 21 _ B7 -1 44 B8 -1 19 1310-1 24 B 16 -1 67 B 19 -1 68 _. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 - B -2 - November 22, 2005 APPENDIX APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS _m FOR LEUCADIA BOULEVARD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA �, PROJECT NO. 07070 -22 -01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL I.I. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The _ recommendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained -- hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as- graded topography. GI rev. 07/02 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on -site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are - intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil -rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 3.1.2. Soil -rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. -- GI rev. 07/02 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on -site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil -rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track - walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man -made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1 -1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 07/02 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off -site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 - of this document. 4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal: vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Original Ground 2 �1 Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Soil Engineer Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur I Varies See Note 1 See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 07/02 4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted - as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. - 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1. Compaction of soil or soil -rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented -steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil -rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be - thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557 -00. 6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading /mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. _, GI rev. 07/02 6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in -place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557 -00. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over -built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track - walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8. As an alternative to over - building of slopes, slope faces may be back - rolled with a heavy -duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4 -foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track - walked with a D -8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2. Soil -rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. Gl rev. 07/02 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open- face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center -to- center with a 5 -foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post- - construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20 -ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be GI rev. 07/02 utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill. 6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1 196-93, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In -place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2 -foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the - uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. GI rev. 07/02 6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, and filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil -rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil -rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil -rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most- recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. — GI rev. 07/02 7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1. Soil and Soil -Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556 -00, Density of Soil In -Place By the Sand -Cone Method. 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922 -96, Density of Soil and -° Soil - Aggregate In -Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557 -00, Moisture - Density Relations of Soils and Soil - Aggregate Mixtures Using 10 -Pound Hammer and 18 -Inch Drop. 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829 -95, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2. Rock Fills 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196 -93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. 07/02 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and /or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as -built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as- graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as- graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/02 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, version 3.00, 2000. 2. - - - - - -, FRISKSP, version 3.01b, 1998. 3. Geocon, Inc., Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance for SDG AC- WW(T)- Leucadia Purchase Order No. 10464 ( Leucadia Cell Site) Encinitas, California, dated November 15, 1989 (Project No. D- 4456401). 4. Houston, J. R. and A. R. Garcia, Type 16 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami Predictions for Pacific Coastal Communities: U.S. Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report, H -74 -3, 1974. 5. Internal Conference of Building Officials. Uniform Building Code (with California Amendments), Title 23, 1997. 6. Southern California Earthquake Center. Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 60 p., 1999. 7. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. Project No. 07070 -22 -01 November 22, 2005