Loading...
2001-7300 G City O ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering September 30, 2003 Attn: Rancho Santa Fe National Bank First National Bank 401 West A Street San Diego, California 92101 Attn: Bob Williams, Real Estate Division, 2nd Floor RE: Generation Properties/Olivenhain Partners 740/760 Garden View Court APN 257-470-06 DR 01-034 Grading Permit 7300-G Final release of security Permit 7300-GI authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. Therefore, a full release of the security deposited is merited. Letter of Credit 01-02-156, in the amount of$291,000.00, is hereby released in its entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. r Sinc ely, && V Masih Maher Lem ach Senior Civil Engineer inance Manager Field Operations Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager Generation Prop/Olivenhain Partners Debra Geishart File TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper �. •�:Y� .� moo./ �.•j REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION �M�°�� Garden View Plaza jy �� off• a Unit No. 1 and No. 2 El Camino Real and Garden View Road County of San Diego (Tentative Map) Tract 4255, Lots 1 - 7 .o Encinitas, California �` ' JOB NO. 86-4824 13 February 1987 i G y ���/�/ ° QO°•Q: ''�� ^ C ' .��!Vii'-•o' Q° ��. i�%, .0,00' �• o•0'• 09. 1•;::.:•��::: ;,: d[} OEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.. REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Garden View Plaza - Unit No. 1 and No. 2 El Camino Real and Garden View Road County of San Diego (Tentative Map) Tract 4255, Lots 1 - 7 Encinitas, California JOB NO. 86-4824 13 February 1987 prepared for Mr. Byron F. White prepared by GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. 7420 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 4�� O0 d D GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER•GEOPHYSICS •ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 13 February 1987 1 Mr. Byron F. White Job No. 86-4824 600 "B" Street, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Garden View Plaza - Unit No. 1 and No. 2 County of San Diego (Tentative Map) Tract 4255, Lot 1 - 7 i El Camino Real and Garden View Road Encinitas, California Dear Mr. White: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an Investigation of the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the location of the subject proposed commercial development. The field work was performed on January 5, 1987, by our Field Geologist. It is our understanding that although final development plans are not yet complete, the site is being developed to receive a commercial complex to be known as "Garden View Plaza. " The structures are to be a maximum of three stories in height and will be constructed of standard-type building materials. Our Investigation revealed that the site is underlain by generally loose alluvium and fill soils in the area of Unit No. 1, and generally dense formational material In the area of Unit No. 2 (except along the northern edge). The encountered loose soils will need to be removed and properly compacted as part of the proposed grading operation. It is anticipated that standard conventional foundations may be used for the proposed structures, after preparation of the site In accordance with our recommendations. In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for the proposed development. The work performed and recommendations presented in this report are the result of an investigation and analysis which meets the contemporary standard of care in our profession. No other warranty is expressed or implied. 7420 TRADE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 54?-7222 _ 2 This opportunity to be of service Is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 86-4824 will expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. c� Leslle D. Reed, President LDR/P1 �'el ' G 4r�� CNa TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I . SCOPE OF WORK 1 Ii . SITE DESCRIPTION 2 III . FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 IV. LABORATORY TESTS 4 V. SOILS AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 5 Vi . GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 2 I VII . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 i Vill . GRADING NOTES 22 IX. LIMITATIONS 23 FIGURES 1 . Plot Plan I la-k . Boring Logs II la-f. Laboratory Test Results IV. Foundation Requirements Near Slopes APPENDICES A. Unified Soil Classification System B. General Earthwork Specifications I NOT __ _ � I, •E'li' W� r i REPORT OF GEOTECNNICAL INVESTIGATION Garden View Plaza - Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2 County of San Diego (Tentative Map) Tract 4255, Lots 1 - 7 El Camino Real and Garden View Road Encinitas, California JOB NO. 86-4824 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project. 1 . SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding, based on communications with Mr. Byron F . White, that the site is intended for the construction of a commercial and office complex. This report is intended to provide a site evaluation, site preparation recommendations and preliminary foundation design information. Specific design information should be requested when final plans become available. With the above in mind, the Scope of Work is briefly outlined as follows: 1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils to depths, in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). 2. Recommend treatment for any loose natural soils and/or uncompacted fill soils to prepare the site for construction. 3. Recommend the allowable bearing pressures for the natural ground and any soils to be used in compacted fill, based on their shear strength and compression characteristics and our experience with the soils. 4. Provide preliminary foundation design information and recommend active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of any proposed retaining walls and foundation structures. GD Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 2 5. Make note of any faults or significant geologic features revealed during our field investigation which may affect the development of the site. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is known as: Assessor's Parcel No. 257-040-26 and a portion of 257-040-25; also described as a portion of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 11, Township 13 South, Range 4 West, of the San Bernardino Meridian. The site, consisting of approximately 10 acres, is located at the northeast corner and at the southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Garden View Road, in the Encinitas area of the County of San Diego. The property is bordered on the south by a recently constructed medical center, on the west by El Camino Real, and on the north and east by mostly undeveloped land (see Figure No. I , Plot Plan). It is our understanding that a substantial amount of the Unit No. 2 area had been previously used as a source for sand, and that the existing grade is the result of the previous grading operation. There were no existing structures on the site and the site appears to have had no previous development. At the time of our investigation, the southwest corner of the Unit No. 1 area was fenced and was being used for equipment storage (refer to Figure No. I ) . Vegetation on the site consists primarily of wild grasses and weeds, with some thick brush and small trees within the drainage channel on the Unit No. 1 area. The property, in general, slopes gently toward the west, with a steep cut bank along the El Camino Real roadway at the west side of the Unit No. 2 area. Approximate elevations range from a high of 175 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to a low of 128 feet above MSL. OD 4��lC�o Garden View PI- i Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, Calif. nia Page 3 Ill. FIELD INVESTIGATION Eleven test borings were placed on the site, specifically In areas where structures and improvements will be located and where representative soil conditions were expected. The borings were located in the field by referring to Tentative Map 4255, prepared by Rick Engineering Company, dated August 8, 1984. The borings were logged by our Field Geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field oper- ation. Boring logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. II . The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A) . In-place samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) by 2-3/8-inch inside-diameter ( I .D. ) split-tube sampler a distance of 12 inches. In addition, the Standard Penetration Test, was performed by using a 140-pound weight failing 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. by 1-3/8-inch I .D . sampler tube a distance of 12 inches. The sampling methods were performed in accordance with the A.S.T.M. D1586-83 and D1587-83 standards. In each test, the number of blows required to drive the sampler the given distance was recorded for relative density comparisons. The following chart provides an in-house correlation between the number of blows and the relative density of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test: Density Soil Designation Blows/Foot Sand and Silt Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 - 10 Medium 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50 Very Dense Over 50 Clay Very Soft 0 - 2 Soft 3 - 4 Medium Stiff 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard 31 - 60 Very Hard Over 60 CAN, Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 4 IV. LABORATORY TESTS E Laboratory tests were performed on the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples in order to determine their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed structures. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: 1. Moisture/Density Relations (A .S.T.M. D1557-78) 2. Moisture Content (A.S.T.M. D2216-80) 3. Sampling/Density Determinations (A .S.T.M. D1587-83 ) 4. Mechanical Analysis (A.S.T.M. D422) 5. Expansion Tests (County of San Diego method) 6. Direct Shear Tests (A.S. T.M. D3080-72) 7. Consolidation Tests ( (A .S.T.M. D2435-70) The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples gives qualitative information regarding the soil strength characteristics and soil conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation. The mechanical analysis was used to aid in the classification of the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The expansion potential of clayey soils was determined utilizing the County of San Diego Test for Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are classified as follows: 0 to 3 percent Low or considered Nonexpansive 3 to 6 percent Medium 6 to 12 percent High Above 12 percent Very High 4D Garden View Plz Job No. 06-1024 Encinitas, Califo, .iia Page 5 Direct shear tests were performed upon undisturbed and remolded bulk samples in order to determine the soil strength and supporting capacity of the natural-ground soils. The shear tests were performed with a constant rate of strain direct shear machine. Specimens to be tested were saturated and then sheared under various normal loads without appreciable drainage of the samples. Consolidation tests were performed on samples of undisturbed natural ground soils. The soils were contained in 1-inch-high brass rings and loaded into a consolidometer. The specimens were subjected to increased loads and the resulting consolidations noted. The consolidation tests aid in determining anticipated settlements of the natural ground soils under the proposed building loads and the weight of any overburden fill soils. Based on the above laboratory test data, a thorough visual inspection of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of soils of the same type, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned conservative values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion to those soils which will have significant lateral support or bearing functions on the project. These values are presented In Figure No. III and have been utilized in determining safe bearing values as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for wall and footing designs. V. SOILS AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIWMN A review of available geologic maps and reports, as well as our on-site investigation, indicates that the subject property Is underlain by artificial fill soils, alluvium, slopewash, and formational materials of the Tertiary-age Torrey Sandstone and Del Mar Formations. In general, the fill soils, alluvium and the slopewash materials were found underlying all of the Unit No. 1 area, and the canyon along the north end of the Unit No. 2 area. The remainder of the Unit No. 2 area consists of a OD Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 6 exposed Torrey Sandstone. The Del Mar Formation was found to underlie the site, but was not encountered closer than 19 feet beneath the existing ground surface. This formation Is not expected to be encountered during the future development of the site. Refer to Figure No. I for- approximate limits of the encountered surface soils and formational material. They are described as follows: Artificial Fill (Oaf) : The fill soils consist primarily of loose, gray-tan, silty fine sand with varying amounts of asphalt and debris. Alluvium (Qal) : The alluvium was found to be typically loose, wet, gray-tan to gray-black, silty fine sand w ith clay binder and organics. Slo ewash (Qsw ) : The slopewash and/or residuum consists of material similar to the underlying Torrey Sandstone, but is generally not indurated and grayer in color. This material was found to consist of loose to medium dense, gray-tan to yellow-tan, silty fine sand with occasional slight clay binder in the upper few feet. Torrey Sandstone (TO : Formational materials of the Eocene-age Torrey Sandstone underlie the entire site and were encountered at the surface over most of the Unit No. 2 area. This formation is also exposed on the hillsides of the adjacent property to the east, and on the slopes to the west. The on-site exposures of the Torrey Formation consist of generally dense to very dense, yellow-tan, weakly to moderately well-indurated, silty fine sand. Del Mar Formation ( Td) : The Del Mar Formation was encountered only along the north end of the Unit No. 2 area, at a depth of 25 feet below the existing surface in boring #10 and 19 feet in boring #11. Review of the tentative finish-grades (County of San Diego Tract 4255) indicates that '� 4D 4�r�L�a Encinitas, Califor- `a Page 7 the Del Mar Formation should not be encountered during the proposed development of the site. The formational materials recovered from split-spoon sampling consist of very dense, green-gray, clayey siltstone with some fine sand and small gypsum crystals, and occasional shell fragments. VI. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Reference to the County of San Diego Map of Faults and Epicenters indicates the site is located in a generally stable area from a geologic hazard standpoint. According to the map, there are no faults or other known geologic hazards on the site. Faulting and Seismicity In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement along active faults. As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart, 1985), an "active" fault is one which has had ground surface displacement within the Holocene time (approximately the last 11, 000 years). Furthermore, California Division of Mines and Geology defines as "potentially active" a fault which has had ground surface displacement during Quaternary time (approximately the last two to three million years). For construction projects in California, seismologists and earthquake engineers estimate earthquake magnitudes for "maximum credible earthquake" and "maximum probable earthquake" to ascertain the seismic risk involved with different faults. Greensfelder ( 1974) defines these as follows: The maximum credible earthquake is "the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably capable of occurring under the condition of the present known geologic framework. " While the event is highly unlikely, it is still a believable event that could occur. The maximum Probable earthquake is "the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably expectable within a 100-year period. " This is also regarded as the maximum "design" earthquake. 4D Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 8 Since seismic hazard depends on the distance from the epicenter, a summary of the induced seismic hazard to the project site by the major local and regional faults is included in Table 1. Faults in the Southern California region that are of concern to the project site are the potentially active Rose Canyon Fault and the active Elsinore and Coronado Banks Faults. These faults are considered as part of the late-Cenozoic uplift and associated faulting. Local Faults A review of available published geologic literature indicates there are two small faults mapped within 1 mile of the site and several other small faults within a 5-mile radius. These north to northeasterly trending, high-angle faults have been mapped for relatively short distances and there is no evidence to date of any of the faults displacing Holocene sediments. TABLE 1 Maximum g from Maximum Maximum Probable Probable Earthquake (Schnabel Fault Name Distance Direction Earthquake & Seed, 1973) Rose Canyon* 5 SW 6.0 0.388 Coronado Bank 18 SW 6.0 0. 15g San Clemente 56 SW 6.5 0.05g Newport- Inglewood 47 NW 6.5 0.08g Elsinore 26 NE 7.0+ 0.17g San Jacinto 45 NE 7.0+ 0.088 San Andreas 60 NE 8.0+ 0.09g *Potentially active, all other faults shown are generally accepted as being active. j 3 4D 4f��1C�a UJI uuii v ICV. l ldza Jul) IJu. ob-4uZ4 Encinitas, Califo a Page 9 Rose Canyon Fault : The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 5 miles southwest of the subject site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex zone of on-shore and off-shore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique normal faults. Recent investigative work on newly located faults (believed to be part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone) at the Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego, has encountered what appears to be offset Holocene sediments. These recent findings, however, have yet to be fully accepted as confirmed Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault. Therefore, it is generally accepted by the geotechnical community that the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is classified as "potentially active." Ongoing geotechnical work on newly located faults in the downtown San Diego area (believed to be part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone) may yield more information about the recency of faulting within this zone. Regional Faults It is our opinion that a known active fault presents the greatest risk -- that of ground shaking -- to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed development. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Elsinore Fault and Coronado Banks Fault. Coronado Banks Fault : The nearest known active fault is the Coronado Banks Fault, located approximately 18 miles southwest of the site. Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data (acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic activity (Greene, 1979) . An earthquake of 5. 3 magnitude, recorded on July 13, 1986, is reported to have been centered on this fault or within the Coronado Banks Fault Zone. Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active seismically than the Elsinore Fault (Hileman, 1973) . It is postulated that the Coronado Banks Fault is capable of generating a 5- to 6-magnitude earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the San Diego Greater Metropolitan area. C'FlI c1kz n View P I a I a JOU !'U. uU-'4u14 Encinitas, Calif( is Page 10 Elsinore Fault : The Elsinore Fault Is located approximately 26 miles northeast of the site. The Elsinore Fault extends approximately 200 km ( 125 miles) from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsinore Fault Zone Is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of discontinuous and echelon faults extending through portions of Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsinore Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles In length. The trend, length and geomorphic expression of the Elsinore Fault Zone identifies it as being a part of the r� highly active San Andreas Fault system. } Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement. According to Hart, et al . ( 1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, sN,rales, and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11, 000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active. Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwest-trending, right-slip faults in Southern California (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a 6.0-magnitude quake near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Topposaza and Parke, 1982) . However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder ( 1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as 7.5. Recent study and logging of exposures in trenches in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Elsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal-slip rate of 0. 8 to 7 mm/year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of 6 to 7 (Rockwell, 1985 ) . Job No. 86-4624 Garden View Plaza Page 11 Encinitas, California Other Geologic Hazards Ground Rupture: Fault rupture or ground displacement is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displace- ment of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds magnitude 5.0 to 5.5. Since there are no known faults on or adjacent to the site, the likelihood of ground rupture is remote. Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically Induced ground shaking is an effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and local seismic condition. Earthquakes of magnitude 5.5 Richter scale or greater are generally associated with significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would probably be caused by a moderate-size earthquake originating on a nearby strand of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Although the chance of such an event is remote, it could occur within the useful life of the structure. Landslides: According to our geologic reconnaissance and the County of San Diego Seismic Safety Element maps, there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site. Furthermore, the competent nature of the formational materials suggest that the potential for deep-seated failure is unlikely. Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process in which soils are transformed into a dense fluid which will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs principally in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaken by an earthquake. 4NIM Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 12 on this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation material due to seismic shaking is considered to be remote due to the dense nature of the natural-ground material and the lack of a shallow water table. i Tsunamis and Seiches: Major tsunamis originate from vertical dislocation of large, subsea crustal blocks. In San Diego, tsunamis associated with large, vertical displacement on any of the off-shore faults has not occurred within historic time. Based on the MSL elevation of the site, as well as the above information, we conclude that the risk of damage to the property from tsunamis is very low . No enclosed bodies of water, such as reservoirs, bays, lakes, etc. , are known to exist in the immediate vicinity of the site, thus precluding any damage as a result of seiching. Groundwater: Groundwater was not encountered during the course of our field investigation at a depth of less than 28 feet below the existing ground surface. Combined with the proposed fill that is to be placed over this area, we do not expect significant groundwater problems to develop in the future -- if the property is developed as presently designed. It should be kept in mind, however, that any required grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature if good positive drainage is implemented. Summary : It is our opinion that a significant geologic hazard does not exist on the site. The site is situated in a developing area and is + considered to possess a similar level of risk as surrounding properties. OD �+ Encinitas, Califorr rage 13 VI1. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with r the soils in this area of the County of San Diego. Our investigation revealed that, In general, the Unit No. 1 area Is underlain by fill, alluvium and slopewash that ranges in depth from approximately 5 feet along the north side of the site to 34 feet along the south side, overlying dense formational material. The Unit No. 2 area was found to be underlain by up to 25 feet of slopewash along the northern edge of the site, while dense formational material was encountered at the surface throughout the remainder of the site (see Figure No. I ). Typically, the fill, alluvium and slopewash was found to be loose near the surface (upper 5 to 10 feet) and medium dense below . We recommend that the loose surface soils he removed and properly compacted to provide a uniform soil base prior to the addition of any fill or construction. Our firm should be provided with final development plans, when available, so that we could provide any additional recommendations, if needed. A. Preparation of Soils for Site Development 1 . The existing debris and vegetation must be removed prior to the grading operation. 2. To provide a uniform soils base, the existing loose surface soils shall be excavated to expose firm, natural ground, as approved by our field representative. The depth of removal is expected to vary throughout the subject site, but should typically involve removal of at least 5 feet along the north side of the drainage channel In the Unit No. 1 area, and approximately 10 feet along the south side. Also, it is anticipated that along the north side of the Unit No. 2 4�r��o Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 14 area the depth of removal of the loose slopewash will be approxi- mately 10 feet. It is best to rely upon our field representative's testing and inspections during the grading operation to define the actual limits of removal across the site. 3. The removed soils shall be cleaned of all significant dehris and vegetal matter, and shall be watered to approximately optimum moisture contents if they are to be used as fill. The prepared fill soils shall then be placed and compacted, as required, to achieve the design elevations for the project. The materials shall he placed in layers, not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness, and shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 4. Any septic tanks, subsurface disposal systems, wells, etc. , which might be discovered on the site, shall be removed and properly backfilled with approved on-site or imported fill soils, and shall then be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 5. No uncontrolled fill soils shall remain on the site after completion of any future site work. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during the grading operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted and be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation. 6. Based upon our field investigation data, settlement of the underlying alluvium and slopewash (that portion not removed and compacted during grading) Is expected to be minimal. However, we recommend that settlement monuments be installed Immediately upon 4UL)NMO 1, it clen '✓It'_w I'laza Jul) 140. Ou-•iuc-i Encinitas, Califon Page 15 the completion of grading to provide actual settlement data. The monuments should be checked on a regular basis by a licensed surveyor, and the data presented for our use until a settlement rate Is confirmed. We prefer that the installation of the settlement monuments be performed by our office. NOTE: It is possible that the monitoring program may indicate a slow, relatively uniform settlement of the underlying alluvium and slopewash as a result of the anticipated fill load. As such, the start of construction may need to be delayed to allow for settlement to diminish to an acceptable level. The field monitoring data should provide sufficient information within 30 days of the completion of the grading operation to determine if a delay in construction is necessary. A delay, if required, is expected to be on the order of 90 days or less. B. Design Parameters for Foundations and Retaining Walls 7. The allowable bearing value (at a depth of 24 inches Into the natural soils or compacted fill soils on this site) Is 2,000 pounds per square. foot. This allowable bearing value may be utilized in the design of continuous foundations and spread footings for the proposed three-story structures, when founded a minimum of 24 inches into the firm natural ground or compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. This allowable bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that Include wind or seismic analysis. If imported soils are required to bring the site to grade, the imported soils shall be nonexpansive and shall be obtained from an approved off-site borrow area. 5 8. Based on our laboratory test results and our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the competent natural soils or properly compacted fill soils should experience differential settlement in the magnitude of less than 1 /2-inch, in 20 feet, under a structural load of 2,000 pounds per square foot. 4EA Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 18 mid-height in the slab. Slabs shall be underlain by a 3-Inch- thick layer of clean sand (S.E. = 30 or greater) overlying a 6-mil visqueen membrane. Slab subgrade soil shall he thoroughly moistened prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. We recommend the project Structural Engineer incorporate Isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slab in any floor designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab cracking. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction tech- niques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete) , some cracking of slabs can be expected. NOTE: The project Structural Engineer shall review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum safeguards to reduce possible crack separations. The actual reinforcing schedule shall be as per the direction of the Structural Engineer. 14. As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, it is recommended that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc. ), be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand, include 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire mesh at the center of the slab, and contain adequate isolation joints. The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction, and is therefore the responsibility of the contractor installing the improvements. Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 19 C. Slope Design 15. The compacted fill soils that occur within 5 feet of the face of any fill slopes will possess poor lateral stability, even though they have been compacted. Proposed structures and other improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, sidewalks, driveways, asphalt + paving, etc.) that are located within 5 feet of the face of compacted fill slopes could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils. If fill slopes with slope-top improvements are planned, special consideration should be directed toward design of such improvements to accommodate possible movement. 16. Foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, etc., when founded 5 feet and farther away from the top of compacted fill slopes, may be of standard design In conformance with the recommended load-bearing value. If the proposed foundations and footings are located closer than 5 feet inside the top of compacted fill slopes, they shall be deepened to 2 feet below a line beginning at a point 5 feet horizontally Inside the fill slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the fill slope (see Figure No. V). 17. It Is our opinion that permanent slopes at the subject site, consisting of native undisturbed material or properly compacted soil, will be stable and free from deep-seated failures for the following maximum slope heights: Q!, d a Garden View Plaz- Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, Califor.-i Page 20 Maximum Height of Slope Slope Ratio Compacted Cut Horizontal:Vertical Fill Ground 2.0: 1 .0 20 feet 60 feet NOTE: The slope ratios and heights presented above are subject to review by the local governing agency. All cut slopes will require continuous on-site observation by our firm during grading to verify slope stability. Unexpected soil conditions could require a reduction in slope heights. 18. if development of the site necessitates construction of steep temporary cut slopes, either shoring, bracing or some other type of protection may be required to prevent possible damage to adjacent off-site properties, or slope failures which might endanger workers. As more specific Improvement plans become available, this office should be contacted for additional recommendations pertaining to any planned temporary slopes steeper than are allowed by OSHA. Temporary construction slopes will require Inspection at the time of excavation to evaluate stability and grading alternatives. 19. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed In accordance with subparagraph ( 1) paragraph (f), of section 1541 of Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA. 20. It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion-resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the County of San Diego. Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, Californ,.. Page 21 E. General Recommendations 21. Grading operations near the existing drainage channel in the Unit No. 1 area might encounter groundwater if the present water table were to rise. Excavations resulting from removal of the loose soils could therefore require dewatering. It is recommended that a test trench be excavated across the drainage channel to a depth of at least 15 feet several weeks prior to the grading operation to observe the actual conditions, as water levels could vary considerably with the seasons. if dewatering operations are required, they can require several weeks to be effective. 22. Proper subdrains shall be installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures which is attributable to poor drainage. 23. Planter areas and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a subsurface drain, Installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility. 24. Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish-floor materials. 25. Consideration should be given to placement of a PCC slah beneath and in front of any proposed trash enclosures. It has been our experience that most concentrated point loads often occur surrounding the trash enclosures from both the trash vehicles and the wheel loads of the trash container, resulting In damage to the asphaltic pavement. EA EN Garden View Plarn Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 22 26. In order to minimize any work delays at the subject site during site development, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for inspection of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to In- spection of the excavations; in the event that our inspection reveals the need for deepening or re-designing foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correc- tion of the observed problem ( i.e. , deepening the footing 3 excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc. ) . 27. Contemporary pavement section design methods require compaction of the upper 1/2-foot of foundation soil (natural ground or compacted fill) to 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density, and all base materials to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. We therefore recommend that the upper 1/2-foot of foundation soils and all base materials beneath street, driveway and parking area pavements be compacted to these standards. This recommendation also applies to the upper soils in backfilled trenches or behind retaining walls which support pavement sections. Design of pavement sections was not included within the scope of this report. Pavement sections will depend largely on the subgrade soil conditions exposed after grading and should be based on R-value test results. These tests should be performed after completion of the grading operation. V111. GRADING NOTES Any required grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork Specifications (Appendix B ) and the requirements of the County of San Diego Grading Ordinance. i . - Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 23 28. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. requires that a soils engineer or engineering geologist verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be as anticipated In this "Report of Geotechnical Investigation. " In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must he tested by a representative of our firm. It Is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading ordinance. 29. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out In the field operations and that our recommendations for design of this project are Incorporated in the structural plans and grading plans. 30. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner If he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. IX. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in this area of the County of San Diego. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. it Is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclu- sl(rns, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations r begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. �i°o 1_I rll (lull L lcvi I IIILII Jl/Il Illl. 0V I.•_ Encinitas, Califoi I I'aytr. 211 The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis which meets the contemporary standard of care In our profession. No other warranty is expressed or implied. This report should be considered valid for a period of three (3) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building and/or grading plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any cut and fill slopes and the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this, report. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the project coordinator. Reference to our Job No. 86-4824 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECNNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Werner R. a ry L I e D . Reed Project Coordinator R .G. 3391, C.E.G. 999 �O Gam- oa EX P 4R . Y�'. La Monte j P , 5241 ;I � �/z-3r -637 M C 25,241 WRL/CWL/LDR/Ij \ Jf CIVIL \\Q \�9T F CAOD�r, Q�� f IJ EOUIPMENT DIMENSION 9 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 135'+ None Encountered WRL `p FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a' o u a o LL ° W LU u ¢ W 2 cr �- � . 6jj Z r u > z m DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSISTENCY, n i „ J N N ? A o i ,° ; ° _ d = MOISTURE, COLvR, GRAIN SIZE) ° a w a° aW wo x o of o Q C u L1 p In N 7 SILTY FINE SAND. Loose. Damp. SM Gray-tan. 2 k 9. 3 119 6 2 4 ..I i 8.7 109 92 (-) 17 3 6 Becomes medium dense � . 20 2 10 8.2 106 89 32 3 SLOPEWASH/RESIDUUM 12 ---------------------------------- --- ------ ---- --- ---- -- ------ -- ---- i SILTY FINE SAND. Very dense. SM 50+ 2 Damp. Yellow-tan. 14 16 FORMATION Tt I Bottom of boring at 16' . i 18 20 22 24 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E . & N.E. Corner of E1 Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG. NO Q IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 .B—DRIVE SAMPLE FIGJ ,c NUMBEER DD ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 6 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE L'GGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/81 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGE: BY 141 ' ± None Encountered WRL ns FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o o ff e o 00 _ 4 J w U C U T Q I t , \ W I -mm z 00 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ICOHS�3TENCr, n d U. ; n = 3 MOISTURE, CJLuR, GRAIN 3iZE) Z p Z Z.Q = 0 3 `" > < A 2 W a W W, x 0 J -0 03 30 a._ w u o v SILTY FINE SAND. Loose. Damp. SM Yellow-tan. 2 10 2 4 JJ { 6 1 I 7 .3 95 12.8 119 80 +0.0 11 3 1 J 7 2 QW 10 l Becomes medium dense 14 2 J. l 12 14 ---------------SLOPEWASII RESIDUUI_1------ ------------- ---- -------- ------ Grades into formation, becomes SH 16 very dense at 16 ' FORI•t�TION Tt 41 2 Bottom of boring at 16' . 18 20 22 24 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of El Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California IN PLACE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG NO. O 86-4824 B- 2 DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. I I f) 4��I[ i X EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED CHE - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/81 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 153'± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION r t '` ° H U a U > K ?- > it I W z z r °o? a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSISTENCY, u j a i �N z O TVRE, CJLuR, GRAIN SIZE) a o O a Z Z C U < Vf 1 �1 SILTY FINE SAND. Medium dense. Sh1 �. Damp. Gray-tan. 2 (Similar to B-1 , 0-12 ) (- � ' , 3 2 4 lI 6 t 5.3 108 9.3 ( 119) 91 -1 3 ff I � 8 18 2 10 .4 2 12 14 - Becomes yellow-tan. 16 17 2 �f 18 __SLOPE WASH/RESIDUUM - -- ------ ---- ---- ---- -- ------ --- --- Grades into formation, becomes SM very dense at 20' . 20 FORMATION (Tt) 2 22 Bottom of boring at 21 ' . 24 26 JOB NAME ¢ GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of El Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY O IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 B _ 3 ® DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER 4D ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. TIC 4�(��o EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVAI ION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 151 ' { None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o o ?e SK o °O F L) Cr U > C r y ♦ � W x DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSISTENCY, -K ' ~ ~ _ ' s a 0o vii a - a _ _ -y = 3 MOISTURE, COLOR, GRAIN SIZE) _ W o o OW W;e y SILTY FINE SAND. Medium dense. SM Damp. Gray-tan with asphalt 2 and minor debris. 1% 2 4 1 . FILL rr SILTY FINE SAND with slight 1, J SC 8 clay binder. Medium dense. Wet. Gray-tan with black and �. : orange streaks. 10 15.7 106 (-) _ . 3 12 f - Becomes moist. l 1 2 14 ALLUVIUM SILTY FINE SAND. Medium dense. SM 16 Damp. Yellow-tan. 12 2 18 � - --------------SLOPEWASH/RESIDUUM-- 20 Grades into formation , becomes SM 2 very dense at 20' •FOPMATION Tt 10. 5 97 (-) r 3 22 Bottom of boring at 21 ' . 24 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of E1 Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California ' JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG a IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 B - 4 ® DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER VIAND D ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. lid ! 1 -EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 155' ± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o n >- uj _ X ° 6. J W L j U >. ¢ r ♦ I \ W Z x $ e DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSIeTEHCti, .; d �'= a :`- `_ W Z r _ ci a ^ - _% -° � o n - •V _ MOISTURE, CJLuR, GRAIN SIZE) „ = p W a o t W w`� 2 0 = o j 7 ZO O� 7G O,- W ij C H v SILTY FINE SAND. Loose. Damp. SH Gray-tan. 8 1 - ---------------- --------------- -6_B_ 99 9. 3 119 83 _____ 18 : Grades into gra y_black with SC -some-organics.- +3.8 15 2 ---- --------- ------------------- --- ------ --------- ----- --- ----- ---- 12 Grades into medium dense, yeIIov, SH 13 2 I tan, silty fine sand. 16 13 2 20 I ALLUVIUM 13 2 24 SILTY FINE SAND. Medium dense. Si1 Damp. Gray-tan. 152 28 -Becomes yellow-tan. rr ----------------------------------- ------------------- ------ --- -------------- 32 Grades into formation (Tt) , Sh1 73 2 becomes ver dense at 30' . 36 Bottom of boring at 32' . 40 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of E1 Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California ❑ IN PLACE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG. NO 2 86-4824 DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER ap B - 5 ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. I l e d��Mo EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 5 TYPE OF EXCAVA, .jN DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 137 ' ± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o X o F o ^ w h- U W v W ° W W W J W U S t Y \ y Z $ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CON313TENCt, .i ► e~ }�►- :~ ~ z i N MOISTURE, %JWR, GRAIN SIZE) _ i W i° <W W� f 0 - - O °I X° a- W U E ZS N 9 SILTY FINE SAND. Very loose. SM 3 .. Damp. Gray-tan with asphalt 4 and other debris. FILL ------------------------------- -------------- -4- 2-- --- --- ------ ---- --- { 8 Becomes whitish-tan , no asphalt SM or other debris. .1: ----------------------------------- --- ------ ---- --- ---- -- ------ --- --- i 12 I 1 Grades back to gray-tan , SIB 2 2 Y I : 16 ! - Becomes moist and riedium dense. 11 2 lj:� 20 - Becomes wet at 20 ' . 12 2 24 10 2 28 0 - Groundwater at 28 ' . 12 2 32 ALLUVIUM SILTY FINE SAND. Very i 36 y dense. SM 77+ 2 Damp. Yellow-tan. FORMATION Tt 40 Bottom of boring at 37 ' . JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION . b N.E. Corner of E1 Camino Real ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California IN PLACE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG. N0. Q ® DRIVE SAMPLE 86-4824 13- 6 NUMBER ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. i 1� J E OUIPMENT DIMENSION 9 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 151 '± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION C '` 0 C n D O ._ _ � n 4 J W O F '� 2 x $ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONS13TENCF, .; i h J^ 3 N =n 4n 0 ; r , u ? i MOISTURE, COWR, GRAIN 312E) „ Z W p O <W We x p of o < V N vl = 0 C No o SILTY FINE SAND. Very dense. SM Damp. Yellow-tan. 2 10.9 124 71+ 211 4 FORMATION Tt Bottom of boring at 4 ' . 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of El Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG NO O IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 B- 7 ® DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER n �( 4D ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. 11g V �) ~EOJIPMENT DIMENSION 9 TYPE OF EXCAVAI ION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/81 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 148'± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION g o Q W J W < C V > t r f Y ♦ I W i x $ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSISTENCY, .; � ^ „ � :n Ho b' K a z jr • : i MOISTURE, %JLuR, GRAIN 31iE1 u a = - xz z z p Z Y ( h = W i ° <W W p x 0 J < No p SILTY FINE SAND. Very dense. SM Dump. Yellow-tan. 2 1Q 9 (124) 74+ 2 4 :;: FORMATION Tt Bottom of boirng at 4' . 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of E1 Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California IN PLACE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG NO z❑ , 86-4824 13- 8 ■ DRIVE SAMPLE -13URE N;IMREP (� 4D ❑ SANDCONE/F.D.T. IIh 4LI LF7�' D i EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 5 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 1511± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION r u rc u 3 z o DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSISTENCY, .; d „ � - N it h o Z a Z = t MOISTURE, CJLUR, GRAIN SIZE) n z a w n <w i.Zie O pp t 03 7 0 O.,,, W U O U v i SILTY FINE SAND. Very dense. SH 2 Damp. Yellow-tan. { I 84+ 2 4 l: . FORMATION (Tt) _ Bottom of boring at 4 ' . 6 8 ! 10 12 14 1 16 T 18 20 22 24 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of El Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG, SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG. NO. IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 B - 9 DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER 4U�1711D� ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. III i EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 6 TYPE OF EXCAVATIu-4 DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 143' ± None Encountered WRL FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION _ o g Y o Fii F °o „ f u �c ur 3' > y W z 4z $ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (COHSISTINCI, t` an „o YOISTJRE, JJIuR, iRA1N 112C1 a _ W L 0 W W .. O „ z o 02 20 O W U N SILTY FINE SAND. Loose. Damp. SM �. Black-tan with organics. TOPSOIL 4 SILTY FINE SAND. Medium dense. SC 7 .0 100 10.0 124 81 +6.0 14 3 8 Damp. Gray-tan. Some clay. (-) L •l 12 2 12 - Becomes yellow-tan at 15' . 16 11 � (Similar to the formational 19 2 I: •} material - Tt) 20 21 2 24 ojA - Some pebbles ( 1-2" diameter) at 24 ' . SLOPEWASH/RESIDUUt 16 2 28 CLAYEY SILTSTONE with some fine ML sand. Small gypsum crystals. 32 Medium to very dense. Moist. 15._1 117 +7 .3 81+j 3 Green-gray. FORMATION Td 2" 36 Bottom of boring at 32' . 40 i JOB NA M E GARDEN VIEW PLAZA WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of El Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG. NO IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 B— 10 ® DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER 4(����ODD ❑ SANDCONE/F.D.T. II j CAN EOUIPMENT DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED CME - 550 6-inch Boring 1/5/87 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY 129' ± None Encountered WRL a' FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION o U X o ° ; r U 2 W v oWC r Y y + 1 W z u > � u 11 J W 8,J x °o DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (CONSISTENCY, n s „„ n,~- _» v+0 Un ; ? Z i ? W013TURE, COLuR, GRAIN SIZE) 0 = 3 z o o= io o °W u Qi n v� SILTY FINE SAND. Loose. Damp. SM Black-tan with organics. 2 TOPSOIL 4 SILTY FIIQE SAND. Medium dense. SC Damp. Gray-tan. 6 13 2 8 # . 12 2 10 12 14 - Becomes wet at 15' . Color changes to yellow-tan (similar 8 2 16 to formation Tt) . 18 i .. SLOPEI.'ASII/RES I DUUM 20 CLAYEY SILTSTONE with some fine 11L sand. Small gypsum crystals 52+ 2 and shell fragments. Very dense. 611 22 Moist. Green-gray. FORMATION Td 24 Bottom of boring at 22' . 26 JOB NAME GARDEN VIEW PLAZA Q WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION S.E. & N.E. Corner of E1 Camino Real & ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Garden View Road Encinitas California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG. NO. O IN PLACE SAMPLE 86-4824 B - 1 1 DRIVE SAMPLE FIGURE NUMBER 0 ❑ SAND CONE/F.D.T. I I k Elmo 140 LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY ASSIGNED SHEAR DATA 1 2 3 APPARENT COHESION (psif) 150 100 0 130 APPARENT FRICTION ANGLE 320 330 340 Orsvel 51n1) Fines C :ru to Fine SAL Clay 3 medium U S.itandArd tfeve e4e7 P j s i 120 a £ 1 ,DO 2 I II ( I lu I 2 110 Z cr } ! i!11 ! 11!illiil I � i I I IN' 1 I 11 11 1 11 100 cii ! 11'1 ;! 1 ' I I i 1 a _ _ Grjin a-ameter.mm. MAXIMUM DRY 1 2 3 2.70 �0 SPECIFIC GRAVITY DENSITY (pcf ) 119 119 124 2.60 OPTIMUM MOISTURE 2.50 CONTENT (%) 9.3 12.8 10.9 ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SOIL BORING TRENCH TYPE SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO NO DEPTH I Gray-tan, silty fine sand 6-1 0-12' 2 Yellow-tan,silty fine sand (slopewash) B-2 6 1-101 3 Yellow-tan,silty fine sand (Tt formation) B-] 0-41 SWELL TEST DATA I 2 3 �0 INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCf) INITIAL WAT ER CONTENT (%) 14.0 L 0 A 0 (p • 1) 144 FOR NO 86-4824 I c i• r.;* Cwrl n r IGHrIr tin I I I a 140 LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY ASSIGNED SHEAT DATA 4 5 6 APPARENT COHESION (pif) 400 — — 130 APPARENT FRICTION ANGLE 30° prarol Sand Fines coerce to Fine S,11 Clay medium V.S.standard sieve sizes 120 a € € a 111IN I i lil 110 3 0 l III III I III! i�l I 11;1i .I 111f1 I ill j Cr I 11 1d ° rII III ��il � li III I i 100 lil i!I l i it II Ilii e III I I iI I I'' Gram d-ameter.mm 2.7 0 �0 MAXIMUM DRY 4 5 6 SPECIFIC GRAVITY DENSITY (pcf ) 124 - - 2.60 OPTIMUM MOISTURE 0 CONTENT (%) 10.0 ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES DO IF I I I MOISTURE CONTENT 0 10 20 30 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SOIL BORING TRENCH DEPTH TYPE SOIL CLASSIFICATION NO. NO. 4 Gray-tan,silty fine sand ,some clay B-10 41-6' _5 Gray-black,silty sand,with or anics B-5 71 6 Green-gray,clayey siltstone(Td formation) B-10 30' (tea,D SWELL TEST DATA 4 5 6 4r[Agi0 INITIAL DRY DENSITY (pct) 107. 1 111 .8 113.9 INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%) 9.5 10.9 14.9 LOAD (P „ 1) 144 144 144 JOB NO , 86-4824 cn r :T SWFI 1 F, n � .R 7. � FIGURE NO I I I b �����r���������������� S.,.,...........,.,,■. • �TiiiSi.��Tirii�Ti�i�.iL"ii ■Ti�Tii�i ?■i=SGi�TiGi�TiCr� ■�������n������������■ �i�i�i==�i�i�i:iiiTS�=i�i=i�=�i=�i= . . r ����������������t�■������� • ���������a������������� ���1������������������� • ��������I�������������� ��������������������5� _ • ������������w��.��������� ��1��������������������� • ��I��������������������� ��1��������������������� ���� �������i��������������� �������I����������i���� .. . , . .. �,r.-���,+� .ti 0 z W W M l v C n n 0 0 W cc 0 W �c J N ` W H a z. N Q1 • � v Q 0 0 0 v N W Z T p w V -FF IT- D E ID � C L S O Ci7 i O v-1 N M "r Ln lD 00 Ql � 1N300d — NOIIVOI'IOSNOO o z W � � 4 5 4 r 0 w — — — T7 w c a Z � L O (( U uLL.� N S CD O � N j O M "r Ln lD ti 00 cn C 1N330d - NOIIY(1I')OSNOO 4- . W C ; i 0 r u c + 4 � Y ry a' W 1- r Q W — cc U ° W tt N N W .n a ..J a_ O 0 g � E E � 4 c I L I O m L "r Ln t0 00 C1 O 1N301.43d - NOIIVOI'IOSNOO � c APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION COARSE-GRAINED More than half of material Is larger then a No. 200 sieve GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3" tures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- tures, little or no fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt (appreciable amount) mixtures. GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a no fines. No. 4 sieve. SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty (appreciable amount) mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. FINE-GRAINED More then half of material Is smaller than a No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity. Liquid Limit Less Than 50 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, clean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. j FGUNDAT! aN REQUIREMENTS NE. .1 SLOPES PROPOSED STRUCTURE CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (LOOSE OVERBURDEN SOIL 19 IGNORED) b' COMPACTED FILL SLOPE WITH ' MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT REINFORCEMENT OF •� — FOUNDATION& AND FLOOR - iLA68 FOLLOWING THE TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING MEASURED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FROM FINISH SOIL ARCHITECT OR STRUCTURAL SUB—GRADE ENGINEER — — — — — • — — — — COMPACTED FILL CONCRETE FOUNDATION , OUTER MOST FACE: FOOTING — \� 24 MINIMUM OR AS DEEP AS REQUIRED FOR LATERAL TYPICAL SECTION STABILITY (SHOWING PROPOSED FOUNDATION LOCATED WITHIN 5 FEET OF TOP OF SLOPE) 24" FOOTING / 5' SETBACK TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING 1.6 : 1.0 SLOPE * 2.0 : 1.0 SLOPE ILL! O 64" 64" o IL cc LL 0 , • sT" 46" w ZLL 2• 48" 42" 4 O N O B ' 40" 36" 4' 32" 30" when appilcabl• FIGURE NUMBER IV JOO NUMBER 86-4824 CAM i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 0 s 0 i i i i 1 1 1 CAM APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION COARSE-GRAINED More than half of material Is larger than a No. 200 sieve GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3" tures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- tures, little or no fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt (appreciable amount) mixtures. GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a no fines. No. 4 sieve. 4 SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or I no fines. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty (appreciable amount) mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. FINE-GRAINED More than halt of material Is smaller than a No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with ya slight plasticity. Liquid Limit Less Than 50 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, clean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. AP P E N D I X B GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS General The objective of these specifications Is to properly establish procedures for the clearing and preparation of the existing natural ground or properly compacted fill to receive new fill; for the selection of the fill material; and for the fill compaction and testing methods to be used. Scope of Work The earthwork includes all the activities and resources provided by the contractor to construct in a good workmanlike manner all the grades of the filled areas shown In the plans. The major items of work covered in this section include all clearing and grubbing, removing and disposing of materials, preparing areas to be filled, compacting of fill, compacting of backfills, subdraln Installations, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas. Site Visit and Site Investigation 1. The contractor shall visit the site and carefully study It and make all inspections necessary in order to determine the full extent of the work required to complete all grading in conformance with the drawings and specifications. The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the nature, location and extent of the work; conditions, the conformation and condition of the existing ground surface; and the type of equipment, labor, and facilities needed prior to and during prosecution of the work. The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the character, quality and quantity of surface and subsurface materials or obstacles to be encountered. Any inaccuracies or discrepancies between the actual field conditions and the drawings, or between the drawings and specifications, must be brought to the engineer's attention In order to clarify the exact nature of the work to be performed. 2. A soils Investigation report has been prepared for this project by and it is available for review and should be used as a reference to the surface and subsurface soil and bedrock conditions on this project. Any recommendations made in the report of the soil Investigation or subsequent reports shall become an addendum to these specifications. ` 2 Authority of the Solis Engineer and Engineering Geologist The soils engineer shall be the owner's representative to observe and test the construction of fills. Excavation and the placing of fill shall be under the observation of the soils engineer or his/her representative, and he/she shall give a written opinion regarding conformance with the specifications upon completion of grading. The soils engineer shall have the authority to cause the removal and replacement of porous topsoils, uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, disturbed bedrock materials and soft alluvium, and shall have the authority to approve or reject materials proposed for use in the compacted fill areas. The soil engineer shall have, in conjunction with the engineering ' geologist, the authority to approve the preparation of natural ground and toe-of-fill benches to receive fill material. The engineering geologist shall have the authority to determine the stability of the existing or proposed slopes and to determine the necessity of remedial measures. if any unstable condition is being created by cutting or filling, the engineering geologist and/or soil engineer shall advise the contractor and owner immediately and prohibit grading in the affected area until such time as corrective measures are taken. The owner shall decide all questions regarding: ( 1) the interpretation of the drawings and specifications, (2) the acceptable fulfillment of the contract on the part of the contractor, and (3) the matter of compensation. Clearing and Grubbing 1. Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the removal from all areas to be graded of all surface trash, abandoned Improvements, paving, culverts, pipe, and vegetation ( including -- but not limited to -- heavy weed growth, trees, stumps, logs and roots larger than 1-Inch in diameter) . 2. All organic and inorganic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations shall be collected, piled and disposed of by the contractor to give the cleared areas a neat and finished appearance. Burning of combustible materials on-site shall not be permitted unless allowed by local regulations and at such times and in such a manner to prevent the fire from spreading to areas adjoining the property or cleared area. 3. It is understood that minor amounts of organic materials may remain In the fill soils due to the near Impossibility of complete removal. The amount remaining, however, must be considered negligible and in no case can be allowed to occur In concentrations or total quantities sufficient to contribute to settlement upon decomposition. CAM° 3 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 1. After clearing and grubbing, all uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, soft or loose soils, or unsuitable materials, shall be removed to expose competent natural ground, undisturbed bedrock, or properly compacted fill as Indicated in the soils investigation report or by our field representative. Where the unsuitable materials are exposed in final graded areas, they shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill. 2. The ground surface exposed after removal of unsuitable soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to the specified moisture content, and then the scarified ground compacted to at least the specified density. Where undisturbed bedrock Is exposed at the surface, scarification and recompaction shall not be required. 3. All areas to receive compacted fill, including all removal areas and toe-of-fill benches, shall be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placing compacted fill . 4. Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas with gradients greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm, undisturbed natural ground in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability. This is to provide a horizontal base so that each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in width on firm, undisturbed, natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake placed at the bottom of the design slope. The engineer shall determine the width and frequency of all succeeding benches which will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness of the slope. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent (5.0: 1.0) shall be benched when considered necessary by the soils engineer. Fill and Backfill Material Unless otherwise specified, the on-site material obtained from the project excavations may be used as fill or backfill, provided that all organic material, rubbish, debris, and other objectionable material contained therein Is first removed. In the event that expansive materials are encountered during foundation excavations within 3 feet of finished grade and they have not been properly processed, they shall be entirely removed or thoroughly mixed with good, granular material before Incorporating them In fills. No footing shall be allowed to bear on soils which, In the opinion of the soils engineer, are detrimentally expansive -- unless designed for this clayey condition. 4rE 4 However, rocks, boulders, broken portland cement concrete, and bituminous type pavement obtained from the project excavations may be permitted in the backfill or fill' with the following limitations: 1. The maximum dimension of any piece used in the top 10 feet shall be no larger than 6 Inches. 2. Clods or hard lumps of earth of 6 Inches or In greatest dimension shall be broken up before compacting the material In fill. 3. If the fill material originating from the project excavation contains large rocks, boulders, or hard lumps that cannot be broken readily, pieces over 6 Inches in diameter to 2 feet in maximum dimension may be used In fills below final subgrade If all pieces are placed in such a manner (such as windrows) as to eliminate nesting or voids between them. No rocks over 4 feet will be allowed in the fill. 4. Pieces larger than 6 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of any structure. 5. Pieces larger than 3 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of the subgrade for paving. 6. Rockfills containing less than 40 percent of soil passing 3/4-inch sieve may be permitted in designated areas. Specific recommen- dations shall be made by the soils engineer and be subject to approval by the city engineer. 7. Continuous observation by the soils engineer Is required during rock placement. 8. Special and/or additional recommendations may be provided in writing by the soils engineer to modify, clarify or amplify these specifications. 9. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed In the soil investigation report may be encountered by the contractor. The soils engineer shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of these soils as fill materials. Placing and Compacting Fill Material 1 . After preparing the areas to he filled, the approved fill material shall be placed In approximately horizontal layers, with lift thickness compatible to the material being placed and the type of equipment being used. Unless otherwise approved by the soils engineer, each layer spread for compaction shall not exceed 8 inches of loose thickness. Adequate drainage of the fl II shall be provided at all times during the construction period. 5 2. When the moisture content of the fill material Is below that specified by the engineer, water shall be added to It until the moisture content is as specified. 3. When the moisture content of the fi I I material Is above that specified by the engineer, resulting in Inadequate compaction or unstable fill, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. 4. After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in the specifications. Compaction shall be accomplished with sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers or other approved types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified relative compaction. Compaction shall cover the entire fill area, and the equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill. At locations where it would be impractical due to inaccessibility of rolling compacting equipment, fill layers shall be compacted to the specified requirements by hand-directed compaction equipment. 5. When soil types or combination of soil types are encountered which tend to develop densely-packed surfaces as a result of spreading or compacting operations, the surface of each layer of fill shall he sufficiently roughened after compaction to ensure bond to the succeeding layer. 6. Unless otherwise specified, fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. In general, fill slopes shall be finished in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the plans. The surface of fill slopes shall be overfilled to a distance from finished slopes such that it will allow compaction equipment to operate freely within the zone of the finished slope, and then cut back to the finished grade to expose the compacted core. Alternate compaction procedures include the backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers In increments of 3 to 5 feet in elevation gain. Alternate methods may be used by the contractor but they shall be evaluated for approval by the solls engineer. 7. Unless otherwise specified, all allowed expansive fill material shall be compacted to a moisture content of approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content. Nonexpansive fill shall be compacted at near optimum moisture content. All fill shall be compacted, unless otherwise specified, to a relative compaction not less than 95 percent for fill in the upper 12 inches of subgrades under areas to be paved with apshalt concrete or portland concrete, 1 6 and not less than 90 percent for other fill. The relative compaction Is the ratio of the dry unit weight of the compacted fill to the laboratory maximum dry unit weight of a sample of the same soil, obtained In accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557 test method. 8. The observation and periodic testing by the soils engineer is Intended to provide the contractor with an ongoing measure of the quality of the fill compaction operation. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to utilize this information to establish the degrees of compactive effort required on the project. More importantly, it Is the responsibility of the grading contractor to ensure that proper compactive effort is applied at all times during the grading operation, Including during the absence of soils engineering representatives. Trench Backfill 1. Trench excavations which extend under graded lots, paved areas, areas under the influence of structural loading, in slopes or close to slope areas, shall be backfilled under the observations and testing of the soils engineer. All trenches not falling within the afore- mentioned locations shall be backfilled in accordance with the City or County regulating agency specifications. 2. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 3. . Any soft, spongy, unstable, or other similar material encountered in the trench excavation upon which the bedding material or pipe Is to be placed, shall be removed to a depth recommended by the soils engineer and replaced with bedding materials suitably densified. Bedding material shall first be placed so that the pipe is supported for the full length of the barrel with full bearing on the bottom segment. After the needed testing of the pipe is accomplished, the bedding shall be completed to at least 1 foot on top of the pipe. The bedding shall be properly densified before backfill is placed. Bedding shall consist of granular material with a sand equivalent less than 30 or other material approved by the engineer. 4. No rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter will be allowed in the backfill placed between 1 foot above the pipe and 1 foot below finished subgrade. Rocks greater than 2.5 inches In any dimension will not be allowed in the backfill placed within 1 foot of pavement subgrade. 5. Material for mechanically compacted backfill shall be placed in lifts of horizontal layers and properly moistened prior to compaction. In addition, the layers shall have a thickness compatible with the 4��1C��-i°o 7 material being placed and the type of equipment being used. Each layer shall be evenly spread, moistened or dried, and then tamped or rolled until the specified relative compaction has been attained. 6. Backfi I I shall be mechanically compacted by means of tamping rollers, sheepsfoot rollers, pneumatic tire rollers, vibratory rollers, or other mechanical tampers. Impact-type pavement breakers (stompers) will not be permitted over clay, asbestos cement, plastic, cast iron, or nonreinforced concrete pipe. Permission to use specific compaction equipment shall not be construed as guaranteeing or implying that the use of such equipment will not result In damage to adjacent ground, existing Improvements, or improvements installed under the contract. The contractor shall make his/tier own determination in this regard. 7. Jetting shall not be permitted as a compaction method unless the soils engineer allows It in writing. 8. Clean granular material shall not he used as backfill or bedding in trenches located In slope areas or within a distance of 10 feet of the top of slopes unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential buildup of seepage forces Into the slope mass. i Observations and Testing 1 . The soils engineers or their representatives shall sufficiently observe and test the grading operations so that he/she can state his/her opinion as to whether or not the fill was constructed In accordance with the specifications. 2. The soils engineers or their representatives shall take sufflclent density tests during the placement of compacted fill. The contractor should assist the soils engineer and/or his/her representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. In addition, the contractor should cooperate with the soils engineer by removing or shutting down equipment from the area being tested. 3. Fill shall be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should be performed by using approved methods by A.S.T.M. , such as A.S.T.M. D1556, D2922, and/or D2937. Tests to determine density of compacted fill should be provided on the basis of not less than one test for each 2-foot vertical lift of the fill, but not less than one test for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. In fill slopes, approximately 8 half of the tests shall be made at the final fill a slo t t p except that not more than one test needs to be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope in each 2-foot vertical lift. Actual test Intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. 4. Fill found not to be conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the soils engineer. Site Protection It shall be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions, and to provide erosion control devices for the protection of excavated areas, slope areas, finished work on the site and adjoining properties, from storm damage and floor hazard originating on the project. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes In their as-graded form until all slopes are in satisfactory compliance with the job specifications, all berms and benches have been properly constructed, and all associated drainage devices have been Installed and meet the requirements of the specifications. All observations and testing services and approvals given by the soil engineer and/or geologist shall not relieve the contractor of his/her responsibilities of performing the work in accordance with these specifications. After grading is completed and the soils engineer has finished his/her observations and/or testing of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except under his/her observations. Adverse Weather Conditions 1. Precautions shall be taken by the contractor during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. 2. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor shall Install checkdams, desliting basins, rip-rap, sand bags, or other devices or methods necessary to controlerosion and provide safe conditions. r--\ A a 9 3. During periods of rainfall, the soils engineer should be kept Informed by the contractor as to the nature of remedial or preven- tative work being perofrmed (e.g. pumping, placement of sand bags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.) . 4. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the soils engineer and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain-related damage. The soils engineer may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in his assessments. At the request of the soils engineer, the contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of raln-related damage. S. Rain-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse conditions identified by the soils engineer. Soil adversely affected shall be classified as Unsuitable Materials and shall be subject to overexcavatlon and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the soils engineer. 6. Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, shall be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1.0 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in place to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted In accordance with the applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be overexcavated, then replaced In accordance with the applicable specifications. 7. In slope areas, where saturated soll and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, they shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifi- cations. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture condl- tioning In place, followed by thorough recmpactlon In accordance with the applicable grading guidelines In accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If materials shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with teh slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recommended by the soils engineer. 4 NOV 0 c 1301 erc.o• o�/ij'ii// .' o. Ooow..: FINAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING OBSERVATION AND FIELD DENSITY TESTING, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND STREET � ->;a•o• „��.; :.: ,: .:::.:":" '" IMPROVEMENT TESTING / Garden View Plaza County Tract No. 4255 Northeast and Southeast of the Intersection between El Camino Real and Garden View Court Encinitas, California :.• 0.0 ��� .c•. �%�!%ice% cOQO:�..• i •iii ✓"DotQ�' QQ GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. FINAL REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING OBSERVATION AND FIELD DENSITY TESTING, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND STREET IMPROVEMENT TESTING Garden View Plaza County Tract No. 4255 Northeast and Southeast of the Intersection between El Camino Real and Garden View Court Encinitas, California JOB NO. 86-4824 18 January 1990 Prepared for : Mr. Byron White c/o Mr. Steven Smith d GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 18 January 1990 Mr. Byron White Job No. 86-4824 c/o Mr. Steven Smith 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 616 San Diego, CA 92108 Subject: Final Report of Rough Grading Observation and Field Density Testing, Utility Trench Testing, and Street Improvement Testing Garden View Plaza, County Tract No. 4255 Northeast and Southeast of the Intersection between El Camino Real and Garden View Court Encinitas, California Dear Mr. 'tlhite: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., hereby submits the following final report summarizing our work and test results, as well as our conclusions and recommendations concerning the subject project . A representative of our firm observed the recent rough grading operation and tested the fill soils that were removed and recompacted during the preparation of the pads on the 19 lots of the subject subdivision . In addition, our representative performed field density testing on street improvement subgrade or base, and trench backfill . The grading described herein consisted of removing, recompacting, and placing compacted fills to achieve the planned grade elevations indicated in the grading plans, and testing compacted fill placed in trenches or street improvement base or subgrade. The grading was observed and/or tested between June 8, 1989, and December 20, 1989 . SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work of our services Included: 1 . Observations during rough grading of the site. 7 1?0 TRADF STRFFT • SAH F)IF(:n ('Al IFC)PHIA Q`11�1 • (01?) 51? 7')?? Garden View Plaza Jo!) No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 2 2 . Periodic ohservations of backfill placement in storm drains, sewer, water and utility trenches. Fill or subgrade testing for sidewalk, curb and gutter, pavement subgrade and pavement base in street areas. No full time continuous observation was provided by our firm during this phase of the work . 3. Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill . It . Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the fill material . 5 . Installation of settlement monuments and evaluation of periodical elevation readings performed by Rick Engineering Surveyors . 6 . Providing professional opinions, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the observed grading and the pending work, and preparation of this report. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION The property, consisting of approximately 10 acres, is located at the northeast and southeast corner of the intersection between El Camino Real and Garden View Road, in the City of Encinitas . The property Is bordered on the north by a vacant lot, on the south by a medical complex, on the east by residential units, and on the west by El Camino Real. The property is bisected by Garden View Road, which separates Lots 16 through 19 from the rest of the lots . Prior to grading, the property sloped, in general, to the west. Elevations ranged from 233 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the northeast corner, to approximately 124 feet above MSL along El Camino Real, on the west side . Survey information concerning actual elevations after grading was not available at the time of this report preparation . We assume that finish grade elevations are as indicated in the grading plans . 4rN °°� Garden View Plaza 'ob No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 3 Existing structures on the site prior to grading consisted of a storm drain crossing part of Lot 19 at its northwestern corner, as shown on the improvement plans . Existing vegetation prior to grading consisted of scattered bushes, wild grasses and weeds, and small trees within a drainage channel on the southern lots . The site has been prepared to receive proposed office buildings, which will be a maximum of three stories in height . It is our understanding that the buildings will be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, utilizing conventional-type foundations, footings, and building materials. A Plot Plan illustrating the approximate location of all our tests taken throughout the grading operation is enclosed as Figure No. I . It is our understanding that the only future work that remains to be done on the project is any customized grading that might be required for the specific buildings or lots, including lot areas to be paved . FIELD OBSERVATIONS Periodic tests and observations were provided by a representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. to check the grading contractor's (AC Paving of Fresno, California) compliance with the grading and compaction specifications . The presence of our field representative at the site was to provide to the client a continuing source of professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based upon the field representative's observations of the contractor's work, and did not include any superintending, supervision, or direction of the actual work of the contractor or the contractor's workers. Our representative's Garden View Plaza lob No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 4 visits were made on request of the contractor's representative (Otis Swanson) when work was not continuous . The grading operation was observed to be performed in the following general manner : 1 . Prior to placing any compacted fill, the areas to be graded were cleared of surface trash, miscellaneous debris, and/or vegetation, i and hauled off-site . 1 2 . Uncompacted fills, soft or disturbed materials, and/or unsuitable soils were removed to expose sufficiently competent ground. The removed material in the pad areas was extended to a depth of at least 10 feet below proposed finish grades and to at least the perimeter lines . 3 . Lots 1 through 3 were mostly cut lots, but needed some undercut and recompaction. On Lots 1 and 2, the undercut was at least 5 feet from finish grade. On Lot 1, the undercut was made on the north and west sides. Lot' 2 had undercut only on the west side. For approximate extents of undercut, see Figure No. I (Plot Plan) . The portions not undercut on Lots 1 , 2 and 3 were formational materials. Other parts with undercut were as follows: Lot 4 - The northeast corner is on formational cut material. The fill thickness ranges from 10-feet . at the southwest corner thinning toward daylight. Lot 5 - The extreme north and west areas are on formational material . T-he southwest fill thickness has an approximate 12-foot depth at the extreme southwest area thinning toward the daylight line. Lot 6 - The southeast area has a wedge of 2-feet thick fill . CAN Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 5 Lot 7 - The south edge of Lot 7 is on formational material . The extreme northwest corner has a wedge of fill of 20-feet thick thinning towards the center of the lot with just 2-feet of fill across the remainder of the pad. Lot 10 - The east half of Lot 10 is on formational material . The fill is 8 feet deep at the northwest area thinning to the south to 2-feet deep . 4 . The canyon area north of Lots 8 and 9 had loose soil removed to j good formational material . Some canyon ramifications extending to the north from the main north canyon area also had the bottoms cleaned of soft material, down to dense formational soils . 5 . The upper lots (Lots 4 through 15) also had soft spots in some locations. Those soft or alluvial areas were also removed before fill was placed . 6 . In the southern parcel , including Lots 16 through 19, the soft and wet areas, as well as areas of loose soils were undercut to firmer or more dense alluvium soils, as observed and evaluated by i our soils technician by probing, field density tests above 85 percent, or by observing the soil yieldinq under the loads of the grading equipment . Some loose areas were as small as 10 by 10 square feet . Other areas were as big as 60 by 60 square feet . The majority of the land on Lots 16 through 19, after undercutting the loose areas, exposed competent formational soils. 1 7 . Lots 16 through 19 were undercut at least 10 feet on the south side, approximately 7 feet in the center portion, and 5 feet in the northern area up to approximately 10 feet away from the northern property line (so as not to cause damage to existing sidewalks, pavement, utility lines, and brow ditches) . Formational materials were encountered at -5 feet from the surface on Lots 17 and 18 along the extreme north side. [ncinitas, California Page 6 8 . Some rock concretions existing on the north lots before grading were placed in the deeper areas of fill on Lots 8, 9 , 17 and 18 . Concretions were placed a minimum of 10-feet below the finish grade elevations of the various lots. 9 . Lots 11 through 15 were essentially cut lots having received fill not exceeding 2 feet in thickness. Field density tests were performed at finish grade level on these lots . 10 . The northwest corner of Lot 19 was not undercut in order to prevent damage to an existing storm drain line. The observed undercut was taken as close as 5 feet (approximately) from the existing storm drain pipe. 11 . Clay seams were exposed on the eastern slope of Lots 12 and 13, and also were observed in an open water line trench in Garden View Court . Special recommendations may need to be given If the clay seam is observed at finish grade of the slab or in the foundation excavations for proposed building structures . 12 . On the cut slope along the eastern property line of Lots 10 through 15, 4-inch-diameter PVC drain pipes discharge on the slope surface . To prevent water-related problems, this discharge should be eliminated, or provide proper connections to existing pipes . 13. The cut slope on Lot 10 is apparently steeper than the planned 2 : 1 slope ratio indicated in the grading plans. If the slope ratio is steeper than 1 .5: 1 , additional work may be required to produce a permanently stable slope. The slope ratio will need to be checked by the project civil engineer for reevaluation by our firm if the slope ratio is steeper than 1 .5 to 1 . 14. In slope fill areas, the slope toe was provided with a key excavation into competent bearing soil . The key had a width of at least 10 feet and a thickness of at least 2 feet into competent formational soils . Garden View Plaza lob No. 96-4824 Encinitas, California Page 7 15 . Settlement monuments were installed on Lots 1, 8, 9, and 16 through 19 in areas with deeper fills after planned grades were obtained. Monument elevation readings by Rick Enqineerinq indicate that , after six v:eeks of weekly readings from the first reading, the fills have essentially not settled (the maximum differential deformation is 0 .02 foot) . A verification reading is l recommended before any construction takes place to confirm that no significant variation 1)as occurred on the fill performance. This verification reading shall be made available to our firm for verification . 16. The exposed ground surface in areas to receive fill was scarified at least 8 inches and uniformly recompacted to at least 90 percent i of the laboratory Maximum Dry Density , prior to placement of compacted soil . 17 . Areas to receive compacted fill were, in general , observed and I evaluated by our field representative prior to placing compacted fill . In slope fill areas, adequate benching was provided by i keying into competent natural ground or approved compacted fill as the compacted fill was placed above the toe area. i 18 . Soils approved for use in the compacted fill were placed in hori- zontal layers not exceeding approximately 8 inches in loose i thickness. 19 . Fill material was watered or dried at or near optimum moisture i content, and mixed prior to compaction. Potentially expansive fill soils were compacted at a moisture content above the optimum. 20. The soils utilized in the grading operation were from on-site and consisted primarily of silty sands and silty sand with traces of clay, in different tones and colors, as described in the list of soil types (Figure No. II ) . Imported soils were used for pipe bedding in trenches, curb and gutter base or street base . CAN Garden View Plaza lot) No . 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 8 21 . Fill materials were tested and found to he compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density . Areas where field density tests indicated failing test results were pointed out to the contractor for him to rework or to provide additional compaction effort until satisfactory results were obtained . 22 . Compaction was achieved by drying or wetting the soil, mixing it and rolling it with heavy construction equipment such as paddle- wheeled scrapers, ruhher-tired and track-mounted loaders, Cat and Case track loaders, a Cat rubber-tired 834 dozer and water trucks. In trench backfilling, adequate compaction equipment was used to reach the required compaction degree. This equipment included trackhoe with compaction wheel attachment , or hand whackers . 23 . Utility Trench Observations Sewer Trenches - Tested sewer trenches were located along El Camino Real and Garden View Court . The trenches were 6- to 7- feet deep. Trench backfilling was compacted in lifts with Cat trackhoe compacting wheel attachment . Water Trenches - A water main ran up Garden View Court and a 16-inch water main ran along El Camino Real . Connections were made in Garden View Road . Backfill compaction was made in lifts with rubber tire loaders or hand wacker compactors . Water trenches were observed to be 2- to 4-feet deep. Storm Drain - Tested storm drains were located north, east, and west of Lot 1 , Garden View Road and Garden View Court connection from Lot 4 and Lot 15 laterals, and El Camino Real Road crossing at Sta 56+00 with 36-inches R .C .P . )b No. R6-4824 Garden View Plaza Page 9 Encinitas, California Storm drain trenches were as deep as 8-feet . Trenches were compacted in lifts using a Cat track loader with compacting wheel attachment . Joint Trenches - Joint trenches ran along El Camino Real and Garden View Court and crossed Garden View Road. Compated fill was up to 2-feet deep and was compacted with handwackers . Sidewalk subgrade was tested after being prepared. Loose areas were compacted with handwackers or rolled with self-propelled drum rollers . Sidewalks were poured on Garden View Court and El Camino Real along with curb and gutter in these same areas . Street subgrade tests were taken on Garden View Court and the El Caminto Real Street widening. Base tests were taken on Garden View Court . The County of San Diego laboratory took the base tests on the El Camino Real widening. Base material used was imported (Soil Types VI and VII) . 24 . The method used to compact the slope fill surface consisted of overfilling and compacting the surface by track-walking or by overfilling and cutting back the compacted face of the slope. Lower compaction results were obtained on the face of the northern slope, even after track-rolling and dressing with a steel chain . 25 . Field density tests were taken at the approximate locations shown on the plot plan (Figure No. 1) . TESTS Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1556 . Maximum density determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557 , Method A. The relative compaction results, as ID Garden View Plaza 'oh No. R6-4824 Encinitas, California Page 10 summarized on Figure No. II , are the ratios of the field densities to the laboratory Maximum Dry Densities, expressed as percentages . Other tests performed on soil material used on the site included sieve and sand equivalent tests. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D422-63 and AASHTO 176-73, respectively . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon our analysis of all data available from the testing of the soils compacted on this site. Our observations of the grading operation (while in progress) , our field and laboratory testing of the typical bearing soils, and our general knowledge and experience with the natural-ground soils and recompacted fill soils on this site were utilized in conducting our services . A. General Grading 1 . The soils utilized in the grading operation were from existing on- site soils that were removed and recompacted. The soils consisted primarily of silty sands in various tones and colors (see list of soil types, Figure No. I I ) . Soils of this type are considered low to nonexpansive, as measured by the County of San Diego Test for Expansive Soils and presented in our geotechnical investigation report dated February 13, 1987 (Job No. 86-4824) . 2 . During the grading operation, the natural-ground soils were exposed (where necessary) and prepared to receive the fill soils . The fill soils were placed, watered, compacted, and then tested, and were found to be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density, in accordance with the requirements of the County of San Diego and the City of Encinitas . Areas with failing test CAM Garden View Plaza No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 11 results were pointed out to the contractor for corrective work until satisfactory results were obtained. The maxlmurn depth of fill soils placed on this site at the time of the grading operation monitored by this firm was not in excess of 45 feet in vertical thickness (by the northwest corner of Lot 9) . 3. Any surplus, loose, stockpiled soils remaining at the property should be removed and hauled off the site . 4. Grading work that needs to be completed and performed under our observations and testing include any future retaining wall backfill and any customized grading for each of the lots, after the architectural plans are prepared . B. Foundations and Slabs On-Grade 5 . We recommend that all foundation plans for the proposed buildings be reviewed by our firm and a review letter provided before construction is allowed . Additional foundation and slab recommendation may be provided at that time . 6 . The continuous foundations and spread footings shall extend a minimum depth of 24 inches into the firm natural ground or properly compacted fill , and have a minimum width of 18 inches. The continuous foundations shall be reinforced with at least four No. 5 steel bars ; two bars shall be located near the top of the foundations and two bars 3 inches from the bottom . 7 . Prior to pouring footings and foundations, and prior to placement of floor slab base sections, any unexpected clayey soils shall be thoroughly watered such that they approach their maximum potential for expansion. It is recommended that any clayey subgrade soil be presoaked to achieve a moisture content at least 3 percent above optimum to a depth of at least 1 foot below the Ir7� 6D 1 Garden View Plaza ob No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 12 i 1 ` bottom of slab and footings . The subgrade moisture content and penetration should be verified by our field representative 24 hours prior to concrete pouring. The bottom of the foundation excavation should be firm, not muddy, and have the acceptable moisture content. 8 . Concrete floor slabs shall be at least 4 inches thick and founded on at least 3 inches of sand overlying a 6-roil visqueen. The slabs shall be reinforced with at least 6 x 6 - 6/6 steel welded- wire mesh or No. 3 steel bars placed on 18-inch centers. Any steel reinforcement should be placed in the middle of the floor slab section. Proper supports should be used to keep the steel reinforcement separated from the base or soil subgrade. 9 . It is recommended that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc. ) , and all parking areas, be founded on at least 4 inches of nonexpansive soils . The slabs shall be at least 4 inches thick . Proper shrinkage joints (sawcuts) should be provided and spaced no farther than 8 feet or the width of the slab, whichever is less. The sawcuts should be performed no later than 24 hours after pouring, or as soon as the concrete is set. Sawcuts should be deepened to at least one-quarter of the thickness of the slab. When steel reinforcement (such as 6 x 6 10/ 10 welded-wire fabric) is provided for the slabs, the control joints may be spaced up to 20 feet apart . 10. All concrete (flatwork ) slabs or rigid improvements should be built on properly compacted and approved subgrade and/or base material . Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will accept no liability for damage to flatwork or rigid improvements built on untested or unapproved subgrade or base material or material that becomes disturbed after rough grading. Garden View Plaza lob No. 86-41!24 Encinitas, California Page 13 C. Foundation Design Parameters 11. The recommended allowable bearing value of the properly compacted fill soils placed on the site is 2,000 pounds per square foot. The recommended allowable bearing value of the competent natural ground is 2,000 pounds per square foot . This soil- bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis . Additionally, these bearing values may be utilized in the design of foundations and footings of the proposed structures when founded a minimum of 24 inches into the firm natural ground or compacted fill for the proposed building structures. For on-site conditions (based on the settlement monument readings) , it is expected that the maximum settlement will not exceed 1 /2-inch, and the maximum differential angular rotation will not exceed 1 /300 . 12. The passive earth pressure of the encountered natural-ground soils and well-compacted fill soils (to be used for design of building foundations and footings to resist the lateral forces) shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. This passive earth pressure shall only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation, the soil is properly compacted fill or natural dense material, and the concrete is poured tight against the walls of the excavation . 13. A Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used to calculate the total friction force between the bearing soils and the bottom of concrete wall foundations, or structure foundations, or floor slabs . If the coefficient of friction is to be used in conjunction with passive earth pressures, the coefficient shall be reduced to 0.30 . lmo 4[r Garden View Plaza !ob No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 14 I D . Retaining Wall Design Parameters 14. The active earth pressure (to be utilized in design of cantilever i walls, etc.) shall be based on a Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only and nonexpansive or { low-expansive, on-site native soils) . In the event that the cantilever retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table : Height of Slope/Height of Wall* Slope Ratio 0 .25 0 .50 0 .75 1 .00(+) 1 .5 to 1 .0 52 60 68 70 2.0 to 1 .0 44 48 50 52 *To determine design active earth pressures for ratios inter- mediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values . In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 8xH (eight times the total height of retained soil, considered in pounds per square foot) shall be considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall, in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid Weight. The design pressures presented above are based on utilization of an uncontrolled mixture of expansive or low-expansive soil native to the site used in backfill operations . In the event that imported, clean, granular fill soils or approved, on-site, clean sands are to be utilized as backfill material , this firm should be contacted for possible reduction of design pressures due to level backfill, sloping backfill , or restrained wall conditions. Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 15 Additional surcharge pressures to be considered in the wall ' design include any loads applied within the failure block retained by the wall . E. Cut and Fill Slopes 15 . Natural-ground cut slopes of maximum inclinations of 1 .5 horizontal to 1 .0 vertical, and compacted fill slopes of maximum inclinations of 2.0 horizontal to 1 .0 vertical, shall be stable and free from deep-seated failures for materials native to the site and utilized in compacted fills. 16. Although the compacted fill soils have been verified to a relative compaction of 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density or better, the compacted fill soils that occur within 5 feet of the face of the fill slope may posses poor lateral stability. If not properly founded, the proposed structures and associated improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, sidewalks, driveways, asphalt paving, etc.) that are located within 5 feet of the face of compacted fill slopes could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils. The foundations and footings of the proposed structures, fence posts, walls, etc., when founded 5 feet and farther away from the top of compacted fill slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended soil value. If proposed foundations and footings are located closer than 5 feet inside the top of compacted fill slopes, they shall be deepened to at least 2 feet below a line beginning at a point 5 feet horizontally inside the fill slopes, and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the fill slopes (see Figure No. III) . aEA Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 16 17 . It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion-resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas and the County of San Diego. 18. Some differential angular rotation is expected to occur on the fill wedges at the site. It is our estimate that the differential angular rotation will not exceed 1/300 . F. Drainage 19 . Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on all structures, and the runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in uplift or undermining and differential settlement of the structures or other improvements on the site. Some drainage lines discharging onto the eastern slopes shall be tied to storm drains or drainage swales to prevent water- related damage. 20 . Proper subdrains shall be Installed behind all retaining and restrained retaining walls, in addition to proper waterproofing of the back of the walls. The drainage of said subdrains shall be directed to the designed drainage for the project or the natural drainage for the area. Garden View Plaza Job No. 86-41124 Encinitas, California Page 17 21 . It should be note(I that changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall over the "accepted average-annual" rainfall for San Diego County for the past 10 years, may result in the appearance of minor amounts of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously . The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if corrected immediately . Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary . 22 . Planter areas and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs . Planter boxes shall be constructed with a sealed bottom, and be provided a subsurface drain installed in gravel, with the direction of Subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility . 23 . Any backfill soils placed adjacent to or close to foundations, in utility trenches, or behind retaining walls, that support structures and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, driveways, pavements, etc.) , other than landscaping in level ground, shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density . It is recommended that Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. observe and test the backfill during placement . Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will accept no liability for damage to structures that occurs as a result of improperly backfilled trenches or walls, or as a result of fill soils placed without our observations and testing. G. Miscellaneous Recommendations 24 . Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature Garden View Plaza Jot) ^Jo. 86-11824 Encinitas, California Page 18 placement of floor coverings may result in degration of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish-floor materials . 25 . Appurtenances and/or subsurface structures that are founded in any potentially expansive clay soils shall be properly designed by a structural engineer and/or soils engineer. 26. Any future soils related work to be performed at the site shall be observed and/or tested by a representative of our firm . 27 . It is also recommended that all footing excavations be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placing concrete, to verify that footings are founded on satisfactory soils for which the recommendations expressed in the soil investigation report remain applicable . SUMMARY Based on our field testing and grading observation, it is our opinion that the grading operation described herein, in general, was performed in conformance with the County of San Diego Grading Ordinance. It is to be understood that our test results and opinion of general acceptance do not guarantee that every cubic yard of compacted fill has been compacted to specification since not every cubic yard has been observed or tested. Our test results indicate the measured compaction degree obtained at the specific test location . We can only guarantee that our tests and observations have been made in accordance with the care and current professional standards in our field. All observed or tested work done during the grading operation appears, in general, to have been performed in accordance with the soil investigation report for this site, issued by our firm and dated February 13, 1987 (Job No. 86-4824) . The grading described herein was observed and/or tested between June 8, 1989, and December 20, 1989. Garden View Plaza ob No. 86-11824 Encinitas, California Page 19 All statements in the report are appIicahle only for the g r a d i n q operation observed by our firm, and are representative of the site at the time of our final site vtsit before the report was prepared. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for fill soils placed without our observations and testing at any other time, or for subsequent changes to the site by others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage, water erosion, and/or alteration of the strength of the compacted fill soils . In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the buildings or improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommen- dations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. Furthermore, this report is valid for a period of 3 years. After that, the siie (if not built) conditions will need to be evaluated and recommendations herein may require updating. Professional opinions presented herein have been made based on our tests, observations, and experience, and they have been made in accordance with generally accepted current geotechnical engineering principles and practices . This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or intended. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact us . Reference to our Job No. 86-4824 will help expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, / Of ESS104 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. OQ� q�F\ A. C�\ Jaime A. Cerros, R .C .E. 34422/G .E , 2007 ; Mo. g92Jg�1 1� Senior- Proiect Engineer Exp. % ,s JAC/I cc: Addressee (6) - i Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill 010 Density Type Compaction 1 6/22/89 North Canyon 153' 12.4 113 pcf 1 95% 1 2 6/22/89 North Canyon 146' 13.6 114 pcf II 92% 3 6/23/89 North Canyon 148' 13.6 115 pcf II 93% 4 6/23/89 North Canyon 150' 11.1 112 pcf I 94X 5 6/26/89 North Canyon 150' 9.5 109 pcf I 92% 1 6 6/26/89 Lot 16 148' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 7 6/26/89 North Canyon 152' 11.1 115 pcf II 93% 8 6/26/89 North Canyon 154' 12.4 114 pcf II 92% 9 6/26/89 Lot 8 156' 11.1 115 pcf II 93% 16 6/26/89 Lot 16 150' 16.3 120 pcf II 97% 11 6/26/89 Lot 8 158' 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 12 6/26/89 Lot 16 158' 11.1 113 pcf II 91% 13 6/26/89 Lot 16 152' 14.9 114 pcf II 92% 14 6/27/89 Lot 16 160' 9.9 114 pcf II 92% 15 6/27/89 Lot 8 158' 12.4 118 pcf II 95% 16 6/27/89 Lot 18 132' 7.5 108 pcf I 91% 17 6/27/89 Lot 8 160' 8.7 111 pcf I 93% 18 6/28/89 Lot 19 129' 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 19 6/28/89 Lot 8 160' 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 20 6/28/89 Lot 18 135' 11.1 112 pcf II 90% 21 6/28/89 Lot 8 162' 9.9 112 pcf I 94% 22 6/28/89 Lot 19 137' 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 23 6/28/89 Lot 17 154' 12.4 113 pcf II 91% 24 6/28/89 Lot 19 131' 11.1 114 pcf II 92% 25 6/28/89 Lot 19 134' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 26 6/29/89 Lot 16 154' 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 27 6/29/89 Lot 8 164' 9.9 114 pcf I 96% 28 6/29/89 Lot 9 165' 11.1 113 pcf I 95% 29 6/29/89 Lot 19 136' 11.1 119 pcf II 96% 30 6/29/89 Lot 18 140' 11.1 113 pcf II 91% 31 6/29/89 Lot 17 156' 13.6 108 pcf I 91% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIa Compaction Test Results Elevation [�M�ur Field Soil Relative of Test Date Location Fill Density Type Compaction 32 6/29/89 Lot 8 167' 11.1 114 pcf I 96% 33 6/29/89 Lot 16 156' 11.1 119 pcf II 96% 34 6/29/89 Lot 18 147' 9.9 112 pcf I 94% 35 6/29/89 Lot 9 169' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 36 6/29/89 Lot 8 166' 12.4 113 pcf I 95.% 37 6/30/89 Lot 8 170' 12.4 113 pcf I 95% 38 6/30/89 Lot 8 172' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 39 6/30/89 Lot 16 158' 14.9 111 pcf II 90% 40 6/30/89 Lot 17 144' 12.9 115 pcf II 93% 41 6/30/89 Lot 6 174' 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 42 6/30/89 Lot 9 176' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 43 6/30/89 Lot 16 160' 9.9 117 pcf II 941. 44 6/30/89 Lot 17 146' 11.1 114 pcf II 92% 45 6/30/89 Lot 8 170' 9.9 113 pcf I 95% 46 7/5/89 Lot 8 172' 9.9 108 pcf I 91% 47 7/5/89 Lot 18 139' 8.1 111 pcf I 934 48 7/5/89 Lot 18 136' 7.5 107 pcf I 90% 49 7/5/89 Lot 8 174' 10.3 117 pcf I 98% 50 7/5/89 Lot 8 174' 9.9 112 pcf I 941. 51 7/5/89 Lot 8 176' 8.7 112 pcf I 9414 52 7/5/89 Lot 18 134' 10.3 109 pcf I 921. 53 7/5/89 Lot 19 120' 14.0 113 pcf I 95% 54 7/5/89 Lot 18 136' 9.3 107 pcf I 90% 55 7/6/89 Lot 8 178' 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 56 7/6/89 Lot 8 178' 9.3 107 pcf I 90% 57 7/6/89 Lot 9 179' 9.9 108 pcf III 93% 58 7/6/89 Lot 17 147' 4.7 110 pcf I 92% 59 7/6/89 Lot 16 161' 8.7 114 pcf I 961. 60 7/6/89 Lot 16 163' 9.3 112 pcf I 94% 61 7/6/89 Lot 8 181' 11.1 111 pcf I 931. 62 7/6/89 Lot 19 122' 9.3 105 pcf I 881. FAIL (see #63 CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIb Qi 6D Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill 0L Density Type Compaction 63 7/6/89 Retest #62 122' 9.9 113 pcf I 95% 64 1/6/89 Lot 17 148' 11.7 118 pcf I 991% 65 7/6/89 Lot 8 182' 11.1 113 pcf I 95% 66 7/6/89 Lot 8 182' 12.4 109 pcf I 92% 67 7/6/89 Lot 9 181' 11.7 112 pcf I 94% 68 7/6/89 Lot 19 125' 12.4 113 pcf II 91% 69 7/6/89 Lot 19 127' 4.7 103 pcf I 87% FAIL (see E7 70 7/6/89 Retest #69 127' 7.0 106 pcf I 89% FAIL (see X7 71 7/6/89 Retest #70 127' 8.7 111 pcf I 93% 72 7/6/89 Lot 19 137' 7.5 108 pcf I 91% 73 7/6/89 Lot 16 159' 7.5 110 pcf 1 921 14 7/6/89 Lot 16 162' 8.0 111 pcf I 93% 75 7/7/89 Lot 8 184' 8.7 110 pcf I 92% 76 7/1/89 Lot 8 186' 8.1 107 pcf I 901 77 7/7/89 Lot 16 150' 8.0 110 pcf I 92% 78 1/7/89 Lot 8 186' 8.7 116 pcf I 981 79 7/1/89 Lot 8 183' 9.9 107 pcf I 90% 80 7/7/89 Lot 9 179' 9.9 115 pcf I 97% 81 7/7/89 Lot 16 165' 9.3 109 pcf 1 92% 82 7/7/89 Lot 17 162' 6.8 107 pcf 1 901 83 7/7/89 Lot 17 158' 8.7 115 pcf I 97% 84 7/7/89 Lot 18 152' 6.4 111 pcf I 93% 85 7/10/89 Lot 9 182' 12.3 115 pcf 1 97% 86 7/10/89 Lot 8 184' 11.1 114 pcf I 96% 87 7/10/89 Lot 16 152' 12.4 114 pcf II 92% 88 7/10/89 Lot 8 188' 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 89 7/10/89 Lot 9 185' 11.1 111 pcf I 93% 90 7/10/89 Lot 18 145' 11.1 111 pcf I 93% 91 7/11/89 Lot 8 187' 8.7 108 pcf I 91% 92 7/11/89 Lot 8 190' 11.1 112 pcf II 90% 93 7/11/89 Lot 9 190' 12.4 111 pcf I 93% 94 7/11/89 Lot 8 192' 12.4 114 pcf I 96% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIc a��L7 UD Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill °/o Density Type Compaction 95 7/11/89 Lot 7 194' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 96 7/11/89 Lot 9 193' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 97 7/11/89 Lot 8 196' 11.1 116 pcf II 94% 98 7/11/89 Lot 8 195' 9.9 111 pcf I 93% 99 7/12/89 Lot 8 196' 7.5 109 pcf I 92% 100 7/12/89 Lot 9 195' 9.9 112 pcf I 94% 101 7/12/89 Lot 7 197' 9.9 112 pcf I 94% 102 7/12/89 Lot 8 197' 11.1 114 pcf 1 96% 103 7/12/89 Lot 8 197' 12.4 111 pcf I 93% 104 7/12/89 Lot 9 197' 11.1 113 pcf I 95% 105 7/12/89 Lot 9 196' 9.9 111 pcf I 93% 106 7/12/89 Lot 9 198' 9.9 106 pcf III 91% 107 7/12/89 Lot 8 198' 9.9 114 pcf I 96% 108 7/13/89 Lot 11 198' 13.6 116 pcf I 98% i 109 7/13/89 Lot 8 200' 4.2 104 pcf I 87% FAIL (see 8; t 110 7/13/89 Retest 8109 200' 12.4 113 pcf II 95% 111 7/13/89 Lot 9 200' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% 112 7/13/89 Lot 9 200' 13.6 112 pcf IV 93% 113 7/13/89 Lot 8 202' 12.4 105 pcf III 90% 114 7/13/89 Lot 9 202' 11.1 113 pcf I 95% 115 7/13/89 Lot 8 202' 12.4 111 pcf I 93% 116 7/14/89 Lot 10 203' 11.1 111 pcf I 93% 117 7/14/89 Lot 8 202' 13.6 114 pcf I 96% 118 7/14/89 Lot 9 204' 12.4 116 pcf IV 96% 119 7/14/89 Lot 9 204' 13.6 110 pcf IV 91% 120 7/14/89 Lot 8 204' 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% 121 7/17/89 Lot 2 120' 13.6 115 pcf IV 95% 122 7/17/89 Lot 8 206' 7.5 110 pcf I 92% 123 7/17/89 Lot 9 206' 9.9 112 pcf II 90% 124 1/17/89 Lot 2 122' 11.1 111 pcf III 95% 125 7/17/89 Lot 1 124' 11.1 109 pcf I 92% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IId Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill °/o Density Type Compaction 126 7/18/89 Lot 17 147 12.4 112 pcf IV 930. 127 7/18/89 Lot 16 154' 12.4 113 pcf IV 940. 128 7/18/89 Lot 16 157' 9.9 108 pcf I 910. 129 7/18/89 Lot 18 137 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 130 7/19/89 Lot 19 132' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% 131 7/19/89 Lot 16 158' 11.1 106 pcf 1II 91% 132 7/19/89 Lot 17 149' 12.4 118 pcf IV 980. 133 7/19/89 Lot 18 139' 12.4 114 pcf IV 95% i 134 7/19/89 Lot 17 151' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 135 7/19/89 Lot 19 134' 12.4 114 pcf IV 95% 136 7/20/89 Lot 1 123' 11.1 113 pcf IV 94% 137 7/20/89 Lot 19 135' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% 138 7/20/89 Lot 1 125' 8.7 108 pcf I 91% 139 7/20/89 Lot 16 160' 11.1 111 pcf I 93% 140 7/20/89 Lot 17 153' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% 141 7/20/89 Lot 18 141' 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 142 7/20/89 Lot 5' 152' 9.9 109 pcf IV 900. 143 7/24/89 Lot 16 162' 8.7 107 pcf I 90% 144 7/24/89 Lot 5 154' 9.9 107 pcf III 92% 145 7/24/89 Lot 16 164' 11.1• 112 pcf I 94% 146 7/24/89 Lot 5 156' 9.9 109 pcf 1 92% 147 7/24/89 Lot 16 166' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 148 7/25/89 Lot 18 143' 7.1 106 pcf III 91% 149 7/25/89 Lot 18 145' 9.9 111 pcf I 93% 150 7/25/89 Lot 4 156' 11.1 107 pcf I 90% 151 7/26/89 Lot 18 147' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 152 7/26/89 Lot 18 149' 11.1 114 pcf IV 950. 153 7/26/89 Lot 4 158' 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 154 7/26/89 Lot 5 158' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 155 7/26/89 Lot 5 160' 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 156 7/27/89 Lot 18 151' 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIe CEA(� dD i Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill % Density Type Compaction 157 7/27/89 Lot 17 156' 8.7 111 pcf IV 92% 158 7/27/89 Lot 17 158' 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 159 7/27/89 Lot 5 162' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% 160 7/27/89 Lot 5 165' 9.9 109 pcf IV 90% 161 7/27/89 Lot 5 167' 9.9 109 pcf IV 90% ? 162 7/27/89 Lot 5 169' 11.1 107 pcf I 90% I 163 7/28/89 Lot 5 171' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% 164 7/31/89 Lot 16 168' 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 165 7/31/89 Lot 17 160' 11.1 109 pcf I 92% 166 7/31/89 Lot 4 160' 12.4 114 pcf IV 950% 167 7/31/89 Lot 4 162' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 168 7/31189 Lot 5 174' 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% 169 7/31/89 Lot 5 176' 13.6 115 pcf IV 95% 170 7/31/89 Lot 5 178' 12.4 Ill pcf IV 92% 171 8/1/89 Lot 5 180' 11.1 109 pcf IV 90% 172 8/1/89 Lot 19 136' 11.1 114 pcf IV 95% 173 8/9/89 Lot 8 F.G. 9.9 118 pcf IV 98% 174 8/9/89 Lot 8 F.G. 8.7 110 pcf I 92% 175 8/9/89 Lot 9 F.G. 9.9 110 pcf IV 91% 176 8/9/89 Lot 9 F.G. 11.1 115 pcf IV 95% 177 8/14/89 Lot 7 F.G. 8.7 111 pcf I 93% 178 8/14/89 Lot 7 F.G. 7.5 109 pcf III 94% 179 8/14/89 Lot 6 F.G. 11.1 115 pcf IV 95% 180 8/14/89 Lot 5 F.G. 7.5 111 pcf I 93% 181 8/14/89 Lot 5 F.G. 9.9 116 pcf IV 96% 182 8/21/89 Lot 11 F.G. 7.5 114 pcf I 96% 183 8/21/89 Lot 11 F.G. 7.5 109 pcf I 92% 184 8/21/89 Lot 11 F.G. 7.0 109 pcf I 92% 185 8/22/89 Lot 8 - slope F.G. 5.3 105 pcf III 90% 186 8/22/89 Lot 9 - slope F.G. 5.3 105 pcf III 90% 187 8/23/89 Lot 10 F.G. 11.1 116 pcf IV 96% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIf �D � u Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soli Relative Test Date Location Fill a.." Density Type Compaction 126 7/18/89 Lot 17 147 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% I 127 7/18/89 Lot 16 154' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% 128 7/18/89 Lot 16 157' 9.9 108 pcf I 91% 129 7/18/89 Lot 18 137 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 130 7/19/89 Lot 19 132' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% 131 7/19/89 Lot 16 158' 11.1 106 pcf III 91% 132 7/19/89 Lot 17 149' 12.4 118 pcf IV 980. 133 7/19/89 Lot 18 139' 12.4 114 pcf IV 95% 134 7/19/89 Lot 17 151' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 135 7/19/89 Lot 19 134' 12.4 114 pcf IV 95% 136 7/20/89 Lot 1 123' 11.1 113 pcf IV 94% 137 7/20/89 Lot 19 135' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% 138 7/20/89 Lot 1 125' 8.7 108 pcf I 91% 139 7/20/89 Lot 16 160' 11.1 111 pcf I 93% 140 7/20/89 Lot 17 153' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% 141 7/20/89 Lot 18 141' 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 142 7/20/89 Lot 5 152' 9.9 109 pcf IV 90% 143 7/24/89 Lot 16 162' 8.7 107 pcf I 90% 144 7/24/89 Lot 5 154' 9.9 107 pcf III 92% 145 7/24/89 Lot 16 164' 11.11 112 pcf I 94% 146 7/24/89 Lot 5 156' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 147 7/24/89 Lot 16 166' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 148 7/25/89 Lot 18 143' 7.1 106 pcf III 91% 149 7/25/89 Lot 18 145' 9.9 111 pcf I 93% 150 7/25/89 Lot 4 156' 11.1 107 pcf I 90% 151 7/26/89 Lot 18 147' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 152 7/26/89 Lot 18 149' 11.1 114 pcf IV 95% 153 7/26/89 Lot 4 158' 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 154 7/26/89 Lot 5 158' 11.1 112 pcf I 94% 155 7/26189 Lot 5 160' 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 156 7/27/89 Lot 18 151' 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIe a(��(,� CD� u � Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill °'o Density Type Compaction 157 7/27/89 Lot 17 156' 8.7 111 pcf IV 92% 158 7/27/89 Lot 17 158' 8.7 109 pcf I 92% 159 7/27/89 Lot 5 162' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% 160 7/27/89 Lot 5 165' 9.9 109 pcf IV 90% 161 7/27/89 Lot 5 167' 9.9 109 pcf IV 90% 162 7/27/89 Lot 5 169' 11.1 107 pcf I 90% 163 7/28/89 Lot 5 171' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% 164 7/31/89 Lot 16 168' 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 165 7/31/89 Lot 17 160' 11.1 109 pcf I 92% 166 7/31/89 Lot 4 160' 12.4 114 pcf IV 95% 167 7/31/89 Lot 4 162' 9.9 109 pcf I 92% 168 7/31/89 Lot 5 174' 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% 169 7/31/89 Lot 5 176' 13.6 115 pcf IV 95% 170 7/31/89 Lot 5 178' 12.4 111 pcf IV 92% 171 8/1/89 Lot 5 180' 11.1 109 pcf IV 900b 172 8/1/89 Lot 19 136' 11.1 114 pcf IV 95% 173 8/9/89 Lot 8 F.G. 9.9 118 pcf IV 98% 174 8/9/89 Lot 8 F.G. 8.7 110 pcf I 92% 175 8/9/89 Lot 9 F.G. 9.9 110 pcf IV 91: 176 8/9/89 Lot 9 F.G. 11.1 115 pcf IV 95% 177 8/14/89 Lot 7 F.G. 8.7 111 pcf I 93% 178 8/14/89 Lot 7 F.G. 7.5 109 pcf III 94% 179 8/14/89 Lot 6 F.G. 11.1 115 pcf IV 95% 180 8/14/89 Lot 5 F.G. 7.5 111 pcf 1 93% 181 8/14/89 Lot 5 F.G. 9.9 116 pcf IV 96% 182 8/21/89 Lot 11 F.G. 7.5 114 pcf 1 96% 163 8/21/89 Lot 11 F.G. 7.5 109 pcf 1 92% 184 8/21/89 Lot 11 F.G. 7.0 109 pcf I 92% 185 8/22/89 Lot 8 - slope F.G. 5.3 105 pcf I11 90% 186 8/22/89 Lot 9 - slope F.G. 5.3 105 pcf 11I 90% 187 8/23/89 Lot 10 F.G. 11.1 116 pcf IV 96% CONTINUED Job No. 66-4824 Figure No, IIf a(��(� ap� � u � Compaction Test Results Elevation of Moisture Field Soll Relative Test Dale Location Fill °'o Density Type Compaction 187a 8/23/89 Lot 12 F.G. 6.4 116 pcf IV 96% 188 8/23/89 Lot 12 F.G. 8.7 112 pcf IV 93% 189 8/23/89 Lot 12 F.G. 7.5 120 pcf IV 99% 190 8/23/89 Lot 13 F.G. 7.0 114 pcf I 96% 191 8/23/89 Lot 13 F.G. 8.1 104 pcf IV 86% FAIL (see 192 8/23/89 Retest #191 F.G. 5.8 106 pcf IV 88% FAIL (see ! 193 8/23/89 Lot 13 F.G. 4.7 118 pcf II 95% 194 8/23/89 Lot 14 F.G. 7.0 111 pcf I 93% i 195 8/23/89 Lot 14 F.G. 7.0 117 pcf I 98% 196 8/23/89 Lot 14 F.G. 7.0 109 pcf I 92% 197 8/23/89 Lot 15 F.G. 7.5 118 pcf I 99% 198 8/23/89 Lot 15 F.G. 10.5 115 pcf I 97% 199 8/24/89 Lot 15 F.G. 11.1 115 pcf I 97% 200 8/24/89 Lot 17 F.G. 8.1 112 pcf IV 93% 201 8/24/89 Lot 17 F.G. 7.5 110 pcf I 92% 202 8/24/89 Lot 17 F.G. 5.3 109 pcf I 92% 203 8/24/89 Lot 17 F.G. 4.2 109 pcf I 92% 204 8/24/89 Lot 16 F.G. 5.8 104 pcf I 87% FAIL (see #. 205 8/24/89 Lot 16 F.G. 8.7 110 pcf I 92% 206 8/24/89 Lot 16 F.G. 5.8 110 pcf I 92% 207 8/24/89 Lot 16 F.G. 5.3 108 pcf I 91% 208 8/25/89 Retest #204 F.G. 7.0 100 pcf IV 83% FAIL 209 8/25/89 Retest 1192 F.G. 8.1 111 pcf IV 92% 210 8/25/89 Lot 4 F.G. 6.4 113 pcf IV 94% 211 8/25/89 Lot 4 F.G. 6.4 112 pcf IV 93% 212 8/25/89 Lot 16 - slope F.G. 11.1 117 pcf I 98% 213 8/25/89 Lot 18 - slope F.G. 11.1 110 pcf I 92% 214 8/25/89 Lot 4 F.G. 7.0 107 pcf I 90% 215 9/11/89 Lot 2/NW area F.G. 5.3 113 pcf I 95% 216 9/11/89 Lot 1/West area F.G. 3.1 109 pcf I 92% 217 9/11/89 Lot 1/North area F.G. 9.9 109 pcf I 92% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIg CE MO Compaction Test Results Elevation df Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill °jo Density Type Compaction 218 10/13/89 Garden View Court West side 4+20 S.G. 11.1 106 pcf III 91% 219 10/13/89 Garden View Court West side 8+05 S.G. 12.4 108 pcf II1 93% 220 10/13/89 Garden View Court East side 6+55 S.G. 11.1 106 pcf III 91% 221 10/13/89 Garden View Court East side 3+90 S.G. 9.9 106 pcf III 91% 222 10/26/89 Garden View Court entrance @ Garden View Road S.G. 14.9 114 pcf IV 95% 223 10/31/89 El Camino Real curb/gutter S.G. 14.9 115 pcf IV 95% 224 10/31/89 Entrance @ Garden View Court East Base 12.4 133 pcf VI 97% 225 10/31/89 Entrance @ Garden View Court West Base 13.6 131 pcf VI 96% 226 11/2/89 El Camino Real curb/gutter 54+00 S.G. 11.1 108 pcf I 91% 227 11/3/89 El Camino Real curb/gutter 56+25 S.G. 9.9 110 pcf I 92% 228 11/6/89 Garden View Court sidewalk 5+50 S.G. 9.9 111 pcf I 93% 229 11/6/89 Garden View Court sidewalk 8+25 S.G. 11.1 113 pcf V 93% 230 11/1/89 Garden View Court sidewalk 2+50 S.G. 12.4 117 pcf V 97% 231 11/7/89 Garden View Court sidewalk 5+40 S.G. 13.6 115 pcf III 99% 232 11/7/89 Garden View Court sidewalk 8+50 S.G. 11.1 116 pcf V 96% 233 11/8/89 Garden View Court sidewalk 8+40 S.G. 9.9 111 pcf III 95% 234 11/9/89 El Camino Real curb/gutter S.G. 7.5 106 pcf III 91% 235 11/14/89 El Camino Real widening 50+10 S.G. 12.4 119 pcf V 98% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIh a(� (� aD� �J LStJ 1 Compaction Test Results ? Elevation of Moisture Field Soil Relative t Test Date Location Fill °% Density Type Compaction 236 11/14/89 El Camino Real widening 52+40 S.G. 12.4 114 pcf I 96% 231 11/14/89 El Camino Real widening 55+85 S.G. 13.6 113 pcf I 95% 238 11/14/89 Garden View Court west radius S.G. 8.7 108 pcf I 91% 239 11/14/89 Garden View Court east radius S.G. 11.1 114 pcf V 94% 240 11/15/89 Garden View Court sidewalk lot 5/6 S.G. 9.9 111 pcf V 92% 241 11/15/89 Garden View Court sidewalk lot 718 S.G. 9.9 105 pcf III 90% 242 11/17/89 E1 Camino Real sidewalk 50+00 S.G. 8.7 106 pcf III 91% 243 11/17/89 El Camino Real sidewalk 52+65 S.G. 9.9 113 pcf V 93% 244 11/17/89 El Camino Real sidewalk 56+20 S.G. 8.7 107 pcf I 90% 245 11/27/89 El Camino Real sidewalk 46+00 S.G. 16.3 120 pcf II 97% 246 11/28/89 El Camino Real curb/gutter north S.G. 11.1 111 pcf V 92% 247 11/29/89 El Camino Real curb/gutter south S.G. 8.7 110 pcf I 92% 248 11/30/89 Waterline recompact area - north -3' 8.7 105 pcf III 90% 249 12/1/89 Garden View Ct. 3+00 Base 8.7 139 pcf VII 97% 250 12/1/89 Garden View Ct. 5+50 Base 5.8 137 pcf VII 95% 251 12/1/89 Garden View Ct. 8+30 Base 7.5 137 pcf VII 95% 252 12/13/89 El Camino Real sidewalk 54+25 S.G. 7.5 105 pcf III 90% 253 12/13/89 Lot 19/north center F.G. 8.7 109 pcf V 90% 254 12/13/89 Lot 19/southwest F.G. 11.1 112 pcf V 930% 255 12/13/89 Lot 19/southeast F.G. 11.1 116 pcf V 96% 256 12/13/89 El Camino Real widening 46+90 S.G. 12.4 120 pcf II 97% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIi a���o Compaction Test Results Elevation Of Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill •'o Density Type Compaction 257 12/20/89 Lot 18/north center F.G. 8.7 109 pcf III 94% 258 12/20/89 Lot 18/southwest F.G. 8.7 111 pcf IV 92% 259 12/20/89 Lot 18/southeast F.G. 9.9 115 pcf IV 95% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 ��� A� Figure No. IIJ CAM, i Compaction Test Results Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date FLocation Fill 0/0 Density Type [Compaction SEWER TEST RESULTS S1 7/20/89 E1 Camino Real 54+50 2' 13.6 110 pcf 1 92% 52 7/20/89 El Camino Real 53+20 4' 13.6 115 pcf IV 95% S3 7/20/89 El Camino Real 52+00 2' 11.1 105 pcf III 90% S4 7/20;89 Manhole N3 50+84 6' 14.9 113 pcf I 95% S5 7/25/89 Manhole k3 54+00 7'/FG 12.4 115 pcf IV 95% S5 7/25/89 Manhole N3 51+80 7'/FG 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% S7 8/4/89 Lot 6 lateral 5+62 2' 9.9 111 pcf I 93% S8 8/4/89 Lot 10 lateral 8+70 4' 12.4 113 pcf I 95% S9 8/4/89 Garden View Court sewer main 8+25 3' 11.1 114 pcf I 96% S10 8/7/89 Garden View Court sewer main 7+10 5' 9.9 113 p cf I 95% Sll 8/7/89 Garden View Court sewer main 5+70 4' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% S12 8/9/89 Garden View Court sewer main 4+65 3' 16.3 118 pcf IV 98% S13 8/9/89 Garden View Court sewer main 3+20 2' 12.4 112 pcf IV 93% S14 8/9/89 Garden View Court sewer main 1+55 4' 12.4 113 pcf IV 94% S15 8/23/89 Lot 17 lateral 3' 6.4 106 pcf I 89% FAIL (see S S16 8/23/89 Retest of 515 3' 7.5 108 pcf I 91% S17 8/23/89 Lateral to Lot 18 4' 12.4 119 pcf II 96% 518 8/24/89 Lateral to Lot 19 2' 12.4 120 pcf II 97% S19 8/29/89 El Camino Real 54+85 3' 11.1 120 pcf II 97% S20 8/29/89 El Camino Real 54+85 5' 11.1 113 pcf IV 94% S21 8/29/89 El Camino Real 54+85 7'/FG 11.1 117 pcf II 94% S22 8/30/89 El Camino Real 54+85 2' 13.6 120 pcf II 97% S23 8/30/89 El Camino Real 54+85 5' 13.6 119 pcf II 96% S24 8/30/89 El Camino Real 54+85 7'/FG 11.1 112 pcf I 94% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIk 4EA�0 Compaction Test Results Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill 0.10 Density Type Compaction l WATER MAIN TEST RESULTS W1 9/5/89 Garden View Court water main 8+10 2' 7.5 108 pcf II.I 93% W2 9/6/89 Lot 16 water lateral 3' 12.4 120 pcf y 99% i W3 9/6/89 Lot 17 water lateral 2' 8.7 106 pcf III 91% ij W4 9/7/89 Lot 18 water lateral 4' 8.7 106 pcf III 91% W5 9/7/89 Lot 19 water lateral 4' 9.9 110 pcf III 95% W6 9/11/89 Lot 9 water lateral 2' 13.6 110 pcf I 92% W7 9/11/89 Lot 8 water lateral 2' 13.6 110 pcf I 92% W8 9/12/89 Garden View Court water main 6+20 2' 16.3 121 pcf II 98% W9 9/14/89 Garden View Court water main 4+00 2' 11.1 111 pcf 1 93% W10 9/14/89 Garden View Court water main 2+50 2' 7.5 106 pcf III 91% W11 10/2/89 E1 Camino Real 16" watermain 50+00 2'/FG 11.1 114 pcf IV 95% W12 10/2/89 El Camino Real 16" watermain 52+60 2'/FG 13.6 109 pcf V 90% W13 10/9/89 E1 Camino Real 16" watermain 53+80 2'/FG 11.1 114 pcf V 94% W14 10/9/89 El Camino Real 16" watermain 56+30 2'/FG 8.7 107 pcf I 90% W15 12/11/89 Garden View Road 16" watermain 3' 12.4 114 pcf V 94% W16 12/11/89 Garden View Road 16" watermain Base 5.5 137 pcf VII 95% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. I I I a(,� ^(--�i ap� � u�J� Compaction Test Results Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location Fill °/o Density Type Compaction STORM DRAIN TEST RESULTS SDI 7/24/89 North of Lot 1 2' 13.6 115 pcf II 93% SD2 7/25/89 North of Lot 1 4'/FG 12.4 113 pcf II 91% SD3 7/25/89 West of Lot 1 2' 12.4 112 pcf I 94% SD4 7/25/89 West of Lot 1 4'/FG 11.1 113 pcf IV 94% S05 7/26/89 East of Lot 1/slope 2' 9.9 108 pcf I 91% SD6 7/27/89 East of Lot 1/slope 3'/FG 11.1 109 pcf I 92% S07 8/1/89 East Lot 1/inlet box 3' 11.1 113 pcf IV 94% SD8 8/15/89 Lot 4 lateral 3' 8.7 108 pcf I 91% SD9 8/15/89 Lot 15 lateral 4' 7.5 105 pcf III 90% SD10 8/21/89 Street connection in Garden View Road from Garden View Court 5' 9.9 109 pcf 1 92% SD11 9/5/89 East Lot 4/inlet box 2' 13.6 108 pcf I 91% S012 10/3/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 3' 11.1 107 pcf 1 90% SD13 10/3/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+DO 7'/FG 11.1 114 pcf I 96% SD14 10/4/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 2' 12.4 111 pcf I 93% SD15 10/4/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 4' 12.4 119 pcf V 98% SD16 10/4/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 7'/FG 11.1 117 pcf V 97% SD17 10/18/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 3' 12.4 117 pcf V 91% SD18 10/18/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 7'/FG 9.9 114 pcf I 96% SD19 10/19/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 2' 12.4 114 pcf V 94% SD20 10/19/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 4' 13.6 115 pcf V 95% SD21 10/19/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 7'/FG 13.6 116 pcf V 96% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIm r7N AD Iv�Uj Compaction Test Results Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test DaTL ocation Fill °o Density Type Compaction SD22 10/20/89 E1 Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 3' 13.6 117 pcf V 97% SD23 10/20/89 E1 Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 5' 11.1 104 pcf V 86% FAIL (see SD24 10/20/89 Retest #SD23 5' 12.4 114 pcf V 94% SD25 10/20/89 E1 Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 8'/FG 12.4 117 pcf V 97% SD26 10/24/89 E1 Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 3' 12.4 102 pcf III 88% FAIL (see i SD27 10/24/89 Retest #SD26 3' 13.6 123 pcf II 99% SD28 10/24/89 E1 Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 5'/FG 12.4 116 pcf V 96% SD29 10/25/89 E1 Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 2' 13.6 118 pcf II 95% SD30 10/25/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 5'/FG 12.4 113 pcf I 95% SD31 11/8/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 west box 5' 9.9 112 pcf II 90% SD32 11/15/89 El Camino Real crossing @ 56+00 S.G. 12.4 111 pcf III 95% CONTINUED Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIn a��� d0 Compaction Test Results 1 Depth Moisture Field Soil Relative Test Date Location FIII °o Density Type Compaction JOINT TRENCH BACKFILL JT1 10/9/89 Lateral to Lot 12 2'/FG 11.1 114 pcf I 96% JT2 10/9/89 Lateral to Lot 14 2'/FG 11.1 114 pcf I 96% JT3 10/12/89 Driveway - Lot 6 2'/FG 7.5 107 pcf I 90% JT4 10/12/89 Driveway - Lot 5 2'/FG 9.9 115 pcf IV 95% JT5 11/2/89 El Camino Real 51+50 2'/FG 13.6 108 pcf I 91% J16 11/2/89 E1 Camino Real 54+00 2'/FG 12.4 110 pcf I 92% JT7 11/8/89 Garden Vied Road Lot 3 to Lot 19 -2' 8.7 121 pcf II 98% JT8 12/19/89 Garden View Road @ Garden View Court -2' 12.4 116 pcf II 96% J19 12/19/89 Garden View Road Lot 3 to Lot 19 -2' 13.6 Ill pcf IV 92% SOIL CLASSIFICATION TYPE DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MOISTURE KAXIMUM DRY DENSITY I Yellow-tan, silty fine sand. 12.8% 119 pcf II Gray-tan, silty fine sand with some clay. 10.0% 124 pcf III Light gray-white, slightly silty fine sand. 14.0% 116 pcf IV Light brown, slightly silty sand. 12.8% 121 pcf V Tan, slightly silty sand. 11.8% 121 pcf VI Brown, fine to coarse sand with rock to 1 inch (Base). 6.2% 137 pcf VII Gray, fine to coarse crushed rock with rock to 1 inch (Base). 7.0% .144 pcf Job No. 86-4824 Figure No. IIo El o L A r 'ATORY ANALYSIS FOR PARTI [ SIZE DISTRIBUTION MECHANICAL ANALYSIS J 0 S NAME VI 1�_ Lj 2 el JOB NO. 11 OAT[ —L� � TESTED BY- ,� � LOCATION DEPTH WEIGHT OF MATERIAL USEt ,)-3 Xo SIEVE SIZE DAIS RETAIN OUS PASS TOTAL % NO.4 N0.119 3 =ty o I off d 35 � w0.110 NO.40 q 103 2 7 . N0.1 00 -7 1 'U 3 1 cl C� 10110.200 -7 < : oo PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE uS.C: "d ASTM D2487 SAND SILT *r CLAY Coors* M. WA Flat I I I I I I e i i I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I � I I � I i I I I 3 I i ► I t ► I I I I I 10 G 0.1 Diameter (mm)0.01 0 01 C 4 10 20 40 1 0 2 U.S. Standard Sieve Sl:a Brown, slightly silty fine to coarse sand -L Sand equivalent - 41 Job Hume- 86-4824 i LAS .(ATORY ANALYSIS FOR ' PARTv .E SIZE DISTRIBUTION MECHANICAL ANALYSIS JOB NAME Co — r Vi e– L�-) JOB NO. Ll Z `l DATE II/ ' X79 TESTED BV i2 W LOCATION DEPTH WEIUNT OF MATERIAL USIA 2 � ' SIEVE SIZE OMS A E T A I N OMS PASS TOTAL t 110.4 a / 2 � a o 535 1 0 5 9 3 NO.10 l y 2C. 0 3 12 S 0 u 010.it 0 11 -7 0 6 2 2 2 5 U N0.46 � { o d IG� NO.100 � � l0 Ca NO.100 � S' 1� S L7 0 G 6 < :Oo PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CU01VE US,C.& "d ASTU D24E7 SAND SILT or CLAY Coor" W41u^ F1ik• I I .� I I I I E I I I Ic I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I i I I 10 0.1 Dlametar (mm)0.01 0 01 t 4 10 20 40 I 0 2 U.S. Stan4ard Slave Six$ `41V `47 W Gray, fine to coarse crushed rock to 1" - BASE -� Sand equivolent - 33 Job Number 86-4824 FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES PROPOSED STRUCTURE CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (LOOSE OVERBURDEN SOIL IS IGNORED) b' . . . COMPACTED FILL SLOPE WITH ' MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT REINFORCEMENT OF FOUNDATIONS AND FLOOR SLABS FOLLOWING THE TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING MEASURED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE - — — — — FROM FINISH SOIL ARCHITECT OR STRUCTURAL SUB—GRADE ENGINEER — COMPACTED FILL CONCRETE FOUNDATION — — " — OUTER MOST FACE FOOTING — — 24" MINIMUM OR AS DEEP AS REQUIRED FOR LATERAL TYPICAL SECTION STABILITY (SHOWING PROPOSED FOUNDATION LOCATED WITHIN 5 FEET OF TOP OF SLOPE) 24" FOOTING / 5' SETBACK TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING 1.6 : 1.0 SLOPE 2.0 : 1.0 SLOPE 0 ui O 64" 64" o cc a LL 0 1 ' 67" 48" W N ZLL 2' 48" 42' Q 0 t- a N Q ?' 40' 36" 4' 2' 30' When OPPIIsmDI• FIGURE NUMBER JOE MUMMER 86-4824 I I D GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER H:+ZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 19 September 1989 Mr. Byron White Job No. 86-4824 c/o Mr. Steven Smith 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 616 San Diego, CA 92108 Subject: R-value Test Results and Preliminary Pavement Cross Section Recommendations ET Camino Real and Garden View Court Garden View Plaza, County of San Diego Tract No. 4255 El Camino Real and Garden View Road Encinitas, California Dear Mr. White: As requested, we have collected representative soil samples to perform R-value laboratory tests and recommend preliminary pavement cross sections . The soil samples were collected at the subject site on August 3, 1989 . A total of four bulk soil samples were retrieved from the subject site and R-value laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the California State Test Method 9301 . R-value Sample 9 Date Location Test Result 1 8/3/89 El Camino Real 83 Sta 53+85 2 8/3/89 El Camino Real 76 Sta 51+37 3 8 /13/89 Garden View Court 80 Sta 6+45 4 8/13/89 Garden View Court 79 Sta 3+50 '��� TR^nF STREET ^N DII-GO, CALIFOPNIA 92121 (619) 549-7222 t Garden View Plaza ,b No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 2 Based upon the laboratory test results, the conditions observed at the site, the assumed traffic Index as indicated per the City of Encinitas and County of San Diego, and our experience, the following cross sections are recommended for this project: Design Pavement Traffic Pavement Minimum Location Index Component Thickness El Camino 8 .5 Asphalt concrete 3 inches Rea I on on Class II base material 6 inches (crushed rock) Garden View 5 .0 Asphalt concrete 3 inches Court on on Class II base material 4 inches (crushed rock ) Per telephone conversations with the City of Encinitas EngIneerIng Department and the County of San Dieqo, a traffic index equal to 8 .5 (TI = 8 .5) is considered acceptable for El Camino Real , and a traffic inclex TI = 5 .0 for Garden View Court. Since these are public streets, the City of Encinitas and the County of San Diego will decide what final pavement cross sections are going to be used. It is recommended that the soil sub grade with1n the top 6 inches underneath the pavement section be properly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the laboratory Maximum Dry Density determined by the AS T M Test Method D1557 . The subgrade should also be proof-rolled to achieve a hard, unyielding surface prior to placement of the pavement section. The pavement materials should conform to the requirements set forth in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ( 1985) Edition, Section 200-2 .2 for Class 11 base materials and Section 203-6 for asphalt concrete. The County of San Diego requires that all County streets be graded as required per the Public Road Standards of the San Diego County Department of Public Works. Crushed rock base conforming with Section 200-2 .2 of Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (green book) Is recom- mended, as a minimum for use as the base course. This material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of laboratory Maximum Dry Density . The grading and quality requirements for the crushed aggregate base should be as follows : Garden View Plaza ,o No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 3 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL Sieve Size Percentage Passive Sieve 1 1 /2" ( 38 mm) 100 3/4" ( 19 mm) 90 - 100 3 /8" ( 10 mm) 50 - 80 No. 4 35 - 55 No. 30 10 - 30 No. 200 2 - 9 ASTM C 131 Test Grading QUALITY REQUIREMENTS Tests Test Method # Requirements R-value* Calif. 301 80 minimum Sand Equivalent Calif. 217 50 minimum Percentage Wear ASTM C 131 100 revolutions 15 maximum 500 revolutions 52 maximum Specific Gravity ASTM C 127 2 .58 minimum *R-value requirement may be waived, provided the material has an SE of 55 or more. To maintain satisfactory pavement performance, the pavement areas should be properly sloped and adequately drained to minimize saturation of the pavement subgrade. LIMITATIONS The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practice in the fields of soil mechanics and foundation engineering. This warranty Is In lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Garden View Plaza No. 86-4824 Encinitas, California Page 4 Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 86-4824 will help expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. --- �QRpfESslo J.,\ A CE Jaime A. Cerros, R.C .E. 34422/G .E . 2007 JAC/lp � No. 002007 I n * \ Exp. 9/30,191 / cc: City of Encinitas Engineering Department Ec Attn: Ted Shatty lF 0F County of San Diego Engineering Laboratory Attn: Mr. Rolland Fontanaro a��Q, 0 o Q p GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNIDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ENGINEERC'JG GEOLOGY 19 October 1989 Mr. Byron White Job No. 87-4824 C/o Stephen D . Smith SMITH, LEEN, KOHFRE, & ASSOCIATES 591 Camino de la Reina, Suite 616 San Diego, CA 92108 StIhiect: Soil Corrosivity Test Results Proposed Corrugated Metal Pipe Garden View Plaza Garden View Drive and El Camino Real Encinitas, California Dear %1r. White: This letter is to Inform you about the test results obtained in the corrosion tests performed on a soil sample collected at the subject site. The tests were performed to help choose the adequate pipe to connect a proposed pipe to a corrugated metal storm drain pipe , TEST RESULTS The test results were as follows: Ph 6.6 Chlorides 0.0120 Minimum Resistivity 2340 (ohm-cm) T he tests were performed in accordance with California 643-C test method. CONCLUSION Based on the above results, a 16 gage metal pipe would perforate after 22 years. A 10-gage pipe would perforate after 51 years. The County of San Diego, through Its Testing Laboratory for Construction Materials would provide a final decision, as to what type of corrugated metal pipe would be needed based on the water velocity and abrasiveness of the soil material In the pipe location. i ,� r An 2 If a reinforced concrete pipe Is used, then no County of San Diego authorization would be needed. LIMITATIONS The findings and conclusions presented herein have been obtained in accordance with generally accepted principals and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering. No warranty, either expressed or implied, Is made. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 87-4824 will expedite a response to your inquiry . Respectfully submitted, GEOTECIINICAL EXPLORATION, INC. ES,S/Q Ck Jaime A. Cerros, R.C .E . 3 + 122/G .E. 2007 � 00 , c i I � No. 0��2 �� i, Er.p. 9;30,'91 cc: Mr. Joe Goldhammer \ J' \0'0 Materials Engineer, 9J TFCF+N�-% San Diego County d� GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWA"ER t HAZARDOUS,MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 15 November 1989 Mr. Steve Smith Job No. 87-4824 591 Camino de la Relna, Suite 616 San Diego, CA 92108 Subject: Garden View Court Street Subgrade Preparation Garden View Plaza East of El Camino Real at Garden View Drive Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Smith: As per the request of Mr. Otis Swanson, superintendent of the project general contractor, we are issuing this letter to explain why we did not require scarification on the street before base materal was placed. Based on the observations of our field representative, the subgrade topsoils were observed to consist of fine dense sands with an adequate moisture content. Areas where minor amount of fill was added, in our opinion and based on our field observations, did not warrant scarification before the base was added due to the type of soil, density, and moisture content. LIMITATIONS The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practice in geotechnical engineering. No warranty, either expressed or Implied, is made. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 87-4824 will help expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. /RpFESS/O,y`� No. 002007 ") Jaime A. Cerros, R.C .E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Exp. 9/30`91 ::k' it JAC/pj J,* c�, ! cc: Mr. Otis Swanson CAS`• � !-� rI nl�!_n I�rlf ,Iln 07',71 /�lnl 17 n^ 777^ d GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMEPJT ENGINEERING GEOLOG- 21 September 1990 Mr. John O'Mally Job No. 86-4824 NORTHWEST GROUP 423 West Fallbrook Street, Suite 103 Fresno, CA 93711 Subject: Soil Density Test Garden View Plaza El Camino Real and Garden View Road Encinitas, California Dear Mr. O'Mally: Pursuant to your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. is hereby providing the results of a soil density test taken in an exploratory excavation of a pothole in El Camino Real. The pothole is located In a waterline trench, west of the northern subdivision boundary. The test location is shown on Figure No. I . A two-foot deep exploratory pit was excavated on September 5, 1990. The density of the soil at the bottom of the pit was tested in accordance with ASTM D-1556 . Additionally, the maximum dry density of the soil was determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The results are as follows: Maximum Dry Density : 123.0 pcf Optimum Moisture Content: 11 .2% Field Density : 93 pcf Moisture: 12.7% Relative Compaction : 751 Our records show that repair work had been done in this area due to a broken water pipe. Our representative took one test in the post-repair backfill on November 30, 1989 at a location approximately twenty feet non rcA n �TP�7FT • SnfJ f�IFr n ��,I I��R�dl�. �2A?� If,1nl 1,10 777? FAX (h1?1 -,i9 16n� _. 2 south of the recent exploratory pothole, and at a depth of 3 feet. This test (number 248) passed at 90'1�) relative compaction and 8 .7% moisture and was reported in our report of rough grading for- the entire subdivision. The entire repair backfill operation was not continuously observed by our representative and the reported test, as described in said report, represented the compaction of the soil as measured in that specific location at that time. LIMITATIONS -f he findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and pr-actice in the field of geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. is riot the project's reconstruction contractor or supervisor. As such, we cannot be held responsible for the quality of the contractor's work and/or materials, or technique of construction. No warranty is intended. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 86-4824 will help expedite our response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Timothy Shields, St G logist OQR�FESSiU/1. Jaime A. Cerros, R. C.E . 311422/G .E . 2007 TWS/JAC/Ib `` i CAM° to PAZ ST 0-7 - SEE 's TEST LOCATION 248 W 136'RCP. O • h, o$p .•. 9D• . 3 9 D 30 LSD-16 SD-2 SD-17 SD-2 b SD-18 SD-2 {./�237 EXIS S/�Ez T. yf •� nia��: ALL J - 2.16 ' r 63, ' o J� 5-20 • - 2 =33 cl 1 I f t } Stn^. } l ' •f r '�'�. .� .>,•. D GARDEN VIEW PLAZA SEPTEMBER 1990 �', 15 JOB NO. 86-4824 FIGURE NO. I � '1 4- I ' .. � :• - � 124 �.: r eotechnics Incorporated Principals: Anthony R Belfast Michael P.Imbriglio W.Lee Vanderhurst GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN CYPRESS ON THE RIDGE,LOTS 6 & 7 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA prepared for Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. 1060 Wiegand Street Olivenhain, CA 92024 by GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Project No. 0007-011-00 Document No. 02-0038 January 11, 2002 9245 Activity Rd.,Ste.103 • San Diego,California 92126 Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 Adlh• Geotechnics Incorporated Principals: Anthony E Belfast Michael P.Imbriglio W.Lee Vanderhurst January 11, 2002 Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. Project No. 0007-011-00 1060 Wiegand Street Document No. 02-0038 Olivenhain, CA 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce D. Wiegand SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN Cypress on the Ridge, Lots 6 & 7 Encinitas, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial development of Lots 6 and 7 of the Cypress on the Ridge business park located on Garden View Court in Encinitas,California. This report presents the results of our investigation and recommendations regarding earthwork construction and the design of foundations, on-grade slabs, retaining walls,and pavements. Based on the results of our investigation,the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are followed. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our professional services. If you have any questions or require additional services,please do not hesitate to contact us. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED 6— Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Principal Engineer Distribution: (6)Addressee, Mr. Bruce D. Wiegand 9245 Activity Rd.,Ste. 103 • San Diego,California 92126 Phone(858)536-1000 Fax(858)536-8311 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN CYPRESS ON THE RIDGE, LOTS 6 & 7 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.1 Torrey Sandstone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.2 Fill . 3 5.3 Groundwater and Seepage 4 6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4 6.1 Seismicity and Ground Motion 4 6.2 Ground Rupture 5 6.3 Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6.5 Landslides 5 6.6 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.1 Plan and Specification Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.2 Excavation and Grading Observation 7 8.3 Earthwork 7 8.3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.3:2 Improvement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g 8.3.3 Building Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.3.4 Temporary Excavations 9 8.3.5 Fill Compaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.3.6 Slopes 9 8.4 Surface Drainage . 11 8.5 Foundation Recommendations 11 8.5.1 Settlement Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.5.2 Lateral Load Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.5.3 Foundation Setbacks 12 8.5.4 Seismic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Geotechnics Incorporated GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN CYPRESS ON THE RIDGE, LOTS 6 & 7 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.6 On-Grade Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.6.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.6.2 Exterior Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.6.3 Reactive Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.7 Earth-Retaining Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.8 Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.8.1 Asphalt Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8.8.2 Portland Cement Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.9 Pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.9.1 Thrust Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.9.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8.9.3 Pipe Bedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 APPENDICES REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C SEISMIC DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D ILLUSTRATIONS SITE LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure I GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN (LOT 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2 GEOTECHNICAL SITE PLAN(LOT 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 3 FAULT LOCATION MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 4 TRANSITION DETAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5 SPECTRAL ACCELERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 6 SEISMIC LOADING CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 7 WALL DRAIN DETAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 8 REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table I Geotechnics Incorporated GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION DESIGN ON FOR FOUNDATION CYPR LOTS 6 & 7 ES C N EN O TAS,CAD CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION eotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial g This report presents the results of our g of our Cypress on the Ridge, Lots 6 and 7, in Encinitas, California. The purpose development of Cyp eotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the investigation was to evaluate the existing g regarding earthwork construction and construction, and to Provide recommendations reg avements. The conclusions and proposed walls, and p on-grade slabs, retaining testing, design of foundations, on-g exploration, laboratory g recommendations presented in this report are h based imilar feologiconditions in the site vicinity. r erience with similar g engineering analysis, and previous exp 2,0 SCOPE OF SERVICES general accordance with the provisions of our Proposal No This investigation was conducted in g eotechnical impacts to the proposed ndations,the following services were performed. 323 dated November 27,2001. In order to evaluate potentia g development,and to provide geotechnical recomme • Review of available published geologic maps,B eotechnical reports,topographic maps,aerial d other literature pertinent to the geotechnical conditions at the site. photographs, an Appendix A. Relevant references are presented in App s with ahollow-stem auger to depths of roughly exploration including 12 boring samples were • Subsurface exp grade. Relatively undisturbed, disturbed, and Appendix s P 25 feet below existing esting. The boring logs are presented in App collected for laboratory of selected Properties. Testing soil samples to characterize pertinent soil prop test • Laboratory testing direct shear and R-Value. The laboratory included gradation,expansion,soil chemistry, results are presented in Appendix C. potential geologic hazards and seismicity that may impact the site. The results • Evaluation of g endix D. of our seismic analyses are summarized in App potential, n analysis of the on-site soils with regards to sett . ent and expansion • Engineering y avement section design. bearing capacity, earth pressures, and p report summarizing our findings,conclusions, and recommendations. • Preparation of re P Geotechnics Incorporated Project No.0007-011-00 Document No.02-0038 g Bruce D. Wie and,Inc. Page 2 January 11,2002 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION west of the intersection of Mountain Vista Drive and Garden ccess is The subject site is located north Figure 1 he city of Encinitas, California,as shown on the Site Location of the site. Undeveloped Court m t Y k provided by. Garden View Court, which bordedrsouth.eThe western edge of the site contains a commercial lots border the site to 0.foot high, portion of an approximately 8 0 to 1 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope which descends to El Camino Real below• previously graded Cypress on the Ridge business park. Lot 6 The site includes Lots 6 and 7 of the p rises the northern half. Both lots are roughly comprises the southern half of the site,and Lot cormpo south). Building pad elevations for Lots 6 300 feet wide (east to west)and 340 feet long el 189 and 192 feet, and 198 and 201 feet above mean sea level, and 7 are between approximately el . An approximately 8 to 10 foot high 2:1 slope separates the lots. respectiv y the and the site and separate the two lots are well landscapedMost The existing slopes that sumo vegetation in the p building pad areas are covered with grass and weeds. Landscaping g ve etation such as trees and shrubs. The western slope contains c several n includes deep rooted woody g benches with concrete lined brow ditches to collect surface runoff.t of the site is shown in 5 foot wide ben approximate lay the pads is directed by sheet flow to the southeast. The app the Geotechnical Site Plans,Figures 2 and 3. 4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS that two office buildings will be Based on the referenced grading plans, it is our understanding The buildings ,2001). g e of each lot(Pasco Engineering constructed at the site,one on the western edg square feet. Development will will be two stories high,and will vary in area from 13,250 to 14,000 flatwork, as well a associated pavements and exterior s and several underground utilities. Minor g associated include construction of to create level building areas, grading will be necessary retaining walls will be constructed.The major retaining walls will consist of mechanically stabilize earth walls. It 1s our understanding that the proposed structureswill use tilt-up concrete construction with conventional slabs-on-grade. Geotechnics Incorporated LA Cub{ra i •9�`' y ST 31 " a , 36 i .. 4. LA C3$.r A 3t o� P c S 4` ..i. ` T S� r Sv�� rEr� l t- . ST t w 1 S u. :77- .44_ Sys .:.t ��.•1. r4..a- -^ o �ctia EER , R ;� ry��R {o- s •i {' {t L FS r Cps LF JkN --Gi7 Ztfi -•{, w �_'. nN,t `� .wu 7 " x !°M.M' r cr 1n.{I Z.' e� o C1�T4.a r i o n'E,ro °� � � � •.P,. 'r « = za � .,.: .G per... O. "' ��• u3 a CAMP j �ENP ✓ ti`f�. -3 zu elf f, * aL C r.rcrcra Q �F9 4tiy't} jaoN'Vs ^4 s.f' ��ts �4{�t a 1cy}ip x7 r$ — — C�'pJ _•.,.__�-•--f-._—_ bCP.,•,. l' .. JS .1.:+1 ,te x.. ..�' M .'�; �Q- °h.,,S�E' ♦,�. y x ` x � ;i � z. ,y�`,yr�ei>•� WT `��� y •Le .A �`VP q� c .tP'� 1 C-3 1,l LET 4 PX.nt LC!� Nt ° LGF r �3 A } ggRtc C!L'.R�L'.,?.�� �i n' EY .., J,.p, J �� L L�o.�.,. OP ll3' ` ,av3?['s-._.Et• y 2 ° 5 } c z kT` sx�a r t i d �' ti P� z:. ? aye C r a.- I n Lt t I ° y oe�e f s x t; ' {ri ;v q> ._ ' j ESC-t• t t r 0� , '3 CM ��- � ' t r ; — •t sS �1A.a t L" _. Bl VD [Vi NN�IN L,w; rz F� '! �'� Y��'1� scjrr JA �CZ � r•r; � Mllt�«A`�` • � utv,n.4 � �� 1 sn* I .- F?t ^� h��. LY.-,.`fit }�BfQ• S'k'i ACA "{++r3 t SiY �,0 y 'C.«w 4,`q fs dR z Ya j J4 toi �!cCF�'J't ?'PACR.f irrLLC4, OR ..}�, '' ,. __ i Y✓" l 71:7 t �3 5... � a; [I�t IA•k Ln s �' � �,� U,. 5 }J Y$$ � S R., .-- 1 C1R \ �' •� c6L71«•+c'.4 rw'� i Z� .:e Qp�' �s`r �n �#�y_S7 q? ,. -y {• p < ° 'I'"i qc E G I.sb�ti VALLEDA z F`�� :134 ✓ Ee4'.;r.r ,i _�_ .!.'--. 4-1v 16 a 7ZE.NA a c `_�`xQ}I..�n Si+Itw .. ..r•' 4 'F �r � __ -.. �rT} � FrR �L"'�I � _.� Yt$•.t � r �, a 1 z ._-- sC---�ir- c•t: '- t..R',r >_ E�r:"'ti.,t ,n "i. +''r YC s�j tc -• (�- y Tco y r x A rsu••.t. a % S '11A 'a a..i;.V1.:[ LY MftAtT).� C+u <sr w+x - $,z '� �t :t� YL , .. Ilxti::'r,•_H.-�.rr Cr�f 3• .Lr{ tv zr r a � . 0`- 1 l• y7Y f.al ry r•f.,4 „ •FIX s^! - �. .,a•� .t�. �, i.r' ;, - let ,y GA.E ROp ,e rG, A _t. Ps ..y'_E+ra£..lw: ? ,'pp_ �!1 _ i r •t s aw -_-... T _y 'TA � ttU'F4 ten. •pG SF� _ • '• cn -'- f•.453h �r� r P BLVOn. _ e,�r t ;Yl"i oR ENCINITAS i Fa t r - �• +1 41,5. r� .'ia��-i`��s..r. P? ? r O Stu y Ctq• CAXCREST c, U PARK nAi L T°p c0.IN O R TA Sv 3 2 {"��§,�y'nAt//s ..rr y•l�.��f,`,� c�^�.4s 8 s� :_ - 0.5 Miles rc aEST r r�'r• , yEE' 3 9ARtC 3 � Reference: Thomas Brothers Guide 2002. Project No. 0007-011-00 Document No. 02-0038 `G e o t e c h n i c S SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE Incorporated Rev.6J ee'at'Ml z unow poll.locbooui Scoo-zo 'ON juawnooa (910-1) NVId 311S lVOINHO3103J soiuuooloo0-•...•i► 00-6 W-L000 'oN IWO d n 0 wvMSO-^ ici IDICL 1_ _ b Q.0 b- 1 Z O f0 ; Q N O 0 CM cm o U x ui n !' 9c I h'3lMVld a a � 1 af3IM'ld --^l6 E, xe9Z ����c,I��{{ ����r$'ti � '� � p 1 M(c(��Q{ 7�]]Y��.j7 �;�y I• 1 1 , ,/ �b W W "' � to �} Q '?! `"t. \q•V,� \Q'\i,ti W I � n a y� I � a q I a 1e a I CDi ° 1 � I Ar ,9 a � s•e9 IL S E rl co \4v xtt t e A ® ® a Qi Ze c cm 3l tot 5-4 a W BE O 1W pt o 1L- ,. r m o �— ° -2 z I 8 W C/-) O N 6i > a I I a> Loz► E 0 h Q .. 0 M3LWYW C gNaslx3 L -' m C 3do]S ]dVOSONVI 1SIXI I � 89'Zl Ml polejodzoouI 8soo-zo 'oN luawnooa (L lo-l) NV-ld 311S 1VOINHO31O3J SMUT a1039 00- �0-L000 'oN 139foad POE 092 r' II C Q E ZHU! �.. w a .X Ilk �Q• U 0. o C v p,64) A.61 AlMU T'YL Owl i } + + t + b }i } F r + t ' } F tt + 15+ + + +}+t } + + + -4+ + + is + 3F I i JAB AL m ML 03 1i6'tOZ � a VIA FT lonj*vv 61 x0•I � m � t'^ � .�'' � y'�,, aI I µg gg 55``•�pppyy ' �� a �� ^ � � N I 1$. ML � �•�, 's'�°�'• `,P• ` orb, r N I c �o EI I a) +; � � s•jb� rn W N � r C (/) ° LU m O Ln O�c.fl lb I v C/-) v ►�7 cr) c) .c lei_.Cv ~ q!i r O rN = � i LL D 12 a I � I X R~ 1 -all mtr � A 8 C N 09t �� Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007, Document 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range California. The coastal plain generally consists of subdued landfo Geomorphic Proving sedimentary formations. As observed during the subsurface investigation,nns underlain ec ma underlain by the Eocene age Torrey Sandstone, covered with a variable det the subject sit Logs of the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings are Provided depth p compacted approximate boring locations are shown on the Geotechnical Site Plans G Generalized Appendix i B. of the materials encountered during this investigation follow. eralized descripti( 5.1 Torrev Sandstone Torrey Sandstone was encountered in all of the borings up to the maxis of 25 feet below existing grade. This formation is believed to underlies explored site , depth. As observed on site, this formation generally consists of a silt a the entire site Soil Classification Symbol -SM),that is fine grained,nonplastic,and Y sandstone ( o gra: in color.. The material is moist, very ellow brown to gra. ry dense, and is moderately cemented in some areas Laboratory testing and our previous experience indicates that the sandstone shear strength, a low expansion potential, and a negligible sulfate content. has a very high 5.2 Fill Compacted fill was encountered in exploratory Borings 7 though 12 excavated on Lot 7. Fill compaction was documented in the referenced' elotec which were (GEI, 1990). Fill depths ranged from 2 to 17 feet below the g hnlcal report appears to be derived from the underlying Torrey Sandstone. The fill generally des. The fill a fined grained, yellow brown silt sand SM . consists of dense to very ( ) The fill is nonplastic, moist and ry dense in consistency based on Standard Penetration Test' SPT odium Laboratory testing indicates that the fill has a very low ex ( ) data. sulfate content based on Uniform Building Code criteria.expansion potential and negligible Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.000 Document No. 5.3 Groundwater and See a e No seepage or groundwater was observed in our investigation. irrigation practices, or site drainage could produce seepage or locally perched changes in rai conditions within the soil or formational units underlying the site. y perched ground underlying contacts with less permeable materials, such as the con acts that exist bet, fill and sandstone. Since the prediction of the location of perched groundwater at exist bete is not possible, it is typically mitigated if and when it occurs. g dwater condil 6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject site is not located within an area previously known for si t Evidence of ancient landslides or active faulting on the site was not gnlficant geologic bazar geologic hazards at the site will enerall •be associated with strong ncountered. The anticipat generally events on regional active faults. g ground shaking during seism 6.1 Seismicit and Ground Motion According to the program TOM,the subject site is located at a latitude o and a longitude of 117.2609°west(Wildflower, 1997). The Fa f 33.06030 nort}; shows the locations of known active faults within a 100 ult Location Map,Figure 4 summarizes the properties of these faults. The values Presented adius of the site. Table 1 using the program EQFAULT and su n Table 1 were developed pporting documentation(Blake, 1998). The results of the seismic analyses are presented in Appendix D. In order to provide an estimate of the potential peak ground acceleration founded at the site may experience in time, the program that structures probabilistic anal sis of seismicit p gam FRISKSP was used perform a . y y The analysis was conducted using the characteristic earthquake distribution of Youngs and Coppersmith (1985). Based on th probabilistic analysis,the Upper Bound Earthquake for the site,defined as the results of the a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 100 year period,is 0.42 emotion having Earthquake is 0.31g (10 percent probability in 50 years). g' The Design Basis Geotechnics Incorporated ♦ JjFR \ Rq v 40 R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 LOS q f,CUCAMONGA FAULT ► ES SCALE(KM) �a RFC 0 F P? 4 ` J7•p INDIO ti ( V {oM �t� • SAN JUAN �0 Tom 1sp CAPISTRANO 'To 7 0 41 OCEANSIDE s ? p # <1 CON �� `• Q ;. '` t�• �4�,✓ i ram ]� k" s-1.,�: EL CENTRO % ' c� n>r � " t K i s DIECiIY • i 00�� 41 a n. . �.�— _USA — _ w MEXICALI TIJUANA MEXICO i♦ C#R O t `` , t °q 32 a � � fir G A Ai •ENSENADA 3 ' Q qtr e r s E r ��"4 •M.� .. ANCA f ACCT ZOpF ;0 tp Modified from Anderson, Rockwell,Agnew, 19 Geotechnics Incorporated FAULT LOCATION MAp D sect ocumeenn 0007-01 Dt No. 02-C FIGURI 1D raftinglCorelDrawlFault Rev. W N O p p pO O p O O p 0 0 LL �'- - O C"i to O v 00 WJ N .- M T- .- r M co N ._. O r- V c 0 W •- E (� + + + + + + �� rte- ems- r- �- r- 7 .� Q W W W W + + i + + + + + .— r- c" C y W �! C� M M (� M M O O p p O O O ca 'v W N b M M M M M M M M c�i Cl? M cri M W cu a co M C :a ° C L o Q m _° � 0 ~ N^ r r r �M-• T- T-- M M N N U a) O lui Q Q + + + + + + + + �- �- e- e' Y Y w. W f' V M p W W W W W W W + } '� + to j cn vi 0 � y r (D N ^ p O° O O p W LO W ~ 0 m N W LQL `- �i cM M CV e- T-- (D .- CA e- cII ti a U cu ui co U) � 3 Y w ca c m (1) W W c � ^ CK Z m rn W m LLJ V H O �- try cn p cn .`-� c v Q Z N N (p N N N O co N O r C ( O cu C m Q0 ~ ~ ^ ►� cu c N co 0 'O Q O N CO ?+ V c Q m c W t _ � W N N 0. Q O � CU zQ M ao C � 0 U g M N n cD LO _O LO r� v� 0 0 cu 0 E Q w a O ° ° O ° ° 0 0° o v ,E - W N -� m '� ccu m W O m •> .c U W 0 a 0) 0 � z ~ ^ N C .N = m Q ca NO Y co N N co c ^ co v In co et U O .Q N _ CD co OD O - E `z u) :. C OD I-- O O O c `O- O y T 0 0 C a .N � ., � N fII O Y O Y 0 U II Y -Y cu fII O a m 3 C (u N O m 0 M O 0 O O m N __� cU N _0 O U O a) � .« U C O 0 c cu �«- •.� o h cu � � E E tJ m o W ,v o o Q 0 m a v=, cca m w c c a) U) a� o M 0 '� v� o` n? c`ui 0 cn Q 0 o .E C: n .� U 3 N Y C L U) N a) N C -C O U O U Q y m Z c '�, W a� cu 0 .9 o m` m` cn c J m W L- c N U E c U Z v m - 'C U O F- 0 0 0 0 � w e ,o E c O O (emu O � cII C U CL a) > N cn ,,... 0 O Y U mo U U O C ? cu to 0 U)Z U m (YU a)E a)' Q U) cu a) M LL w -C c " N � � uico I I Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No. 6.2 Ground Rupture Ground rupture is the result ofmovement on an active fault reaching the surface. hazard is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Studies Zone, and no a id su active or potentially active faulting was found during our investigation. vi den( ground rupture is not considered to be a significant geologic eolo is h g on' Conseue� at the site. 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefiable soils consist of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to media saturated. These soils must be subjected to ground shaking of sufficient magnitude e'` duration. Given the very dense nature of the materials that underlie r of a groundwater table, the potential for liquefaction to occur is considered annegligible, 6.4 Lanes Evidence of deep seated landsliding oil the western sloe was investigation. Furthermore,the referenced geotechnical report ndicoate observed hat th e sit dt e sl a sl of should be stable with regard to deep seated failure (GEI, 1990). ope for deep seated landslides to adversely impact the site is considered low. H the potmog slopes are susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion given substantial However, fth slope face. Recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report t of the reduce the potential for future surficial slope failures. These recommendations c help irrigation control and landscape planting. Footings for the Proposed ns focus on founded deep enough to reduce the potential for distress p posed structures should be failure. Foundation setback recommendations are also proved ed in this creep or shallow s report. 6.5 Tsunamis Seiches Earth uake Induced Floodin Given the elevation of the site above sea level (about 200 feet), damage due to tsunamis (seismically induced ocean waves)is considered low. The site does not appear near any lakes or confined bodies of water. Consequently, the potential for earth Gated induced flooding due to seiches or dam failures is considered remote. quake Geotechnics Incorporated I , . Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this investigation,it is our opinion that the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and current bull is fea are followed. Geotechnical considerations for design and construction include efoll wing: the following. • The foundations for the proposed structure on Lot 7 will be underlain by a transition deep fill and shallow fill (or possibly formational materials). Transitions of this betty beneath foundations and slabs increase the potential for detrimental differential o nay and cracking. Consequently,we recommend that the shallow fill portion of the building move area for Lot 7 be over-excavated to a depth of 8 feet below proposed finish grade e Section 8.3.3). The over-excavated area should then be replaced as compacted de (, pacted fill. t • The western edge of the office building on Lot 7 is situated over e natural approximately 5 to 10 foot high mechanically stabilized earth wall is Proposed to slope. necessary pad area and a 10 foot slope setback for the structure. To reduce provide t? lateral movement of the wall and distress to the structure in a seismic event We porn n fi that the wall be designed for pseudo-static earthquake loads (see Section 8.5.4 ecomme • ' The area of the proposed structure on Lot 6 is currently sandstone. In order to create a level building pad, up to 1 feet of fill will needed.de T c create more uniform soil conditions, we recommend that the cut portion of the building Tc area on Lot 6 be cleared of deleterious materials ripped pad above optimum moisture content, and compacted (see eSecti n 8.3.3). of 12 inches, brought to • Evidence of deep seated slope instabilities was not observed during this investigation. existing slopes are believed to be stable with regard to deep seated failure. However, The slopes may be susceptible to surfcial slope failures and erosion. Therefore me ,the site be implemented in order to maintain the surficial stability of the site slopes(Section should P ( tion 8.3.6). • There are no known active faults at the site. Seismic hazards may be associate shaking from an event on the Rose Canyon fault zone. This h d With ground through seismic design in accordance with the applicable building odes Sebo mitigated ( n 8.5.4). Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding site Preparation rt construction,and the design of foundations,on-grade slabs,retaining wa s,and pavements. 1 ll ea h recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard °fpra in southern California. If these recommendations appear to not cover any specific f ea Project,please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recommendations, ture o; 8.1 Plan and Specification Re�;PU, We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Inco rpora prior to finalization to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendat' report. Significant changes in the locations ofthe proposed structures may require add't of geotechnical evaluation. 8.2 Excavation and Gradin Observation Foundation and grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Inco Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuous) during grading. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions differ from those anticipated by the investigation,to adjust designs to actual field conditions tns and to determine that grading is accomplished in general accordance with the intent o Ions report. Recommendations in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient fill testing during grading to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 8.3 Eart_ rk Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the grading ordinance City of Encinitas, Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations in this report. Recommendations are provided for specific aspects of the Proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during grading. g g tng. Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No.i 8.3.1 General: Site preparation should include the removal of deleterious mat( existing structures, or other improvements from areas to be subjected to f structural loads. Deleterious materials include vegetation,topsoil,trash co debris,and rock fragments with greatest dimensions in excess of 6 inches. Exi subsurface utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed and the t backflled and compacted as described in Section 8.3.5. • ren 8.3.2 Improvement Areas: After removal of deleterious materials in improvers areas(including pavements and flatwork), the exposed soils should be scarifies inches, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted t, least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with Section 8.3.5. 8.3.3 Building-AIM: In general, structures should not straddle cut/fill transiti( due to the potential for adverse differential movement. Typical transition conditic are shown in Figure 5. These conditions include pads with cut/fill transitio, transitions between shallow and deep fills, and pads underlain by deep fills p recommended site remediation is also summarized in Figure 5. For the cut/fill transition pad on Lot 6 that will be underlain by less than 3 feet of fi (Case 1 in Figure 5), we recommend that remedial work consist of scarifying an compacting the surficial 12 inches of formational material. For Lot 7 which contain a deep fill transition(Case 3 in Figure 5), we recommend that the cut or shallow fil portion of the pad be over-excavated to a depth of at least one-half of the deepest fil underlying the proposed structure. From the subsurface explorations, we estimate that the over-excavated area will be limited approximately to the southern third of the building pad area in Lot 7. We estimate that the maximum fill depth will be 16 feet on Lot 7 once the pad is cut to grade. Consequently,an 8 foot over-excavation depth is recommended. Note that the over-excavation should extend at least 5 feet horizontally beyond the proposed building envelope. The limits of the over- excavation should be determined by Geotechnics Incorporated based on the conditions observed during grading. The over-excavated area should be filled to grade with compacted materials as discussed in Section 8.3.5. Geotechnics Incorporated CASE 1.0 RIP 12 INCHES, FILL 3 FEET _ WATER, COMPACT (MAXIMUM) - FORMATION CASE 2.0 2% SLOPE —�- OVER-EXCAVATE T TO A DEPTH OF H/2(3 FEET ANSITION ) FILL H>3 FEET FORMATION ` ® CASE 3.0 2% SLOPE` H>3 FEET —i`-- OVER-EXCAVATE TRANSITION `- _ FILL TO A DEPTH OF H/2(3 FEET MINIMUM) -- FORMATION AN Geotechnics Incorporated TRANSITION DETAILS Project No. 0007-011 Document No. 02-01 FIGURE 1DraftingicorelDraMOverex Rev. Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.000 i Document No. 8.3.4 Temnorary Excavations: Temporary excavations should conform witl OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations in fill should be inclined no stee e, ` 1:1 for heights up to 10 feet. Temporary excavations in formation should P no steeper than'/:1 for heights up to 10 feet. Temporary excavations that enco seepage or other potentially adverse conditions should be evaluated b Ge Incorporated on a case-by-case basis during g radin . y otecl include shoring, or reducing slope inclinations. g Remedial measures 8.3.5 Fill Compaction: All fill and backfill to be placed in association with development should be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditi and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted prods The minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 erc density based on ASTM D1557-91, except as otherwise noted rin thlisare im Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporal so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Fill sources should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated Prior to importing the site. Selected samples of imported and site soils may be tested by Geot chnn to evaluate engineering properties. Imported fill soils should have an ex ` index of no more than 20 based on UBC Test Method 18-2 or ASTM D4829.D sio grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the geotechnical report may be encountered by the contractor. Geotechnics should be notified to eva uatt the suitability of these soils for use as fill and as finish grade soils. 8.3.6 Slopes: Grading of the site may involve the construction of variety of minor cut and fill slopes. We recommend that cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Fills over sloping ground should be constructed entirely on prepared bedrock. In areas where the sandstone surface slopes at more than a 5:1 gradient, it should be benched to produce a level area to receive the fill. Benches should be wide enough to provide complete coverage by the compaction a ui me during fill placement. q P nt Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No. 1 An approximately 80 to 100 foot high existing 2:1 slope descends from the wc edge of the site to El Camino Real. Stabilization of this slope was addressed i referenced as-graded report which indicates that this slope should be stable regard to deep seated failure (GEI, 1990). It should be noted that our investig, � g was not intended to provide the information necessary to completely reevaluate stability of the western slope. For a complete re-analysis, the entire height of slope would need to be drilled using a large diameter bucket auger drill rig, I down-hole logging by a registered geologist. However, we have conducte simplified analysis, assuming that there are no weak clay beds are present in slope,and that the strength obtained from samples within the upper 5 to 10 feet of Torrey Sandstone are applicable for the entire slope height. This simplified sh stability analysis indicates that this slope should be stable with re static failure with a factor of safety regard to deep seal y greater than 1.5,which is generally accepted i long term static stability. In addition,our analysis indicates that such a slope shoo have a safety factor greater than 1.1 given a pseudo-static load of 0.10g, which often considered acceptable for dynamic stability. Although deep seated slope failure is not believed to be a significant geologic hazar at the site, surficial slope stability and erosion may be a problem,particularly in th upper portions of the slope which will be composed of compacted fill. Su slope stability may be enhanced b rfcia be graded so that water from the surrounding areareas e Proper is not site drainage. The site shoudc of slopes. Diversion structures should be Provided where necessary.o flow over the toF should be confined to gunite-lined swales or other appropriate devices es to reduce the potential for erosion. Slopes should be planted with vegetation that will increase the surficial stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. Vegetation should include woody plants,along with ground cover. Plants should be adapted for ro h in semi-arid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape architect should consulted to develop a planting palate suitable for stabilization. be Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.000" Document No. 8.4 Surface Drainage Foundation and slab performance depends on how well runoff drains from true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The t round T around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away g su without ponding. We recommend that pavement and lawn areas withinf 5 feet of strut build slope away at gradients of at least 2 percent. Densely vegetated areas should have gradients of at least 5 percent away in the first 5 feet. Densely vegetated areas are co n Sidi those in which the planting type and spacing are such that the water flow is im peded. Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundati ' pavement areas. Roof drainage should be channeled b on, slab at least 10 feet from building lines. Site irrigation should t betlim drains, or dischar, necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation,surface wat rminimi waterline breaks,or unusually high rainfall occur,saturated zones or"Perch "" ntrusl< may develop in the underlying soils. p d groundwa� 8.5 Foundation Recommendations The foundation recommendations provided within this report are considered consistent with methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may bi available. They are only minimum criteria and should not be consider may b. or to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies orb considered a structural design The design of the foundation system should be performed by the Project the engineer incorporating the eotechnical Parameters p J structural engineer, g described herein and the requirements of applicable building codes. The following design parameters assume that the foundations for the Proposed buildings will consist of shallow spread footings bearing entirely either on compacted fi l or firm formational materials. They also assume that the subgrade materials will h expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less). ave a low Geotechnics Incorporated I Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January If,2002 Project No.0007 Document No. Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 lb/ft2. Allow a one-third increa short-term wind or seismic loads. Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches. Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent cnt soil gra Minimum Steel Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both the top and botto. continuous footings. 8.5.1 Settlement Considerations: Total settlement of the proposed structures fi the combined effects of hydrocompression and foundation loads is not ex ecte4 exceed one inch. Differential settlement across any of the structures is not exec to exceed three quarters of an inch. P 8.5.2 Lateral Load Resistance: Lateral loads against structures may be friction between the bottoms of footings and slabs and the supporting soil,as w resisted passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded in compacted fill or formational material. A coefficient of friction of 0.3,and a a pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth is recommended. P ssn 8.5.3 Foundation Setbacks: Foundation setbacks should be maintained for t western slope in order to reduce the potential for distress to the structures duet slope creep,erosion,or shallow slope failure. As a minimum,the foundations f proposed buildings (and retaining wall on Lot 7) should be setback from an th e descending slope at least 10 feet. The setback should be measured horizontally y f the outside bottom edge of the footing to the slope face. The horizontal setback an fro k be reduced by deepening the foundation to achieve the recommended setback distance projected from the footing bottom to the face of the slope. It should be recognized that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down-s o be movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement sensitive structures not be constructed within 5 feet of the slope tops without the use of a deepened footing along the outside erime ter. er. Concrete slabs and site walls at slope tops should have footings deep nou Provide a 5 foot slope setback using the criteria described above. gh to Geotechnics Incorporated I Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No.i 8.5.4 Seismic Parameters: The following 1997 UBC seismic parameters shot incorporated into the design of the proposed buildings. The subject site is sit in 1997 UBC Seismic Zone 4 (Z is equal to 0.40). The site is underlain by sh, compacted fills over sandstone to depths of 100 feet or more. In our opinion,a UBC seismic Soil Profile Sc would apply. The nearest known active the Rose Canyon Fault zone, which is located about 8Y,km from the s teal Thee I Canyon Fault is a Type B Seismic Source, based on the 1997 UBC criteria. The i source acceleration and velocity factors (Na and NO are equal to 1.00 and 1 respectively. The seismic coefficients Ca and C, equal 0.40 and 0.60, respective The resulting 1997 UBC design response spectra is presented in Figure 6. Design of the structures should comply with the requirements jurisdictions, building codes, and standard practices of the Association of Structu Engineers of California. Due to the close.proximity of the structure to the top oft 100 foot high cut and fill slope on Lot 7, we recommend that the proposed bl i retaining wall be designed to resist a nominal pseudo-static lateral load of 0.21 h force is equivalent to two-thirds of the estimated Design-Basis peak Q acceleration of 0.31g, which is believed to have approximate) a 10 prour probability of occurring within a 50 year period), y percer Seismic loads on the retaining wall should be modeled by the wall design en i using the pseudo-static Mononobe-Okabe relationship, as shown in Figure 7 nee g ; this analysis, an approximate pseudo-static load should be applied to the w all n F in addition to an active pressure approximated by a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 33 lb/ft2. The additional seismic load is assumed to have an inverted triangular pressure distribution,with the resultant acting at a height of 0.6 times the wall height. Using the design basis repeatable (multi-cyclic) g presented above, the additional seismic pressure would ground bel 9 acceleration of 0.21g lbs/ft3 (see Figure 7). Geotechnics Incorporated LO CL cNi CDI CD Go cs Cl 04 0 ci rn + + w u O U U u LL 11 LLO 11 v = LL = m LL c co c m O N z ; I CD o � v (V O to a� N US N W Y x > m E W r •- W w U) C _N 3 Q U U CD N Q O Q N N to N O + C p U a w a a C= c I 2 W E j U) C E Q U)LL. U U U) N L c a c Q > .2: N j > N N O 11 LIT i l g IN i ■ 1 G O .- \cN N O C:) N 0 O O N � 2 Y N i ' 2 N Le 1, LLO CAO N 1 y m C 5 Y 1 \ •�~y { r� LL N v v W V y a Q o " o W .o .o m cvz o ai ca m rn m w c a c o c Q O la— cn ° Q ° m =-- LL m co c a " U o o > r - � � m � cn � = > Q LL Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.000' Document No. 8.6 On-Grade Slabs Building slabs should be supported by either compacted fill or formational so' should be designed for the anticipated loading. If an elastic design is used, a modul subgrade reaction of 200 lb/in'may be used. Building slabs should be at least 5%Z incl thickness and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on center, Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural eneac nee g 8.6.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs: Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultima cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from contin capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Because nor concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Exce moisture may cause mildewed carpets,lifting or discoloration of floor tiles,or sim. problems. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to d moisture protection measures should be used where moisture 1fl coverings or other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection in southern California consists of about 2 4 inches of clean sand or gravel covered by"visqueen"plastic sheeting. In additio. 2 inches of clean sand or gravel are placed over the plastic to decrease concrel curing problems associated with placing concrete directly on an impermeabl membrane. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit fror. approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. This ma, be excessive for some applications,particularly for sheet vinyl,wood flooring,vin tiles,or carpeting with impermeable backings that use water soluble adhesives. The project architect should review the moisture requirements of the proposed flooring system and incorporate an appropriate level ofmoisture protection as part ofthe floor covering design. This may include waterproofing the slab. 8.6.2 Exterior Slabs: Exterior slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and may be reinforced with 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric. Crack control joints should be used on all exterior slabs, with a maximum spacing of 5-foot centers each way for sidewalks, and 10-foot centers each way for slabs. Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No. 8.6.3 Reactive Soils: In order to aid in evaluating the corrosion potential metal improvements, selected samples were tested for pH and resistivity in r e accordance with CTM 643 (see Figure C-3). Based on the test result g soils appear to be corrosive to ferrous metals. s, the consultant sho ul contacted to provide specific corrosion control recommendations. In order to assess the sulfate exposure of concrete in contact with the site samples were tested for water soluble sulfate and chloride contents. The test res are also reported in Figure C-3. Based on these test results, the site soils appea have a negligible potential for sulfate attack. However,it should be noted that sul content may increase in time due to the presence of soluble sulfate in the irrigat water supply,or the use of fertilizers. The project design engineer may choose to i the sulfate test results in conjunction with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC in or to specify a suitable cement type,water cement ratio strength for concrete used on site which will be in direct contact oil, with soil, all foundations and slabs. Studies have shown that the use of improved meat it the concrete,and a low water-cement ratio will improve the resistance of the oncr to sulfate exposure. e 8.7 Earth-Retainin Structures Backfilling retaining walls with expansive soil can increase lateral pressures well thine normal active or at-rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be backflled wi having an expansion index of 20 or less. The on-site soils generally meet this h soil s criteria. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Backfll should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate structural strength. HeavHea compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls should not be used, y It has been our experience that retaining walls frequently develop high moisture backfill due to heavy irrigation. This may lead to efflorescence on the wall face o Rhin the Of stucco finishes. To decrease the effects resulting from such problems, walls should be moisture-proofed on the positive side in addition to having a backdrain. hould be Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. lanuarY 11,2002 Project No.000' Document No. Cantilever retaining walls may be designed for an active earth pressure approximated equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/ft3. The active pressure should be used for walls yield 1 percent of the wall height. For restrained walls, or walls with 2:1 f an equivalent fluid pressure of 551bs/ft3 should be used. These pressures do not con hydrostatic forces or surcharge loads which will increase the lateral pressures Walls should contain a subdrain to alleviate hydrostatic pressures. Wall drain de ai provided in the attached Figure 8. tail Mechanically stabilized earth walls constructed with granular soil with a low expansion may be designed using a friction angle of 32 degrees,and zero cohesion. T Potential may be assumed to have a moist unit weight of 1201bs/ft3. These values apply both retained soil and the soil in the reinforced zone. ,Wall hfootings should Y minimum of 18 inches below lowest,adjacent soil grade. The wall footing embedde may may dimensioned using an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 IbS/ft3. setback from descending slopes a minimum of-10 feet measured h rizont ll should bottom outside edge of the footing to the slope face. ally from t 8.8 Pavements Alternative recommendations are provided below for the use of either asphalt co Portland cement concrete pavements. Immediate) ncrete c pavement subgrade should be scarified, brought to about optimum Pang, the upper 12 inches o compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by AST M DI, ant D1557 8.8.1 Astihalt Concrete: For planning purposes,preliminary provided based on R-Value laboratory test results on a selected soil lsam le collected a �e during our subsurface explorations (see Figures C-5.1 through C-5.6 Ultimate ed pavement design should be based on R-value test results from samples ) Ultimate subgrade soils in pavement areas. Four traffic indices were Provided for the finished of asphalt concrete pavements. The project civil engineer should choose a traffic n index that is appropriate for the various proposed pavement areas. Based on the laboratory R-Value of 32 and the assumed Traffic Indices, the following avem sections would be indicated using the Caltrans design method (Topic 608.4 ent Geotechnics Incorporated DAMP-PROOFING C PROOFING AS REQ ROCK AND FABRIC ALTERNATIVE COMPAGTED•' a BACKFILL' MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC • o (MIRAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NR OR W APPROVED SIMILAR) o: At ' oe • ° og0 4-INCH DIAM. PVC PERFORATED PIPE o• ° DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED GEOCOMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN 1. PANEL DRAIN ALTERNATIVE CC�APACfED. '. BACKFa LL- 1 CU. FT. PER LINEAR FOOT OF MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED = WEEP-HOLE ROCK ENVELOPED IN = ALTERNATIVE FILTER FABRIC / Ar 4-INCH DIAM. PVC PIPE NOTES 1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and c Pipe should have a fall of at least I%. 2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep-holes may be constructed. Weep-hole should be at least 2 inches in diameter, spaced no greater than 8 feet, and be located just abo ve grade at the bottom of wall. p 1 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches. 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-15, or approved similar product. 5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling. Geotechnics I Project No.n c o rp o r a t e d WALL DRAIN DETAILS Document No. 02. FIGUF 1Drafting\Core1DrawJWa11dm R Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.000, . Document No. TRAFFIC INDEX ASPHALT CONCRETE --- AGGREGATE BA! 4.5 3 inches 4 inches 5.0 3 inches 5 inches 6.0 4 inches 6 inches 7.0 4 inches 9 inches Asphalt concrete should conform to the Section 400-4 of the Standard for Public Works Construction(SSPWC), Aggregate Specificat 200-2 of the SSPWC for crushed aggregate or base should conform to Sec Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent fmaxicellaneous b. as determined b ASTM D1557. mum d'-y den, y Asphalt concrete should be compacted to percent relative compaction based on the Hveem density. 8.8.2 Portland Cement Concrete: Concrete pavement design was perform accordance with the simplified design procedure ofthe Portland Cement Associ to This method is based on a 20-year design life. For design, it was assumed th aggregate interlock joints will be used for load transfer across control joints. TI Portland cement concrete was assumed to have a minimum 28-day flexural stren 1 of 600 psi. The subgrade soils are assumed to provide"medium"subgrade suppor Based on these assumptions, we recommend that the pavement section consist of I inches of Portland cement concrete over native soils. Concentrated truck t affi areas, such as trash truck aprons and loading dock areas, should be reinforced witl at least number 4 bars on 24-inch centers, each way. 8.9 Pipelines It is our understanding that the proposed development will include a variety ofpipelines such as storm drains and sewers. Geotechnical aspects of pipeline design include ateral earth Pressures for thrust blocks, modulus of soil reaction, and pipe bedding. Each of these parameters is discussed separately below. Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D.Wiegand,Inc. January If,2002 Project No.0007 Document No.1 8.9.1 Thrust Blocks: Lateral resistance for thrust blocks may be determined passive pressure value of 400 lbs/ft2 for every foot of embedment, assum; triangular pressure distribution. This value may be used for thrust blocks embe in either compacted fill or formational materials. 8.9.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction: The modulus of soil reaction (E') is use characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed along the sides of buried flex pipelines. For the purpose of evaluating deflection due to the load associated i trench backfill over the pipe,a value of 1,500 lbs/in2 is recommended for the gen site conditions, assuming granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the pij 8.9.3 Pine Beddin : Typical pipe bedding as specified in the Standt Specifications for Public Works Construction may be used. As a minimum, recommend that pipes be supported on at least 4 inches of granular bedding mater such as minus 3/4-inch crushed rock or disintegrated granite. Where pipeline trench excavation inclinations exceed 15 percent, we do not recommend that op graded rock be used for pipe bedding or backfill because of the potential for pipir and internal erosion of the overlying backfill. For sloping utilities, we recommer a coarse sand bedding with a sand equivalent value greater than 30. Alternativel, a sand-cement slurry can be used for the bedding and in the pipe zone. The slurr should consist of at least a 2-sack mix having a slump no greater than 5 inches. If th sand-cement slurry is used for the pipe bedding and as backfill to at least 1 foot ove the top of the pipe,cut-offwalls may not be necessary. This recommendation shoulc be evaluated by the project civil engineer designing the pipe system. 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, similar circumstances,by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar l c under No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional o nionsie- cluded in this report. pinions in Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. January 11,2002 Project No.0007 Document No.1 The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative project site. However, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between explorations. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotech consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of representative,to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brou 1 the attention of the design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans, and necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors c p d arty out such recommendations in the fie. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natt processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of know Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated by changes outside our control. Ted; j fore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a,period of three h. years. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED De Matthew A. Fagan, P.E.u37248 . `= x'72<1 z 1 •_ ' 1 Project Engineer Exp. 3� o ' - James C. Sanders, R.G. 7242 f,,,t _ Project Geologist Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Principal Engineer ROFESS� W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125 �oN,t F � 9�`i Principal Geologist �FtED F 5 W e:rC040333 - m � VANDE L `0 Cr. Exp:3_'��'a.3 a No.1125 1 CERTIFIED C/V1%. �!# ENGINEERING =rFCF CALIF cP� GEOLOGIST 9�F Z-31-�i ���Q otechnics Incorporated p APPENDIX A REFERENCES Abrahamson, Lee, Sharma, and Boyce (1996). Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods, 1. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 627 p. American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Annual Book ofASTIJStandards, Sect: Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (1); Volume 04.09 Soil a Geosynthetics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1624 p., 1228 p nd Rock Anderson,J. G. , Rockwell, T. K.,Agnew, D. C. (1989). Past and Possible Future Earth uak Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2. pp 299-335. Blake,T.F. (1998). EQFAULT,EQSEARCH,and FRISKSP:Programs for the Estimation of I Horizontal Acceleration From Southern California Historical Earthquakes. Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.: New York, McGraw Hill 117 California Department of Conservation(1992). Fault Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972: CalifornatDi Hazard Zones in California,Alqu Publication 42. on of Mines and Geology,Spec California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology (1998). Maps of Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. O1 Geotechnics Incorporated(2001). Proposal for GeotechnicalInvestigation, Lots 6 and 7 of Garden View Plaza, Encinitas, Cypress on the California, Proposal No. 1-323, Docume, No. 1-1340, dated November 27. Geotechnical Exploration Incorporated(1987). Report ofGeotechnicalInvestigation, Garden V Plaza- Units No. I and No. 2, El Camino Real and Garden View Road, County ofSan Diee1 (Tentative Map) Tract 4255, Lots 1- 7, Encinitas, California,Job No.86-4824,February Geotechnical Exploration Incorporated (1990). Final Report of Rough Grading Observation Field Density Testing, Utility, Drainage, and Street Improvement Testing, Garden Vieu Plaza, County Tract No. 4255, Northeast and Southeast of the Intersection of El Camino Real and Garden View Court, Encinitas, California,Job No. 86-4824, January 18. Idriss, I. M. (1993). Procedures for Selecting Earthquake Ground Motions at Institute of Standards and Technology GCR 93-625, March, 35 pp Rock Sites,National Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES (Continued) International Conference of Building Officials (1997). 1997 Uniform Building Code. Jennings, C. W. (1975). Fault Map of California: California Division of Mines and Gee California Geologic Data Map Series. Pasco Engineering(2001). Grading Plans for Cypress on the Ridge,Plan Sheets 1 through 4 Southern California Earthquake Center(1999). Recommended Procedures for Implementati( DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefac Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 60 p. Trieman,J.A. (1984). The Rose Canyon Fault Zone--A Review and Analysis: California Divi: of Mines and Geology unpublished report, 106 p. Wildflower Productions (1997). TOPO! Interactive Maps on CD-ROM San D' Wilderness, and Anza Borrego Desert Area, San Francisco. sego, San Jaci Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard i Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B12, p. 12587_12631. n Calrforni Youngs, R.R. and Coppersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of Fault Slip Rates and Earth qua RecurrenceModelstoProbabilisticSeismicHazardEstimates,BulletinoftheSeismol Seismologic Society of America, vol. 75,no. 4,pp. 939-964. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field explorations consisted of drilling 12 exploratory borings with a truck-mounted h stem auger drill rig. The borings were 8 inches in diameter,and were drilled to a maximum c of 25 feet below the existing grade. The approximate boring locations are shown on Geotechnical Site Plans Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presente the following Figures B 1 through B-12. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected from the borings using a modified Califo (CAL)sampler. The CAL sampler is a ring-lined tube with an inside diameter of 2.375 inches an outside diameter of 3 inches. The ring samples were sealed in plastic bags, placed in a ri plastic containers, labeled,and returned to the.laboratory for testing. In addition to obtaining samples, standard penetration testing (SPT) was also performed. The SPT sampler is a split t with an inside diameter of 1.375 inches and an outside diameter of 2 inches. The hammer us a drive the CAL and SPT samplers weighed 140 pounds, with a free fall of 30 inches. The nu 1 of blows needed to drive the CAL and SPT samplers 12 inches is shown on the logs. For very soil samples,a maximum of 50 blows was generally used,and the number of inches the sampler w driven with 50 blows was recorded in parentheses. Bulk samples were also collected from aug cuttings at selected intervals. Bulk samples are indicated on he boring logs with shading, where Standard Pen samples are indicated with vertical lines, and modified California samples horizontal lines. p �,i Boring locations were determined by pacing and taping relative to surface improvements or monuments shown on the topographic map prepared b the othe Engineering, 2001). The lines designating the interface between soil units on he boring logs(Pasc( determined by interpolation and are therefore approximations. The transition between the ma eriaal! may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions at locations between the borings may e material! substantially different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be recognized that passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs. the Geotechnics Incorporated LOG Logged by JCS OF EXPLORATION BORING Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2; W w J e Elevation: 1911 LL W d W x o. N 0) 0- > i DESCRIPTION LAB o 1 TORREY AND TO (Tt►: Yellow gray silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, nonplastic,moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. Gradati 2 Sulfate Chloride 3 (6„) light gray silty sandst Seno SM),fine grained,nonplastic,moist,very ned se —pH&Re Moderately cemented. Expansi 4 5 50 Same. Contains a 2 6 (6") moist,very hard. -inch thick layer of gray fat claystone(CH),high plasticity, 7 8 9 10 50 11 (5„) Gradation 12 13 Yellow brown clayey sandstone fine grained,low plasticity,moist, 14 very dense,moderately cemented. 65 Light gray I s I 11111, 65 (SM),fine grained,non lastic,moist,ve 16 (8^) Moderately cemented. p ry dense. 17 TOTAL DEPTH=16 FEET 18 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: RE. 6 1 ... ...... . LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 2 Logged by JCS Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2; w I. w J \ Elevation: 1901i LL W a s w cr w ' uj z DESCRIPTION LAB m m O 1 TORREY SANDS Yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, nonplast,c,moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. 2 50 3 (6") 4 5 90 Dark yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained,nonplastic,moist, Direct Sh 7 very dense,moderately cemented. 8 Gray silty sandstone(SM),fine grained,nonplestic,moist,very dense. 10 Moderately cemented. 50 11 (s^) 12 TOTAL DEPTH=11 FEET 13 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 000 -011.00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-2 Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 3 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2, W W Elevation: 191'/ W � aa Lu ae a a a uJ a CL " z DESCRIPTION o m Q m o o LAB 1 �BREXANDSTONFa(Ttl: Yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, non plastic,moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. 2 5 Gray silty sandstone SM,fine grained,nonplastic,moist,ve de _ 3 (5) Moderately cemented. ) ry nse. 4 5 6 88 Same. 7 8 9 10 50 Same. 11 (6") 12 13 14 50 Same. 15 (6") 16 TOTAL DEPTH=15 FEET 17 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: _ B3 ........ .... . ... Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 4 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2' w U. J J o Elevation: 1901) W a a CL o > _j z rn DESCRIPTION ° in o m' c LAB c 1 TORREY SANptrnue rT.�. Yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, nonplastic,moist,very dense. Moderately Cemented. 2 R-Value 88 3 (8") 4 5 50 6 (6") 7 TOTAL DEPTH=6 FEET 8 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12127/01 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-4 .. ...... .. ..... Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 5 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/27 w LL J J o Elevation: 192 F 0.LL W a uj a " > J o DESCRIPTION LAB ° m o m o r 1 TORREy aeNn TOp � ��: yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, nonplastic, moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. 2 50 3 (6") 4 5 75 Same. 6 7 8 9 10 11 85 Same. 12 13 14 15 50 Same. 16 (6^) 17 TOTAL DEPTH=16 FEET 18 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: _ B5 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 6 Logged by JCS Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2' w LL J W LL o Elevation: 19111 J u- W a' m 0. a a > J „� DESCRIPTION 0 0 w O LAB m O to p 1 TORREY SANDCTn — Yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, nonpfastic,moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. 2 3 4 5 50 Same. 6 (6") 7 8 9 10 50 Same. 11 (5") 12 TOTAL DEPTH= 11 FEET 13 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO.0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-6 i LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 7 Logged by JCS Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2 w U.w J a Elevation: 200 LL W a s w a a a i a 3 > J z DESCRIPTION c 0 w o LAE 1 F1LL: Yellow brown silty sand(SM),fine grained,nonplastic,moist,dense. ra a 2 Sulfate Chlorid 3 TORREY SANncrn�� pH 8 R LIST: Yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, Expans nonplastic,moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. 4 5 50 6 (6") 7 TOTAL DEPTH=6 FEET 8 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-0o GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: RE. B 7 Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 8 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/271 Elevation: 200 FI w � a. a ou 0 Lu a J CL Lu ii _� DESCRIPTION 0 0 M w a LAB1 m IE O m a 1 E!LL: Yellow brown silty sand(SM),fine grained, nonplastic,moist,dense. 2 27 3 4 5 TORREY SANDSTOr�F rrn. Gray silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, 50 moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. nonplastic, 6 (4") 7 8 9 10 11 85 Same. , 12 13 14 15 50 Same. 16 (6") 17, TOTAL DEPTH=16 FEET 18 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT N0.0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-8 Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 9 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/27 Elevation: 201 F w LL a Gj v O a w f a W = rn U a 3 > � DESCRIPTION Q it w g LAB 1 1 FJ,L: Yellow brown silty sand(SM),fine grained, nonpla;tic,moist,medium dense to dense. — 2 26 3 4 5 39 Sample contains layers of dark brown silty sand ISM),fine grained, low plasticity,moist,dense. Possible topsoil inclusions. 6 53 7 8 9 10 11 TORREv seNDSTON /Ttt: Gray silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. nonplastic, 12 13 14 15 50 Same. 16 (6") 17 TOTAL DEPTH=16 FEET 18 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO.0007-011.00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: BA Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 10 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/21 Elevation: 201'/• w w U a w d w U. a a IL o > J _� DESCRIPTION LAB c 1 E14L: Yellow brown silty sand(SM),fine to dense. grained, nonplastic,moist,medium dense 2 3 4 5 46 Same. 6 Gradatio 7 Direct St 8 9 10 11 56 Same. 12 13 14 15 16 70 Same. 17 18 TORREY SANDSTON /Ttl: Gray silty sandstone(SM),fine grained,nonplastic, moist,very dense. Moderately cemented. 19 20 50 21 (6") 22 23 24 50 Same. 25 (5") 26 TOTAL DEPTH=25 FEET 27 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011.00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B_1 Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 11 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER Date: 12/2' _ Elevation: 201 1 w � J aJ LL a a a Quj: = rn m N a 3 > DESCRIPTION 0 o o LAB m o m o 1 ELL: Yellow brown silty sand(SM),fine grained,nonplastic,moist,medium dense Ito dense. 2 3 4 5 6 66 Same. 7 8 9 10 11 75 Same. 12 13 14 TOReNDSTON fTt1: Yellow brown silty sandstone(SM),fine grained, nonplastic,moist,very dense. Moderately cemented with red groundwater stains. 15 50 16 (6') 1.7 18 19 20 50 Same. 21 (6^) 22 TOTAL DEPTH=21 FEET 23 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-1 Logged by JCS LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 12 Method of Drilling 8 INCH HOLLOW STEM FLIGHT AUGER a Date: 12/2; uj Elevation: 2001 LU a v o U. W a a o: a CL 3 > J r _y DESCRIPTION LAB o JO a w O 1 FILL: Yellow brown silty sand(SM),fin to dee nse. e grained,nonplastic,moist,medium dense 2 3 4 5 6 85 Same. 7 8 24BSEY SANDSTONE rT►�: Gray silty sandstone(SM),fine grained,nonplastic, 9 moist,very dense. Moderately cemented with red groundwater stains. 10 50 11 (6") 12 TOTAL DEPTH=11 FEET 13 NO GROUNDWATER OR CAVING BACKFILLED 12/27/01 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007-011-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B_1 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Selected samples of soils encountered during the investigation were tested using generally acc testing standards. Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level o: and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently,practicing under si. conditions and in the same locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as t correctness or serviceability of the test results or the conclusions derived from these tests. VA a specific laboratory test method has been referenced, such as ASTM or Caltrans, the refer applies only to the specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test meth( or practices, and the test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document fol performance of the test and not as a"Test Standard." A brief description of the tests follows: Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification Sys as established by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Visual classification was supplemer by laboratory testing of selected soil samples and classification in general accordance with laboratory soil classification tests outlined in ASTM test method D 2487. The r classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. esultant , Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed on selected samples in gene accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test method D422. The results Provided in Figures C-1.1 through C-1.5. EIRAR9 n Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was estimated in general accordan, with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM test method D 4829. Figure C-2 provides tl results of the tests. nH and Resistivity: To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metal pipe and below grad ferrous materials,selected soil samples were tested for PH and resistivity in general accordance wit. procedures outlined in Caltrans test method 643. The results are shown on Figure C-3. Sulfate Content: To assess the potential for reactivity with below grade concrete, selected soi. samples were tested for water soluble sulfate content. The water soluble sulfate was extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio(as well as other dilution ratios with the test results normalized to a 10:1 dilution ratio). The extracted solution was then tested for water soluble sulfate in general accordance with ASTM D516. The test results are also presented in Figure C-3. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING(Continued) Chloride Content: Selected soil samples were tested for water-soluble chloride content using Test Method SMEWW 4500 CLC. The results are also shown in Figure C-3. Direct Shear: The shear strength of a selected soil sample was assessed through direct shear to performed in general accordance with the laboratory procedures outlined in ASTM D3080. results are summarized in Figures C-4.1 and C-4.2. R_Value: R-Value tests were performed on a selected subgrade sample in general accordance• California Test Method 301. The results are presented in Figures C-5.1 through C-5.6. Geotechnics Incorporated r- 0 0 C5 l/1 _H W m U ? O J U a a Cl- g a_ 0 O cl Z } J U S I I O I � � � I m _ m W (D # LL cn c > _ N W 65 Z O C O F- Z Q O C7 ¢ v z m (D LL }N 0 5 j w V cn J Z # 0 F o a w W U) ti U cr # O m C U U 0 U A •,-, o �r- w u� z � m o M V J W �. W < D U 0 w 0 w O co c w a w v Q y O H O 0 ppp � �O O p p O O O efi ch N •, 44610M Aq jaui_q We:) ad I I O 0 0 y I ~ 0 O U J � Q (L CO J C. r O O 0 Z } Q � U N r CD I O V I I m p I U) N # I UL it � I C N W # co Z C O co `m o F 0 c C7 a a co co co co Q _J # y 0 c a W W U) LL U co # O O C U co CO W z o v LL m M V J w o +' LU CO > � < O w c7 z o V) W J _ a w a W i� O N a Q U) O N O O O p O O O O O) c0 r� co Lc) O M N O O ;y6�aM Aq jauld;uaaJad r- 0 0 0 tl) F- J ►- F- X ix ag a a g IL O O Z } Q F-; U N CN c I m N o w z tf m N p N Z 65 N C O m W O P W C7 ¢ v a m cD N U Cd 65 z; LU U J Z # O lO F o a w W H(0) U G C O r W iA Z v �7 li m O U W Z J O NZ j U w C9 w O r� J Q w a v I 2 CO a Q � O w O o O O O O O Cl)LO It N .- 146iaM Aq jaui�lua:)Jad 0 0 0 N F- J F- ►- W J J � m O U LU to L a g J U Q a I CL r- O O O Z } Q � U 0 N ft r g O a N CO it _m ~ _J mc co C W SS N I Z S LL D C ZQ l _N N p Z w fn � C O p o C7 Q v O co C LL fQ f0 N O C6 ES f/J Ir C.) a _J Z Go O O N P O a W W a: N u. U cr- Z W O O U 20 � O w flC-Lj,LLUJ_Z a a W 0 N Q a ih O 2 N Q Q y O y O O rn co 00 O O O p 0 .- v ch N .- 146iaM Aq Maui j;uaDJad i O O O F- I I I M w 0 w J U a w N J a. 1 - o a Z } � s � U N 0 0 N I # - r i N I (D I I I I E _ z I N 11 05 C N I m _N O � Z � C O C7 ¢ V Q m co y 0) c J j w U V5 J Z vOi F o a U) U. U z W O O U G bo M •P O w C N _Z LL w p Q 2 Q O cr w U) w O Th a uwj a w a o N Q 0 0 O 00 ^O cc to 10, M O O O N .- 14BOOM Aq jauid;ua3Jad IL- EXPANSION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4829) Sample Description =Expa BI @ 0' - 5' TORREY SANDSTONE: Yellow gray silty sandstone(SM) 1 B7 @ 0' - 5' FILL: Yellow brown fine grained silty sand(SM) C UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 0-20 Very low 21-50 Low 51-90 Medium 91-130 High Above 130 Very high ��G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-C Incorporated Laboratory Test Results Document No. 02 Figur i SOIL CHEMISTRY TEST RESULTS Sample Chloride Sulfate PH Resistivity [%) [%] [OHM-CM) Bl 0' - 4' <0.01 <0.01 7.7 1,190 B7 @0' - 5' <0.01 <0.01 8.0 4,820 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CORROSIVITY RESISTIVITY [OHM-CM] CORROSIVITY TO FERROUS META 0 to 1,000 Very Corrosive 1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive 2,000 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive 5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive Greater than 10,000 Slightly Corrosive UBC TABLE NO. 19-A-4, CLASSIFICATION OF SULFATE EXPOSURE r OLUBLE SULFATE [%) REACTIVITY WITH CONCRETE over 2.00 % Very Severely Reactive 2.00 % to 0.2 % Severely Reactive 0.20 %to 0.10 % Moderately Reactive 0.10 %to 0.00% Negligible ��Geotechnics Project No. 0007- I n co r p or at e d Laboratory Test Results Document No. 0 Figu N 6000 a. 5000 ■ -T- -- i ■ — _ � 4000 ----- -/------ /�--- - ----- -- _ _ 3000 - �■ ► ��----- - ■f r -/2000 /■■rWo� 11111-0-0—m- 13 o © °°D � oc O.®_ao■■ 1000 l -- S_ 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 STRAIN [%] 6000 ---_---------_ _-- ♦ ULTIMATE SHEAR: o PEAK SHEAR: 5000 --ULTIMATE SHEAR PEAK SHEAR - ---- 4000 ---_ CL N co W W 3000 -- -- -- ca - - - a i I / N 2000 —- - 1000 0 _11 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: 62 @ 5'-5%' --___-- ---_----_-_ PEAK ULTIMATE TORRFY SAND =(SM) 48 0 Yellow brown silty sandston 33 ° C. 0 PSF 0 PSF STRAIN RATE: 0.0200 IN/MIN IN-SITU AS-TESTED (Sample was consolidated and drained) w 107.3 PCF 107.3 PCF 9.1 /° 21.0 Ak6- �G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 00077, Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-C FIGURE C ' { co LL ui 2000 F- 1500 -0-13-0-M aCt 13-G 0-0130'013001300130 1301 1000 13 C1 E3 13 2-0 now Lu STRAIN * ULTIMATE SHEAR: 3500 0 PEAK SHEAR: —ULTIMATE SHEAR cp 2500 CL co It 2000 T 1500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [psF1 SAMPLE: B10 @ 5'-5Y,' PEAK ULTIMATE Yellow brown silty sandstone"t.Rui 380 280 (sm) E�=O PSF 0 PSF STRAIN RATE: 0.2000 IN/MIN IN-SITU AS-TESTED (Sample was consolidated and drained) Yd 1=96.9 PCF 96.9 �PCF L24.5 M=Mbb.% Project No. 0007-01 Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-C FIGURE C SAMPLE NO.: B4 SAMPLE DATE: 12/27/01 SAMPLE LOCATION: 0'-5' - SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Yellow brown fine silty sand (SM) TEST DATE: 1/9/02 LABORATORY TEST DATA TEST SPECIMEN 1 2 3 4 5 A COMPACTOR PRESSURE 50 80 135 B INITIAL MOISTURE 4.2 4.2 4.2 C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT 1030 1030 1030 D WATER ADDED 115 105 90 E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) 11.6 10.6 9.1 F COMPACTION MOISTURE(B+E) 15.8 14.8 13.3 G MOLD WEIGHT 2114.6 2117.4 2121.9 H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT 3258.7 3248.8 3240.8 1 NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT(H-G) 1144.1 1131.4 1118.9 J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT 2. 2.62 57 K DRY DENSITY(30.3'1/((100+F)*J)) 2.65 2.65 i 162 1157 L EXUDATION LOAD 2060 3059 5074 'M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54) 164 244 405 N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 53 41 24 O STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS 114 89 46 P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI 5.80 5.62 5.07 Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER 15 26 55 R CORRECTED R-VALUE(See Fig. 14) 16 28 56 S EXPANSION DIAL READING 0.0006 0.0013 0.0034 T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S-43,300) 26 56 147 U COVER BY STABILOMETER 0.70 0.60 0.37 V COVER BY EXPANSION 0.20 0.43 1.13 TRAFFIC INDEX: 4 5 GRAVEL FACTOR: 1 72 UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER[PCF]: 130 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 37 R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 32 R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 32 'Note: Gravel factor estimated from pavement section in general accordance with CTM 301, Section C, Part t "IM16, ,G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007-01 Incorporated RNALUE TEST RESULTS Document No. 02-1 FIGURE C i C. anlen_a O O ^ 10 t°A N O O ' o i C) N j � I i M o CL j M i U) I j U) j ! ° a �* c i I j ° w � I > c°e p p j n j Cl co C. I i O I O I ' I xQ W ° J2 1 j ^ H I U) i i o Y U H 0 d O C) O i I j 1 CL p ° ; p G N N C, O LL�I Jalewoll4e3S A4 SSaU31314l nano: I ,'Traffic Index: 4.5 -. .. . _ • .® 100M ON Ma \\\\ \\ \\�\ ,\•\ \\\ \\\\\\\\ \ \ \\\\ \ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\A,N \\\ Q\\\` \\\ \\\\\, \\\\\\\\ \\\\\: \�\\V� �Av v.>.-.�.�v.,y�A\\ v,, A \..\\\ \\ \ ,y\ v\yyyy�y,\yyy,vy\.A\vyvvy \yy\ ..y\VA\\\\\\ v \..�\,A";v \ vv�. v, \.,A\ .;� A. \��y v\\\� v \\ \A " \V A \ vv \ v \\\\\\\\ ; o \\\\\\\f\ \' \\\\\\\\ \v\�\ \\ \ . , : y. A\ 00 \\ \\ \\. A\ v\v vo.v..Av A v \,, . A \\ \ A .�\. \\\ \\ \\ M 01 \\\\` Q\\t,3-\\\" \\\\ �\\ \\\\\\ v \ WITHOUT SUBwA—sE • . , PAVEMENTSECTI / (WITHOUT / . 0.20 / .. GE (A.B.j— 0.35 [ft] inches asphalt concn / c over RM \\\\\\ \\ \ \\\\; •\\\\ \ \\\\ \\O\ \\\\�\� \\ \V MEMEN \\ \\\ \A Qy ..� \\ \ \\\\ \\ Geotechnics PAVEMENT SECTION DESI Project No. 0007-011 \\ Document No. 02-41. FIGURE C-5 Traffic Index.- 1 Gf 1 • . ; • 1 \\\Q\ \ \ \\\ \ \ '\\��\ \\ \\\ \\ Q\ \\\ \ \ \\.\,\\�\ \\\ \ \\\ \\\\\\ ff 0 E\11\ \\\ \ \\ 11\00: N \\\\\o \\\\\\\\\\ \\ \\\\\\\ \\ \�\ ME � \\\ �\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\\\\ \ \ \ o�\�\\\ \ \ \\\\\\\ $:,� \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \\\\\\ WITHOUT• • PAVEMENTSECT GE • 1• I (WITHOUT 1 I .• asphalt • 1 over 0.46 GE • I9 IM NM \' \�\\\\\\ \ \\\�\\�\\Q�\�\��\ \\\Q\Q\\\ \\`, \ \\ \ \ INEM11111 \\ \ ZU Project No. 0007-011 Geotechnics PAVEMENT SECTION ncorporated FIGURE C-� index: WME .. • 1 (A'S.'): / mas N 101 gw mm" ���\\\� \\\\\\\\\\\\\e \\\ \ \ \V\\ \\.\` \\\ \\\\\\\\�:`\\\\\\ \\ \\ \\\` \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ \ \ \ M \\ v.� �. A�A.A\:y���`� \ �A\\\\ \v\\\\ A \���A\�\\ •A� �\. \ �\\� \ AA\ �A A \V� \ \\ V\\A\\\vA \vAv�v A �_� \\V v\\y�� \V \ � vy \\�y \ \\ \ V\>�wyyv \ \ vvy AV A \�\y�y`v y�Ay, yw\\y v \�\\ \V\`\ v vv y yA\\\\ y \vvv y� A v y �, v y v WN \\\\\\ \\\\� ` \�\ \ \\ \\ \ A\\\ \ y. A\\ v \vvv\\\\, AV\\\ �\ \\V\ A \\.A.::A. A \ ,A � \ � \V V� A��\ V\w�\\\\�\V \\\V�\ �V�\� vvw �� V. A \V�\ v� \ Vv��,, A. vv A �\ \�\ AC V AAyA`� A\ �. A\�' ..�\ VV\V\y\ �w y � \v \V\� A�\ \y\`� �\ \ \ v. �yvOy v V����Aw �`v� \\\ � V v �, A\\` v\ \ �AVV\\�CAV�� �\\`.A�J\�\V`VAV \�\A• \\\�\�\ A\ \�\\ \ NA \\\\\\v\\\ WITHOUT SUBBASE • • GE (Total): ft] PAVEMENTSECI / (WITHOUT 0.62 / • / asphalt inches - • - . INEffiffill \\M� \X N nll I NNEEMEMENN', IN RTA ol MEN, \ mal \ \ Project • 0007-0 Geotechnics PAVEMENT SECTION Incorporated Document No. 02 it FIGURE C. -. • .. ' • 1 Traffic Index: 7.0 \\\\� \\\\\\\�\\\ �\\\uswmww Ng M 0 NEW \;\\ \v N \ \AVVA RM \;�\\ \,\ \ 221\0 :\� \\\\ \\\\Z�\\\\ \\\ \` \,\ \ \ \\ \\..\ \ \ \\\\ \.\\\\\ \ ���\ \ \\V M\\V \vA�AA\\v`\vA y�v Z\\\\\\\ \�\\\\\, \.\\\\\\ \\C\\\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \C \\\\ : \: : w\, \_ \\\ \ \\\\ \ \ \\ \� \�\\ \��\\\V\ WITHOUT SUBBASE Calculations: RECOMME—NDm. \\\\\\\\\\\ \ / .. 0.81 [-ftj inches asphalt over • - aggregate \�\��\��� \\. \\ \ \ \ \ p;\ \\�\\�\\\\\�\ \�\ \\\\�, \\�\\ \\ ,\, \\O \\\ N MW 1 Project • 111 Incorporated • • Document • 02-D FIGURE C-� APPENDIX D SEISMIC DATA Seismic analysis was conducted for the subject site in order to develop parameters for struc design. This appendix presents the raw data from our analysis from two commercially avai computer programs, EQFAULT and FRISKSP (Blake, 1998). Both analyses used the ; published attenuation relationship for rock sites (Idriss, 1994). EQFAULT: The program EQFAULT was used to estimate the nearest distance between the and the active faults, and to develop the deterministic peak ground accelerations in Table 1. FRISKSP: The program FRISKSP was used perform a probabilistic analysis of seismicity at subject site based on the characteristic earthquake distribution of Youngs and Coppersmith(19 The probabilistic analysis was used to define the Upper Bound and Design Basis Earthquakes at site for use in structural design. The graphs do not incorporate Magnitude Weighting Factors. Geotechnics Incorporated DATE: Thursday, January 10, 2002 * E Q F A U L T * Ver. 2.20 (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. JOB NUMBER: 0007-011-00 JOB NAME: Cypress on the Hill, Lots 6 & 7 SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.0603 N LONGITUDE: 117.2609 W SEARCH RADIUS: 62 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 17) Idriss (1994) Horiz. - Rock/Stiff Soil UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma) : M SCOND: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File) : A ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT MAX. PROBABLE EVEP I ------- _ ___ APPROX. _ _ ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAX. PEAK SITE PEAK SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) CRED. SITE INTENS MAX-PROB. SITE TINTED MAG. ACC. g MM MAG. ACC. gl R4 CASA -------------- ---- _ __ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- ---- L----CLARK (-------- -- ( 80) 7.00 0.049 VI 7,00 0.049 VI -------------- --------- _ CATALINA ESCARPMENT ---- ------ 40 { 65) 7.00 0.065 VI 6.10 0.029 V --------------- ----- ------ ------ ----- CHINO ------ ----- 53 ( 86) 7.00 0.055 VI 5.40 0.010 III --------------- _ _ _ _ --------- ----- ------ COMPTON-LOS ALAMITOS 53 85) 7.20 0.153 VIII 5.80 0.042 VI -------------------------- { --------- ----- ------ ------ ----- ------ ----- -_ ( --------- ----- ------ RONADO BANK-AGUA BLANCA 20 33) 7.50 0.180 VIII 6.70 0.117 VII ------------------- __ __ _ _ COYOTE CREEK (San Jacinto) 51 ( 82) 7.00 0.048 VI 6.10 0 020 IV --------------- --------- ----- ------ ------ '---- ------ -----• ELSINORE -------------------------- 26 ( 42) 7.50 0.142 VIII 6.60 0.081 VII --------- ----- GLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNT 54 ( 87) 7.00 0.044 VI 6.70 0.034 V HOT-S_BUCK-RDG� (S_Jacinto) -52- (_83) -7_00 -0_047 -_VI-- 6.10 0.0191 IV LA NACION -'--- ------ 17 ( 27) 6.50 0.156 VIII 4.20 0.023 IV ---------------- _ _ --------- ----- NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-OFFSHORE 12 20) 7.10 0.228 IX 5.90 0.101 VII ---------------- --------- ----- ___ ------ ------ PALOS VERDES HILLS --.20 -0.----- 48 ( 77) 7.20 0.061 VI 6.20 0.024 V --------------- --------- ----- ------ ----- ROSE CANYON ------ ------ 5 ( 8) 7.00 0.372 IX 5.90 0.168 VIII ---------------- _ _ --------- ----- ------ ------ SAN ,CLEMENTE - SAN ISIDRO 52 ( 84) 8.00 0.099 VII 6.50 0.029 V ---------------- _ _ --------- ----- SAN DIEGO TRGH. -BAHIA SOL. 30 ( 49) 7.50 0.123 VII 6.20 0.048 VI ----- -------- __ __ _ --------- ----- ------ __ _ WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE 58 ( 94) 7.10 0.044 VI 6.00 -0.013---- III -END OF SEARCH- 16 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.2 MILES AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.372 g LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.168 g Al I 0 50 100 SCALE (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO L ANGELES o SITE LOCATION (+): Latitude — 33.0603 N Longitude — 117.2609 W Cypress on the HIII. Lots 6 & 7 FRISKSP FAULT M JOB No.: 0007-010-00 0 L o � � o i ro o o z ° (N O f- z Q m O w L1J o U Q 0) � ° z co o < J - w w ° U � Q L0 z o w _TJ ill o � w N N Q O LL- LL- LLJ ° -j X Q O � - O �O ♦ N q 10 ♦ N m �O ♦ N O 10 ♦ N m 1p ♦° - N O O O O O O O O 2 O O O Cry\ O r C: V/ saoa� ° QOI�ld N�jnii�1 :13b�JInd V) c N � N Q of � o U O �n N O I ,1 0 N I z X o O Q = z ry m J rn W U O U N cn 0 z > 0c) O W 0 ~ Q U cl:� z of . U W 0 U W Q U LO X O L1J a- � o � o ~ N m to rn M O N 0 Ln O O O O O O O O O O O 00 0^� 0 rn oo r- co Ln N O E2 (�} 3ON` C1]]3X� A0 .111 18d8 �Jd 0 Q ( � W � � 00 Ow Ln O cn o d N t1) X W PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858)259-8212 WAYNE A. PASCO FAX(858)259-4812 R.C.E. 29577 June 25, 2002 E E U PE 955 D JuN 2 7 2V L City of Encinitas } Engineering Services Permits 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S PAD CERTIFICATION FOR 740 & 760 GARDEN VIEW CT. AND GRADING PERMIT NO 7300-G To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to section 23.24.3 10 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for lots 6 and 7. As the Engineer of Record for the s ibject project, I hereby state the rough grading for this lot has been completed in confonnance with the approved plan and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. 23.24.310(B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation Pad Elevation Lot No. ep r plan per field measurement 6 192.1 192.1 7 199.9 199.9 If you have any questions in regards to the above,please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. \ Joe Yuhas, L.S. 5211 la Director of Land Surveying No. 5r,I P`30 JY/js as�; Geotechnics Incorporated Principals: Anthony F.Belfast n a � Michael P.lmbriglio DU W.Lee Vanderhurst June 25, 2002 ' Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc. DGMEERING SERVICES Project No. 0007-011-01 1060 Wiegand Street MY OF ENCINI7AS Document No. 02-0655 Olivenhain, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce Wiegand SUBJECT: INTERIM REPORT OF SITE PREPARATION AND COMPACTION Cypress on the Ridge, Lots 6 & 7 Encinitas, California Reference: Geotechnics Incorporated (2002). Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Cypress on the Ridge, Lots 6& 7, Encinitas, California, Project No. 0007- 011-00, Document No. 02-0038, dated January 11. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request,we are providing an interim report describing the services provided by Geotechnics Incorporated to date on Lots 6 and 7 of the Cypress on the Ridge commercial development in Encinitas, California. The grading contractor for this project was Bert Sims. Retaining walls were constructed by West Coast General. Our observation and testing services were performed between May 23 and June 25,2002. An as-graded report providing greater detail on our testing and observations services will be prepared once our services are completed at the site. EARTHWORK OPERATIONS Grading began with the removal of deleterious vegetation and debris from the site. Remedial grading was then conducted within the building pad area on Lot 7 in order to mitigate the presence of a transition between formational sandstone and existing fill. The cut or shallow fill portion of the building pad area on Lot 7 was over-excavated to a depth of approximately 8 feet below finish grade. The site was then filled to plan grade with a uniformly compacted fill. 9245 Activity Rd.,Ste. 103 • San Diego,California 92126 Phone(858)536-1000 • Fax(858)536-8311 Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. Project No.0007-011-01 June 25,2002 Document No.02-0655 Page 2 The remedial excavation for Lot 7 was extended approximately 10 feet outside the building perimeter on the east side of the structure, and was daylighted into existing slopes on the south and west sides of the structure. The excavation was terminated approximately 80 feet south of the northwest property line because more than 8 feet of compacted fill already existed in the northern portion of the structure. Based on our observations,the building pad area for Lot 7 is now underlain by between approximately 8 and 16 feet of compacted fill. RETAINING WALLS After the remedial grading was completed, several mechanically stabilized earth(MSE)walls were constructed throughout the site. The proposed wall backfill soils were sampled and tested in our laboratory prior to use. The testing indicated that the backfill met the minimum strength and maximum expansion criteria for use in the reinforced zone of the MSE walls. In order to meet strength requirements,a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction was specified for the VISE wall backfill west of the structure on Lot 7. The MSE wall construction operations were tested and observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. Our observations included confirmation of the placement and location of the wall drains,bedding,block and geogrid. Our testing included relative compaction of the backfill in the reinforced zone. Our observations and tests indicate that the walls were constructed in general accordance with the geotechnical aspects of the project specifications. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, site preparation and compaction to date has been performed in general accordance with the intent of the project geotechnical recommendations,and with the geotechnical requirements of the City of Encinitas. Compaction tests to date indicate that structural fill was placed in substantial accordance with the minimum compaction criteria of 90 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557. Our testing and observations also indicate that the backfill for the MSE retaining wall west of the structure on Lot 7 was compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density in general accordance with our recommendations. Geotechnics Incorporated Bruce D. Wiegand,Inc. Project No.0007-011-01 June 25,2002 Document No.02-0655 Page 3 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances,by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of the project. However,soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. The conclusions contained herein are based on our observations and testing performed between May 23 and June 25, 2002. No representations are made as to the quality and extent of materials not observed. An as-graded report providing greater detail on our testing and observations services will be mailed to you when our services are completed. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Please feel free to call the office if you have any questions or comments. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Matthew A. Fagan, P.E. 57248 W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125 Project Engineer Principal Geologist Distribution: (4) Addressee, Mr. Bruce D. Wiegand (FAX: 858-759-0558) SED GO W. oQSOFESSION,� ZV� VAN FREE T �N Al.It,9 Gi No.1125 '♦ CERTIFIED ' C572 8 7° ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST syq CIVIL Pis 9 �F CA1.����� �OF CA�1�0 Geotechnics Incorporated C- 'Y OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEER.. ."G DEPARTMENT ACT':717Y ?TPCP,T DATE: ? 73 PROJECT NAME: 7 L/Q 76? G CTCljt�,?'l PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: R.O.W. NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: PHONE: - -74 - _y -C'- 3 et2 i -� _ s 0. r �l Lo1 �- - /� � Ittv 1 p DW/04/MS1-301wp (•i- 1-IIII) i EIVGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENTapdoi Improvement Projects District SupPorl services �� �f Field Operations 3 Subdnnslon Engineering DIC Tratric Engineering Field �lear�.nce to Allow OCCU anc T0: Subdivision Engineering Public Service Counter 2 D _ q-7 p - p (, p FROM: Field Operations Private contract inspection RE: Building Permit NO.._—�_-- I of Project 1. Name Gil� -� 'riov'✓ Name of Developer 1 ' i inspected the si 60 v .suffix) I have raddress...number scree name and have determined that finish (precise) grading and USE t no.) I (bldg n � any oth er related site improvements are substantially complEte an that occupancy is merited. 3 -3 --- lDaN JignatUrre.4Engin spe or) (Date) !f ,(Signature of Senior Qvil Engineer, only!f appropia[eJ 00 6-1 Ref e rence: Engineering Permi�� No. — vitrify fie! conditions.Office staff still has thea�o fees ilos to verity that on of Special Now Please do not sign the to'blue card" that is issued by Building Inspection l has he Division and given to e P icall a -Went P develo�.er.You are only being asked in ;t'in the slot labelled "final compliance with administrativif come letad,tto3counter staff, tymerely by dropping documents. Return this form, P Permits d turn that paperwork,if completed.Thank you: ins ction" that is located between the edesks an return of the an technicians. Also, please remember to do final e P inspections on the related engineering p P Al /V,�T cei�, , HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS CYPRESS ON THE RIDGE ENCINITAS, CA PREPARED FOR: BRUCE D. WIEGAND DATE: 10-29-2001 k EV15ED. 1-20-Z00; PREPARED BY: PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HWY. 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075 ROFES�jO^'_ ENE A. p� C� No. 29577 Exp. 3/31/03 F CA WAYNE A. PASCO, RCE 29577 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1 B. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................1 C. CONCLUSION........................................................................................1 D. 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ........................................1 E. HYDRAULICS ........................................................................................1 APPENDIXA..........................................................................................1 APPENDIXB ..........................................................................................1 A. INTRODUCTION The subject property is physically located on Garden View Court in Encinitas, California. It is geographically located at 33°03'40"North Latitude and 117°15'50" West Longitude. The purpose of this report is to analyze the impacts of 100 year storm flows on the proposed storm drain system. The site is approximately 2.30 acres and the project consists of minor grading and on-site improvements required to construct two 2-story office buildings along with two parking lots to serve those office buildings. Based on data, calculations and recommendations contained within this report, a system can be constructed to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q,00 to the appropriate discharge points. Also included are calculations and recommendations for a storm water treatment system based on guidelines set forth by The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Specifically, a grassy swale and a grass filter strip. B. DISCUSSION The hydraulic soil group classification for the site is "D". The methodology used herein to determine Q,00 is modified rational. The program utilized is by Advanced Engineering Software (AES). The attached site hydrology map (Appendix B) shows the hydraulic node location map for the HGL calculations herein. Hydrology Calculations can be found in Section D Also, see Section E for hydraulic calculations. C. CONCLUSION Based on the information and calculations contained in this report it is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering that the storm drain system as proposed on the corresponding Grading Plan will function to adequately intercept, contain and convey Q,00 to the appropriate points of discharge. D. HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1. 3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 North Highway 101 Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * Cypress on the Ridge * Hydrology Study * ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 955H.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14 : 40 10/29/2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.750 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = . 95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 220.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 200.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 196.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4 .50 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 5.258 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.014 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.03 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .34 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.01 . FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4 .00 TO NODE 4 .01 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 50.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 192.75 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 191.57 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1 .18 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 2.390 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.246 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3. 10 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 300.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 200. 60 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 196.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4 . 60 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.759 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5. 965 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1 .83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.83 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE = 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOC<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.965 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .71 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.43 TC(MIN) = 6.76 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 5.43 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.07 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS E. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS HYDRAULICS SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS • STORM WATER TREATMENT SIZING CALCULATIONS • BROOKS BOX CAPACITY CALCULATIONS • SDRSD D-8 CATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS • AREA DRAIN INLET CALCULATIONS • D-25 CURB OUTLET CALCULATIONS 3KAujA-LE 5ioF/Ll Ek C&6oU -4 IuWS Cypree on the Ridge Hydraulic Calculations Area Drain Inlet Calculations CALCULATE CAPACITY OF AREA DRAINS. FORMULA: Qcap=3.0(P)(D^1.5)!3. DIVISION BY 3 ACCOUNTS FOR GRATE& REASONABLE BLOCKAGE. PERIMETER AVAIL HW GRATE FACTOR NODE Q100(CFS) P(FT) D(FT) 2* CAPACITY(CFS) INLET TYPE 4.00 0.10 4.00 0.50 3.00 1.41 12"x 12"YARD DRAIN 3.00 1.83 8.00 0.50 3.00 2.83 24"x 24"BROOKS BOX 1.00 3.60 12.00 0.50 3.00 4.24 TYPE G-1 CATCH BASIN Lot 6 D-25 Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw\955.fm2 Worksheet Lot 6 D-25 Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.030000 ft/ft Depth 0.25 ft Bottom Width 2ffTIN ft Dischar a 5.43 cfs 0.25 ft 1 3.00 ft V H 1 N TS 10/29/01 Academic Edition FlorvMaster v5.17 02:46:30 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)7551666 Page 1 of 1 Lot 7 D-25 Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File c:\haestad\academic\fmw1955.fm2 Worksheet Cypress on the Ridge Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 fUft Depth 0.15 ft Bottom Width 3. ft lo Discharge 2.03 cfs 0.15 ft 1 3.00 ft v H 1 N TS 10/29/01 Academic Edition 02:44:24 PM FlawMaster v5.17 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708 (203)75-',-1666 Page 1 of 1 PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PE DATE 4 � ...__.___....._._..............__... /�- 11,300 5F Q;2� Af ... .._. _ fro ................__._...... ._....._.._ . . ....... ©, 'lei _............................. . . .__ L= VT L = �. �Z 33- / A SJ»?C . i/ltsmv►'� �� !'lip 1`{' ) �n" 50 .......... .......__... .... . ... ..................._._..._ ... .. .. PASCO ENGINEERING,INC. — 535 NORTH HWY. 101,SUITE A-SOL ANYA BEACa CAL'IFORNLA 92075—858.259.8212 PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. PE DATE ._... ...... _ .............._.._.........__._.......... .. .... _ Q= c ►A _ = C,11-7(o C�..S ..--? s.+o(13.kflGtCC 7(C 1 Y j t Nov 9fJ r y t ran./4 `" .. .. ........_ .......... 1 0123 . .: a C.. 'PAhl/VFl .... ...1 J._ .-. . P _ ... .............. ...._.. ................. .. .. . ....... ..._.__._..... . ............._..... ......_......... PASCO ENGEVEERING, INC. — 535 NORTH HWY. 101,SUIT'f A—SOLANA BEACI- CALIFORNIA 92075--858,259.8212 APPENDIX A ' o �1- G CM Ui � n�ti - / v� o o\ v c - cn CD cl �.. �r-• z_ M '"`�r !` •off. Q Lam. r.... / _ L:J V j . Ln if a CN •-�- _ C\ C ? - \v Ix CV M t fl cm ` � - M w O W W C / W < t W � U _ o c� a W ? h S Z ° < . ` / O w t < x Z m � C) p ^Y CQ O H -1 -- -'- J _ -- - �'-° -� — 1. .. a '!_ F. CD 4J Z O lf1 t1� a �' O O O " + -t A N (y < U 2 LL- J t�1 I 0. u O < 0 N � ( M � .<.i tt :2f ~ =} U O w CD N O U z O W J i-•i q J\ < 0. u ����° J _ '• �' Gam•---�� !(�.� - �% /. o v 4tr C3 w Al to C%4 dL LLJ tm Ca ✓ J/ ° ` Lr� _, NN O O w 4) F J Z 2: C) rr O U } z U x O i I 1 ! I I I I s a a N C-- O l!1 q < O sal O LU O i„ o v M G 1 Z C 0. O w O W J i`> `� < a —•-- 07 4-J s- O 04- L O N r C N O 4-3 C p•t- CJ QJ L)-0'0 ACA -0 � > X C CJ t lD to N S- C S tJ)2 L7 to U r =3 X U L > > N O •r t-+ O U •r H c! S-• C' r N •i•J r-•• S: r IT Q •-•I r S kO 4) 4•) U O C- •O A CO O Z I .mss S- C C U 3: C. 11 W C.1 4- O •r^ W t.n C-- S- S.- t- C w G3 I C O C'ct tl) q cc 4-J t0 D N-r- Q> •r b C) N 4-J Cl. Cl. 4-3 H W C- 4-4- O 4.3 N to r O T_ 4-1 +) O 47 4J U L E CU 4-3 O r . t4 C C O O T O O •O W C S- O C - tt1 4--3 N N r tt7 4-1 L O O p N . ^� 4..1 •r- L C tt3 ` �- C Q N'0 O i tb •r d O tt5 L N O 11 O ro 4-) +� 4-j tCJ (1¢ C L +-+ C S-. Cl-4-J •F-% •ice JC C b C L•r-0 O r •r •P- CTI •r Cr) >> N v r \ td U 00 S- C-0 U = q G O C U 0- C U •r r 4- C- t".. tL O r Q- CO N O C.% O G i-) O O L +3 q Q. 4-� i--1 S-L7 S- r L S- +1 V1 •• t3' C 11 q ro G • r rL C1.4-1 tU N C E CJ ••- LO Q n. : S.. S- p C O S- S.- Cl. L •r• O N O-0 .0 N .i . M C:.- •r O LL 1t O U E CL C ••- S- 4.3 S L r r CJ 4-+ LL- O 4- d t0 to`i t, to -C S- L U r C CO -0 -0 Z S- E 4-3 tU -1:7 •r- U C N - O # q +J r :Zr N N A3 Cu O O 4-) � 4•3 N C S- N to O (n Cv a) L +3 r •>• U N O E L N om- O+► O 4J 4-) 34-.) N 4-3 CJ 11 O 11 •r O tL C N •r7 to eJ O to O .►- O to r •1.7 11 +) S- -ir L to a -0 L L O r 4- S-r L L U (U to - U u tL N 1- a C;., +.1 4- Cl- O a c t-- +1 Cn a. d ► O r }- C::) n n n r-. it q n � .••. r. Q. O r N M t7" to Q O r N M -,I- G _ J- z6-Hour Precipitation (inches) O Ln O to O to O to o to O N tG t1 Ut tea'!`) M N N .- '_r--t--•T---r--r-- ko •`-�` � C .... r-.'-�-�'-*'-'. [^.-- —-_ _ �- - ='-� //� -_//-//yam:'•---- - _- 4j - -^ r In Cd 4J —j- - - =- -- - - -- i Cn LLJ 4. /) � u .¢' ri tom—,,t -}--- 1— --_ , ---r-- -�-•—r-`- � L v m it cS _I rZ tai to Q n If 11 H h-1 13.. to �t-� - _ •— - �- r . '. - - - - - -- -- -- '- -t-={ O O -1 - N y-•1 ! -�— i ! ! r I . .:Ili:; •I t 11 t I i ► I ♦ 0 -. f•i N •-t Of a0 r- TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) DEVELOPED AREAS (URBAN) Coefficient, C Soil Group (1) Land Use A B C D Residential: Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55 Multi-Units .45 .50 .60 . 70 Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65 Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 .35 .40 .45 Commercial (2) .70 . 75 .80 .85 80% Impervious I nd ust r i a 1 (2) .80 .85 .90 .95 90% Impervious NOTES: 0) Soil Group mans are available at the offices of the Department of Public Works. (2)Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious- ness values of 800% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 800% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil . group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = 50 x 0.85 = 0.53 80 IV-A-9 APPENDIX IX-B Rev. S/81 WE AtF Cs RUG EUCADIA 4 AID2 CbC 2 Amz CfD2. Cfc RuG I LvF3 AtE CbZ'l n 11 a Le'C2 -z mic %k Mic io EN LOS CENITOS RuG c Cf W 8 Le,'-3 CbS Cso AtE Vx\ W.I c Css c FB Mir, CfD1 LvF3 PAIE WE x \CbC LQ 7,2il Cf L e D? c cbc � L G 10 Cfc mle.,1\CfB LvF3 k CbE CfDl LeD2 RuG 4 CbD CbC RuG li RuG LeE' b N , CbD cbs 61 CCE csc N mic Cfc C CsD LvF3 o LvF3 c 0 A Csc u G; t. oG L-4173 MIE csc C5D TeF Cfc 4S RAG LvF3 CiC CbD csc Lll �Nl ENCI IT 5 I I M!E 15 CfE! i, Qs 14 Cfc 16 rVI I E CEC I m,I c A CfB Cfc IMIE i Nlic C-pc CfE! LvF3 LvF3 M IC Cfc San D;equit st Union School CfB 4- cfgc Cr Cfa LvF3 CbC csc 6 TeF % CbB Atc CbD Mic X L-,F3 CbC 23 24 —2 (4� I Nir Oh( CEC CSD c TeF c r ar i Y-th a�I, V, Cc E CbC Cf CfB\ PAIE CfB CID2 csc L-,-F3 csc APPENDIX B „• ' ' " .. NoDt MA , < GRAPHIC SCALE 1r,=20 ' s 0 20 40 60 r �--�r / ..i is • ! �'' f __.,_._, _ J -.�. __ _) ; r ,.: v ,i t f o-tr' L 1 h �. 1 $ C` i a,, • _ = i t i at f i e d 1 ; f x 1. t 4 _ - r i : ” w r {� rt l J 1 1 } f f l it it lmvs r t i , y f { i a io "wE0 r E f j t i 1 ..tit f :_ ..�.-.._�_. i it III r _ � v 1 „ 1■r : t' J 4 FK f4s.Q I ' •� �� 4;. l�S -_ i ! , , r� 1 n u_ r K: „ : 0 JV tA it it it ti .r _ _ t / s. ji. Ig c t A it i„i } ^t t : r o�xf i � ! � • f �° $$k 4 Y 1 R mi X . s ! "�, +- .- "i. ._ �IE, °,r � :amp' +.a� fi � +'-••_�-� - 3 / F �y a r i +� _!. _�. c• } ias,::. m ,.Y d i w 1 _ z A � J �R { _ f 'y 1 ,c 1t it t it � ! : c 1 t i � zc r , 5 � ) 2 i ' __ 5 •�_.. i ! i r _ j _ s . l�rr���i�����s�h����r��4�+��r�a��®®sees a��t�r����.����� neR�►+�rll►��s \ !�'wr'� _ _ _ _ _ REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES DATE Ei -y ` DESIGNED BY DRAWN BY. . ;_ DHECKED BY -r1 B C� ARK SCAI+E MHS WJS WA APPROVALS CITY OF ENCE%TA► L:1�1 NO' ' r c , G l�EPAR'Y'11+ 1T DRAWAV ' PLANS PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVED HYDROLOGY NODE MAP FOR: . HORIZONTAL 9"il 111 DATE. Y•B BY. La, R. C . E. NO, 29577 WAYNE PASCO CYPRESS , ii THE THE RIDGE VERTICAL:', N/A DATE. DATE..'. 1 .� _ EXP. ,3-31-03 SHEET 2 OF, - 1 CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEX PL 95- 5