Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CDP 03-12; PARK DR KELLY RESIDENCE; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2002-02-11
\ ' .• ·-· · Preliminary Geotechn'ical Investigation Undevelo.ped _ Hillside Lots '4588 Adj:ih'l·s $tree~ Carlsbad~ .California February 11 ~ 2002 Prepared For: _,,,,,,,-· -SEAN 8. E.· KELLY 7220, lrc"tde Street, Suite ~01 San Diego, Califot1iia 92121 ·Prepared.By: . VINJ.E.&.MIDDL!=TON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450. Virieyard ·Avenue, Suite .102 Escondido, California 9~029 Job #02-108-P ,:;· :':.- ¥JNJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING., INC. Job #02-108-P February 1· 1, 2002 Sean 13. E. Kelly 7220 Tr~de Street-Suite 301 San-Diego, California 92121 .... 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102 Escc;mdido,-California 92029, 1229 Phone(760) 743,1214 Fax (760) 739,0343 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNIC.AL iNVESTIGATION, UNDEVELOPED HILLSIDE LOTS, 458P ADAMS STR~ET1 CARI-SBAD, CALIFORNIA , Pursuant-to your request, Vinje a'nd Middleton Engineering; Inc., has completed the atta~hed Pre!irnin.ary Geotechnical Investigation Report for the above-referenced project site.· The following report ~ummarizes the re.suits of -our research and review of pertinent · geotechnical. maps and reports, subsurface field investigation and soil sampling, laboratory _: ·testing, engineering analyses a_nd provides concluskms·and construction recommendations for' the proposed dev~lopment as understood; From ·a g_eoteohnical engineering . standpofnt, it is our opinion that ttie individuar lots are su'itqble for the proposed residential development and the as~ociated improvements, proviqed the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into .the .design and reconstruction of the project. The conclusions and recomm~ndations provided in this study are consistent.with the site geotechnical conqition·s and are intended to aid il'l ·preparati'on of final development plans and allow more accurate estimates of the construction costs. . . If you have any questions or-need clarification, .please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #02-108-P will help fo expedite our response to your inquiries. ~ We appr~.ciate this opportunity to be:.qf s·ervic.e to you. RMVljt V ; --~· (. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. I. INTRo·ouCTION ............... -· . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION .................................•..•.... ; . . . . . 1 !I!. PROPOSl:D DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . • .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 1 t . IV. SITE.INVESTIGATIO.N ......•...•.. .' ..........................•.•.... 2 V. FINDINGS . : ....... ~ ......... ~ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . A. Earth JV(aterials . • . . • ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B" Groundwater ............................ -. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Slop~ Stability ............................... · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. _Faults_/'Seismicity ............•..............•.............. ~ .... 3 E. Geologic Hazards .................•..... , .......... ·; .. ·. . . . . . . . . 5 F. Laboratory Testing I Results ............ : ............. · ..•......... 6 VI. CONCLUSIONS· ..•...... J •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ • • • • • • • • • 8 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ....... · ............... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Grading and Earthworks ......... · ...... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 o B. Foundations and Interior Floor Sl~b!:i . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C-. Exte,rior Concrete Slabs / F.latworks . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 17 p. · son Design Parameters .. ~·· ... : .................................. 1·1 _E. Asphalt and PCC Pavement Design .................. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . 18 -· F. General Recommem;lations .. ~-. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ;:~ · -vm. UMITAttoNs ...................................................... 22 :~i ·"' TABLE NQ. . . · Fault Zone · .............. -.. · .... , ....... · ........... -........ ~· .. • . . . . . . . . . 1 Site Seismic Parameters ......... , .. ~ ......... · ... ··-...................... . _. . . . " Soil Type .. ~ ..... ·. ~ ............................................... ,. ... . Maxirnu~ Pry Density and Optimum Moisture Content 2 3. 4 r_l!.. t:. ;" •. . , ••• ,y TAJ3l,.E OF CONTENTS (continued) Moisture-Density Tests .... , .................. '• . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Expansion. Index Test . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Direct Shear Test .........•...... ~ • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Removals and Ground )"reatrnent ............. · ............................ 8 PLATE NO. R.egion·a1 lnde:X Map ................. -. , .. ·! ••••••••••• ~ •• ., •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 GeOteChnica'I' l\ita,p ......... -., .... _, .................. " .......... !' ••• •• • • • • 2 Test Tr~nch and Boring Logs (Vfith key) ......................... · ....... 3-8 Geologic Cross-Sections .......... ; ... : . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fault -· .Epicenter Map ...•. ~ ....... · ... • ................................. · 10 Retaining Wall Drain Detail .......... , ......... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 11 Isolation Joints and Re-entrant.Corner Reinforcement .............. ~ . . . . . 12 ·-.:, •' ~~ •• PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UNDEVELOPED HiLLSIDE LOTS 4588 -ADAMS STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION The property investigated iri' this work includes two residential lots located in undeveloped . hillside terrain above ard behind 4590 Adams Street iri the City of Carlsbad. The property 1·ocati'on is depicted on a Regional Index Map attached to this report as Plate 1. We l,!nderst9nd·that the lots are planned for: indiviqual residential development. Consequently, ·the purpose of this investigation was to determine geologic and soils conditions on the two lots and their influence upon the pl~nned development. Test hole digging, soil sampling _ and laboratory-testing were among Jhe activities conducted in connection with this work which has r:esulted in development recommendations provided herein . . II. SITE DESCRIPTION The study lots are depicted on a Geotechnical Map attached to this report as Plate· 2. The .sites are ·characterized by irregular, more leyel area~ above and· behind developed .lots along Adams Street. . Site terrain ascends into. steeper brush coverec;I terrain to the west where slope gradients approach 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) 9t their steepest. Access onto the,Jots is provided by a concrete paved driveway along the south side of 4590 Adams Street. · Site drainage generally sheetflows Westward over the slopes. Little or no scouring is apparent as a result of conqentrated run,.off across the properties. Lower site areas are mantled by a light e.over of native grasses. Heavy brush characterizes upper, more steep sit~te:rrain. _ . ,_·._ · , ~- Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . ., . "r Details of plai_111ed lot development are presently a .e. o . ,_ preliminary des_ign schemes are developed an.cl d·epicted, c;m e attached Plate 2. A shown, individual building surface$ will be created 'in th;e· lowesf'prn lion of eac lot by cut..:filJ grading 'techniques and. the use of retaining walls. Maximum graded slope heights are likely to be on the-order of 15 feet. Access to the southern lot will. continµe .to-be, alongside 4590 Adams Street, arid a new access d'riveway wiil service the northern lot. . Foundation plans or construction det~ils for the future dwellings are also not yet completed. However, conventional wood-franie buildings with exterior stucco supported on shallow stiff continuous_ strip/spre?d pa9 corcrete footings an·d stem/basement retaining wall. type con~truotion with slab-on-grade floors· are a,:,ticipated. ' . .. . VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Aven~e, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 ~ Phone (760), 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION . PERC TESTING ENVlRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ., ... ,...__, PRELIMINARY GEOTE:CHNICAL INVESTJGATI.ON 4588 ADAMS STREE.TJ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA fV. SITE INVESTIGATION ·-· PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Geotechnical conditions at the project lots were determined from geologic mapping of ··available surface· exposures and the excavation. of 8 expl·oratory test excavations. These .included 6 test trenches dug with a tractor-mownted backhoe and 2 large. diameter test borings advanced beneath the site with a truck-mounted bucket drill rig. All of the expavations were entered and_down~hole logged by our project geologist wh_o also retained representative soil/rock samples for laboratory testing. Trench and boring locations ate depicted on Plat 2.-Logs of the excavatjons are-· attached with this report as Plates 3-8 . .Laboratory test data are summarize9 in a following section. V. FINDINGS The project lots are chiefly natural hillside terrain which have.oeen modified in the lowest areas by minol grading. 'The hillside is underlain by.sedimentary bedrock units that are mantled by soil deposits. A. Earth Materials Hillside terrain at the project site are underlain by light colored sandstone bedrock units of Eocen~ age. Noted exposures wefe fine to ·coarse grained, massive and cemented most commonly in a friable condition. Some dark colored claystone units are also present in limited exposures. Young·er sandstone units mantles bedrqck exposures at the site. These are chiefly red-brow,:, qolored terrace deposit soils which were encountered 1n limited exposures at depth within project test excavations. Site terrace deposit soils occur ·in-a friable to we.akly cemented condition.. . · · Fill soils. cove·r .much· of the lower site terrain planned for d<3velopment. The fill consists chi.efly·of dark.colored sandy soil in a lo"ose to medium-c;:lense condition. Limited amounts of asphalt and organic debris was encountered in near:..surface fill soils. _Grading records for fill placement were unavailable for" review. The approximate distribution of site fill at -the project site is depicted on Plate 2. Details of site earth m~terials. are giv~n on the attached logs (Pla~es 3-8). The indicated subsurface distribution of site earth materials is depict~d on Geologic Cross-Sections attached to·this report as Plate 9 .. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, ING. 2450 Vineyard A.venue, #102, Escondido, qalifomia 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214_ • Fax (760) 739-0343 , mnTF/:HN1C:AL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION ' PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ,J • ll... f :-~• PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 8 .. Groundwater _·-· PAGE 3 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Subsurface· water was not encountered in project test excavations and is not .. ·expected to 'impact site development. However, based on our experience with similar geotechnical conditions, prolonged rainfall or excessive up-slope irrigation practice$ may result in periodic seepage along the base of planned cut embankments, The use of s1..1bsurface drains or retai"ning wc;11Is provided with backdrains may be appropriate E\S a means of p-rotecting nearby improvements. As with all graded_ hillside properties, the proper Gontrol of surface-drainage remains a critical factor-in the continued stability of the property. Ponding should- not be allowed at the lot surfaces, and irrigation waters should be held to a minimum. c. Slope Stability Lc;lndslides or other forms· of slope -instability are not indicated in surface exposures at the study sites, nor are they suggested in project ~xploratory test excavations. Noted bedrock exposures were chiefly massive or impacted by poorly ~eveloped bedding conditions which were flat-lying. Inclined· structure along which bedding failures could develop is not ih eviden~e at the property. p. Fa·ults I Seismicity Faults or significant -shear zones are not .indicated on or near proximity to the prqject sit~. . As with most" areas of California, th_e San Diego region lfes within a seismically active zone; however, coastal areas of the county ar~ characterized by low levels . of seismic activity relative to ·inland areas-to th~ east. During a 40-year ·period (1934-1974), 37 earthquakes were recorded i.n San Diego coastal areas by the California Institute of Te~hn61ogY:_ None o( the recorded events· exceeded q Richter magnitude of 3.,7, nor did any of the earthqu·akes generate more than -modest ground s·haking or significant damages'. Most or'the recorded events · occurred along various ·offshore faults which characteristically generate modest earthquakes. . · · ·_ Historjcally, the. most significant earthquake events .which affect local areqs originate alqng well· knowh, distant fault zones to the east and the Coronado Bank 'F_ault to-the West. 8-a&ed upon· available seismic data, compiled from California . . VlNJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEER~G, INC. 2450 Vineyard ~~enue, #Fi2, Escondido, California 9202!.l-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax-(760) 7;39-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING-SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ,'I '-~• PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 45&8 ADAMS STREl=T, CARLSBAO~ CALIFORNIA --· PAGE 4 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Earthquake Catalogs, the most significcmt historical event in the area of the study' site oc_curred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 1 O miles· from the project area. This-event, which 'is thought to have occurred along an off-shore fault, reached an estimated magnitude of 6.5-with estimated bedrock acceleration values of 0.097g · at the project site. The following· list rep.resents the most significant faults which -commonly impact the region. Esti'm~ted ground acceleration data compiled from Digitized C.alifornia.f.aults (Computer Program EQFAUL T VERSION 3.0 UPDATE) typically associated with th.e fault is a_lso t~bulated. TABl:.E 1 Elsinore fault 24 miles 0.0~$g · San.Jacinto fault 47 miles 0.069g C.oronado Bank fau.lt 21 miles 0.140g 6. miles 0.168 The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to. the study site are depicted on a. F~ult -Epicenter Map attached to this report as Plat~ 10. More recently, the number of seismic events which affect the region appears to have heightened somewhat. Neariy 40 earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or higher have been recorded in coastal regions between Jam1ary, 19.84 and·August, 1986. Most of the earthquakes are thought to have been generated along·offshore faults. for the most pa-rt, the ·recorded events Ternain moderate shocks which_ typically resulted in low levels of ground sh~king to local. areas. A notable exception to this pattern wa$ recorded on.July 1:3, 1986.· An earthquake of magnitude 5.3 shook County coastal ·areas.with,mooerate to locally heavy ground shaking resulting in $700,000 in damages, one death, and injuries to 30 people: The quake occurred along an ·~ffshore faul_t located. nearly 30 rniles southwest of Ocea,:iside. · ' A series of notable events shook County ar~as with a (maximum) magnitude 7.4 shock in the early morning of June 28, 1992. These qu'al<es. originated along related segments ·of the San Andreas Fault approximately 90 miles to the north. Locally high levels of ground shc1king o,ver ·an extended period of time resulted; however, significarit damages to local structures were not reported. The increase in earthquake frequency ,in the region r$mains ~ subject of speculation among VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Viney~r~ Avenue, #102, Esc:ondido, California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax l760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVEST!GAT!ONS .,, t .• ~, ' PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STR.EET, CARLSBAD, CALIF.ORNIA ;_, .• PAGE 5 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 geologists; however, based upon empirical information and the recorded seismic history of County areas,. the 1986 .and_ 1992 events are thought to represent the highest levels of groun,d shaking which can be expected at the study site as a result of seismic activity. In recent years, the Ros;e .Canyon Fault has received added attention from. - geologists.· The fault is a significant structural featurE.? ih metropolitan San Diego vvhich includE3s a-seties of para·llel breaks trending southward from La Jolla Cove through San Diego Bay toward the Mexican· border. Rece.nt trenching along the fault in Rose Cqnyon indicated that at th;:it location the fault was last active 6,000 to ·9,qoo years ag9. Thus, the fc1ulf is· classified as "active" by the State of C?lifornia which-defines faults that E?Vidence displacement in the previous 11,000 yean~ as ~ctive. · More active faults (listed on the preceding page) are considered most likely to · impact the region during ·the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically : active and c9pable of generating mdderati:no locally high levels ·of ground shaking ~t the site.· Ground separc1tion as a result of seismic ·activity is not expected at the property. For design purposes; site specific seismic parameters ·were d~termined as part of this inv~stigati9n .in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. -the following param~ters are consistent with Ure indicated 'project seismic envrronment and may b.e t;Jtilized for project design work: · · · TABL~ 2 Accordin Code. E. Geologic t;azards Slope instability,' faults or other notable geologic hazards are not.indicated· at the proje_ct sites. The most significant ha;zard which could impa_ct the area will be associated With moderate-to locally high levels of ground !TlOVement ref ated to periodic seismic activity_genf?rated alopg dist~nt active faults. Liquefaction or other ·related _ground fail_ures an~ not anticipated at the property. V.INJE & MI~;LETQN ENGTNE~RTNG, INC: 2450 Vineyard A~enue, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • Ph;me (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEbTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS •t .• rx.. ') ,. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATI_ON 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNl,A F. Laboratory Testing /'Results ··-· PAGE 6 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 -Earth deposits encountered in our exploratory test excavations were closely examined arid sampled for laboratory testing. Based upon our test trench data and field exposures, site soils have been grouped-into the following soil types: TABLE 3 1 brown silty sand with trace clay (fill) 2 tan fine to coarse sand (bedrock) 3 red bt?w~ fjne to medium sand (fill/~errace.deposit) 4 ra cla stone with· intermixed s·andstone bedrock The following tests were _conducted in support of this investfgation: 1 .. IViaxi.inum:Dry-Density and.Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Soil Types 1 and 3 were. determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The test results are presented in Table 4. . . TABLE4 .B-1 @5' 1 132.3 11.3 T-3 4' 3 1'31.4 1-0'.3 2 .. Moisture_-Density Testsz In-place dry-density and moisture content Qf r~pre.sentative soil deposits beneath the site were determined from.relatively undisturbed chunk and ring samples using the water displacement and weights and measurements test meth·oqs. ·The test resLJ·lts are presented in Table 5 and tabulat~d on the attached Test Trench Logs and Boring Logs. · VINJJ:l & MIDDLETON.ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyar_r'Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHN'ICAL lNVESTigATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ,' -:.:: .. :t ~{ ··! • PRJ;:LIMfNARY G.EOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TABLES T-1 @7' 2 5.4 1'23.2 T-2.@3' 1 6.5 104.7 . T-2@8' '2 1.0 109.8 T-3@4' 3, 2.1 1"17.7 T-4@2' 3 4.7 116.4 T-4@4' 3 3.8 121.8 T-5@5' 4 10.5 122.4 T-5@6' 2 11,5 120.7 T-6@5' 3 4.6 106.6 8-1-@ 14' 3 9.9 120.0 B-2@3' 1 4.q 107.9. B-2@ 17' 3 2.6 115.1 • 132.3 131.4 .. 131.4 131.4 131:4 . 131.4 132.3 1~1.4. PAGE 7 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 79.1 . - 89.6 88.6 92.7 81 .1 91.3 81.6 87.6 , * Designated as relatiye compaction for structur~I fills. Re ulred relative com action for structural fill is 90% or ·reater. ~-Exp·ansion Index Test. Two expansion ind~x tests were performed on representative samples of Soil Types 1 and 3 in accordance_; with the Uniform · Building Code Standard 18-2. The test results are presented _in Table 6. · TABLE 6 T-3@4'. 3 non-expansive 8-1 @5' 1 8.9 50.2-16.5. 16 yery low . (w) = moi_sture conlent in percent. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, .INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, tH02, Esco:1dido, Califomi.a 92029-1229 • I>lione (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739:0343 , . PERC' TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATJONS GEOTECHN!CAL lNVESTIGATlONS G~ADING SUPERVISION ., , " J •• PRl;LIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA • PAGE 8 FEBRUARY ·11, 2002 4. Direct Shear Test: Two direct shear tests were performed on representative samples .of Soil Types 1 c1nd 3. The prepared specimens were soaked . overnight, lo.aded with normal loads of 1, .2, and 4 kips per square foot respeetively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The test results are. presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 T-3@4' 3 ' remolded 129.8 33 50 13-1 5' 1 remolded 132,0 32 136 VI. CONCLUSIONS .Based upon the. foregoing investigation, development of the ·study lots sub$tantially as proposed, is f¢asible from a geotechnical viewpoint. Hillside terrain at the property is geologically stable ancl expected t0 perform well in support.of, the planned stn.icture$ and improvements .. Adverse geologic conditions· or difficult grading problems are not indicateq ·at the site. The following conditions are unique to the property and will most impact its development and associated costs from a g~otechnical viewpoint: · * Planned building areas of the two lots are mantled by undocumented fill soils which are-not presently suitable for the supi:iort of improvements. R~moval and recompaption of the existing site fills· and. upper·weathered soft portions· of terrace deposits Will be necessary i'n order to COn$truct a sfable grqund for tbe support of the prop.osed strwctures and improvements. Added removals of cut ground WiJI also be necessary 'in the case of cut/ffll pa'ds. which expose bedrock/terrace units so · th.at' .uniform soil conditions are created thrm.i"ghout' the buildings and. improvement-surfaces. · Excavation difficulties or special g(ading problems are not anticipated. * ·underlying bedrock and terrace deposit are predominantly dense and stable units which will provide· good support for p!anned improvements and engineered fill sections. However; underlying terrace deposits locally occur in a weathered soft conditic;.m near the surface and,.should be removed ·and recompacted as part of the project remedial grading ·operations as recommended b.elow. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC .. 2450 VineY,ar/1 ,t...,enu;, #102, Escondid~.' California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 73~-6343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTfGATIONS GRil.DING SUPERVISION• PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS I'{_ •• .. ' ~- <) PRl:LIMINARY G'EOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION .4S88 ADAMS S1REET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PAGE 9 FEBRUARY 11, 2-002 * _ On.,.site natural terrain and bedrock units are expected to be geologically stable. * Landslides or other forms of slope instability are not in evidence at the site and are not expected·to impact the area. Project excavations and removals will pre.dominantly generate good quality sandy fills: However, existing site fills: 1 ncludes some asphalt and organic matter which should be selectively separated and removed from the new project fills. * .Site soils are granular, non-expansive to very low expansive sandy deposits which work well in compacted fills. Based upon the anticipated grading scheme, finish grade soils are e~pected to consist of silty sand deposits (SM) with very low ·expan·sion potential (El less than 21) .. Actual. classification and expansion characteristic of finished grade soil mix can only be provided in the final as-graded compaction report pased on appropriate testing. · * · The overall stability of graded building surfaces developed over sloping terrain is most dependent upon adequate keying and benching of fill into the undisturbed bedrock during the grading operations.· At the project site, added care should be given to proper construction of keyways and benching during regrading. . . . * Natural groundwater is not expected to impact the project development or the long term stability of the developed site. However, the use of subdrains may be appropriate along the toe .. of graded cut slopes in.-the i'mprovemenf areas to prevent potential seepage from-up-slope rain and irrigation water as determined in the field by the project geotechnical consultant during construction. •. All site retaining and buHding _basement/stem yvalls over 2 feet high maximum should be provided with.a back drainage? ·system. * Adequate site surface drainage. control is a critical fac;tor in the future stability of the developed propertt * * Liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will' not be factors. in the development of the proposed s_tructures and improvements, provided our ~oil · treatment recommendations are implemented during the grading· operations. Post construction· total and differential s·ettlements after building construction are not expected to be factors in the development of the ·project site, provided our remedial gr~ding and foundation recommendations are implemented during the _constn:iction phase of the project. . . V.INJE & MIDDLETON ENGTNEER!NG, TNC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 -· . . -. . - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUP/",RVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS •• :1· '1 ,..,. 'J PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588: ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PAGE 10 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 * Soil collapse will not be a factor in development of the study site, provided our recommendations for site development are followed. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are consistent with the indicated geotechnical· conditions at the project site and should be reflected in final plans and implemented during the construction phase. Added or modified recommendations may be appropriate and can be provided at the plan review phase when final grading and building plans are available: A. · Grading and Earthworks The planned construction areas are directly underlain by loose undocumented fills. Treatment of these deposits will be required as specified below. All grading and earthworks should be completed in accordance with the Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, City· of Carlsbad Grading Ordinances, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. an,d the requirements of the following sections·: · 1. Clearing an.cl Grubbing:· Existing vegetation, deleterious materials and debris should be removed from areas to receive fills, structures,· and improvements plus 10 feet. Prepared ground should .be inspected and approved by the prbject geotechnical engineer or his designated field representative prior to gr~ding. All existing underground facilities and utility· improvements should also be potholed, -identified and marked .prior to the initiation _of the actual grading _ works. In the eveht there is a conflict between depth/locations of existi'ng undergro·und improvements/utilities and the recommended depths of over- excavations, this office should be notified to provide further recom_mendations. 2. ··Removals and Ground Treatment: The most effective soil improvement method to mitigate existing loose and compressible fills and weathered soft terrace depo$its wilt .utilize removal and recompaction grading ·techniqu~s. Slte existing loose fill soils and upper exposures ofwe_athered soft terrace deposits should be removed to competent terrace or bedrock units, as recommended herein, anq placed back as properly compacted fill. Removals ~hould extend a mlntmi:lm of 10 feet beyond the building perimete·r ·while extending the removals a minim1,:1111 of 3 feet from the outside perimeter of the ph:mned driveway, and on-grade impr6v~rnents may be adequate unless otherwis·e specified in the field. . VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineya,·d Avenue, #102, Escondido, Califomia 92029-1229 • ·Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING·SUP.ERVISJON PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS •• . .1., 'J le., PRJ:LIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4S8a ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PAGE 11 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 ,. 1-1 T-2 T-3. T-4 T-5 T-6 B-1 B~2 Typical removal depths in the vicinity of individual exploratory test sites are shown in Table 8. The tabulated values are subject to changes by the project geotechnical consultant in the field. Locally deeper removals, may be necessary based on the actual field exposures c:1nd should be anticipated. TABLE 8 9'. n/e 3' 9' n/e · 7' 6' n/e 2' 6' nle 3' northern lot, buildin ad areas. 61-81 n/e 3' southern lot, buildin ad areas .. 5½' o/e 5' northern lo.t, bui\din ad areas. . 25' n/e 13' . southern lot, buildin ad areas .. 26' n/e 11' ' northern lot, building pad areas. 1. All depths are· me?isured Jrqm the existing ground levels. 2. Actual depths may vary at the time of con~truction based on seasonal conditions and actual subsurface exposures. . 3. Bottom of all removals shoultj be prepared anc;I. rec0mpacted as directed in the field. 4. In the parking, driveway and drive lane areas, removals will consist of depths to -firm .native ground or 1-foot below the cjeepest utility·, or 3 feet but not 'less th~n 1-foot minimum as directed in the field. . 5. Expl~ratory trenches excavated in connection with our·study at the indicated locatio_ns were ·backfilled with loose and i..mcompacted deposits. The loose/uncompaqted ba·ckfill soils within thesetrencl}e~·shal[ also be re-excavated and placed back as properly compacted fills.as a part of the project grading operations. 6. n/e = not encountered. 3. Cµt/Fill Transition~ Ground' transition from 'excavqted cut to placed fill should not b.~ ·permitted underneath i11e ·proposed structures and improvements. iransition areas will -require special treatment. The c1:-1t portion of the cut/fill, pads plus 10 feet, where possible, should be undercut to a sufficient.depth to VINJ_E & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 ,VineyardA<t1enue, #102, .Es~ondiqo, California 92029-1229 ; Phone (760) 743.-1214 • Fax (760) 73~-0343 · GEOTECHNICAL !NVESTlGATlONS . GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL-lNVEST!GATlONS -.-. ·,_ • ,,., • . >"·• •• PREJ,..IMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAl\ilS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PAGE 13 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 fill slope construction progresses. Fill slopes should also be compacted to 90%. (minimum) of the laboratory standard out to the-slope face. OvE?r-building and cutting. back to the compacted core, or backrolling at a minimum of 4-foot vertical increments anq ·"track-walking" at 'the compl_etion of grading is recommended for site fill slope construction. Geotechnical engineering inspections and testing will be necessary to confirm adequate .compaction levels within the fill sl9pe face. · Cl.it slopes should be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant .during the · grading for confirming stability. Additional recommendations, if it becomes necessEtry, should be providea in the field . -based on the actual exposures. 7. Wall Back and Slope Toe Drainage Systems: A Wall backdr~in system· should be constructed behinc;I the· proposed site retaining and building/basement walls. The wan backdrain system should consist of a minimum 18-inches wide trench excavated to tf;ie depths of the wall foundation level with a minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40 (SDR 35) perforated pipe surrounded with a minimum of 3 cubic feet per foot of ¾-crushed rocks wrapped in ·filter fabric (Mirafi ·140 N), or Caltrans Class 2 permeable aggregate installed at suitable elevations to allow·for adequate fall via a non:-perforated solid pipe to. an approved outlet. Filter fabric can be eliminated if Class 2 permeable material is used. Typical. wall backdrain system is .depicted on the attached Plate '11. Provide .appropriate waterproofing as indicated on the project architectural drawings. A toe drainage system may also be required at the base of the project cut slopes. Appropriate -recommendations should be given by the project geotechnical engineer in the field at the time .of construction, based on actual subs_urface exposures and exposed slope face conditions. . . 8._ Drainage. and Erosion Control: .A critical element to the continued stability of the building pads and slopes is an adequate surface drainage system and protection of the slope fac.e. This can most effectively be achieved by _app_ropriate vegetation cover and the installation of the following systems: * Drainage swales should .be provided at the top and toe of the graaed slopes, per the project civil engineer design: VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERJ;NG, INC: 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 92029,1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHN/CAL 'INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ,. •• PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4saa ADAMS. STREET, CARLSaAo, CALIFORNIA PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 * * f:3uilding pad surface run-off should be collected and directed away from the planned buildings and improvements to a selected location in ·a -controlled manner. Area drains should be installed. The finished slope should be planted soon after completion of grading. Unprotected slope faces will be subject to severe erosion and should not be qi.lowed. Over:-watering of the slope faces should also not be.allowed. Only the am·ount of water to sustain vegetation should be provided. 9 .. ~ngineering ·Inspections; All grading operations including removals, suitability of earth deposits used as compacted fill, an·d compaction procedures should be. continuou~ly inspected anq tested _by the project geotechnical consultant c;tnd presented in the final as-.graded cotnpacUoh report. The nature of finished subgrade soi.ls should. also be confirmed in the final compaction report at th~ completion of g_r.ading. Geotechnical engineering inspections shall inclu~e, but not limited to the following: . . * Initial· Inspection -After-the grading/brushing limits have been staked, _but before grading/brushing starts-._ * Keywayibottom of over-excavation inspection -After the natural ground or bedrock is exposed and prepared to receive fill_; but before fill is placed. * ·Cut slope/excavation inspection"'. After the ex·ccwation is started, but before the vertical depth of excavation is-more than 5 feet. Local and CAL-OSHA' safety requirements for open exc~vatior-,s apply. *-Fill/wall backfill insp·ection -After the fill/wall backfill placement is started, but before· the. vertical height of fill/backfill exceeds 2 feet. A minimum of one test shall be· required for each 100 lineal feet maximum with the exception of wall backfills where a minimum .of 'one test shall _be required ·for each 29 lineal feet-maximum. ·wall backfills should also be·mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels. , Finish rough anq final pad grade tests shall be required regardless of fiil thickness. · * Foundation trench. inspection -After the foundation trench excavations, but before steel placement. VINJE ·& MIDDLETON ENGINEERING,' INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 -. . . . GEOTECHNICAL iNVESTiGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION P-ERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS • PRELIMINARY GJ=OTECHNICAL INVES.TIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLS BAO, ·CALIFORNIA • PAGE 15 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 *' Foyn~ation bearing/slab submade soils inspection -Within 72 hours prior to the placement of concrete tot proper moisture and specified compaction levels. * Geotechnical foundati'on/slab steel inspection -· After steel placement is completed, but 24 hours before the s-cl1eduled concrete pour. * Subdrain/wall backdrain inspection -After the trench excavations, but-duri'ng the actual placement. · All material shall conform to the project materiar specifications and approved by the_project geotechnical engineer. * _ Underground/utility trench inspection -After the trench excavations, but before installation of the underground facilities. Local and CAL-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. Inspection of the trench bottom and pipe bedding may also be reqyired by the proj~ct geotechnical engineer. * Underground/utjlity. trench backfill inspection -After the backfill placement is · started above the pipe zone, bt1t before the vertical height of backfill exceeds 2 feet.-Testing of the ·backfill within the pipez_one may also be required by the governing agencies. Pipe bedqing ~nd backfill materials sliall conform · to the governing agencies .requirements an~ project soils report if applicable. All trench backfills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction 1·evels ·unless-otherwise specified. Utility trenches over 12 inches deep maxi'mum ·under the interior floor slabs should also be mechanically compacted and tested for a minimum of90% compaction levels. Flooding or jetting techniques as a means of compaction method shall not be allowed. * Pavement/improvements subgrade and basegrade inspections -Within 72 hours prior to the placement of concrete or asphalt for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. 8. Foundations. and Interior Floor Slabs The-foliowing preliminary recommendations ·are consistent with very low expansive (El less than 2 t) silty s·and (SM) foundation bearing soil. Final foundation and slab . desigp will-depend on expansion characteristics of finis~ grade soils and the _actual fi(I differential thickness underneath the ·proposed· buildings. All recommendations , should be confirmed an_q/or revised as necessary in the ro_LJgh grading compaction report based on-site as-graded geotechnica! conditions and actual testing of the . foundation bearing· earth material~. !179iVidual building sites may require specific VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, me: 2450 Vineyard Ai•ent1e; #102, Escqndido, C~lifomia·92029-l229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax-(760) 739-0343 GEOTECHN!CAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING . ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS '>. ;. ,,· •,J • PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD', CAL.IFORNIA •. - . PAGE 16 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 foundation/slab design and rnay · be anticipated. Additional specific recommendations may also be ne·c_essary and should be given at the time of the plan·reviewphase When ·detailed grading and structural/c;trchitectural drawings are .availaple: 1 .. Coritlnuqus wall foundations shoul.d be sized 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep· for single .and two-story structures. Isolated p~d footings should be at least 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. Footing depths are measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface, not 'including the sand/gravel beneath floor slabs. Exterior continuo;us foqtings should enclose the entire building perim~ter. · 2. Continum.1s interior and exterior foundations should 'be reinforced by·at least 4- #4 reinforping bars. Place a minimum of 2-#4 bars 3 inches above the .bottom of the footing and a minimum of 2-#4 bars 3 inches below the top of the footing. Reinforcement details for spread pad footings should be provided by the project architect/structural engineer. 3. All interior slabs should. be a minimum of 4 inches·in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinfqrcing·b~rs-spaced 1s· inch.es on center each way, placed mid-height in· the slab. -Slabs_ should be underlain by 4 rnches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater) which is provided with a 6-milplastic moisture barrier.plac~d mid-height in the sand. In the case ,of good qualify sahdy subgr~de soils, as approved by the proje.ct geotechnic~il engineer, t.he 6,-mil plastk~ moisture barrier may be laid directly. over the s.lab subgrade and covered with a rrrinimlim of 2 inches df clean sand (SE 30 or g·reater). - 4. Provlde 1'soft-c4t" contraction/c9ritrol joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 1 O feet on Genter maximum each way for all _interior slab?. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the :saw, and ope.rate without disturping the final finish . which ·is normally within 2 hours after .final finish at each control joint location ·or 150 psi to 800 psi. The sawcuts·should be.a minimum of 1 ... inch in depth but - not to ·exceed 1.¼-inches .. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to· avoid spalling and rc;:1veHng. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. 5. Provide re-entrant corner reinforcement for all interior slabs. Re-entrant carrier$ -will depend on slab geometry and/br interior column location·s. The a·ttachecl Plate 12 may be used as a general guidelin:e. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 245b Vineyard Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 9~029-1229 • Phone (760) 743·-1214 • Fax (760) _739-0343 'G?OTECHNICAi INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS • PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION '4q88 ADAM$ STREE.T, CARJ,..SBAD, CALIFORNIA • PAGE 17 FEBRUARY 11, 2002_ 6. Foundation trenches arid slab subgrade soils should be inspected and tested .for proper moisture anq specified compaction levels, a_nd approved by the -project geotechnicaJ consultant within 72 hours prior to the ·placement of concrete. C. E:xterior Concrete Slabs / Flatworks 1.. -All exterior slabs (walkways, and patios) should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness reinforced.with 6x6/10x10 welded wire mesh carefully placed at mid- height in the slab. . - 2. Provide "soft~cut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 1 o feet on center (not to exceed 12 feet maximum) each way for all ·exterior.' slabs. Cut as soon -as the slab will support the weight of the saw, and op13rate without disturbing the final finish which is· normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 ps-i to 800 .psi. The sawcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch in dep>th but not to exceed· 1 ¼-inches. Anti-ravel ·skid plat_es should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid ~palling and raveling. Avoid whe_e!ed eqLiipment~·across cut$ for at least 24 hours. 3. All exterior slab designs should be confirmed in the flna! as-graded compaction report. 4. Subgracle-soils should be tested for proper moisture and specified coff1paction levels, and approved by the project geotechnical consultant within 72 hours. prior to the placemE:nt of concrete. O. Soil Design Parameters The following preliminary soil design parameters ·are based orj the tested representative samples· -of on-~ite earth deposits. All parameters shoulq be re- evc;1luated when the characteristics of the: final as-graded soils. have been $pe'cifical!i determined: · · -· * Design wet derisity of soil= 129.8 pcf. . * Design ang·le of internal friction of soil = 33 degre·es. . . . * -Design active soil pressure'for-tetair:iing st~uctures = 38 pcf-(EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walis. . . . * Design actiVf;} soil ·pressure for retaining structures = 58 pcf (EFP),. 2: 1 sloping backfill surface, cantilever, ·unrestrained walls. * Design at-rest. soil press·ure for retai.ninQ stru~tures = 59 pcf (EF-P)-, non- yielding, restrained walls. VINJE & MIDDI:ETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102, Escondido, Ca1ifomia92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 _·. °Fax (76Q) 739-0343 GE0TECHNICAL INVESTIGATJONS GRADZNG·SUPERVISIQN PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL _INVE5!IGATIONS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. • PAGE 18 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 · * Design passive soil pressure for retaining strwctures = 447 pcf (EFP)', level surface at _the toe. · * Design coefficient of friction for concrete on soils= 0 .. 39. * Net allowable foundation· pressure for on-site compacted fills (minimum 15 inches witje .. by 18 inches cleep footings)= 2000 psf. * Allowable lateral bearing pressure (all structures except retaining walls) for-on- site compacted fill = 200 psf/ft. · Notes - * Use a-minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall over-turning and sliding stability .. However, because large moveme-rits must take place before maximum passive Tesista11ce can be deveioped, a safety factor of 2 may be considered for sliding stability where sensitive structures and'improvemelits are planned near or on · top of retaining walls. * When combining passive-pressures and frictibnal resistance-, the passive component should be red1.:1ced by one-third. * The net allowable founqation pressure prdvided herein was determined for footlngs having a minimµm width of 15 inches and a minimum depth of 18 inch.es. The· indicated values may _be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 20% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of 3500 psf if needed. The.allowable foundat[on pressures provided herein also applies to dead plus ·live loads and may be increased by one.-third for wind and seismic loading:· * The allowable lateral bearing earth pressures _may be increased .by the amount of the designated-value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 1500 poun_ds per square foo~. _ E. Asphaltand PCC Pavement·c;>esign ' . Specific pavement designs can best be provided at the .completion of· rough grading based on R-value tests of the actual finis_h subgrade soils; however, the . followi17g structural sections may be considered for cost estimating purposes only (not for 9onstn,.1ction): · · 1. A minimum section of 3 ·inch~s asphalt on 6 inches Caltrans Class ·2 aggregate base m~y be considered for the Q!l·Site_ asphalt-paving surfaces. Actual design will also depend on the design Tl and approval·of the City of Carlsbad. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEEI{ING, INC. 24?0 Vineyard Avenue, -11102, Escoiidido, California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-12141 ~ Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRAPING SUPERVISION PERC. TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ·' l PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4S88 ADAMS STREET, CARL&Bf\D, CAL_IFORNIA PAGE 19 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Base materials should be compacted to a mrrnmum of 95% of the corresponding maximum ~!Y density (ASTM D-1-557). Subgrade soils beneath . · the asphalt paving surfaces should also be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 12 inches. ' 2. Residential PCC driveways and parking supported on non-expansive to very' . , lowexpansive .. (El less·than 21) granular. subgrade soils should be a minimum . of 5 inches in thickness, reinforc.ed with #3 reinforcing bars at 18 inches on centers e9ch Wp.y, placed rnid--height in the slab. Subgrade s·oils beneath the PCC driveway$ and parking should be compact~d to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density. Provide "soft-cut" contractioA/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 1 O feet . on center (not to exc.eed 15 feet maximum) each way. Cut as soon as the slab will support the. weight of the saw, and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish a_t each ·control jbint location or 150 psi to 800 p$i. The softcuts·should be a minimum of 1-inch in depth but ·. not.to exceed 1 ¼-inches. Anti-ravel skid· Plates should be used and replaced With· each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across ct.its for at least 24 Hours. 3. Subgrade and ba'segrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and the specified compaction levels and appro_ved · by the· project geotechriical consultant.within 72 hours prior to the plaqement of the base or asphalt/PCC finish surface. · · 4. Base section and subgrade preparations -per structural section design; will be required_ for all surfaces subject to traffiQ includ.ing.,roadways, travelways, drive lane~, driveway approaches aqd ribbon (cross) gutters; Driveway approaches within the.public right-of-Way should have 12 inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95% compaction le\(els, and provided with a 95% compacted Class "2 base s.ection per th'e structural section design. Base section· may not be required under curb and gutters, and ·sidewalks in the case of non-expansive sut;Jgrade soils,( expansion index less than 21). Appropriate recommendations should be given in the final as-g.raded compaction report. F. Gene·ral Recommendations 1. The mfnimum foundatio·n-design and steel reinforcement provided herein ar~ based on ·soil characteristics anq gre not intended to be in lieu o,f reinforcement VINJE &MIDDLETON ENGINP:ERING, INC. 2450·Vineya,dAven;e, #102, Escondido, C~lifomia92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVEST!GATIONS. • ,l ·--· ·~· PRE Lt Ml NARY GEOTE:CHNICAL INVESTIGATION , 4588 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PAGE 20 ,FEBRUARY 11, 2002 necessary for structural consideration. All recommendations should be further evaluated in the site specific study for each 'individual lot, and confirmed by the project architect/structural engineer. 2. Adequate staking and grading control is a critical factor in properly completing the recommended remedial antj site-grading operations. Grading control and staking should be provi.cled by the project grading contractor or sur:veyoi:/civil engineer and is pe'yond the geotechnicaf. engineering ser:vices. Inadequate staking and/or lack of grading control may result in unnecessary additional grading which will increase construction costs. 3.-Footings located Ofl or adjacentto the· top of slopes should be extended to a sufficiE;mt depth to provide a minimum liorizontal distance of 7 feet or one-third of the slope ·height, whichever is greater (need not exceed 40 feet maximum) between the bottom edge of the footing and face of slope. This requirement applies to all improvements and structures including fences, posts, pools, spas, · etc. Concrete and AC improvements should, be provided with a thickened edge. to satisfythis requirement. 4. Expansive· clayey soils should not be. used for backfilling of any retaining structure. All retaining walls should be provided with a 1: 1 wedge of granular, cqmpacted backfill. measure·d from the base of the wall footing to the finished surface. 5. All underground utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density of th$ soil unless ·otherwise specified. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes-during the compactioh of the soil. Non-expansive, granular backfill so'ils shou!d be used. . ~ . 6 . .Site drainage over the finished pad surfaces should flow away from structures onto the str~et in a positive manner. Care should be taken during. the .construction,, improvements, and fine grading phases not to disrupt the designed drainage patterns. Roof lines of the. buildings should be provided with roof.gutters. Roof water sho'uld be collected and directed away from the builcHngs and structures to a suitable_locatlon. Consideration should be given to adequately damp-proof/waterproof the basement walls/foundations, and provide the planter areas adjacent to the foundations with an impermeable liner and a subdr:ain·ag·e .syst~m. · · .. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGfNEE1UNG, INC. 2450 Vineyard-Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • Plione (760) 7~3-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 ' . , GEQTECHNlCAL lNVESTlGATlONS GRADING SUPERVISION PERC TEST!NG ENV!RONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ,. PR~LIMIN_ARY GEOT~CHNICAL INVESTIGATION 45.88 ADAIYIS STREET, CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA ·~· PAGE 21 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 7. Final .plans should reflect preliniinaiy recommendations given ·in this report. Finat .foundations and grading plans may also be reviewed by the project .geotechnica·I consultant -for conformance with the requirements of the geotechhical investigaHon report out)ined . herein. More specific recommendations may be necessary and shou·Id be given when final· grading and architectural/structural drawings are availab!'e. . . 8. All foundation _trenches should .be inspected to ensure adequate. footing enibedment and con.firm competent bearing soils. Fountjation and slab _re.inforcemelits should also be inspected and approved by the ·-project .. geotechnical consultant. - 9.. The amount of shrinkage. and related craqks that occurs in the concrete slab- on-gra(]es, flatworks and driveways depend -on many factors, the most important of which is the-amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpos~ of the. slab reinforcement is to keep norm'al concrete shrihkctge cracks closed tightly. The amou_nt of concrete shrinkage_ can b~ minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum, the following should be-consid~red: * Use the stiffest-mix that can be han~led and consolidated satisfador,~ly. *· Us·e the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practlcaL For example, concrete -made with %-inch maximum size ag'gregat13· usually requires about . 4.0 lbs .mo Fe (nearly ·5 gal.) water· per cubic· yard than concrete with 1-inch · aggregate. *. Cure th~ concrete as l'ong as practical. The amount of slab reinforcemen~ provided for conventional sl_ab-on-grade construction considers that· go.ad . quality concrete materials, proportioning, ·c;:raft~nianship, and control tests.wh~re appropriat~ and applicable are provided. 10. A preconstruction meeting between representativ:es of this offiC\3, the property owner or planner,· the gn~ding contractor/builder and the city inspector, is recommenqed ih order to discu·ss grading/Gonstruction details assocrated with site development. VINJE ~-MIDD~ETO~ ~NGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue; #102, Escondido, Califomi,:i 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-1214 • F~ (760) 739-0343 GEOTECHN!CAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING-SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ·;. 1 -· ,-' ·---• . . -~~-. ,) PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 4588 ADAMS STREET, CAR_LS1;3AD, CALIFORNIA VIII. LIMITATIONS .. PAGE 22 . FEBRUARY 11, 2002 The·conclusions and recommenqations provided herein have· been based on· available data obtained from pertinent reports and plans, subsurface exploratory excavations as well as 9ur experience with the soils and formational materiafs !ocated in the general area. The materials encountered on the project site .and utilized in our laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. Of necessity we must assume a certa_in degree -of continuity b.~tweeri exploratory excavations and/or natl.Ira! exposµres. It is necessary, .therefore, that all observations, . conclusfons, and recommendations be verified durfng the grading operation. In the event discrepanci~ a·re noted, we should .be contacted immediately so that an inspection can be made and additional recommendations issued if required. . . · The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the tim~ this report was prepared. It is fhe responsibility of the owner/developer to ensure that these recommendqtions are carried out in the field. · It is almost impossible to predict With certainty the· future performance of a property. The futule behavior of the site is also dependent on numerous unpredictable variables, such as earthquakes, rainfall, and on-site drainage· patt:erns. The firm ofVINJE & MIDDLETC:fN ENG/NEERING, ING., shall-not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such a·s addition of fill soils, added cut slopes, or changing drainage patterns which qccur without our inspection or control. . . . The property owner.(s) should be ;:1ware that the development of cracks in !:ill concrete .surfaces such as floor slabs· and exterior stucco are associated with normal concrete shrinkage daring the ct.iring process. These features qepend chiefly upon th~ condition of concrete and weather cor:iditions at the time .of construction and do not reflect detrimental ground movement. Hc;lirlilie stucco cracks will often-develop at window/door corners, and floor surf~ce cracks up. to 1fa,.inch wide in 20 ·teet may develop as a result or normal concrete shrinkage (aci;;ording to the American Concrete Institute). This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If signifiQant modifications are ·made to your tentative development plan, especially with respect to the height and location of cut and fill slopes, this report must be presented to us for review and ,possible revision. · '( VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, JNC. 2450 Vin~yard Avenue, #102;.Escond/do, California 92029-1229 • Phone· (760) 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEOT-ECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS . . GRAD1NG SUPERVISION. PERO TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS • ••• PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION . 4588:AbAIVIS STREl:T, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNJA -~-• PAGE 23 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Vinje & N!iddleton Engineering, Inc., warrants that this report h_as been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profes_sion. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended .. Once again, should any questions arise concerning tbis report, plea$e do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #02-108-P will help to expedite our response to it your inq·uiries.· .We appreciate. this opportunity to be of servic~ lo you . _Ralph M. Vinje GE-.#863 , Dennis Midqleton CEG #980 RMV 10,M/SMSS/jt Distribution: Add~essee (5) c:~_t\prelirns.02\02-108-P . . 1/ .v . VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • Phone (760) 743-12_14 • Fax (760) 739-0343 GEQTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS GRADING.SUPERVISION PERC TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ™t-/MN v13¼· TOPO.,prfnted_ on 01/15/02 fro~ "SanDleg,o_.tpo" and "l>·~··tpg" 117°20'00" W WGS8411'7".:!,'9'0.0" W Printedfimn TOP01 ©1999 Wil!if]ower Produotio,,.{www.ropo..com,) z b 0 b .. r< 0 (Y) (Y) z 0 0 (0 0 0 (Y) (Y) . , ' 't-1• PRIMARY ·01v1s1or-;.. GROUP se ..... DARY DIVISiONS . ., SYMBOL -1, . GRAVELS CLEAN GW Well graded gravels, grave)-sand n:ixtures, little or no fines. <( GRAVELS '-0: C MORE THAN HALF (f) (LESS THAN ..J WO GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines .. 6 !;;i: N OF COARSE 5% FINES) FRACTION IS Cf) ~ ci GRAVEL GM Silty gravels, gravel-santj-silt mixtures, non-pl_astic fines. Cl u..Zw LARGER THAN W!TH ·w Oz~ z ll.. < Cf) NO. 4 SIEV!= FINES GC ;, Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ~ ...I :r: ill CLEAN a: <( I-> SANDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. (!) :C O:·W SANDS ill z UJ ci5 . · MORE THAN -HALF (LESS THAN SP (f) <( (!J PoorlY, graded sands or gravelly sands, llttle 9r no .fines. 0:: :c a: OF CO,A,RSE 5% flNES) . . . . <( I-::5 0 LU Cf) FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty Sf:!nds, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. 0 a: -SMALLER THAN WITH 0 SC 2 NO. 4·s1EVE FINES Claye¥ sands, sand_0clay mixtures, plastic fines. .. i.u ML ·. lnorgarilc slits and very .fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine 0: N sands or clayey silts with slight· plasticity. Cf) u. ill ci5 SILTS AND CLAYS ...J· o...J . -u.-1W LIQUID LIMIT 18 CL Inorganic claY,s of low tp medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy . 0 ..J <(.> ' (/) <( 2 !:!:! LESS THAN 50% . clays, silty clays, lean clays'. 0 :C(IJ(I.) L1J 2(1.)0 . OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity . ~ <( -0 <( :C ...J N MH Inorganic silts, 'mic1;1ceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty · c:1-<C. SIL TS AND CLAYS sons, elastic slits. 0 a: 0 . w illZ UJ C: I-. LIQl)lD LIMIT I'S CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays .. z 0 .z u:: 2 <( <( -GREATER THAN 50% .2, :c I-OH· · Orga.1110 clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SQILS PT · Peat ?nd other highly organic soils. . ' . · GRAIN:SIZES U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 3" 1'2" .. ,, .. SAND GRAVEL SIL,.TS: AND CLAYS COBBLES BOULDERS FINE -1. MEDIUM I COARSE FINE ..1 COARSE . · REl.;ATIVE i;>ENSITY CONSISTENCY $ANDS; GRAVELS AND. BLOWS/FOOT CLAYS AND -'STRENGTH -BLOWS/FOOT NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS VERY SOFT 0-¼ 0 -·2 VERY LOOSE 0-4 LOOSE 4-10 SOFT ¼-½ 2-4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 FIRM ½. 1 4-8 DENSE. 30 · 50 STIFF 1 ·. 2 8 · 16 ' OVER 50 VERY STIFF ?·4 16 · 32 VERY DENSE ,. HARD OVEfl 4 OVER 32 .. 1. Blow count, 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on 2 inch ·O.D. split spoon sampler (ASTM D-1586) . 2. Unconfined -compressive·strength per·solLTEST pocket p~netrometer CL-'700 ·u = undisturbed chunk sample · I 246 = ·standarc;I Penetration Test (SPT) (ASTM D-1586) o· with blow cciuf)tS per 6 inches =· distl!rbed sa~ pie I 1· 246 0 =. Califor.nfa Bampler with blow counts per 6 inches = ·saad cone test ' . ' --.. --~, Vi_NJ,E & 't'«llfillCD'.L Et T'C}N KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS : '~.~~-_,;1,=-'·,·· t,·~ .-...·~\ Unified,Soil Classification System {ASTM b-·2487) ····./'"·'· ., ffi:NGINEIEP.HNG .INC. • "< II -I~ ; • ' • ,., I, ~ -; I "•• '••' • t_ ! t • : ' ' , ' . 2456 .Vineyar# Ave_., #102. ·.E;s.;c:Q'n~t~ti::i,' ®,A· 9:~Th2:9~-1'2~9 " ~.. . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . .. .. . .. PROJECT NO . ... KEY -. :,. lie~ . ·r-~-02 .. --L9gged by: SJl\il 'l T-1 DRY RELATIVE PTH SAMPLE usc.s MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION ft) SYMBOL (%) (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION J -FILL: -Silty to clayey sand. Brown color. Moist. Loose. Asphalt SM/SC -debris. Lower contact dips approxlmc:1tely 45 degrees suthward. · . · · ·. ST-1 -TERRACE DEPOSIT: . · 5 Sandstone. ~irie to medium grained.-R!;!d browri. color. Locally -clayey. Cemented. Locally loose. Friable.· Dark· colored seams near surface. Dips 7 degree$ southward. 1-ikely cross-SP/SC -.d . bedding-. 5.4 123.2. -.- ,. ST-3 0-BEDRO.CK: -Sandstone. Fine to coarse grained. Brown to, tan color. -Weathered. F.riable. Cemented. Massive. No apparent structure. Indistinct _upper contaQt. ST-2 SW - -j 5 -· -End Test Trench at 9'. (No Caving. No Groundwater.) -.. 1te: 1-25-02 , Logged by: SJM T-2 uses DRY RELATIVE PTH SAMPLE SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY COMPAptlON ft) DESCRIPTION (%) (pcf.) (%) ) -FILL:. S1lty.sar,id. Fine to coarse grained .. Brown color. Trace of clay. :.. Moderately dense. 0 SM 6.5 104.7 79.1 5 ._ ST-1 0 .BEDROCK: _,.....,_ ____ ....,· . Sandstone. Fine· to c0ar-se grained. · Tan color. Moist. · Weathered. Friable. Cemented. Massive. 0 -' SW 7.0 109.13 !=hd Test Trench at 9·.' ·(No Caving. No (3mundwciter.) 5- · 1/INJE & .MIDDLETON ENGINEERiNG, IN'C 2450 Viney~rd Avenue, S~ite 102 · Escondido, California 92029-1229 Office 760,.743-1214 Fax 750-739-0343 ADAMS. STREET, .CARLSBAD PROJECT Np. 02-108-P PLATE· 3 T:Sancl Cone Test II Bulk Sar,n le o · chunk Sample 0 Driven Rin s I. I I t ~~~l i : '•!,. ~ 'lfo~tf}: 1-25-02 LomJed by: SJM . ' .. -., "' T-3 DRY RELATIVE II. DE:PTH SAMPLE USC~ MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (ft) SYMBOL (%) (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION I '-0 -· FILL: --Silty sand. Fine to coarse grained. Brown color, Same gravel. SM Asphalt de~ris. Or~anic Material. Loose. Lower contact dips \ . " 19 degrees southward. ST-1. --I I -- 5 o• 2.1 . 117.7 89.6 --; TERRACE DEPOSIT: l-I Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Red brown. Locally trace SP -of Clay. Porous near upper contact. Several GPbbles and --· pebbles. Weathered. Friable. Cemer-tte(J -locally_ w~akly t• . .cemented. Massive. ST-3 I I= 10 = ' -"' End Test Tr~nch at 6'. (No Caving. No Groundwater.) I =· - ·- -- i-15- I Dclt~: 1-25.-02 Logged by: SJM DEPTH SAMPLE (ft) 0 - .o -0 5 .. 1· = · ' -· ' ~ ::1 - .. -10 -· .- -15 - T-4 ~scs DRY 1--------------,.--~------------t SYMBOL MOISTURE DENSITY (%) (pcf) DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty sand. Fine to. coarse grained. Brown color. Dr:y. 'L0ose: ST-1 SM I TERRACE DEPOSIT: 4.7 116.4 Sandstone: Fine to· medium grained. Red-brown color. Porous SP near upper con~act. Cemented -locally weakly cemented. 3.8 121.8 Massive. Several cobbles at 3'. · ST-3 · . 'End Test Trench at 6'. (No ~aving. No Groun_dwater:) V,IN.JE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 · Es~ondjdo·, C~lifornia 92()29-1229 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD RELATIVE COMPACTION . (%) 88.6 92.7 Office 760-743-12·14 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 02-108-P PLATE .4 T Sand Cone Te$t • Bulk Sam. le 0 -Chunk Sam le O Driven Rin s- ! ': J l " .. ' ·-·. l' ·~• ,, \ j Date: 02-11-02 T-5A (Slope Side) uses DEPTH SAMPLE SYMBOL MOISTf.!RE I (ft) DESCRIPTION (%) ... -0 -· BEDROCK: . I -. -Sandstone; Fine to coarse grained. Tan color. Weathered -SW highlyweathered near surface: Friable. Cemented .. ST-2 -' .. " ' -..; Claysfone. Gray. Blocky. Well: cemented. Some carbonate .I : .. -staining, Locally· coarse sand intermixed, Upper and lower CL 5 -·o contacts horizontal and marked by gray stained sandstone .. 10.5 J :~ .1=:T-<i ~~ 0 ·1--11.5 Sand~tone. Fine to coqrse grained. Tan cofor. Weathered: SW I --\ Fri~ble. 'Cemented. Massive. ST-2 1-10 -I --End Test Trench at 8', (No Caving. No Grounqwater . .) -- -- -- -15 -. Date: 1--25~02 DEPTH . (ft) SAMPLE i------'-______ T_-_5_B_(_P_a_d_S_i_d..,...e~) __,. _____ ___, s~~~~L · MOISTURE -6 ,. -, 5 . ..: DESCRIPTION FILL: .. Silty sand. Fine tci coarse gr.ained. Brown color. Moist. Loose. Lower contact dips 25 degrees southward. BEDROCK: · S.andstone. Fine to coarse grained·. Tan-color. Weathered .. (%) SM SW Logged by: SJM DRY RELATIVE DENSITY COMPACTION (pcf} (%} 122.4 - 120.7 - Logged by: SJM DRY DENSITY {pcf) RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) 11---1----------. Friable. Cemented. Massiv~, ST:-2 . t~ - !;rid Test rrench at 6'. (No Caving. No Groundwater.) -10 - -..15- VINJE-& MIDDl..ETON ENGINEERING, .INC 2450 Vi.n~yard Avenue_, Suite 102 . Escondido; California 92029-1.229 Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760;.739-0343 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD PROJECT NO. 02;.108-P PLATE 5 T Sand Cone Test • Bulk Sample O Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rin s ! ! \ J Date:_ DEPTI-I I (ft} -0 - I --- ' -·- I : - 5 -i~ ' -::? - -- ·-- -- -10 - -- -- -- -- -1'.5..:' Date: DEPTH .. (ft) ·-0 ..: 5 •• •• 1-25-02 SAMPLE ~7 SAMPLE T-6 uses SYMBOL DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty sand. Fine to coar~e grained. Brown in color. Moist. SM Loose. Attitude of lower contact: N25°, 10°SE ST-1 TERRACE DEPOSIT: Sandstone. Fine to· medium grained. Red-brown color.· SP · Wt;iatherec;i. Friable .. W~?kly cemented. Locally loose. Moist. Massive. Becomes. cemented at 5'. ST-3 End Te.st ·trench at 5½'. (No Caving. No $roundwater.) ' ust:s 1---~------------..a.------~ SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ! l'.JIOISTURE (%) 4.6 I . MOISTURE (%.) Logged by: SJM DRY RELATIVE DENSITY COMPACTION {pcf) {%) 106.6 81.1 LoQged by: SJI\II DRY DENSITY (pcf) RELATIVE COMPACTION (¾) ' - -1-0 - ·;.. 15 -· VINJE· & _MIDDLETON ENGIJ':i EERING, INC 2450 Vln~yard Avenue, Suite 102 Escondido; Caiiforn_ia 92029-1229 Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-03.43 "f' Sand Cone Test • Bulk $~mple ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD . . . . PROJECT NO. 02-10.8-P PLATE 6 0 Chunk Sam le 0 Driven Rin s ' .-i . •) ., DEPTH SAMPLE FT· -0 -, -5 -• -10- -15-0 3,4 • -20-. Description FILL: Silty sc:1nd. Brown color. Trace of clay. Moist. ST-1 · BEDROCK: Sandstbn~. Tan color. Medium grained. Trace · of clay. Some pebbles. Massiy,e. Lo~·a11y well- cemented . Upper contact marked by 6" thick zc:,ne of dark brown sandy soil. Oriented N75E/16SE. · Upper contact marked by. 611 thick zone of dark brown. sandy soil. Oriented N75E/16SE. At 20', sandstone is coarse grained. Remains massive. No apparent structure. ST-3 • USGS SYMBOL SM $P MOISTURE (%) 9.9 . DRY , DENSITY (PCF) 120.0 RELATIVE COMPACTION (%) 91,3 ·c-25--lf---'--,---l-------~--,-----"-------1----+----+-----t~----tl ,- ·End B_oring at 25'. -30:. (No caving. No groundwc1ter.) -35 - Project:· KELLY:. ADAMS STRE~T. CARLSBAD Project No: 02-108-P ... Date Drilled._...,..-.a.1='."2~4~-0=2--..,..·. Logged By:. . . SJM Drill, Sample Method: Truck Mounted 24" Diameter Bucket Rig -24 lb Drive :ifit,t~;' r' . . -. ;.--, ,., ---, ' --~. ,;-, ... --1;, · · Vinje· & Middleton En·gineering, Inc. DEPTH SAMPLE . FT -0 - ·- 02,4 -5 -• -10 - --15 ~ ,0:5,6. -20 - -25 - -30 - ,-~5- ••• Description . FILL: Silty sand. Brown color. Trace of clay. Mofst · to dry. Lower contact'dips 16° to southeast. ST-1 TERRACE DEPOSIT:' Sandstone. Fine to medium grc1ined. Red- brown color. Cemented. Moist. Friable. Massive. No apparent structure. Weekly cemented between 16' to 20'. Below 20', locc1lly clayey. ST-3 l;:nd Boring at 26'. (No caving. No gr!)undwater.) Project: KELLY -.ADAMS STREET •. CARLSBAD. •• USGS MOISTURE SYMBOL-{%) SM 4.5 2.6 SP Project No: 02-1'08-.P ' . Date Drilled._---,-_1~---;2~4-~0-=2'---'---,----''Logged By: __ S~J-M __ Drill, Sample Method: Truck Mounted· 24" Diameter Bucket Rig -24 lb Drive Vinje & Midqleton Engineering, Inc. DRY DENSITY (PCF) 107.9 115.1 RELATIVE COMPACTIQN (%) 81.6 87.6 :isrnrs~M·; 1~ .. "'.,., ··-..-.: • .. \ • ~ ,,. • .••r~ p,: 'I '?'"'=I < -,JRi'rig·:sarnp1e· ~! \$F?/($?Jr11pJe .... · .. Ji·-'· . :'Sancf::Gone-Tesf. · .•.. :: ;, _: • "'-"' .~· -~-:·. , .y •• ¥. ~ l _.\ ... ,-:~ /~1-~A:tt:/·.~ .. ?: :i: :"_;· . -~ ·.,,..-~~ ... ·~~-·· ',.,,.,:,. -·~---· .. ;·~·:';. • -- ,., ... _ ....... ___ _ ,_ .... --#'' ..... 7i9, ---:---. -:---. -- --· --f!# Q ... -,. • •• -• - • --+ ---:-....... .-........... ---,--- '• ' ····-------- ·-- "" . ... -..... -- .. :H~B 1,fr:"il i.9,W. I ' l i . . i I I I I 1-- ! I I ~ ·, '\, \, \" ......... ............. ... ·, .. '· ··t·· ... I \ . i ................. .: ...... _ ---....... C) ..... _-..... · .... ... ',. '•. 30 I 20 FAULT· -EPICENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY-' REGION :, . 10 f 0 ' 30 MILES .;;;;J :):NDICATEb .EARTHQUlU(E ~VENTS' THROU.GH 75 YEAR PERIOD (1900-1974) Map data il:i compiled from various s_ources including California Division of Mines. and Geology, Galifornia Institude of.technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric· :l\:dministration. Map is reproduced from. California Div;i.s;i.ori of Mines and Geology, '",Earthquake Ep_i.center Map of California; Map Sheet 3~. 11 · Earthquake_ ·Magnltuqe m •• ; •••••••••• _4.0 TD 4,9 (!) ............ 5.0 TO 5.9 PROJECT: _....;J=o=be........,.:...#0=·2=--_,,__,10"'""8'-'·P __ ___; ____ _ C) ............ 6.6 TO 6.9 ~ .......... 1.0 ·ro 7.9 -------Fault. 4588 ADAMS STREET. CARLSBAD PLATE NO: ------'---,,---'-.1__,_,0,,_· _____ --'-_ 0 · ..• R:ETAINING WALL DRAIN.DETAIL Typical -no scale draina ,,._.._ .. ., .. ,r; \"\.~·,., l\ ,,..,,.,,,, ' .,, Perforoted drain Filter Material. Crushed ro~k {wrapped in filte~ fa.bric) br Closs 2 P·ermeable Material (see specifications below) \ Competent, 0pproved soils or bedrock CONSTRUCTION SPECIF:ICATIONS: \ · 1. Provide gran·u1i,ir, non-expansive backfill soil in 1 :1 gradient wedge pehind wall . .C~mpact backfill to minimum 90% of laboratory stan,dard. . . -. 2. Provide back drainage for wall to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressures. Use drainage openings along base of wall or back . drain system as·outlined below. · - 3, Backdrain should consist of 4" diameter PVC pipe (Schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforaijons down. Drain to suitc)ble outlet at mili'imum 1 %. -Provide¾" -1 W crushed gravel filter wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Delete filter fabric wrapif Caltrans Class 7 permeable material is us·ed. C0mp$ct'Clasi,:; 2.'material to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. ' . . . ' . 4. ·seal bacl< of wall with waterproofing in accordat)ce with architect's specifications. . . 5. . Provide positive drainage to disallow ponding of w$ter above wall. Lined drainage ditch to min"imum 2% flow away from wajl is recommend.ed. . . - ~ Use 1 ½ cubic foot per fC?,ot with granular ba~kfill.soil and 4 ·cubic foot per foot if expansive backfill soil is used. VINJE & MIDDLETON. ENGINEE-RING, INC. PLATE 11 '"' l , ;..._, • I (, I ") tf ~ . ISOLATIO .• INTS AND RE-ENTRANT co~· . R REINFORCEMENT Typical -no scale (a) (b) l.SOLATION JOINTS . CONTRACTION JOINT$ RE-ENTRANT CORNER----., REINFORCEMENT NO. 4 BARS PLACED 1,5" BELOW TOP OF SLAB (cf ----RE-ENTRANT CORNER CRACK NOTES: 1. 2. 3. Isolation joints-around the columns shou)d be either circular as shown in Ca) or diamond shaped as shown in (b). If no isolation joints are used around polumns, or if the corners of the isolation joint$ do not meet the contraction joint~. radial cracking as shown in (c)may oc;cur (reference ACI). In a·rder to control cracking at the re-ent~a,:it corners (±270 ° corners), provicile· reinforcement as· shown in ( c). ·, . . . . . . Re-entrant corner reinforcement shown herein is provided as a gerir;:ral guideline only and is subject to verification and changes by the project architect and/or structural engineer based upon 'slab geometry, location, and other engineerir:fg and constructiori factors. · VINJE .& MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. PLATE 12 ',•: '' ' . ,h-r' " ;i, ·; ·.'. ·,· '• •' . -.. -.... -.--,. ' - . .·-,. ' ' /:' _· :'/ ···-_::/ .:'; .· ·:,:: ·.~:._--~~: >· •·'· ":-·', • } -j ' • ' • ' ' -'. ' ~ , • ' -~ :.. '. • ' ' -) l ' ·-····,. -'. ( . ' ' a.1Jr 00-.11----. , .. -. . ·, ~ :_-' :; ' · '-·_·. · ·•· . -._ -' :· VrN E &'MtnbL-EfoN:ENCirNEJ:oRING, INc. ' •~ '• ~ ' '' I • • ~ ' • I•·, • t • • '_,.. -. ' ' • • ~ • -• ' ·;, • ' •, '__._: '. \ • ' • ) ; • ,' ' < : • ' • : : , '· . ': :.. .,~-,,,_ ··· · ·' ,-: · ·· · '. ': , . . 2450VineyardAvenue .... ;'-· · . . . ·,· ,_::._,. :_. -,;., .·' : .. , , ·: ·•. . : Esc~ndido, California nD29-I229. ' >··.: ··: ·'_ ·, -_.; :~ ;~.~;#Os-1'.37.p" .. --. )·' -·. 'c.} ' . ~ './ :,:. ';: . > ". :-, . <, . Phone (760) 743-1214 ,. :,· : .. , .. , '.· ,·,·,.: ,::_-,· :.-, :: .. ,.·.: .. , _·~ ::· · .,,. Fax(760)739~034:3. \, t \ • ' • • \ • ~ ' ' ' ': • ' _. ' ~ , , , I" • .' • • < t w "L ~ • , :.·_ .. :(·.:'_ :J~nuaryi1_;-:·29cy5--·. .. .. ,_ '.:, .·-·, . :·,., . . -~), • •, ', '' \ ' ! > • ,• ' l • I , f \ • I C. -~: ~ ) ·~·., •' 1: : --_ -~>-.. ,',_ ·· .. _,,_,.,::.-' \,;-._:_:,, .. ,.. . ' ,. ,,: ·-•,,~ ,. '!. • ' • • • --: '_· ,, •• -• ( • • -' '., •. -·-' ; • ' • . . · _, . .. _;_ :··:Kirk.:r,;·at[;ip1(·0.ev~iopm~nt :_-; __ ,·" · .. /. ,< ,-:·(::~~ .. ·::· . ·: · :<:: : , ... : - :.,-. ··: ~ .. '._:-.,,-,~·cto·r,rr,~·:M.~p--~r'rJi~~_. :, : . _·· _; : _,. ··.:·:.-_\~,'.: ,.:.:· ,.,:_,:,.· .-.. ·· :: · , : . .-, ·_.·_. ·Atten.tIor:1; Mr. ·MIGha;e.! SmIt,h .. : : . . ·,: · : . :: :·.-· \., .. · . -· -. · · _.: '·.-•• ·---·7.535North'Highway,101,·S.uiteG. ~ · -: _. · ., . · -.. ·.-·. ,., : : . : -. '· .:·.· Sol~na-Beach, .California. 92075 ,. : .. _,:··. -: · .. ·· ·. ·-·' ~ .' .'_.:· ', ,,:=_·.·:._ :~ :"<' .;,,' ·. . . . '.. . . ·.: ~·:,.···.:,' ', ·_ :.-... ' : ·. ' . -.; .. · '., ·. '· ' ' ' .'-: ' ' . , - ' -f , L ,, ' -..' • ~ • • • • '' • • 1 : • ' • • : •• ' :, ' '1·' . ' ... • . -,.-. ' . ' : / . -~ •. ' '. r,,',"1 ,,\. ·/·,.,:•",) ,,· '•, .:_~· •• -.' • · ·. ~: · .... ·::_:.· .. Q~1:6::i-~.C1-1N1:c~L u·~;0A1e ,LETTER. AND ,:eR.AoJNe-:PLAN. -R1:v11:W, ·.-PRoposeo· ·. .... .. . < .. · . :.R·1:'$iPEN!IAL .Oi:Vf:LQPMENT, ~4!~~-PAR.)<JlRlV~; cARL.s·aAo, CA~IFORNIA fAPN !' _; ·.· · 20$~1:92'~34)' · ... · ·_ ,, -·. -:· ', · .:. ," ·. ,_ .. · ,, : ,. .··. ·. ~ - ·: < :~· :~ '::,-:"; tA·i~\~tt~r. i~: to,:-ccinf;rm .th~t t~~ J~f?o~~ ·.~a~e~ }~b~u:~~~~:-r(,20.oi. en_titl~d f'Preli,rriinary . ,· '.'_ :-: .-~-·: · > : G.~ot~onn_icct'l' lnv~.$tlg~tioh;. :u.nd~Velo'p~d Hills id~ .Lot$; :-4588. Ad,c;iri'l'S. Street, Carlsbad, : : ·. . . : ·:· i ... ·.c;-~liforni_a," ~ob,_#02_,,-·1.0$:..P, prepared by·thi.s ·office for the:prbject property, is ,still valid. All : ... · ... · _ _.; ·. ".' .· ,, \:c·onblu§iOri~-af'l(trl3COnJp;Je11datl'or.1s g,iven/@-thet~fer.tfr19e.d,r$port remain '(alid ~nd should ::, ,; ' ' .. ,, '.'.' .. b.~. c61:i'siqer~d fo~ project.de,velopm.enf~nd c{~sigtf PWPOSe'S. ' ' ', ·_ ' .. ··. . . . . . '•. • 1_ • •' • ; '• '_.,•,':· •• ' :,..~ ' , ', •' ' .... ,, l ~ I <' -• l ·.' _.,, .: ' . ,', • ' ~ ' ~ '. ·,' • • .. .': , :.:_-· ~ .. Th'e -~rojett gtadir:19 pl.ari. was. ·also pr0vid~cLto'. ~s-foi--review. and· is r~·produced ·herein as . '. ~-·. · . , · : , _ Pi,a~e 1. The.:pl~I'.! _pres·~nts .a feasibJ~ d.esig~-froi;n -~f g~qtecbqipql engineering:po,int of .view . · -'; , :. ·ahd' W8$ fdulid ,to· be in substantial ·comp·liance \.vith'.ol!r teporf The following amended : ' "'.-: >·. ,c: .iec(!!tnr:nehdatio'ns afld c6rrunents ate,al~6''appropriat~: ·::: ." :. · .. ~ ,::.-·· ... :'::.(, :<:~--";"-•} ~·,·.· :·'!',_, _,·,~,, .... ,·,.·, .... -:.-~ , .. '· t:. , .. ·". •T•,• ,_,··, .. ~,·.::··~: :· .;·:_;~·,_ ~ ,, ~ • '• ' ·: ·: . ,·_ '. '·. * :/r~·e ·,ibov~ r~ferenced-Prelitnlriary 'C~eptecfrnical:lnVe$tiga,tion report should be ' '.· :-~ > . ~-: ··_ \co~s-id'ere.dia part o'fthe .pioleot~gradirtgJ>.f$n, ',.: .. -... ' ' · : -', ;. ~-:·.:' :: ~·: . .: \< ~i···:S,ite d~~el~p~e~t,is an.'exp6_rt ~~~.df n:~, ~p~~~tibn~'·,. H6~:~~~; --~~maioi~-g site existing , ; ?'·: ·.:. ':·_ ~:--·--/~' .. fills wifhfh th~· are~s· bf the:pl~~ned.'~tr~cito(es ancfirhprovemenJs, if any, should be · ·_,' . ·' ·: ·_ ... ·.,. · -· ._;~·removecf,,:fnd .recoinpa.c.fed ias .a·_ ·part,· of the. sJte' rn:c:TsS ·grading .()perations as , , ., ~-~ : -, ,-.. { , ,; . :.-:s,·p~c'ifi.e~:niJthe refer,enqed :r~p9rfa8d dir~dep. 'ir(the' fiefot , . ·_. .. \ ,·>·.· ... :_'· :_:~. ·.: . :.~-'-.''_'·,: .'_/ '._ .. _":-.·:_-.. /':,_.: :·-: \·' '. . ' · :'_-·:,-: ·· _,·,:.-* ~--,E~istintf site.fills, 'if expos.ed··h\tnet~e.vv:gra'ded cutslop~s or,portibns thereof,.may , ·, ·: . ~:-, :: ,: ~ : •. s,: . .--· ~e:qU.ir~ staQ.iliz~~ior,_meas(JJe.~ as:c;li'tefptEld .i,i:-t,l:le field, Typical stabiliz_a~i9n measures 1 ·, i_:, :. :, ' ' ,:,. ', Jnch.ld~ ie_eqhstr:~etion' of the imp~cteo :$lopes :a$::~ .. stability fill slope or in-place : :: :·:-.,<, .·._ •'·.: -'. :,Jl1disti:Jr~{:coqditibning ancl frack:,·waJkimit'the sfop~ fac~ with heavy corrstruction .· -.:·; > / _.:·:·~~~ipme~!s_.,·-:. ~>. _,, ··. :-,:.,-: _ .. >_:·-::_. ::·\.·\·: .· -. ~ •' • •' • I ' '\ ' _·,,. , • ..: ~ -.· .. ,·,_:~-,-·!:·:,.,,', ,·-·-,,. '.',~,-: ,·~· . .,·· ' • ', , .... ,· -'J ._-•• ', \ '•' ,• ,·".·' • ;_:, .:-· :1..· ,.· ,,·,, .. ··: , •• • ,, ' • ~-... ~ ~' \ ., • ' ! . " . ' _;1 '. ·, .; ~ -~ '.:· -.. .--,. '~ . -. ' ~ ' ,,.. ·,, :-·-_ 1-< __ , . ,··-•., · ... -· . ',. '• ' ' ·, I • •, • ~ , •• -~, •••• .,c, I\" ·, ---· ' _ ..... ·:-:-· .· . '·-' ·' .,~ '_'., I •I J; j I: ·.r -1 ii II " !1 :: I I ·" I~ I I I I I I ~ =-,.. f----~--. I • I ....._ __ _ -s -'---s s-- -