2002-7594 G PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
- 525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE
APN'S 260-413-24, 260-413-25, AND 260-413-26
CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
KST ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 1149
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA 92007
W.O. 3288-A-SC MAY 31, 2002
5
s,
Geotechnical - Geologic * Environmental
5741 Palmer Way - Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
May 31, 2002
W.O. 3288-A-SC
KST Associates, Inc.
-.- P.O. Box 1149
Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007
Attention: Mr. Randall Lee
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation,525 Liverpool Drive,APN's 260-413-24,
260-413-25,and 260-413-26, City of Encinitas, San Diego County,California
Dear Mr. Lee:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a
geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development,
from a geotechnical viewpoint.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our review of available reference data(Appendix A),field exploration, laboratory
testing,as well as geologic and engineering analysis,development of the property appears
-- to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in
the text of this report are properly incorporated into design and construction of the project.
The most significant elements of this study are summarized below:
• All existing coil uviu m/topsoil, weathered terrace deposits, and undocumented
artificial fill are generally loose and potentially compressible, and are not suitable
for support of settlement sensitive improvements. These materials will require
removal and recompaction if settlement sensitive improvements are proposed
within their influence. Depth of removals are outlined in the conclusions and
recommendations section of this report. In general, removals will be on the order
of ±1 to ±51/2 feet across the majority of the site. Removals may extend locally
deeper due to buried utilities, septic tank systems, or irregular variations in the
colluvial soils.
• At the time of this geotechnical evaluation, a topographic map including the low
relief canyon located east of the site was not available. Therefore,GSI schematically
evaluated slope stability. An addendum report presenting slope stability will be
issued when an appropriate topographic map is provided, if warranted.
• Laboratory testing indicates the expansion potential of onsite soils is very low
(expansion index range 0 to 20). At the present time, soluble sulfate and corrosion
testing results indicate that soils have a moderate sulfate exposure to concrete and
are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated.
• Groundwater was not encountered onsite and is generally not anticipated to affect
site development, providing that the recommendations contained in this report are
incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and
subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched
groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be
precluded from occurring in the future due to fill lifts or sediments with contrasting
permeabilities,site irrigation,poor drainage conditions,or damaged utilities. Should
perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected
area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed
groundwater conditions.
• Conventional foundation systems utilizing continuous footings and a slab-on-grade
may be used onsite.
• The seismic design parameters presented herein should be considered during
project planning and design.
• The geotechnical design parameters presented herein should be incorporated into
project planning, design, and construction by the project structural engineer and
architect.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
Fi1e:e:1wp713o00\3288a.pge Page Two
G¢oSoils, Inc.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
Ryan
Ryan Boehmer
Staff Geologist oQRF`ssio�
CO
Reviewed by: � . FA oar Reviewed by: ° X176
m
>: 6_ ,
ir. 30-05
NO.1340
� v
John . Fr kin .���.. �e Albert R. Kleist
Engineering Geolo ' t,;G Geotechnical Engineer, G�476
RB/JPF/AR"h
Distribution: (4) Addressee
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
Fi1e:e:1wp71=\3288a.pge Page Three
GeoSoils, Inc.
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FIELD STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
EARTH MATERIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Artificial fill- undocumented (Map Symbol Afu) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Delmar Formation (Map Symbol -Td) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Faulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Seismic Shaking Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Seismic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Laboratory Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Shear Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Expansion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
SCHEMATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gross Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Surficial Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Demolition/Grubbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Septic Tank Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
FillPlacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Overexcavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 11
GeoSoiils, Inc.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Preliminary Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bearing Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Lateral Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Footing Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Restrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Cantilevered Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Wall Backfill and Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Retaining Wall Footing Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Footing Excavation Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Landscape Maintenance and Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Additional Site Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Trenching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Utility Trench Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
PLANREVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2 - California Fault Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A- References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Appendix B - Boring Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Appendix C - Laboratory Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Appendix D - Slope Stability Analysis Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text in Folder
Plate 2 - Schematic Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rear of Text
KST Associates, Inc. Table of Contents
Fi1e:e:\wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page ii
GeoSoils, Inc.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE
APN'S 260-413-24, 260-413-25, AND 260-413-26
CITY OF ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A).
2. Subsurface exploration consisting of five hand auger boring excavations to
determine the soil/bedrock profiles,obtain relatively undisturbed and bulk samples
of representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters for the
proposed development (Appendix B).
3. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface
exploration program (Appendix C).
4. General areal seismicity evaluation, schematic evaluation of slope stability
(Appendix D).
5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of
this report.
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site consists of a generally rectangular shaped parcel located on the south side of
Liverpool Drive in Encinitas, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The site is
surrounded by existing housing developments to the south and west,Liverpool Drive to the
north, and a low relief canyon to the east. Site drainage is generally to the southeast.
Existing structures onsite consist of a two-story, split level, single-family residence and
associated improvements. According to a USGS 1968 (photorevised 1975) Encinitas
Quadrangle map, the subject site is at an elevation of approximately ±200 feet above
Mean Sea Level (MSL).
It is our understanding, that the proposed site development will consist of removing the
existing structure and associated improvements and preparing the pad forthe construction
of two new single family residences and one multi-family residence. Cut and fill grading
techniques would be utilized to create design grades. It is anticipated that the proposed
development will utilize slabs-on-grade,continuous footings,and wood-frame construction.
Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. The
need for import soils is unknown. It is anticipated that sewage disposal will be tied into the
regional municipal system.
GeoSoiiis, Inc.
3{D TopoQuads Copyright 0 1999 Del orme Yarmouth,ME 04096 Source Dais:USCS
gm
Encinitas I o iii S
Ho a
I' ` � ' �' •�' JI
\ Sea Cli •' , , - 1�
N -21. `.County Park •J J)• 1
71� o
�0.' n ��• 'Y f/mil(.,
�.. 7e G :•' �.
N33'-i-5 '� •.
I
- '•, � �`ti\ ` 1 it �f � ,• v n ,'
Ca rdi.f -by}tie-Se\\\a �
p , V� l
u3•-o3 � r -� a�., - --- ,
e
ti
Base Map.- 1=ncirkas Ouadumgie, Cafrfernia--San Diego Co, 7-5 W[ir1ute Series (Topographic),
1968, by US", 1`_2000-
0 2000 ,
4040 \ W.O.
3288-A SC
Scale Feet
�� -
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
FIELD STUDIES
Field work conducted during our evaluation of the property consisted of excavating five
hand auger borings within the lotto evaluate near surface soil and geologic conditions. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and in-place
samples were taken for appropriate laboratory testing. Logs of the borings are presented
in Appendix B. The approximate locations of borings are shown on Plate 1.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in
southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep,
elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are
underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks,
Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California
batholith.
In the San Diego region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous period and Cenozoic
era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age
plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep,
coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been uplifted,eroded
and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed
from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene time, this
plain was uplifted,eroded and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys,
and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and
beach areas.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials encountered on the site are shown on Plate 1. Materials consist of
undocumented artificial fill,colluvium/topsoil,terrace deposits,and the Delmar Formation.
Artificial fill- undocumented (Map Symbol AN)
Artificial fill was found to be present within the northern end of the site adjacent to
Liverpool Drive. The artificial fill generally consists of a red brown to brown, moist to wet,
loose to medium dense, silty sand. Thickness of the material is estimated to be
approximately ±1 to±5 feet. Artificial fill existing at the subject site is considered
unsuitable for support of settlement sensitive improvements and support for additional fill
in its present state.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Fi1e:eAwpM2W\32Wa.pge Page 3
GeoSoiis, Inc.
Colluvium/Topsoil (Not Mapped)
Colluvium/topsoil onsite was found to generally consist of a brown, dry, loose, silty sand.
Thickness of the material is approximately 1 to 1'h feet. Colluvium/topsoil at the subject
site is also considered potentially compressible in its present state. Accordingly,these soils
are considered unsuitable for support of additional fill and/or settlement sensitive
improvements in their existing state.
Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - 00
Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlie the colluvial deposits and undocumented artificial
fills. As encountered,the terrace deposits generally consist of orange brown to red brown
to gray brown, moist to wet, loose to very dense, silty sands and yellow brown to gray
brown, moist, medium dense, horizontal to sub-horizontal sands. Due to the relatively
loose and weathered condition of the upper±1 foot,these weathered sediments should be
removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted and/or processed in place, should
settlement-sensitive improvements be proposed within their influence. This unit typically
has a very low expansion potential.
Delmar Formation (Map Symbol -Td)
Although not encountered in the borings,the Tertiary-age Delmar Formation,underlies the
Quaternary-age terrace deposits on the site. Outcrops were observed in the low relief
canyon located east of the subject site. The formational materials(also considered bedrock
for the site area) generally consist of a white to yellow brown, damp to moist, dense,
sandstone. Generally,the upper 1 to 2 feet of the bedrock is highly weathered. In general
the bedding at the subject site gently to moderately dipping in northerly to southwesterly
quadrants. Some bedding is inclined out-of-slop and could present adverse effects on
slope stability for the subject site. A vertical fracture was observed trending northerly.
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
Faulting
The site is situated in a region of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review
indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed
for development(Jennings, 1994),and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone(Hart
and Bryant, 1997).
There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and
would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source
of an earthquake (see California Fault Map, Figure 2). These faults include-but are not
limited to-the San Andreas fault,the San Jacinto fault,the Elsinore fault,the Coronado.Bank
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
F11e:e:1wpM200\32%a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
i
_.. 0 50 100
SCALE
\ (Miles)
SAN FRANCISCO \
L G ES
SITE LOCATION (+):
Q y
Latitude — 33.0240 N 1
Longitude — 117.2764 W
KST & Associates
CALIFORNIA FAU
W.O. 3288-A-SC Figure 2
fault zone,and the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone. The possibility of ground
acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the
-- southern California region as a whole.
The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could
have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity.
ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
MILES KM
Coronado Bank-A ua Blanca 18 29
Elsinore 29 4
La Naci6n 15 24
Newport-Inglewood-Offshore 12 20
Rose Canyon 3 5
San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 28 45
Seismicity
The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and
Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1987) have been incorporated into EQFAULT
(Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site
were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curves
developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia(1994),and Sadigh and
others (1987). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in
EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997),which performs deterministic
seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources.
The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file.
If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius,the program estimates peak horizontal
ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible")
and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault.
Site acceleration, as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g), is computed by any of
the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT.
Based on the above,peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound(maximum
credible)earthquake may be on the order of 0.56 g to 0.84 g,and maximum probable event
may be on the order of 0.41 g to 0.51 g, assuming upper bound (maximum credible) and
maximum probable events on the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 3 miles
- from the subject site.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 i.iverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Fi1e:e:\wp7\3200\32Wa.pge Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
Seismic Shaking Parameters
Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International
Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided.
Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4
Seismic Zone Factor(per Table 16-1*) 0.40
Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) So
Seismic Coefficient C,(per Table 16-0*) 0.44 N.
Seismic Coefficient C,(per Table 16-R*) 0.64 N„
- Near Source Factor N,(per Table 16-S*) 1.0
Near Source Factor N„(per Table 16-T*) 1.18
Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B
Distance to Seismic Source 3.4 mi. (5.5 km)
Upper Bound Earthquake MM,6.9
*
Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code 199
Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during
our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely
- mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development
procedures:
• Liquefaction
• Tsunami
• Dynamic Settlement
• Surface Fault Rupture
• Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
• Sieche
It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible
earthquake occurring on any of the nearby majorfaults,strong ground shaking would occur
in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be
greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass,
than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no
greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Flee:\wp7\32W\3288a.pge Page 7
GeoSoiils, Inc.
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of onsite earth materials in
order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results
obtained are presented below:
Laboratory Standard
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture contentwas determined forthe majorsoil
_. type encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The
moisture-density relationship obtained for these soils is shown below:
SOIL TYPE::, BORING OR TEST PIT MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
AND DEPTH ft. DENSITY CONTENT %
Silty SAND,orange brown B-1 @ 1-3' 126.5 10.5
Shear Testing
Shear testing was performed on representative, remolded samples of site soil in general
accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control
type. Shear test results are presented as in Figures C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 in Appendix C,
and as follows:
PRIMARY RESIDUAL:..
SAMPLE
FRICTION FRICTION:.,
LOCATION COHESION COHESION.
ANGLE'::
(PSF) .- (PSF)
(DEGREES
(DEGREES)
B-1 @ 1-3' 184 31 158 30
(remolded)
B-1 @ 2' 1
(undisturbed) 08 38 215 30
B-3 @ 1' 506 40 215 30
(undisturbed)
Bedrock @180' 456 400 34
undisturbed
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Fi1e:e:\wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
Expansion Potential
Expansion testing was performed on a representative samples of site soil in accordance
with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following
table.
LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
B-1 @ 1-3'Silty Sand 5 Ve Low
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing
A typical sample of the site material was analyzed for corrosion/soluble sulfate potential.
The testing included determination of pH,soluble sulfates,and saturated resistivity. Sulfate
exposure to concrete was determined to be moderate in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of
the UBC (1997). Soil pH was determined to be slightly acidic (pH=6.4) and saturated
resistivity was determined to be moderately corrosive to ferrous metals (2,900 ohm-om).
SCHEMATIC SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Gross Stability
Based on the available data,the constraints outlined above, and our stability calculations
shown in Appendix D, a calculated factor-of-safety greater than 1.5 (static) and 1.15
(pseudo-static or seismic) has been obtained for the existing natural slope, located east of
the subject site. Factors of safety of 1.5 (static case) and 1.15 (seismic case) are the
currently accepted minimum safety factors applied to slope stability analysis for the
construction industry and used by local governing agencies.
Surficial Stability
_. An analysis of surficial stability was performed for the natural slope,located east of the site.
Our analysis indicates that this slope exhibits an adequate factor of safety against surficial
failure (i.e., > 1.5), provided that the slope is properly maintained.
-. CONCLUSIONS
Based upon our site reconnaissance,test results,and review of the previous report,it is our
opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential development.
The following recommendations should be incorporated into the construction details.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Fi1e:e:lwpM200\32Wa.pge Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Grading
Guidelines presented in Appendix E,except where specifically superseded in the text of this
report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction
meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork
schedule.
During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representatives) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field,they should be reviewed
by this office and if warranted,modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety
orders,the Occupational Safety and Health Act,and the Construction Safety Act should be
- met.
Site Preparation
Debris,vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the building area
prior to the start of grading. Sloping areas to receive fill should be properly benched in
accordance with current industry standards of practice and guidelines specified in the
Uniform Building Code.
Demolltion/Grubbing
1. Any existing subsurface structures and all miscellaneous debris should be removed
from areas of proposed grading.
2. Any existing asphalt debris may be crushed and placed only in proposed asphalt-
paved areas, provided it is mixed below or at subgrade level and away from
proposed utilities and landscaped areas.
3. The project soils engineer should be notified of any previous foundation, irrigation
lines, cesspools, or other subsurface structures that are uncovered during the
recommended removals, so that appropriate remedial recommendations can be
provided.
Septic Tank Removal
1. All existing organic solids and all liquids must be properly removed, as should the
tank, in accordance of the County of San Diego Health Department requirements.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
R1e:e:lwp7\320013288a.pge Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.
2. After cleaned of organic materials, geotechnically observed and documented,the
septic tank hole should be backfilled with a lean slurry and have a minimum 5 foot
soil cap below proposed grade.
3. Backfill operations should be observed by a GSI representative.
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials)
Due to the relatively loose condition of undocumented artificial fill, colluvium/topsoil, and
weathered terrace deposits,these materials should be removed and recompacted in areas
proposed for settlement sensitive structures,or areas to receive compacted fill. At this time,
removal depths on the order of ±1 to ±5'/z feet should be anticipated; however, locally
deeper removals may be necessary. Removals should be completed below a 1:1
projection down and away from the edge of any settlement sensitive structure and/or limit
of proposed fill. Once removals are completed,the exposed bottom should be reprocessed
and compacted.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6-inch) lifts,
cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and
compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If soil importation is
planned, a sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing,
in orderto assure compatibility with the onsite soils and recommendations presented in this
report. Import soils (if any) for a fill cap should be very low expansive (E.I. less than 20).
The use of subdrains at the bottom of the fill cap may be necessary, and subsequently
recommended based on compatibility with onsite soils.
Overexcavation
In orderto provide for the uniform support ofthe planned structures,a minimum 3-footthick
fill blanket is recommended for the graded pads. Any cut portion of the pads for the
residences should be overexcavated a minimum 3 feet below finish pad grade and extend
a minimum of 5 feet outside the limits of the proposed structure to provide lateral support
for the foundation. For split level foundations,the overexcavation for the lower level should
extend a minimum of 3 feet laterally beneath the adjacent upper level of the building to
provide uniform foundation support. Areas with planned fills less than 3 feet should be
overexcavated in order to provide the minimum fill thickness. For uniform support,the cut
portion of the pad should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three (3) feet below
proposed pad grade or 1/3(D),where(D)is the maximum fill depth beneath the foundation
system for the structure, whichever is greater. The intent of the above, is to provide
uniformity beneath foundations.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Fi1e:e:\wp7\32W\3288a.pge Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
In the event that information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or
any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are
made,conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered
valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified, or
approved in writing by this office.It is our understanding that slab-on-grade construction is
desired for the proposed development.
The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to
supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide
additional input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design.
Preliminary Foundation Design
Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very low
expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations forfoundation design and construction
are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the
conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish
grade.
Bearing Value
1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code.
2. An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the
design of continuous footings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and
column footings at least 24 inches square and 18 inches deep,connected by a grade
beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each
additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot. No
increase in bearing value is recommended for increased footing width.
Lateral Pressure
- 1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per
square foot.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002
Rle:e:lwpM2W\3288a.pge Page 12
GeoSoils, Inc.
3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
Footing Setbacks
All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the
footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the
bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3(H=slope
- height)from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet,nor
need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be
deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of'the adjacent unlined swale.
Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend
below a 1:1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to
accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining
wall section of this report.
Construction
The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum
criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potential is
generally in the very low (expansion index [E.I.] 0 to 20) range. During grading of the site,
we recommend that expansive material (if encountered) should not be placed within 3 feet
of finish grade,if feasible. Therefore,it is anticipated that the finish grade materials will have
a very low expansion potential.
Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may
exceed the soils engineer's recommendations,should take precedence over the following
minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion
potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading.
Very Low Expansive Soils (E.I. Range 0 to 20)
1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for
a one-story floor load and 18 inches for a two-story floor load below the lowest
adjacent surface. Isolated column and panel pads or wall footings should be
founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches and connected in one direction by a grade
beam. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 reinforcing
bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing,and in
accordance with the recommendations width per UBC.
2. A grade beam,reinforced as above,and at least 12 inches wide should be provided
across large (e.g., garage or parking area) entrances. The base of the grade beam
should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002
Fi1e:e:\wpM200\3288a.pge Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
- 3. Concrete slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of washed sand.
Where moisture condensation is undesirable, concrete slabs should be underlain
with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum 6 mil, polyvinyl-chloride or equivalent '
membrane, with all laps sealed. This membrane should be placed on acceptable
pad grade materials with the minimum 2-inch thickness of sand placed over the
visqueen to aid in uniform concrete curing. If proven by testing (i.e.,sand equivalent
greater than 30 and less than '/4 inch in any size dimension), some of the native
sands could be utilized.
4. Concrete slabs, including garage areas, should be minimally reinforced with No. 3
reinforcement bars placed on 18-inch centers, each way. All slab reinforcement
should be supported and positioned nearthe vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking"
of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning the reinforcement.
5. Garage slabs should be poured separatelyfrom adjacent footings and be quartered
with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be
maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement.
6. A minimum slab thickness of 4 inches is recommended. The design engineer — �
should determine the actual thickness of the slabs based on loadings and use.
7. Premoistening is recommended for these soils conditions,with the moisture content
of the subgrade soils equal to or greater than the optimum moisture content to a
depth of 12 inches for a one-story floor load and 18 inches for a two-story floor load
prior to pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement.
8. In design of any additional concrete, flatwork, pools or walls, the potential for
differential settlement of the soils should be considered.
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS
General
- The design parameters provided below assume that very low expansive soils (native soils)
are used to backfill any retaining walls. If high to very highly expansive soils are used to
backfill the proposed walls, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to be
utilized for retaining wall design,and may be provided upon request. Building walls,below
grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture
protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be
designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding sections of
this report, as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below
adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches). There should be no increase in
bearing for footing width.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002
Fi1e:e:lwp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressure (EFP) of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), plus any applicable surcharge loading.
For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a
minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner.
Cantilevered Walls
The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 10 feet
high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the
wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may
be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights
are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include
other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, hydrostatic pressures,
seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized,the
appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request.
SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT SELECT
RETAINED MATERIAL . FLUID WEIGHT MATERIAL
HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL P.C.F. Native soil P.C.F. Gravel
Level 42 35
2 to 1 60 45
The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 65 pounds per cubic foot for level
backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum
lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner.
Wall Backfill and Drainage
The above criteria assumes that very low expansive soils are used as backfill, and that
hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to build up behind the wall. Positive drainage must
be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of perforated pipe placed within gravel
wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessaryfor retaining
walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch
diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material
or 1/2-to 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). The filter
material should extend a minimum of one horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and
upward at least one foot. Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe
spaced no more greater than -+100 feet apart. The use of weep holes in walls higher than
2 feet should not be considered. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement
KST Associates, Inc. W.O.3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
R1e:eAwp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 15
GeoSoiis, Inc.
utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage
away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork.
Utility Trench Backfill
1. All utility trench backfill in structural areas,slopes,and beneath hardscape features
should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
Flooding/jetting is not recommended for the site soil materials. As an alternative,
imported sandy material with a sand equivalent. of 30 or greater, may be
flooded/jetted in shallow (±12 inches or less) under-slab interior trenches, only.
2. Sand backfill, unless trench excavation material, should not be allowed in exterior
trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from
the outside bottom edge of the footing.
_ 3. All trench excavations should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety
codes.
- 4. Soils generated from utility trench excavations to be used onsite should be
compacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. This material must not alter
positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and
towards the street.
PLAN REVIEW
Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review
and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any
misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In
addition,foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on
the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ
substantially from those stated,appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31, 2002
Fi1e:e:\wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 18
GeoSoils, Inc.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our evaluation are believed
representative of the area; however,soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no
responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by
others. The scope of work was performed within the limits of a budget. Inasmuch as our
study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and
engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions.
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and
no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
KST Associates, Inc. W.O. 3288-A-SC
525 Liverpool Drive, Encinitas May 31,2002
Fi1e:e:\wp71320013288a.pge Page 19
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program for the deterministic prediction of
horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal
acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993;
Proceedings, Fifth U.S.National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,volume III,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. 1997, Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California,Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning act with Index to Earthquake Fault Maps; California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier,
California, vol. 1, 2, and 3.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1982, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions
of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in eds.,Johnson,J.A., Campbell, K.W.,
and Blake, T.F., AEG short course, seismic hazard analysis, dated June 18, 1994.
Petersen, Mark D., Bryant,W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters
used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic
seismic hazard maps of California.
Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported
in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and
prediction of strong ground motion",in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
Il, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American
Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102.
Tan, S.S.,and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San
Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File
Report 96-02.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1953, aerial photographs, flight line AXN-8M,
photo numbers 78 and 79, scale 1"=3,333 ± feet.
GeoSoiils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
wo. 3288-A-SC
PROJECT.KST ASSOCIATES,INC. BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA
DATE EXCAVATED 5-8-02
Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER/RING SAMPLER
goStandard Penetration Test
Water Seepage into hole
Undisturbed,Ring Sample
m' �- m 0 v o y Description of Material
SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, brown to red brown,wet, loose; abundant
. . organics.
SM :: WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 1'SILTY SAND, orange brown to gray brown, moist, loose.
SM 109.3 10.8 55.7 :f:: TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 2'SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
5 r
s:
SW @ 6' SAND, yellow brown to gray brown, moist, medium dense;
medium grained, friable.
• Total Depth= 7'
No Groundwater or Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-8-02
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA GeoSoils, Inc.
PLATE e-1
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 3288-A-SC
PROJECT.KST ASSOCIATES,INC. BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA
DATE EXCAVATED 548-02
Sample SAMPLE METHOD. HAND AUGERIRING SAMPLER
Standard Penetration Test
ve
Undisturbed,Ring Samp Water Seepage into hole
Sample
CL
is co Pal m U) o 2 n Description of Material
SM :: TOPSOUCOLLUVIUM:
w: @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown,wet, loose; abundant organics.
SM :f: WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ l'SILTY SAND, orange brown, wet, loose.
SM :: TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 2'SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
N•
.may..•
5
Total Depth = 7'
No Groundwater or Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-8-02
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-2
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 3288-A-SC
PROJECT-KST ASSOCIATES,INC. BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF 1
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA
DATE EXCAVATED 5-8-02
Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND ALIGER/RING SAMPLER
Standard Penetration Test
a' ® Water Seepage into hole
Iv g Undisturbed,Ring Sampis
mm W o C
M' m rn o Description of Material
SM :: TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, wet, loose; abundant organics.
SM 119.9 11.7 81.6 WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 1' SILTY SAND, orange brown, wet, loose; trace organics.
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 2' SILTY SAND, orange brown,wet, loose to medium dense.
w..
J..
5
•s:
Total Depth = 7'
No Groundwater or Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-8-02
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA GeoSoils, Inc.
PLATE B-3
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 3288-A-SC
PROJECT.KST ASSOCIATES,INC. BORING 8-4 SHEET 1 OF 1
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA
DATE EXCAVATED 5-8-42
Sample SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER/RING SAMPLER
Standard Penetration Test
a Water Seepage into hole
g ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample
t aid to j v t°
m c'e U E a '
o m D m ; o , Description of Material
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
@ 0' MULCH, 3/4"GRAVEL
SM @ 1' SILTY SAND, red brown to brown, moist, loose to medium
dense; trace organics.
5 SM :f.: TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 5' SILTY SAND, orange brown to red brown, moist, dense.
Refusal @ 5YS
Total Depth= 5%'
No Groundwater or Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-M2
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B4
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W,O, 3288-A-SC
PROJECT.KST ASSOCIATES,INC. BORING B-5 SHEET I OF 1
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE,CARDIFF,CA
DATE EXCAVATED 5-8-02
Sample SAMPLE METHOD. HAND AUGER/RING SAMPLER
Standard Penetration Test
_ !° c ® Undisturbed,Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
CL ?� v.� U E
o m D W o v, Description of Material
SM TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM:
@ 0' SILTY SAND, brown,dry, loose; abundant organics.
SM WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 1% SILTY SAND, orange brown, damp, loose to medium dense;
trace organics.
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 3%2 SILTY SAND, orange brown, moist, medium dense to very
dense.
Refusal @ 4'
Total Depth =4'
No Groundwater or Caving Encountered
5 Backfilled 5-M2
525 LIVERPOOL DRIVE, CARDIFF,CA GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-5
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY DATA
3,000
2,500
2,000
f-
O
Z
re 1,500
F-
N
S
CO)
1,000
500
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
NORMAL PRESSURE,psf
- Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Ya MCX e
• B-1 1.0 Primary Shear Remolded 113.8 10.5 184 31
N
■ B-1 1.0 Residual Shear Remolded 113.8 10.5 158 30
3
yu Note:Sample Innundated prior to testing
e
GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST
5741 Palmer Way
co Carlsbad, KST 8�ASSOSIATES
> Carlsbad,CA 92008
Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3288-A-SC
Fax: (760)931-0915 Date: May 2002 Figure: C-1
3,000
2,500
2,000
N
a
2
ul1,500
ca
s
1,000
500
0
0 500 1,000 11500 2,000 2,500 3,000
NORMAL PRESSURE,psf
Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Id MC% C
• B-1 2.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 109.3 10.8 108 38
■ B-1 2.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 109.3 10.8 215 30
c�
d Note:Sample Innundated prior to testing
Geosoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST
c. 5741 Palmer Way Project: KST&ASSOSIATES
Carlsbad,CA 92008
Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number. 3288-A-SC
is
Fax: (760)931-0915
Date: May 2002 Figure: C-2
3,000
2,500
2,000
`a
a
Z
1,500
U)
1,000
500
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
NORMAL PRESSURE,psf
Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type Yd MC% C
• B-3 1.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 122.3 11.7 506 40
■ B-3 1.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 122.3 11.7
0
c�
a Note:Sample Innundated prior to testing
GeoSols, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST
5741 Palmer Way Project: KST&ASSOSIATES
CA
4 Carlsbad, CA 92008
$ Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number: 3288-A-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915
� Date: May 2002 Figure: C-3
3,000
2,500
2,000
°a
Z
ul
1,500.
F
kA
N
1,000
500
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2.000 2,500 3,000
NORMAL PRESSURE,psf
Sample Depth/El. Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type T4 MC% C
• Bedrock 880.0 Primary Shear Undisturbed 108.3 1.8 456 35
-- ■ Bedrock 880.0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 108.3 1.8 400 34
Note:Sample Innundated prior to testing
o
GeoSoils, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
E es5741 Palmer Way Project: KST&ASSOSIATES
Imo. Carlsbad, CA 92008
AL Telephone: (760)438-3155 Number. 3288-A-SC
s Fax: (760)931-0915 Date: May 2002 Figure: C-4
APPENDIX
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS.DATA
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION OF GSTABL7 COMPUTER PROGRAM
Introduction
GSTABL7 is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer to
develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single
program. The slope analysis portion of GSTABL7 uses a modified version of the popular
GSTABL7 program, originally developed at Purdue University.
GSTABL7 performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the factor of
safety for a layered slope using the modified Bishop or Janbu methods. This program can
be used to search for the most critical surface or the factor of safety may be determined for
specific surfaces. GSTABL7 Version 2.0, is programmed to handle:
1. Heterogenous soil systems
2. Anisotropic soil strength properties
3. Reinforced slopes
4. Nonlinear Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope
5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using:
a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces
b. Pore pressure grid
c. R factor
d. Constant pore water pressure
6. Pseudo-static earthquake loading
7. Surcharge boundary loads
8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular
and block-shaped failure surfaces
9. Analysis of right-facing slopes
10. Both SI and Imperial units
General Information
If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the
following publications may be consulted initially:
1. The Stability of Slopes, by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and
Hall, 411 pages, 2nd edition, ISBN 412 01061 5, 1992.
2. Rock Slope Engineering, by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy,
London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNB 0 900488 573, 1981.
GeoSoiils, Inc.
3. Landslides Investigation and Mitigation, by A.K.Turner and R.L. Schuster (editors),
Special Report 247,Transportation Research Board,National Research Council,673
pages, ISBN 0 309 06208-X, National Academy Press, 1996.
GSTABL7 Features
The present version of GSTABL7 contains the following features:
1. Allows user to calculate factors of safety for static stability and dynamic stability
situations.
2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes.
3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding factor of
safety.
4. Allows user to readily review on-screen the input slope geometry.
5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze unlimited number of circular,
non-circular and block-shaped failure surfaces(i.e.,bedding plane,slide plane,etc.).
Input Data
Input data includes the following items:
1. Unit weight, residual cohesion, residual friction angle, peak cohesion, and peak
friction angle of fill material, bedding plane, and bedrock, respectively. Residual
cohesion and friction angle is used for static stability analysis, whereas peak
cohesion and friction angle is for dynamic stability analysis.
2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads.
3. Apparent dip of bedding plane can be specified in angular range (i.e.,from 0 to 90
degrees.
4. Pseudo-static earthquake loading (an earthquake loading of 0.11 g was used in the
analysis.
Seismic Discussion
Seismic stability analyses were approximated using a pseudo-static approach. The major
difficulty in the pseudo-static approach arises from the appropriate selection of the seismic
coefficient used in the analysis. The use of a static inertia force equal to this acceleration
during an earthquake (rigid-body response) would be extremely conservative for several
reasons including: 1) only low height, stiff/dense embankments or embankments in
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix D
Fi1e:e:\wpM200\32Ma.pge Page 2
GeoSoiils, Inc.
confined areas may respond essentially as rigid structures;2) an earthquake's inertia force
is enacted on a mass for a short time period. Therefore, replacing a transient force by a
pseudo-static force representing the maximum acceleration is considered unrealistic; 3)
Assuming that total pseudo-static loading is applied evenly throughout the embankment
for an extended period of time is an incorrect assumption, as the length of the failure
surface analyzed is usually much greater than the wave length of seismic waves generated
by earthquakes; and 4) the seismic waves would place portions of the mass in
compression and some in tension, resulting in only a limited portion of the failure surface
analyzed moving in a downslope direction, at any one instant of time.
The coefficients usually suggested by regulating agencies,counties and municipalities are
in the range of 0.058 to 0.258. For example, past regulatory guidelines within the city and
county of Los Angeles indicated that the slope stability pseudostatic coefficient = 0.15.
Output Information
Output information includes:
1. All input data.
2. Factors of safety for the ten most critical surfaces for static and pseudo-static stability
situation.
3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the
critical surfaces and the factor of safety.
4. Note,that in the analysis,at least 9000 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section
for either static or pseudo-static analyses.
Results of Slope Stability Calculation
Table D-1 shows parameters used in slope stability calculations. Detailed output
information is presented in Plates D-1 and D-2. A summary of our gross stability analysis
is presented in Table D-2.
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix D
F11e:e:1wp71320013288a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
i
C
u
F
c
A
(� N O
C
Z r a
0 m u
V � _- o
Lai N '� m
V� N 10 to
-• u
W N m
o.
Q N .�
\
tn y
W ? >� N m
0
W
uj
IL 0 0. N
N d
C)
is o
Q adz°O n.
mE
Ltd � —°.oe°0°a° m
v c m N
u.i
Oin y V;y °m
2 Q .
to V�v�� �
Z �p C
rl la
p M-; 0 0
u
p N �3 0IN v
J i NO i
U �
a3Qcui 0
�.. N N
V
?
W _ 0
Z.,N
m
tCL v 0 o
— „ 01 H
in
W W
m�
ri
Nd00(A0000mm rtm,
LU
VI
APPENDIX E
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
General
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading
as shown on the approved grading plans,including preparation of areas to filled,placement
of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede
the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the
consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could
supersede these guidelines orthe recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and
- engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide
observation and testing services,and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the
project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer
and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork
procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and
ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of
the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work
schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be
observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior
to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and
soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in
accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-
1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test
method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of
approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria
would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and
frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing,site preparation,and earthwork performed on the project should,be conducted
by the contractor,with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the
governing agencies,as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground
surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread,
moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of
the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material
considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods
to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or
agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and
compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration forthe
fill material, rate of placement,and climatic conditions. If,in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized
rock,or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment,etc., are resulting in a quality
of work that is not acceptable,the consultant will inform the contractor,and the contractor
is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are
satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good
drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to
control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent
drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other
deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be
concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials
determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place
should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these
materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the
compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks,wells, pipelines,or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or
treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft,dry,spongy,highly fractured,
or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot
adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to firm ground and
approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue.
Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
Fi1e:e:\wp7\32W\32Wa.pge Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in
these guidelines.
Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the
scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed,the materials
should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in
depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted
to about 6 inches in compacted thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated
as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering
geologist. Scarification,disc harrowing,or other acceptable form of mixing should continue
until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface
is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features
which would inhibit compaction as described previously.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical),
the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key,
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material,
and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope
conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet
with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As
a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the
minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 'A the height of the slope.
Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable
material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials,although it is understood
that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered
for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness.
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill
benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering
geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until
design grades (elevations) are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill
provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These
materials should be free of roots,tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious
materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil
engineer. Soils of poor gradation,undesirable expansion potential,or substandard strength
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
Fi1e:e:1wp713200\32Ma.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require
blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area
and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result
in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the
fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum
dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location
of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer.
Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations
of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material
should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet
horizontally of slope faces.
To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation
excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by
the soil engineer and/or the developers representative.
If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be
utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to
determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading,an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted
by the soil engineer as soon as possible.
Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal
layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer
may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate
compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread
evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction.
Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed,and wet
fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill
materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be
uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by
ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer.
Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed
for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of
compaction.
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
F11e:e:\wpM200W88a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been
tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the
soil engineer.
Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet
- horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing
shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being
developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill
slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose
materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determination of fill slope compaction should
be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill
slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a
higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be
recommended.
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected,then
special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of
each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should
be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The
sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicularto the slopes,and extend
out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope.
2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is
compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be
trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling.
3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope
at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations.
4. After completion of the slope,the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm
compaction after grid rolling.
5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to
achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction.
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
Fi1e:e:\wp7\32M3288a.pge Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies,
and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering
geologist.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or
materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical
consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct
changes in subdrain line,grade and drain material in the field,pending exposed conditions.
The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering
geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist,further excavations or overexcavation
and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should
be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved,the
cut portion of the slope should be observed bythe engineering geologist priorto placement
of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.
The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the
contractor when cut slopes are started.
If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic
conditions are encountered,the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate,
evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope
buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering
geologist, whether anticipated or not.
Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the
contractors responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed bythe project civil engineerand
should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
Re:e:\wp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
COMPLETION
Observation,testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted
during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are
graded in accordance with the approved project specifications.
After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have
finished their observations of the work,final reports should be submitted subject to review
by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be
undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in
accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape
architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after
completion of grading.
JOB SAFETY
General
At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is
the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer
construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality
on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary
on each site and that site safety is the rp ime responsibility of the contractor; however,
everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of
avoiding accidents,cooperation between the client,the contractor and GSI personnel must
be maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the
following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and
construction projects:
Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly
scheduled and documented safety meetings.
Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at
all times when they are working in the field.
Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be
affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the
spoil pile on all test pits.
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
F11e:e:\wp7\3200\328aa.pge Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing
amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing.
While operating a vehicle in the grading area,the emergency flasher
on the vehicle shall be activated.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel notfollowing
the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.
Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be
the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading
contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the
established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized
- representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct
excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the
soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic,
whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit,opposite the
spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively,
the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly
in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment
_. should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately
50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to
avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results.
When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the
test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the
slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe
operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible
following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a
highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern.
The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas
or other factors that may affect site access and site safety.
In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the
contractors failure to comply with any of the above,the technician is required,by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors
representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However,in the
KST Associates, Inc. Appendix E
Fi1e:eAwp7\3200\3288a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
TYPE A
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL � dp
,----NATURAL GROUND
COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE)
III BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
5
SEE ALTERNATIVES
TYPE B
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
%see—
NATURAL GROUND
1J�``�l `♦� COLLUYIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE)
di
BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
SEE ALTERNATIVES
NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED
BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST-DURING GRADING.
MI A TC =r_'I
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL
12' MINIMUM
6' 1HIM FILTER MATERIAL' MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.'
• /LINEAR FT. 6' 11< ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED •:: ::;
SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 (114' jdl PERFS.
• ' MINIMUM LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE. •'•' "�
ASTM 02751. SOR 35 OR ASTM 01527. SCHO, 40 6' MINIMUM
A—' FOR CONTINUOUS RUN N E EXCESS of 5bOCFT� 40 B-1
USE Be jf PIPE
•FILTER MATERIAL.
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
11NCH , i00
•3/4 INCH 90-100
318 INCH 40-100
NO. 4 25-40.
NO. 8 18-33
.NO. 30 .5-15
NO. 50 .0-7
NO. 200 0-3
ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND_FILTER FABRIC
w 6'M`INIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP
6' MINIMUM-COVER •:;:
=4" MINIMUM BEDDING 4' MINIMUM BEDDING,
A-2 GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT'/LINEAR FT. B` 2 /
PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1
GRAVEL' CLEAN 314 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE
FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE
PLATE EG-2
DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT
ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN COMPACTED FILL
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE
RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL — ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
BACKCU *VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS.
BACKCUT ►ASHOULD BE MADE NO
STEEPER•THAN:1 OR AS NECESSARY A ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL
FOR SAFETY %`+CONSIDERATIONSy e
DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER.
JL
J; PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF
SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED
REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AND/OR
LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS.
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
ADJOINING CANYON FILL
— — — — — — — — — —
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL
COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE`
. TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL �
FOR DRAINAGE ONLY f
Oaf A� Oaf Q (TO BE REMOVED)
(EXISTING;COMPACTED FILL) F%%% ` tNVN
r �'��li LEGEND —
op
TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL
PLACING ADDITIONAL
COMPACTED FILL Gal ALLUVIUM
PLATE EG- 3
O
w w
ow
Z
wa
� Z LL >
a
U W
WN J ��
w W
Ca
F I O N
W Z w ?mz
Z
O � w z
x J J W W D
J J m r m I
J < 0 b o cn
LL tA C3 Z
Z a} w
rV I z O W
-
-mc
w w z ~
z
U. < V W
M� Z O p us
W F" G N J W Y
X LL ' m
Q J M
W _ x
Z c a w z
O ° w
�
O. O
LU Q w
A , a < w w w
N N LL G. w
O N
W ~ _ C4
m
H
p N O O
Z
Z
f�f H � LL n
V J -J m Z Z
O O Ln
U w
a
0-
(_ J
f Q �
V
> V
_ H
PLATE EG- 4
LL Ln
O C H z z LL
w F z - O N O
m Q J w =O Z Q
o M &n W .CL O
J LL > d G O C eh .- ~ �' J O O
o ~ o l I I I I I I LL v Q Z ° u, m z_
N a w z o°+ ° N w 0 O O O LL = W �
45 N O wm U O,
O w J W W w Z
W z > a J N O a w
Q w = C7 > W = Q
Q a N Z O N U O
Z J Q IL = U U O O O J 3 w N Z v O O IL
w d > ? ,, m 0 0 0 0 Q J Q > z o O
Q = m z z z z z u0. a z z
Lq it m z Z > W
co LL Ir >- Z O W O O < O m .N
a v `'' ° Z n. � f- � m O d d J
,, ^^ a _
V J LL N J d
CO m to O U LL - Q w LL J U N Z N c�
m O
o a w
, /� ? > LL Z • N Z Q = O. V V Q z -=i Z W -j
M^^, w 0 W w O N F=--, d o o ° z m N m F- w
V) W L) J J N ?� O LL C N ZO m Z � ~ O LL O.
W Z J LL LL d p > O Q w 1- W U O Q > > Q z z
IL z Z U O Z a a O d m ~ p W J ZO O m
F- • N m N LL. w P w
Li = m W C4 tA J z0 LL o 0 o wd Q o �- w w
w Q J Q O O m Z Z d 0 Z
> w LL d o to O w ? d N Z W IL w d Fw O O Q N z
M LL a W O Z m v = O W a m w _3 d ~ Fw.-. O W
W O d F- O O d J N O LL H x H O -J O J > < w w �
LL '� w O Z � Q Q W w O N O J U O S O
�. O LL m z O
uj t .w O 0. O .Z J.. �U O FW.. < w OJ C H Z
LL w O = r d O m N O =_ o N N < Z Q Q
= w °m o ° °o < a 0 3 = c < 0 o o z w
O IL m I- "- 0 n.
►z_- a m w Z = Y Q F- w i z U) M
< I C o J I IL. a m a o m o W Z
z W W • O = Z W U W z F- Co -J LL J m W
m w F" O m m O O O CC
J W J d ..:
LL F t N m N U m z O O n Co
W O (j w N V) O n ~oo
LL H N Z
= wnHINIH.z
Q z
U nwINlvi — .. •.�
N
z w z a
v PLATE EG-5
0
w
Z
LL O w w w
Co= m Z
W G z N a G H
CL v W
LLI 3:O m LU
Z
C Z X to OJ C)
W Z m
C3 i O O
0 W
f" 3
O to
J
cr to 0 Z 0 I
? Q U x I W
Q Y Q Z . O 0
Z = S _ Z w V Ct 0 CL= O
_I Z CL = W Z 0
�. Z O UJ
to L W
° 3
0 W O V Z to m
~ 7 = O W
C) J 4. W
W Z Z en N J N w
O J
0 N G m G y 0
�
= Q W
QJ 0 Z W } p N
W i W O CO LL J
LL N = J 0 0 N
O
..I C IL W Z O W W
J Z O = 0 > Z H
Q W d ? Z 2 Lu Vi W W = }
Z 0 O LL 1- m
N
��yy Z 131
LL O W
O �
t„
in 3 0
Q
J w 0 Y
�, La
W
O Y `� ` > > O
LL LL
O V O Z Y
5E j
Z 0 Y
LL ' X m H
1- N Q
UJ CL W
W
Z N Q W S J > O
O Z p O LL F- Z
O J W 0 Z a
Q O Z N 0 W Y N a CL
w I.- 3 a I.- U
�°—, n i w a m
o en in t-
Z m PLATE EG-6
z
v Z
W
W O
LL a Z
C X Z O
W W W C'
O Q m C J
LL
CL
O p
Z W U / > > Q H
IL
-j = t=il W 2
V N J/ w W
cc
N W
LL W r = J Z
V
X W o Z _ LL N
2 LL W v O F" M
IL C3
- W C � / W d G I-
O zY a 3 m �- � N
Q Q V J J
m
F- W 0
U W
3
o Z
W �
_ > W Z • Z �
O co
I.- Z
J W
LL
J J
CL
O _J J
? � Q
C m �-
O d 4
Z Z
O O CD
Z Z O C
d W
O O H O _
= = J =
vs N Q n.
a 4 Z a a
0 oc
r n1 Q y 0
f„ Y
D U
_ U O
w
C
W
= m
PLATE EG-7
W Y J
O W
W Z W
F- O ~ L7
m W J J W 2
0 O
W O Z Z Lt_ 0 0 W
J w > O W W 0 y Z
CL W
F=.. IX W U O CL 0
Z
W Q O W Z W W
W
L1. Z
Z a Z G Z H V t7 p
W J j O H w LL z
W la L% W Z �" t
CL IQ- �� ` Z W 0 3 W Z
Q to _ !- Z O lL W
i O = Q W d z < H Z
O
W Z J N 1- ci W Z z
W O Z ` `` m "� O J W = W
M W Z 17 F- Y W O a p ~ _J
W fL Z• to W Z CX LU
z y 0
Q U "' '' ° m W W N
W F- ,� Z to J H
0 O � J CJ
JL L J Z J ° W- Q y. o HOC r
Z O 0
O W H W O = W 2
W W =
O
Z y W !L C ~' S
O �.._ W
O ` w ° a ttA Z O W
LL O J 0Ix ul W_ � W
CL
= w •
LL Z
z { W 3 m
N
Z Q m { 3 o �-- J N
0 . w W Q
lu
O <
Q z
LU W w
N 0 3^il
� LdLd 4c
UJ Z Z LL F=
M W J
W t( � _ C-4 O
Q C4 m -C o
r- N
O
Z
PLATE EG—S
J �
W I
a a �/ W a Wm
o 0 Z �\ O
z w
z z_
c' LL. > z
n z W
O w ♦ CL N w
in
O 4 w
CL / cr. N n
,C O W L- H
N
Y
Q 6. ` n
n
O J
n W Z W O
W m ul . O x az O . a A z z
� w
- Z
IL n p W
W = S n O
0
W J V = o
cr.
3
° ° z
D N W U <
z
AC z IL w
O z
z 0 W w z°
_. en Z m W
O N
O
cr. , ~
c LL O
z N
W m � N i f-
° o >„r a-
LL z w 3 Z ° L) m
W 4 ? W �
w LL w Y w z z in
W W
m a d x w LU > N
O z O
r ^ 10-. -J N
y Z Q
v , z = Z I-- W a z
° 9n
� z .
z Z LL •- `';
LL W
n
tn W N O
Q O a.
Z -
CL O c
cr- a
d w
z °
W
N Y
PLATE EG-9
J \\ U m
C J '� J -LL, }
< LL � <
O
W FW'• m W tn
EA W
Il. J r O p Z
m _�J� W W O
W ,i u ? h`' d
o Z
p d
X �� a w Ix
�r� h\ O W
n •`
, r' 0 0 O
J
= _ 06 CY.) N LL
Q O < O
< ri � � m W
W O
W m z z !LL
C O _ z W ~
cr- W 1A
z d C9
7� m G m C
O7),O W p WO
J m o Z
a
LLI z
°O � � c z
m U Z
cc < W
T Li. �(\ O W W CL
O O =.
r f� Off C� O O LL W
W 1"
N W O C
O
O<C /� � t/l p
F- \ O N
< �+lk w z Z
Q W W LL
n.
Q J < W a V C W
en 4 } CD 0 W F=" < Z
LL w a. d Q
- p 1- z 'a X W
H U d Z p z z w J
W
< W w Z Z r� >' C N
CL 0_ z Z _Jj W W N Y w z p �t
1- W FW. } Z
U W Z O O N
W
� cc < x v � w
to U x V a s� (= O
O Z J C W Z
w a o ►-
< <
PLATE EG-10
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION)
NATURAL GRAD
5'MINIM M
PAD GRADE
OVEREXCAVATE'ANO RECOMPACT
COMPACTED FILL
(/NI 7\ /� /\fit ��\ 3' MINIMUM*
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
CUT-FILL LOT (DAYUGHT TRANSITION)
NATURAL GRADE ,��F��P► 5-MINIMUM
M�
PAD GRADE I
R VNS OVER EX•CAVATE ' W
COMPACTED FILL uM•0 AND RECOMPACT
v` 3'MINIMUM*
/ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS,
PLATE EG-11
SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL
2'X 2'X 11 C' STEEL P LATE
STANDARD 314' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP
OF PLATE.
314' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE
THREADS TOP AND.BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS
THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5'
INCREMENTS.
3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN
5*INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS.
FINAL GRADE
1 MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
I _.MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL
-TEL- LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND
ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
1 5'
l �
I I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIALS-
VERTICAL
5• y� WITHIN AS'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE.
20 H
1. ;. ; ; •.. : .•;..••- •.'. '.' • '. BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT
PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1'BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND
NOTE:
1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY
VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND
WITHIN 5'IVERTICAU FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD
BE HAND`COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE
APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
3. AFTER SIVERTICAU OF FILL IS IN PLACE, CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5_RADIUS
EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER.
4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING
THE INITIAL READING.
5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING
FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER.
6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.
PLATE EG-14
TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT
FINISH GRADE __-`---
318'DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH
CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT
DIAMETER X 3 112'LENGTH HOLE
'30-60
CONCRETE BACKFILL
PLATE EG-15
TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM
SIDE VIEW
lo:� % ' o
va11cLE
SPOIL PILE
TEST PIT
( NOT TO SCALE I
TOP VIEW
l_ 100 FEET -1
50 FEET an 50 FEET
FUG : I
•r TEST PIT;:'• {
SPOIL ve*cLE
. . .
PILE r,
� FLAG APPROXIMATE CENTER
OF TEST PIT
1 NOT TO SCALE )
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
10' MINIMUM (E)
cp 00 co co
15'MINIMUM (A)
(e) Co co
20'MINIMUM (G)
ao 0o cn vo CD CIO
5'MINIMUM (A co vo
5'MINIMUM (C)
lic
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL .
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
10' MINIMUM (E) j•00'MAXIMUM (BL,--I ocx7ocx7c=h=cxDw=
15' MINIMUM 3' MINIMUM Is)
15' MINIMUM
5'MINIMUM lC � � �
FROM CA WALL •MINIMUM '(C)
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.
18) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100'MAXIMUM.
(C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK
PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION.
(D) ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/DR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF
WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED.
(E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS.
(F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED,
lG) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF
FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A
0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PLATE RD-1
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN.
FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER
ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT
GRANULAR MATERIAL
1 •.
LARGE ROCK •' -'---'-•'-�
I l
COMPACTED FILL i
SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE
1 1
1 COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE
1 1
t 1
L
ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS
GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS, COMPACTED FILL
OENSIFIED BY FLOODING
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH _ z
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER
MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIU
-- - --- -� 20' MUM
OVERSIZE LAYER F LOPE FACE
COMPACTED FILL �.
13*MINIMUM
FILL SLOPE
CLEAR ZONE 20•MINIMUM
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH
TOP VIEW PLATE RD-2
o N C
U N
o
U •+
W Q U A W
W LU
o � Za
�It O u
U e�
1334 NI NOIIVA313 ~
V �
QW w
~ o 0 coo W 0
W a •- _ v
Q` 3 CO)o
w
V co
O
3
C-
c O
;a r N
'd C
• O
m N
H
O W
W
LL
O
N
N
e
• N
M
e
r
r
e
M
V
W
r.
C
O
V
V
e •�
M O
OJ O
O CD
O f+ O C
CL W a
m
.a E C `
0 O m m
G 0 LL ac
Z A � =
O
W m 0
0 m
� o � t
J ° E 3: m
a a •o m
;r
a a
Q�
d � a a
4c 0 a �
W N T
133 NI NOILVA313
PHIC SURVEY
TO)POGRA ,
OF L O;S 1,2, 5, 4, 5, & 6 IN BLOCK 42 OF MAP 1,334
IN T,HE CITY OF ENCINI TAS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
x
PERFORMED APRIL 2, 2002 -
�,
I ,
EX7SMG RRE H NF of ,1
SCALE 1 1
1
I , f BI$ TOP ON. OF WALL
?� TOP OF wACc
FS FhV{S-' SL`RFACL
78 TOP OF BERM
1 '4 t $ ( C' RNISY GRAD
/ F
RfuC v E FINISH GRADE
Oi N07E• VER7CAL DATUM IS ASSUMED
fXLSt7NG
NO BOUNDARY SURVEY HAS BEEN PERFORM-PO
MAttBO) S
Td
EAER MAWHOLEJA
DISTNG St
<
f z ,
w�
RIM B EVA 17ON=904.44
DaSTM XWER METERS 9>>se6
. "
r, r, MAP PRE
PAREJ. FOR:
< n <6
d
t MR. RANDALL LEE
{ ? 895 F ICST CONS ; UC3?ON ASSOCI-"„ES
=_ f 0# r PGR - L R.O. SOX 1149
tf Jl N
CARDIFF CA 92007
.902.00 FF b9
EX{STING PtX1L."
` J
< e
` o
a
�rn
E 'NG HOUSE
t�
r3 _ d
_s r
i
f /
° w a
t r
" ' # ". '
l
EX7STING POAFR POLE - "?
r
7 B`2
TD=7'
1z at
h s,
e
' J
n ° FS Td
r
N
w
_ LEG
END
afu
Artificial fill - undocumented
EXtS,�NG -2-LRW
3s \ POND lot Quaternary terrace deposits
x �
Tertiary Delmar Formation, circed
s
where buried
Approximate location of geologic
4 contact, queried where uncertain
81Y 5, Approximate location of exploratory
hand auger boring, total depth in feet
13 TD:7`
s
Prepared y: �
� tel& eeri$g and Surveying lac a ASIDE c¢.
-704 state,place 0FWu4W co,
E3eondcl
SAN Ccmra ii� 92029
fa '(ice. 741-6979
E , t �
741-3722
D05TING POKER 00[f
AL
GARY A SZ M�. CS. 4458 i3�4
VJ. 328$-A-$C BATE V02 SCALE Y'=
PROJECT NO, 1557A