HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 03-34; LA CASA DE CORAZON; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2003-08-06• •,1' ::::t;·,,' ~:..;; •">
•• !""! ~-: • ••
~ :-.
) . ,-~
' . . •' ,•
-1-
.,., .··. ~ .
I ,· ,•,
.,,.j.,.
I i, ...
. . . ·-.• ·.
: ...
I._-
I_.-__ ,.·-.-
I
·. _:,
I ·' ·'
.,
· .. ·,
.. . ,
I ·-:-•, ( ....... '._· .. .._ ..
. ,:,-
1: .::··
:~:..,.. -. . i-·:.:.:
; ... _ -., •,•.".
.. ,.-_•
I:.-··-
.... -.-
I~--->·, . : -.
' . .
.. .,. -~ .. -.. ' ._ ., . . •.. . '•.",
.: \
•
.. ' o· z
,_ ~-
",•:,
.-_.,
.. · -...
0
• -w --·::c
-:.~\-J·:~ .:i :: ;: • -~ -~: • ... ' : ·~. . .,_ _. .. '\ ..
· Geotechnica·I • Geologic • Environmental
. .. . . . . .. ; ' -~. : · .. -. . . ,. . . ' ' . .
. '· > .:·-~-=· '.'~-.
I· ' -
:. ... · ~ .. ; ·: :
•• • i ·_.:: .... -:: ....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
Karnak Architecture and Planning
2802 State Street, Suite C
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Robert Richardson
August6,2003
W.0. 4001-A-SC
Subject: Preliminary Geotechrtical Evaluation, 4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, San
Diego County California.
Dear Mr. Richardson:
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), has performed a preliminary
geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the
onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development
from a geotechnical viewpoint. ·
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our review of the available data (see Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory
testing, geologic and engineering analysis, development of the property appears to be
feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the
text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
The most significant elements of this study are summarized below:
• Based on the site plan provided by yourself, it .appears that the proposed
development consists of the demolition of the existing residential structure, and the
construction of a new two-story, two-unit apartment building with underground
parking and associated improvements.
• All existing concrete slab/foundation, asphaltic concrete driveway, and vegetation
debris should be removed from the site and properly disposed of, should settlement
sensitive improvements be proposed within their influence. Removals of
compressible topsoil/colluvial soils, and weathered surficial Quaternary-age terrace
deposits will be necessary prior to fill placement. Depths of removals are outlined
in the Conclusion$ and Recommendations section of this. report. In general,
removals will be on the order of ±4 feet across a majority of the site. However,
localized deeper removals cannot be precluded.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
To provide for a minimum 4-foot compacted fill blanket, overexcavation of the
topsoil/colluvium and terrace deposits to a depth of 4 feet below finish pad grade
elevation is recommended. If proposed footings or isolated pad footings are deeper
than 24 inches below finish pad grade elevation, additional overexcavation will be
necessary to provide a minimum 24 inches of compacted fill beneath the footing.
Th~ recommended overexcavation should be accomplished during removals.
However, if removal depths are shallower than 4 feet below finish pad grade,
overexcavation will be necessary.
Based on site conditions and planned improvements, significant cut and/or fill
slopes are not anticipated.
The expansion potential ofte$ted onsite soils is very low {expansion index [E.1.] less
than 20). Conventional foundations may be utiliz~d for these soil conditions.
At the time of the publication of this report, the corrosion/sulfate testing data was of
yet unavailable. An addendum report, indicating the corrosion/sulfate test results,
will be issued when the data become availabl.e.
Groundwater was not observed du ting the field investigation and is not expected to
be a major factor in development of the site. However, due to the nature of the site
materials, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout
the site along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i.e., fill/terrace deposit
contacts), and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions
develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate
recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions.
Owing to the relatively dense nature of the site sediments, our evaluation indicates
that the site has a low potential for liquefaction .under current hydro logic conditions.
Therefore, provided our recommendations are implemented, no other measures for
mitigation are deemed necessary.
The seismic acceleration values and design parameters provided herein should be
considered during the design of the proposed development.
Our evaluation indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site .
Adverse geologic .features that would preclude project feasibility were not
encountered.
• The recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the
design and construction considerations of the project.
Karnak Arphitecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
Page Three
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
concerning this report, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
RB/RGC/JPF /DWS/jk
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, Jne.
Reviewed by:
David W. Skelly
Civil Engineer, RCE 47857
W.O. 4001-A-SC
Page Three
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE: OF SERVICES .................................................... 1
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................. 1
SITE EXPLORATION ..................................................... 1
REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................................... 3
SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS ............................ , ..................... 3
Topsoil/Colluvium (Not Mapped) ...................................... 3
Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Qt) ..................... 3
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ..................................... 4
.Regional Faults ........................... ; ........................ 4
Seismicity ..................... -................................... 6
Seismic Shaking Parameters ......................................... 6
Seismic Hazards ................................................... 7
LIQUEFACTION ......................................................... 7
GROUNDWATER ........................................................... 8
SLOPE STABILITY ....................... _ ................................. 8
LABORATORY TESTING .................................................. 8
General .....•.................................................... 8
Classification .......................... ; ............................ 9
Moisture-Density Relations .......................................... 9
Laboratory Standard ..................................... .-.......... 9
Expansion Potential ..................... _ ........................... 9
Direct Shear Test .................................................. 9
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O
CONCLUSIONS .................•...................................... 10
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 10
General .............................. · ........................... 10
Site Preparation . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) .............................. 11
Fill Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Overexcavation . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
RECOMMENDATIONS -FOUNDATIONS .................................... 12
Preliminary Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bearing Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Lateral Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
GeoSoils, lne.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
Foundation Settlement ........ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Footing Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Very Low to Low Expansion Potential (E.I. o to 50) ................. 13
CORROSION .. , ........................................................ 14
UTILITIES ............................................................. 14
WALLS/RETAINING WAL,LS .............................................. 15
General ................. .' ..........•............................. 15
Restrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Cantilevered Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Wall Backfill and Drainage .......................................... 16
Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Top of Slope/Perimeter Walls ....................................... 17
Footing Excavation Observation ..................................... 17
Structural Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
EXTERIOR·FLATWORK ........................... , ........................ 18
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ............................................... 19
Slope Maintenance and Planting . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Erosion Control ................................................... 20
Landscape Maintenance ........................................... 20
Gutters and Downspouts ........................................... 20
Subsurface and Surface Water ...................................... 20
Site Improvements ....•........................................... 21
Tile Flooring ...................................................... 21
Additional Grading .......... , .........•........................... 21
Footing Trench Excavation ......................................... 21
Trenching .......................•............................... 21
Utility Trench Backfill .............................................. 22
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND
TESTING .......................................................... 22
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS .......................... 23
PLAN REVIEW ......................................................... 23
'LIMITAllONS ........................................................... 24
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
Table of Contents
Page ii
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURES:
Figure 1 -Site Location Map ......................................... 2
Figure 2 -California Fault Map ........................................ 5
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A-References ................................... Rear of Text
Appendix B -Boring Logs .................................. Rear of Text
Appendix C -EQFAULT .................................... Rear of Text
Appendix D -Laboratory Data ............................... Rear of Text
Appe11dix E -General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ......... Rear of Text
. Piate 1 -Boring Location Map .•......... : ................... Rear of Text
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\Wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
Ge!oSoils, lne.
Table of Contents
Page iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
4016 GARFIELD STREET
CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Review of the available geologic literature for the site (see Appendix A).
Geologic site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration (see Appendix 8), sampling,
and mapping .
. General areal seismicity evaluation (see Appendix C).
Appropriate laboratory testing of representative soil samples (see Appendix D).
Engineering and geologic analysis of data collected.
Preparation of this report.
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED-DEVELOPMENT
The subject site consists of a gently (9: 1 [horizontal:vertica:I] or flatter) eastward-sloping lot,
located on the east side of Garfield Streetinthe City of Carlsbad, California. Site elevation
is about ±56 to ±66 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). Overall runoff across the site is
approximately 10 feet. An existing residential structure is currently located on the eastern
portion of the property. Drainage onsite appears to be by sheet flow runoff directed toward
the east. Vegetation consists of typical residential landscaping.
Based on a site plan provided by yourself, it appears. that the proposed development
consists of the construction of a two-story, two-unit apartment building with underground
parking. Building loads are assumed to be typical .for this type of relatively light
construction. It is anticipated that sewage disposal will be tied into the municipal system.
The need for import soils is unknown at this time.
SITE EXPLORATION
Surface observations and subsurface explorations were performed on July 21, 2003, by a
representative of this offic~. A survey of line and grade for the subject lot was not conducted
by this firm at the time of our site reconnaissance. Near surface soil conditions were
explored with three hand auger borings within the site to evaluate surficial soil and geologic
conditions. The approximate location of each boring are shown on the attached Boring
Location Map (see Plate 1). Boring logs are presented in Appendix 8.
GeoSoils, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,...... _·
,,,
0
N33L6: --·:·• ... :.-.-·· .·• -· -·:-.• ,":-:: -· :
' \ \.
Base Map: San Luis ·R.ey Quadrangle\ California--San Die~o Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photorevised 19751, by USG$, 1":2000
0 2000 4000 w.o.
4001-A-SC
Scale Feet N
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject property is located Within a prominent natural geomorphic province in
southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It is characterized by steep,
elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are
underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks,
Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California
batholith.
In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and
Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from
Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the
narrow, steep, coastal plain and continental margin of the basin. These rocks have been
uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain
was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late
Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised. Alluvial deposits have since
filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded
within coastal and beach areas.
SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS
The site geologic units encountered during ol;Jr .subsurface investigation and site
reconnaissance-included colluvium/topsoil and Quaternary-age terrace deposits. The earth
materials are generally described below from the youngest to the oldest. The distribution
of these materials is shown on Plate 1.
Topsoil/Colluvium (Not Mapped)
Topsoil/colluvium mantles the entire site at the surface and consists of gray brown, dry,
loo$e/porous silty sands and sands with silt that are approximately ± 1 ½ to 2 feet thick.
These materials are considered potentially compressible in their existing state and will
require removal and recompaction if settlement sensitive structures are proposed within
their influence.
Quaternary-age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Qt)
Quaternary-age terrace deposits were observed to underlie the site and consist of loose
becoming dense with depth, poorly graded sands with silt to silty sands. These deposits
are generally.yellow brown to red brown to light red brown and.dry to moist. The upper
±2 to· ±2½ feet of these sediments are generally weathered and considered unsuitable for
structural support in their present condition, and should be removed and recompacted.
Bedding structure was not readily observed, but regionally is typically flat lying to
sub-horizontal. These sediments are typically massive to weakly bedded.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
OeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
Regional Faults
Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing this site within the area
proposed for development, and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and
Bryant, 1997). However.the site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially active
faulting. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault; the San Jacinto fault;
the Elsinore fault; the Coronado Bank fault zone; ·and the Newport-Inglewood -Rose
Canyon fault zone. The location of these, and other major faults relative to the site, are
indicated oh Figure 2 (California Fault Map). The possibility of ground acceleration, or
shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California
region as a whole. Major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site,
should they experience activity, are listed in the following table (modified from Blake,
2000):
ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME
Rose Canyon
Newport -Inglewood (Offshore)
Coronado 1;3ank
Elsinore-Temecula
Elsinore-Julian
Elsinore-Glen Ivy
Palos Verdes
Earthquake Valley
Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin)
San Jacinto-Anza
San Jacinto-San ,Jacinto Valley
Chino-Central Ave. (Elsinore)
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
MILES (KM)
4.7 (7.6)
5.4 {8.7)
20.6 (33.1)
24.7 (39.8)
24.9 {40.1)
34.4 (55.3)
35.8 (57.6)
44.1 (71.0)
46.3 (74.5)
47.3 (76.1)
47.8 (77.0)
48.3 (77.7)
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
KARNAK
1-100 -.--------------------'--~------------------,
1000
900 .
800
700
600
500
400
300
200 ·
100
0
-100 -f-1---'-'--'-+--'-'--'--'---l-'---'--'--'--+...L.-L....L.-L.-l--1-...L.-L.-'--.+......,._...L.-L.-l--1-...L.-L....a..+...L.-L. .......... --1-'---'--'--'-+-'--'-~
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
W .0. 4001.-A-SC Figure 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Seismic_ity
The acceleration-attenuation relationsofBozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) Horizontal
Soft Rock Uncorrected PGA, Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997 Revised) Soft Rock, and
Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) Horizontal Soft Rock Corrected PGA
Horizontal:.Random have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000). For this study,
peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the
random mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curve developed by Joyner and Boore (1982a and
1982b), Sadigh etal. (1987), and Bozorgniaetal. (1999). EQFAULTisacomputerprogram
by Thomas F. Blake (2000), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using
up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake .sources.
The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault
is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground
acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ("maximum credible")
earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of at least
30 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT.
Based on the EQFAULT program, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an
upper bound event at the site may be on the order of 0.58g to 0.67g. The computer
printouts of portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C.
Seismic Shaking .Parameters
Based on the site conditions, Chapter t6 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC, International
Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997) seismic: parameters are provided in the
following table:
I 1997 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO.
Seismic Zone (per Figure 16-2*)
Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*)
Soil ProfUe Type (per Table 16-J*)
Seismic Coefficient C1 (per Table 16-Q*)
Seismic Coefficient Cv (per Table 16-R*)
Near Source Factor N1 (per Table 16-S*)
,.
Near Source Factor Nv (per Table 16-T*)
· Distance to Seismic Source
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
I . SEISMIC PARAMETERS I
4
0.40
So
0.44N1
0.64Nv
1.0
1.1
4.7 mi (7.6 km)
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Pages
GeoSoils, lne.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,1
I
I
·I
I
1997 UBC CHAPTER 16 TABLE NO. SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*). 8
· Upper Bound Earthquake (Rose Canyon fault)
* Figure and Table references from Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997)
Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during
our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely
mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development
procedures:
• Tsunami
• Dynamic Settlement
• Surface Fault Rupture
• Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
• Seiche
It is .important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible
earthquake occurring on any of the nearby majorfa:ults, strong ground shaking would occur
in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be
greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass
than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no
greater than that for other existing structures, and improvements in the immediate vicinity.
There is no economic mitigation for tsunami potential that GSI is aware of, considering the
site's location and surroundings.
LIQUEFACTION
Seismically-induced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by
earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in soils. The soils may
thereby acquire·a high degree of mobility and lead to lateral movement, sliding, sand boils,
consolidation, and settlement of loose sediments and other damaging deformations. This
phenomenon occurs only below the water table; but after liquefaction has developed, it can
propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.
Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is
virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions
should be present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age
and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments generally consist of
medium to fine grained relatively cohesion less sands; 3) the sediments must have low
relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and, 5) the site must
experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of
soil particles. Inasmuch as at least one fo two of the necessary concurrent conditions listed
above do not have the potential to affect the site, it is our opinion that liquefaction does not
pose a significant constraint to development, provided our recommendations are
implemented.
· GROUNDWATER
Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in
preparation of this report. Subsurface water is not anticipated to adversely affect site
development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated
into final design and construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of
our investigation and do not preclude future changes .in local groundwater conditions from
excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious at the time of our investigation.
Perched groundwater conditions along fill/terrace deposit contacts, and along zones of
contrasting permeabilities, may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site
irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated.
Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected
area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed
groundwater conditions.
SLOPE STABILITY
Based on site conditions and planned improvements, significant cut and/or fill slopes are
not anticipateo. ·
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory1ests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials
in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results
obtained are presented below.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil
classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B.
Moisture-Density Relations
The field moisture contentsand dry unit weights were determined for selected undisturbed
samples in the laboratory. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot
(pcf), and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight. The
results of these tests are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix 8.
Laboratory Standard
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil
type encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The
moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is ·shown below:
BORiN'G MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
SOIL TYPE (COMPOSITE) DENSITY (pcf) CONTENT(%}
Silty SAND, Yellow Brown 8-1 through 8-3 126.0 11.0
(composite)
Expansion Potential
Expansion testing was performed on a representative samples of site soil in accordance
with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following
· table.
LOCATION·
8-1 through 8-3
(composite)
Direct Shear Test
l • • ,• •• • • • • • • ~ •
EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
<5 Very Low
Shear testing was performed on a representative, "remolded" sample of site soil in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D-3080 iri a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control
type. The shear test results are presented as follows and are provided as Figure D-1 in
Appendix D:
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9'i4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRIMARY RESIDUAL
SAMPLE
LOCATION COHESION FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE
(PSF). (DE~REES) (PSF) (DEGREES)
I B-1 thr0ugh 8-3 I 95 I 30 I 91 I 30 I {Reniolded}
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing
At the time of the publication of this report, the corrosion/sulfate testing data was of yet
unavailable. An addendum report, indicating the.corrosion/sulfate test results will be issued
when the data becomes available.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and laboratory test results,
it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed additional
development, from a geotechnical viewpoint. The following recommendations should be
incorporated into the construction details.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
UBC, the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in
Appendix E, except where specifically superceded in the text of this report. Prior to grading,
a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional
grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule.
During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed
by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of loc&I and national construction and general industry safety
orders, the Occupational· Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act
should be met.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site Preparation
Debris, vegetation, concrete, slab/foundation, asphaltic concrete driveway, and all
deleterious material should be removed from the building area prior to the start of
construction.
Removals {Unsuitable Surficial Materials}
Due to the relatively loose condition of the topsoil/colluvium, and weathered terrace
deposits, these materials should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for
settlement sensitive structures or areas to receive compacted fill. At this time, removal
depths on the order of ±4 feet (including topsoil/colluvium and weathered terrace deposits)
below existing grade should be anticipated throughout a majority of the site; however,
locally deeper removals cannot be precluded. Removals should be completed below a
1 : 1 projection down and a.way from the edge of any settlement sensitive structure and/or
limit of proposed fill. Once removals are completed, the exposed bottom should be
scarified in two perpendicular directions, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture
content, and recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6-to +8-inch) lifts,
cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and
compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If fill soil importation
is planned, a sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office priorto importing,
in order to assure compatibility with the onsite soils and the recommendations presented
in this report. At least three business days of lead time should be allowed by builders or
contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for particle size
analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion testing, and blended import/native
characteristics as deemed necessary. Import soils for a fill cap should be very low
expansive (Expansion Index [E.I.] less than 20). The use of subdrains atthe bottom of the
fill cap may be necessary., and subsequently recommended based on compatibility with
onsite soils.
Overexcavation
To provide for a mm1mum 4-foot compacted fill blanket, overexcavation of the
topsoil/colluvium and terrace deposits to a depth of4 feet below finish pad grade elevation
is recommended. If proposed, footings or isolated pad footings are deeper than 24 inches
below finish pad grade elevation, additional overexcavation will be necessary to provide
a minimum· 24 inches of compacted fill beneath the footing. The recommended
overexca.vation should be accompHshed during removals. However, if removal depths are
shallower than 4·feet below finish pad grade, overexcavation will be necessary.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOMMENDATIONS -FOUNDATIONS
Preliminary Foundation Design
In the eventthatthe information concerning the proposed development plans is not correct,
or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed structures are
made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are for the subject
site only, and shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and
conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office.
The information and recommendations presented in this section are considered minimums
and are not meant to supercede design(s) by the project structural engineer or civil
engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional
consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. They are
considered preliminary recommendations for proppsed construction, in consideration of our
. field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineeting analysis.
Our review, field work, a,nd recent laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a very
low expansion potential (E.I. less than 20). Preliminary recommendations for foundation
design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should
be provided at the conclusion of grading, based on laboratory testing of fill materials
· exposed at finish grade.
Bearing Value
1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest edition of the UBC.
2. .An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for
design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and for design
of isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep, founded entirely into
compacted fill or competent Quaternary-age terrace deposits and connected by
grade beam or tie beam in at least one direction. This value may be increased by
20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,500 psf.
The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration
seismic or wind loads. No increase in bearing for footing width is recommended.
Lateral Pressure
1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
Foundation Settlement
Foundation systems should be designed to accommodate a differential settlement of at
least ¾-inch in a 40-foot spar:1.
Footing Setbacks
All footings shouid maintain a minimum 7-fbot horizontal setback from the base of the
footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the
bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of
H/3 (H = slope height). frbm the base· of the footing to the descending slope face and no
less than 7 feet, nor need be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage
swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent
unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacentto retaining walls should be deepened so
as to extend below a 1 :1 projection from the heel fo the wall. Alternatively, walls may be
designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described
in the Retaining Wall section of this report.
Construction
The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as a minimum
criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soil expansion potential is generally
very low (E.I. Oto 20). Recommendations for very low to low expansive soil conditions are
presented herein.
Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may
exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following
minim~m requirements. The design structural engineer should review and approve the
minimal footing and slab design provided below. Final foundation design will be provided
based on the expansion potential of the near surface soils encountered during grading.
Very Low to Low Expansion Potential (E.I. O to 50)
1. Exterior ahd interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches for
one-story floor loads., and 18 inches for two-story floor loads, into compacted fill.
Isolated column and panel pads, or wall footings, should be founded at a minimum
depth of 18 inches into compacted fill, excluding the landscape zone (6 inches) at
the building footprint margin. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4
.reinforcing bars, once placed rtear the top and one placed near the bottom of the
footing. Footing widths should be as indicated in UBC (ICBO, 1997).
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches square, should be
provided across large (e.g., doorways) entrances. The base of the grade beam
should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Isolated,
exterior square footings should be tied within the main foundation in at least one
direction with a grade beam ..
Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, including garage
areas, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 1 o mil
polyvinyl chloride, or equivalent membrane, with all laps sealed. This membrane
should be covered with a minimum of 2 inches of sand to aid in uniform curing of the
concrete, and to protect the membrane from puncture.
Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and should be reinforced with
No. 3 reinforcing bar at 18 inches on center in both directions. All slab reinforcement
should be supportedto ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete.
'Hooking11 of reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning
the reinforcement
Garage slabs should be reinforced as above and poured separately from the
structural footings and quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive
separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to
permit relative movement.
Presaturation is not required for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the
subgtade soils should be equal to, or greater than, optimum moisture content in the
slab areas, prior to concrete placement.
CORROSION
Upon completion of grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) for
corrosion to concrete and metals should be performed prior to the construction of utilities
and foundations. ·
UTILITIES
Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible
connections to accommodate differer:itial settlement. Due to the potential for differential
settlement, air conditioning (NC) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated
into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for
plumbing and electrical lines. NC waste waterlines should be drained to a suitable outlet.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge,
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page 14
_________________ ....,..... ________________________ ---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WALLS/RETAINING WALLS
General
Foundations may be designed using parameters provided in the Design section of
Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections should adhere to the City
of Carlsbad guidelines. All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified structural
engineer for structural capacity, overturning, and stability.
The design parameters provided assume that onsite, or equivalent, very low expansive
soils, or selected fill, are used to backfill retaining walls-. If expansive soils are used to
backfill the proposed walls within this wedge, increased active and at-rest earth pressures
will need to be utilized for retaining wall design. Heayy compaction equipment should not
be used above a 1: 1 projection up and away from the bottom of any wall.
The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, loffel,
earthstone, etc.). Recommendations for specialty walls will be more onerous than those -
provided herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the constructed
walls should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement
could cause some cracking dependent upon the materials used to construct the wall. To
reduce wall cracking due to settlement, wallsshould be internally grouted and/or reinforced
with steel.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be· restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material,
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressures of 65 pcffornative soil backfill, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas
of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance
of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade
should be water-proofed, or damp-proofed, depending on thedegree of moisture protection
desired. Refer to the following section for preliminary recommendations from surcharge
loads.
Cantilevered. Walls
These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls.up to 15 feet high. Active earth
pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained
from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) approach may be
used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are
provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other
superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, or adverse
geologic conditions.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoiis, Itae.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SURFACE SLOPE EQUIVALENT SELECT
OF RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT PCF MATERIAL PCF
(Horizontal to Verti~al) (Very Low Expansive Native Soil) (Gravel)
I Level I 45 I 35 I 2 to 1 158 --
The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 65 pcf for level backfill using the native
soil at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant,) and extended a minimum
lateral distance of 2H on either side of the corner. However, if the selected backfill with
angle of friction of 30 degrees is used, this value may be reduced to 62 pct.
Wall Backfill and Drainage
All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe backdrain and
outlet system (a minimum two outlets per wall) to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures,
and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. Pipe should
consist of schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should
be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 3/s-to 1 ½-inch clean crushed rock
encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Perforations ih pipe should face
down. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage
should also be provided.
As an alternative to gravel backdrains, panel drains (Miradrain 6000, Tensar, etc.) may be
used. Panel drains should be installed per manufacturer's guidelines. Regardless of the
backdrain used, walls should be water proofed where they would impact living areas or
where staining would be objectionable.
Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions
Site wa!ls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from formational bedrock to
select fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either:
a) If transitions from.rock fill to select fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle
of less than 45 degr.ees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum
2-foot overexcavation for a distance of 2H and increase overexcavation until such
transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment.
b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints
or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/$60 for a distance of 2H
Karnak Architecture and Plahning-
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbc:!.d
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, In~.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be
sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. ·
-'I
c) Embed the footings entirely into homogeno14s fill or terrace deposits.
Top of Slope/Perimeter Walls
The geotechnical parameters previously provided may be utilized for free standing sound
walls or perimeter walls, which are founded in either competent bedrock or compacted fill
materials. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural
engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided
along with the slump quantities.
The placing Of joints (expansion and crack control) should be incorporated into the wall
layout. These expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center and
should be reviewed by the civil engineer and structural engineer of record. GSI anticipates
distortions on the order of½ to ± 1 inch in 50 feet for these walls located at the tops offill/cut
slopes. To reduce this potential, the footings may be deepened and/or the use of piers may
be considered.
Footing Excavation Observation
All footing excavations for walls and appurtenant structures should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant to evaluate the anticipated near surface conditions prior to the
placement of steel or concrete. Based on the conditions encountered during the
observations of the footing excavation, supplemental recommendations may be offered,
as appropriate.
Structural Loading
Surcharge loads delivered to lower footings from the adjacent, upper structural footings,
should only be applied to the portion of the lower footings that fall below the point where the
1 :2 (h:v) downward p_rojection from the footing edge meets the wall. Both vertical pressures
and lateral pressures should be applied to the portion of the wall height falling below that
point. The vertical pressure under the adjacent footing may be assumed to spread out on
aslope.of2:1 (h:v). Thus, a load Q acting concentrically on a footing with an area of (8 x L)
is assumed to be distributed over an area of (8 + Z) (L + Z) at a depth Z below the bottom
of the footing. Forcantileverwalls, the lateral surcharge on the wall, due to adjacentfooting
surcharge, should be equal to 33 percent of the vertical pressure at depth, while for
restrained walls, it should be equal to 50 percent of the vertical surcharge. In order to
mitigate surcharge loading, the upper foundations should be deepened below a 1 : 1
projection up and away from the outer edge of the lower footing. The architect and/or
structural engineer should provide supporting dates to GSI to confirm their design has
included the above recommendations.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.0. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior driveways, walkways, sidewalks, or patios, using concrete slab on grade
construction, should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria:
1. Concrete slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness. A thickened edge
(minimum of 12 inches) should be constructed for all flatwork adjacent to landscape
areas.
2. Slab subgrade (i.e., existing fill materials) should be compacted to a minimum
90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to the soils optimum
moisture content to a minimum depth of 12 inches. This should be verified by this
office at least 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. The use of Class 2, Class 3, or
decomposed granite (i.e., DG) as a base for the concrete slab in non-vehicle traffic
· areas is not required.
3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways
to control this movemeAt are:. 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel,
increasing tensile strength of the slab; and/or, 2) provide an adequate amount of
control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and
expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on
5-to 8-foot centers, or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least.
4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have
been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength.
5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be
allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to
paved areas, measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter
the pavement section. This may be accomplished using thickened PCC pavement
edges and concrete cut off barriers or deepened curbs, in addition to eliminating
granular base materials (i.e., Class 2, 3, DG etc.) underlying the slab.
6. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation,
planters, etc.), all joints should be sealed with flexible mastic.
7. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Slope Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope
stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away
from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain
plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it can
adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched groundwater conditions. Graded
slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be
minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable
vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face offill slopes would tend
to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may
aid in allowing the estabiishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those
recommended above will increase the potential for perched water to develop. A rodent
control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural
{ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding
plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner.
Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and
landscaping.
Drainage
Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance offoundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be
sufficientto prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and
tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be·carefullytaken into consideration during fine
grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future
landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive
site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all
times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should
be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground.
In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure.
We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of one
percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent
paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent
to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the
street or other approved atea(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters,
down spouts; ot other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down
spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a
subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy
rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas
of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon
request.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Erosion Control
Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth
materials have a moderate to high erosion potentii:il. Consideration should be given to
providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect pro.posed site improvements. We
would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacentto proposed structures
be eliminated for a minimum distance of 1 O feet. As an alternative,· closed-bottom type
planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed
to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are
constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the p·tanter should be provided
with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade.
Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without
saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be
planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of
vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees
will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a
geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the
surface soils c:tre processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be
recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction.
Gutters and Downspouts
As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts
should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent
to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or
non-erosive devices that will carry the water away from the house. Downspouts and gutters
are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive
drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously).
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that
the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated
into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting
permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor
drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched
groundwater conditions d~velop,this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide
the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\40d0\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
Groundwater condition$ may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other
factors.
Site Improvements
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided
upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are
planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects
of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This
office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench
backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility
trench, and retaining wall backfills.
Tile Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small
cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should
consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be
placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible
cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane
(approved bytbe Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between
tile and concrete slabs on grade.
Additional Grading
This office sh.ould be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of
the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes
completion of grading in the street and parking areas and utility trench and retaining wall
backfills.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to
trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the
observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing
material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose
or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or
removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended atthattime.
Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site.
Trenching
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should b~ anticipated that caving or sloughing
could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils,. Ine.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
walls atthe angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be
anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and
minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utility Trench Backfill
1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above
optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative
cornpaction of 90 percent of th~ laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow
(12~inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of
30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing
and testing. should be provided to verify the desired results.
2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1 :1 plane
projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath
hard scape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be
1;1sed in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with
probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
3.
4.
All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass
below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass
through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the
structural engineer.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATiON AND TESTING
We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:
• During grading/recertification.
• After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls
footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
• Priortc;> pouring any slabs orflatwork, after presoak1ng/presaturation of building pads
and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel,
capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.).
• During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield $treat, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.0. 4001-A-SC
August 4, 2003
Page22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches,
and retaining wall backfill.
During slope construction/repair .
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools,
walls, etc., are constructed.
A report of geotechnical observ;:ition and testing should be provided at the
conclt.1sion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear
documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tenskm designer, architect, landscape
architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein,
incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit
reference, make this report part of their project plans.
PLAN REVIEW
Final project plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that
construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report.
Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies
maybe warranted.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\400.1.a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; ho~ever, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is
expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes
no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction, or work
performed When GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have
been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by
the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that
may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling
authorities.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
4016 Garfield Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\4000\400i .a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
W.0. 4001-A-SC
August4,2003
Page 24
~ ... ·.:-::i ·,. •::. ,:t .. ·
. ..... :
' ,.
--r ... -.:..· • • -• • •· . .. . -~REFERENCES ... ;; .... ,.,. .... ;:,.\' ... _, . ., .. -...... -.·.~-:···· ._ ·.· .,.:-·. ,. .. --.. ·. -···
: : ._., ...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas F., 2000, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak
horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Winoows 95/98 version.
Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion: Characteristics,
relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications;
Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data,
September 15, Oakland, pp! 23-49.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1997, Attenuation relations for soft rock conditions; in
EQFAULT, A computer program for the·estimation of peak horizontal acceleration
from 3-D fault sources; Windows '95/98 version, Blake, 2000.
Campbell, K.W., 1997, Empirical near-source attenuation relationships for horizontal and
vertical components of peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity, and
pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectra, Seismological Research Letters,
vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 154-179.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps; California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, with Supplements
1 and 2, 1999.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier,
California, vol. t, 2, and 3.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map sheet no. 6, Scale 1 :750,000.
Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions
of magnitude, oistance and site conditions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W.,
and Blake, T.F.:· AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994.
__ , 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 82-977, 16p.
Karnak Planning and Design, undated, 2-unit apartmentfor Mr. and Mrs. Hart, 4016 Garfield
Street (Site Plan), 10-scale, Sheet C1 .0, no project number.
Sadigh, K., Egan, J., andYoungs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations, in Joyner,
W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1988, Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong
gtound motion, in Von Thun, J.L., ed., Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics II,
recent advances in ground motion evaluation, American Society of Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102.
GeoSoils, lne.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unifi.ed soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways
Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York.
Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San
Diego County, California, Plate t: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open
File Report 96-02.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
Appendix A
Page2
• ~ ~ ...,-..,:. ,..,. ~' .... ;_.. • ·~ ,,.,. • ~ ,.• • •V~-r"'I. "ti •~ "•' :"'/,-?; ..... (; •,• •' • .r "• ,,_; • • '/.;,ht!'.' 0 !''.t-~a, ... ~.~,~ ... , .. ,,: .. ,:11 • 4 ~ .. .,, ~:t -i,_} ,~i;:-,1,-,, • l~,) • ;' ,,;~r,'-,,1,!;"',~;'!', "''5l;.h~ ~""~~ ~ ; ,• ~\~tf t' •:,'"''..-J-.1",;;.J"~ I "•" j • • • ... •' :-, 1:'·.;,' r},: .. '"··: t~.1.~·~:"·~·> f' ::::-:r:....;:~i.-:};·---: S{·t ...... ~,/~1~ .: .. : .. ·f~'~-~::i~,.,. ..J.f,,.t; ~ .. ·J... ,::l:J·i';r.·1'-f(.·1~~,,,,p~~ ... ~.-;~~:!~.!.,:~;-~;::· ~~.!J1it".52;!:i.t~*;iJ:}~;,.:=--~ .... :,~;itt· ~~~:.~._-}·411J'::i;·;.-.}:.·1·'{:{fr ... t~1i':i ... :t-.i:~,Z-~'t;_;':;t·:. .... .,:
?~:~~;£~;)f~{ti~;?l::· :t :.\ !/ .. :<Y ~-~ f:< :,·:?· :-~ ·1 • -~: iJ~.~-'. ,'\t~tfi~i:-::ft~~~4.~i1~!: r//4\t-1;.,:..t· :~_<\;if{¾ ~iii:. l,.¥-~:, 1~~:.1,~;ttg\-~;~tf--~~::E~= : ·~ ·lt~~::·:i,I;Efk~; :t':.~~:/~::.1:; ;i ; .:: ':·./\:~ .:f «. ".,:~: ;:~---~~--~i"t\t.::{ ·~,-!~. ;,. '1" I,\,; ::t~i~)'Jtl '/,s}~~i?tt~ ... 1:A!-;,~~i:"i:~0,p}'~:~ff_;:t:i:'.
;~,·~ ... ::~);.rj;:~f:t~::.~'.:)"~.;&,;:<.,.~!f.,\r~?:~~{~·~?::\/r.t.;, ~-~: ~·---:-~-:}".'.-·::·~,~-, .. , WN{f ... ,, .. _ .~. -{~ '!!·, •.• J.ft,{~r.:~t:~,-i~1:.-:::~-~£t~~irti.fi'(!fiJ~f t\;)\~)!r:lt~t ·· .._ , ,.< .,,1,:', ,1 "'l, \ • '> '(, ._, l?f, "11 \~:!l,,.,,'\"'J..., • , ., •,"-< .. ,,.• "\ #' ,. j ,' ~ ~u • -•• ~I•'"' • t-1 1, ,; ,:!, •l'J,.J ,,~ )/-•"> 1_., I'.: 1~•r,''ff 1:._• ,_ •'; \,...._. ~,';) ;.•.,f I •• .,.")• c,•~ .... •' " ' ..,.{'\ljA. t,..,, 11 ,~,.',t,, 1•~, , ... l ~• •\i_ ;,_.,,.....: ....,_~ 1•'
: "·~ -. '· .. ' ·'
~ 1.:f1;i,_t;:'::::\tXt;:;'1~'.{}-¾'.fi; t;\.'.~~~'¥ft:;_:t7I:"1:i1xJi~~,'.,·· ... '":',,IJl;'fJ1f?f.r~~f~ r}-ftf {:'
• , :I~ •
'·.'. ··~· ·. · ... '·'
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: KARNAK
4016 G~ffield Street
Sample
~'u s: ~ =: 0.
-~~ ·o c-:5 "' en .a :,
C. .,. -C.o ;i: o E QI ::i c~ 0 en >-~ a al :::i .a ii:i => en a
SM
-
I SP 110.8
-
SP/Srv'
5
-
-
-
-
4016 Garfield Street
----e ~ C
e! ,Q
::, ~ ui ~ ·o
:E en
1.6 8.8
BORING LOG
w.o. 4001-A-SC
BORING B-1 SHEET_1_ OF_1_
DATE EXCAVATED 7-21-03
SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER
m Standard Penetration Test
:J. Groundwater ~-Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
..r. TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM: ..r @ 0' SIL TY SAND, gray brown, dry, loose; porous, rootlets . ..r
·..;,...'
./'
..r
./'.
./'
..r
. ..r ..,..
./'
. ..r· -
WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
' @ 2' SAND w/SIL T, yellow brown, dry, loose to medium dense;
porous.
.. QUATERNARY-AGE TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 4' SAND w/SIL T to SIL TY SAND, yellow brown to red brown,
,. damp to moist, medium dense to dense. :
Total Depth = 5'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 7-21-2003
!
GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: KARNAK
4016 Garfield Street
Sample
~13 ~
~'
== C. en o :5 -~~ c-
.>:: ~ (.) .c ::)
C. :i "O .c 0 en [ ~ Cl) c~ 0 Ill ::l.::! iii ::l en 0
SP
-
I SP 111.1
-
-
SP/SW
5
-
-
-
-
4016 Garfield Street
BORING LOG
w.o. 4001-A-SC
BORING B-2 SHEET_1_ OF_1_
DATE EXCAVATED 7-21-03
SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER
m Standard Penetration Test
,.... ~ :;J.. Groundwater ~ C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample e 0 = ~ ~ .a '5 Description of Material "' ::i: en
TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM:
@ O' SAND w/SIL T, gray brown, dry, loose; porous, rootlets.
1.8 9.5 WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ t½' SAND w/SIL T, yellow brown, dry, loose; porous.
QUATERNARY-AGE TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 4' SAND w/SIL T to SIL TY SAND, yellow brown to red brown,
... . damp to-moist, medium dense to dense .
Total Depth = 5'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 7-21-2003
I
;
GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: KARNAK
4016 Garfield Street
Sample
~'fi' ...... s !!::! (/Jo ~ C.
.~al c-= U) ::, ~ 3: (.) .c C. -g~ (/J E 2:-Ill 'S 0
Cl al ::,_ ffi ::, ?ii Cl
SP
-
I SP 115.9
-
. SP/SM
5
-
-
-
-
4016 Garfield Stre!;lt
...... ~ ~
I!! .a ,U) ·o
::E
1.9
BORING LOG
w.o. 4001-A-SC
BORING B-3 SHEET_1_ OF_1_
DATE EXCAVATED 7-21-03
SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER
m Standard Penetration Test
[ ~ Groundwater C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample 0 :;:, I!! ~ Description of Material (/)
TOPSOIUCOLLUVIUM:
, @ O' SAND w/SIL T, gray brown, dry, loose; porous, rootlets.
11.6 WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 2' SAND w/SIL T, light red brown, dry, loose to medium dense;
porous.
QUATERNARY-AGE TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 4' SAND w/SIL T to SIL TY SAND, red brown, damp to moist,
medium dense to dense . . '
''
Total Depth= 5'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 7-21-2003
!
I
GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-3
,•'•'!.., .. ,·~·b .. ,,.,,·, ~,.., ,.•, ~, ... i~•";-',."~ .,.. ,' '~ ... '• 't ;': '.\!.\'ilu,,J>,:-,~ ·--...'.,••1Y1r,·••r,..1~"?,.~)/'J:,'!;t,,_,.~.,,1,,/•" ~~,.:~rl,•lfi~f,t\•.., ~t'~/Jiv,j._:'1~,--r:~:,;t).t!::-\.,•I; 1.._!f:t'~-,,.;4".,.,,J,,.~."' .... \,.'t?-,yy><., •. ·,"'(>/,.. ... ;.J.;. :,1 ~:~·\. ):;.~·· .~J • ' ,! ~-.1 -: ..:.\ -..i-., ....... ,: "! ~. . ·~· ;, i"' )i,. ·.) ~ ~ ,1,-.:;;_~/,;f(~-c._'1:··};··1.,;j:f\t,~ ~i·-~J:r.1, ~~-.~,/i~ ·r~~ .... '; 1;(:.i:1J:; ~~1t,.~;_,~-~~~-;,~ -~-t4l·__;;..,,,g. .. ,;;~"t ~-:~"'..t-l'"',\l ... ot·t;,--·.»~ ...
i::-.~t'1:t·: :.~Ft?·\~ ~z~:::~-~ .... , ;--~.-: / ~~-~~, /,r-~. ·z ~ :~ ._::h/-:.\')}~;1~~~;.,::tf/t.1~:Yi~11-yg~1~f-;~}f:1~~ .. }l~)tt·::f -"'1rf~{ ~ :·, :i:~*~};~l.t/tlt~{t::tif~:: .. I;· •/! ··,",,,,,;,, •• ~.,.,.,,.~~·-.· , .. ,·.,.-.,,,,_ •• _ 1::, •• ·.',,,.,. n ''~ ···,··.li\:,ii.•li'\\:!'.,··~·i\f~ ..,,,l· ;;;~~'1.:'· ",1,.11-,,,,..·;.,.l,, .. , ,.;Av,_~ •tr,;:,!r>1•?:,'i':',:i;':~'.-:;!'/."'~',;, .. ,:,r?..;.,\.>',
/·. ,•,
I·-'~!.' _.., ,·. ;.,-,,j;,,'>\ • ,•"-l•t,,., . ..,. .. ,.,,;-,,. ,• / .. ;•,, ,,,i>••(·' ,:•. '· ,• ., 9-.,.,,,,,1 ,, ,, •.(,,.~;1~r:,, r;;""-s' ,:;,• .,,-:~.,,rs/ ... ,.,·,;.~1({'! . .?·. ,,'-".-,,,,;~r;'i,. :,,, .. ·
I
I
I MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES
I KARNAK
I
I
I 1
Xx
I
I X ,,.-....
C) X ..........
C .1 X
I 0 X ·-xx .....,
rn * ~x I ~
(1)
'
-(1)
·1 (.)
(.)
<(
I .01 X
I
I
I .001
, I .1 1 10 100
Distance (mi)
I
I W .0. 4001-A-SC Figure C-1
I·,,
... ~. .'r'· .-:--::.
:': .-.
. ... ,
': ...
1.:· .... .,,....
' . · .-.... ~ :.,.-. . .·:i. ·.'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3,000
2,500
2,000
.... vi Ill C. t (!} z w 1,500 .-/
0:: -I-rn
0::: ~ :c: /·• rn
1,000.
V ~
/ 500 . .
,. / V
o·
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Sample Depth/El. Primary/R~sidual Shear Sample Type % MC% C cp
• B-1 0.0 Primary Shear Remolded 113.4 11.0 95 30
• B-1 0.0 Residual Shear Remolded 113.4 11.0 91 30
Note: Sample lnnundated prior to testing
GeoSoils, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR TEST
~ ~~ 5741 PalmerWay Project KARNAK
~~.liic:. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ ~& Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 4001-A-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: July 2003 Figure D-1
,f ,, ' ·:--
'a ,_ ... , :.· \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
'I
I
I
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
General
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading
as shown on the approved .grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement
of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede
the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the
consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could
supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and
engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide
observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the
project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer
and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork
procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the. recommendations of the
geotechnical report, the approved grading plans; and applicable grading codes and
ordinances. ·
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of
the contractor to assist the consultants ancf keep them apprised of anticipated work
schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be
observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior
to placing and fill. It is the contractors•s responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and
soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in
accordance with American Standard resting Materials test method ASTM designation
D-1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test
method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of
approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria
would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and
frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
GeoSoils, Inc~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted
by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the
governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor1s responsibility to prepare the ground
surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread,
moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of
the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material
considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods
to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or
agency ordinances; and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and
compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the
fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized
rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality
of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor
is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are
satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good
drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to
control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent
drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other
deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be
concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials
determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place
should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these
materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the
compacted fills.should be approved by the soil engineer.
Any underground $tructures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or
treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highlyfractured,
or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot
adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to firm ground and
approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue.
Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture
conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in
these guidelines.
Karnak Ar.chitecture and Planning
File:e:\wpB\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
Appendix E
Page2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the
scarified ground isbroughtto optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials
should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in
depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted
to about 6 inches in compacted thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated
as required in the g.eotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering
geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue
until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface
is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features
which would inhibit compaction as described previously.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical),
the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key,
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material,
and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope
conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet
with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As
a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the
minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to ½ the height of the slope.
Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable
material. Benching may.be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood
that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered
for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness.
All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill
benches shoulq be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering
geologist priorto placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until
design grades (elevations) are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill
provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These
materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious
materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil
engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength
characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require
blending with. other soils to serve as a. satisfactory fill material.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
Appendix E
Page3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area
and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result
in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the
fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum
dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location
of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer.
Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations
of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material
should not be placed within 1 O feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet
horizontally of slope faces. ·
To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range o.f foundation
excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by
the soil engineer and/or the developers representative.
If import material is required for grading; representative samples of the materials to be
utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to
determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted
by the soil engineer as soon as possible.
Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal
layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer
may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate
compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread
evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction.
Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet
fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill
materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be
uniformly comp~cted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by
ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer.
Compaction equipment $hould be adequately sized and should be specifically designed
for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of
compaction.-
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been
Karnak Architecture and Planning
Flle:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
Appendix E
Page4
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tested and follnd to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the
soil engineer.
Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet
horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing
shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being
developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill
slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose
materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determination offill slope compaction should
be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill
slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a
higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be
recommended.
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then
special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 1 O feet of
each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
An extra.piece of equipment consisting of a.heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should
be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The
sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend
out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope.
Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is
compacted. Any loose 1ill spilled over apreviously completed slope face should be
trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling.
Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope
at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations.
After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm
compaction after grid rolling.
5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to
achieve compaction. Additjonal testing should be performed to verify compaction.
6. Erosion control and drainage devices Should be designed by the project civil
engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies,
and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering
geologist.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
AppendixE
Pages
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or
materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical
consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct
changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions.
The location of-constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering
geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation
and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedii;il grading of cut slopes should
be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the
cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement
of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope.
The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the
contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse
or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and
soil engineer should investigate, evaluate artd make recommendations to treat these
problems. The heed for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading
evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not.
Unless· otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be
excavated higher or steeper thah that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the
contractors responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and
should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
COMPLETION
Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted
during the gra.dirig operations ·in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are
graded in accordance with the approved project specifications.
After.completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have
finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review
by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be
Karnak Architecture and· Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4Q01 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne~
Appendix E
Page6
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in
accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape
architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after
completion of grading.
JOB SAFETY
General
At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is
the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer
construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality
on graoing and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary
on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however,
everyone must be safety conscious and responsible. at all times. To achieve our goal of
avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client., the contractor and GSI personnel must
be maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the
following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and
construction projects:
Safety Meetings: · GSI field personnel are· directed to attend contractors regularly
scheduled and documented safety meetings.
Safety' Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at
all times when they are working in the field.
Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be
affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the
spoil pile on all test pits.
Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing
amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing.
While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher
on the vehicle shall be activated.
In the eventthatthe contractors representative observes any of our personnel not following
the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
Appendix E
Page7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit.locations. A primary concern should be
the technicians1s safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading
contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the
established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized
representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct
excavation ofthe pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the
soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic,
whenever possible. The technician1s vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the
spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively,
the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly
in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment
should enterthis.zoneduring the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately
50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to
avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results.
When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the
test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the
slope. The contractor1s representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe
operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible
following testing. The technician's vehicle shoulo be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a
highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should
inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may
affect site access and site safety.
In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the
contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors
representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the
interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can
be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal.
In the evennhat the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established
safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attention and notify
this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors
representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the
above safety plan.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
Fife:e:\wp9\4000\4001 a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
Appendix E
Page a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Trench and Vertical Excavation
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction
testing· is needed.
Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or
deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose
rock or other debriswhich could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any
unsafe conditions regardless of depth.
All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters,
should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-
OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench
by being lowered or 11riding down11 on the equipment.
If the contractor fails to-provide safeaccess to trenches for compaction testing, our company
policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The
contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All
backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing
and/or removal. ·
If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or
vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer
on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has
an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities.
Karnak Architecture and Planning
File:e:\wp9\4000\4001a.pge
GeoSoils, lne.
Appendix E
Page9
-·---··---------------
FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL
SIDEHILL FILL
COMPACTED FIJ:.L
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM
OESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY
AS SHOWN OH AS BUILT
NATURAL SLOPE TO
BE RESTORED WITH
~
BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY
-...r J ~:MINIM~M
7J r
)>
-f rn
rn
G)
I
Ol
NOTE: 1, WHERE THE NAtURAl; SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEE·DS THE
1S" MINIMUM KEY WIDT
2'X 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
2· MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR
APPROVED MATERIAL.
I
DESIGN SLOPE RATIO. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSl:TION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED
BY TH~ SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS.
-------------------
7J
~ -I rn rn.
G>
I
lO
SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND
15.MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM
PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT
•rH ~~ v; ,~ ., ~ ,f ·MINIMUM KEY DEPTH m WffeJAXv&Vd.
ORIGINAL SLOPE
/ NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS.
2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE
NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
-
-u r )>
-I rn
rn
G)
I
-Jo
C)
------------------
DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL
RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER
IMAY INCREASE OR DECREASE·PAD AREA).
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT ---
REPLACEMENT FILL
AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF
MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE
. NATURAL GRADE ~
~
/
~
NOTE: 1. SUBORAIN ANO KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS ANO THICKN~SS OF OVERBURDEN •
2. PAO OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY
THli. SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
·I
I
I
I
I
ii
I
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION)
---
PAD GRADE
TYPICAL BENCH ING
CUT-FILL LOT (OA YUGHT TRANSITION)
MUM
PAO GRADE
NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEi::P CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS.
PLATE EG-11"
.. ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM
SIDE YIEW
(NOTTO SCALE )
TOP VIEW
100 FEET
50 FEET
·SPOIL
P1LE
APPROXIMATE CE1l1Ell /
CF TEST PIT
....
HI u..
0
ll')
..
FLAG
{NOTTO SCALE l
--1
SD FEET
PLATE EG-16
..
.
--~-·-·····_ 0_,,' ~-~ -~~u
RIVERSIDE CO.
ORANGE CO.
SAN DIEGO CO •. . .
BORING LOCATION MAP
Plate 1
W.Q. 4001-A-SC DATE 8/03 SCALE 1":10'·
.
. , ... ----------
.. , .... ·
Qt-
·. aB-3
.-.:7 TD:5'
LEGEND
Quaternary Terrace deposits
Approxlmiite location of exploratory
. boring
DECK
.PLATE 1 of 1
EXISTING-
CURS
\fl
1-
. UJ w a:: 1-
(f)
0
...J
UJ
LJ... a::
EXISTIN5 -<(
V'IATER LINE (!)
\l)
I, ,
PROPOSED~
SPLIT LEVEL "----..
4 EXISTING,
STREET YARD
' I
/;,.J r:¾_:_~ .. c====;=.r::::J
---·--)-..
EXISTIN,:;,
$RADE
30'
.
0V ll) ,
,x_U / 1/' / /
\. EXISTINE,
TJ=L.EFHONE BOX
TO BE DROPPED
INVAUL!
/ '
I
I,
/
1 )' ,, I, ,
I
.. ~-XISTIN(S, SEV'IER~
,,,-.;, . . ,. __ ,
. ..
L.I_NE ~
-.
''\
,,_____,
20·
..
'
------..... -
.
'
' 0/
\_ PR.OP05ED
aJILDING-HEIG-HT so· ~AXIMUM -~
-
'
'o . .~ -.. ~
'
'
...
PROPOSED
SEC, ND FLOOR
PRO~OSED
FIRS" FLOOR
DRAIN TO SUMP PUMP
RAMP @ 1596 SLOPE
SITE SEG TION
SC.ALE, 1/8"•1'•0"
L, .
\
-:-~T-LE-~.,..1,-~-1~-. A_N _____ ®
a·
PROPOSED
ROOF ---------
/1/
ll) /
<c.'' / ,I, / ' ,
/ •
,,\ ,/ I
ro·/ 0 / '" / ,v' . /
... :r
C . ' ., ,_ .. •
. .
•
2-UNIT APARTMENT
FOR MR. & MRS. HART .....
4016 GARFIELD STREET
--------
...
-----
,
DESIG~~ REVIEW APP LI CATION
PROPOSED
DEC,K OVERHANG-
PROPOSED
OPEN STAIRS t
SHEET INDEX
ARC-HITEC-TURAL
CLO
ASI.O
Al.
AI.O
Al.I
A';;,0
A4.0
AS.O
COVER SHEET AND SITE PLAN
ENLARG-ED SITE PLAN
BASEMENT EXIHIBIT
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
ROOF PLAN
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
SECTIONS
I ,,,,,-EXISTING '• ~---····-· . ---···-------·-...... ----------· -V BLOCK V'IALL
/
~ I 1,,..---------------------a UTILITIES/SER VICES
10·
/
/
/
/
/
' I
ce I
I
E,'<ISTIN0
M"-SON-',RY >'l"-l..L
SEV'IER AND V'IA TER :
CARLSBAD MUNCIPAL V'IATER DISTRICT
5<150 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, C.A '1200b
(160) 4:38-2122
(760) 602-2120
SC.HOOL DISTRICT,
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
001, FINE AVE~IIJE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(160) 12'1-<12'11
CONSULT ANT INFORMATION
PLANNING
KARNAK PLANNING-AND DESIG-N
2802 STATE STREET, SUITE C
CARLSBAD. C.A "12008
(160) 434-8400
CONTACT, ROBERT RICHARDSON
. SOILS ENGINEER ..
G-EOSOILS, INC..
5141 PALMER v-.AY
CARLSBAD CA <12008
(160) 498-9155
(160) <151-0'!15 Fox
. VICINITY i\!lAP
l
---·---~------------·----
, .
PROJECT DATA
APPLICANT / OV'lNER'5 A0ENT:
KARNAK PLANNING, AND DESIGN
2802 STATE STREET, SUITE C
CARLSBAD, C.A <12008
(160) 494-8400
CONTACT, ROBERT RICHARDSON
Ol"INER,
ROBERT AND V-.ENDY HART --34<ri;>ATE AVENUE: .... --...
CARLSBAD, C.A 9200b
PROJEC-T ADDRESS,
4016 G-ARFIELD STREET
CARLSSAD, CA 9200b
. A55E5SOR'5 PARCEL NIJMBER: 206•080-02
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, LOTS 11 4 12, BLOCK A, MAP 1221
PROJEC. T DESCRIPTION:
2 STOREY 2-UNIT APARTMENT V'IITH SUBTERRANIAN PARKING-
AND 5TORAG-E ROOM
~·· ' ... ·.· '"
BUILDING DATA,
BASEMENT 268B 5Q,FT.
GARAGE SQ.FT.
STORAG-E 1210 C.U.FT.
FIRST FLOOR 2503 SQ.FT.
SECOND FLOOR 2521 SQ.FT.
TOTAL 5024 SQ.FT.
FIRST FLOOR DECK S82 5Q.FT.
SECOND FLOOR DECK 514 SQ.FT.
TOTAL DEC.K <l5e, SQ.FT.
EXI5TING-UNITS l!P ( PROPOSED UNIT5 2
CONSTRUCTION TYPE· ·
NUMBER OF STORIES··
·.. · · ... ·· · T't'PE-V NON RATED
SITE DATA
ZONIN,S,
EXISTJN,:;, DENSITY,
LOT SIZE .... ·· ·
· 2 PL.US A BASEMEl'IT
R-2
1'1.1 UNiTSiACRES
6.000 SQ.FT.
O.IS ACRES
ZONING-, .... · ... CURRENT , R-2
PROPOSED , RH
COASTAL
SETBACKS, .. MP FRONT 20'
SIDE 5' (10%}
REAR 10' (20%)
PARKING-2/VNIT•REQUIRED 4
.5/00EST-REGIIJIRED I
-PROPOSED 5
Of"INER'S APPROVAL
THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED AS 15 / AS NOTED.
ROBERT AND V'IENDY HART
MR, AND/ OR MRS.
04/I0/0S
DATE
AREA T ABIJLATIONS
UNITS
LIVING-AREA
?/II CAR G-ARA6E
FIRST
FLOOR
. J;fo.z,,./,. SQ.FT.
.14,8,!.
MECHANICAL/ MISC.,········ ...
BUii.DiNG TOTAL· · 7'Z/'t-...
TOTAL LOT AREA ··· ···· ...
BUILDING COVERA$E · . 'J/J,'!J;,(?
COVERED PATIO
HARDsc.AFE
LAND5CAFIN$
5G.FT.
SQ.FT.
SQ.FT.
SQ.FT.
SQ.FT.
5Q.FT.
SO.FT.
SO.FT. ,
$a.FT.
OVERA~L AREAS ARE CALCULATED V'IITHIN PROPERTY LINI:S 6ASED
ON SURVEY PRl:PARED JAN. 2005·
.
. .
. .. ~ .
-·-; ,,_ .·
.REVISIONS:
.. ' .
.
' . .. >
.. ·_
..
, .. -....
!!! ..
>,
Q.) ...
0 ...,
en
I
C\l
.,
E
0 z -0 ., e a.
.-' :. '.-.-';::,:: . /-?f
.,
0, u .I ,.
V ..,. _, ij ·-::J s
fl) "' ,.. -
;,; ., ';::-g-., .,
C > 3' .,
0 C
SITE·
PLAN ..
"' ..J
l:::;
I-...
"' "' ~ ~ ~------·---~ ~-Scole: Dole:
;I ~OTEO ~ 11-S.:.;A.:.;C:.:H.:.;iN-, --+-P,-oj-ec_l_N_o_, -JI
~-------------:i Sheet
CI.Q
-. ,., ,_.
OF, SHTS
'