The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-9289 G/ICity of ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 21, 2007 Attn: Temecula Valley Bank 27710 Jefferson Avenue Suite A -100 Temecula, California 92593 -0690 RE: Wiegand Neglia Corporation Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane APN 264 - 160 -16 Grading Permit 9289 -G Final release of security Permit 9289 -GI authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion control, all as necessary to build the described project. The inspector has finaled the project. Therefore, a release of the remaining security deposited is merited. Letter of Credit 00075, (in the original amount of $95,412.00), reduced by 75% to $23,853.00, can hereby be released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Wiegand Neglia Corporation Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 t14 recycled p: City 0 0NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 27, 2007 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company C/o HCC Surety Group 1081 Camino Del Rio Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: Wiegand Neglia Corporation Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane APN 264 - 160 -16 Improvement Permit 9289 -I Partial release of security Permit 9289 -I authorized the installation of public road and drainage improvements, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the construction of the improvements. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited and the one -year warranty period begins. Performance Bond 259573, in the amount of $39,028.61, may be reduced by 75% to $9,757.15. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. A one -year warranty inspection is required prior to release of remaining deposit. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Debra Geish Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Wiegand Neglia Corp Debra Geishart File TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 14 recyc /ea City 01 ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 21, 2007 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company C/o HCC Surety Group 1081 Camino Del Rio Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: Wiegand Neglia Corporation Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane APN 264 - 160 -16 TPM 04 -087 Grading Permit 9289 -G Final release of security Permit 9289 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 259571, (in the original amount of $381,645.00), reduced by 75% to $95,411.25, can hereby be released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincer y, Debra Geisheechnician Engineering Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Wiegand Neglia Corporation Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 1 FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 t— recycled City OfENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 18, 2008 Attn: American Contractors Indemnity Company C/o HCC Surety Group 1081 Camino Del Rio Suite 107 San Diego, California 92108 RE: Wiegand Neglia Corporation Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane APN 264 - 160 -16 Improvement Permit 9289 -I Final release of security Permit 9289 -I authorized the installation of public road and drainage improvements, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the construction of the improvements and approved the one -year warranty inspection. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 259573, (in the original amount of $39,028.61), reduced by 75% to $9,757.15, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincer, i Debra Geishart Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering 4ybach Finance Manager Financial Services CC Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Wiegand Neglia Corp Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 Qrecycled l G e o t e c h n i c s Incorporated June 3, 2005 Wiegand Neglia Corporation 760 Garden View Court, Suite 200 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce Wiegand JUN 1 6 20u __ _- Principals: Anthony R Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 05 -0640 SUBJECT: PCC PAVEMENT SECTION ALTERNATIVE Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Jack Road Encinitas, California References: Geotechnics Incorporated (2004). Geotechnical Investigation, Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, CA, Project 0007 - 013 -00, Document 04 -0272, April 12. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we are providing an alternative portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement section for the subject site. It is our understanding that all four driveways will consist of Portland cement concrete. In Section 8.7.2 of the referenced report, we recommended that PCC pavement sections consist of 6 inches of portland cement concrete placed over 6 inches of aggregate base. As an alternative, the driveway sections may consist of 6'/2 inches of Portland cement concrete placed over native subgrade soil. The concrete should use Type V cement and have a minimum flexural strength of 600 psi. The PCC pavements should be reinforced with No. 4 bars on 18 -inch centers (each way), or alternatively 6x6 W6 /W6 welded wire fabric placed securely at mid - height of the slab. Immediately prior to placing the concrete, the subgrade soil should be scarified, brought to about optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Please feel free to call the office if you have any questions or comments. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Q�pFESS10Nq A. w U 7 m Q Z 33 Matthew A. Fagan, P.E. 57248 2 C572 * Project Engineer Exp. CIV11- � Distribution: (6) Addressee, Mr. Bruce Wiegand (FAX: 760 - 635 -9074) IE OF CAL�FCP 9245 Activity Rd., Ste. 103 • San Diego, California 92126 Phone (858) 536 -1000 • Fax (858) 536 -8311 ATTACHMENT "B" DETAIL OF ENCROACHMENT ON LONE JACK ROAD PROPOSED PRIVAT CONCRETE TRANSIT: PROP. PRIVATE ROC LINED BROW DITCt 1" = 60' PROP. 12" CONCREI ENCASED PVC COL VE PROP. DRIVEWAY INPROVEIE'NTS Urim SIBDIVIS] BOUNDAA PROP. 12" CONCRE ENCASED PVC CUL V PROP. DRIVEWI IMPROVENENT: LEGAL DESCRIP OIN PORTION OF BLOCK 87. TOGETHER WITH TH PORTIONS OF 13TIJ 14TH; "J". AND X" STREETS AS SAID STREETS WERE VACATE AND CLOSED TO RBL.IC USE MARCH 4, 191 ALL WITHIN THE COLONY OF CLIVENIAIN Tt E CITY OF ENCINITAS, IN THE COUNTY SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. PE F SCO ENGINEERING, IK 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 FAX (858) 259 -4812 February 8, 2006 Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: PASSO FIORE — CONSTRUCTION CHANGE (9289 -G) To Whom It May Concern: WAYNE A. P, R.C.E. 29 PE 1232 This letter is in regards to the Passo Fiore project, the 4 lot subdivision located on Lone Jack Rd, Encinitas, CA, more specifically, the brow ditch construction change on Dwg. No. 9289 -G. We propose to revise the brow ditches on the approved plans by substituting the rock - lining with C350 Permanent Turf Reinforcement Mat by North American Green (1- 800 - 772 - 2040). The maximum velocity of any brow ditch on the project site is 6.75 ft /sec. The proposed turf reinforcement has a permissible velocity of 10.5 ft /sec (unvegetated) and 20 ft /sec (vegetated) per the North American Green product application guide. Please call if you have any questions. Regards, Brian Ardolino Senior Designer PASCO ENGINEERING, INC. 535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 (858) 259 -8212 FAX (858) 259 -4812 February 8, 2006 Engineering Department City of Encinitas 505 So. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: PASSO FIORE — CONSTRUCTION CHANGE (9289 -G) To Whom It May Concern: WAYNE A. P R.C.E. 29 PE 1232 This letter is in regards to the Passo Fiore project, the 4 lot subdivision located on Lone Jack Rd, Encinitas, CA, more specifically, the brow ditch construction change on Dwg. No. 9289 -G. We propose to revise the brow ditches on the approved plans by substituting the rock - lining with C350 Permanent Turf Reinforcement Mat by North American Green (1- 800 - 772 - 2040). The maximum velocity of any brow ditch on the project site is 6.75 ft /sec. The proposed turf reinforcement has a permissible velocity of 10.5 ft /sec (unvegetated) and 20 ft /sec (vegetated) per the North American Green product application guide. Please call if you have any questions. Regards, Brian Ardolino Senior Designer daft. Geotechnics Incorporated M Principals: Anthony R Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst March 22, 2005 ENC`�V cUfNt, SERVICES �NCINIT AS Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( 760 Garden View Court, Suite 200 Document No. 05 -024 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce Wiegand SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GEOPACIFICA REVIEW COMMENTS Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Jack Road Encinitas, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have prepared this document responding to the referenced thin party review comments for the subject site (Geopacifica, 2005). The reviewer requested that wf provide clarification for eleven comments. Each of the review comments is reiterated below (ir italics), followed by our response. Note that the three reports referred to as Documents 1, 2 and 3 it the referenced review comments are shown in bold in the attached Appendix A. • Comment 1: Document 1 does not provide any investigation for and/or geotechnica, recommendations /design criteria for the Improvement plans (document 3) on Lone Jac) Road. Please provide supplemental or report of investigation that addresses the proposec improvements and provides geotechnical recommendations and design criteria. We have recently reviewed the referenced improvement plans for Lone Jack Road (Pascc Engineering, 2005a). The proposed road improvements include saw - cutting and removinE the outer 2 feet of the existing pavements, and constructing approximately 350 feet of SDRSD Type G -4 curb and gutter along the south side of Lone Jack Road (southwest of the property), as well as approximately 500 feet of "modified" G -4 curb and gutter immediately south of the property. In addition, an 18 -inch RCP storm drain will be constructed to channel surface runoff across Lone Jack Road. The storm drain will need to cross over and/or undel _ five exiting utilities within the street (water, sewer, gas, cable and phone). 9245 Activity Rd., Ste. 103 • San Diego, California 92126 Phone (858) 536 -1000 • Fax (858) 536 -8311 _ Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -0244 Page 2 The recommendations provided in Section 8.7 of the referenced report should be applied tc the geotechnical aspects of the proposed street improvements (Geotechnics, 2004). When road improvements of this type are conducted, the pavement section is often reconstructed to match the existing pavement section. This provides uniform pavement rigidity, and reduces the potential for cracking and distress at the interface between old and new pavements. The improvement plans suggest that the existing section consists of 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of aggregate base. We recommend that the existing section be measured during construction at several locations (after the pavement is saw -cut), and then reconstructed to match the existing asphalt and base thickness. However, General Notes 2 and 25 on the referenced improvement plans indicate that the structural section should be designed using R -Value testing. In order to develop a pavement design, additional R -Value -. testing should be conducted when the subgrade is exposed and can be observed and sampled. In addition, the City Engineer will need to provide a design Traffic Index. The recommendations provided in Sections 8.3.6 and 8.8 of the referenced report should be applied to the proposed storm drain improvements (Geotechnics, 2004). Where the proposes storm drain crosses the existing subsurface utilities (such as between Storm Drain Stations 0 +90 and 1 +15), we recommend that a 2 -sack sand and cement slurry be used to backfill from spring -line of the storm drain pipe to at least 12 inches over the top of the highest utility. The remainder of the trench may be backfilled with the stockpiled soils, and the pavement section reconstructed above the trench as described previously. • Comment 2: Document 1 provides on page 10 for the review of grading plans. Based or review of grading plans (document 2) as compared to plans presented in document 1 (Plate 1), there appear to be changes that may be significant to the geotechnica� conclusions /recommendations. Please provide a geotechnical grading plan review repon including response to items in this review. 4 We have reviewed the grading plans for the project, as described in the referenced report (Geotechnics, 2005). Various changes have been made to the plans as compared to those used to conduct our initial investigation. Most notably, the pad elevations for Lots 1 througl 4 were changed from 134, 131, 106 and 111 feet to 130, 129, 110 and 110 feet, respectively, In order to accommodate these changes, masonry retaining walls up to 5 feet high have beer added along the northern edge of all four lots (SDRSD Type C -4 walls), and the configuration of most of the slopes throughout the property have been altered. In addition, a -- variety of drainage improvements have been added around the perimeter of the property. -- Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -024 Page A revised Geotechnical Map showing the new site configuration is presented on the attachec Plate 1. The revised site configuration was analyzed using the program Slope /W and th( _ shear strength values presented in the referenced report (Geotechnics, 2004). The results o: the slope stability analyses are summarized in the attached Appendix C. The locations of th( cross sections used for the stability analyses are shown on the Geotechnical Map. „ n Our analyses indicate that the changes to the site configuration generally do not adversell impact the proposed development. The changes to the pad elevations generally improv( slope stability by reducing the effective slope heights between the lots. The extension of th( toes of slopes along the southern edge of the property will require an increase in the amoun of remedial grading. The additional remedial excavations should be conducted in genera accordance with the recommendations provided in Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.9 of the reference( report (Geotechnics, 2004). Our analysis indicates that the modifications to the slope south of Lot 2 do result in reduction in stability in that area to below the commonly accepted safety factor of 1.5 fo - deep seated slope failure (the slope was steepened from a maximum of 2.5:1 to 2.3:1 it areas). We recommend that the stability of the slope south of Lot 2 be improved b: flattening a relatively short section of the slope. The slope should be flattened by moving the top of slope north up to 12 feet in areas. The approximate location of the revised top of thi slope on Lot 2 is shown on the Geotechnical Map. The slope revisions should be reviewe( by the project Civil Engineer and incorporated into the grading plans prior to finalization With the slope flattened as recommended, the slope has an adequate safety factor wit] respect to deep seated failure, in our opinion. The active zone of the proposed retaining walls should be backfilled using a select granula soil in general accordance with the retaining wall recommendations presented in Section 8.1 of the referenced report. The approximate configuration of the select backfill zone is shows on the cross sections in Appendix C. The select granular backfill should have a minimun shear strength of 30° when plotted with 50 lb /ft2 cohesion (see Figure C -1). Some of the on site sands may meet this criterion, although imported select granular soil will likely b, needed. Additional shear testing should be conducted during grading to confirm that th, proposed wall backfill meets the specified strength. All retaining walls will need backdrain as shown in Figure 6 of the referenced report (Geotechnics, 2004). The addition of th retaining walls, select granular backfill, wall backdrains, and surface drainage improvement -- will generally improve slope stability, in our opinion. Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -01 March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -024, Page, • Comment 3: Document 1 provides cross sections (Figures D -2.1 through D -4.2) but tho sections are not geological cross sections. Please provide geologic cross sections at plan. scale and provide soil /geological data including bedding attitudes, joints, fractures, etc. A revised Geotechnical Map showing the new site configuration is presented on Plate I Two Geologic Cross Sections of the new site configuration are shown on the attached Plat, _ 2. The approximate geologic cross section locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map • Comment 4: The slope stability profiles of document 1 appear to be developed based of - single point sections. Please describe how the section was developed without adequat subsurface information. The cross sections were developed using two borings each. Cross Section A -A' was base on Borings B -1 and B -4. Cross Section B -B' was based on Borings B -I and B -3. Cros Section C -C' was based on Boring B -2 and extrapolated information from Boring B -3. Th locations of the borings are shown on the two new Geologic Cross Sections on Plate 2. The exploration plan for the site was initially developed to provide a vertical profile of th formational units at the property, based on the assumption that the Delmar Formation woul govern the slope stability analysis. However, the presence of relatively deep colluvium at th site dominated the slope stability considerations. In order to model the geologic condition along the southern edge of the property, we extrapolated the limited subsurface informatio: to that area, based on the colluvium configuration observed throughout the site. We expec to obtain additional information regarding the colluvium depth and consistency along th southern edge of the site during remedial grading excavations. As stated in Section 8.2 of the referenced report, our recommendations are contingent upo Geotechnics Incorporated providing testing and observation services during grading, in ordt to identify field conditions which may differ from those anticipated by the preliminar investigation. Any adverse geologic conditions encountered during grading will be modele and analyzed to determine if additional slope buttress or remedial grading recommendation are needed, as described in Section 8.3.9 of the referenced report (Geotechnics, 2004). Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007- 013 -0( March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -0244 Page ` • Comment S: Document I provides logs for four borings. These borings are noted to be "30. inch diameter bucket auger" and page 1 indicates the borings were down -hole logged However, there is no geological data such as bedding attitudes, fractures, joints, water seeps, necessaryfor hillside stability analysis recorded on the logs. Please provide bedding - and geologic structure for inclusion in the geologic cross sections. No seepage or groundwater was encountered during our subsurface investigation, as stated ii Section 5.5 of the referenced report (Geotechnics, 2004). We have revised our boring logs t( include the requested additional information that was available on our field logs. The revise( boring logs are presented in Appendix B. The revisions are shown in red. • Comment 6: Document 1 (page 9) provides "It may be possible for landslide debris from th, off -site landslides to adversely impact the proposed development, if these slides were no properly mitigated. " Please provide an assessment of the potential of impact as a ris, assessment to this project. The findings of our literature review regarding the presence of landslides around the propert were presented in Section 6.5 of the referenced report, and are reiterated herein for clarit (Geotechnics, 2004). An investigation was reviewed for several existing single famil residences north of the site (Leighton, 1990). This report mapped one recent and severs ancient landslides near the top of the bluff about 300 feet north of the property. The repot concluded that the landslides were "relatively shallow (19 to 26 feet deep)", and that th landslides "probably included a mud /debris flow that extended over the natural canyon slop and well down into the canyon area." This debris flow may have covered the subject site Another geotechnical investigation was found for the existing residential lot immediatel north of the subject site (Hetherington, 1991). The report indicated that landslide hazar identification was not a part of the contracted scope of services. However, several shallo) test pits were conducted for the investigation, and it was concluded that the site wa underlain entirely by slide debris to the maximum depth explored (10 to 13 feet). Several other geotechnical investigations were reviewed at the City of Encinitas for existin single family residential properties bordering the subject site (Western Soil and Foundatio Engineering, 1990, 1991). These reports concluded that there were no indications of existin landslides or other geologic hazards on those sites. Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -024 Page f Our investigation did not provide indications of active landslides on site. No slide plane; were observed within the four exploratory borings. However, the character of the colluviun suggested that the upper unit (Qcol l) may consist of ancient landslide debris that wa transported down slope and deposited over the existing colluvium (Qcol2). The landslide debris has subsequently become age- hardened or indurated. Our observations appear to b, generally consistent with the findings of the geotechnical investigations described above. In general, our remedial grading recommendations were intended to excavate and replace th ancient landslide debris (Qcol l) throughout the site. The minimum 10 foot deep remedie excavations throughout the site should generally extend down into Delmar Formatio (particularly in the building areas, which are already situated primarily in cuts), or at lea: _- into the much older, harder colluvial unit which underlies the ancient landslide debris. As stated in our investigation report, it may be possible for debris from the off -site landslide to adversely impact the proposed development, if these slides were not properly mitigate( and were to fail again in a similar manner. It is our understanding that the off -site landslide - were mitigated through the use of slope buttresses or remedial excavations, in accordanc with the standards of practice. The City of Encinitas provided most of the informatio reviewed for this report. We assume that the City Engineer reviewed the referenced report was aware of the presence of the slides, and approved some mitigation measures prior t development. The City Engineer should have direct experience regarding the mitigatic measures employed during development of the adjacent properties. We do not have the information necessary to evaluate the stability of the off -site landslide because no post- mitigation reports were found during our literature review. The off -si landslides are situated on private property, and we do not have right of access to conduct field exploration in that area. Furthermore, evaluation of the stability of the off -si landslides was not a part of our scope of services for this project. Consequently, we are n, able to provide an assessment of the potential risk to the project. Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -0244 Page i • Comment 7: Document I (page 8) provides in order to reduce the potential of slope instability, all cut slopes should be reconstructed as stabilization fills within 10 feel (measured vertically) from the surface of the proposed cut slopes. Based on document 2, there is only 5 horizontal feet between top of slope and the adjacent property. The recommendations provided appear will encroach onto the adjacent property by more thar, 12+ feet. Please provide clarification as necessary. Please provide assessment of impact tc adjacent properties during earthwork construction and provide mitigation as necessary. We recommend that the temporary backcut for the northern-most stabilization fill be started immediately along the northern property boundary, and extended down to 5 feet below pad grade at a 1:1 gradient, as shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Our stability analysis for the temporary backcut is shown in Appendix C. The proposed backcut should be stable with respect to temporary stability (F.S. > 1.2) for the heights shown on the Geotechnical Map. In our opinion, the proposed grading should not adversely affect the adjacent properties. Note that the remedial excavation for the building pads should be deepened from 5 feet at the location of the retaining wall to 10 feet near the locations of the cut/fill transitions on Lots 1 and 2. Our previously recommended 10 foot thick reconstruction zone will be more easily implemented for the remaining cut slopes situated between the proposed lots. In order to clarify our recommendations, the recommended backcuts, forecuts, slope keyways, and remedial excavation bottom elevations at the toes of the proposed slopes and other selected locations throughout the site are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. • Comment 8: The document I does not clearly identify if shear keys will be necessary for the fill and cut slopes. Ifso, such feature locations need to be provided to the civil engineer to be shown on the grading plans (document 2). The features should include dimensions, base elevations, base of key slope, and sub drain, backdrain locations with outlets. In Section 8.3.9 of the referenced report, we recommended that keyways be constructed for all cut and fill slopes ( Geotechnics, 2004). The minimum key width was 15 feet (measured from the toe of slope). The minimum key depth was 10 feet (measured vertically below the toe of slope). The fill keys will be integral with the over - excavations for the cut portions of each of the four lots, and with the 10 foot deep reconstruction recommended for the cut and fill slopes as described above in Comment 7. The approximate keyway elevations and locations are shown on the revised Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. No subdrains are recommended at this time (except for the retaining walls). Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -0241 Page I • Comment 9: Document 1 provides for removals but there are no explorations at the base o fill slopes shown on the grading plans (document 2). Will the removals section of documen 1 be adequate for the fill slopes depicted on document 2? Our recommendations for removal and compaction of compressible soils were presented ii Section 8.3.2 of the referenced report ( Geotechnics, 2004). In general, the removals shouh expose firm and unyielding material as determined by our personnel during grading. Thg removals should extend below the surficial colluvial unit (Qcol l) throughout the site (fron the toe of the fill slope along Lone Jack Road, to the top of the cut slope along the northen property boundary). Although we conducted no explorations at the base of the fill slopes of Lone Jack Road, our remedial grading recommendations are applicable to this area as well -- Any adverse geologic conditions will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis during grading • Comment 10: The slope stability cross sections (Figure D -2.1 through D -4.2 ofdocument 1 provide two colluvial units (Qcoll and Qcol2), but the field exploration logs and text of th report do not identify two separate colluvial units. Please provide clarification as necessary We have revised our boring logs to show the two colluvial units (see Appendix B). II general, the upper unit (Qcol l) reflects what we believe to be ancient landslide debris tha was transported down slope from a large off -site failure, deposited at the site, ani subsequently age- hardened (see Comment 6). The Qcol l unit is characterized as light gree clay with sand (CL), and is similar in appearance to a material generated by excavation ii Friars Formation. This unit was observed in Borings B -2, B -3 and B -4 to a maximum dept] of 13 feet below existing grade. The contact with the underlying colluvial unit was sharp ani roughly parallel to the natural slope gradient, as shown on the boring logs. The intent of ou remedial grading recommendations was to completely excavate this unit down through th, contact with the denser underlying colluvium or formational materials throughout the site The underlying colluvium (Qcol2) is believed to be older, stronger, and less compressibl than the surficial unit. The underlying colluvium is characterized as a gray brown, fin grained clayey sand or sandy clay (SC or CL). Remedial excavations within the foundatioi influence zone for the proposed structures (a 1:1 plane extended down and out from th bottom outside edge of the footings) should be extended deep enough to completely remov _ this material, wherever possible. However, this colluvial unit is relatively thick in areas, an, may be left in place depending upon the conditions observed by Geotechnics Incorporate during the remedial excavations. -- Geotechnics Incorporated Wiegand Neglia Corporation Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( March 22, 2005 Document No. 05 -024 Page • Comment 11: The slope stability analysis provided in document I is schematic only. PleasE provide the details of the project including the actual analysis. The results of our slope stability analyses are presented in Appendix C. The locations of the - cross sections used for the stability analyses are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1 The figures shown in Appendix C were generated directly by the program Slope /W Slope /W does not provide a print -out summarizing the 10 critical failure surfaces (in contras to our older stability program PCSTABL, which we no longer use). The figures in Appendi: C show only the critical failure surfaces with the minimum safety factor found by the Beard routines. We have included the slices used to calculate driving and resisting forces, summary of the total forces and moments, and the associated minimum safety factors fo _ each of the slopes. Details regarding of the strengths used in our stability analyses for eac geologic unit are provided in Figures C -1 through C -4 of Appendix C. LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under simile circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. N warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in th; report. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service. Please feel free to call the office you have any questions or comments, or need anything further. oFESSio� GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Q�oQ�� A. R,9 Fyc� F .2 G57i 805 ♦` /6i� /� y— ♦r EXP ' 0 s qr CIV� Matthew A. Fagan, P.E. 57248 @,Ed G EOZ,0 E OF CP Project Engineer c,'�� SIN `sJ' � EN c� K N 14 S 51 tN S Kenneth W. Shaw, C.E.G. 1251 4` 5 D�_o Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 - Senior Geologist �T OF Principal Engineer E C;�" Distribution: (6) Addressee, Mr. Bruce Wiegand (Messenger) Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultants (2005). Third Party Review, Drawing 49289 -GR, Case No 04 -087 TPM, Jackie Lane /Lone Jack Road, APN 264- 160 -16, dated March 3. Geotechnics Incorporated (2004). Geotechnical Investigation, Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Jac. Road, Encinitas, California, Project 0007 - 013 -00, Document 04 -0272, dated April 1: (Geopacifica Document 1). Geotechnics Incorporated (2005). Grading Plan Review, Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Jack Roac Encinitas, California, Project 0007 - 013 -00, Document 05 -0279, dated March 22. Hetherington Engineering, Inc. (1991). Geotechnical Investigation, 2926 Lone Jack Roac Encinitas, California, Project No. 626. 1, dated February 26. Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1988). Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation, Proposed Two -Lc Residential Subdivision, 2920 Lone Jack Road (A. P. N. 264- 160 -31), Encinitas, Californic Project No. 8881554 -02, dated December 9. Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1990). Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Two -Lc Residential Subdivision, 2920 Lone Jack Road (A.P.N. 264- 160 -31), Encinitas, California Project No. 8881554 -02, dated June 25. Pasco Engineering (2005a). Plans for the Improvement of Lone Jack Road, APN264- 160 -16, Shee 1 through 3, Drawing No. 9289, printed March 9 (Geopacifica Document 3). Pasco Engineering (2005b). Grading Plan for Lone Jack Road, APN 264- 160 -16, Sheets 1 throuf 4, Drawing No. 9289, printed March 9 (Geopacifica Document 2). Tucker, B. E. and Tan, S. S. (1986). Landslide Hazards in the Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, Sc Diego County, California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 6, CDMG. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. (1990). Geotechnical Investigation, Hodge Residence, 2896 Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California, Job No. 90 -57, dated July 17. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. (1991). Geotechnical Investigation, Propose Sapper Residence, Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California, Job No. 91 -33, September 11 r_ Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B _ SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of a visual and geologic reconnaissance of the site and the excavation c four exploratory borings between March 8 and 10, 2004. The exploratory borings were conducte using a 30 -inch diameter, bucket -auger drill rig. Bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples wer collected for laboratory testing. The maximum depth of exploration was 73 feet. The borings wer abandoned immediately after drilling in substantial conformance with the State of Californi Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74 -81 and 74 -90. Bentonite pellets were used in th backfill. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in Figures B -1 through B -11 Relatively undisturbed samples were collected from the bucket auger borings using a 3 -inch outsic diameter, ring lined sampler (modified California sampler). Ring samples were sealed in plast: bags, placed in rigid plastic containers, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. TI relatively undisturbed samples collected from the bucket -auger borings were driven with the Kel bar using a free fall of 12 inches. The Kelly bar weighed 4,500 pounds at depths between 0 and feet; 3,500 pounds at depths between 27 and 52 feet; and 2,500 pounds at depths between 52 and F feet. For each sample, the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inches was recorded c the attached logs under "blows per ft." Bulk samples were also collected from the bucket at select( intervals. Bulk samples are indicated on the boring logs with shading, whereas California rir samples are indicated with "CAL ". The boring locations were surveyed by Pasco Engineering prior to commencing the subsurfa exploration. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by t] method of measurement used and the scale of the map. The lines designating the interface betwei differing soil materials on the logs may be abrupt or gradational. Furthermore, soil conditions locations between the excavations may be substantially different from those at the specific locatio explored. It should be recognized that the passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditio reported in our logs. Geotechnics Incorporated -- Soluble 2 Maximun Optimum 3 Remold( _ Expansi 4 5 dark brown, fine sands, Direct 1 106 19 COLLUVIUM IQcol11: Fat clay with sand ( ege + =13 °, c c high plasticity clays, moist, firm. Contains vegetative debris and d 6 some caliche inclusions. EL. 132 F( 7 8 DEL MAR FORMATION ITd1: Sandy claystone, light gray, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity clays, moist, hard. Contains some caliche. 9 Moderately weathered with streak staining. Direc 10 2 115 16 Contains gray, oxidized inclusions. +=26*,, 11 CAL 12 Becomes less weathered, massive and hard. 13 14 15 Becomes more sandy with slight cementation. Contains sandstone inclusions. 16 17 Orange brown stains. Gradational Contact: Approximately horizontal ------------------------------------ Interbedded silty sandstone and sandy siltstone, light gray, fine to 19 medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, very hard to very dense, massive. Some red orange stains. 20 4 117 14 CAL 21 22 At 23 feet: Difficult drilling conditions. 23 24 °— 25 26 r 27 28 _ 29 PROJECT NO. 0007 -013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIB LOG OF EXPLORATION BUKINV NU. pate D Drilled: 3/8/2004 Logged by: AJB E Elevation: 139'/2 Fet Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger a a a :Atterber TI oW. N a w Y 0 0 (n m p m D D RESIDUUM: Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, H Grad; 1 h high plasticity clays, moist, soft to firm. Contains vegetative debris. = LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NV. I tc0lit t Drilled: 3/8/2004 Logged by: AJB Elevation: 139'/: Fee Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger U. J J a a `= W v DESCRIPTION LAB TI 0. N N W Y O a M N V! W J — m C m G 20 (3) cnL 127 10 DEL MAR FORMATION tTd): Interbedded silty sandstone and sandy to sands, low plasticity, moist, 31 siftstone, light gray, fine medium grained — very hard to very dense, massive. 32 33 — 34 35 ° 36 37 — 38 Same. Light brown in color. 39 40 12 121 12 Same. Contains orange brown stains. Massive and moderately cemented. (T,) CAL 41 42 43 44 — 45 Gradational .contact :..Apnroximattly horizontal .......................................... ............................... ......... ............................... 46 ............ Silty sandstone with gravel, gray, fine to medium grained, low plasticity, concretions, some red brown — 47 moist, very dense. Contains cemented metavolcanic rock fragment to 6 inches in greatest dimension. 48 49 Becomes more cemented. J0 12 115 12 Green and red stains, polished clay rinds surround cobbles. 51 (8 °) CAL 52 -- 53 Light olive in color, mottled, with red brown staining. 54 — 55 56 EL. 82' _ 57 LUSARDI FORMATION IKII: Silty sandstone with gravel, red brown, sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense. Contains 58 fine to medium grained subangular metavolcanic rock fragments to 6 inches in greatest dimension. 59 Moderately to well cemented. so 1 FI GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013-00 U. W !L a as a a 0 0 J z y DESCRIPTION LAB m c m' c 20 125 11 61 (6.) CAL LUSARDI FORMATION (KII: Silty sandstone with gravel, red brown, fine to medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense. Contains 62 subangular metavolcanic rock fragments to 8 inches in greatest dimension. 63 Moderately to well cemented. 64 65 66 67 68 Same. Becomes more clayey. 69 70 20 107 9 71 (S) cnL 72 73 74 Total depth: 73 feet 75 No groundwater Backfilled: 318/04 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 r 89 90 -- PROJECT NO. 0007- 013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE E LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 (continued) Logged by: A AJB L Method of Drilling: 3 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 2/8 /200 ~ Elevation: 139'/2 F LUU of EXPLORATION BORING NO.2 Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/10/201 Elevation: 137/2 R LL 3 a J y DESCRIPTION W N LAB c 1 _. RESIDUUM: Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, high plasticity clays, moist, soft to firm. 2 - - -- -- - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 1 102 10 Clayey sand (SC), yellow brown, fine grained, dry to moist, loose. 4 CAL Direct, � =30 °, c 5 6 COLLUVIUM (Qcol1): Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine grained sands with some gravel, medium 1 103 plasticity clays, dry to moist. 20 7 CAL Consolii 8 Irre ular Contact: N90 1W -10 °S 9 COLLUVIUM (Qcol2): Clayey sand (SC), orange to gray brown, fine grained sands, moist, medium 10 plasticity, dense, massive. 3 108 10 11 and Gradat Green clay inclusions, medium to high plasticity, moist, hard. Direct S i 12 Contains some vegetative debris. 0 =30°, c= 13 14 15 16 Olive brown in color. Contains caliche and oxidized stains. 17 18 A Gradational Contact: App roximatel horizontal EL. 119% Feel 19 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td {: Silty sandstone, light gray, fine grained sands, low plasticity, moist, 20 3 118 very dense. Moderately weathered, weakly cemented. Contains oxidized inclusions with some charcoal fragments. 8 21 cnu 22 - - - -- --------------- - -- -- Contact_ N75 °E -25 °N ---------------------------------------------------------- 23 Sandy claystone, light green, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very hard. Moderately to well cemented, massive. 24 -- 25 26 -- 27 Increasing clay content. 28 _ 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007- 013-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIM IPI= r LVU Ur LAFLORATION BORING NO. 2 (continued) Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: Date Drilled: 3/10/2C 8 -inch diameter hollow -stem auger Elevation: 137'/2 F f= U. IX a a v V Lu 9L h - DESCRIPTION LAB Lu +� G J y ® m m p 7 109 20 31 CAL DEL MAR FORMATION ITd1• Sandy claystone, light green, fine sands, _.. medium plasticity, moist, very hard. Well cemented, massive. 32 Contains some caliche. 33 34 35 36 37 Contains some silty sandstone inclusions and charcoal. 39 r 40 4 108 18 41 c�L s 42 43 ___ __ ____ ____ __ ___ _ _ _ __ Gradational Contact: Approximately horizontal ------------------------------------ 44 Silty moist, sandstone, mottled red and green, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, very dense. Contains some oxidized inclusions. 45 46 47 _____ ____ ____ __ ___ _ _ _ __ Gradational Contact: A T12X- imately_horizontal ------------------------------------ 48 . _ Interbedded silty sandstone and sandy siltstone, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense to very hard. Contains approximately 49 15% angular gravel to 3 inches in greatest dimension. Moderately cemented. Contains oxidized inclusions. 50 6 112 17 51 CA 52 53 54 Gradational Contact: Ap 3roximately horizontal EL. 83% Feet 55 LUSARDI FORMATION WD: Silty sandstone to sandy siltstone with gravel, red brown, fine to medium grained 56 sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense to very hard. Contains approximately 30% angular metavolcanic rock -- 57 fragments to 5 inches in greatest dimension. Moderately cemented. Contains few oxidized inclusions. 58 59 60 PROJECT NO. 0007 -013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO.2 (continued) Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/10/20 Elevation: 137'/2 F I-- V- tLL W W J m W !L d W WCL o a > Y z y DESCRIPTION W LAB' 20 61 4 113 13 LUSARDI FORMATION /KIt: Silty sandstone to sandy sittstone with a rowmate 30% angular ravels to 5 inches moist very dense. 62 Total depth: 61 feet 63 No groundwater Backfilled: 3/10/04 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 - 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 r PROJECT NO. 0007 -013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE E LUG vF EXPLORATION BORING NO.3 Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9120( Elevation: 117'/ F 1Z a a v �? = a a Co ¢ a - W 3 j X co DESCRIPTION LAB J co p 1 ESIDUUM: Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, _. _ ____ ____ -p asticity_clayss mast] so112 _fi_rm. 2 -------------------------------------------- ayey sand (SC), yellow brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, Gra 3 2 to moist, loose. Contains few angular cobbles to 5 inches in eatest dimension. Direc 4 CAL M10321 5 ® 6 2 LLUVIUM (Qcol1)• Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine to medium nds, medium plasticity, moist, firm. Contains caliche and oxidized inclusions. 7 CAL Consc 8 Grac g Hydre Atterbef 10 Soluble 1 106 17 Horizontal inclusions. Expansii 11 �' Direct 12 � =24 °, c 13 Irre ular Contact: N75 °W -9 °S 14 COLLUVIUM I0co121: Sandy clay (CH), green brown, high plasticity, moist, very hard. 15 - - - -- - - -- - - -- ----- ______ Gradationalcortact: ----------------------------------------------------------- 16 Silty sand (SM), orange brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, -- moist, medium dense to dense. 17 Very oxidized. 18 19 20 3 111 10 21 CAL Direct S 0 =32 °, c= 22 r 23 24 - - - -- --------- - - - -- - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Sandy clay (CL), orange brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, hard. Contains oxidized inclusions. 26 EL. 91 %2 Feet -- 27 DEL MAR FORMATION ITd1: Sandy siltstone, light gray brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, 28 very dense. Massive. Contains caliche and orange groundwater stains. 29 30 _ PROJECT NO. 0007 -013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURS Logged by: q qJg LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO.3 (continued) Method of Drilling: 3 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9/200 Elevation: 117'/2 F LL W 1~i W W W W ~ y N N y y D DESCRIPTION Lq6. m D D p p L Luv OF EXPLORATION BORING NO.4 Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 30 4nch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9/200 Elevation: 108 Fe4 LL W W = a a a a y DESCRIPTION > _ LAB 1 RESIDUUM: Sandy lean clay (CL), dark brown, fine to medium -- sands, low plasticity, moist, soft to firm. Gra< 2 Hydr( Atterbei 3 - - -� -- --- - - -- -� Remoldi ----------------------- -10 - ----- --- - - - - -- ------------- ----- -------- --- ------ - - - - -- Expansi 4 CAL Clayey sand (SC), light gray brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, R -V dry to moist, loose. Contains some caliche. 5 1 105 19 J 6 CAL COLLUVIUM (Qcoll): Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine sands, medium plasticity, moist, firm. Moderately weathered. Direct =15 °, c= 7 8 9 °— 10 1 Contact: N65 °E -13 °S 111 18 11 CAL COLLUVIUM (Qcol2): Sandy clay (CH), orange brown, fine to medium sands, high plasticity, moist, firm. 12 Contains some caliche. 13 _ 14 15 16 EL. 92 Feet 17 DEL MAR FORMATION (Td): Sandy siltstone, light brown, fine to coarse 18 sands, medium plasticity, moist, very dense. Moderately cemented. Contains few oxidized inclusions. 19 20 8 108 19 21 (11 ") CAL 22 M 23 Contains few angular gravels to 2 inches. 24 25 26 27 28 -- 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007 -013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Logged by: AJB LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO.4 (continued) Method of Drilling: 8 -inch diameter hollow -stem auger Date Drilled: 3/9/200 LL w Elevation: 108 Fee J IL J Lu LL W d da Q � W co > Y z DESCRIPTION LAB" m O m w D 19 119 15 DEL MAR FORMATION fTdt: Sandy siltstone, light brown, fine to coarse 31 c� sands medium plastinitu moist ve dense. W, oderatety cemented. 32 Total depth: 30 feet 33 No groundwater 34 Backflled: 3/9/04 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 _ 44 45 46 47 — 48 49 5o 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PROJECT NO. 0007 -013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B IN APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS 4 The slope stability analyses performed for this project are presented in the following appendix. Th shear strength parameters used for the analysis are summarized in Figure C -1. The amalgamate shear test results for all samples conducted on each geologic unit are presented in Figures C through C -4. In general, shear strengths were chosen to approximate the lower bound envelop fol each geologic unit. The analyses are intended to approximate worst -case long term strength conditions. Gross Std: The gross stability of the proposed slopes was analyzed using SLOPE /W software. The cross sections used for the stability analyses are shown in Figures C -A through C -G for Cross Sections A -A' through G -G', respectively). The approximate cross section locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Analyses were conducted using Spencer's method of slices to identify the critical failure surfaces. The analyses indicate that the proposed cut and fill slopes possess an adequate factor of safety against deep seated slope failure (F.S. >1.5) for the heights shown on the Geotechnical Map, provided that the recommended remedial earthwork is conducted throughout the site. Geotechnics Incorporated Z _ i W 0 O O O O O W M O O 2 a N N O Lo 0 M U W F- O ` J w (~j 2 � N M O O v N LL) Lo M N N M r r Z LL- Q Z LU M LL 0 0 0 0 0 = d M IW N O- M L� 0 Cl) Q 0 L W U) O 0 0 a Cl) M O Q J O LO j U WY OZ u Z LU G. F- (7 LO N chi M O n U •- M N OZ W N N e^- W o F- J O Lt7 M 0 M— .-- - N M LL Q _U jr Z LL Q J ° o U rn ' U _ J U U o o o - (vvU rn O U o J o V o c c> U a U cn = > a� c > h N U C —° cp Lm U U c o m Z m M c�i (D m ° E CU M c cn > w O r C LC f0 C t C N t Z N ca h N 3 d -p LO U f6 c 3 (D N 3 v10i '3 O �, U c9 _ a m w m >. w Lo 3 3� U c c w _a —°�� W3 m m m c m w CD (M f6 3 d m U o f0 Lo c o c L) CU C y O >, c C (D 3 m >, co _ w cc La w -0 _m _c _C o o `� m( c m CD c ? o �(D C .n M m ' cu m 3 ° qt- C o 0) c Y o o o c 3: cu c rn C -D E o N d . 3 O >. 2 T >, C T 3 C J O O Y Y Lr LD cu C) } O L'T (n J C N U 2 2 CO co co U cn U U W = U) U U U U r U) J F„ W U) W c C', CD r N N f0 2 W a o u, o M o M o 0 0 in �-- •... N J O _ •- N v1 LZ LZ U0 00 ~ Y m m m m m m m Q C7 CY •� W m m m W z 0 O /'yJ� m W J Z Z J_j w 0 0 Z LL _� < g w g _ a J LL w OF cr C9 U J LL J J J U= V) V F- ILU- 10 O w o w Q o W O � LL Q= CD O ui O v - Q C7 Ua0 w O W m 0 J g Q U o Q L) J 4500 - - -- -- - -- - -- • Ultimate Values I 4000 Peak Values Ultimate Strength --Peak Strength - - - - -- - 3500 i 3000 I - - - - -- _ _, -- LL _ c� 2500 W - -- — - - - - -- r - - - - -- -= -- - — - - - F�- Q 2000 - -- - - - -- 1 - -- - -- -- - - - - -- _ - - -- -- 1500 -- - - ---------- i - 1000 � -- - - - - -- 500 -- - - ---------- I 0 -- 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 — 4000 4; NORMAL STRESS [PSF] FF mary of 2 direct shear tests conducted PEAK ULTIMATE k samples of the on -site soils remolded 15 ° ° % of the maximum densi at o timum. 15 C. 300 PSF 200 PSF AwmwIeo1ectinics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -0( Document No. 04 -024,e J wvr%C L, -,d COLLUVIUM (Qcol): A summary of 8 direct shear tests conducted PEAK ULTIMATE on intact colluvium and residuum samples from 3 to 20 feet below existin rades. El:LZ400PSFJ 300 PSF A91h, - LCCnnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0244 .vvRC V -s 4500 -- - - I - - - -- • Ultimate ate Values i 4000 � -- - j ® Peak Values - -- Ultimate Strength T- - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - --Peak Strength - -- 3500 - -- - + -- i- 3000 - - 4- a v) 2500 W- -- - -- IX 2000 - - -- - 1500 - -- 1000 - 500 -- I - i 0 - - 0 500 1000 1500 - - - 2000 2500 3000 -- - - -- —� 3500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF) 4000 45 COLLUVIUM (Qcol): A summary of 8 direct shear tests conducted PEAK ULTIMATE on intact colluvium and residuum samples from 3 to 20 feet below existin rades. El:LZ400PSFJ 300 PSF A91h, - LCCnnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0244 .vvRC V -s I 4500 - -- - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- • Ultimate Values 4000 I i ® Peak Values - Ultimate Strength - Peak Strength I 3500 - - - Y - - - -T- 3000 - i - -- - N y 2500 - - - - - v) .-- - - - - - -- - W- -- - - - - -- - - - -- — - -- - - W ® • Q 2000 -- - -- - - - - - - LU 1500 1000 500 N 0 500 1000 - -- _ - -- - - 3500 40 1500 2000 2500 - -___�- 3000 00 45 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] DELMAR FORMATION (Td►• A summary of 6 direct shear tests conducted on claystone from the Lone Jack Subdivision, Co er Creek Estates and Double LL Ranch. 'MdNNL� r_ PEAK EEIIQ ULTIMATE 17° 50 PSF Aw L) Lecnnics I n c o r p o r a t e d DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0244 �vvRC l.-4 0 LO o I\ U Ju" Q CN O Z O r' M �O _ r C) O II L co LL O I,- co .F COO O U') �P �3 (� 8 3 0 �. 1, " O (D C, O VI 1 .� CD O -' C> I(D o C Ch N - IS ("o) a II I« O p L0 —CCOO O N U z .u.. .:. U 0o 05 E U (U U N ' O 0>�� LLJ _C 76 .ii � FO- ' O O p CO O Cl d O ..._ .- m O` .�- O O CA Cl r [�aa�] UOIJena13 O T T V Z �0�4 a >-Wo a000 � Z Z 0° Cl) J -uj Q UJ co LU HD ©W w Z O LL. zv< T wa?o mm�� o .. T � a� a� N o T - LL n L V LLJ C) j o°o LLL LZU >k f- LU l ', LOcn O i € .. U t L O N � Q O O O f� O T T O T O Cl) T O CD O O T 0) co [1a9J] UOIIEAG13 O n C) J r o � Z Fu - p Lw LLJ 0 3 p CL O LLj Q Z J a1. c XZ O° -m —I Q LLu !U I- r" LLI 0 0 CO 0 r rn II L O v C) L�0 CD fl- IM co E o 0 E 0 LO 0 10, oC, 00 + + d 0 N W N CD 00 tl7 M W MM00� .- �p II 11 11 N C M y N 11 II O p O LL vo N a2 U U L? n (CO4 °'colc c. c% E Q >2oaf) U N U 7 r- f0 N E -- _ IO '@ Q 'C f0 f6 f0 C) L O O CCD t2 U d Z U) LL , LLl U Z W Q W Q O L- L) H— Z U) Z Y Q p W wQZ0 in m J k- O p M r p � OD 1199J] UOIJeAG13 O n N -in- C6 O J 3 O Ll. J U V' 5 . O p M r p � OD 1199J] UOIJeAG13 O n N -in- C6 O J 3 O Ll. O LO O �' p w0a p a o C) Cl) OW �' Z ' nwa !1! CL J < W F- LLU HDZ, LL Lu O Wr •- Z W 4T F- iL W __ CD 0 W _1WLL.� C) C) N � U n Q rn L 77 Z = V �Q2W J co LL CL W a Y W N m HZ w v� a O co 0 L to p p 00 O + + �� a) co °��`n U) r- M CO V° O N O O LL m m O O O O N 'tt LL u- N N NM O)0) o) 0) (n E N N (II N 6 :. N Q) U N O N (0 N f0 (D N •C�....t— r......+ F- ►- F- F- �- F- N ... O V O Co � I I� O O Cl O co N -- O p r . O O uOIJeA913 N N N m 0 J LL O co N 0 o LO r,- C, O O O O Z _ O O Z Z E O U O CL Lp m 1 Z O U V) O V b a� 4� cti U � O U U U � r� p �n O 0 p N Cl 0 0 0 rn O 00 0 r- C) co O LO O O Cl) 0 N O O O n r I- O ~30 ¢ c 0 L.Li Q'0�� — Ow XZo Lu X < Z CL J 0 1-- LU m 2QW� a. LLI' 0 a LU J ~ WF- pUJ F- �ZU W fn CO C) Z b s r UULUC) N U) C6 m O J O U- O � ' M N O O LO O 0 CD 6 O Z O I Z U � (1) 0 0 Q a- in Z 0 W U) 0 U Ems, u CC1 U � O U U N � 0-4 Q� mmJ'O f'- OZ z U LLFgF -�� a. LLI' 0 a LU J ~ W fn CO C) Z b s M J r— Cl) O . 11 �-0 22J L -Z(7 LU Lm i �a< x V �c~n 0 L z Lli is CL ? Q F- m WXX OQw� :. (n F— Z "5; a. \/ "'A" x LO i + + I� N yid O c § r �- 0ChijC� II .II wl M C) .... - v�zs r LL � � O Q 0 Q` 'F II N Is Is a) C.0 II .-�• _ E to 5 fB - N • U) Q Q 5 Q U E i O N O v O Cl) O 0 r- C) �;..� 0 Q:. �EL0E1 woo a O W r Z a J �.�_.�"— '. Co r II rn 0 L ;a 0 V co li 1 O co E o Eca 0 0 v 0 co 0 N O W Z _ LLJ Oo 5w o,� -JWLL..Q F-�NU� U � n a �O Q ==LL �ZOI - O >- wWZX �O =WO O LLJ 2� YO Lu FFZ -- aLO LO LO 00 00 N t- N o' `- CD 0) C ) N O U ai E N N (b rn > Clq t,- LO LL N II O O7�p�a7 NM C.0 C.0 C0 E cl In .N > N > E Ei�Q'QQ'Q (U (U O 0 O o wQZ0 �;..� W Q:. �EL0E1 woo a O W LGIt WO Z a J �.�_.�"— '. Co �aQ WF -n�:. W Z _ LLJ Oo 5w o,� -JWLL..Q F-�NU� U � n a �O Q ==LL �ZOI - O >- wWZX �O =WO O LLJ 2� YO Lu FFZ -- aLO LO LO 00 00 N t- N o' `- CD 0) C ) N O U ai E N N (b rn > Clq t,- LO LL N II O O7�p�a7 NM C.0 C.0 C0 E cl In .N > N > E Ei�Q'QQ'Q (U (U O 0 O o wQZ0 'J U H N 0 ;a Cl) O O CO O Co O O 1199J] u01}eAG13 00 N rn N m 0 J 7 O LL CD 9 ' '1 ' N MD r O I,- CD 0 0 OZ O Z N .... E I U .6 o o0 a m M� W 0 U co 0 w U r-.� CCi CO) U-4 U � O U U U � � F-.y 0 ` o v O M O N r a O O O O O W O r- O (O O N O O Cl) 0 N LL U co r L O v CO) Cl) v E O O Cl (D C) C) O r W U Z W ui x O N CO O O O .-- CO O O O O (D 1199J] UOIJeA@13 { � v z � u K� dh • • a. a Y O N CO O O O .-- CO O O O O (D 1199J] UOIJeA@13 N O � CIO N U Tl- C) o O to O CD ci LL o 0 Z C; Z Z E i U O N U .60 Q_ U U Z O F= U W V) V) U) O U a� +-4 CIS U � � O U U CJ � O N O O t0i M r l,,. O N e- z y. O z � `V z'0 o OaWW ch LLJ F- CD F-- _ rn r• a- �Z V W WHO W 0 J zcQLL � UJ 0 v'. e- WQZQ mm 00 LL d co _W E m co CD E •� LL O 0 r.... O co U _ U Cd N Z w �. O w � e� O p ._.. O LO 0- M N O O . O C) r UOIIBA913 O co N O co A N C) O o O t1) � O LL O O Z _ O C Z (D U E '6 O o0 a. 0 0 O U W co U a� ct3 U � ��1 O U U U � 0 LO 0 v r O M O N r 0 ° o M v � II L �+1 •0 0 O O m LL A 4 E rW O I`A vE LU 0 pZ O CO E it w a. u► LU h IM O 0. °" ¢ �-- LO C:) C) O v O O W� Z Q rrra: 1—o co co (000 co O `— cr N pp N M 11 11 11 C) U CD 0 0 00 LL >, N co .i -- L LC_ N w 11 Cm N CM 0) fQ if tC.+�wC'� —� U) N CO CU N CB E O N O U O C}II N CU CB �F- F- F- F-1-f- O c O CO CDO r 0 v �+1 z A 4 E { LU 0 pZ } F- it w a. u► LU h IM 0. °" ¢ �-- 0LU Z f D L Z Q rrra: v U) W U Z W 0 CO w x ems-- co o N r UOIIBAG13 O co N N O LL 4 R U C • .-, Ir C U U U � U 0 LO T- v° v 0 M r cli a i� y J O S MOO_ , a�Xm W a_ ¢ W L O LU cr Z E.W. GD w C�ZLL �J ;Q+ V (3UWpi WQZO � tp Ca LL o m co E o I0 0 LO 0 o ° + + �rl- rn oo�-ca M 1` if wl CN N I O to N N CU I ` I LLMv O cO ° mol LL N w 11 � � � 0 C _ Ui E 11 ' ':C_. 5 f _7 co ,> •N j E O fII O U N ) > < < 0 0 (III f�Q m (0 f0 �. I0 9 Cl O O CO O r t0 O LO IV -- N ° r - - ° 00 O CD O [1993] U01jeA913 O co 0 LO N O p V" O o -J O U') O Cl) �O 00 O Z O O O 0 Z N U '6 O 0 ao< �•- © a �Op o o X<it W0 N 0°-�-w W 4. m CD r Q W w rn a Z ,0 V C� U Lu < K o min Z Zj _O co LL �- �, U �-' w W 0 m co co o m E I U 0 to N CD (O CD +-A al CD o° ) �` CN O 00 CO O ch r r co O C\, o� ac) U V O T� U 5 U_� N 11 CD CD CD ��rna O c3 E �n n cu E (D — II'i r N T ►�� ~ o > > ��Qcr Q E- - - - O -- �2 ccuuc�mcucu ` Cf �Fo- F0f0F0- F0-1 -0 t1 Co 0 C 0 0- 0 o o -- o 0 co 1199J] u01lena13 O LO r w O V' 0 Cl) p N co cor 0 O O 0 rn O 0 O O O O Cl) 0 _.. N O O O � co N O 0 O L6 � O O LL OZ V Z E U N 0 a { W L Pfi W V Z LL r. m � W <� V / v+ O * Z t O LL LU 4 A 1 '^ tCT3 0 a Vo O .-- O O O p co � O tC) O � 119931 U01leAa13 O LO V, :k O O M r J; O N V �r O O O '- N to Q0, II L v O m OC) LL O N' e— E O Z C O LO x, CD Cfl O O O � O Ia) N to LO (O N CD 0) O e - c`') N ch co M If p :1I ELI co �l ` O C M O O0) ' + O O UII U booE rn0oO II U 3aa N `— LL LL N O N I I O O .— O M " � w C (� E N m in N E Q &^ O P CC N V CC LO LO LO O LO 1O N O O c O O CO u01jeAG13 O N co w. O J O LL U � O U U N � ice► M'� TT� 0 r- N c"I) N O O O U-) L O o O O LL C) O Z J O O I N v Za i U !�- O .60 O a �O rn �� LL LL O Z o ca co _O W , � t r O LO q ;'ageSg y 0 as O U � M O U U N ~ O _._ (Q� O rF 0 v M O O O CD CD 0 0 co ^O O O LO [ }aa3) UOIIL-na13 O W. O O N O rn M N LI_ r. O r- 0 O lL Z O o (} Z N '0 O O a Q _ o 0 0) LL O LL v Z O co ti d ° m cri co CO) E O p U •c � O to CD� CD ao � 4-4 cl W % M O N CO CO CO c V O N - r, CO O O l N • r-r �+•-q + r cc ` O w � a 6 r N � O �U + UO LLNOr O O� Q O O C) L L L L N w O II , Cl) O) T O r- c o E I I '+N =• • 6 C y to y N O O cu N V O CD V r� O O '- O Cl) C p O ..._ O �- O O p O CO LO � �laa�] uOi ;ena13 0 LO ,e a Y =k i Z 8 g £{{ 0 v r Cl) r >< O N m. O r r O O M L O S' n a LL co i F z F. co O LOO O v 0 co O N _._ O O O O L '- M N O r O O [ }aaJj UOIJen913 c O e N C) U ' N C7 rM. o o O 6 j � O o Z Z a) y.. E U O N U .60 ^L 0 I . V v L_0 ■ W co 0 U 4-A ,,^^ ct cn U � O U U N � V ,e a Y =k i Z 8 g £{{ A'ALat $ S„S M'3 v S' n a O O [ }aaJj UOIJen913 c O e N C) U ' N C7 rM. o o O 6 j � O o Z Z a) y.. E U O N U .60 ^L 0 I . V v L_0 ■ W co 0 U 4-A ,,^^ ct cn U � O U U N � V O v 0 Cl) 0 N O r 0 0 O O 11 L O �F+ CC) Rf LL O � o 0 c 0 tO oC) 0 (� C? ^ 00 ClJ �) Cl) riN O It CO LO p '1-1 LC) Ct N � N II N V ca co t U O N LL O- O O O u_LL ,Q) It Is CM 0) 0) (CU II '� + •C '� U) N > co fQ (n > mi�oUNU Q (-0 00 �F- f- HF0Fo -Fo 0 O f^O 0 O O O N ha= Z] uoi }ena13 N O N C) N C7 C O O 0 O O W O Z Z w y+ E N U O � L Q a V V _O V W CO co O U 't7 a� al U $Z. U U O O rt r M r- 0 N O I , a Qo 0 N � CL Lli j° o O Q -� wio )cam U zZCO O � r N O n L 4i R � CIO+ 5 V O co LL. t o � O o co 0 u) 0 O O N O r O O co a Qo 0 N � CL Lli j° o O Q -� wio )cam U zZCO O � r N O O � co O haa -i] uoilena/3 " M N p Q N - p O 06 LL O O pZ O O Za) O U 'p O i o a V z O U W CO C0 O V rr^^ v/ U O U U O V J F= 4i R � 5 V-- t O O � co O haa -i] uoilena/3 " M N p Q N - p O 06 LL O O pZ O O Za) O U 'p O i o a V z O U W CO C0 O V rr^^ v/ U O U U O V AN Geotechnics _ Incorporated Principals; April 12, 2005 Anthony F. Belfast D Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst Wiegand Neglia Corporation 760 Garden View Court, Suite 200. Encinitas, California 92024 RING SERV�GES roject No. 0007 - 013 -00 ENGI%E ENCINISAS Document No. 05 -0443 CtZV OF Attention: Mr. Bruce W1egand SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Lone k Road COMMENTS Encinitas, California References: Geotechnics Incorporated (2004 . Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, CA, Project 0007-013-00, Investigation, Four Lot Subdivision, Geotechnics Incorporated (2005). Res Document 04 -0272, April 12. Lot Subdivision, Lone Jack Road, Response to Geopacica Review Comments, Four Document 05 -0244, dated March 22 Encinitas, Calffornia, Project 0007 - 013 -00, Gentlemen: This letter provides our supplemental responses to several agency for the site. Our initial responses to the eleven third part issues re raised by the third in the referenced report p�Y review P (Geotechnics, 2005 , Y view comments were presented The supplemental information is stated below. � Co� mment 3: agency The third party review a g y objects to our cross sections which suggest some of the dense older colluvium (Qc012) may remain in place prior to fill p accementt Consequently, all colluvium exposed by the remedial excavat ' compacted as described in Section 8.3.2 of the initiallons should be excavated and (Geotechnics, 2004). geotechnical investigation The revised remedial grading described above is shown on (Plate 2) attached to this supplement. Note that the revised p the Geologic Cross Sections the Geologic Cross Sections which were initiall late 2 should be used to replace (Geotechnics, 2005 Please . Y provided in the referenced response letter discard Plate 2 from the referenced response to avoid confusion. 9245 Activity Rd., Ste. 103 •San Diego, Phone (858) 53. 103 g , California 92126 Fax (858) 536 -8311 Wiegand Neglia Corporation April 12, 2005 Proiect No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 05 -0443 • Comment X. Pa e 2 At the end of our response to this comment we assess the potential risk that off -site landslides may that we geotechnical data is limited to the available eo are not able to y pose is the project. O� geotechnical investigation. We g technical re orts off -site did not perform subsurface explorations referenced in our Properties. Our slope stability analysis was limited to surfa i on the adjacent site borings. However, we have g c data developed from our on- to the site. Performed a general assessment of off -site geologic hazards This was based on a geologic review of available off - geotechnicalmaps and reports, and information re Off-site topographic maps, Jim Knowlton. regarding a recent landslide supplied This assessment suggests that if the PPlied by Mr. remobilize, the failures would be located several hundred known off -site landslides were to generally be directed away rom the site b Y feet from the site, and would assessment, the potential for damage is the site from Off-site Based on this qualitative e landslides appears to be low. • Comment 7: —_ As stated previously in this comment, the proposed tem the northern edge of the site should be stable with res e for the heights shown porary yackcut along wn on the P ct to temporary stability Geotechnical Map attached to Y referenced r 1. r ( Geotechnics, 2005. ' However, now that deeper colluvium removals are re mired t report the proposed remedial excavations are not considered safe s the site, e with respect to temporary suability. In order to reduce the potential for temporary slope fail extend beneath the proposed pad grades near the retaining wall P failure, all remedial excavations which site should be constructed in sections which do not exceed g 11 along the northern edge of the excavations should then be backfilled to the 20 feet in length elevations. The backfill zone should extend g The remedial Proposed retaining wall footin at least 10 feet south of the retaining nd from the daylight with the tem or g subgrade g wall. Provided that the remedial excavations uare conducted in this manner, the revised remedial grading is temporary g considered stable with respect to ary slope stability. Once the slope has been reconstructed have a long-term ,the slope is believed to g term safety factor exceeding 1.5. Based on our geotechnical investigation and I analysis, the planned grading is not expected to adversely impact the adjacent properties. Geotechnics Incorporated "iegand Neglia Corporation April 12, 2005 Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 05 -0443 COmment 8 Pa e3 —�- The review agency Y has requested that we Presented on the Geotechnical Ma Project civil engineer for inclusion Provide the remedial grading P (Plate 1) of the referenced document to the -- have e- mailed non the project grading plans (Geotechnics Preparing a Remedial Grading eotechnical Ma , 2005). We g Plan for the P to the civil engineer for use in Project. LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care circumstances b and skill ordinaril y reputable soils engineers and geologists warrant Y exercised, under similar Y, express or implied, is Practicing in this or similar localities. No report- We a made as to the conclusions and appreciate this o professional advice included in this You have an PP °rtunity to be of continued service. please feel free Y questions or comments, or need anything e to call the office if g further. We appreciate this or to be of contin Office if you have an ued professional service. Y questions or comments. Please feel free to call the GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED �QROFESS, A9lFtiy QUO Otvi F. 49 F'1'9l 1CM 572 CIO n Z Matthew A, Fa LU C040333 z Fagan, P.E. 57248 * Exp.'' 3�, * Cr m Project Engineer sT CIVIL \�, * Exp._�!` a OF CAL* 9t C / V 11. FCF CA, If('�� / �\�,��FiED 0 p tenneth� KENNETH � ~ SHAW W. Shaw, C.E. G. w . { Senior Geologist 1251 „t ERriFIED ENGINE'ERIMO Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. Distribution: Jj GEOLOGIST Principal Engineer 40333 (6) Addressee, Mr. Bru -9 OP��P (1) Geopacifica, Mr. Jim I Know on (Messenger) Geotechnics Incorporated HYDROLOGY STUDY for LONE JACK ROAD GRADING PLAN DWG NO. XXXX -G City of Encinitas, CA PREPARED FOR: Wiegand/ Neglia Corp. 760 Garden View Ct., Suite 200 Encinitas, CA 92024 DATE: February 2, 2005 e��— WAy PASCO, RCE 29577 vko A. No. 21577 O * Exp 3/31/07 \or�ALIF`JR�� HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:01 PM 2/312005 1.0 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Existing Conditions 1.3 Proposed Project 1.4 Summary of Results and Conditions 1.5 Conclusions 1.6 References 2.0 Methodology 2.1 Introduction County of San Diego Criteria 2.2 2.3 City of San Diego Standards 2.4 Runoff coefficient determination 3.0 Hydrology Model Output 3.1 Pre- Developed Hydrologic Model Output 3.2 Post - Developed Hydrologic Model Output Method Spreadsheet Analysis of offsite Area 3.3 Rational 4.0 Method Hydrograph and Detention Calculations 4.1 Rational Pre - Developed Hydrograph 4.2 Post - Developed Hydrograph 4.3 Detention Basin Calculation 5.0 Hydraulic Calculations 5.1 Grassy Treatment Swale 5.2 12" Culvert Drainage Channel 5.3 5.4 Rock -lined 18" RCP Storm Water Pipe 851h Percentile Peak Flow and Grassy Swale Design 6.0 7.0 Appendix M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:01 PM 2/312005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 proposed project design utilizes the proposed c rb and gutter south Lone the Jack Road to convey storm water to the existing improvements To address the storm water quality goals established rain i elo men proposed BMPs permanent BMPs will be incorporated Into the stor system proposed include a series of biofilters swales, storm aterldue tod its orelatively aslow concentrated storm water; thereby filtering the velocity and shallow depth, and allowing suspended pollutants to settle and deposit within the swale. 1.4 Summary of Results Upon performing hydrologic analysis of the project tlntexipt ng conditions the and existing condition the following results were produced. e site at one point of discharge. hydrologic model in the analysis of the project project Output data from the hydrologic analysis modefl W of 16.94 cfssisegenerated by existing the condition indicates that the 100 -year peak runoff project site and other off -site contributors. Thacresalof whi�h 4.53eacres g as oc ated contributing storm water runoff is equal to 7.31 with the proposed development and 2.78 acres is associated with off -site drainage that reaches the point of analysis. The project site in existing conditions differs from the proposed project site in terms of and the location of the points of analysis. Under existing conditions, of the analysis t e point of on -site discharge are the same; however as a proposed project site will not be discharging storm water, from the proposed residential development or any off -site storm water flowing collected and r discharged harped further south on Lone Jack Road. This storm water will b Lone Jack Road. The output data, from the hydrologic analysis model of the proposed project, indicates that the 100 -year peak flow is equal to 17.24 cfs. ed project e only and its off -site be flowing along Lone Jack Road. The total area of the prop area is equal to 4.53 acres; of which 1.78 acres is he associated 2.75, acres associated with to the north of the proposed project site and t remaining the proposed project site. Nearly all of the runoff from llhbe collected on- site a acres, and existing off -site contributors, 1.71 acres, 100 -year peak flow equal to 8.90 cfs. The o peak cflow attributed to the offsite area contributing to the on -site collection is equal 1.5 Conclusions basin The proposed storm drain system incorporates the design of a single type ro ectatshe and inlet to collect the entire 100 -ye t openings on adjacent sides as contributing off -site flows. The cat ch basin will have opposed to opposite sides and a grate inlet for a cover. This basin is slightly modified M: \Hydrology & PE # 1232 3:01 PM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 from a typical type "F" catch basin with the inthe catch basgn t Onevinlet swil 1 ollect the cover and also the locations of the openings on flow from the grassy treatment Swale. The treatment Swale has a four 54 cfs from swale� The and 4:1 side slopes for two feet and 1s s ized to handle the 3 treatment Swale will need to be 100' minimum xceeds 200'gin length. reach Sizing of the treatment period. The Swale on our project site e Swale is discussed in this report in the hydrauli calculations se along the Twesoterly inlet property collect the flow from the rock -lined channel boundary. The rock -lined channel is sized to handle f this report. ort4 Sizing catch basin lined channel is in the hydraulic calculations P the has the capacity to handle 6.43 cfs. The si he of the in this reportysThe runoff from the type "F" catch basin is in t hydraulic 18" RCP pipe will be conveying 8.90 cfs and has the capacity theadwall convey 18.49 os. The 18" RCP pipe will outlet onto Lone Jack Road from a sting south on Lone Jack Road by the proposed design for the gutter to the proj cteslsized improvements. Therefore, the storm drain sy stem to safely collect and convey the 100 -year peak flow. M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:01 PM 2/312005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 1.6 References "San Diego County Hydrology Manualnt Secdionne 2003, County of San Diego, Ju Department of Public Works, Flood Co rol "Drainage Design Manual ", City of San Diego, April 1984, addendum March 1989 "Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control �lopment Depaarttment� rev of November Engineering Services and Community 2002. "California Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 2001 -01, " California Regional Water Control Board, San Diego Region (SDRWQCB). "City of Encinitas Storm Water Best Management Practices Storm Water Manual for New Development and Redevelopment, C y of Encinitas, Re ed April 9, 2003. "City of Encinitas Storm Water Program Best Management Practices Manual, " City of Encinitas. "Chapter 20.08, Storm Water Management, Ordinance 2002 -14, " City of Encinitas. MA Hydrology & PE # 1232 3:01 PM 2/3/02005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction The hydrologic model used to perform the hydrologic analysis presented in this report utilizes the Ration Method (RM) equation, Q =CIA. The RM formula estimates the peak rate of runoff based on the variables of area, runoff coefficient, and rainfall intensity. The rainfall intensity (I) is equal to: I= 7.44xP6 D-O* 645 Where: I = Intensity (in/hr) P6 = 6 -hour precipitation (inches) D = duration (minutes — use Tc) Using the Time of Concentration (Tc), which is the time required for a given element of water that originates at the most remote point of the basin being analyzed to reach the point at which the runoff from the basin is being analyzed. The RM equation determines the storm water runoff rate (Q) for a given basin in terms pf flow (typically a in cu icis et per second (cfs) but sometimes as gallons per minute m)). as follows: Where: Q =CIA Q= flow (in cfs) C = runoff coefficient, ratio of rainfall that produces storm water runoff (runoff vs. infiltration /evaporation/absorption/etc) I = average rainfall intensity for a duration equal to the Tc for the area, in inches per hour. A = drainage area contributing to the basin in acres. The RM equation assumes that the storm event being analyzed delivers precipitation to the entire basin uniformly, and therefore the peak discharge rate will occur when a The raindrop falls at the most remote portion of the basin point of runoff coefficient RM also assumes that the fraction of ra infall that becomes C is not affected by the storm intensity, I, or the precipitation zone number. In addition to the above Ration Method assumptions, the conservative assumption that all runoff coefficients utilized for this report are based on type "D" soils. 2.2 County of San Diego Criteria As defined by the County Hydrology Manual dated June 2003, the rational method is the preferred equation for determining the hydrologic characteristics of basins up to approximately one square mile in size. The County of San Diego has developed its own tables, nomography, and methodologies fqr analyzing storm water runoff for areas within M:\Hydrolo9Y & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 the county. The County has also developed precipitation isopluvial contour maps that show even lines of rainfall anticipated from a given storm event (i.e. 100 -year, 6 -hour storm). One of the variables of the RM equation is the runoff coefficient, C. The runoff coefficient is dependent only upon land use and soil type and the County of San Diego has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied to basin located within the County of San Diego. The table categorizes the land use, the associated development density (dwelling per ted runoff coefficient, C, for impervious area. Each of the categories list ed has an associated each soil type class. The County has also illustrated in detail the methodology for determining the time of concentration, in particular the initial time of concentration. The County has adopted the Federal Aviation Agency's (FAA) overland time of flow equation. This equation essentially limits the flow path length for the initial time of concentration to lengths of 100 feet or less, and is dependent on land use and slope. 2.3 City of Encinitas Standards The City of Encinitas has additional requirements for hydrology reports which are outlined in the Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Please refer to this manual for further details. 2.4 Runoff Coefficient Determination As stated in section 2.2, the runoff coefficient is dependent only upon land use and soil type and the County of San Diego has developed a table of Runoff Coefficients for Urban Areas to be applied to basin located within the County e San Diego. d development density at the end of this section, categorizes the land use, the assoc p (dwelling units per acre) and the percentage of impervious area. MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3!2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 3.0 HYDROLOGY MODEL OUTPUT 3.1 Pre - Developed Hydrologic Model Output ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * • PE 1232 - LONE JACK ROAD - WIEGAND /NEGLIA • PREDEVELOPED HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS FOR 100 YEAR STORM • POINT OF ANALYSIS IS SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY FILE NAME: 1232PRE.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09:13 02/02/2005 ----------------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- ____ _ ---------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL - INFORMATION ----------------- -------------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 2 880 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES)3.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD SAN NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING HALF- CROWN TO IN- / OUT - /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR WIDTH CROSSFALL (FT)- (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY- _(FT)- -(FT) -(FT)- NO. (FT) - -(n) -- 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 1 30.0 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.20 IS CODE -- 21 ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------ »»> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH = 100.00 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 213!2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 21094000 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 16.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 4.572 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(CH /HOUR) = 6.746 O SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 54 0.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.20 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE = 51 _------ --------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< --- - - - -_- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) - 194.00 DOWNSTREAM (FEET) = 132.00 _ CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 320.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1937 " " FACTOR 2.000 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 Z = MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) 919 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 0.54 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 3.95 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BAS 0.03 �TRAVEL(TIME(MIN.) = 1.35 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = Tc(MIN.) = 7.35 RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA ATE 0.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW W RATE(CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: 3.95 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) _ LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.10 = 420.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.10 IS CODE 81 _ ------------------- » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE - PEAK - FLOW<<< << - - - - - -- _- -_ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.919 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTO 4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.15 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.33 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ TC(MIN) = 7.35 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 1.00 IS- CODE---- 51---- - - - - -- --------------------------- » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« «< » »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< --- ----- - - - - -- -_ _= ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 132.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 84.00 _ CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 460.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1043 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.207 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ 3.69 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON 8 VETOOCC`ITTL(TIME(MIN.) = 4.62 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ TC(MIN.) = 8.96 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0 03.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.33 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.18 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) 4.75 = LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.30 TO NODE 1.00 = 880.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE -- 81 ---------- ------ --------------------------------- --- - - - - -- --------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.207 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4100 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 6.83 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.53 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 10.52 TC(MIN) = 8.96 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS CODE =--- 1---- - - - - -- ________________ - - -- ---------------- »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.96 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 5.21 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 10.52 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.30 TO NODE 2.20 IS CODE-=--21---------- --------------------------- --------------- »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 198.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 191.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 7.00 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.023 *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.730 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.20 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE =-- 51---- - - - - -- ------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW«« < »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< CHANNEL LENGTH THRUTSUBAR(EAEFEET) = 19560.00DOWCHANNELEL(SLOPE = 0.150000 CHANNEL MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.561 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 65 . 0 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = q,50 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VETRAVEL(TIME(MIN.) = 2.07 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ TC(MIN.) = 8.09 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.65 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: 4,50 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.04 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.30 TO NODE 2.10 = 660.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.10 IS CODE----81---------- _____ __ ------ - - - - -- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.561 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 5.83 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.28 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 6.48 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.49 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ TC(MIN) = 8.09 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.10 TO NODE 2.00 IS- CODE---- 61---- - - - - -- --------------- » »>COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) « «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION( FEET) 180.007.00 DOWNSTREAM E LESATION(FEOET) = 104.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) _ STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Section(curb -to -curb) _ 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ 6.48 ** *STREET FLOW SPLITS OVER STREET - CROWN * ** 12,00 WIDTH(FEET) _ - FULL DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 FLOOD 3.21 FULL HALF - STREET VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.03 SPLIT DEPTH(FEET) = 0.27 SPLI T VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) _ 2.42 SPLIT FLOW(CFS) = 1.48 SPLIT STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) _ 3.21 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SSEC�.) 9.03 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ Tc(MIN.) = 5.183 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ p,00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.49 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 6.48 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: = 12,00 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.37 HALFSTR3E21FLOOD WIDVELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.17 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.30 TO NODE 2.00 = 840.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 2.00 TO 2_00 IS CODE = 81 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE __________---------- ______ _ - - - - - -- --------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW«« < 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.183 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 1129= SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.69 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 7.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.78 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ TC(MIN) = 9.03 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 1.00 IS- CODE -- _- 61---------- _____ _______ _ ------ - - - - -- -------------- - »»> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< » » >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED)<< «< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 104.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 84.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 480.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 12.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section(curb -to -curb) 0.0150 _ Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ 7.17 STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USIIN36ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 11.53 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 4 95 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) _ PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SE62) .7 = 10.65 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ = 4.661 Tc(MIN. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.78 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: = 11.53 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.36 HALFSTR4 .95 DEPTH FLOD*VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.77 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) 1.00 = 1320.00 FEET. LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.30 TO NODE ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE ...... 1..00 IS CODE = 1 » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< - - »»> AND - COMPUTE - VARIOUS - CONFLUENCED- STREAM - VALUES<<< << --------------- - TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 166 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 2 4 4.. TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 7.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (AC)53 1 10.52 8.96 5.207 2 7.17 10.65 4.661 2.78 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF TC INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INSHMOUR) 1 16.94 8.96 2 16.59 10.65 4.661 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES 9ARE S FOLLOWS: 8.96 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 7.31 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 2.30 TO NODE 1.00 = 1320.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: 7.31 TC(MIN.) = 8.96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 16.94 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 213/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 3.2 Post - Developed Hydrologic Model Output ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001,1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982 -2002 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 Analysis prepared by: Pasco Engineering, Inc. 535 N. Highway 101, Suite A Solana Beach, CA 92075 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • PE 1232 - LONE JACK ROAD - WIEGAND/ NEGLIA • POSTDEVELOPED HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS FOR 100 YEAR STORM • POINT OF ANALYSIS IS SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PROPERTY FILE NAME: 1232POST.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 10:10 02/02/2005 ----- -------------------------- _____ --------------------------------------- ---------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION----------- - - - - -- ----------------------------- 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.880 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C "- VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER- DEFINED STREET - SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREE MODEL* RIES: HALF- CROWN TO STREET- CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER - GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT- /PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY- -(FT)- -(FT) -(FT)- (FT)= = =(n) == 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth) *(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT *FT /S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE ...... 1.10 IS CODE 7 -------------- ----------- » »>USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY - INFORMATION AT- NODE<<< << --------------- -- USER- SPECIFIED VALUES ARE AS FOLLOWS: TC(MIN) = 7.35 RAIN INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.92 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 1.33 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.69 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.10 TO NODE 8.10 IS CODE -- 51 ---------- -------------------------------------------------------------- » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »» >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< - - - - - -- _ - - - -- -_ _= 113.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 13150000 DOWCSHANNEL(SLOPE = 0.1267 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) _ CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) S672 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTO .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 69 . 3 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 4 98 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED O ON VELOCITTL(TIME(MIN.) = 0.50 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ Tc(MIN.) = 7.85 RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA 3.69 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.33 PEAK FLOW W R RATE ATE (C FS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: 4.98 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.17 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) _ LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 8.10 = 150.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.10 IS- CODE ---- 81 ---------- _____ _ ----- - - - - -- --------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW« «< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.672 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTO .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 1.53 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ D 1.92 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.22 TOTAL, AREA(ACRES) _ TC(MIN) = 7.85 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.10 TO NODE 8.00 -IS -CODE ---- 51---------- --------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< -- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) 113.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 88.00 _ CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 235.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1064 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 4.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.357 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 5.22 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 0.73 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = Tc(MIN.) = 8.58 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.22 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.92 PEAK FLOW W RATE ATE(CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.22 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 5.39 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/312005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 8.00 = 385.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE =-- 81 ---------- ----------------------------- ____ ---- - - - - -- --------------- » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.357 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENTO .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 1.09 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.44 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 2.36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.31 TC(MIN) = 8.58 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE =-- 10---- - - - - -- --------------------- »» >MAIN- STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 ««< ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE =-- 21---- - - - - -- --------------------- »» >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O 4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 129.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 128.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.00 11.520 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.429 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 0.11 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE-=--51---------- ---------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< --------------- -- ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 128.0000DOWNS�NAM(SEEPE = 0.155200 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) _ CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.315 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = p,23 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.05 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.48 Tc(MIN.) = 12.00 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA W RATE RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 0.11 PEAK FLOW ATE(CFS) = 0.23 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.03 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.05 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 5.00 = 216.00 FEET. M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 5.00 IS CODE =-- 81---- - - - - -- -------------------------------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE - PEAK - FLOW<<< << --------------- - - - -- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.315 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 0.26 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.13 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.49 TC(MIN) = 12.00 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 5.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- » » >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< » »>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< _= 97.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110809000 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 0.1461 . CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) _ CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.245 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 0.99 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY (FEET /SEC.) = 4.83 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.31 Tc(MIN.) = 12.30 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.49 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.05 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 4.83 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 305.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE =--- 1---- - - - - -- _____________ ---------------- - -- » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN.) = 12.30 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.24 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.25 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.49 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.10 IS CODE = 21 ----- - ---- ---------------------------------------------------- » »>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC 11) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 130.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 129.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.00 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics11232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 11.520 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.429 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.37 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.76 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.10 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE =-- 61---- - - - - -- »»> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»> (STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 129.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 97.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 155.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) = 0.020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section (curb-to-curb) _ 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 8.57 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.34 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.30 Tc(MIN.) 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.356 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 C S CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 = 11.82 S. . SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.92 0.33 1.09 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.16 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 8.57 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.34 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 6.20 TO NODE 6.00 = 255.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE = 1 »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< - -» »> AND - COMPUTE - VARIOUS - CONFLUENCED- STREAM - VALUES ««<---------- --- - - -- -- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MIN.) = 11.82 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.36 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.54 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.09 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.49 12.30 4.245 25 2 1.09 11.82 4.356 0.54 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics11232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 213/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 1.57 11.82 4.356 2 1.55 12.30 4.245 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES SARE AS FOLLOWS: 11.82 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.78 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 6.00 = 305.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 6.00 IS CODE =-- 81---- - - - - -- -------------------------------------- » » >ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.356 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 0.42 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.21 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.99 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.99 TC(MIN) = 11.82 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE-=--51---------- -------------------------------------- »» >COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW««< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) « «< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 97.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 89.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 185.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0432 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.156 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600, S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 1.99 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) _ TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.45 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.89 Tc(MIN.) = 12.72 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF (C FS) = 0.00 99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.23 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 3.45 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 7.00 = 490.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 1 ---- _----------------------------------------------------------------------- »» >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.72 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 4.16 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.99 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.99 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 213/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.20 TO NODE 7.10 IS CODE =-- 21---- - - - - -- --------------------- » » >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS""< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 110.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 109.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.00 11.520 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.429 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.02 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.02 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.10 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE-=--61---------- ___ -------- - - - - -- » »> COMPUTE STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »» >(STANDARD CURB SECTION USED) ««< UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 109.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 89.00 STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 144.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.0 STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00 INSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) _ _0.02020 OUTSIDE STREET CROSS FALL (DECIMAL) SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 STREET PARKWAY CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = 0.020 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Streetflow Section (curb-to-curb) _ 0.0150 Manning's FRICTION FACTOR for Back -of -Walk Flow Section = 0.0200 * *TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS USING ESTIMATED FLOW: STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.18 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 2.63 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (FEET/ SEC.) = 6.01 PRODUCT OF DEPTH &VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.07 STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.40 Tc(MIN.) 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.333 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 RVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 = 1.12 = 11.92 S.C.S. CU SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.61 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ 0.21 1.23 END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.19 HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 2.97 FLOW VELOCITY (FEET / SEC .) = 5.95 DEPTH *VELOCITY(FT *FT /SEC.) = 1.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 7.20 TO NODE 7.00 = 244.00 FEET. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------- ---------------------- » » >DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««< - - »»> AND - COMPUTE - VARIOUS - CONFLUENCED- STREAM VALUES<<<<< --------------- - TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:20 AM 2/312005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 4.33 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HR) = 0 61 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.23 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** AREA STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1.99 12.72 4.156 2 1.23 11.92 4.333 0.61 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 3.13 11.92 4.333 2 3.16 12.72 4.156 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES IARE AS FOLLOWS: 12 72 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 3.00 TO NODE 7.00 = 490.00 FEET. LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS- CODE---- 81---- - - - - -- _ _ __ ----- ------- - - - - -- ----- -- » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE - PEAK - FLOW<<< << 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.156 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT O= .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC O.19 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.37 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.79 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ TC(MIN) = 12.72 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS CODE 51 ___________ - - -- » »>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW« «< » » >TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT) ««< --------------- - - - --- DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 87.00 ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) _ CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 189.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0106 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 500.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.911 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 3.54 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW (C FS) = 2.51 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED O 48 VETOOCCTL(FEE (MIN.) = 1.26 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) _ Tc(MIN.) = 13.97 0.00 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.54 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.79 PEAK FLOW W RATE(CFS) (CFS) _ END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: 2.51 DEPTH(FEET) = 0.48 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) _ LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 8.00 = 679.00 FEET. M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics11232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:12 AM 2/312005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE 8.00 IS- CODE ---- 11---------- _ _ -------------------- ---------- - - »»> CONFLUENCE - MEMORY - BANK - # -1- WITH - THE - MAIN - STREAM- MEMORY««<---- - - -_ -- ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATAINTENSITY AREA STREAM RUNOFF Tc NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 1 3.54 13.97 3.911 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 8.00 = 679.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) (ACRE) 5.357 2.36 1 6.31 8.58 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.00 TO NODE 8.00 = 385.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH /HOUR) 1 8.90 8.58 5.357 2 8.15 13.97 3.911 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES 90 E S FOLLOWS: 8 58 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.15 ---------------------------------------- - - - - -- +---------------- ) END OF MAIN STREAM BEGINNING OF LONE JACK ROAD FRONTAGE -+ +--------------- --------------------- **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE 10.00 IS- CODE---- 21---- - - - - -- ----- ----------------------------------------------------- » »> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS""< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA): USER - SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4600 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 0 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW - LENGTH = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 106.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 84.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 22.00 q,112 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 6- MINUTES 6 746 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) _ SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ 0.38 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.17 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: 0,38 TC(MIN.) = 6.00 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.17 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 8:12 AM 21312005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 4.0 RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH AND DETENTION CALCULATIONS M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:07 PM 2/3/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 4.1 PRE - DEVELOPED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH MAHydrology & Hydraulics11232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:07 PM 2/3/2005 #= 72 Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, CA Q10= 16.94 cfs C= 0.46 Tc= 5 min A= 7.31 P10,6= 2.88 in 7.59 0.63 (7.44`P6- Dti.645) WD150) (VI-VO) (AV /a T) I (INCR) (Q =GA) Q D I VOL eVOL _.. 111M IIN /NRI (CFS'' acres (Re- ordered) VOL ORDINATE $# MIN) I1virl 0.00 ••- 0.00 0.63 7.59 16.94 50S "L 2136 0.58 r-0 1 5 7.59 0.63 0.18 2.12 7.12 5.05 1516 0.58 2 10 4.85 0.81 0.13 1.50 1.21 4.05 1216 0.59 3 15 3.74 0.93 0.10 1.02 3.44 1032 0.60 4 20 3.10 1.03 0.09 0.07 0.90 3 .02 906 0.61 5 25 2.69 1.12 0.07 0.81 2.71 813 0.62 6 30 2.39 1.19 0.06 0.73 2.47 741 0.63 7 35 2.16 1.26 0.06 0.68 2.28 684 0.84 8 40 1.98 1.32 0.05 0.63 2.99 636 0.65 9 45 1.84 1.38 0.05 0.59 1.99 597 0.66 10 50 1.72 1.43 0.05 0.56 1.88 563 0.67 11 55 1.62 1.48 0.04 0.53 1.78 533 0.68 12 60 1.53 1.53 0.04 0.50 1.69 507 0.70 13 65 1.45 1.57 0.04 0.48 1.61 484 0.70 14 70 1.38 1.61 0.04 0.46 1.55 464 0.72 15 75 1.32 1.65 0.04 0.44 1.49 446 0.73 16 80 1.27 1.69 0.04 0.43 1.43 429 0.75 17 85 1.22 1.73 1.76 0.03 0.41 1.38 414 0.76 0.78 18 90 95 1.18 1.14 1.80 0.03 0.40 1.33 400 387 0.79 19 20 100 1.10 1.83 0.03 0.38 0.37 1.29 1.25 376 0.82 21 105 1.06 1.86 0.03 0.03 0.36 1.22 365 0.83 22 110 1.03 1.89 0.03 0.35 1.18 355 0.86 23 115 1.00 1.92 0.03 0.34 1.15 345 0.87 24 120 0.98 1.95 0.03 0.33 1.12 336 0.91 25 125 0.95 1.98 0.03 0.33 1.09 328 0.92 26 130 0.93 2.01 0.03 0.32 1.07 320 0.96 27 135 0.91 2.04 0.03 0.31 1.04 313 0.98 28 140 0.88 2 .06 0.03 0.31 1.02 306 1.02 29 145 0.86 2.09 0.02 0.30 1.00 300 1.04 30 150 0.85 2.12 0.02 0.29 0.98 294 1.09 31 155 0.83 2.14 0.02 0.29 0.96 288 1.12 32 160 0.81 2.16 0.02 0.28 0.94 282 1.18 33 165 0.80 2.19 0.02 0.27 0.92 277 1.22 34 170 0.78 2.21 0.02 0.27 0.91 272 1.29 35 175 0.77 2.23 2.26 0.02 0.26 0.89 1.33 36 180 185 0.75 0.74 2.28 0.02 0.26 0.87 262 258 1.43 1.49 37 38 190 0.73 2.30 0.02 0.26 0.25 0.86 0.85 254 1.61 39 195 0.71 2.32 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.83 250 1.69 40 200 0.70 2.34 2.36 0.02 0.24 0.82 246 1.88 41 205 0.69 1232 PREDEVELOPMENT HYDROGRAPH Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, CA 42 210 0.68 2.38 0.02 0.24 0.81 242 238 1.99 2.28 43 215 0.67 2.40 0.02 0.24 0.79 0.78 235 2.47 44 220 0.66 2.42 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.77 232 3.02 45 225 0.65 0.64 2.44 2.46 0.02 0.23 0.76 228 3.44 46 47 230 235 0.63 2.48 0.02 0.22 0.75 225 5.05 48 240 0.62 2.50 0.02 0.22 0.74 222 219 7.12 16.94 49 245 0.62 2.52 0.02 0.22 0.73 0.72 217 4.05 50 250 0.61 2.54 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.71 214 2.71 51 255 0.60 0.59 2.55 2.57 0.02 0.21 0.70 211 2.12 52 53 260 265 0.59 2.59 0.02 0.21 0.70 209 1.78 54 270 0.58 2.61 0.02 0.20 0.69 206 204 1.55 1.38 55 275 0.57 2.62 0.02 0.20 0.68 0.67 201 1.25 56 280 0.57 2.64 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.66 199 1.15 57 285 0.56 0.55 2.66 2.67 0.02 0.20 0.66 197 1.07 58 59 290 295 0.55 2.69 0.02 0.19 0.65 195 1.00 60 300 0.54 2.71 0.02 0.19 0.64 193 0.94 0.89 61 305 0.54 2.72 0.02 0.19 0.64 191 189 0.85 62 310 0.53 2.74 0.02 0.19 0.63 0.62 187 0.81 63 315 0.52 2.75 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.18 0.62 185 0.77 64 320 0.52 0.51 2.77 2.78 0.02 0.18 0.61 183 0.74 65 66 325 330 0.51 2.80 0.01 0.18 0.60 181 0.71 67 335 0.50 2.81 0.01 0.18 0.60 180 0.69 0.66 68 340 0.50 2.83 0.01 0.18 0.59 178 176 0.64 69 345 0.49 2.84 0.01 0.17 0.59 0.58 175 0.62 70 350 0.49 2.86 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.58 173 0.60 71 355 360 0.49 0.48 2.87 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 SUM= 21 cubic feet 0.49 acre -feet 2/212005 1232 PREDEVELOPMENT HYDROGRAPH HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 4.2 POST - DEVELOPED RATIONAL METHOD HYDROGRAPH MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:07 PM 213/2005 Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, CA #� 72 # Q10= Tc= P10,6= (7.44 "P6 Dti.645) D 1 (MIN) (IN /HR) 17.24 5 2.88 0*D180) VOL (IN) Cfs min in (Vi-vo) AVOL (IN) C= A= (A VIA T) I (INCR) (IN /HR) 0.46 7.31 (Q =ciA) Q (CFS) acres VOL (CF) (Re- ordered) ORDINATE (CFS) _ 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.63 7.59 17.24 5172 1 5 7.59 0.63 0.18 2.12 7.12 2136 0.58 2 10 4.85 0.81 0.13 1.50 5.05 1516 0.58 3 15 3.74 0.93 0.10 1.21 4.05 1216 0.59 4 20 3.10 1.03 0.09 1.02 3.44 1032 0.60 5 25 2.69 1.12 0.07 0.90 3.02 906 0.61 6 30 2.39 1.19 0.07 0.81 2.71 813 0.62 7 35 2.16 1.26 0.06 0.73 2.47 741 0.63 8 40 1.98 1.32 0.06 0.68 2.28 684 0.64 9 45 1.84 1.38 0.05 0.63 2.12 636 0.65 10 50 1.72 1.43 0.05 0.59 1.99 597 0.66 11 55 1.62 1.48 0.05 0.56 1.88 563 0.67 12 60 1.53 1.53 0.04 0.53 1.78 533 0.68 13 65 1.45 1.57 0.04 0.50 1.69 507 0.70 14 70 1.38 1.61 0.04 0.48 1.61 484 0.70 15 75 1.32 1.65 0.04 0.46 1.55 464 0.72 16 80 1.27 1.69 0.04 0.44 1.49 446 0.73 17 85 1.22 1.73 0.04 0.43 1.43 429 0.75 18 90 1.18 1.76 0.03 0.41 1.38 414 0.76 19 95 1.14 1.80 0.03 0.40 1.33 400 0.78 20 100 1.10 1.83 0.03 0.38 1.29 387 0.79 21 105 1.06 1.86 0.03 0.37 1.25 376 0.82 22 110 1.03 1.89 0.03 0.36 1.22 365 0.83 23 115 1.00 1.92 0.03 0.35 1.18 355 0.86 24 120 0.98 1.95 0.03 0.34 1.15 345 0.87 25 125 0.95 1.98 0.03 0.33 1.12 336 0.91 26 130 0.93 2.01 0.03 0.33 1.09 328 0.92 27 135 0.91 2.04 0.03 0.32 1.07 320 0.96 28 140 0.88 2.06 0.03 0.31 1.04 313 0.98 29 145 0.86 2.09 0.03 0.30 1.02 306 1.02 30 150 0.85 2.12 0.02 0.30 1.00 300 1.04 31 155 0.83 2.14 0.02 0.29 0.98 294 1.09 32 160 0.81 2.16 0.02 0.29 0.96 288 1.12 33 165 0.80 2.19 0.02 0.28 0.94 282 1.18 34 170 0.78 2.21 0.02 0.27 0.92 277 1.22 35 175 0.77 2.23 0.02 0.27 0.91 272 1.29 36 180 0.75 2.26 0.02 0.26 0.89 267 1.33 37 185 0.74 2.28 0.02 0.26 0.87 262 1.43 38 190 0.73 2.30 0.02 0.26 0.86 258 1.49 39 195 0.71 2.32 0.02 0.25 0.85 254 1.61 40 200 0.70 2.34 0.02 0.25 0.83 250 1.69 41 205 0.69 2.36 0.02 0.24 0.82 246 1.88 2/2/2005 1232 POSTDEVELOPMENT HYDROGRAPH Rational Method Hydrograph Calculations for Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, CA 42 210 0.68 2.38 0.02 0.24 0.81 242 1.99 43 215 0.67 2.40 0.02 0.24 0.79 238 2.28 44 220 0.66 2.42 0.02 0.23 0.78 235 2.47 45 225 0.65 2.44 0.02 0.23 0.77 232 3.02 46 230 0.64 2.46 0.02 0.23 0.76 228 3.44 47 235 0.63 2.48 0.02 0.22 0.75 225 5.05 48 240 0.62 2.50 0.02 0.22 0.74 222 7.12 49 245 0.62 2.52 0.02 0.22 0.73 219 17.24 50 250 0.61 2.54 0.02 0.21 0.72 217 4.05 51 255 0.60 2.55 0.02 0.21 0.71 214 2.71 52 260 0.59 2.57 0.02 0.21 0.70 211 2.12 53 265 0.59 2.59 0.02 0.21 0.70 209 1.78 54 270 0.58 2.61 0.02 0.20 0.69 206 1.55 55 275 0.57 2.62 0.02 0.20 0.68 204 1.38 56 280 0.57 2.64 0.02 0.20 0.67 201 1.25 57 285 0.56 2.66 0.02 0.20 0.66 199 1.15 58 290 0.55 2.67 0.02 0.20 0.66 197 1.07 59 295 0.55 2.69 0.02 0.19 0.65 195 1.00 60 300 0.54 2.71 0.02 0.19 0.64 193 0.94 61 305 0.54 2.72 0.02 0.19 0.64 191 0.89 62 310 0.53 2.74 0.02 0.19 0.63 189 0.85 63 315 0.52 2.75 0.02 0.19 0.62 187 0.81 64 320 0.52 2.77 0.02 0.18 0.62 185 0.77 65 325 0.51 2.78 0.02 0.18 0.61 183 0.74 66 330 0.51 2.80 0.01 0.18 0.60 181 0.71 67 335 0.50 2.81 0.01 0.18 0.60 180 0.69 68 340 0.50 2.83 0.01 0.18 0.59 178 0.66 69 345 0.49 2.84 0.01 0.17 0.59 176 0.64 70 350 0.49 2.86 0.01 0.17 0.58 175 0.62 71 355 0.49 2.87 0.01 0.17 0.58 173 0.60 72 360 0.48 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.59 SUM= 21616 cubic feet 0.49 acre -feet 1232 POSTDEVELOPMENT HYDROGRAPH 2/2/2005 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 4.3 DETENTION BASIN CALCULATION MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:07 PM 2/3/2005 DETENTION BASIN VOLUME CALCULATIONS REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME: Post Development Runoff— Pre Development Runoff= 16.41cfs — 16.05cfs = 0.36cfs Detention Volume = (2 67) O),(Tc)� 60 _ - 2.67 ,z Tc 60 = 2 2 (2.67)(17.24)(8.58) (60) - (2 67)(16 94)(8.96) (60) _ 2 2 Required Volume = 11848 ft3 - 12158 ft3 = -310 ft3 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 5.0 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS M:\Hydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:07 PM 2/3 /2005 Worksheet for Treatment Channel Project Description Flow Element: Trapezoidal Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.03000 Left Side Slope: 4.00 Right Side Slope: 4.00 Bottom Width: 4.00 Discharge: 3.54 Results Normal Depth: 0.24 Flow Area: 1.20 Wetted Perimeter: 6.00 Top Width: 5.94 Critical Depth: 0.26 Critical Slope: 0•02209 Velocity: 2.94 Velocity Head: 0.13 Specific Energy: 0.38 Froude Number: 1.15 Flow Type: Supercritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 Length: 0.00 Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth: 0.00 Profile Description: Headloss: 0.00 Downstream Velocity: Infinity Upstream Velocity: Infinity Normal Depth: 0.24 Critical Depth: 0.26 Channel Slope: 0.03000 ft/ft ft/ft (H:V) ft/ft (H:V) ft fr/s ft ft2 ft ft ft ft/ft ft/S ft ft ft ft ft ft ft/s ft/S ft ft ft/ft Treatment Channel Cross Section for Treatment Channel Project Description Trapezoidal Channel Flow Element: Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Date Roughness Coefficient: 0.030 Channel Slope: 0.03000 ft/ft Normal Depth: 0.24 ft 4.00 ft/ft (H:� Left Side Slope: 4.00 � (H'� Right Side Slope: Bottom Width: 4.00 ft Discharge: 3.54 ft /s Ii 4.00 ft 1 T 0.24 ft V1 L H: 1 Worksheet for 12" Culvert Project Description Flow Element: Circular Pipe Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Full Flow Capacity Input Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft ft ft Diameter: 1.00 Results fr /s Discharge: 3.56 Normal Depth: 1.00 ft Flow Area: 0.79 ft' Wetted Perimeter. 3.14 ft Top Width: 0.00 ft Critical Depth: 0.81 ft Percent Full: 100.0 % Critical Slope: 0.01032 ft /ft Velocity: 4. ills Velocity Head: 0.32 ft Specific Energy: 1.32 ft Froude Number: 0•00 Maximum Discharge: 3.83 ft'!s Discharge Full: 3.56 fNls Slope Full: 0.01000 ft /ft Flow Type: SubCritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data ft upstream Depth: 0.00 Profile Description: Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise: 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise: 1.00 % Downstream Velocity: Infinity �Y ft s Worksheet for 12" Culvert Upstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Normal Depth: 1.00 ft Critical Depth: 0.81 ft Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft ft Critical Slope: 0.01032 ft ft 12° CULVERT Cross Section for 12" Culvert Project Description Flow Element: Circular Pipe Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Full Flow Capacity Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft Normal Depth: 1.00 ft Diameter: 1.00 ft Discharge: 3.56 fP /s I.00 ft I.00 ft V 1 L H: 1 Worksheet for Rock -lined Drainage Channel Project Description Flow Element: Trapezoidal Channel Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.040 Channel Slope: 0.01000 Left Side Slope: 2.00 Right Side Slope: 2.00 Bottom Width: 4.00 Discharge: 6.31 Results 0.00 Normal Depth: 0.57 Flow Area: 2.91 Wetted Perimeter: 6.54 Top Width: 6.27 Critical Depth: 0.40 Critical Slope: 0.03488 Velocity: 2.17 Velocity Head: 0.07 Specific Energy: 0.64 Froude Number: 0.56 Flow Type: Subcritical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 Length: 0.00 Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth: 0.00 Profile Description: Headloss: 0.00 Downstream Velocity: Infinity Upstream Velocity: Infinity Normal Depth: 0.57 Critical Depth: 0.40 Channel Slope: 0.01000 ft/ft ft/ft (H:V) ft/ft (H:V) ft ft /s ft ft' ft ft ft ft/ft ft/s ft ft ft ft ft ft ft/s ft/s ft ft ft/ft Worksheet for Rock -lined Drainage Channel Critical Slope: 0.03488 ft/ft Rock -lined Drainage Channel Cross Section for Rock -lined Drainage Channel Project Description Flow Element: Friction Method: Solve For: Section Data Roughness Coefficient: Channel Slope: Normal Depth: Left Side Slope: Right Side Slope: Bottom Width: Discharge: Trapezoidal Channel Manning Formula Normal Depth 0.040 0.01000 ft/ft 0.57 ft 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 2.00 ft/ft (H:V) 4.00 ft 6.31 ft /s 4.00 ft T 0.57 ft I V1 L H: 1 Worksheet for 18" RCP Stormwater Pipe Project Description Flow Element: Circular Pipe Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Full Flow Capacity Input Data 0.00 ft Roughness Coefficient: 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.03100 f ift Diameter. 1.50 It Results 1.00 % Discharge: 18.49 ft!s Normal Depth: 1.50 ft Flow Area: 1.77 ft: Wetted Perimeter: 4.71 ft Top Width: 0.00 ft Critical Depth: 1.46 ft Percent Full: 100.0 % Critical Slope: 0.02732 ft/ft Velocity: 10.47 ftts Velocity Head: 1.70 ft Specific Energy: 3.20 ft Froude Number: 0.00 Maximum Discharge: 19.89 1N /s Discharge Full: 18.49 ft /s Slope Full:. 0.03100 ft/ft Flow Type: SubCri ical GVF Input Data Downstream Depth: 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0 GVF Output Data Upstream Depth: 0.00 ft Profile Description: Profile Headloss: 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise: 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise: 1.00 % Downstream Velocity: Infinity ft/s Worksheet for 18" RCP Stormwater Pipe Upstream Velocity: Infinity Normal Depth: 1.50 Critical Depth: 1.46 Channel Slope: 0.03100 Critical Slope: 0.02732 ft/s ft/ft It/ft 18" RCP Stormwater Pipe Cross Section for 18" RCP Stormwater Pipe Project Description Flow Element: Circular Pipe Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Full Flow Capacity Section Data Roughness Coefficient: 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.03100 ft/ft Normal Depth: 1.50 ft Diameter: 1.50 ft Discharge: 18.49 ft' /s 1.50 ft 1.50 ft V 1 L H: 1 HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 6.085 TH PERCENTILE PEAK FLOW AND GRASSY SWALE DESIGN MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:10 PM 2/312005 85TH PERCENTILE PEAK FLOW AND VOLUME DETERMINATION Modified Rational Method - Effective for Watersheds < 1.0 mil Note: Only Enter Values in Boxes - Spreadsheet Will Calculate Remaining Values Project Name 1232 - LONE JACK RD Work Order Jurisdiction City of Encinitas BMP Location 85th Percentile Rainfall = 0.66 inches (from County Isopluvial Map) Developed Drainage Area = 2.8 ]acres Natural Drainage Area = 0.0 acres Total Drainage Area to BMP = 2.8 acres Dev. Area Percent Impervious % Overall Percent Impervious = 9 % Dev. Area Runoff Coefficient = 0.46 Nat. Area Runoff Coefficient = 0.35 Runoff Coefficient = 0.46 Time of Concentration = 10.0 minutes (from Drainage Study) RATIONAL METHOD RESULTS Q = CIA where Q = 85th Percentile Peak Flow (cfs) C = Runoff Coefficient = Rainfall Intensity (0.2 inch /hour per RWQCB mandate) A = Drainage Area (acres) V = CPA where V = 85th Percentile Runoff Volume (acre -feet) C = Runoff Coefficient P = 85th Percentile Rainfall (inches) A = Drainage Area (acres Using the Total Drainage Area: C= 1= P= A= Q= V= 0.46 0.2 inch /hour 0.66 inches 2.8 acres 0.25 cfs 0.07 acre -feet Grassy Swale Design Spreadsheet Given: Design flow 0.25 cfs Residence time (req) 9 minutes Trapezoid Channel Design Parameters: y 0.25 feet t 6 feet w 4 feet z 4 ft/ft A 1.25 sq ft Find Qmax of channel: Q= (1.49/n) * A * R ^(2/3) * s ".5 n 0.2 s 0.03 ft/ft (long. Slope) r 0.217391 ft Q= 0.583161 cfs Required Length of Channel: L =vt Therefore: L= 108 L= 100 s Height V = Peak flow rate, cfs r- d Find Velcoity in channel V =Q /A Therefore: V= 0.2 fps Diagram of Swale Variables Used in Spreadsheet HYDROLOGY STUDY for Lone Jack Road PE 1232 7.0 APPENDIX MAHydrology & Hydraulics \1232 HYDRO.doc PE # 1232 3:10 PM 2/3/2005 Ov--4 -,' p p a a��, (►�� Bas ! � � x z U � r io bo imperial County o � -" - —a SL.9ll '� r•� •� .._. 6t.91t 1, ps 0 0 Aa;. -- ---- --- -- • i. Co f• ,: -.rte %J 43. ti i. ! •• •! ~% •Y ..../T .,� J �._'� .;. M • �• • • •ter �L ••vT - ..% j ,��. • ^• •rte �:•••••. • ^. .:• It .. •�.• _ •: .... S6.9LL "ALL .• l �j Vi& f r as - . �., &•••�• _ _ y�f •< AOdll- IL ' .00.LlL p r- lot- • vi -... Aidtl 3 Air _LLL 0 U i i i WAR WAR Tt� LCI �07MWIftL- M N w 0 V C o.. a rOr� 1 a� HV W U w a C* 0 � M N aoo ^ti L] �A U E., al N A b U to %0 O+ N r- O M �--� Ch 0% N An v1 M tt Ilt: I*: h Wi t- r 00 00 00 O O o O G O O o O O O O O O O %O N %n oo v n O o+ o0 00 -+ v v t- M t V1 V1 �O �O CI- [� 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O O O O C O O O G O " N oo " ^^ • et o tr t- r O It Nr N h NO n t- o0 o0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 o c o o c o O t- q1t DD o0 N " %0 %0 O M M t- N `o (l 00 00 00 00 G C O O C C G C C C GO O C C C +► o o v, o o �n o �n o o �n o o In W W W ( ^] W Vf V1 00 iA .V ..yV.. •G F. N 4 N ►+ 0 0 0 0 F v o 0 0 0 o a a a a as o �aaaa�AAaA o' o U v o V O O O+ M M o � � e+1 ,O � • w Q�3. ..v N N d' t� N '? o it•35 � a �•' a6 of i0 a0 R W W � oD .CG O O C C cis��b�:�v a z 0 0 8 G U U U u C A A Aa Ts as °c � v e cd _5 rn 'd a 3 w U C �� vb � G ,�a O aav oc wU a� �rU .0 o U .0 0 o u o m n ) I q o 0 N O 7 0 w� � "•x w po � ° w c3 ic w F o � c� a .� y �w Q e_ aO?p 0 v O 79 V .D w mat C•n c 0 co oo cd U p c z,au.0 Nc °vc o d ! U 0 ; 0 W > Q -.2 := o m � cbbz ca u > U oav 0 .3AZ M 00 IA "N e-?90-V?X0--H )VNO�4d4M.-RA3 43 4r u d tn k- 1 y 1 �a7` W h' lt'st r p A4. rrr` r 1lI E '.y �R {,�. 1 1�iJ •`N'_ x .1 �, q'"` \ �F" �Y;�' k.` l:'t.. l'. I I •Y``. ."' - "*y� . ^ �1 r .. 1 , r "1f ar' t 'Y .K 'i ` t ,�". � +'•'^ � � .I � ` '" «�_. w. kr +r .1 ;:� "��• Al '� w ,�!�••��' � %� J I..I 1 `��'y' � 11' „w�{E., n '3•' «4 `'�R'= i' �+•:. r', +� \ Vqll v \` �\ � � "t.y � Y \ ,`l .. .4" `�i y \. �:'� �.�,:.. I .� •.I i - I ..y � 3a x):1 �. . � '�. � _. �. � �: \\ p. rf� �� °fin tF�',f: 1 s� \- �. \ ., \` I f ",'.f��' � x'11 ? a•� r^,��, ew° a � 'y','.;�"`,± w ?kr�'�p,'� 't:i�, � }'t} '11�jj: I t�: f l { �� s y � .� � i. •��w� f'T '"Cw� li 1j wl "'': ". '.' �t`l, •- a 44?�\ ,.tom': y�,sa jRr "$.(.:' ti . / ...}( -.�. Ia%, .'{♦M{ 8. <.) jjpp 4 i / Yn.E1f' ` I � 9rJ i'.� �'• � f'Mr`',� ! �'� s < .1 .'1 �'. ,.$E� " ':r. _. alt` `f 5 R� 1 .� a \ 1 r, ♦ -y t 4> \ 's ''. /: 'I i l a',.. l 1 i 5 (`'�L, l +•/7 /,` `ys , w low Ye '`„ , ;`P�'- 9t, 1nr" r: _1 `.� `� _. •», / l - `,L,`� s..�, �t + '�r^ Jf / j -/ /. fA�' 1\� J 4 r� !„ X�,�" �� r.'3; � r •{ • , � �`� ti<. C Li. r `�`e' -� w •fir. i ,'�4 i;.�y ''�. ` '1 � / / � r� „� ♦ r�'�) _ i"� •�.+,u',. .. � /j.� ' / /,/ � � �� /,F :. ' ' C / r r:��'r � !' � � �1�� ,g�c ;,. a\ �� ,�_ . . , ��,}.�i,. ^lx�'� *r ,�� .�{u. e I. �� 1 �� / / /f_.: �F / �—...•'`ti. // i�� / � /� e- / / �>�' r s. �� w. l 'SI,.�. ��1 rnr � � �s"a „r3.ay�3x+ { �1... 1._�•.{ .4 �+ /./ �/ ; *`�j� /�� :._�i' / /:/ -�/�13 ! /�aJe �/ ,z':.. a / vc. , -y.4 k:'"r� .i O "'r' ''t ¢F'•'F i ? N11 1 ” , • r // ;/C/ � // --/ j -!� �/ / • -' .,��/ j // / � kgfk� ry / , ♦ . �. .t�i�*'!h`?.' .'� 9k �`I � � � (� �•! t A �" j T�'w`��. —`.. \, \y\ L. , // /// /� �l\ �-4.;y �yic�, / —r.� ��s. r4 °.'�j M ^2 °'�.t t=f {.• : i I \\ \'° �.�yyi•.��24'k`P °M.�. S�k`�1� -Y'.r. �",� � � c � ��- �. ,� 1 `. ! /� C �`^n� �.x.r• �/' .� ^•aTVS� ,x•� °�; -.. M.i �M„i{ iP � ! / i \" '{ ;\ � �4�:; \ � \.� � � {� l l � ' / � /// � , 4 ;� �' ""'� �f�/�- �.�yr ��• 'C r.:.�a •�, K i,°' \ Keq � / � '1 \ ,♦i .:r � \ ti's:; <; �;'ti. _,�! /// ! �, Win, /��r� '• l �' r'� j, r / •'.. �� ..' ` � \ i'�r' � / i '!�..�w`�r,.'x� : ,�. ref f' M �k ,` y,. '\. � � r /k �:� \ _-- ,.r' j �-••` 1 I+ �„ ,! r: .(� � I ��.I 1 1 1 I _� a� >- J�, I t�' �, ��ri ',�?� .. l.1: 11\ ,-- ''4— •✓.ter' 'R t:1' I�7 i `'. ji. ,S:b 5G ro." \r / / _ 3�f� -� 1 "�[j `� ' rf 'r�' � 1 .,1 �,�M" ,,��'�K I .`,I 11 - ` iz \�i {�•.I : a '� .,t, �� , \ i ct 4,- + � = 3 �i' \: �.' V • ' � \:. � .�rd .� ' - �i<ff -� f� I l 1 1 1 • I . 1 4 / •r_ "i' .Y.Ny � ".' i � \' t y z � ++M J 1 1 �, � 1�•F`' .�', �'. ! ' l � I I ( ' ,I , � \r l ,� y J � ,',. \ '� ° �i\. .i.i � ::^ � y u• _ II1/ �yeew � � }t � '! .• / !�/ Waw 1 i ' / / 1 f'.' 1 ` 1 t � �,a t i � :�. \; x s � /� r�l /'�'' �I • /.. _ / / I 3•+y P� r ��'', \'\, ..:: t". " r i u 1 � �'[' _. /.cl , (q' n 1. n ' � / • � -. J, 1. � �"�� , • N^ t / ' i �, .�� I� � � C1.� ,, � }� _ ^r �� ; '�� °' /� / It + , � r� 5 � \ \ •x r J • , .��. I �rziS'. -•P. `!• 11 ' s. � . i r '� ;. 1 �' �� ^^ .rr1. 4�� \�\\ \ •�\ \ \ \ �� \y ' � t � " � NY ��\ t� t >.r -',�' / / /fir (s t ✓� . � �, ;a s r,♦ ��i; %� i ��/'., r ,/ / /^ / j % i 1 7 / l � � \ \ \ � \ �;�� _ • 1 ff ,,rr '- 1,� ' 11', �`� I � � � �:�x,,Mf� •. !ll �,�'./" �'��/ /ice./ i• ��i ` j� �. /' l / � �v. /' i I • � `�i r Geo technic s Incorporated Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, LONE JACK ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA AUG - 3 EN�i1Y -F Eft S NR[As Prepared for Wiegand Neglia Corporation 760 Garden View Court, Suite 200 Encinitas, California 92024 by GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 April 12, 2004 9245 Activity Rd., Ste. 103 • San Diego, California 92126 Phone(858)536 -1000 • Fax(858)536 -8311 ,adsh, Geotechnics Incorporated April 12, 2004 Wiegand Neglia Corporation 760 Garden View Court, Suite 200 Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. Bruce D. Wiegand SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Four Lot Subdivision, Lone Jack Road Encinitas, California Gentlemen: Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation of the proposed four lot subdivision located northeast of Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane in Encinitas, California. Specific conclusions regarding site conditions and recommendations for earthwork construction are presented in the attached report. We appreciate this opportunity to provide professional services. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report or the services provided, please do not hesitate to contact us. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. Principal Engineer Distribution: (6) Addressee, Mr. Bruce Wiegand 9245 Activity Rd., Ste. 103 • San Diego, California 92126 Phone (858) 536 -1000 • Fax (858) 536 -8311 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, LONE JACK ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... ............................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERV ICES .......................................................................... ............................... 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. ............................... 2 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ ............................... 3 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................... ............................... 3 5.1 Lusardi Formation (KI) ................................................................. ............................... 3 5.2 Delmar Formation ( Td) ................................................................. ............................... 4 5.3 Colluvium ( QcoI) ........................................................................... ..............................4 5.4 Residuum (Qres) ........................................................................... ............................... 4 5.5 Groundwater ................................................................................. ............................... 5 6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ........................................................................ ............................... 5 6.1 Ground Rupture ............................................................................ ............................... 5 6.2 Seismicity ..................................................................... ............................... ...5 .............. 6.3 Liquefaction ...........................:...................................................... ............................... 6 6.4 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earthquake Induced Flooding ....................... ............................... 6 6.5 Landslides and Lateral Spreads ..................................................... ............................... 6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... ............................... 8 Geotechnics Incorporated GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, LONE JACK ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... ............................... 10 8.1 Plan Review ................................................................................ ............................... 10 8.2 Excavation and Grading Observation ......................................... ............................... 10 8.3 Earthwork ...................................................................................... .............................10 8.3.1 Site Preparation ............................................................ ............................... 11 8.3.2 Compressible Soils ...................................................... ............................... 11 8.3.3 Expansive Soils ............................................................ ............................... 11 8.3.4 Transition Lots ............................................................. ............................... 12 8.3.5 Temporary Excavations ............................................... ............................... 12 8.3.6 Fill Compaction 8.3.7 Bulk/Shrink Characteristics ......................................... ............................... 13 8.3.8 Surface Drainage .......................................................... ............................... 13 8.3.9 Slope Stability .............................................................. ............................... 14 8.4 Preliminary Foundation Considerations ...................................... ............................... 16 8.4.1 Post - Tensioned Slab Systems ...................................... ............................... 16 8.4.2 Settlement .................................................................... ............................... 17 8.4.3 Lateral Resistance ........................................................ ............................... 17 8.4.4 Foundation Setbacks .................................................... ............................... 17 8.4.5 Seismic Design ............................................................. ............................... 17 8.5 On -Grade Slabs ........................................................................... ............................... 18 8.5.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs ...................................... ............................... 18 8.5.2 Exterior Slabs ............................................................... ............................... 18 8.5.3 Expansive Soils ............................................................ ............................... 19 8.5.4 Reactive Soils ............................................................... ............................... 1 8.6 Lateral Earth Pressures ................................................................ ............................... 20 8.7 Preliminary Pavement Sections .................................................. ............................... 21 8.7.1 Asphalt Concrete .......................................................... ............................... 2 8.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete ........................................... ............................... 22 8.8 Pipelines ........................................................................................ .............................22 8.8.1 Thrust Blocks ............................................................... ............................... 22 8.8.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction ............................................ ............................... 22 8.8.3 Pipe Bedding ................................................................ ............................... 23 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ............................................. ............................... 23 Geotechnics Incorporated GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, LONE JACK ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ILLUSTRATIONS SiteLocation Map ................................................................................. ............................... Figure 1 FaultLocation Map ............................................................................... ............................... Figure 2 TransitionDetails .................................................................................. ............................... Figure 3 Slope Construction Details ................... ................... Figure 4 Typical Buttress Details .......................... Figure 5 Retaining Wall Drain Details ................................................................ ............................... Figure 6 Trench Materials for High Gradients .................................................... ............................... Figure 7 Regional Seismicity ................... Geotechnical Map .............. TABLES ....... ............................... PLATES ............ ............................... APPENDICES ...... ............................... Table 1 ................. ..........................Plate 1 REFERENCES Appendix A .............................................................................. ............................... SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ................................................. ............................... Appendix B LABORATORYTESTING ........................................................... ............................... Appendix C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ................................................. ............................... Appendix D STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS ......... ............................... Appendix E Geotechnics Incorporated GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION, LONE JACK ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed four lot subdivision located northwest of Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane in Encinitas, California. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the pertinent geotechnical conditions at the site, and to provide recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of earthwork construction. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and our experience with similar soils and geologic conditions in the area. The preliminary design criteria are intended to aid in project planning, and should be considered subject to modification based on testing and observation performed during earthwork and site grading. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES This investigation was conducted in general accordance with the provisions of our Proposal No. 04- 045 (Geotechnics, 2004). In order to evaluate potential geotechnical impacts to the proposed development, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for grading and earthwork, the following services were provided. • A visual and geologic reconnaissance of the surface characteristics of the site. This included a review of aerial stereoscopic photographs of the site and adjacent properties. • A review of available geologic and geotechnical literature related to the general site conditions. A list of the relevant reports is presented in Appendix A. • A subsurface exploration of the site including four bucket auger borings. Samples of the geologic materials encountered in the borings were collected for laboratory analysis. Each boring was down -hole logged and then backfrlled in general accordance with San Diego County guidelines. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The boring logs are presented in Appendix B. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION PROJECT NO. 0007-013-00 DOCUMENT NO. 04-0272 APRIL 12. 2004 PAGE 2 • Evaluation of the engineering properties of the soil units likely to affect the proposed building foundations, planned slopes and pavements using laboratory tests on selected samples collected during exploration. Laboratory testing included classification, moisture content, dry density, expansion index, soluble sulfate, shear strength, consolidation and R- Value. The laboratory test results are summarized in Appendix C. • Evaluation of potential geologic hazards that may affect site development including groundwater, faulting, seismicity, slope stability, settlement and expansion. • Engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data in order to develop recommendations for site preparation in areas to receive structures and fill, compaction requirements for placement of fill and backfill, preliminary remedial grading and buttressing recommendations, mitigation of transitions and expansive soil conditions beneath pads, and preliminary foundation, slab, retaining wall, and pavement recommendations. • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions and recommendations. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located northeast of the intersection between Lone Jack Road and Jackie Lane within the City of Encinitas, California. The site is bound by Jackie Lane on the west and Lone Jack Road on the south. A small undeveloped parcel borders the eastern edge of the property. The northeast edge of the site is bordered by a private asphalt concrete driveway which provides access to an existing single family residence along the northwest edge of the site. The approximate location and extent of the site is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The site is characterized by undeveloped natural topography which slopes gently down to the south. Elevations on site range from a maximum of approximately 145 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along the northern property line, to a minimum of about 85 feet MSL in the southwest corner of the site. Slope inclinations vary from approximately 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) in the steeper upper portions along the northern edge of the site, to approximately 8:1 near the toe of slope along Lone Jack Road. A minor north -south trending drainage parallels Jackie Lane along the western edge of the site. The upstream portions of this drainage are deeply incised. Vegetation on site generally consists of low -lying weeds and grasses with heavier shrubs along property boundaries. The approximate layout of the site is shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Geotechnics Incorporated AM n —— 1, aZW 1;. oil SN LA C4VI'M LN 15 wt JACY. w, % 1+1 "ING RO WS11501f W1. SITE CORTE ':,9 f,.A LVDI) CkA LA vil A 41A LN -,PVA CA71,ca *N r.v .uo PAWE-X. 440') 0GL'8LE MAO J*" 11401005 CL0 LA J, PKX3 U ;4 ADAPTED FROM THE THOMAS GUIDE, 2003 0.5 Mile I G e o technics Project No. 0007-013-00 n c o r p o r a t e d SITE LOCATION MAP Document No. 04-0272 FIGURE 1 LL K CIP *14 '.50 -rig w, % "ING RO :hS SITE CkA vil A C RICACt%' CALLE X '?xWp:z it s.. , ACf AN;� C4 GL Al LMLC • FONS 9D Ate PAW aka ?CM 'JILLS Llk LOW DE w" i0 v ip 0 9 4- 4 pos V uqE d, C J*" 11401005 CL0 LA J, PKX3 U ;4 ADAPTED FROM THE THOMAS GUIDE, 2003 0.5 Mile I G e o technics Project No. 0007-013-00 n c o r p o r a t e d SITE LOCATION MAP Document No. 04-0272 FIGURE 1 WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 APRIL 12, 2004 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is anticipated to include four single- family residential lots along with two paved driveways, associated exterior flatwork, and underground utilities. Conventional cut and fill grading will be needed to create the building pad areas. Maximum cuts into the existing soils are anticipated to be on the order of 6 to 9 feet. Maximum fill depths are anticipated to be on the order of 6 to 10 feet. The preliminary grading plans indicate that cut and fill slopes will be constructed at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradients or flatter. Cut slopes up to about 15 feet, and fill slopes up to about 25 feet in height are proposed for the site. 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. The coastal plain is characterized by subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary formations. Our subsurface investigation indicates that the site is underlain by colluvium with overlies the Delmar and Lusardi formations. Our literature review suggests that Santiago Peak metavolcanic rock underlies the entire site at greater depths. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings conducted at the site are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Logs of the explorations are presented in the figures of Appendix B. The specific units encountered in our investigation are described below. 5.1 Lusardi Formation (Kl) The Cretaceous age Lusardi Formation was encountered in Borings B -1 and B -2 at depths of about 54 to 57 feet below grade (approximately at an elevation of 83 feet MSL). Borings B -3 and B -4 were terminated above the anticipated elevation of the geologic contact with this formation. 'The formation is commonly composed of a cemented cobble and boulder conglomerate with occasional lenses of sandstone. As observed in the exploratory borings on site, the formation consists of red brown, fine to medium grained, low plasticity silty sandstone with gravel (the material would be classified as SM using the Unified Soil Classification System). Angular to subangular metavolcanic clasts comprise approximately 10 to 30 percent of the material by weight. Our previous experience with this formation suggests that it has high shear strength and low compressibility. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 5.2 Delmar Formation (Td) PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 4 The Eocene age Delmar Formation was encountered in all of the exploratory borings conducted for our investigation. As observed in the borings, the Delmar Formation consists of interbedded silty sandstone, sandy siltstone, and sandy claystone. The silty sandstone is typically light gray or light brown in color, fine to medium grained, moist, and dense to very dense in consistency. The sandy siltstone is similar in color, contains fine sands, and is moist, hard in consistency, and moderately weathered with some groundwater stains. The sandy claystone is generally light gray or light green in color, moist, moderately plastic, massive, and moderately indurated with random fractures. Laboratory testing indicates that the formation has low to moderate shear strength and medium to high expansion potential, and contains considerable amounts of soluble sulfate in the form of gypsum crystals. 5.3 Colluvium (Ocol) Colluvium is an accumulation of weathered formational materials which forms on a slope as a result of downhill movement due to gravity. Colluvium is often similar in composition to the parent material. Relatively thick colluvium was encountered in all of the borings conducted for this investigation. The colluvium is anticipated to be the primary geologic unit impacting site development. As observed on site, the colluvium generally consists of medium to high plasticity clay with sand (CL to CH) that is dry to moist, and firm in consistency. Layers of low plasticity clayey sand (SC) were also encountered. The colluvium varied in color from dark brown, to yellow brown, to gray brown, to orange brown to light green. The colluvium ranged in thickness from 8 to 26 feet. Laboratory testing indicates that the material is potentially compressible, has low shear strength, high expansion potential, and contains some soluble sulfate. 5.4 Residuum (Ores) Residuum is soil that is formed in -situ by chemical or mechanical weathering of underlying materials. Residual soils mantle the site. The residuum is similar to the colluvium in composition, and generally consists of dark brown fat clay with sand (CH). The residuum is moist, and soft to firm in consistency. The residuum ranged in thickness from 4 to 5 feet. Laboratory testing indicates that the material is compressible, has low shear strength, high expansion potential, and contains considerable amounts of soluble sulfate. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 5.5 Groundwater PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 5 No seepage or groundwater was observed in the subsurface explorations. However, it should be noted that changes in rainfall, irrigation practices, or site drainage may produce seepage or locally perched groundwater conditions at any location within the soil or bedrock underlying the site. This typically occurs at underlying contacts with less permeable materials, such as the interfaces that exist between colluvium and formation. Since the prediction of the location of such conditions is not possible, they are mitigated if and where they occur. 6.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY The primary geologic hazards at the site are associated with landslides within the relatively weak colluvium and Delmar Formations underlying the proposed improvement areas. Liquefaction and earthquake induced flooding are not anticipated to present a significant hazard to site development. The site is not located within an area previously known for significant seismic hazards, and no evidence of past faulting was observed in this investigation. Seismic hazards at the site are anticipated from ground shaking during seismic events on distant active faults. The nearest known active fault is within the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is located more than 10 km west of the site. The potential for geologic hazards and seismicity are described in greater detail below. 6.1 Ground Rupture The subject site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and our investigation and literature review did not provide indications of active faulting on site. Consequently, ground rupture is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard. 6.2 Seismicity The approximate centroid of the subject site is located at latitude 33.0566° north and longitude 117.2242° west. The Fault Location Map, Figure 2, shows the locations of known active faults within a 100 km radius of the site. Table 1 summarizes the properties of these faults based on the program EQFAULT and supporting documentation (Blake, 1998). According to the California Geological Survey, the design basis earthquake for the site, defined as the peak ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50 year period, is 0.31 g (CGS, 2003). Geotechnics Incorporated 66/9 naa 4- LlxitpielMeJalaJo01pulUeja1 z 3anow ZLZO -t,0 *ON ;uown000 00110 -L000 'ON;oafoJd dbw NOUV30 -1 l-inyi POILliod.ioauj saiuuaaIoa�� / ' •` / - ,� I L CL .. / t, / m y // c uj w 13 \a - C / � � // 1- " � (C N J • / =VET, .' / W « 10 uj Al �;: sl \\ // W n$ m i; to ) ! ,p �ttj.• \ i;�, ) _..,: cm d N a Wme worm � oro\\a •' _ �^ /% . � _ J (� j ��A °6� /J aJ p G� �J V< .`r� / 111 \_p QEt� / c' / / i °Ar Clue -•'- � o`�?s�•- -� \f \l / � v A i � (loos //. i�• f m Fo /.% _- _ i J _ r �m i I1 No Y ko 6e �l /� \moo 4� \ La �-✓ 'Z{ ," '/ �., pc l' ,' // salp oo° It rad°� cl i � /,✓,_ -`ice �.S � \n9•� -�-� 5ar /ii' ° �'\ mom' /{�\ �ma ;�' 1,'�^`�� '! i /•/ �/!��' �,'� '� o CD \ \ II � l // � / //. i / / / -' � / - J• .7'/ � a / ai /; %�/ �.m $ g m % 00 i3c.4 Etc` m -�� ` r°v { \\ `�'l,. \I I. 1 /// i /' 'I // /•�rnCc�m g3�c?.c saaI� o`mo 5 t stn ca a two sz 0.00 ZL C E •S fn y m cornmva v'm V 'S2$ �� tQ E CSj �L�� y�gtm V / ! - m mIM I J / i rte' i W m S �i 9'A 2i m 122--N 1 1 5. a 0.0 a.s2cgom 5 `� &E ;E m0'cE ag44 4 "= R N -6 N :5 FL Ft ` �`�� `0 �Q Na ;2 SEA mm m 25 m di H -M AC4 .i it C ;O>..L� mLmaCm Ng` 1/ /i /�— ma= °v °�8 gms_ cc N � t I J // i J / a �o�� Q mmcm timc�t�eNo �i' /1 =�gHir a 10 0 v'rmmv� � /l It H Q la) 0 ^ 000000000000000000 g L? L?Ooo0000000 00 �- 0 of 0 J T T c� Lo Lo cV tV u(i c',) � v ° ° ° N ° N 9 a c il- O4 w u a o F- �_ o0 O Z T T C C a) o C: (U Z T T T T T '` T T T T T T T T T T T T T T J V + + + + T T C C LQ T T• O LL' w w W W I j + + + + + + + + + + + + + m v = o Z 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 >. M CO c7 M CO d Q M CO c'M cM M M M M cM M M M M O M M M M CM M CT co M M c'7 M ri M ('`) c`') co co M L v o Q W rn 0) p �' �- r T r r r r M co M_ N T T (V " _N _N _N _N _N _N _N Q + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + E o Y o + J V O (n w CO O o O 0 W w w W w W W W W L X` o o N O T� �7 `— M 0 0 0 N CNN cam) O w O N Co m M N o M V LU < oo N T (o co M Lo T T co Lo I� (o Cn et to m O C d o Q Luh °CU -CU _ QW C (o LL CU _V > > =rn o- CO) F=- N .- (o T co t� u) m T N Co M a) T T N M Co o -Q C' W co I-- Co (o I� 0 O (D CO cu Y J t U) w g Q 0 J 0 o o f° rn rn m W Z W c N o Z �, a) o _O W O N v _ CC) O F. ~ O a M O a0 ° L (U C �) M M E W T Ur W M N T T O T 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 M M o) 0 J 0 0 0 0 6 O O O O O O O O T O 0 0 0 0 0 (n 0 0 0 0 Q W LU E N Lu v a N O m L E Q rn - ° v C;) C J cu (U cu 0 W 0 0° m Z f- .� _E v n! o Fa- Y O T �o T T I� rn T T .p rn N (Y) LO fl O n CD �(D co co O a) a) a) O. N L o , = Q r U a) " C .N a� E a o ` O . a� _� CU U w o 2 �+ 4) Y o a 70 C C� O Y N C (Q -Q N O m m C E m c it mc (n 3 O .. CU L o > o U O O m 0 O C O„ C° L O o 4) o (v • 4 of O cu .� N 0 — C CD O C a) J •� L- N 0 M it � 00 ;Cu c a Q ° '� c o F- C o E w m c w a ° cu c vi a- w O cQ ° 0 a) cQ m a� U- °N) a� w °) n o o (v U° _ o c C (n 3 C m o w t7 +� O C O .� O L C 0 —� U (U -0 L C "= � U W " a VII N�� c U u w m m Wm -m-) ° W (n W W Cn � 'L r C c w CL E 'v .E 3 � '� ° :E � cu a) Z U)W cu CJ 5-0 E.�� ° m CO Z o LL W f--• aci N cv) ff to WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 6 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefiable soil typically consists of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense, and saturated. To liquefy, these soils must be subjected to a ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration. The only materials observed during this investigation that were loose to medium dense in consistency were situated within the colluvium. However, these soils were generally too clayey to be considered potentially liquefiable. Furthermore, no groundwater was encountered during this investigation. Accordingly, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered to be low. 6.4 Tsunamis, Seiches, Earth wake Induced Flooding The distance between the subject site and the coast, and the elevation of the site above sea level (at least 85 feet MSL), preclude damage due to seismically induced waves (tsunamis) or Seiches. The site does not appear to be located below any large bodies of water. Consequently, the potential for earthquake induced flooding is considered to be low. 6.5 Landslides and Lateral Q"—4 Landslides are relatively common within the Delmar Formation. Our literature review suggests that several ancient landslides may exist in close proximity to the site. The referenced landslide hazard report maps an existing landslide about 1,000 feet southwest of the site, and a possible landslide about 500 feet northwest of the site (Tucker et al., 1986). The report maps the subject site as "marginally susceptible" to landslides. Our research at the City of Encinitas provided other indications of ancient landslides in close proximity to the site. A geotechnical investigation was found which covered several of the existing single family residential lots north of the site (Leighton, 1990). This report mapped one recent and several ancient landslides near the top of the bluff about 300 feet north of the property. The report concluded that the landslides were "relatively shallow (19 to 26 feet deep) ", and that the landslides "probably included a mud /debris flow that extended over the natural canyon slope and well down into the canyon area." The report also concluded that site development was feasible, provided that the landslides were mitigated, presumably using conventional soil buttressing techniques. Although these properties have subsequently been developed, no records were found which indicate how these landslides were mitigated. Geotechnies Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 7 Another geotechnical investigation was found for the existing residential lot immediately north of the subject site (Hetherington, 1991). This report indicated that landslide hazard identification was not a part of the contracted scope of services. However, several shallow test pits were conducted for this investigation, and it was concluded that the site was underlain entirely by slide debris to the maximum depth explored (10 to 13 feet). No slope buttresses were recommended for development of this residential lot within the referenced geotechnical report (Hetherington, 1991). Several other geotechnical investigations were reviewed at the City of Encinitas for existing single family residential properties bordering the subject site (Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, 1990, 1991). These reports concluded that there were no indications of existing landslides or other geologic hazards on those sites. Our subsurface investigation did not provide indications of active landslides within the subject site. No slide planes were found during down -hole logging of the four exploratory borings. However, the character of the colluvium suggests that the upper portion may consist of ancient landslide debris (that was transported down slope and deposited at the site) which has subsequently become age - hardened or indurated. This is generally consistent with the findings of the geotechnical investigations described above. Recommendations are provided in the following sections of the report which will help to reduce the potential for future slope instabilities. These recommendations focus on geologic mapping during grading and the construction of slope stabilization fills or buttresses, if necessary. In addition, recommendations are provided to reduce the potential for surficial slope failure through the use of deep rooted landscape planting and irrigation control. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12. 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 8 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and appropriate construction practices are followed. No geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude construction. However, several geotechnical considerations exist which need to be addressed prior to construction. • The residual soil and surficial colluvium which cover the site are loose or soft in consistency. These materials are susceptible to settlement due to the increased loading from the proposed fill or foundations. The sandier soils may also experience hydro- compression settlement due to an increase in moisture content from site irrigation or changes in drainage conditions. Laboratory testing and analysis suggests that the deeper colluvium may be dense enough to bear the proposed loads with generally tolerable long term settlement. We estimate that the more compressible soils will typically extend down to depths of about 10 feet below existing grade. Consequently, we recommend that all soil be excavated to a depth of 10 feet below existing grade throughout the site. Geotechnics Incorporated should observe the excavation bottoms prior to placing compacted fill. The actual removal depths may vary based on the conditions observed by Geotechnics Incorporated during grading. • Development of the site will result in transitions between cut and fill within each of the proposed building pads. In order to reduce the potential for distress associated with differential settlement, pads should be graded so that structures are not founded across such transitions. This may be accomplished by over - excavating the cut portion of each building pad so that the foundations will bear entirely on compacted fill. Based on the anticipated fill depths throughout the site, we recommend that the cut portion of each building pad be over - excavated at least 10 feet below pad grade. The over - excavated areas should be filled to grade with dompacted soil. • The surficial colluvium and residuum which covers the site possesses relatively low shear strength. In order to reduce the potential for surficial slope failures and other moisture related problems, we recommend that all cut slopes be reconstructed as stabilization fills. The stabilization fills should include removal and compaction of all soil within 10 feet (measured vertically) from the surface of the proposed cut slopes. Note that this may be accomplished during remedial excavations for the building pad areas as described above. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 9 • Excavations within the residuum, colluvium and Delmar Formation are anticipated to generate predominately highly expansive material, although some low or moderately expansive sandy soils may also be encountered. Heave may occur in areas where highly expansive soils are placed or left within pavement, foundation, or slab subgrade. Selective grading should be conducted so that less expansive sandy soils are placed near finish grade (where possible). Preliminary post- tension foundation design parameters are provided for the proposed structures to help reduce the potential for distress from the anticipated heave. • Our investigation did not provide indications of active landslides within the subject site. No remolded planar clay seams indicative of exiting failure surfaces were observed in the large diameter borings. However, geologic conditions may vary between exploration locations. If indications of on -site landslides are observed during remedial grading, additional remedial excavation and buttressing recommendations will be provided. Several relatively shallow landslides were encountered in our literature review on properties uphill from the subject site. It is our understanding that these landslides were mitigated through the use of slope buttresses and /or stabilization fills. However, we do not have the information necessary to evaluate the stability of these off -site landslides. The remedial grading recommendations presented herein are only intended to produce stable slopes for the grading proposed within the subject site. It may still be possible for debris from the off-site landslides to adversely impact the proposed development, if these slides were not properly mitigated. • Future irrigation of the site will introduce significant quantities of water into the underlying soil. This creates the potential for seepage to develop at the faces of slopes. Although subsurface drains will be installed during grading in areas where our observations indicate that a potential for seepage exists, it is not always possible to predict when and where seepage may occur. Such seepage conditions may be addressed if and when they develop. • Laboratory testing indicates that the site soils present a severe potential for sulfate attack of foundations and on -grade slabs. UBC criteria require high strength concrete with Type V cement and a low water to cement ratio be used to mitigate such conditions. • There are no known active faults underlying the project site. Likely seismic hazards that may occur at the site would be associated with significant ground shaking due to an event located within the Rose Canyon Fault zone. Potentially liquefiable colluvium may exist in the surficial soils at the site. However, removal of these materials during grading should negate any potential for liquefaction. Geotechnics incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 10 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and the design of foundations and improvements. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern California. If these recommenda- tions appear not to cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recommendations. 8.1 Plan Review We recommend that foundation and grading plans be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to plan finalization in order to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations contained in this report. 8.2 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation excavations and site grading excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. During grading, Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuously. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated performing such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing of fill during grading to support our professional opinion as to compliance with the compaction recommendations. 8.3 Fart_ hwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in general accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Encinitas, Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, and the Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects attached as Appendix E of this report. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. Where these recommendations conflict with those given in Appendix E, the following recommendations shall take precedence. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE I I 8.3.1 Site Preparation: Site preparation includes removal of deleterious materials, existing structures, or other improvements from areas to be subjected to structural loads. Deleterious materials, including vegetation, trash, construction debris, and rock fragments in excess of 6 inches in greatest dimension, should be removed from the site. Minor herbaceous vegetation may be incorporated into fills as long as it is thoroughly mixed with soil, and does not exceed 0.5% of the fill by volume. Existing subsurface utilities that are to be abandoned should be removed and the trenches backfilled and compacted as described in Section 8.3.6. 8.3.2 Compressible Soils: The surficial residuum and colluvium which mantles the site is considered potentially compressible. These materials should be removed from areas that will be subject to development, including building pads and slopes. Removals should expose firm and unyielding material as determined by our personnel during grading. In general, removals are anticipated to be on the order of 10 feet or less, although deeper excavations may be needed in some areas. The removed soil that is free of deleterious material should be replaced in accordance with Section 8.3.6 as a uniformly compacted fill to the proposed plan elevations. 83.3 Expansive Soils: In general, the on site materials are considered to have a medium to high expansion potential, although some soils with a low to medium expansion potential were also observed in our investigation. The expansion index test results are presented in Figure C -3. Expansive soil heave may cause differential movement of foundations, slabs, flatwork, and other improvements. In order to reduce the potential for differential heave, we recommend that expansive soils not be placed or left near finish grade. If possible, soils with a low to medium expansion potential should be segregated from the remedial excavations and used to cap the upper five feet of building areas, and the upper two feet of flatwork areas. However, there may not be sufficient quantities of on -site soils to complete these operations throughout the site. As an alternative, heavily reinforced flatwork and Post-tension slab foundations may be used to reduce the potential for distress to the proposed improvements. Post- tension slab recommendations for the highly expansive site soils are provided in Section 8.4. Exterior flatwork recommendations are provided in Section 8.5. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 12 8.3.4 Transition Lots: Residential structures should not straddle cut/fill transitions due to the potential for adverse differential movement. Typical transition conditions are shown in Figure 3. These conditions include lots with cut/fill transitions, transitions between shallow and deep fills, and lots underlain by deep fills. Our recommended site remediation is also summarized in Figure 3. Based on the our understanding of the geotechnical conditions throughout the site, we anticipate that 10 foot deep over - excavations will be needed for all four building pad areas. The actual over - excavation depths should be determined in the field based on the conditions observed by Geotechnics Incorporated during grading. Note that the over - excavation areas should extend a minimum of 10 feet horizontally beyond the proposed building envelope. The over - excavated portion of the pad should be brought back to grade with compacted fill as discussed in Section 8.3.6. 8.3.5 Temporar�� Exca,ations: Temporary excavations are anticipated throughout the site, such as for the removal of the existing deleterious materials, trenches for the proposed utilities, and the construction of stabilization fills. All excavations should conform to Cal -OSHA guidelines. Temporary steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) for heights up 30 feet. Higher d be inclined temporary slopes should be evaluated by Geotechnics on a case by case basis during grading operations. Temporary excavations that encounter seepage or other potentiall adverse conditions should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant on a case -by- case basis during grading. Remedial measures may include shoring, or reducing the inclination of the temporary slope. 8.3.6 Filmpaction: All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum relative compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557, except as modified for pavement subgrade. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Geotechnics Incorporated RIP 12 INCHES, WATER, COMPACT LPE TO A DEPTH OF H/A2 (3 TRANSITION FEET MINIMUM) CASE 1.0 3 FEET - - _ _ FILL (MAXIMUM) FORMATION CASE 2.0 -- - -_„/�, - -_ FILL H >3FEET FORMATION CASE 3.0 2% SLOPE -j - _ _ H > 3 FEET OVER - EXCAVATE TRANSITION - - - _ FILL TO A DEPTH OF H/2 (3 FEET MINIMUM) FORMATION -40&- _Geotechnics Incorporated TRANSITION DETAILS Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE 3 \Drafting\CorelDrnw \ n o_.. WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 13 Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to determine the suitability for use. In general, imported fill soils should have an expansion index less than 90 based on UBC Test Method 29 -2 or ASTM D4829. Representative samples of imported materials and on site soils should be tested by the geotechnical consultant in order to evaluate their engineering properties for the planned use. During grading operations, soil types may be encountered by the contractor which do not appear to conform to those discussed within this geotechnical report. The geotechnical consultant should be notified in order to evaluate the suitability of these soils for their proposed use. 8.3.7 Bulk/Shrink Characteristics: We estimate that cuts in the Delmar Formation will bulk on the order of 5 to 10 percent when they are excavated and compacted as fill. On the other hand, cuts in the residuum and colluvium may shrink on the order of 5 to 10 percent when excavated and compacted as fill. It should be noted that bulking and shrinking potential can vary considerably based on variabilities in the in- situ density of the material in question. 8.3.8 Surface Drainage: Slope, foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well surface runoff drains from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures and top of slopes without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this will depend on the prevailing landscape. The project engineer should consider these aspects in design. Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas. If roof drain are used, their drainage should be channeled by pied to storm drains, or discharge at least 10 feet from buildings. Homeowners should be responsible for limiting irrigation to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur may result in saturated zones or "perched" groundwater within the underlying soil. Homeowner's responsibilities include using sound engineering judgment in property improvements, maintaining protective slope vegetation and established lot grades, and minimizing lot and slope irrigation. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 14 83.9 Slone Stability• Grading of the site will include the construction of various cut and fill slopes in order to create flat spaces for the proposed building pads, as shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Maximum cut slope heights vary from about 10 to 15 feet. Maximum fill slope heights vary from 10 to 25 feet. We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Where possible, slope inclinations should be flattened to 3:1 to improve stability. In order to characterize the behavior of the site soils, selected samples of the various materials observed on site were transported to the laboratory for direct shear testing. The results of the individual laboratory tests are presented in Figures C -5.1 through C -5.10. A summary of the strength parameters used in the slope stability analyses is presented in Figure D -1.1. The amalgamated test results for the primarily geologic units on site are summarized in Figures D -1.2 and D -1.3. Additional laboratory test results from our database of samples of the Delmar Formation from nearby properties are shown in Figure D -1.4. Based on the shear test results, shear strength parameters were estimated for use in the slope stability analyses presented in Appendix D. Cross sections of the major slopes proposed on site are presented in Figures D -2 through D -4 of Appendix D. The cross section locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The gross stability of these slopes was analyzed using SLOPE /W software and the strength parameters summarized in Figure D -1. Our analysis indicates that the proposed cut and fill slopes possess an adequate factor of safety against deep seated slope failure (F.S. >1.5) for the heights shown on the Geotechnical Map, provided that the recommended remedial earthwork is conducted throughout the site. Any changes to the slope configuration should be evaluated by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to finalization. During grading, keyways should be excavated at the base of all fill slopes under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. The width and bottom elevation of each keyway should be provided by the geotechnical consultant based on an evaluation of the site conditions. The minimum key width is 15 feet. The minimum key depth is 10 feet, measured vertically below the toe of slope. The entire key should be excavated into competent material, as determined by our personnel. Keys should be tilted downward toward the temporary back -cut at an inclination of 2 percent or more. The exposed keyway, should be scarified, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted prior to placing fill. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE I S Fills over sloping ground should be constructed entirely on prepared bedrock. In areas where the ground surface slopes at more than a 5:1 gradient, it should be benched to produce a level area to receive the fill. Benches should be wide enough to provide complete coverage by the compaction equipment during fill placement. The benches should extend through any loose, unsuitable materials to expose competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. The bench width should generally be adequate to expose 3 to 5 feet of competent material in the vertical wall of each bench. The exposed bench bottoms should be scarified, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted prior to placing fill. Typical slope construction details are presented in Figure 4. It should be noted that our slope stability analyses assumed that no existing landslides or remolded clay seams exist on site (based on the conditions observed in the exploratory borings). Remedial excavations should be continuously observed by Geotechnics Incorporated to confirm this assumption. If adverse geologic conditions are encountered, grading operations should cease, and slope buttress recommendations should be provided. Typical buttress details are shown in Figure 5. The actual buttress key locations, depths and widths will vary based on the conditions observed by Geotechnics Incorporated during the remedial grading operations. Surficial slope stability was analyzed using an idealized infinite slope composed ofa cohesive, frictional material, with steady state down slope seepage forces applied parallel to the slope surface (Abrahamson et al, 1996). The results are presented in Figure D -5. Our analysis indicates that all of the slopes proposed at the site may be susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion given substantial wetting of the slope face. The surficial slope stability may be enhanced by providing proper drainage. The site should be graded so that water from the surrounding areas is not able to flow over' the slope tops. Diversion structures should be provided where necessary. Surface runoff should be confined to gunite -lined swales or other appropriate devices to reduce the potential for erosion. It is recommended that slopes be planted with vegetation that will increase their surficial stability. Ice plant is generally not recommended. We recommend that vegetation include woody plants and ground cover. All plants should be adapted for growth in semi -arid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape architect should be consulted in order to develop a planting palate suitable for slope stabilization. Geotechnics Incorporated FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM FORMATION FINISH FILL SLOPE -' — - -PEE — 4' TYPICAL NATURAL SLOPE � _REMOVE —� 10' TYPICAL 15' MINIMUM (INCLINED 2% MINIMUM INTO SLOPE) FILL OVER CUT SLOPE FINISH FILL SLOP FINISH CUT SLOPE SURFACE OF FIRM FORMATION 15' MINIMUM (INCLINED 2% I MINIMUM INTO SLOPE) A Geotechnics molow Incorporated Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 SLOPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE 4 I 1Drafting\CorelDraw\siope Construction Rev sms U) ui O 2 2 A U � � w U) 2 O O o� �♦ �// dz _2 a- u2< 4) C"J » u 77 ƒ� in E 30 0 ■ C- 3U S:f CLC N 2k 0 ® / £m 7o.E 3/ 0- 222 $ w: I CO ƒ/ �0 �k ZZZ< ccr 2< _@ U) 2m a- ��CrZ \ /kƒ §_> 22 O 0E 15 [2 XCQ _= ee ©u a- CL �@$£ w- U2 u 2 C a E -C U) �� S o u o &moo Z 0 -2 22w �� u °�� /ƒ a) ° 2�a an /= /$ƒ/ �u a: / o 1- - 2 ' CL CD 2% C) ? 2k jƒ /ƒ co Jm / < < \\ 22 77 %o k2� (D§C_ ƒ � 2w/ 22/§ J � 2��a) O% °1 / � ƒ 2' § �kk �$ c - o �/ a< ' §�/ 2��0 ƒm 2 c -0 m t =RC 52 \@ U CL U) k � 0 w 2 "cu 702 CN @ - @� s - c §R/ §� 2�8 a V � a � CO %-2 0 CD / � CL kk k2 }k .0 �f f22 CD ©o �5 \0 o� �♦ �// dz _2 u2< � 2ou�, 0u kkPw ELLI 9ƒ o� /o // a0 g\ EE ZZZ< ccr 2< _@ U) CZ a- ��CrZ \ /kƒ E-J ®u /3 acue XCQ _= ee ©u of LOf w- U2 �g LL Of LL U) �� u o &moo Z �� u oc /L / %/ an /= /$ƒ/ g-- 2% C) ? /ƒ co Jm / < < \\ ƒ � & a O / C i k 0 zk L0R wo$ O -Z 3�-S Q -iƒ 0w ui <w� w� Z Rf" m o o4 � ° d Rz Z a) C.) / Q (1 0 � � � W D � co LU � � � � V IL 7 � _0 cz$ cn U � U � � c O� u � WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 16 In general, all slopes are subject to creep, whether the slopes are natural or made. Slope creep is the very slow, down slope movement of the near surface son along the slope face. The degree and depth of the movement is influenced b it type and the moisture conditions. This movement is typical in slopes and is not soil considered a hazard. However, it may affect structures built on or near the slo face. We recommend that settlement- sensitive structures not be located pe wit feet of the top of the slope unless specific evaluation of the structure's foundation is within 10 conducted by the geotechnical consultant. 8.4 Preliminar Foundation Considerations In general, the design of the foundation systems for the proposed residences be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical should parameters rs developed in the as- graded geotechnical report prepared after site grading is co following foundation recommendations should be considered preliminary, a d d sub je e The revision based on the recommendations contained within the as- graded reort. subct to P Based on our remedial grading recommendations, we anticipate that the Proposed will be underlain by 10 to 20 feet of compacted fill. Unless selective grading is used to maintain a low or medium expansion potential in the fill caps, we anticipate that used to expansive soils may exist beneath many of the proposed residences. The design highly foundations systems will therefore be controlled by the potential for expansive design e the The following post- tension slab design parameters were developed e soil heave. with the procedures developed by the Post- Tensioning Institute, using general accordance results from samples obtained during this investigation. laboratory test 8.4.1 Post— �sioned Slab Systems: The following design parameters are con to be appropriate for fills constructed at the site from highly sidered Y ex p nslve soils. Edge Moisture Variation, em Differential Swell, ym Allowable Bearing: Center Lift: 5.8 feet Edge Lift: 2.7 feet Center Lift: 5.2 inches Edge Lift: 1.0 inches 1,000 psfat slab subgrade Geotechnics Incorporated wIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 17 8.4.2 Settlnt: Total and differential settlement for the proposed structures is not expected to exceed one inch, and three quarters of an inch, respectively. 8.4.3 Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms Of footings and slabs and the supporting soil, as well as passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into compacted fill or formational material. A coefficient of friction of 0.20 and a passive ressure 200 psf per foot of depth are recommended. p of 8.4.4 Foundation Setbacks: Foundation setbacks should conform to UBC Figure 18- I -1. As a minimum, the foundations for all residential structures should be setback from any descending slope at least 10 feet. The setback should be measured horizontally from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the slope face. The horizontal setback can be reduced by deepening the foundation to achieve the recommended setback distance projected from the footing bottom to the face of the slope. It should be recognized that the outer few feet of all slopes are susceptible to gradual down -slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardsc pe such as concrete slabs. Settlement sensitive improvements should not be constructed within 10 feet of a slope top without specific review by the geotechnical consultant. 8.4.5 Seismic Design: The subject site is situated in 1997 UBC Seismic Zone 4 0.40). The proposed structures will generally be underlain by 10 to 20 feet of compacted fill over formational materials. In our opinion, a 1997 UBC seismic Soil Profile Sp would be most applicable to the general site conditions (deep soil). The nearest known active fault is within the Rose Canyon Fault zone, which 1s located about 10 km from the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is a Type B Seis Source, based on the 1997 UBC criteria. The near source acceleration and velocit c factors (NT, and N,,) are both equal to 1.0, and the seismic coefficients Ca and C equal u l 0.44 and 0.64, respectively. Design of structures should comply with 9 requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and standard practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. Geotechnies Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 18 8.5 On -Grade Slabs The design of slabs should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating geotechnical parameters developed in the as- graded geotechnical report prepared after grading is completed. The following recommendations should be considered preliminary, and subject to revision based on the recommendations of the as- graded report. On- grade slabs should be supported by compacted fill prepared as recommended in Section 8. an elastic design is used, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 lb /in3 would be a 3. I pp r oprlate. te. 8.5.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs: Concrete slabs construction ultimately cause s the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and the termination of normal evapotranspiration. Because normal concrete is permeable, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tile, or similar problems. The amount Of moisture transmitted through the slab can be controlled b the use of various moisture barriers. Y The most commonly used moisture barriers in southern California typically consist of about two to four inches of clean sand or pea gravel covered by 'visqueen' lastic sheeting. In addition, two inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. Y The estimated transmission rate may be excessive for some applications, articular for sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, or carpeting with impermeable backings ly that use water soluble adhesives. The project architect should review the moisture requirements of the proposed flooring system and incorporate an appropriate level of moisture protection as part of the floor covering design. This may include waterproofing the slab. 8.5.2 Exterior Slabs: Exterior slabs constructed directly on the highly expansive site soils will experience movement and cracking. One inch of differential movement is not considered unusual, and more is possible. If such movement is deemed unacceptable, then differential movement and cracking may be decreased by replacing the surficial 2 feet of expansive subgrade with nonex ansi p ve soil. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12. 2001 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -077-) PAGE 19 Reinforcement and control joints may also reduce the cracking and movement potential. Differential movement between buildings and exterior slabs or between sidewalks and curbs may be decreased by dowelling the slab into the foundation or curb. Exterior slabs should beat least 5 inches thick. Control joints should be placed on a maximum spacing of 10 foot centers, each way, for slabs, and on 5 foot enters for sidewalks. Nominal steel reinforcement may reduce the potential for long-term differential movement across control joints. Typical reinforcement may consist o 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric supported firmly at mid height of the slabs. f 8.5.3 Expansive Soils: The soils observed during our investigation rimaril consisted of lean and fat clays (CL to CH). P y these soils have a medium to high expansion ppotential d s testing indicates that anticipated potential for soil expansion has been incorporated into hee eo ec The recommendations provided in this report. Additional laboratory testing should be conducted during grading on selected samples of the soils placed within the foundation and slab zones in order to determine the expansion behavior for os - tension slab foundation design. p t 8.5.4 Reactive Soils: In order to assess the sulfate exposure of concrete in contact with the site soils, samples were testers for water soluble sulfate content. The test results are reported in Figure C -4. According to these test results, the site soils appear to present a severe potential for sulfate attack based on Uniform Building Code criteria. Once again, the as- graded conditions should be confirmed aft grading is completed with additional laboratory testing. er The project design engineer may choose to use the sulfate test results in conjunction with Table 19 -A -4 of the 1997 UBC in order to specify a suitable cement type, minimum compressive strength, and maximum water to cement ratio for concrete used on site which will be in direct contact with soil, including all foundations and slabs. For severe sulfate exposure, Table 19 -A -4 indicates that Type V cement should be used, along with a minimum 28 -day compressive strength of 4,500 lb /' and a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.45. In Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12. 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0277 PAGE 20 8.6 Lateral Earth Pressures Backfilling retaining walls with highly expansive soil can increase lateral Pressures beyond normal active or at -rest pressures. We recommend that retaining walls be b ck well with a select soil having an expansion index of 20 or less. The on site soils do not meet this is requirement. The select backfill area should include the zone defined by a 1:1 sloping eet this extending back and up from the base of the wall. Retaining wall backfill should sne, compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Backll should not be placed until l walls have achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment whic cause distress to walls should not be used. h could Cantilever retaining walls backfilled with select granular soil may be designed for earth pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs /ft3. The actives r sure should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 1 percent of the wall height. pressure walls with a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) backfill, an equivalent fluid pressure of 551bs /ft For be used. The above pressures do not consider surcharge loads or hydrostatic pressures. these are applicable, they will increase the lateral pressures on the wall, and we s hind If be contacted for additional recommendations. Walls should contain an adequate subd ain eliminate any hydrostatic forces. Recommended wall drain details are shown in F' to Igure 6. Retaining walls founded on compacted fill may be designed using an allowab pressure of 1,500 lbs /ft2. Wall foundations should be embedded at least 24 inches elow lowest adjacent soil grade. Lateral loads against between the bottom of the wall footings and the soil, as well as may .be resisted by friction ve Portion of the wall foundation or base key embedded into Competent material. A re coefficient the Of friction of 0.20 and passive pressure of 2001bs /ft2 is recommended. fi It has been our experience that retaining walls frequently develop high moisture backfill due to the heavy irrigation that commonly occurs in subdivisions. This within the efflorescence on the wall face or spalling of stucco finishes. To decrease the effects ay lead to from such problems, it is suggested that walls be moisture - proofed on the Positive resulting addition to having a subdrain. side in Geotechnics Incorporated ROCK AND FABRIC ALTERNATIVE MINUS 3/4 -INCH CRUSHED ROC ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR APPROVED SIMILAR) DAMP - PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED , DAMP - PROOFING OR WATER- PROOFING AS REQUIRED • GOMPAGTED- BACKFILL' K 4 -INCH DIAM. PVC PERFORATED PIPE GEOCOMPOSITE 12' ' PANEL DRAIN / PANEL DRAIN can,,PACTEp ALTERNATIVE 1 CU. FT PER LINEAR FOOT OF BACKFILL MINUS 3/4 -INCH CRUSHED / ROCK ENVELOPED IN WEEP -HOLE FILTER FABRIC ALTERNATIVE 4 -INCH DIAM. PVC PERFORATED PIPE 12 -INCH MINIMUM WEEP -HOLE ALTERNATIVE NOTES 1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated i e a Pipe should have a fall of at least 1 %. P P nd outlet 2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep -holes may be constructed. Wee - should be at least 2 inches in diameter, spaced no greater than 8 feet, and be located just ab grade at the bottom of wall. Weep -holes J ove 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar a pproved fabric. Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6- inches. 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J -DRain 400, Supac DS -15 or approved similar product. 5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfillin g. A�. Geotechnics I n e o r orated WALL DRAIN DETAILS Project en No. 04 0272 r Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE 6 %DraftinglCorelDrawftalldm Rev Fiaq w1EGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 21 8.7 Preliminary Pavement Sections Alternatives are provided below for the use of either asphalt concrete or Portland concrete pavements. In both cases, we recommend that the u inches p cement subgrade be scarified immediately prior to constructing the pavement s section, on brought o about optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum y density as determined by ASTM D1557. mum dry In order to aid in preliminary pavement design, an R -Value test was conducted on a sample of the material collected from the exploratory borings in general accordance bulk CTM 301. The laboratory test results indicate that the minimum R -Value of 5 with used for pavement design at the site. Additional R -Value testing may be conducted on be Pavement subgrade once the site is fine graded. on the 8.7.1 Asphalt Concrete: Asphalt concrete pavement design was conducted in general accordance with the Caltrans Design Method (Topic 608.4). Traffic Indices of 4.5, 5.0 and 6.0 were assumed for preliminary design purposes. The project civil engineer should review the estimated traffic indices to determine which are appropriate for use at the site. The following pavement e assuming a minimum asphalt thickness of 4 1p alternatives were developed ;riches for the City of Encinitas. Traffic Index Asphalt Thickness Base Thickness 4.5 4 Inches 6 Inches 5.0 4 Inches 8 Inches 6.0 4 Inches . 12 Inches Aggregate base should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 26- 1.02A for 3/, -inch maximum Class 2 aggregate base, or to Section 200 -2 of Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction SSPW the aggregate or crushed miscellaneous base. Asphalt concrete should conform to Section 400 -4.4 of the SSMC. A conform to soil should be compacted to at least 95 Percent and the maximum 1' inches of subgrade ASTM D 1557. Asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent based compaction based on the Hveem unit weight (ASTM D2726). e Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0277 PAGE 22 8.7.2 Portland Cement Concrete: Concrete pavement design was conducted in accordance with the simplified design procedure of the Portland Cement Association. This methodology is based on a 20 year design life. For design, it was assumed that aggregate interlock would be used for load transfer across control joints. The subgrade materials were assumed to provide '*low" subgrade support based on t e results of the R -Value testing. Based on these assumptions, and assuming a Traff Index of 6.0, a preliminary PCC pavement sections at the site would consist 1c inches of Portland cement concrete placed over 6 inches of aggregate as . p oat Aggregate base and the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557. Crack control joints should be constructed for all PCC pavements on a maximum of spacing of 10 feet, each way. Concentrated traffic areas should be reinforced with least No. 4 bars on 18 -inch centers, each way. at 8.8 Pi elines It is our understanding that the proposed development will include a variety of as storm drains and sewers. Geotechnical aspects of pipeline design include e such lateral E Pipe ach pressures for thrust blocks, modulus of soil reaction, and p g i e beddin . earth parameters is discussed separately below. of these 8.8.1 Thrust Blocks: Lateral resistance for thrust blocks may be determine by a passive pressure value of 200 lbs /ft2 for every foot of embedment, assuming triangular pressure distribution. This value maybe used for thrust blocks embe a in either compacted fill or native materials. dded 8.8.2 Modulus of Soil Reaction: The modulus of soil reaction (E' ) is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfll placed along the sides of buried flexible Pipelines. For the purpose of evaluating deflection due to the load associated with trench backfill over the pipe, a value of 1,500 lbs /in2 is recommended for the e eral site conditions, assuming granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the g al pipe. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 23 8 8 3 Pie Bedding: ;'ypical pipe bedding as specified in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction may be used. As a minimum, we recommend that pipes be supported on at least 4 inches of granular bedding material such as minus 3/4 -inch crushed rock or disintegrated granite. Where pipeline or trench excavation inclinations exceed 15 percent, we do not recommend that open graded rock be used for pipe bedding or backfill because of the potential for i p in and internal erosion of the overlying backfll. Our recommendations for sloping oing utilities are summarized in Figure 7. p g For sloping utilities, we recommend that coarse sand bedding be used, with a sand equivalent value greater than 30. Alternatively, sand - cement slurry can be used for the bedding and in the pipe zone. The slurry should consist of at least a 2 -sack mi having a slump no greater than 5 inches. If the sand - cement slurry is used for the Pipe bedding and as backfill to at least 1 foot over the top of the pipe, cut -off walls may not be necessary. This recommendation should be evaluated by the project civil engineer designing the pipe system. 9.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinaril y exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in similar warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and opinion included ino this lries. No sport. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative project site. However, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. A the most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. As in this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant preliminary ad itio. If recommendations made, if warranted. nt and additional The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the wok of condition of a on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate stand man ce may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings standards tf Practice may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this hie r ee report subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. port is Geotechnics Incorporated I&II CT STRUCTURE INLET STRUCTURE --- I l , , . _ EMBANKMENT DRAIN ZONE OF SELECT PIPE ZONE MATERIAL 10 FEET MINIMUM � EMBANKMENT OUTLET DRAIN ZONE OF SELECT PIPE ZONE MATERIAL CUT -OFF WALLS PER CIVIL PLAN OUTLET STRUCTURE PER CIVIL PLAN USE SELECT PIPE ZONE MATERIAL FOR UTILITIES SLOPING 15% OR MORE SLOPING UTILITIES Note: Where storm drains outlet through rip -rap Protection, a suitable filter zone (or geotextile filter) should be provided to prevent erosion of bedding sand through rip -rap. A9AGeotechnics MMM Incorporated CUT-OFF WALT PER CIVIL PLAI DESILTING AND DETENTION BASINS CUT -OFF WALLS PER CIVIL PLAN SCHEMATIC ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SELECT PIPE ZONE MATERIAL 1) Pipe bedding should consist of clean sand with a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater, or cement -sand slung. 2) Gravel or crushed rock should not be used in the pipe zone. 3) Pipe zone above bedding should consist of clean sand (SE >30), cement -sand slurry, or soil. 4) Clean sand should be jetted in accordance with 'Green Book' Section 306.1.2.1 or otherwise compacted uniformly to 90% relative compaction. 5) Sand -cement slurry should consist of a two -sack mix. 6) Soil in pipe zone should be compacted by hand compactors to at least 90 %, relative compaction. TRENCH MATERIALS FOR HIGH GRADIENTS Project No. 0007 -013-00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE 7 1DraftinglCorelDrawlTr ench- oradi.nr _=77J 7J WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE 24 We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Pleas Office if you have any questions or comments regarding this document or the s feel free to call the ervlces provided. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Kenneth W. Shaw, C.E.G. 1251 Senior Geologist ED G /ski KENNETH "'� SHAW No. 1251 * CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST �OF CA1 -�F� oQAOFESSZON� A. C57248 * Exp. CIVt1. OF CAI,�OP Matthew A. Fagan, P.E. 57240 g Project Engineer Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 Principal Engineer %+ gq�OFES 9 Qk� It f, C0403$3 * Exp•'3 '3 47' r ` +.... FOF CALIfo Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES Abrahamson, Lee, Sharma, and Boyce (1996). Slope Stability and Stabilization M New York, John Wiley and Sons, 627 p, ethods, 1st ed., American Society for Testing and Materials (2000). Annual Book ofASTMStandards, Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I); Volume 04.09 Soil and R Sec (I ,- Geosynthetics, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 1624 ock (II); p., 1228 p. Anderson, J. G. , Rockwell, T. K., Agnew, D. C. (1989). Past and Possible Future Significance to the San Diego Region: Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 2 Earthquakes of pp 299 -335. Blake, T.F. (1998). EQFAULT, EQRISK, and FRISKSP: Computer Programs for the E Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Southern California Historical Earth uakestimationof q Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed.: New York McGraw Hill 1175 p. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology 1993 . Fault Zone, Southern California, CDMG Open. File Report 93 -02. ) The Rose Canyon California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Hazard Zones in California, 41quist- Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972uC Rupture Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. California California Geological Survey, (2003). Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, USGS /CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) odel, Bas on the 2003), 10% probability of being exceeded in SD years, retrieved March 22 2rsedApril http : / /www.consrv.ca.90v /cgs /rghm/pshamap /pshamain.htmi 004 from M 2002 Cedergren, H. R. (1976). Seepage, Drainage, do Flotiv Nets, New York, John Wi ley &Sons, 534 _ p. Das B. M. (1990). Principles of Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed.: Boston PW S Kent, 731 p. Davis, J. F. and Tan, S. S. (1986). Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas uadr County, California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 4, CDMG angle, San Diego Geotechnics Incorporated (2000a). Geotechnical Investigation for Grading, Lots 4 and 6, Encinitas, CA, Project No. 0007 - 003 -09, Document No. 0 -0059 rM y 19. es, May 19. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES (Continued) Geotechnics Incorporated (2000b). Geotechnical Investigation, Dove Hollotiv Far Project No. 0407- 001 -00, Document No. 0 -0706, August 14. m, Encinitas, CA, Geotechnics Incorporated (2001). Geotechnical Investigation, Double LL Ranch Olivenhain, CA, Project No. 0007 - 010 -00, Document No. 1 -1332, December elopment, Geotechnics Incorporated (2004). Proposal for Geotechnical Services, Testing an Earthwork Construction, Lone Jack Road at Jackie Lane, Encinitas, Cali o�nr'a rvation of No. 04 -045, Document No. 04 -0188, February 27. f , Proposal Hetherington Engineering, Inc. 1991 . ( ) Geotechnical Investigation, 2926 Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California, Project No. 626 1, dated February 26. Idriss, I. M. (1993). Procedures for Selecting Earthquake Ground Motions at R Institute of Standards and Technology ock Sites, National gy GCR 93 -625, March, 35 pp. International Conference of Building Officials (1997). Uniform Building Code Amendments) Title 23. g (with California Jennings, C. W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Arens w' Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology ocations and Data Map Series, Map No. 6. gY, Geologic Kennedy, M. P., and Peterson, G. L. (1975). Geology ofSan Diego Metro olita Del Mar, La Jolla, Poway and SW% Escondido, 7/ p n Area, California: Division of Mines and Geology, inute Quadrangles, California gy Bulletin 200. Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1988). Geotechnical Feasibility 264- 160 -31), Encinitas Evaluation Proposed Residential Subdivision, 2920 Lone Jack Road (A. . PN. Two -Lot Project No. 8881554 -02, dated December 9. California, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (1990). Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Subdivision, 2920 Lone Jack Road (A. P. N. 264- 160 -31), Encinitas, C Two -Lot Project No. 8881554 -02, dated June 25. California, Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX A REFERENCES (Continued) Southern California Earthquake Center (1999). Recommended Procedztres DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating L que a ti of Hazards in California, University of Southern California, 60 p. Liquefaction Spangler, M. G., and Handy, R. L. (1982). Soil Engineering, 4th ed.: Harper rp r &Row, 819 pp. Trieman, J. A. (1984)• The Rose Canyon Fault Zone --A Review and Anal si. Of Mines and Geology unpublished report, 106 P. y s• California Division Tucker, B. E. and Tall, S. S. (1986). Landslide Hazards in the Rancho Sant Diego County California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 6, CD Quadrangle, San MG. United States Department of Agriculture (1953). Aerial Photographs: Flight 74, Scale 1:20,000. No. AXN- 4M_72, 73, Wesnousky, S. G. (1986). Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B 12, Hazard in Calif p. 12587- 12631. ornia: . Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. (1990). Geotechnical Residence, 2896 Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California, Job No. 90-57, date Jul Hodges d July 17. Western Soil and Foundation Engineering, Inc. (1991). Geotechnical Inv Sapper Residence, Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California, Job No. 91-33, Investigation, ember 11. September 11. Youngs, R.R. and Coopersmith, K.J. (1985). Implications of Fault Sli Recurrence Models to Probabilistic Seismic Haz P Rates and Earthquake ardEstim Society of America, ates, Bulletin of the Seismological vol 75 4 . , no. , pp. 939 -964. Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX B SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of visual and geologic reconnaissance of the site and the excavation of four exploratory borings between March 8 and 10, 2004. The exploratory borings using a 30 -inch diameter, bucket -auger drill rig. Bulk and relatively undi turbed s Were conducted collected for laboratory testing. The maximum depth of exploration was 73 feet. The soil samples were abandoned immediately after drilling in substantial conformance with the State borings were Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74 -81 and 74 -90. Bentonite pellets tw of California backfll. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Geotech .were used in the Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in Figures Ical Map, Plate 1. g B 1 through B -10. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected from the bucket auger borings us' diameter, ring lined sampler (modified California sampler). Ring samples Were a 3 -inch outside bags, placed in rigid plastic containers, labeled, and returned to the 1 borato re sealed in plastic relatively undisturbed samples collected from the bucket -auger borings were driven testing. The bar using a free fall of 12 inches. The Kelly bar weighed 4,500 pounds at depths en With the Kelly feet; 3,500 pounds at depths between 27 and 52 feet; and 2,500 pounds at depths s between 0 and 27 feet. For each sample, the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inch p between 52 and 80 the attached logs under "blows per ft." Bulk samples were also collected from the was recorded on intervals. Bulk samples are indicated on the boring logs with shading, whereas e bucket at selected samples are indicated with "CAL ". g teas California ring The boring locations were surveyed by Pasco Engineering prior to commencing exploration. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is the subsurface method of measure' used and the scale of the map. The lines designating the interface between locations between the excavations may be substantially different from those at 'soil conditions at explored. It should be recognized that the passage of time can result m t changes s in th the specific locations reported in our logs. e soil conditions Geotechnics Incorporated Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: Uj LU Teo UMI) 1 2 3 f5 4 5 1 106 7 8 9 10 2 115 11 Gat 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ----- - -- - - -- - - - -- -- 19 20 4 117 14 21 cA[ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007- 013 -00 L-Utz ur EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/8/2004 0 W f•• 0 M DESCRIPTION ��'j1wUu'm tctresl: Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, high plasticity clays, moist, soft to firm. Contains vegetative debris. 19 COLLUVIUM rQcoll: Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, high plasticity clays, moist, firm. Contains vegetative debris and some caliche inclusions. I - -- •• �.. r -vrNmq I IUN Td)* Sandy claystone, light gray, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity clays, moist, hard. Contains some caliche. Moderately weathered with streak staining. 16 Contains gray, oxidized inclusions. Becomes less weathered, massive and hard. wcwmes more sandy with slight cementation. Contains sandstone inclusions. (Orange brown groundwater stains. Gradational contact: Interbedded silty sandstone and sandy siltstone light gray, fine to ' medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, very hard to very dense, passive. Some red orange groundwater stains. 23 feet: Difficult drilling conditions. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Elevation: 139% Feet M; LAB TESTS Gradation Hydrometer Atterberg Limits Soluble Sulfate Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Remolded Shear Expansion Index Direct Shear 0 =13 °, c =300 psf 132 Feet Direct Shear I 0 =26 °, c =200 psf FIGURE B -1 1 P: ter- —. �nrLUKgTION BORING Logged by: AJB NO. 1 (continued) Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/8/2004 U. LL a w e Elevation: 139'/, Feet M; w CL a w a N N 0 0 > _ W DESCRIPTION W o m o LAB TESTS 20 127 10 31 (3) CAL' DEL MAR FORMATION Td :Interbedded silty sandstone and sandy siltstOne, light gray, fine to medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, 32 very hard to very dense, massive. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Same. Light brown in color. 40 12 121 12 Same. Contains orange brown stains. 41 (7 ) CAL Massive and moderately cemented. 42 43 44 45 46 - - -- 47 48a 49 50 12 115 51 (8 ") ca 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 �raaauonal contact: ........................ Silty sandstone with gravel, gray, fine to medium grained, low plasticity, '. moist, very dense. Contains cemented concretions, some red brown 'netavolcanic rock fragment to 6 inches in greatest dimension. Becomes more cemented. 12 Green and red stains, polished clay rinds surround cobbles. Light olive in color, mottled, with red brown staining. LUSARDI FORMATION KI : Silty sandstone with gravel, red brown, EL 82/: Feet fine to medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense. Contains subangular metavolcanic rock fragments to 6 inches in greatest dimension. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -2 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 (continued) Logged by: AJB ed) Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 2/8/2004 w w LL Elevation: 139'/: Feet M; LL 0: a g -' 0 w a Uj a CL a N o_ w 0 0 > -j z ; DESCRIPTION m o m o 2 LAB TESTS 20 125 11 61 (6 ) CAL LUSARDI FORMATION KI : Silty sandstone with gravel red fine to medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense. Contains 62 63 subangular metavoicanic rock fragments to 8 inches in greatest dimension. 64 65 66 67 68 Same. Becomes more clayey. 69 70 20 107 9 71 (5 ") CAL 72 73 74 75 Total depth: 73 feet No groundwater 76 Backfilled: 3/8/04 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 PROJECT NO. 007-013-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPO RATES FIGURE B -3 Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 1 03 a a a x ~ N U N O O ? m o -j m ui i o 1 1 03 2 - - --- - - -- CAL 8 - ---- 3 ---- - - -- 9 4 CAL' 5 3 6 1 � A w L-vu vl- tAPLORATION BORING NO. 2 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/10/2004 Elevation: 137% Feet M,, 0 W o: H DESCRIPTION 0 LAB TEST —,Qjuuum �resl: Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, high plasticity clays, moist, soft to firm. 102 10 Clayey sand (SC), yellow brown, fine grained, dry to moist, loose. 11 CAL 12 13 14 15 16;,.. 17 18 19 20 3 118 8 21 CAL 22 - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 31 '��uvium Goll: Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine grained nds with some gravel, medium plasticity clays, dry to moist. sand (SC), orange to gray brown, fine grained sands, moist, i plasticity, dense, massive. clay inclusions, medium to high plasticity, moist, hard. is some vegetative debris. brown in color. Contains caliche and oxidized stains. -RmK I wn fTdl: Silty sandstone, light gray, fine grained low plasticity, moist, very dense. Moderately weathered, weakly ed. Contains oxidized inclusions and some charcoal. Sandy claystone, light green, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very hard. Moderately to well cemented, massive. ncreasing clay content. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Direct Shear 41=30 °, c =0 psf Consolidation Gradation Direct Shear O =30 °, c =0 psf EL. 119% Feet FIGURE B-4 1 03 20 7 CAL 8 - ---- - -- - -- ---- - - -- 9 10 3 108 10 11 CAL 12 13 14 15 16;,.. 17 18 19 20 3 118 8 21 CAL 22 - - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 31 '��uvium Goll: Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine grained nds with some gravel, medium plasticity clays, dry to moist. sand (SC), orange to gray brown, fine grained sands, moist, i plasticity, dense, massive. clay inclusions, medium to high plasticity, moist, hard. is some vegetative debris. brown in color. Contains caliche and oxidized stains. -RmK I wn fTdl: Silty sandstone, light gray, fine grained low plasticity, moist, very dense. Moderately weathered, weakly ed. Contains oxidized inclusions and some charcoal. Sandy claystone, light green, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very hard. Moderately to well cemented, massive. ncreasing clay content. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Direct Shear 41=30 °, c =0 psf Consolidation Gradation Direct Shear O =30 °, c =0 psf EL. 119% Feet FIGURE B-4 I / _; �_ yr CArLpRATION BORING NO. 2 (continued) Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 8 -inch diameter hollow -stem auger Date Drilled: 3/10/2004 p LL J IL w LL a Elevation: 137'/: Feet M: ui a a X a a w Ir a w w a o > J z N DESCRIPTION m o m a X LAB TEST: 7€ nn 31 1 `'UAL I 32 DEL MAR FORMATION Td sands, medium plasticity, moist, very hard. dWell cemented, Contains some caliche. massive. 33 34 35 36 37 38 Contains some silty sandstone inclusions and charcoal. 39 40 4" ` 108 18 41 CA[ 42 43 ----- - -- - - -- - - - -- Gradational con - - - -- tact: ------------------------- 45 - - - - -- _____ Silty sandstone, mottled red and green, fine to medium sa nds, low plasticity, moist, very dense. Contains some oxidized inclusions. 46 47 ----- - -- - -__ Gradational contact: --------------------------------------------------------------- 48 49 Interbedded silty sandstone and sand low plasticity, moist, very dense to nC sands, very hard. 15% angular gravel to 3 inches in greatest dimensior,. pproximately Contains approximately Moderately cemented. 50 6 Contains oxidized inclusions. 112 51 CAL" 17 52 53 54 Gradational contact: 55 56 W RDI FORMATION KI : Silty sandstone to sandy siltstone with gravel, EL. 83% Feet red brown, fine to medium grained sands, low plasticity, moist, very dense a to very hard. Contains approximately fragments to 5 inches in n 57 greatest t di ens o�n. Moderately cemented. Contains few oxidized inclusions. 58 59 60 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 GEOTEChINICS INCORPQRAT 62 Total depth: 61 feet 63 No groundwater 64 Backfilled: 3/10/04 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 PROJECT NO. 0007- 013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -6 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING Logged by: qJg NO. 2 (continued) Method of Drilling: Date Drilled: 3/10/2004 30 -inch diameter bucket V_ u, J _ LL auger Elevation: 137% Feet M F- w g -� ° a M a W 3 a a r U N DESCRIPTION M o m w o o LAB TEST; 2 20 61 4�` °`' 113 13 LUSARDI FORMATION (KI1: Silty sandstone to sandy siltstone approximately with 30% an ular ravels to 5 inches, moist very dense. 62 Total depth: 61 feet 63 No groundwater 64 Backfilled: 3/10/04 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 PROJECT NO. 0007- 013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -6 Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: J LL w M J LL o_ a o. N 0 O > o J Z m M e 1 2 �..►v vr- t:AFLORATION BORING NO. 3 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9/2004 Elevation: 117%, Feet M; W DESCRIPTION 0 LAB TESTS RESIDUUM fQres): Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, hi9h,,,1?lastici� clays, moist. snit tn r_ L,iayey sand (SC), yellow brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, dry to moist, loose. Contains few angular cobbles to 5 inches in 107 1 16 greatest dimension. 2 r' 3 21 7 CAL 2 4 CAL .. � 5 6 �..►v vr- t:AFLORATION BORING NO. 3 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9/2004 Elevation: 117%, Feet M; W DESCRIPTION 0 LAB TESTS RESIDUUM fQres): Fat clay with sand (CH), dark brown, fine sands, hi9h,,,1?lastici� clays, moist. snit tn r_ L,iayey sand (SC), yellow brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, dry to moist, loose. Contains few angular cobbles to 5 inches in 107 1 16 greatest dimension. 11 CAL 12 13 - - --- --- -- - 14 17 18 19 20 3 111 10 21 ca[ 22 23 24 -- - -- -- -- - --- ----- ----- 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 'Xiul)• Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine to medium medium plasticity, moist, firm. Contains caliche and oxidized inclusions. tal inclusions. clay (CH), green brown, high plasticity, moist, very hard. Nnty sand (SM), orange brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, moist, medium dense to dense. Very oxidized. Sandy clay (CL), orange brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, hard. Contains oxidized inclusions. - vltlYlA I lVN Td : Sandy siltstone, light gray brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very dense. Massive. Contains caliche and orange groundwater stains. Gradation Direct Shear � =20 °, c =250 psf Consolidation Gradation Hydrometer Atterberg Limits Soluble Sulfate Expansion Index Direct Shear 0 =24 °, c =50 psf Direct Shear $ =32 °, c=0 psf EL. 91Y. Feet GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -7 2 r' 103 21 7 CAL 8 9 10_,. 1 106 17 11 CAL 12 13 - - --- --- -- - 14 17 18 19 20 3 111 10 21 ca[ 22 23 24 -- - -- -- -- - --- ----- ----- 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 'Xiul)• Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine to medium medium plasticity, moist, firm. Contains caliche and oxidized inclusions. tal inclusions. clay (CH), green brown, high plasticity, moist, very hard. Nnty sand (SM), orange brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, moist, medium dense to dense. Very oxidized. Sandy clay (CL), orange brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, hard. Contains oxidized inclusions. - vltlYlA I lVN Td : Sandy siltstone, light gray brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very dense. Massive. Contains caliche and orange groundwater stains. Gradation Direct Shear � =20 °, c =250 psf Consolidation Gradation Hydrometer Atterberg Limits Soluble Sulfate Expansion Index Direct Shear 0 =24 °, c =50 psf Direct Shear $ =32 °, c=0 psf EL. 91Y. Feet GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -7 31 "AL' 32 33 34 35 7 108 17 36 cat` 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 57. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 -- ^^ —I-Mnh i wn Ttl : Sandy siltstone, light gray brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very dense. Massive. Contains caliche and orange groundwater stains. Total depth: 36 feet No groundwater Backfilled: 3/9/04 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -8 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING Logged by: AJB NO. 3 (continued Method of Drilling: 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9/2004 LL LL w w Elevation: 117'/z Feet M; a 0 0 > N J z in DESCRIPTION m Ir o m LAB o TEST,< 0 7 � ° 105 18 31 "AL' 32 33 34 35 7 108 17 36 cat` 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 57. 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 -- ^^ —I-Mnh i wn Ttl : Sandy siltstone, light gray brown, fine to medium sands, medium plasticity, moist, very dense. Massive. Contains caliche and orange groundwater stains. Total depth: 36 feet No groundwater Backfilled: 3/9/04 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE B -8 Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: F 1 - - -- -106 Uj CAL'' 5 1 105 6 1 V �.w 26 3 - 1 - - -- -106 4 CAL'' 5 1 105 6 7; 8 9 10 - - - 1 -- _ - - -- -111 11 CAL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 8 21 (11 ") 108 19 CAL 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING N0.4 30 -inch diameter bucket auger Date Drilled: 3/9/2004 8 0 w D: U) O 2 DESCRIPTION 'U M �res : Sandy lean clay (CL), dark brown, fine to medium low plasticity, moist, soft to firm. L;iayey sand (SC), light gray brown, fine to medium sands, low plasticity, dry to moist, loose. Contains some caliche. �! �.. m ( COD: Lean clay with sand (CL), light green, fine sands, medium plasticity, moist, firm. Moderately weathered. Sandy clay (CH), orange brown, fine to medium sands, high plasticity, moist, firm. Cotnains some caliche. —� •�.,n r vrcmA i ipN LTdl: Sandy siltstone, light brown, fine to coarse sands, medium plasticity, moist, very dense. Moderately cemented. Contains few oxidized inclusions. few angular gravels to 2 inches. GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED Elevation: 108 Feet MSI LAB TEST, Gradation Hydrometer Atterberg Limits Remolded Shea Expansion Inde) R -Value Direct Shear x=15 °, c =350 psf EL. 92 Feet FIGURE B -9 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 4 (continued) Logged by: AJB Method of Drilling: 8 -inch diameter hollow -stem auger Date Drilled: 3/9/2004 LL J w Elevation: 108 Feet MSL LL a d d F a Q w a o: a 0 > z DESCRIPTION a m o LAB TESTS 19 119 31 GUA 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Total depth: 30 feet No groundwater Backfilled: 3/9/04 brown, fine to coarse PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPO RATED FIGURE B -10 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in them locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability same results, or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method hthe test referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only spe to the a been laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test method(s) or practices, and cified the test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document for the general performanc test and not as a "Test Standard ". A brief description of the tests performed follows. e of the Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil established by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Visual classification Classif was su t1 leme stem as laboratory testing of selected soil samples and classification in general accordanc e wnted by laboratory soil classification tests outlined in ASTM test method D2487 -00. The re ith the classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. sultant soil ty In -Situ Moisture/Densi : The in -place moisture contents and dry unit samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the linerngs of 2% ind soil Modified California samplers. The results are shown on the boring logs in A w eights of se endix B ch ID PP Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in general accordance w' test method D422 -63. The results are presented in Figures C -1.1 through C -1.5. Ith ASTM Atterbe gr Lein ASTM D4318 -00 was used to determine the liquid and plastic li m plasticity index of selected soils. The results are shown in Figures C -1.1, C -1.4 and C- its, and 1.5. Maximum Densi /O timum Moisture: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture of a selected soil sample were determined using ASTM D1557 -00 as a guideline. The test re content summarized in Figure C -2. results are Expansion Index: The expansion potentials of selected soil samples were estimated using the laboratory procedures in ASTM test method D4829 -95. The results are summarized in along with the UBC criteria for evaluating the expansion potential based on the expansion in C-3 in C-3 Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of the test results, or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method has been referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only to the specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test method(s) or practices, and the test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of the test and not as a "Test Standard ". A brief description of the tests performed follows. Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System a s established by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected soil samples and classification in general accordance with t he e laboratory soil classification tests outlined in ASTM test method D2487 -00. The resultant s classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. oil In -Situ Moisture/Density: The in -place moisture contents and dry unit weights of selected soil samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of 2%i -inch ID Modified California samplers. The results are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in general accordance with AS test method D422 -63. The results are presented in Figures C -1.1 through C -1.5. TM Atterberg ASTM D4318 -00 was used to determine the liquid and plastic limits plasticity index of selected soils. The results are shown in Figures and gures C -1.1, C -1.4 and C -1.5. Maximum Density /Optimum Moisture: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture co of a selected soil sample were determined using ASTM D1557 -00 as a guideline. The test results summarized in Figure C -2. are Expansion Index: The expansion potentials of selected soil samples were estimated usin g the laboratory procedures in ASTM test method D4829 -95. The results are summarized in Figur along with the UBC criteria for evaluating the expansion potential based on the expansio inde 3 x. Geotechnics Incorporated r i C T c T c ■ O op r- co N v M N O O lg619/A Aq jaw j luaDJad 0 0 0 0 0 R E G N fn c N = In N M J F- F X t7 _� p W J J Z U R' O F- O J o Q d N ¢ a 0 Z � J J U N w z z LL LL m 2 U � W N O U J j ¢ � W a Q co z O ¢ U O J w a ` Q N I co O Q Q � } to U LL U = O N f- W l¢i � v J Z O' O N 0 as W W N LL U ¢ O w U W N z 7 LL m o z W N O U J j ¢ � W a Q co W � z W a < U) O ¢ U O J w a ` Q N I C) M O O O n O O O Z O C U � O U O 'p a` o Z _O Q U LL V5 C0 Q J Ci _J CC3 � O U � U U U � 7 i i Z i V ■ p O O O O N O O ;y6iaM �tq jau j ;Ua� ad M CD 0 0 r- 0 0 R 0 Z } a a J U N N J W J J Z � U } W JQ F- U J Q a cl) a a w z U- J W a it W C7 N (L' O U m o w z w p [0 � D z a U Z w —i J w a W w < aJ a _-s a U) a N N 0 CD r- o v O O O O Z O Z O U 'o o a` o Z _0 Q U LL U) Q J U J 0 U) Q R C U �..a � C J U y � 7 a� I a� E w = z LL C) N W c Z O o z cu z V co tan LL w W W N a U � U Z _J O 0 N ~a °w w m N LL U It CO O D U w z U- J W a it W C7 N (L' O U m o w z w p [0 � D z a U Z w —i J w a W w < aJ a _-s a U) a N N 0 CD r- o v O O O O Z O Z O U 'o o a` o Z _0 Q U LL U) Q J U J 0 U) Q R C U �..a � C J U y � 7 G t 0 Z t cl i p � ^ CD LO � M N O p 1461aAA Aq jaui j ;uaOaad 0 0 0 0 0 I N L Qi E c N_ cn C ca t- p W J J Z m O U F C7 Q U Q J a N Q J a 0 Z Q a � J J U W z Z U- LL m (V w Iz r Z W � Ocr IL J a < C7 W IL -1 co W D Z W a 2 N O Q U O J W a 2 U O Z H >- (n C.) LL >- W (n Q Q Q J W J U � U Z _J O O y a W W (n U < CO Q 2 Z W O m a- 0 W Z LL m (V � r Z W � Ocr IL J a < C7 W IL -1 co W D Z W a 2 N O Q U O J W a 2 U I I G C U L n t c n LID i cj O O O O O O� c0 i, O N O O ig6iaM �tq jau d Iua� ad �, T O O O r O O r 7 L E C C N N !i c cu V � U LU F -J J F- 0 Z } Q Q F— J _J U U) w Z z Z M IL co J � U ZQ J W W U) w Q O LU Q < 0 to CO Z W a Q CO O F Q U O J d T Q I Z � 3 z° 0 � � z o y w W J J � U J Z p. O IL w 0 W N LL U N Q Z W O � O U W o� Z M IL co c0 � Z J W W U) w Q O LU Q < 0 W J Q y CO Z W a Q CO O F Q U O J d T Q I c i i Z C C 7 J ■ O O O O O O O O O CD U7 v C`7 N e- 14619M Aq jaui j }uaaJad 0 C) 0 0 0 r 7 Cli E C N C cu W J J Z U W O U J J U a a g CL 0 Z } a Q F- J J U y W Z Z LL LL m J U z W w O U J j Q � (� W CL Q N } 0 F- Q U O W a Q U I Q Z U O Q a w CF) U J {L } 0 VJ Z D Q Q W J Cn U Z _J O H a W W Ix CO LL U < CO Z W O 0 M 0 U W N Z �? LL m O z W w O U J j Q � (� W CL Q N W m � 0 Z W a N 0 F- Q U O W a Q U I C) � C� o 94 r, O O O O Z O Z � U 0 0 CL 0 Z _O Q _U //U. ''v^ vJ J U V/ a R U � O U U U � F� ~ G J MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1557) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM [D; ENSITY PCF) RESIDUUM: Dark brown fat clay with sand (CL). 117% Geotechnics Incorporated LABORATORY TEST RESULTS OPTIMUM MOISTURE f %J 14 %z Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -2 EXPANSION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4829) SAMPLE 9 DESCRIPTION B -1 @ 0'- 2' RES_ IS Dark brown fat clay with sand (CL). B -3 @ 8' - 9' COL —�IUM: Light green lean clay with sand (CL). B -4 @ p' _ 2 RESI_ DUUI\I: Dark brown sandy lean clay (CL). EXPANSION INDEX 111 76 84 UBC TABLE NO. 18 -1 -B, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX 0to20 21 to 50 51 to 90 91 to 130 Above 130 POTENTIAL EXPANSION Very low Low Medium High Very High ,� `G Mum I n c o r p o r a t LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Document No. 04 -0272 Fieure r -'A CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS SAMPLE I DESCRIPTION B -1 @ 0'-2' RESIDUUM: Dark brown fat clay with sand (CL). B -3 @ 8' — 9' COLLUVIUM. Light green lean clay with sand (CL). SULFATE CONTENT 1.70 0.05 UBC TABLE NO. 19 -A -4, REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE SULFATE CONTENT [% 0.00 -0.10 0.10 -0.20 0.20 -2.00 Above 2.00 ----_— SULFATE EXPOSURE Negligible Moderate Severe Very Severe ,=_G e o t e c h n i c s LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ULTS CEMENT TYPE II, IP(MS), IS(MS) V V plus pozzolan Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 Figure C -4 Ij � 1600 r - -- -- -- 1200 w 1000 ■ ■ ■ ! ! ! ! ! ■ t _ - -- --�i -_— 800 - +-- !'!!n fi - -- - - -- 600 Q 400 -- ��!!ll��o��Tll�`w-bu �— - - I 200 t �. -� i - - - -- L ___ — ■��l�!!��!!! ■! Jiff — -- - --4-- -- t - -- — -� I on �� - - -- - -- 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 - - -- 5.0 -- � 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 I _____=- -_ - - -_ ------ - - - - -- STRAIN [ %] 4500 ----- - -- - ______ -__ -- - 4000 I © Peak Strength Test Results I I' F ; 15 Degrees, 300 PSF Cohesion ! - - -- i 3500 —' Ultimate Strength Test Results - -15 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion - - - - - -- -- LL 3000 --- —7-- -- _ �1 - - -- --- --- r w2500 i -- - - - -- -- - - Ix 2000 - -- - - - -- - LU W 1500 -- - - -- 1000 -- —`� - 500 �` 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL - STRESS [PSFI SAMPLE: B1 @ 0'- 2' FILL: Dark brown fat clay with sand (CH). Remolded to `90% Max. O timum. STRAIN RATE: 0.0005 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) AN -�Geotechnics MIMINK Incorporated i 3500 4000 4500 PEAK [i]:z;1 IN -SITU Yd 105.5 PCF WC 14.8 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 11� 0 PSF AS- TESTED 105.5 5 PCF 23.4 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.1 1600 - - --- - - - - -- - -- -- - - — -- - - - -- - -- - N1400 — - -- - -- - -- — - -1 IL 1200 -- �it��i�oir��rrri�an �■ ~ - -- --- - man W 1000 - - -- �� ._ --- !i� /!W _nL■ T — - -- -- I 800 = -- ° °°ooa®o�-°MUEM— rp ®p — _ - -- o °c� ® ° -- - - - -- °oao0 Cn 600 �0 ooOOQo °M LiU r _■rn■nr•nn a 400 - ®�__ —_T ■�n: N 200 = -On -- - - - - - -- -- - — - - -- - - - -- - -- - -- - -1- - -- 0 i t - - -1— - - -- - -- - - 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 - -- STRAIN [ %) 4500 4000 ° Peak Strength Test Results 14 Degrees, 400 PSF Cohesion .--- - - - - -- • Strength Test Results 3500 Ultimate Str - --- ' - - 13 Degrees, 300 PSF Cohesion - - -- - LL 3000 - - -- IL co 2500 - - -- - - - -- Lu 2000 - - -- - CO 1500 -- - 1000 500 !_�_�__ __- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - 0 — - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - -- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -- - - - - -- ` -� -- L -� - -- 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: 81 @ 5'- 6' ----------------------- - - - - -- — COLLUVIUM. Dark brown fat clay with sand CH). STRAIN RATE: 0.0050 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) �k.-' c h n i c s Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 119;J AS- TESTED F102 5.7 PCF F 2.7 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.2 PEAK 1:E:1]° 00 PSF IN -SITU Yd 105.7 PCF we 19.1 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 119;J AS- TESTED F102 5.7 PCF F 2.7 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.2 2500 - -- CL 2000 - - -_- -_ - - _ - - -- — W U 1500 troit�tttt�tt !rtrrtttritrrtiut� —.■■■ U) 1000 -- -r - -�� aEl Mea a a a 0 M a 0 0 0 0 e & ®oOo0oa ®0m � - ■ p - - -- - -- - — w 500 w 0�ot aaaanamaamaaat�tttt'tttttttt■ — -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- ------- �tttt�ttas 0 ■� 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 — - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 STRAIN [ %] 4500 - 4000 f - m Peak Strength Test Results 26 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion - - - - -- - 3500 - - -- Ultimate Strength Test Results - -25 Degrees, 200 PSF Cohesion - - - -- ` - - -- 3000 - - - - -- a. W i 2500 - - - -- uJ co-------- - - - - -- 2000 - -- - - - -- -- - - -- �f w - ✓- s � 03 1500 - - - -- 1000 500 0 -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 0 500 1000 SAMPLE: B1 @ 10, - 11' DELMAR FORMATION: Light gray brown sand lean cla stone CL }. STRAIN RATE: 0.0007 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) Alh �Geotechnics Incorporated 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 25 ° SF 200 PF AS- TESTED 115.5 PCF 18.3 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.3 PEAK �' 26 ° C' 200 PSF IN -SITU IN 115.5 PCF W, 15.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 25 ° SF 200 PF AS- TESTED 115.5 PCF 18.3 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.3 3000 LL 2500 000 J 2 woman UJ a X 1500 so W 1000 ---a < ■ 0 0 0 E3 0 CLO CL0_Q_Q _Q�Q�o 0 El 0 0 13 0 6 LU 13 E3 0 0000000130, ■ 1300 0 g g M g W an a X 500 E3-o__— ■ jWff_0ExEWxx0B1 Exxon 870rn wasenvivennal on 0 liffina� 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 STRAIN 4500 4000 0 Peak Strength Test Results 35 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion 3500 L Ultimate Strength Test Results L 30 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion E, 3000 co iL CO O 2500 LU 2000 LU L W 1500 1000 500 0 0 500 l000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: 82 @ 3' - 4' [&ESIDUUM* Light brown fine =grained cla=SC). e sand= STRAIN RATE: E.0010 IN /MIN� (Sample was consolidated and drained) AA161-- ,'- eotechnics G _Mnnb MWN1W_ �Incorporated 3500 4000 4500 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE [:! ;1 AS-TESTED F PCF 102.4 0 24-6 % Project No. 0007-013-00 Document No. 04-0272 — FIGURE C-5.4 PEAK IN-SITU Yd EL113 102.4 PCF ti W, 10. O/o DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE [:! ;1 AS-TESTED F PCF 102.4 0 24-6 % Project No. 0007-013-00 Document No. 04-0272 — FIGURE C-5.4 3000 U) 2500 LL—r-- a. U) a a a a a a pi�n —man a l� 2000 son W IX 1500 7 1000 a 0 M a a a UW W-LJ-C'J�utaaa uanb 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 G- 0 0 0 M 8 M 0 13 0 0, x 500 9 M L -110-n-a WE it 0 — ------ 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 w'_5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 4500 4000 13 Peak Strength Test Results i — 30 Degrees, 1 oo Ps 9 F Cohesion 3500 F • Ultimate Strength Test Results ---- 30 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion M, 3000 a. co 2500 Lu co 2000 L LU u) 1500 1000 500 N 500 1000 SAMPLE: B2 @ 10'- 1 grained cla a sand SC). COLLUVIUM: Gray brown fine !:�J STRAIN RATE: 0.0007 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) -4466- Geotechnics Incorporated 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] 3500 4000 4500 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 30 0 AS-TESTED 108.3 PCF 21.2 % Project No. 0007-013-00 Document No. 04-0272 FIGURE C-5.5 PEAK li= 30 0 C. 100 PSF IN-SITU Yd El:ft 108,3 PCF !] DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 30 0 AS-TESTED 108.3 PCF 21.2 % Project No. 0007-013-00 Document No. 04-0272 FIGURE C-5.5 ^ 2000 -- - - - - -- i - - - - - -- - u. 1800 j 1600 G-- I r- - - - -- co 1400 - -- Ir - -- ■ ■ ■ ■ w 1200 - - - - --� 1000 — �--- y 800 - -- ■ ®■e ©dmEt ®_� ®�Q a 600 ■■0890■■■/■■ ■�i w 400 �_�p �r ■ e r- uxi 200 k ■ - i _ - -- 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 i STRAIN 4500 — 4000 1 - - -� o Peak Strength Test Results 20 Degrees, 350 PSF Cohesion 3500 • Ultimate Strength Test Results - — 20 Degrees, 250 PSF Cohesion 3000 — I a - i V - I U) 2500 - -- =- -- i 2000 - --- - -- - -- - -- _ LU x _ N 1500 - - - - - -- -- 1000 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000+4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: 63 @ 3'- 4' -- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -- RESIDUUM: Yellow brown clayey PEAK ULTIMATE sand to sand cla (SC to CL). 0' 20 ° 200 C' 350 PSF 250 PSF STRAIN RATE: 0.0007 IN /MIN IN-SITU AS- TESTED (Sample was consolidated and drained) EWC] 107.3 PC 107.3 PCF 16.1 % 22.4 AdN16-�Geotechnics MON—M I n c o rp o ra t e d DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.6 2500 ILL 2000 a menopause, cn on, L w ■ LU 1500 ■ ■ ir a co 1000 ---a M UJI 500 won a a in a a 9 a JUX—L 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 STRAIN 10.0 4500 - -r— — — -- — - -- — -- i 93 Peak 4000 Strength Test Results —27 Degrees, 150 PSF Cohesion 3500 Ultimate Strength Test Results 24 Degrees. 50 PSF Cohesion M, 3000 co IL co 2500 LU 2000 UJI W 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B3@ lo,- 11, COLLUVIUM: Light green lean clay with sand ( STRAIN RATE: 0.0007 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) g"'01116- Geotechnics MMW Incorporated -W0kb--1 IN-SITU Yd 105.5 PCF WC 17.4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 4500 ULTIMATE E 240 ; 50 PSF :I] AS-TESTED 105.5 PCF 23.4 % Project No. 0007-013-00 Document No. 04-0272 — FIGURE C-5.7 PEAK 01 2 270 C. 150 PSF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 4500 ULTIMATE E 240 ; 50 PSF :I] AS-TESTED 105.5 PCF 23.4 % Project No. 0007-013-00 Document No. 04-0272 — FIGURE C-5.7 3500 - - -- --- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- N 3000 F -- - �■■ ■■�■ ■■■i■■■■I■■■■ --- - - - - -- N 2500 = -- - ■�� -- iii■■ ■I E j ■ --j- -- - -- - -- ■ t -- - -� I w 2000 -- -± i- _ - - - - -' -- - i co 1500 - -■ - - - -- - - - - -- i - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -. -� ■ -- —we - - - -- =- w one 1000 �®,®®®®®®®® © ® ® ® ® ®— ® ® ■ ® ® ■ ® ■ ® ® ® ® ® ® ■ ®� ®®■ ®; 500- ■�'�� ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ -� ---.--------_---T_-- 0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 - - -- STRAIN 4500 4000 _ ® Peak Strength Test Results 32 Degrees, 100 PSF Cohesion - - - -- 3500 • Ultimate Strength Test Results = 32 Degrees, 0 PSF Cohesion - 3000 - - -- -� W 2500 - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - - -- 2000 - - - - -- - '- -- - - - -- / w 1500 - - -- - -- - - -- !� 1000 - -- - - - - -- � I 500 0 -- - 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 • i __- - NORMAL STRESS [PSFj SAMPLE: 63 @ 20'- 21' COLLUVIUM: Light brown silty sand (SM). STRAIN RATE: 0.0020 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) � �Geotechnics ■ Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 32 ° 0 PSF AS- TESTED 111.2 PCF 20.4 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.8 PEAK EC, 32 ° 100 PSF IN -SITU Yd 111.2 PCF wc 10.2 % DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 32 ° 0 PSF AS- TESTED 111.2 PCF 20.4 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.8 1800 - - - -- - - -- i 1600 N 1200 �-- --L-__ � ■ ■�t� ■ ■ ■ � ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■�aaitt■ -�■ ■-�� -■ ■-■, I w 1000 ■ - - - - -- ! N 800 --- - -a•-r ® ® ■�®■aa ■ ±- - -- - i - -- -I -- 1 -- -* - - - -- - - a 600 �-- a - -�___ �f■- >L■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�■i -aa U 400 t e�� - -� aa•a ■a ■a■/ ■a ■fiF■■i■�f■■■� U) 200 - ;s - ■ - — - -� F ■ --� - -I- —I - _ 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 ---- - - - - -- STRAIN [ %] 10.0 4500 - -_ - - -- 1000 500 i 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B4 @ 0'- 2' FILL: Dark brown sandy lean clay (CL). Remolded to �90% Max. O timum. STRAIN RATE: 0.0005 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) � _Geotechnics Incorporated F 4000 e Peak Strength Test Results i 17 ° C' 17 Degrees, 400 PSF Cohesion - 3500 Ultimate Strength Test Results 105.4 PCF W, 15 Degrees, 300 PSF Cohesion - - --~ -- - 3000 - -- -- T -- - -- u _ - - -- -- - - - -- - - -; 2500 LU F- JL 2000 - -- . - - -- t - - -- - -, - W 1500 -- - - -- -/ 1000 500 i 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B4 @ 0'- 2' FILL: Dark brown sandy lean clay (CL). Remolded to �90% Max. O timum. STRAIN RATE: 0.0005 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) � _Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE E 15 AS- TESTED 105.4 PCF 23.5 Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.9 PEAK �� 17 ° C' 400 PSF IN -SITU Yd 105.4 PCF W, 14.9 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE E 15 AS- TESTED 105.4 PCF 23.5 Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.9 1600 - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - N1400 - - - -- - - - -- j - -- r - - ---- - - °� 1200 t -- -- ■i■ ■--WIN■■-f■a■iR- s■■■■i its soil ■■■■ -- .■■i - - -+ ----------- — U) 1000 - - - -- - _ — 800 -- - -- �■e -��® ®tee ® ®a ®_ ®oaaa ■;tea ■ ■eoea�o® ®off ■��■ 600 - - -- ] - - t- - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- Blame ■r ■��■�■��■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ w 400 - -� - &T�------------------ - = - - -- ' - -- ' Asti y200 ` -s ■ - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - -- -- -- - - - - -- - --j 0 N ir - -- - 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 - - - -5.0 - -- 61.0 - - -7.0 8.0 - -- 9.0 0 10.0 STRAIN ( %] ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- -- ---------- - - - - -- - -- o Peak Strength Test Results 4000 — 15 Degrees, 450 PSF Cohesion 3500 - -- • Ultimate Strength Test Results - -- - - 15 Degrees, 350 PSF Cohesion LL 3000 - ----- - - - - -- -- - -- U) - -- - -- a - w2500 -- ------ . - - - -T - -- o: f- 2000 - - - - - -- - - -- - -- a w x N 1500 -- — -- ---- - - - - -- - -- 1000 - -- - - - -- - - -- - Q 500 - - — 0 - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - -- J_ 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: 84 @ 5' - 6' F VIUM: Light green lean clay d CL). STRAIN RATE: 0.0005 IN /MIN (Sample was consolidated and drained) Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 135 0 5° PSF AS- TESTED 105.2 PCF 22.9 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.10 PEAK �� 15 ° C. 450 PSF IN -SITU Yd 105.2 PCF We 19.3 % DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ULTIMATE 135 0 5° PSF AS- TESTED 105.2 PCF 22.9 % Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -5.10 7 nn- -6.1 -5.0 -4.0( 0 C R w -3.00' C d v d a - 2.000) -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% is I vuu.V 10000.0 Stress [psn �00000.o B2 @a 6' -'' INITIAL FINAL 1.0000 SAMPLE HEIGHT [IN] 103.3 DRY DENSITY [PCF] 2.71 W243 SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASSUMED) 0.64 VOID RATIO 19.9 WATER CONTENT [ %] 84.8 100.0 DEGREE OF SATURATION [ %] A-MOMW technics P CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Pro Mum Incorporated Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -6.1 _Q nnnc -7.( -6.0 -5.0( 0 c ca L w y -4.00' w C V L a7 a -3.00 - 2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1( i uvu.0 10000.0 1 00000.0 Stress [psf] B3 @a 6'- 7' INITIAL FINAL 1.0000 1.0314 SAMPLE HEIGHT [IN] 103.4 100.3 DRY DENSITY [PCF] 2.75 2.75 SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASSUMED) 0.66 0.71 VOID RATIO 21.2 25.9 WATER CONTENT [ %] 88.5 100.0 DEGREE OF SATURATION [ %] ,=`G e o t e c h n i c s Project No. 0007- 013 -00 Incorporated CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE C -6.2 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Geotechnics Incorporated APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS The slope stability analyses performed for this project are presented in the following appendix. The shear strength parameters used for the analysis are shown in Figure D -1.1. The amalgamated shear test results for all samples conducted on each geologic unit are presented in Figures D -1.2 through D- 1.4. In general, shear strengths were chosen to approximate the lower bound envelop for each geologic unit. The analyses are intended to approximate worst -case long term strength conditions. Gross Stability: The gross stability of the proposed slopes was analyzed using SLOPE /W software. Cross sections of the slopes are presented in Figures D -2 through D -4. The approximate cross section locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map, Plate I. Analyses were conducted using Spencer's method of slices to identify the critical failure surfaces. The analyses indicate that the proposed cut and fill slopes possess an adequate factor of safety against deep seated slope failure (F.S. >1.5) for the heights shown on the Geotechnical Map, provided that the recommended remedial earthwork is conducted throughout the site. Surficial Stability: Surficial stability was analyzed using an idealized infinite slope composed of a cohesive, frictional material. Steady state seepage forces were applied parallel to the slope surface using an idealized flow net. The analysis procedure is based on that presented in the referenced text (Abrahamson et al., 1996). The factor of safety against Surficial failure is plotted versus the depth of the wetted zone in Figure D -5. A factor of safety of 1.5 is typically deemed acceptable against surficial failure. A, factor of safety of 1.0 would indicate failure given a particular depth of wetted zone. The analysis indicates that all of the slopes proposed at the site may be susceptible to surficial slope failure given substantial wetting of the slope faces. Geotechnics Incorporated J D W Cl) O Q O m J C) ti c7 N T- O O O O O o Z O N Z a) U O N U O L 0 a C� C N H Z LL! a W 2 Qi C� U � U U N � h U U U J g to U LU J U) U CO LU = J U > m U c G o a, O cc O ' U O M M G C CL N JfQ a �i U U N C y Cl) W C Cc M C1 Z Co " N C 3 c c w 3 c -C O a�i c o a� E J O W O a rn 3 Z Y L O N U Hf)� m to .0 i C x c`o s o 0 2 O LL Z) d U O J U LLJ Q' UO 0 O U W O o VM � it z C) ti c7 N T- O O O O O o Z O N Z a) U O N U O L 0 a C� C N H Z LL! a W 2 Qi C� U � U U N � h LYj)) U U U J g to U LU J U) U CO LU = J U > m U c G o a, cc O ' U O t r ca G C CL N o a - �i U U N C y Cl) W C Cc M C1 Z Co " N C 3 c c w 3 c -C O a�i c o a� E J O W O a rn 3 Z Y L O N U m to .0 i C x c`o s o 0 O Q- O LL Z) d w CD O J U LLJ Q' C) ti c7 N T- O O O O O o Z O N Z a) U O N U O L 0 a C� C N H Z LL! a W 2 Qi C� U � U U N � h LYj)) U U U J g to U LU LU G J O ' N L C7 p F� Y CL N _J CIO g J O W O O Z 2 U O 2 LU I-- u) x W 0 O Q- O LL Z) O w CD O J U LLJ UO 0 O U C) ti c7 N T- O O O O O o Z O N Z a) U O N U O L 0 a C� C N H Z LL! a W 2 Qi C� U � U U N � h 4500 -- - - -- - - -- - - - -- • Ultimate Values Li I 4000 -- — ® peak Values r Ultimate Strength j —Peak Strength i 3500 - -- - - - -- i i 3 _ -- 000 - -- - - - - - -- + -- IL U) 2500 - - -� -- I w-- - - -— — ----- -}- - -- U) I Q 2000 w —� - - -- --- -� - - -- _ 1500 - - - - - -- +— — 1000 - - -- 500 - - - -- _ 0 - - - -- - - - - - -- — I 0 500 1000 1500 —� - - -� -_— — -- �� 2000 2500 3000 3500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] 4000 4500 FILL_ A summary of 2 direct shear tests conducted on bulk samples of the on -site soils remolded to -90% of the maximum densi at o timum. -40h �Geotechnics UM Incorporated PEAK ULTIMATE EEI]3;00� 15 ° 200 PSF DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE D -1.2 - - -- 1000---- 500 0 -- - -- - -- -- =- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] ' 4500 -- -- -- - - _- -- 0 • • Ultimate Values —I 4000 -- — - -_, ® Peak Values I Ultimate Strength I '-Peak Strength - -- 3500 - -- - -- - 3000 -- i ti - a 2500 ------ - - - - -- W N I Q 2000 — - z - N 1500 - - - - - -- -- -- - - - -- 1000---- 500 0 -- - -- - -- -- =- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] ' I 0 • I I 3500 4000 Eintact M Qc01)• of 8 direct shear tests conducted PEAK ULTIMATE uvium and residuum samplesfeet below existing rades. � 300 PSF 4500 AAgft-`Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE D -1.3 4500 -- — - -- - -- - - -- - -- I i • Ultimate Values 4000 -- Peak Values L Ultimate Strength - -Peak Strength ' 3500 - - - -- ___ - 3000 - -- -- I a 2 N 500 �- w Q 2000 w x 1500 1000 500 I i i f I E) u-- ---- - - - - -- - _ _ 0 500 1000 1500 2000 __ —� � - -- - ------- ---_�� 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 • NORMAL STRESS [PSF] EDE_LIAR ORMATION (Tdl• of 6 di rect shear tests conducted PEAK ULTIMATE from the Lone Jack Subdivision, �� 24 o k Estates and Double LL Ranch. 17 C' 50 PSF 50 PSF � �Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST SUMMARY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 04 -0272 FIGURE D -1.4 , c c c c c Go 0 cp 0 v 0 N O a c co N I�aa3] UOIJeA913 c c c c 0 0 Co 0 v 0 N 0 C Q c Q •v N s- r (N C7 Qp �O N o [ }aa�] uoijenaj:j c s C s C n O O r O O O O `7 O N O C O C. Q c.i N CV N r cr C o O O O .— CD 'q, N [199j] UOijenaj:j C) 0 Cl) O co N 0 CC) N O et N O N N O O N O O Co O v O N O O O O Cr] O V' O N M." N Q ^ t" C', o M ao fa 7 O ^ W o o pZ O 0 Z LL U � � U �0 p ^L A T In O O Cl) Cl O N 0 CD N O v N 0 N N O O N O co T O t0 T O v T O N T C) O T O co C) v O N O � O O N N ^ Cq CIS y 9 m O O e* C:) W J�Z = 0 Q V Z LL U � N U 'p O � Q [L T$ o, O O Cl) O co N O co N O v N O N N O O N O co r Cl O r O v r O N r O O r O co O O N O L O O 04 N p N y m � O c1 1 Q U O� v 7 � O W o°Z� Z LL r. E U O O U '90 CL Q W C) 0 M O co N 0 N O v N 0 N N O O N O 00 T O O 0 v T 0 N T O O T O co 0 0 0 v O N O O a00 O O O N N O O r, O co [IaaJ] u01jeAel3 to IT N �J T w w cu N w O L 0 Q cu Lj- L•7 N (C=:)) ^ ! N Y co Q e CD � o C °z _ O a �. Z E a) LL U � O U 5-0 i a` ° U U Z L_0 F- 0 w 0 I 0 I U 4.% -+-j as U 0 O U U N � O N CD 0 Cl) 0 co N 0 CD N 0 v N O N N coO O N 0 o 0 O N cor O O r O 0 m 0 v 0 N O O O O O N � 0 r, 1 1 _r O V I O O O •� r O 000 r IIGGJ] U014eAG13 0 O Co CO v N r 0 c� co 4- O I- 0 LL Co N in C) N c y _MOB m 64 P�o u -0� p Z — L Z O LL �. E U � N U O L Q CL U U Z O F= U W 0 I aj U � � C U U U � O �rN INPUT PARAMETERS - Friction Angle (CD) r300 Cohesion (CD) Dry Unit Weight Water Content Specific Gravity Slope Angle X 3:1 FILL SLOPE [DEGREES] [PSFI [PCF] [ %] CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio 0.59 Moist Unit Weight 125 [PCF] Saturated Unit Weight 131 [PCF] Friction Angle Slope Angle 0.26 [RADIANS] 1.00 0.32 [RADIANS] SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. al, 1996) R nn n r r F.S. 0.50 10.40 0.75 7.07 1.00 5.41 1.25 4.41 5 1.50 3.74 1.75 3.27 2.00 2.91 0 2.25 2.63 2.50 2.41 U- 2.75 2.23 3.00 2.08 H 3.25 1.95 ' @3.0 3.50 1.84 a 3.75 1.75 M 4.00 1.66 0 4.25 1.59 2U2.0C 4.50 1.52 U. 4.75 1.47 5.00 1.41 5.25 1.36 1.00 5.50 1.32 5.75 1.28 6.00 1.25 6.25 1.21 0.00 6.50 1.18 0.1 Slope Surface R � 00 0- Ma� I F.S. = c + H(y.ar yd cosZ(R) tangy' YatH sino coso -- c.vv 3.00 4.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] 5.00 6.00 ��Geotechnics Incorporated SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY Project No. 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 4 -0272 FIGURE D -5.1 INPUT PARAMETERS - Friction Angle (CD) P2OO Cohesion (CD) Dry Unit Weight Water Content Specific Gravity Slope Angle X 2:1 FILL SLOPE [DEGREES] [PSF] [PCF] [ %] CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio 0.59 Moist Unit Weight 125 [PCF] Saturated Unit Weight 131 [PCF] Friction Angle 0.26 [RADIANS] Slope Angle 0.46 [RADIANS] SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. al, 1996) I I" t- F.S. 0.50 7.32 0.75 4.97 1.00 3.79 1.25 3.08 5 1.50 2.61 1.75 2.28 2.00 2.03 2 2.25 1.83 VA 2.50 1.67 2.75 1.54 U 3 3.00 1.44 y 3.25 1.35 m3.0 3.50 1.27 a 3.75 1.20 n 4.00 1.14 c 4.25 1.09 U22.0c 4.50 1.04 M U. 4.75 1.00 5.00 0.97 5.25 0.93 1.00 5.50 0.90 5.75 0.87 6.00 0.85 6.25 0.83 0.00 6.50 0.80 0. Slope Surface I W�. a "aw go 090 0' -0 1 F.S. = c' + H(Ysat 7d cos'(R) tangy' rsatH sing cusp Z.vu 3.00 4.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] 5.00 6.00 ,� �Geotechnics Incorporated SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY Project No, 0007 - 013 -00 Document No. 4 -0272 FIGURE D -5.2 APPENDIX E STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PRACTICES Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -I 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Representatives of Geotechnics Incorporated should be present on -site during grading operations in order to make observations and perform tests so that professional opinions can be developed. The opinion will address whether grading has proceeded in accordance with the Geotechnical Consultant's recommendations and applicable project specifications; if the site soil and geologic conditions are as anticipated in the preliminary investigation; and if additional recommendations are warranted by any unexpected site conditions. Services do not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. 1.2 The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firm's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the report to which they are appended. 1.3 All figures attached hereto shall be considered as part of these guidelines. 1.4 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior recommendation by Geotechnics Incorporated and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. 1.5 These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports. Where a conflict may appear to exist, the recommendations of the body of the geotechnical reports will supersede those of the standard guidelines. 1.6 If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guidelines or standard details, Geotechnics Incorporated should determine the appropriate interpretation. 2.0 DEFINITION, OF TERMS 2.1 ALLUVIUM -- Detrital deposits resulting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries. 2.2 AS- GRADED -- The surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading. 2.3 BACKCUT -- A temporary construction slope or excavation at the rear of buttresses, stabilization fills or retaining walls. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -2 2.4 BACKDRAIN -- Generally a perforated pipe and surrounding filter or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures, bu fills. ttresses, and stabilization 2.5 BEDROCK -- A relatively undisturbed consolidated sedimentary or igneous formational deposit, exposed either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil. 2.6 BENCH -- A relatively level step with a near vertical rise excavated into slopin ground on which fill is to be placed. See also Terrace ". g 2.7 BORROW (Import) -- Any fill material hauled to the project site from off -site areas. 2.8 BUTTRESS FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to enhance the stability of slopes, where deep- seated failure is of concern. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth, and by maximum steepness of the backcut angle. Fill materials with specified characteristics may be recommended for the buttress construction. A buttress may contain a back -drain system. 2.9 CIVIL ENGINEER -- The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting f nn responsible conditions. ying as- for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifgraded topographic 2.10 COLLUVIUM -- Generally poorly consolidated deposits usually located near the base of slopes, and brought there primarily by gravity through slope creep (also see Slope Wash). 2.11 COMPACTION -- Is the densification of a fill material by mechanical means. 2.12 CONTRACTOR -- A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the Client to perform demolition, earthwork, or other site improvements. 2.13 DEBRIS -- All products of clearing unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill andgoriany other mat d demolition, erial so designated d aterial Geotechnical Consultant. g by the 2.14 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST -- A Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -3 2.15 ENGINEERED FILL -- A fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests and observations to enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements. This generally requires that the consultants representative be present on a continuous basis when fill is placed. 2.16 EROSION -- The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and /or ice. 2.17 EXCAVATION -- The mechanical removal of earth materials. 2.18 EXISTING GRADE -- The ground surface configuration prior to new grading. 2.19 FILL -- Any soil, rock, soil -rock blends or other similar materials placed by man. 2.20 FINISH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan. 2.21 GEOFABRIC -- Any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization, back - drains, subdrains, and earth reinforcement. 2.22 GEOLOGIST -- A representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology. 2.23 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -- The Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology consulting firm retained to provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these guidelines, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultant. 2.24 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER -- A licensed Civil Engineer who applies scientific methods, engineering principles and professional experience to the acquisition, interpretation and use of knowledge of soil and bedrock materials for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. 2.25 GRADING -- Any operation consisting of excavation, filling or combinations thereof, and associated operations. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -4 2.26 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS -- Soil or bedrock materials that has been transported within the landslide mass. 2.27 MAXIMUM DENSITY -- Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. 2.28 OPTIMUM MOISTURE -- Test moisture content at the maximum density, determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. 2.29 RELATIVE COMPACTION --The degree of compaction of a fill material, given as the in -place dry unit weight as a percentage of the maximum density. 2.30 ROUGH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration where the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved grading plan. 2.31 SITE -- The particular parcel of land where grading is being performed, as defined by the grading plan. 2.32 SLOPE -- A natural or constructed inclined ground surface, the steepness of which is generally specified as a ratio of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:1). 2.33 SLOPE WASH -- Soil and /or rock material that has been transported down a slope by mass wasting assisted by surface runoff water (also see Colluvium). 2.34 SOIL -- Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or combinations thereof, that is not cemented and typically unconsolidated. 2.35 SOIL ENGINEER -- Licensed Civil Engineer experienced in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer). 2.36 STABILIZATION FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of slopes which may be subject to excessive creep, erosion, or surficial instability. A stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key width and depth, and by maximum steepness of the backcut angle. A stabilization fill may or may not have a back -drain system specified. Similar to a buttress fill, however the term buttress fill is generally reserved for fills used to stabilize deep- seated instabilities. 2.37 SUBDRAIN -- Generally a perforated pipe surrounded with a gravel or geofabric filter, or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or former drainage channels. May include synthetic composite drain -panel systems. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -5 2.38 SLOUGH -- Loose, un- compacted fill material generated during grading operations. 2.39 TAILINGS -- Non - engineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment haul- roads, as the result of spillage during transport. 2.40 TERRACE -- Relatively level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. 2.41 TOPSOIL -- The upper weathered zone of soil which is usually darker in color, soft or loose, and often contains vegetation debris. 2.42 WINDROW -- A horizontal row of large rock buried within engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Geotechnical Consultant. 3.0 SITE PREPARATION 3.1 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, wood, stumps, trees, roots to trees, and otherwise deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. 3.2 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man -made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or re- routing pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of Geotechnics Incorporated at the time of demolition. 3.3 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and /or demolition operations should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed off -site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of Geotechnics. 4.0 SITE PROTECTION 4.1 The Contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by Geotechnics Incorporated pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are guidelines and should be evaluated by the contractor. Recommendations by Geotechnics Incorporated should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -6 4.2 Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. 4.3 During periods of rainfall, Geotechnics Incorporated should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g., Pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, temporary de- silting basins, other labor, grading, etc.). 4.4 Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should contact Geotechnics Incorporated and arrange a review of the site in order to visually assess rain related damage. Geotechnics Incorporated may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in their assessments. 4.5 Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, erosion of underground utility backfill, structural distress and other adverse conditions identified by Geotechnics Incorporated. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to over - excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated. 5.0 EXCAVATIONS 5.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS 5.1.1 Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of Geotechnics Incorporated. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock, and non - engineered or otherwise deleterious fill material. 5. 1.2 Material identified by Geotechnics Incorporated as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be over - excavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly mixed to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines reference 7.2. 1) prior to placement as compacted fill. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -7 5.2 CUT SLOPES 5.2.1 If cut slope excavations expose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, over - excavation and replacement of the unsuitable materials with a compacted stabilization fill may be recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated. Unless otherwise specified by Geotechnics Incorporated, stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Details. 5.2.2 A Geotechnics Incorporated representative should observe cut slopes during excavation. Geotechnics Incorporated should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. 5.2.3 If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the geotechnical investigation report, Geotechnics Incorporated should evaluate and make recommendations to address these problems. 6.0 COMPACTED FILL All fill materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density (ASTM D1557) unless otherwise recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated. 6.1 PLACEMENT 6.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by Geotechnics Incorporated of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified watered or dried as needed, thoroughly mixed to achieve over optimum moisture conditions, then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. 6.1.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts. Each lift should be watered or dried as needed, mixed to achieve over optimum moisture conditions then compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 6.1.3 When placing fill in horizontal lifts on areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical), horizontal benches should be excavated into the slope area. Benching should be sufficient to expose natural ground, bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -8 subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement fill. An adjacent thick lift of fill generated by the benching should be avoided. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Standard Details. 6.1.4 Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. 6.1.5 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Density testing frequency should be adequate for Geotechnics Incorporated to provide professional opinions regarding fill compaction and adherence to recommendations. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise treated as recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated. 6.1.6 The Contractor should assist Geotechnics Incorporated representative by digging test pits for evaluation and/or for testing fill compaction. 6.1.7 As recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated, the Contractor may need to remove or stop grading equipment within the area being tested if personnel safety is considered to be a problem. 6.2 MOISTURE 6.2.1 Optimum moisture will vary with material type and will typically be determined by ASTM D1557. Unless otherwise recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated, fill should be mixed to achieve uniform soil moisture in excess of optimum moisture. 6.2.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly mixed to over optimum moisture conditions, then compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Where wet, dry, or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be over - excavated. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL l2, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -9 6.2.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or over - watering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until evaluation and recommendations have been made by Geotechnics Incorporated, and remedial grading performed as described under Section 5.6 herein. 6.3 FILL MATERIAL 6.3.1 Excavated on -site materials which are considered suitable to Geotechnics Incorporated may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. 6.3.2 Where import fill materials are required for use on -site, Geotechnics Incorporated should be notified in advance of importing, to evaluate and/or sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import fill materials should be delivered for use on -site without prior evaluation by Geotechnics Incorporated. 6.3.3 Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight retained on the 3/4 -inch sieve, size. 6.3.4 Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the accompanying Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed of off -site. Rocks LIP to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 20 -feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of underground utility improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane, in accordance with the attached Standard Details. 6.3.5 It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate, as recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated at the time of placement. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007- 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -10 6.3.6 The construction of a "rock fill" consisting primarily of rock fragments up to two feet in maximum dimension with little soil material may be feasible. Such material is typically generated on sites where extensive blasting is required. Recommendations for construction of rock fills should be provided by Geotechnics Incorporated on a site - specific basis. 6.3.7 During grading operations, placing and mixing materials from the cut and/or borrow areas may result in soil mixtures which possess unanticipated engineering properties. Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to determine conformance with the specifications. Processing of these additional samples may take two or more working days, and require that the contractor alter their operation. 6.3.8 Any fill placed in areas not previously observed and evaluated by Geotechnics Incorporated will require removal and re- compaction. Determination of over - excavations should be made upon review of field conditions by Geotechnics Incorporated. 6.4 FILL SLOPES 6.4.1 Fill slopes should be compacted in accordance with these grading guidelines and specific report recommendations. Two methods of slope compaction are typically utilized in mass grading, lateral over - building and cutting back to grade, and mechanical compaction to grade (i.e. sheepsfoot roller back - rolling). Constraints such as height of slope, fill soil type, access, property lines, and available equipment will influence the method of lope construction and compaction. Geotechnics Incorporated should be notified by the contractor what method will be employed prior to slope construction. Over - building should be accomplished with horizontal fill lifts (reference Section 6), and compaction equipment working as close to the edge as practical. The amount of lateral over - building will vary as field conditions dictate. Compaction testing of slope faces will be required, and reconstruction of the slope may be recommended if testing does not meet project specifications. Mechanical compaction of the slope to grade during construction should utilize two types of compactive effort. First, horizontal fill lifts should be compacted during fill placement. The equipment should provide compactive effort to the outer edge of the fill slope. Sloughing of fill soils should not be permitted to drift down the slope. Secondly, at intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, whichever is less, fill slopes should be back - rolled with a sheepsfoot -type Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -11 roller, or other equipment that can be shown to compact the slope face to the specified compaction. Moisture conditions of the fill slope soils should be maintained above optimum throughout the compaction process. Generally upon slope completion, the entire slope should be compacted utilizing typical methods, (i.e. sheepsfoot rolling, bulldozer tracking, or rolling with rubber - tired heavy equipment). Final slope compaction should be performed without grade stakes on the slope face. 6.4.2 Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying Standard Details should be utilized. 6.4.3 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top -of- slope, as designed by the project civil engineer. 6.5 TRENCH BACKFILL 6.5.1 Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density (ASTM D1557). 6.5.2 Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand (S.E. > 30) and consolidated by jetting, or by mechanical means. 6.5.3 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect to use clean, granular material, (S.E. > 30) in the pipe zone and one foot above the top of pipe. This material should be thoroughly jetted in place. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of Geotechnics Incorporated at the time of construction. 6.5.4 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by Geotechnics Incorporated. 6.5.5 Gravel bedding or backfill is not recommended in trenches exceeding 20 percent gradient because of the potential for piping. Bedding materials should consist of clean sand with backfill as recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated based on specific site conditions and available materials. Geotechnics Incorporated WIEGAND NEGLIA CORPORATION APRIL 12, 2004 PROJECT NO. 0007 - 013 -00 DOCUMENT NO. 04 -0272 PAGE E -12 7.0 DRAINAGE 7.1 Canyon and fill buttresses or slope stabilization subdrain systems recommended by Geotechnics Incorporated should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard Details. 7.2 All subdrain outlets should be connected to a permanent structure such as a storm drain, or outletted to the surface. Surface or daylight outlets should be constructed using a concrete headwall in accordance with the Standard Details. All subdrain outlets should be surveyed by the project civil engineer. 7.3 Subdrains temporarily terminated should be surveyed at each end by the project civil engineer for future relocation and connection. Geotechnics Incorporated