HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 05-19; CARLSBAD MEDICAL VILLAGE; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2004-04-15PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
SEA VIEW OFFICE VILLAGE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CA
For:
ALL-STAR EQUITIES, LLC
April 15, 2004
By:
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
San Diego, CA
(Work Order 400979)
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1,0 INTRODUCTION ^
1.1 Background and Purpose 3
1.2 Scope of Work ^
1.3 Report Limitations ^
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
2.1 Site Location and Description 4
FIGURE 1
2.2 Proposed Development
3,0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION 5
3.1 Field Study and Subsurface Investigation 5
3.2 Laboratory Testing ^
4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5
4.1 Geologic Units ^
4.1.1 Topsoil (No Map Symbol) "
4.1.2 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol Qafu) 6
4.1.3 Terrace Deposit (Map Symbol Qt) • 6
4.2 Geologic Structure ^
4.3 Groundwater ^
4.4 Seismic Hazards ^
FIGURE 2
TABLE 4.1 ^
• • Q
4.4.1 Seismicity ^
4.4.2 Liquefaction Analysis ^
FIGURE 3
4.4.3 Seiches
4.4.4 Seismically Induced Settlement 10
5,0 ENGINEERING ANALYSES • 10
5.1 Material Properties 10
5.1.1 Excavation Characteristics 10
5.1.2 Compressibility 11
5.1.3 Expansion Potential 11
5.1.4 Shear Strength Characteristics 11
TABLE 5.1
5.1.5 Earthwork Adj ustments 12
TABLE 5.2 12
5.1.6 Chemical Analyses 12
5.2 Slope Stability ^2
5 3 Bearing Capacity and Lateral Earth Pressures Methodology 13
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
6.1 Site Preparation and Removals 13
6.1.1 Stripping and Deleterious Material Removal 14
6.1.2 Topsoil (No Map Symbol) 14
6.1.3 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Qafu) 14
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
6,1.4 Terrace Deposit (Map Symbol Qt) 14
6.2 Slope Stability and Remediation 15
6.2.1 Cut Slopes 1^
6.2.2 Fill Slopes 15
6.3 Building Pad Overexcavation 15
6.4 Temporary Backcut Stability 16
6.5 Subsurface Drainage 16
6.6 Earthwork Considerations 1 "7
6.6.1 Compaction Standards 17
6.6.2 Documentation of Removals and Drains • 17
6.6.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms 17
6.6.4 Fill Placement 17
6.6.5 Benching 1^
6.6.6 Mixing
6.6.7 Fill Slope Construction 1 ^
6.6.8 Oversized Materials 19
6.6.9 Expansive Materials 19
6.7 Haul Roads 19
6.8 Import Materials 19
7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 20
7.1 Stmctural Design 20
7.1.1 Foundation Design 20
7.1.2 Post-Tensioned Slabs / Foundation Design Recommendations 21
7.1.3 Conventional Slab Recommendations 21
TABLE 7.1 22
TABLE 7.2 23
7.1.4 Retaining Wall Design 24
TABLE 7,3 26
FIGURE 4 26
7.1.5 Corrosion 27
7.1.6 Seismic Design 27
TABLE 7.4 27
7.2 Other Design and Construction Recommendations 27
7.2.1 Site Drainage 27
7.2.2 Concrete Flatwork and Lot Improvements 28
TABLE 7.5 28
7.2.3 Other Improvements 28
7.2.4 Preliminary Pavement Design 29
TABLE 7.6 29
7.2.5 Utility Trench Excavation 29
7.2.6 Utility Trench Backflll 30
8,0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE 30
8,1 Slope Planting 30
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
8.2 Lot Drainage 30
8.3 Slope Irrigation 31
9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS 31
10.0 CLOSURE 32
10.1 Limitations 32
APPENDIX A:
REFERENCES
APPENDIX B:
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
PLATE A - UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
PLATES A-l THROUGH A-4 - LOGS OF BORINGS (PSE, this report)
APPENDIX C:
LABORATORY ANALYSES
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
PLATES B-1 THROUGH B-3 - DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
PLATES C-1 AND C-2 - CONSOLIDATION CURVES
PLATES D-1 THROUGH D-7 - CHEMICAL TEST RESULTS (by others, this report)
APPENDIX D:
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
PLATES G-1 THROUGH G-11 - GRADING DETAILS
APPENDIX E:
OWNERS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
POCKET ENCLOSURES:
PLATE 1 - 30-SCALE TENTATIVE MAP
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380
ALL-STAR EQUITIES, LLC
12250 El Camino Real, Suite 100
SanDiego CA 92130 April 15,2004
Work Order 400979
Attention: Mr. Tom Kem
Subject:
References:
Preliminary Geotechnical hivestigation, Sea View
Office Village, Carlsbad Village Drive, in the City of
Carlsbad, Califomia
See Appendix A
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, presented herein is Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc's (PSE) preliminary
geotechnical investigation, Sea View Office Village, Carlsbad Village Drive, in the City of
Carlsbad, Califomia, The major geotechnical/geologic issues identified within this document
include:
0 Unsuitable soils removals,
0 Grading recommendations,
0 Preliminary foundation design parameters,
0 Retaining wall design parameters.
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
TEL: (714) 220-0770
FAX: (714) 220-9589
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
TEL: (310) 325-7272 or (323) 775-6771
FAX: (714) 220-9589
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TEL: (909) 582-0170
FAX: (909) 582-0176
SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY
TEL: (714) 730-2122
FAX: (714) 730-5191
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 2
PSE appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical consulting services. If you
have any questions or should you require any additional information, please contact the under-
signed.
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
OCTAVIO BRAMBILA,
Civil Engineering Associate
Reviewed by:
CHANEY, GE;23 14
Geotecbniegl^rvices
By: A/'—.
SHAWN rr HAVEN,
Engineering Geology Associate
Reviewed by
JOIMA. HANSON, CEG 990
Vice-President
Dist: (6) Addressee
OB/JADSDH/JAH:bm:400979, April 15,2004
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 3
April 15,2004
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose
The purpose ofthis report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for the de-
sign and constmction of the project as presented on the accompanying geotechni-
cal map depicting existing topography and proposed design (Plate 1). The geo-
technical map utilizes, as abase, the undated 30-scale Tentative Map prepared by
Landmark Consulting,
1.2 Scope of Work
This study is aimed at presenting onsite geologic and geotechnical information,
and at providing pertinent conclusions and recommendations relative to develop-
ment ofthe property as currently proposed. Specific items evaluated as part of
this report include: 1) existing site conditions; 2) unsuitable soils removals; 3)
engineering and excavation characteristics of the earth materials; 4) preliminary
foundation recommendations; 5) preliminary retaining wall recommendations;
and 6) lot maintenance considerations.
The scope of our study included the following tasks:
> Review of pertinent published and unpublished geologic and geotechnical lit-
erature, maps and aerial photographs (references).
> Logging and sampling of four (4) hollow-stem auger borings (Plates A-l
tiirough A-4, Appendix B),
> Engineering and geologic analyses ofthe site plan,
> Compilation and plotting of geotechnical and geologic data on the 30-scale
Tentative Map (Plate 1),
> Limited seismicity analysis,
> Presentation of conclusions and recommendations based on the results of
field, laboratory, and office studies,
> Preparation of this report with accompanying exhibits.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 4
April 15,2004
1,3 Report Limitations
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on: 1) the data
developed during the investigation; 2) a review of the referenced material; and
3) the Tentative Map provided by Landmark Consulting (Plate 1).
The materials immediately adjacent to or beneath those observed may have dif-
ferent characteristics than those observed and no representations are made as to
the quality or extent of materials not observed.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location and Description
The Sea View Office Village covers approximately 2.22 acres (Parcel numbers
156-019-053 and 156-019-054). The site is located south of Carlsbad Village
Drive (Elm Ave) in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia (Figure 1) and is bounded to
the east, south and west by private residential parcels.
The site consists of gently inclined terrain draining to the southwest. Elevations
range from approximately 152 to 128 feet above mean sea level (msl).
2.2 Proposed Development
The proposed development includes building pads for six (6) two- and three-story
office buildings and associated driveways, parking lots and improvements. Con-
ventional cut and fill grading techniques will be used to produce the proposed
grades. As depicted on the tentative map, cut and fill slopes will be no greater
than seven (7) feet.
The maximum design depth of cut is approximately nine (9) feet on the northeast-
em side ofthe site, and the maximum design fill depth is approximately eleven
and one-half (11.5) feet in the Parking Area between Buildings 1 and 2,
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
•nGm
^ CARLSBAD A
SITE LOCATION MAP
SOURCE: USGS SAN LUIS BEY
7.5 MIN. TOPOGRAPH QUADRANGLE
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
FIGURE 1
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 CONVOY COURT
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
P: (858) 560-1713 PSEINCl@QWESir.NET
W.O.: 400979 B|ATE: 4/i|5/04
Work Order 400979 Page 5
April 15,2004
3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
3.1 Field Studv and Subsurface Investigation
PSE's field study consisted of geologic mapping and subsurface invesfigation in-
tended to evaluate the engineering characterisfics ofthe onsite soils and bedrock
materials. Data fi-om subsurface invesfigafion were used in the analysis ofthe de-
sign presented on the accompanying Tentafive Map (Plate 1).
A track mounted hollow-stem auger drill rig was used to advance four (4) 8"-
diameter exploratory borings (HS-1 through HS4). The borings were sampled
and logged by a PSE representafive. The approximate locations ofthe explora-
tory borings are shown on the accompanying Tentafive Map (Plate 1). The logs
of borings are presented in Appendix B of this report, as is a more detailed de-
scription ofthe subsurface exploration program (Appendix B),
3.2 Laboratorv Testing
As part ofthe boring program, bulk samples were obtained at significant
lithologic changes, Relafively undisturbed ring samples were obtained fi-om bor-
ings at predetermined intervals, as well as at significant lithologic changes.
Ring and bulk samples were transported to PSE's laboratory for tesfing. A sum-
mary of laboratory testing procedures and test results are presented in Appendix C
of this report.
4.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
4.1 Geologic Units
The site is predominately underlain by Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposit (Weber,
1982). Variable amounts of topsoil and undocumented fill overlie the Terrace
Deposit throughout the site. The approximate locations of the geologic contacts
observed onsite are shown on the accompanying tentative map (Plate 1), The fol-
lowing describes the geologic units encountered in our investigation.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 6
April 15,2004
4.1.1 Topsoil (No Map Symbol)
Approximately one (1) to two (2) feet of topsoil overlies the Terrace De-
posit throughout the majority of the site. The topsoil consists of light or-
ange-brown sandy silt to silty sand, which is dry and loose to moderately
dense,
4.1.2 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol Qafu)
Undocumented artificial fills are present along the northem boundary and
are associated with the constmction of Carlsbad Village Drive. They con-
sist of silty to clayey sands, which are moist to slightly moist and moder-
ately to medium dense. The undocumented fills range fi-om approximately
one (1) to five (5) feet thick.
4.1.3 Terrace Deposit (Map Symbol Qt)
Terrace Deposits occur below the shallow topsoils and the undocumented
artificial fills onsite. The Terrace Deposits onsite consist of silty sand-
stone that is red brown with shades of gray and black, moderately hard to
hard and moist to wet. The upper one (1) to three (3) feet are weathered.
4.2 Geologic Structure
The Terrace deposits are relatively flat lying. Based upon literature research (ref-
erences), aerial photographic analysis and geologic mapping, faulting is not
known to be present onsite.
4.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in our exploratory excavations. The groundwater
level ranged from sixteen (16) to seventeen (17) feet in depth fi-om the existing
ground surface.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 7
April 15,2004
4.4 Seismic Hazards
The subject site is located in southem Califomia, which is considered a tectoni-
cally active area. The type and severity of seismic hazards affecting the site are
dependent on the distance to the causative fault, the magnitude, intensity and du-
ration ofthe seismic event, and the subsurface soil characteristics. The seismic
hazard may be primary, such as surface mpture and/or ground shaking, or secon-
dary, such as liquefaction, ground lurching or inundation by seiches.
Faults are not known to exist within or near the subject project. Accordingly, the
probability for surface mpture on the subject site is very low. Ground shaking
hazards caused by earthquakes along active regional faults however do exist.
Figure 2 presents a map showing the active faults in southem Califomia, histori-
cal earthquakes (1800 to 1997) and the project site location. A listing of active
faults within a 100-kilometer (62 miles) radius is presented in Table 4,1.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
Sea View Office Village
100 --
50 --
-50
-100 --
M = 6
M = 7
M = 8
-150 --
I I .1 I I I I I I I I \ L
150 200 250 300 350
FIGURE 2
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 8
TABLE 4.1
Distance to Known Active Faults
FAULT NAME
DISTANCE
(mi) (km)
MAXIMUM
MOMENT
MAGNITUDE*
(Mw)
Newport- Inglewood (Offshore) 5,3 8,5 6.9
Rose Canyon 5,3 8.6 6.9
Coronado Bank 21.6 34,7 7.4
Elsinore - Temecula 23,5 37.9 6.8
Elsinore-Julian 23.8 38.3 7.1
Elsinore - Glen Ivy 33,0 53,1 6.8
Palos Verdes 35.7 57,4 7.1
Earthquake Valley 43.8 70.5 6.5
Newport - Inglewood (L.A. Basin) 45,5' 73.3 6.9
San Jacinto - Anza 46.1 74.2 7.2
Chino - Central Ave. (Elsinore) 46.4 74,6 6.7
San Jacinto - San Jacinto Valley 46.6 75,0 6.9
Whittier 50.6 81.5 6.8
San Jacinto - Coyote Creek 52.1 83,8 6.8
Compton Thmst 55.2 88.9 6.8
Elysian Park Thrust 57.8 93,0 6.7
Elsinore - Coyote Mountain 58,2 93.6 6,8
San Jacinto - San Bemardino 59,0 95,0 6.7
* Blake (1989-2000a)
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 ^^^^^
April 15,2004
4.4.1 Seismicitv
The nearest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, a
type B fault, located approximately five and three-tenths (5,3) miles west
ofthe project. This conclusion is based on literature review (references),
aerial photographic analysis, and PSE's site mapping and subsurface in-
vestigation.
PSE has performed a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) out-
Hned in Petersen and others (1996) and UBC (1997). To perform this
analysis PSE has utilized FRISKSP, developed from United States Geo-
logic Survey software (FRISK) by Blake (1989-2000c).
The attenuation relationships by Boore and others (1997) for soil type Sc
(soft soil - shear wave velocity 150 m/s) were utilized. For a complete
discussion ofthe software and probabilistic methods, the reader is referred
to Blake (1989-2000a, b and c).
With one standard deviation, FRISKSP computed 0.27g for soil type Sc
(Figure 3) as the peak horizontal ground accelerations fi-om the design-
basis earthquake having a ten (10) percent probability of being exceeded
in fifty (50) years. In sum, these results are based on many unavoidable
geological and statistical uncertainties, but yet are consistent with current
standard-of-practice. As engineering seismology evolves, and as more
fault-specific geological data are gathered, more certainty and different
methodologies may also evolve.
4.4.2 Liquefaction Analvsis
Seismic agitation of relatively loose saturated sands and silty sands can re-
sult in a buildup of pore pressure. If the pore pressure exceeds the over-
burden stresses, a temporary quick condition known as liquefaction may
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
BOORE ET AL(1997) NEHRP C (520)1
o
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
— \
— \
— 1
—
—
—
—
—
—
-flll II II llll llll AUX-llll IIM Mil llll
_ 1 1 iJ-llll llll —i., III.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Acceleration (g)
FIGURE 3
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 10
occur. The effects of liquefaction at a site can manifest it several ways,
and may include: 1) ground oscillations; 2) loss of bearing; 3) lateral
spread; 4) dynamic settiement; and 5) flow failure.
The potential for the occurrence of liquefaction at the subject site is con-
sidered extremely low due to the relatively high in-place density ofthe
underiying Terrace Deposits and the proposed remedial grading.
4.4.3 Seiches
Due to the lack of large bodies of water upstream of the site, inundation
due to seiches is considered extremely low for this project.
4.4,4 Seismically Induced Settlement
Upon completion ofthe grading recommendations presented in this report,
seismically-induced dynamic settlement will be very low and reduced to
an "acceptable level of risk" as defined by the State of Califomia.
j^.n ENGINEERING ANALYSES
Presented herein is a general discussion ofthe geotechnical properties ofthe various soil
types and earth materials as summarized from the referenced reports and the analytic
methods used in this report.
5.1 Material Properties
5.1,1 Excavation Characteristics
It is PSE's opinion that the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional
earth moving equipment. Although unlikely, more resistant, cemented
beds could be encountered.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 11
5.1.2 Compressibility
The onsite materials that are highly compressible include topsoils, un-
documented fill and the upper weathered portions of the Terrace Deposits.
Based on in situ density and the results of consolidation tests ofthe under-
lying Terrace Deposit materials, significant settiement is not anticipated.
Highly compressible materials will require removal fi-om fill areas prior to
placement of fill and where exposed at-grade in cut areas. Recommended
removal depths are presented in Section 6,1, and earthwork adjustment es-
timates are presented in Section 5.1.5,
5.1.3 Expansion Potential
According to the results presented in Table I of Appendix C, and PSE's
previous experience in the area, the expansion potential ofthe onsite mate-
rials vary fi-om "very low" to "low" when tested in accordance with UBC
18-2 and classified in accordance with Table 18-1-B ofthe UBC,
Depending upon final distribution of the earth materials, near surface, as-
graded soils could vary in expansion potential between these values.
5.1.4 Shear Strength Characteristics
The following table presents a summary of "averaged" shear strength pa-
rameters obtained from our investigation.
TABLE 5.1
Shear Strength Characteristics
Friction
Material Description Cohesion 'Angle'', ," Weight Material Description
m't(pS'G:.:. d) (Degrees)
Artificial Fill - Compacted (afe) 100 32 130
Terrace Deposit (Qt) 0 34 130
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 12
5.1.5 Earthwork Adjustments
The following average earthwork adjustment factors have been formulated
for this report.
TABLE 5.2
Earthwork Adjustments
' Geologic Unit Adjustment
'•Gp:yyEai^jo¥G:G.l. :
Topsoil (No Map Symbol) Shrink 8%- 12%
Terrace Deposit (Qt) Bulk 0%- 2%
These values may be used in an effort to balance the earthwork quantities.
As is the case with every project, contingencies should be made to adjust
the earthwork balance when grading is in progress and actual conditions
are better defined.
5.1.6 Chemical Analvses
The results of soluble sulfate tests are presented in Appendix C (Plates D-
1 through D-7), According to the test results, the soluble sulfate concen-
trafions ofthe majority of the onsite materials are significantiy below 0.1
percent. As such, soluble sulfate potential for the majority of onsite soils
in this phase can be classified as "negligible" in accordance with Table 19-
A-4 ofthe 1997 UBC,
5.2 Slope Stabilitv
Based upon the current design, no significant slopes higher than seven (7) feet
will be created during the grading ofthe subject site. Accordingly, it is PSE's
opinion that the subject cut and fill slopes proposed onsite will be both grossly
and surficially stable.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 13
April 15,2004
5.3 Bearing Capacitv and Lateral Earth Pressures Methodology
Ultimate bearing capacity values were obtained using the graphs and fonnula pre-
sented in NA VFAC DM-7.1. Allowable bearing was determined by applying a
factor of safety of at least 3 to the ultimate bearing capacity. Static lateral earth
pressures were calculated using Rankine methods for active and passive cases. If
it is desired to use Coulomb forces, a separate analysis specific to the apphcation,
can be conducted.
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Development ofthe subject property as proposed is considered feasible, fi-om a geotech-
nical standpoint, provided that the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are
incorporated into the design and constmction ofthe project. Presented below are specific
issues identified by this study as possibly impacting site development. Recommendations
to mitigate these issues are presented in the text of this report, with graphic presentation
ofthe recommendations on the enclosed Plate 1, where appropriate.
6.1 Site Preparation and Removals
All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing ofthe project
soils engineer and engineering geologist or their authorized representative in ac-
cordance with the recommendations contained herein, the current grading ordi-
nance ofthe Citv ofCarlsbad and PSE's Earthwork SDecifications (Appendix
D). All topsoil, undocumented artificial fill and weathered Terrace Deposit shall
be removed in areas planned to receive fill or where exposed at final grade. The
resulfing voids should be replaced with engineered fill. The exact extent of re-
movals can best be determined in the field during grading when observation and
evaluation can be performed by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
Removals should expose competent, unweathered bedrock and be observed and
mapped by the engineering geologist prior to fill placement. In general, soils re-
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 14
April 15, 2004
moved during remedial grading will be suitable for reuse in compacted fills pro-
vided they are properiy moisture condifioned and do not contain deleterious mate-
rials.
6.1.1 Stripping and Deleterious Material Removal
Existing vegetation, trash, debris, and other deleterious materials should
be removed and wasted from the site prior to commencing removal of un-
suitable soils and placement of compacted fill materials.
6.1.2 Topsoil (No Map Symbol)
Complete removal of topsoils will be required. Removals are anticipated
to range in depth from one (1) to two (2) feet.
6.1.3 Undocumented Fill (Map Symbol Qafu)
Where possible, complete removal of undocumented fill along Carlsbad
Village Drive should be conducted within stmctural areas. Removal
depths are anticipated to range in depth from one (1) to five (5) feet.
6.1.4 Terrace Deposit (Map Symbol Qt)
The upper weathered portions ofthe Terrace Deposits will require removal
within stmctural areas. Removal depths are anticipated to range in depth
from one (1) to three (3) feet.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 15
April 15, 2004
6.2 Slope Stabilitv and Remediation
6.2.1 Cut Slopes
Based upon the current design, the highest design cut slope onsite is seven
(7) feet. We anticipate that the proposed slopes cut in bedrock will be
grossly and surficially stable at a 2 : 1 slope ratio.
Design cut slopes that expose undocumented fill, soil or weathered bed-
rock will require replacement with compacted fill. All cut slopes should
be observed by the engineering geologist during grading. Modifications to
this recommendations presented herein may be necessary and should be
based upon conditions exposed in the field at the time of grading.
6.2.2 Fill Slopes
The fill slopes on the project are proposed at 2 : 1 (horizontal to vertical).
The highest design fill slope is approximately three (3) feet located in the
westeriy portion ofthe project. Fill slopes, when properiy constmcted
with onsite materials, are expected to be grossly and surficially stable as
designed. _ _ , ^ _
6.3 Building Pad Overexcavation
Where design grades and/or remedial grading activities create a cut/fill transition
on a building pad, the cut and shallow fill portions ofthe pad shall be overexca-
vated a minimum of four (4) feet and replaced to design grade with compacted
fill. All undercuts should be graded such that a gradient of at least one (1) percent
is maintained toward deeper fill areas or the fi-ont ofthe lot.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 16
April 15, 2004
6.4 Temporarv Backcut Stability
During grading operations, temporary backcuts will be required to accomplish
removals of unsuitable soils. Backcuts in unsuitable soils should be made no
steeper than 1 : 1 (H:V), Flatter backcuts may be necessary where geologic con-
ditions dictate and where minimum width dimensions are to be maintained.
In consideration ofthe inherent instability created by temporary constmction
backcuts for removal and undercut sections, it is imperative that grading sched-
ules are coordinated to minimize the unsupported exposure time of these excava-
tions. Once started, these excavations and subsequent fill operations should be
maintained to completion without intervening delays imposed by avoidable cir-
cumstances. In cases where five-day workweeks comprise a normal schedule,
grading should be planned to avoid exposing at-grade or near-grade excavafions
through a non-work weekend. If grading is ongoing during inclement weather,
then forecast weather conditions should be taken into consideration prior to start
of removals. Where improvements may be affected by temporary instability, ei-
ther on or offsite, further restricfions such as extending work days, implementing
weekend schedules, and/or other requirements considered critical to serving spe-
cific circumstances may be imposed.
6.5 Subsurface Drainage
Due to the flat relief across the project and the relafively shallow removals onsite,
subdrains are not anticipated. Final detennination of subdrain requirements will
be detennined in the field during grading based on the exposed geologic condi-
tions.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 17
April 15,2004
6.6 Earthwork Considerations
6.6.1 Compaction Standards
Fill and processed natural ground shall be compacted to a minimum rela-
tive compaction of 90 percent, as determined by ASTM Test Method: D
1557-91,
Compaction shall be achieved at shghtiy above the optimum moisture con-
tent, and as generally discussed in the attached Earthwork Specifications.
Compaction shall be achieved with the use of sheepsfoot rollers or similar
kneading type equipment. Mixing and moisture conditioning will be re-
quired in order to achieve the required moisture conditions,
6.6.2 Documentation of Removals and Drains
Removal bottoms, subdrains, fill keys, slope laybacks, backdrains and
their outlets, if required, should be observed and approved by the engi-
neering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer and documented by the
civil engineer prior to fill placement. Toe stakes should be provided by
the civil engineer in order to verify required key dimensions and locations.
6.6.3 Treatment of Removal Bottoms
At the complefion of unsuitable soil removals and excavation of stabiliza-
tion keys, the exposed bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of
eight (8) inches, moisture conditioned to above optimum condifions, and
compacted in-place to the standards set forth in this report.
6.6.4 Fill Placement
After removals, scarification, and compaction of in-place materials are
completed, additional fill may be placed. Fill should be placed in thin lifts
(eight-inch bulk), moisture conditioned to sHghtiy above the opfimum
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 18
April 15,2004
moisture content, mixed, compacted, and tested as grading progresses until
final grades are attained.
6.6.5 Benching
Where the natural slope is steeper than 5-horizontal to 1-vertical and
where designed by the project geotechnical engineer or geologist, com-
pacted fill material shall be keyed and benched into competent bedrock or
firm natural soil.
6.6.6 Mixing
In order to prevent layering of different soil types and/or different mois-
ture contents, mixing of materials may be necessary. The mixing should
be accomplished prior to and as part of the compacfion of each fill lift.
Discing may be required when either excessively dry or wet materials are
encountered.
6.6.7 Fill Slope Construction
The following recommendations should be incorporated into constmction
of the proposed fill slopes,
> Fill slopes should be overfilled to an extent determined by the con-
tractor, but not less than two (2) feet measured perpendicular to the
slope face, so that when trimmed back to the compacted core a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction is achieved.
Compaction of each fill lift should extend out to the temporary
slope face.
As an altemative to overfilling, fill slopes may be built to the finish
slope face in accordance with the following recommendations:
a) Compacfion of each fill lift should extend to the face of the
slopes.
>
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 19
April 15,2004
b) At complefion of mass filling, the slope surface should be
watered, shaped and compacted by track walking with a D-
8 bulldozer, or equivalent, such that compacfion to project
standards is achieved to the slope face.
c) Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as
soon as pracfical to inhibit erosion and deteriorafion ofthe
slope surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance the
long-term stability of the finish slope surface.
6.6.8 Oversized Materials
Oversized materials (materials larger than eight inches) are not expected to
be generated from excavations onsite. If oversized materials are encoun-
tered, then they should be disposed of in deep fill areas as described in this
firms Earthwork Specificafions (Appendix D),
6.6.9 Expansive Materials
Alluvium and undocumented artificial fill are expected to range from
"very low" to "low" in expansion potenfial. If encountered, highly expan-
sive soils should be placed in deeper fill areas outside the influence zone
of foundations and other improvements.
6.7 Haul Roads
All haul roads, ramp fills, and tailing areas should be removed prior to placement
of fill.
6.8 Import Materials
Import materials, if required, should be similar in engineering characteristics as
the onsite soils and should be approved by the soil engineer at the source prior to
importation to the site.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 ^^8^ 20
April 15,2004
7.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 Structural Design
It is anticipated that two- and three-story, wood-frame and steel-frame, commer-
cial stmctures with shallow slab-on-grade foundations will be constmcted. Upon
the completion of rough grading, finish grade samples should be collected and
tested so as to provide specific recommendations as they relate to individual
building pads. These test results and conesponding design recommendafions will
be presented in a final rough grading report. Final slab and foundation design
recommendations should be made based upon specific stmcture sitings, loading
condifions, and as-graded soil condifions.
It is anticipated that the majority of onsite soils will possess "very low" to "low"
expansion potential when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2 and clas-
sified in accordance with UBC Table 18-1-B, For preliminary budgefing pur-
poses, the following foundafion design requirements for a range of potenfial ex-
pansion characteristics are presented:
7.1.1 Foundation Design
Commercial stmctures can be supported on conventional shallow founda-
tions and slab-on-grade or post-tensioned slab/foundation systems. The
design of foundation systems should be based on the as-graded expansion
potential as determined by post-grade testing of near-surface soils. The
following values may be used in preliminary foundation design.
Allowable Bearing: 2500 Ibs./sq.ft. (assuming a minimum em-
bedment depth of 12 inches and a minimum
width of 12 inches).
Lateral Bearing: 250 lbs,/sq,ft, per foot of depth to a maxi-
mum of 2000 Ibs./sq.ft.
Sliding Coefficient: 0,35
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 21
April 15,2004
Settlement: Total = 3/4- inch
Differential = 3/8- inch in 20 feet
The above values may be increased as allowed by code to resist transient
loads such as wind or seismic. Building code and stmctural design con-
siderations may govem. Depth and reinforcement requirements should be
evaluated by the stmctural engineer,
7.1.2 Post-Tensioned Slabs / Foundation Design Recommendations
Table 7.1 presents preliminary design recommendations that may be im-
plemented by the stmctural engineer when post-tensioned slab/foundation
systems are utilized in the building constmction based on Section 1816
and 1817 ofthe 1997 UBC.
7.1.3 Conventional Slab Recommendations
For budgeting purposes, it can be anticipated that conventional founda-
tions can be designed based upon the values presented in Section 7,1,1 and
Table 7.2, Final design recommendations should be made based upon
post-grading testing of the near surface soils.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 22
TABLE 7.1
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL
FOUNDATION
CATEGORY
CENTER LIFT
All Perimeter Beam Conditions
Em (ft.) Ym (in.)
EDGE LIFT
12 Inch
Embedment
Em
JM.
Ym
(in.)
18 Inch
Embedment
Em Ym
24 Inch
Embedment
Em Ym
(in.)
30 Inch
Embedment
Em
(ft-)
Ym
(in.)
TI > n
li fi
U)
•
F
ID m Z
Q
Z m m n
2
a z n
Very Low to Low 5.0 1.67 3.25 0.41 3.25 0.36 3.25 0.31
Medium II 5.5 3.6 3.75 0.61 3.5 0.63 3.50 0.55
High III 6.0 5.68 3.75 0.80 3.75 0.70
Footing/Slab Dimensions
The footing width, depth and the structural slab-on-grade thickness shall be as specified by the structural engineer based upon the soil parameters provided by PSE and the
requirements of the most current UBC,
Under-Slab Requirements
A 10-mil (minimum) polyvinyl membrane should be placed below all slabs-on-grade within living and moisture sensitive areas. This membrane should be covered with a
minimum of two (2) inches of clean sand. This membrane should also be underlain with two (2) inches of clean sand.
Slab Subgrade Moisture Requirements Based Upon Expansion Potential
Very Low to Low Minimum of 120 percent of optimum moisture immediately prior to placing concrete to a depth of 12 inches.
Medium Minimum of 130 percent of optimum moisture at least 24 hours prior to placing concrete to a depth of 12 inches.
mg|] Minimum of 140 percent of optimum moisture at least 48 hours prior to placing concrete to a depth of 12 inches.
Footing Embedment
If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five (5) feet horizontally of the swale, the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment
below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings Adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that at least seven (7) feet are provided horizontally from edge ofthe footing
to the face of the slope. —
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 23
TABLE 7.2
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDA TION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Expansion Potential Low Medium High
Soil Category I II III
Footing Depth Below Lowest Adjacent Finish Grade
Two-Story Interior 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches
Two-Story Exterior 18 inches 18 inches 24 inches
Three-Story Interior 24 inches 24 inches 24 inches
Three-Story Exterior 24 inches 24 inches 24 inches
Footing Width
Two-Story 15 inches 15 inches 15 inches
Three-Story 18 inches 18 inches 18 inches
Footing Reinforcement
No. 4 rebar
one (1) on top
one (1) on bottom
No, 4 rebar; two (2) on
top, two (2) on bottom
OR
No. 5 rebar; one (1) on top,
one (1) on bottom
No. 4 rebar; two (2) on
top, two (2) on bottom
OR
No. 5 rebar; one (1) on top,
one (1) on bottom
Slab Thickness 4 inches (actual) 4 inches (actual) 4 inches (actual)
Slab Reinforcement
No. 3 rebar spaced 18
inches on center,
each way
No. 3 rebar spaced 15
inches on center,
each way
No. 3 rebar spaced 12
inches on center,
each way
Under-Slab Requirement
2 inches of clean sand
over 10-mil Visqueen,
underlain with 2 inches of
clean sand
2 inches of clean sand
over 10-mil Visqueen,
underlain with 3 inches of
clean sand
2 inches clean sand
over 10-mil Visqueen,
underlain with 4 inches of
clean sand
Slab Subgrade Moisture
Minimum of 110 percent
of optimum moisture
prior to placing concrete.
Minimum of 120 percent
of optimum moisture
24 hours prior
to placing concrete
to a depth of 12 inches
Minimum of 140 percent
of optimum moisture
48 hours prior
to placing concrete
to a depth of 12 inches
Footing Embedment Next to Swales and Slopes
If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five (5) feet horizontally of the swale, the footing should be
embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be em-
bedded such that at least five (5) feet are provided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slope.
Garages
A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage enti ance, tying together
the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same
depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided
at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6) inches deep. Footing depth, width and rein-
forcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness, reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the
structure.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 24
April 15,2004
7.1.4 Retaining Wall Design
Retaining walls should be founded on compacted fill or bedrock. Founda-
tions maybe designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in
Section 7.1,1, In general, conventional walls can be designed to retain either
nafive materials or select granular backfill, although the design for non-"free-
draining" and expansive nafive material will produce a relatively costiy wall
system. Due to the fact that some of the nafive onsite soils are relafively fine-
grained and expansive, specificafions for the quality of backfill soils should
be defined. It should be anficipated that suitable select backfill material will
have to be imported or selecfively produced from onsite sources.
Conventional walls constmcted with select gi-anular backfill can be designed
to resist lateral pressures that are developed by a fluid as presented on Table
7,3, As depicted on the accompanying retaining wall detail (Figure 4), the se-
lect material should extend a minimum width (behind the wall) of one-half
(1/2) the wall height and should be capped with a layer of approximately one
(1) foot thickness of nafive soil,
> The design loads presented in Table 7,4 are to be applied on
the retaining wall in a horizontal fashion. Fricfion between
wall and retained soils should not be allowed in the retaining
wall analyses,
> Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall de-
sign to account for the influence of constmction loads, tempo-
rary loads, and possible nearby stmctural footing loads. Unit
weight of 130 pcf may be used to model the dry and wet den-
sity of onsite compacted fill materials.
> Select backflll, imported or granular, should be granular, stmc-
tural quality backfill with a sand equivalent of 20 or better and
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 25
April 15,2004
"very low" to "low" expansive materials should be used. The
backfill must encompass the full acfive wedge area.
> No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum
design strengths are achieved in compression tests of cylinders,
> Footing excavations for retaining walls should be observed by
the project soil engineer or his representative.
> The wall design should include waterproofing (where appro-
priate) and backdrains for relieving possible hydrostatic pres-
sures. The backdrain should be comprised of a four- (4) inch
perforated PVC pipe in a two- (2) feet by two- (2) feet, three-
quarter- (3/4) inch gravel matrix, wrapped with a geofabric.
The backdrain should be installed with a minimum gradient of
two (2) percent and should be outletted every 100 feet, or less,
> Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
the laboratory maximum density at or slightly above opfimum
moisture asper ASTM:D 1557-91.
It should be noted that the bearing capacity and passive resistance values
presented in Secfion 7,1.1 are based on level condifions at the toe. Modi-
fied design parameters can be presented for retaining walls with sloped
condifions at the toe.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15, 2004
Page 26
TABLE 7.3
SELECT BACKFILL Y=130 (^=32°
Level Backflll
Rankine
Coefficients
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (psf/lin.ft.)
Coefficient of Active Pressure:
Coefficient of Passive Pressure:
Coefficient of at Rest Pressure:
Ka = 0.31
Kp = 3.25
Ko = 0.47
40.0
423,0
61.0
2 :1 Backfill
Rankine
Coefficients
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure (psf/lin.ft.)
Coefficient of Active Pressure:
Coefficient of Passive Pressure:
Ascending
Descending
Coefficient of At Rest Pressure:
Ka = 0.47
Kp (+) = 8.62
Kp (-)= 1.23
Ko - 0,72
61,0
1121.0
160.0
94,0
FIGURE 4
RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
N.T,.S.
PROVIDE DRAINAGE
'SWALE
OR AS MODIFIED
BY A SPEelFIC REPORT
fp) 4 INCH PERFORATED PVC, SCHEDULE «, SDR 35.OR APPROVED ALTERNATE.PLACE
^ PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU, FT. PER FT: OF 3/4 INCH
ROCKflR APPROVED.ALTERNATE AND MIRAFI 140f ILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT
@ OPTIONAL . PLACE DRAIN AS SHOWN WHERE MOISTURE MIGRATION IS UNDESIRABLE
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 27
7.1.5 Corrosion
Resisfivity tests performed on a selected soil sample indicate that those
soils are not conosive to buried metallic materials. PSE recommends the
consultation of an engineer(s) specializing in corrosion to detennine speci-
fications for protection of the constmction materials. Test results are pre-
sented in Appendix C (Plates D-1 through D-7).
7.1.6 Seismic Design
Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code
requirements and the parameters presented in Table 7.4. The parameters
are: 1) the soil profile types; 2) peak ground accelerafions (PGA); 3)
coefficients for accelerafion (Ca) and velocity (Cv); and 4) near source
factors for accelerafion (Na) and velocity (Nv). The site occurs in seismic
zone 4, and therefore the seismic zone factor "Z" is 0.4. The nearest
known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) Fault Zone, It is
approximately five and three-tenths (5.3) miles west of the project. These
parameters are meant to be consistent with the UBC (1997).
TABLE 7.4
UBC (1997) Seismic Parameters
PGA
0.27g 0.4
C.
0.40Na 0.56Nv 1.0
•?N;;^
1,06
7.2 Other Design and Construction Recommendations
7.2.1 Site Drainage
Positive drainage away from stmctures should be provided and main-
tained.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 28
7.2.2 Concrete Flatwork and Lot Improvements
In an effort to minimize shrinkage cracking, concrete flatwork should be
constmcted of uniforaily cured, low-slump concrete and should contain
sufficient control/contracfion joints (as defined in Table 7.5),
TABLE 7.5
Recommendations for Non-Structural Concrete Flatwork
(Low to Medium Expansion Potenfial Soils)
,Miiiimum .
Specifications Driveways
BiBityiP
Sidewal^^ ||R|siSewa®iilli
- Patios/
Walkways
Thickness 4 inches Per City
Standard 4 inches 4 inches
Crack
Control
Deep tool at 10-feet
on center, each way
Per City
Standard
Deep tool at 6 feet
spacing (maximum)
Deep tool at 8 feet
each way (maximum)
Subgrade
Preparation
120% of opfimum
moisture to a depth
of 12 inches
Per City
Standard
120% of optimum
moisture to a depth
of 12 inches
120% of opfimum
moisture to a depth of
12 inches
7.2.3 Other Improvements
The owner is advised to consult with qualified geotechnical engineers, de-
signers, and contractors in the design and constmction of future improve-
ments. Each building pad and proposed improvement should be evaluated
based on the specific sitings and loading condifions, accounfing for the
hillside nature and specific soil condifions. Design considerafions on any
given lot may need to include provisions for: 1) differential bearing ma-
terials (bedrock versus compacted fill); 2) ascending/descending slope
conditions; 3) bedrock stmcture; 4) perched (irrigation) water; 5) spe-
cial surcharge loading conditions; 6) potential expansive soil pressure;
and 7) differential settlement/heave. Suggested owner maintenance and
improvement considerafions are provided in Appendix E ofthis report.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Page 29
7.2.4 Preliminarv Pavement Design
"R"-value testing has not yet been performed. Upon achieving subgrade
elevafion, samples should be collected and "R"-value testing performed.
That data along with traffic indices, provided by the City ofCarisbad, will
be utilized to determine stmctural pavement secfions. For budgeting pur-
poses, presented in Table 7.6 below, are pavement sections based upon
"R"-values of 10 and 30 and a range of traffic indices. The majority of
onsite materials are likely to possess "R"-values in the range of 10 to 30.
TABLE 7.6
Preliminary Pavement Sections
Traffic Index yiGit GyGyM^yiii iiilipilsil
"R"-Value = 10 3" AC/9" AB 3" AC/12.5" AB 4" AC/14.5" AB
"R"-Value = 30 3" AC/6" AB 3" AC/8,5" AB 4" AC / 9,5" AB
AC = Asphaltic Concrete AB = Aggregate Base
Pavement subgrade soils should be at slightly above optimum moisture
condition and should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum
laboratory dry density in accordance with the ASTM Test Method: D-
1557-91, Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of
maximum dry density as determined by Caltrans 216.
7.2.5 Utilitv Trench Excavation
All utilitv trenches should be shored or laid back in accordance with appli-
cable OSHA standards. Excavafions in bedrock areas should be made in
consideration of underlying geologic stmcture. On this site, the general
geologic structure is relatively flat, although local variations to this re-
gional trend can exist and should be evaluated. Pacific Soils Engineering,
Inc, can be consulted on these issues during constraction.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 30
April 15,2004
7.2.6 Utilitv Trench Backflll
Mainline and lateral utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least
90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM:D-1557. Onsite
soils will not be suitable for use as bedding material but will be suitable
for use in backfill, provided oversized materials are removed. If nafive
soils are used, mechanical compacfion is recommended. No surcharge
loads should be imposed above excavafions. This includes spoil piles,
lumber, concrete tmcks, concrete blocks, or other materials and constmc-
tion equipment. Drainage above excavafions should be directed away
from the banks. Care should be taken to prevent saturafion ofthe soils.
8.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE
Ongoing maintenance ofthe improvements is essenfial to the long-term performance of
stmctures and slopes. Although the design and constmcfion during mass grading is
planned to create slopes that are both grossly and surficially stable, certain factors are be-
yond the control ofthe soil engineer and geologist. The homeowners must implement
certain maintenance procedures.
8.1 Slope Planting
Slope planting should consist of ground cover, shrubs, and trees that possess deep,
dense root stmctures and require a minimum of irrigation. The Owners should be
advised of their responsibility to maintain such planting.
8.2 Lot Drainage
Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from stmctures
and slopes and toward approved disposal areas. Design fine grade elevations
should be maintained through the life of the stmcture or if design fine grade ele-
vations are altered, adequate area drains should be installed in order to provide
rapid discharge of water, away from stmctures and slopes. The owners should be
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 31
April 15, 2004
made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning ofall drainage
tenaces, downdrains, and other devices that have been installed to promote stmc-
ture and slope stability.
8.3 Slope Irrigation
The owners should be advised of their responsibility to maintain irrigafion sys-
tems. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to
provide maximum unifonn coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap,
Overwatering with consequent wasteful mn-off and serious ground saturation
should be avoided. If automafic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be
adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions,
9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS
This report represents a geotechnical preliminary invesfigafion of the 20-scale tentative
parcel map. As the project design progresses, site specific geologic and geotechnical is-
sues need to be incorporated into design and constmcfion ofthe project. Consequently,
future plan reviews may be necessary. These reviews may include reviews of
> Precise grading plans,
> Foundafion plans,
> Retaining wall plans.
These plans should be forwarded to the project geotechnical engineer / geologist for
evaluation and comment(s), as necessary.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979 Page 32
April 15,2004
10.0 CLOSURE
10.1 Limitations
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an
appropriate level of field review will be provided by geotechnical engineers and en-
gineering geologists who are familiar with the design and site geologic conditions.
The field review shall be sufficient to confirm that geotechnical and geologic condi-
fions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and
conesponding recommendations presented in this report. Pacific Soils Engineering,
Inc., should be notified of any pertinent changes in the project plans or if subsurface
condifions are found to vary from those described herein. Such changes or varia-
tions may require a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report.
The geologic data presented on the exhibits represent selective geologic data,
which PSE considers representative of site conditions. Complete geologic data
are contained within the boring logs contained herein and log of trenches within
the referenced report.
The data, opinions, and recommendations ofthis report are applicable to the spe-
cific design of this project as discussed in this report. They have no applicability
to any other project or to any other location and any and all subsequent users ac-
cept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and
recommendafions without the prior written consent of Pacific Soils Engineering,
Inc,
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., has no responsibility for constmcfion means,
methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions or pro-
grams in connection with the constmction, for the acts or omissions of the CON-
TRACTOR, or any other person performing any of the constmction, or for the
failure of any of them to cany out the constmction in accordance with the final
design drawings and specifications.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIX
A
References
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
REFERENCES
Blake, T. F., 1989-2000a, EQFAULT, for Windows Version 3.0, computer program for the de-
terminisfic predicfion of peak horizontal accelerafion from digitized Califomia faults,
Blake, T. F., 1989-2000b, EQSEARCH, for Windows Version 3.0, computer program for the es-
fimation of peak horizontal acceleration from digitized Califomia faults,
Blake, T. F., 1989-2000c, FRISKSP, for Windows Version 4,0, proprietary computer source code
for probabilistic acceleration determination.
Boore, D. M,, Joyner, W, B., and Fumal, T. E,, 1997, Equations for estimating horizontal re-
' sponse spectra and peak acceleration from westem North American earthquakes: A
summary of recent work, Seismological Research Letters, volume 6.8, No. 1, p. 128-153,
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seis-
mic hazards in Califomia: Department of Conservation, special publication 117, 74 p.
Hart, E. W., 1994, Fault-mpture hazard zones in Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and
Geology, special publication 42, 1992 revised edition, 34 p.
ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, Califomia: Intemationai Conference of Building
Officials, 3 volumes.
Jahns, Richard H., 1995, Geologic guide No, 5, northem part ofthe Peninsular Range Province,
in Geology of Southera Califomia: Division of Mines and Geology, Richard Jones, ed,
Jermings, C. W., 1994, Fault activity map of Califomia and adjacent areas: Califomia Division
of Mines and Geology, Cahfomia geologic map data series, map no, 6, scale 1:750,000.
Peterson, M. D,, Bryant, W, A,, Cramer, C. H., Cao, T,, Reichie, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lien-
haemper, J. J., McCroty, P. A., and Swartz, D, P., 1996, Probabilistic seismic hazard as-
sessment for the State of Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, open file
report 96-08, 59 p.
Tan, S, S, Kennedy, M, P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestem Part of San Diego County,
Cahfomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIX
B
Subsurface Investigation and
Logs of Borings
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
SITRSURFACl^ INVESTIGATION
On March 11 2004 PSE performed a subsurface field invesfigafion utilizing a hollow-stem auger
Sat A 1 through A-4) Boring excavations ranged from sixteen (16) to twenty (20) feet be-
low existing grades. Boring excavations were logged by representafives ofthis firai,
Representafive bulk and "undisturbed" samples were obtained from the exploratory excavafions
and delivered to PSE's laboratory for testing and analysis.
Undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings by driving a sampling spoon into the mate-
rial ^h band type spoon, having an inside diameter of 2.42 inches with a tap-ed cutting tip
at the lower end, was used. The barrel was lined with thm brass nngs, each 1 inch in length.
The poons penirated into the soil approximately 18 inches. The lower portion of the sample
was retained for testing. All samples in the natural field condition were sealed m airtight con-
tainers and fransported to the laboratory.
Blow counts were noted for each "undisturbed" sample and are presented in the logs of the bor-
ings (Plates A-l through A-4), The approximate locafions ofthe exploratory excavafions are
shown on Plate 1.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECT NO.
DATE STARTED
DATE FINISHED
DRILLER
TYPE OF DRILL RIG.
400979
03/11/04
03/11/04
Padfic Drilling
PROJECTNAME
GROUND ELEV.
GW DEPTH (FT)
DROP
DRIVE WT.
Sea View Office Villaqe
131.0
16
30"
BORING DESIG..
LOGGED BY
NOTES
HS-1
OB
140 LBS.
Q. II)
D-'
> LU _l Ul
LU
If BLOW
COUNT
130-
10-
>-O
o
_J o I
GROUP
SYMBOL
SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
LU ^
Z) — H- I-
18
TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, fine-grained, red brown, moist to
slightly moist, loose to moderately dence
TFRRACE DEPOSIT (Qt): SILTY SANDSTONE, fine-graineo,
rusty brown, slightly moist, moderately hard.
125-
15-
120-
27/50 for 5"
bulk
19/35
50 for 5"
—'CO >-z Q: LU
QD
cn
z
,o
3
Lil , I w
I- UJ O H
! 5 ft. hard; uniform. 7.5 116
20-
115-
22/50 for 6"
10 ft. fine- to medium-grained, moist. 10.7
45
123
110-
50 for 5"
@ 15 ft. fine- to coarse-grained, wet; fine mica fragments, poorly
sorted.
77
11.3 122 81
^ 20 ft. increase in coarse grain sand, moist; poorly sorted; rare
A1/4" gravel. ^ '
TOTAL DEPTH 20 FT.
npni INDWATER (a 16.0 FT.
CAVING
Backfilled according to County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health, Land and Water Quality Division.
13.0 112 69
I SAMPLE TYPES:
CDI DRIVE (RING) SAMPLE
ElSPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
I GROUNDWATER
Gg) BULK SAMPLE ffl TUBE SAMPLE
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
PROJECTNO.
DATE STARTED
DATE FINISHED
DRILLER
TYPE OF DRILL RIG.
400979
03/11/04
03/11/04
PROJECTNAME
GROUND ELEV.
GW DEPTH (FT)
DROP
DRIVE WT.
Sea View Office Village
150.0 BORING DESIG..
LOGGED BY
NOTES
SHEET 1 OF 1
HS-2
OB
Q. <u LULl.
>
LU _J UJ Q. £L
<^
w
•456-
5-
BLOW
COUNT
>-O
o
_l o I
H
GROUP
SYMBOL
SM
145-
10-140-
15- 135-
20-
32/40/45
27/50 for 5"
130-
28/50 for 6"
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRiPTION
TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, fine-grained, red brown, moist to
slightly moist, loose to moderately dence; rooted.
TFRRACE DEPOSIT (Qt): SILTY SANDSTONE, fine-grained,
rusty brown, slightly moist, moderately hard.
wz
18
! 5.0 ft. hard; uniform.
:^z
cc LU DQ ID
5.6
10.0 ft. fine- to medium-grained.
10.5 ft. fine grained, gray brown.
@ 12.0 ft. difficult drilling.
119
5.7
36
113
15.0 ft. fine- to medium-grained; mottled (gray, rusty brown).
TOTAL DEPTH 17.0 FT.
Kin GROUNDWATER
NO CAVING
Backfilled according to County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health, Land and Water Quality Division,
4.0
31
112 21
SAMPLE TYPES:
[Dl DRIVE (RING) SAMPLE
ca SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
BULK SAMPLE QU TUBE SAMPLE
T_ GROUNDWATER
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECTNO.
DATE STARTED
DATE FINISHED
DRILLER
TYPE OF DRILL RIG.
400979
03/11/04
03/11/04
Pacific Drilling
PROJECT NAME
GROUND ELEV.
GW DEPTH (FT)
DROP
DRIVE WT.
Sea View Office Village
141.0
30"
'BORING DESIG..
LOGGED BY
NOTES
HS-3
OB
140 LBS.
UJU.
10-
>
LU _J LU
UJ
15:
< H-W
140-
135-
130-
15-
20-
125-
120-
BLOW
COUNT
bulk
21/35
50 for 6"
19/34
50 for 5"
35/50 for 5"
50 for 6"
> CD O
_i O I
GROUP
SYMBOL
SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
UJ^
WZ
°8
TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, fine-grained, red brown, moist to
slightly moist, loose to moderately dence; rotted.
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt): SILTY SANDSTONE, fine-grained,
rusty brown, slightly moist, moderately hard.
5.0 ft. moist, hard; uniform.
10.0 ft. slightly moist, mottled ( gray and rusty brown).
•-'CO >-z 01 UJ
QQ
2
g
7.3 128
7.4
@ 13.0 difficult drilling.
115.0 ft. fine-grained; fine mica fragments; poorly sorted.
g 18.0 ft. fine- to medium-grained; poorly sorted; rare 1/4"
"\gravel.
REFUSAL 18.5 FT.
NO GROUNDWATER.
NO CAVING
Backfilled according to County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health, Land and Water Quality Division.
63
tK CO UJ I-
X w
H UJ
O I-
122 52
7.1
8.0
110
101
36
33
SAMPLE TYPES:
QH DRIVE (RING) SAMPLE
[H SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
[al BULK SAMPLE ffl TUBE SAMPLE
X GROUNDWATER
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111
(858)560-1713
PLATE A-3
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG SHEET 1 OF 1
PROJECTNO.
DATE STARTED
DATE FINISHED
DRILLER
TYPE OF DRILL RIG.
400979
03/11/04
03/11/04
Pacific Drilling
PROJECT NAME
GROUND ELEV.
GW DEPTH (FT)
DROP
DRIVE WT.
Sea View Office Village
132.0
17
30"
BORING DESIG.
LOGGED BY
NOTES
HS-4
_QB_
140 LBS.
Q_ 0} LUU.
> LU
UJ
< H W
BLOW
COUNT
>-O
o
o
X
GROUP
SYMBOL GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
UJ ~
t- h-
MZ
oo
—'CO >-2 Cd Ul Q Q 3
CO m y-X CO
I- Ul O H
SM TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, fine-grained, red brown, moist to
slightly moist, loose to moderately dence; rooted.
TERRACE DEPOSIT (Qt): SILTY SANDSTONE, fine-grained,
rusty brown, slightly moist, moderately hard.
130-
SPT
37/41
50 for 6"
16/11/10
125-
10-38/50 for 6"
15
20-
120-
115^
110-
25/35/42
@ 4.0 ft. hard; uniform. 7.5 118 48
10.0 ft. moist; mottled (gray and rusty brown). 10.4 121 72
50 for 6"
115.0 ft. fine- to coarse-grained, rusty brown, wet. 14.1 118
! 20.0 ft. increase in coarse grain sand; poorly sorted. 16.2 110
TOTAL DEPTH 20 FT.
GROUNDWATER (3) 17.0 FT.
CAVING
Backfilled according to County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health, Land and Water Quality Division.
88
82
SAMPLE TYPES:
[Hi DRIVE (RING) SAMPLE
S SPT (SPLIT SPOON) SAMPLE
IS BULK SAMPLE [j] TUBE SAMPLE
-T GROUNDWATER PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
PLATE A-4
APPENDIX
C
Laboratory Data
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
LABORATORY ANALYSES
LABORATORY ANALYSES
Moisture/Densitv Detenninations
Moisture and density determinations were made by direct measurements on undisturbed samples
to provide in-situ information on the various materials. The results of these tests are shown on
the logs of borings (Plates A-l through A-4) and Table I.
Hydrometer Analyses
Hydrometer grain size analyses were performed on the minus No. 10 sieve portion of selected
samples. These tests were used as an aid in soil classificafion. The results of these tests are
shown on Table I.
Direct Shear Tests
Direct shear tests were performed on samples, which were remolded to 90 percent of the labora-
tory maximum density and on undisturbed specimens. Samples were tested after inundation and
confinement for 24 hours. Tests were made under various normal loads at a constant rate of
strain of 0.05 inches per minute. Shear test data are presented in Table I and on Plates B-1
through B-3.
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation characteristics were determined for "undisturbed" samples considered representa-
five of the subsurface materials encountered. Samples were laterally restrained and axially
loaded in successively doubled increments from approximately 1/8- ton per square foot (tsf) to
approximately 4 tsf Each load was maintained for approximately 24 hours, after which loading
was continued. In order to determine rebound characteristics, final loads were decreased to ap-
proximately 1/4 tsf Results of these tests are presented on Plates C-1 through C-2.
Expansion Tests
Expansion tests were perfonned on selected samples in accordance with the expansion index
UBC Standard No. 18-2. Results are presented in Table I.
Compaction Characteristics
Maximum densities and optimum moistures were determined for selected samples in accordance
with ASTM:D 1557-91. Results are presented in Table I.
Chemical/Resistivity
Chemical/resistivity testing was conducted by others and is presented on Plates D-1 through D-7.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. i
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
W.O. 400979
BORING DEPTH
(FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP
SYMBOL MAXIMUM
DENSITY
(PCF)
OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
IN-SITU
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
iN-srru
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
DEGREE
OF
SATURATION
(%l
PLUS
NO.4
SIEVE (%)
COARSE
SAND (%)
MEDIUM
TO FINE
SAND (%)
SILT
(0.075mm - 0.005mm)
W
CLAY
(minus 0.005mm) (%)
EXPANSION
INDEX
UBC 18-2
COHESION
(PSF)
FRICTION
ANGLE
(DEGREES)
OTHER TESTS
REMARKS
HS-1 5 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) 116.4 7.5 45 0 0 60 22 18 CONSOL.
HS-2 10 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) 113.1 5.7 31 0 0 75 10 IS 100 33 UNDISTURBED.
HS-3 4 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) 135.6 7.4 0 0 65 15 20 1 25 32 REMOLDED. CHEM.
HS-3 10 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) 121.6 7.4 52 CONSOL
HS-4 4 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) 118.3 7.5 48 0 0 62 IB 20 0 38 UNDISTURBED.
HS-4 5.5 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) 0 0 72 13 15 SPT
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
UNDISTURBED
4,000
3,750
3,500
3,250
3,000
2,750
^ 2,500
i 2,250
w
Ui
^ 2,000
CO
< 1,750
UJ
^ 1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NORMAL STRESS Ibs./ft2
3,000 3,500 4,000
SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) COHESION 100 psf.
note: cohesion and friction angle derived from residual values FRICTION ANGLE 33 degrees
symbol
CC
shear value ooring / soil type
residual
peak
HS-2
HS-2
depth (ft.)
10.0
10.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858)560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-1
4,000
3,750
3,500
3,250
3,000
2,750
% 2,500
ui
5 2,250
CO LU
^ 2,000
CO
01
< 1,750
UJ
^ 1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
REMOLDED (a) 90%
IS
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NORMAL STRESS Ibs./ft2
3,000 3,500 4,000
SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) COHESION 25 psf.
note: cohesion and friction angle derived from residual values FRICTION ANGLE 32 degrees
symbol shear value boring / soil type depth (ft.)
DIRECT SHEAR TEST • residual HS-3 4.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST
CD peak HS-3 4.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-2
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-2
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-2
4,000
3,750
3,500
3,250
3,000
2,750
<^ 2,500
S 2.250
CO LU
^ 2,000
CO
< 1,750
UJ
^ 1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
UNDISTURBED
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
NORMAL STRESS Ibs./ft2
3,000 3,500 4,000
SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt) COHESION 0 psf.
note: cohesion and friction angle derived from residual values FRICTION ANGLE 36 degrees
symbol shear value boring / soil type depth (ft.)
DIRECT SHEAR TEST • residual HS-4 4.0 DIRECT SHEAR TEST
1X1 peak HS-4 4.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-3
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-3
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, S.D. CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O.400979 PLATE B-3
X
CD
UJ
X
LU O
< X
o
LU
o
UJ Q.
0.1
COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN TSF
4567891 2 4 5 6 7 8 910
3 4 5 6 7 8 910
boring depth (ft.) de'n^ity in situ moist. -200 sieve s^m^Sl typical names
HS-1 5.0 116.4 7.5 40.0 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt)
REMARKS; INUNDATED (g 2.14 TSF
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O. 400979 PLATE C-1
COMPRESSIVE STRESS IN TSF
4567891 2 4 5 6 7 8 9lO
3 4 5 6 7 8 910
boring depth (ft.) de'n'^ity in situ moist. -200 sieve s^m^Bl typical names
HS-3 10.0 121.6 7.4 SILTY SANDSTONE (Qt)
REMARKS: INUNDATED @ 2.14 TSF
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
7715 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111
(858) 560-1713
W.O. 400979 PLATE C-2
Del Mar AnalUical
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92506 (949)261-1022 FAX (949) 261-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 FAX (949) 370-1046
9484 Cliesapeake Dr., Suite 805, San Dicgo, CA 92123 (858) 505-8596 FAX (858) 505-9689
9830 Soulll 5l5l Sl., Suite B-120, Plioenix, AZ 85044 (480) 785-0043 FAX (480) 785-0851
2520 E. Sunset Rd. #3, Las Vegas, NV 89120 (702) 798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
LABORATORY REPORT
Prepared For: Pacific Soiis Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA9211]
Attention: Ron Buckley
Project:400979
Sampled: 03/11/04
Received: 03/19/04
Issued: 03/30/04
NELAP#0n08CA CA ELAP #1197
The results lisied within this Laboratory Report pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. All soil samples are reported on a wet
weight basis unless otherwise noled in the report. This Laboratory Report is confidential and is intended for the sole use of Del Mar
Analytical and ils client. This report shall not be reproduced, excepi in full, without writlen permission from Del Mar Analytical. The Chain
of Custody, I page, is included and is an integral part of Ihis report.
This entire report was reviewed and approvedfor release.
LABORATORY ID
INCI 367-01
SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE
CLIENT ID
HS-3 (ffi 2-5'
MATRIX
Soil
Iel Mar Analytical, Irvine
manda Cordova
Project Manager
I
PLATE D-1
INC1367 <Pi,geJ„f7>
<>
Del MarAnalvtical
'acific Soils Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA92111
Attention: Ron Buckley
Analyte IVIethod
Sample ID: INC1367-01 (HS-3 @ 2-5' - Soil)
Reporting Units: Vo
Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0
Sample ID: INC1367-01 (HS-3 @ 2-5' - Soil)
Reporting Units: mg/lig
Project ID: 400979
Report Number: INCI367
INORGANICS
Reporting
Batch Limit
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92606 (949)261-1022 FAX (949) 261-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4567 FAX (949) 370-1046
9484 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 805, San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 505-8596 FAX (858) 505-9589
9830 Soulh 51st St.. Suite B-120, Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480) 785-0043 FAX (480) 785-0851
2520 E. SunsclRd. #3. Las Vegas, NV 89120 (702) 798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
Sampled: 03/11/04
Received: 03/19/04
Sample Dilution Date Date
Result Factor Extracted Analyzed
Data
Quaiiflers
4C23048 0.00050
Alkalinity as CaC03
Chloride
SM2320B-MOD 4C24097 IOO
EPA 300.0 4C23048 5.0
Sample ID: INC1367-01 (HS-3 @ 2-5' - Soil)
Reporting Units: ohms/cm
Resistivity EPA 120.1 MOD. 4C23089 NA
Sample ID: INC1367-0] (HS-3 @ 2-5' - Soil)
Reporting Units: pH Units
pH EPA 9045C 4C20032 NA
0.0028
550
7.6
4100
7.75
3/23/2004 3/23/2004
3/24/2004 3/24/2004
3/23/2004 3/23/2004
3/23/2004 3/23/2004
3/20/2004 3/20/2004 H3
I
I
el Mar Analytical, Irvine
manda Cordova
roject Manacer
7'hL' / L'.vjf/z.v /}anuin mily hi lhe .vi//jj/;/c'.v icilt'il in lhe Ulhunilory. Thi.\ n'pi/rl .y/iull nui he reproJneetl.
e.xcvpf in /till, w'ilhonl wrinen permissinn frtnii Del Mar .•inulylieul.
PLATE D-2
I NCI367 <Pagc2of7>
<>
Del Mar Analvtical
acific Soils Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA92III
Attention: Ron Buckley
Project ID: 400979
Report Number: INC 1367
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92606 (949)261-1022 FAX (949) 261-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Collon,CA 92324 (909)370-4667 FAX (949) 370-1046
9484 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 805, San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 505-8596 FAX (858) 505-9689
9830 South 5lsl St.. Suite B-120, Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480) 785-0043 FAX (480 ) 785-0851
2520E. Sunset Rd. #3, Las Vegas, NV 89120 (702)798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
Sampled: 03/11/04
Received: 03/19/04
SHORT HOLD TIME DETAIL REPORT
Sample ID: HS-3 @ 2-5' (INC1367-01) - Soil
EPA 9045C
Hold Time
(in days)
1
Date/Time
Sampled
03/11/2004 17:00
Date/Time
Received
03/19/2004 18:10
Date/Time
Extracted
03/20/2004 09:00
Date/Time
Analyzed
03/20/2004 10:00
•el Mar Analytical, Irvine
Brnanda Cordova
'roject Manager
PLATE D-3
I The re.siih.\ periain unly iii the sumple\ le.'^ied in ihe hilwiiiury. Thi.s repon shull nul he reproihieed
e.\ccpi in full, u-iihuni uriiien perni;s.si{}nfrt>ni Del lUiir.^nalylieul. INC 13 67 <Plige 3 of 7>
I DelMarAnalytica!
I
I
I
acific Soils Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
SanDiego, CA921II
Attention: Ron Buckley
Project ID: 400979
Report Number: INC 1367
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92606 (949) 251-1022 FAX (949) 261-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suile A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 FAX (949) 370-1046
9484 Chesapeake Dr., Suile 805, San Diego, CA 92123 ( 858) 505-8596 F.OC (858) 505-9689
9830 South 51 st Sl., Suite B-120, Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480) 785-0043 FAX (480) 785-0851
2520 E. Sunset Rd. #3, Las Vegas, NV 89120 (702) 798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
Sampled: 03/11/04
Received: 03/19/04
METHOD BLANK/QC DATA
I
I
I
I
Analyte
Batch: 4C20032 Extracted: 03/20/04
Result
Duplicate Analyzed: 03/20/04 (4C20032-DUP1)
IpH 7.86
Batch: 4C23048 Extracted: 03/23/04
I
Blank Analyzed: 03/23/04 (4C23048-BLK1)
Soluble Sulfate ND
{Chloride ND
'LCS Analyzed: 03/23/04 (4C23048-BS1)
Soluble Sulfate 0.0105
• 'oride 52.7
Matrix Spike Analyzed: 03/23/04 (4C23048-MS1)
Soluble Sulfate 0.0109
Bchloride 57.1
INORGANICS
Reporting
Limit
NA
0.00050
5.0
0.00050
5.0
0.00050
5.0
Matrix Spike Dup Analyzed: 03/23/04 (4C23048-MSD1)
Soluble Sulfate 0.0113 0.00050
J;hloride 59.6 5.0
Batch: 4023089 Extracted: 03/23/04
I iuplicate Analyzed: 03/23/04 (4C23089-DUP1)
Leslstivity 4100 NA
Units
pH Units
%
mg/kg
%
mg/kg
%
mg/kg
%
mg/kg
ohms/cm
Spike Source %REC
Level Result %REC Limits RPD
Source: INC1367-01
7.75
RPD
Limit
Data
Qualifiers
0.0101
50.5
104
104
90-110
90-110
Source: INC1453-01
0.0101 0.00076 IOO 80-120
50.5 8.3 97 80-120
Source: INC1453-01
0.0101 0.00076 104 80-120
50.5 8.3 102 80-120
Source: INC1367-01
4100
20
20
20
el Mar Analytical, Irvine
manda Cordova
Project Manager
The resulls peruiin only lii llie .•inmples lesleil in ihe liihimilory. Thi.s repiirl shall nal he reprochiceil
e.\cepi in full, wiihmii wrinen permission from Del Mw .Analyiicul.
PLATE D - 4
INC1367 <Pi,ge 4 of 7>
•
Duplicate Analyzed: 03/24/04 (4C24097-DUP1)
Alkalinity as CaC03 550
<>
Del Mar Analvtical
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92606 (949)261-1022 FAX (949) 261-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Collon, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 FAX (949) 370-1046
9484 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 805, San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 505-8596 FAX (858) 505-9689
9830 South 5Isl Sl.. Suile B-120, Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480) 785-0043 FAX (480) 785-0851
2520 E. Sunset Rd. #3. Las Vegas, NV 89120 ( 702) 798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
'acific Soils Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA92III
Attention: Ron Buckley
Sampled:
Received:
03/11/04
03/19/04
Analyte
Batch: 4C24097 Extracted: 03/24/04
Result
Project ID: 400979
Report Number: INC 1367
METHOD BLANK/QC DATA
INORGANICS
Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD
Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit
Data
Qualifiers
eference Analyzed: 03/24/04 (4C24097-SRM1)
Ikalinity as CaC03 276
100
100
mg/kg
mg/kg 278
Source: INC1367-01
550 20
99 94-105
el Mar Analytical, Irvine
manda Cordova
Projeci Manager
PLATE D-5
The resulls periain only la lhe samples lesled in lhe lahaniluiy. This 117.10/7 shall mil he repraJiieeil.
excepi in full, wiihaiii wrinen permission fram Del ,\lar .Analyiieal. INC 1367 <Piige 5 of 7>
<>
Del Mar Analvtical
acific Soils Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111
Attention: Ron Buckley
Project ID: 400979
Report Number: INCI367
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92606 (949)261-1022 F/« (949) 251-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 FAX (949) 370-1046
9484 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 805, San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 505-8596 FAX (858) 505-9689
9830 Soulh 5Isl St.. Suile B-120, Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480) 785-0043 FAX (480)785-0851
2520 E. Sunsel Rd. #3, Las Vegas, NV 89120 (702) 798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
Sampled: 03/11/04
Received: 03/19/04
DATA QUALIFIERS AND DEFINITIONS
H3 Sample was received and analyzed past holding time.
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit or MDL, if MDL is specified.
RPD Relative Percent Difference
f
Tr
I
el Mar Analytical, Irvine
manda Cordova
roject Manager
PLATE D-e
Tlw ivsiili.s /)eriuin only lo ihc samples le.siccl in ihc luhoniiory. This re/jori shull nm he reproiliiced
cu'cpl hi full, withoui wriiicn permission from Del Mar Analyiieal. I NCI 367 <Page 6of7>
Del Mar Analytical
2852 Alton Ave., Irvine CA 92506 (949)261-1022 FAX (949) 261-1228
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Colton, CA 92324 (909) 370-4667 FAX (949) 370-1045
9484 Chesapeake Dr., Suile 805, San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 505-8596 FAX (858) 505-9689
9830 South 3 IslSl., Suile B-120, Phoenix, AZ 85044 (480)785-0043 FAX (480) 785-0851
2520 E. Sunsel Rd. #3, Las Vegas, NV 89120 (702) 798-3620 FAX (702) 798-3621
jcific Soils Engineering, Inc.
7715 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111
Attention: Ron Buckley
Del Mar Analytical, Irvine
Project ID: 400979
Report Number: INC 1367
Certification Summary
Sampled:
Received:
03/11/04
03/19/04
Method Matrix NELAP CA
EPA 120.1 MOD. Soil N/A N/A
EPA 300.0 Soil X X
EPA 9045C Solid X X
SM2320B-MOD Soil N/A N/A
NV and NELAP provide analyte specific accreditations. Analyte specific information for Del Mar Analytical may be obtained by
contacting the laboratory or visiting our website at www.dmalabs.com.
f el Mar Analytical, Irvine
manda Cordova
Project Manager
I The results periain unly lo the samples lesled in lhe laboratory This report shall not be l epracJiiced
excepi in full, wilhoul wriiien permission from Del Mar Analytical.
PLATE D-7
INC136 7 <Puge7of7>
APPENDIX
D
Earthwork Specifications
and
Grading Details
PACIPIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
APPENDIX
E
Owners Maintenance
and
Improvement Considerations
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
• • Work Order 400979
April 15, 2004
OWNERS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
General
Owners purchasing property must assume a certain degree of responsibility for improvements
and for maintaining conditions around their property. Of primary importance are maintaining
drainage pattems and minimizing the soil moisture variation below all lot improvements. Such
design, construction and owner maintenance provisions may include:
• Employing contractors for owner improvements who design and build in recognition of local
building codes and specific site soils conditions.
• Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, drive-
ways, patios, and other hardscape improvements.
• Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Altematively,
planter sides^ottoms can be sealed with an impenneable membrane and drained away from
the improvements via subdrains into approved disposal areas.
• Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to
reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils.
• Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Watering
should be done in a unifomi manner, as equally as possible on all sides ofthe foundation,
keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
> * Work Order 400979
April 15, 2004
• Maintaining positive drainage away fi-om structures and providing roof gutters on all stmc-
tures with downspouts that are designed to carry roof mnoff directly into area drains or dis-
charged well away from the foundation areas.
• Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed stractures than a distance of one-half
the mature height of the tree.
• Observation ofthe soil conditions around the perimeter ofthe stracture during extremely
hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation
programs to maintain relatively uniform moisture conditions.
Sulfates
During mass grading operations for the project, the soils being used as compacted fill should be
tested for the presence of soluble sulfates. The samples tested during this study were found to
have sulfate concentrations, which fell into the negligible range of sulfate exposure as classified
in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 UBC. The preliminary foundation system design
has been designed in consideration of that condition.
Owners should be cautioned against the import and use of certain inorganic fertilizers, soil
amendments, and/or other soils fi-om offsite sources in the absence of specific informafion relat-
ing to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds
into soils otherwise containing "negligible" sulfate concentrations and increase the sulfate con-
centrations to potentially detrimental levels. In some cases, concrete improvements constracted
in soils containing high levels of soluble sulfates may be affected by crystalline growth or min-
eral accumulation, which may, in the long term, result in deterioration and loss of strength.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Site Drainage
• The owner should be made aware ofthe potential problems that may develop when drainage
is altered through constmcfion of retaining walls, paved walkways, pafios or other hardscape
improvements. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, over-
watering or other condifions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided.
• No water should be allowed to flow over the slopes. No alteration of pad gradients should be
allowed that would prevent pad and roof ranoff from being directed to approved disposal ar-
eas.
• As part of site maintenance by the owner, all roof and pad drainage should be directed away
fi-om slopes and around stractures to approved disposal areas. All berms should be con-
stracted and compacted as part of the fine grading design and should be maintained by the
owner. Drainage patteras that have been established at the fime ofthe fine grading should be
maintained throughout the life of the stmcture. No alterafions to these drainage pattems
should be made unless designed by qualified professionals in compliance with local code re-
quirements and site-specific soils condifions.
Slope Drainage
• Owners should be made aware of the importance of maintaining and cleaning all interceptor
ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains, and any other drainage devices, which have been in-
stalled to promote slope stability.
• Subsurface drainage pipe outlets may protmde through slope surfaces and/or wall faces.
These pipes, in conjunction with the graded features, are essential to slope and wall stability
and must be protected in-place. They should not be altered or damaged in any way.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15, 2004
Planting and Irrigation of Slopes
• Seeding and planfing ofthe slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a
well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering.
• It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants inifially and ofthe
owner to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the owners risk.
• The owner is responsible for proper irrigafion and for maintenance and repair of properiy
stalled irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately.
in-
• Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of wa-
ter usage and overiap. Overwatering with consequent wasteful ranoff and serious ground
saturation must be avoided.
• If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for sea-
sonal and natural rainfall conditions.
Owner Improvement
Owner improvements (patio slabs, retaining walls, planters, etc.) should be designed to account
for the terrain ofthe project, as well as expansive soil condifions and chemical characteristics.
Design considerations on any given lot may need to include provisions for differential bearing
materials, ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock stracture, perched (irrigation) water,
special geologic surcharge loading conditions, expansive soil stresses, and long-term
creep/settlement.
All owner improvements should be designed and constmcted by qualified professionals utilizing
appropriate design methodologies, which account for the on-site soils and geologic condifions.
Each building pad and proposed improvement should be evaluated on an individual basis.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
Work Order 400979
April 15,2004
Setback Zones
Fill slopes will be manufactured on site to maximum heights of approximately nine (9) feet.
Manufactured slopes maybe subject to long-term settlement and creep that can manifest itself in
the form of both horizontal and vertical movement. These movements typically are produced as
a result of weathering, erosion, gravity forces, and other natural phenomenon. A setback adja-
cent to slopes is required by most building codes, including the Uniform Building Code. This
zone is intended to locate and support the stractures away from these slopes and onto soils that
are not subject to the potential adverse effects of these natural phenomena.
The owner may wish to constract patios, walls, walkways, planters, swimming pools, spas, etc.
within this zone. Such facilities may be sensitive to settlement and creep and should not be con-
stracted within the setback zone unless properiy engineered. It is suggested that plans for such
improvements be designed by a professional engineer who is familiar with hillside grading ordi-
nances and design and constmction requirements associated with hillside conditions. In addition,
we recommend that the designer and contractor familiarize themselves with the site specific geo-
logic and geotechnical conditions on the specific building pad.
PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.