The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2173 SALK AVE; ; CB070561; Permit04-23-2007 City Of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Commercial/Industrial Permit Permit No: CB070561 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: Project Title: 2173SALKAVCBAD Tl Sub Type: 2120210300 Lot#: $96,135.00 Construction Type: Reference #: VENTANA REALS METAL CARPORTS 5100 SF TOTAL INDUST 0 NEW Applicant: DAVISREED CONSTRUCTION INC 12250 EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 325 SAN DIEGO 92130 760-931-8424 Status: ISSUED Applied: 02/28/2007 Entered By: JMA Plan Approved: 04/23/2007 Issued: 04/23/2007 Inspect Area: Plan Check*: Owner: RIO SD PLAZA II MASTER LLC C/0 NEWPORT NATIONAL CORPORATION 1525 FARADAY AVE #100 CARLSBAD CA 92008 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $535.01 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $347.76 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $20.19 PFF (3105540) $0.00 PFF (4305540) $0.00 License Tax (3104193) $0.00 License Tax (4304193) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee $0.00 Redev Parking Fee $0.00 Additional Fees HMP Fee TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ?? $902.96 Total Fees:$902.96 Total Payments To Date:$902.96 Balance Due:$0.00 BUlkUfNG PLANS IN STORAGE ATTACHED Inspector;Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICEHhat approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which YOU have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO. EST. VAL Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Date "Address (include Bldg/Suite #)Business Name (at this address) Legal Description Lot No.Subdivision Name/Number Unit No.Phase No.Total # of units Assessor's Parcel #Existing Use Proposed Use escription of WorkDescriptio< sjz ' *' SQ. FT.#of Stories57(70 2/75 # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms at - .*•. tit^tl. > <?o/ / Address 3:.":: APPLICANT - Q Contractor Q Agent for Contractor City D Agent for Ownar "State/Zip Telephone # Fax t Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # Address City State/Zip Telephone #Name Si' CONTRACTOR-COMPANY NAME i (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($5001). yc*/j(- Name State License t (? / 3 Address ' License Class City State/Zip City Business License tt J *• *• / Telephone Designer Name Address City State/Zip Telephone State License # _ e. woRjcims' COMPENSATION - .. • '--• '". -' - - i - .-^M-fi:. -- Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: Q I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. [3 I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 ef the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Mv worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: ,n jy^/ji/)^ f^?^ Insurance Company fO^ \f&JZgS &/U> . &/g. ^/^pS^No. & ^£ l^BV^^/ 7d- Eviration Date_ (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) Q CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars^tOCLaflCU. in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATLftlB^^^^^*^***^ 7? DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: ["") I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). n If as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). n I am exempt under Section _ Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1 . I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. l~l YES l~lNO 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number):_ __ ___ _ 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): _ __ PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE coMliIM^ssi^^ .<? ' " . ;'; ~- aWf;.:';:;V. , Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES Q NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Q YES Q NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPUCANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(0 Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS. COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned It any time after the work is commenced for a period ofjjMdavp (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). ^_ \/APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE (^?&^f ./%£2^&2J DATE ^ "" <&•&"' " /i< _ ^- WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 06/13/2007 Permit* CB070561 Title: VENTANA REAL:3 METAL CARPORTS Description: 5100 SF TOTAL Type:TI Sub Type: INDUST 2173 SALKAV Lot: Job Address: Suite: Location: OWNER RIO SD PLAZA II MASTER LLC Owner: RIO SD PLAZA II MASTER LLC Remarks: can you also final this permit? Total Time: Inspector Assignment: PY Phone: Inspector: Requested By: CHRISTINE Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description 19 Final Structural Act Comments Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# PCR07029 PENDING VENTANA REAL-DEFERRED CURTAIN; WALL SUBMITTAL Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 04/26/2007 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP PY 2 carports 10 ftgs 04/24/2007 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PA TP 10S. MOST/PIER FTGS N/INCL #6 AS PER SOILS REP 04/24/2007 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding WC TP -2/73 GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 696O FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 • TEL (858) 558-69OO • FAX 1858) 558-6159 FOUNDATION OBSERVATION REPORT PROJECT NAME :;V' ' — ';/' * r""- '' { ' ! f~r LOCATION: ;V W" ••* T f '• ^ V < ;,' ^.^. /_!>•$.. PROJECT NO. DATE: PLAN FILE NO. FOUNDATION TYPE : "^ CONVENTIONAL ' f 'i > '•'•- V^ D POST-TENSIONED PERMIT NOS: ^ 5> c 7 c s C 'D ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION REQUIRED $ SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE PURPOSE OF OBSERVATION 13 Verify soil conditions exposed are similar to those anticipated pj Verify footing excavations extend to minimum depth recommended in soil report D Verify foundation reinforcement complies with minimum recommended in soil report D Verify slab reinforcement, sand bedding and moisture barrier comply with minimum recommended in soil report S Verify footings have been extended to an appropriate bearing strata D Other • APPLICABLE SOIL REPORT: TITLE: DATE- SOIL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON: Kl Expansion Condition D VERY LOW (*5 LOW • D Fill Geometry D Other : MEDIUM D HIGH D VERY HIGH MINIMUM FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS : ^ / ~ ' r ': } D Footing Depth: D 12 Inches if 18 Inches D 24 Inches OTHER Footing Reinforcement: D No.4 T&B D 2-NO.4 T&B D 2-No.5 T&B D Post-Tensioned OTHER : _ Interior Slab Reinforcement: D 6x6-10/10 D 6x6-6/6 D No.3@24lnches D No.3@18lnches D Post-Tensioned Slab Bedding Material and Thickness : , ••> '' H i '< .! ^ .Foundation Width : _± _ ' '"•-'• Vapor Barrier : • OBSERVATIONS: "SI Substantial conformance with Soil Reports (see "Purpose of Observation") D Substantial conformance with Foundation Plans. Identify: • COMMENTS: NOTE: IT IS ASSUMED THAT ALL FOOTING EXCAVATIONS WILL BE CLEANED OF LOOSE MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE AND THAT THE SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT WILL BE MAINTAINED RELD COPIES TO GEOC°N REPRESENTATIVE ; EsGil Corporation ' In Partnership -with (government for (BuUtfing Safety DATE: April 16, 2007 ^ <^0 JURIS.J) JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad ^B~PD a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 07-0561 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 2173SalkAve. PROJECT NAME: 3 steel carports for Ventana Real Lot 2. The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Davis Reed Construction 2177 SalkAve. Carlsbad, CA 92008 12250 El Camino Real #325 San Diego 92130 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephoned Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: ^Telephone Fax In Person A. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet df the calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date oNicense expiration and the date the plans are signed. B. Provide a Building Code DataDBgero on the Title Sheet. Include the following code information for each building prop^siraj a) Occupancy Group. S-3J By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 04/09 tmsmtl.dot EsGil Corporation In (Partnership -with government for <Bui[<fing Safety \. DATE: March 12, 2007 a APPLICANT JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad /Q PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: O7-O561 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2173SalkAve. PROJECT NAME: 3 steel carports for Vent ana Real Lot 2. I I The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Bill Kraus 2173 Salk Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. XI Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Bill Kraus (y^J Telephone #: (619) 954-2104 Date coffifedr j/jfF/ (by: $S} Fax #:l*v S J " f Mail^/Telephone Js Fax In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 03/05 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad 07-0561 March 12, 2007 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2173 Salk Ave. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 03/05 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 07-0561 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: March 12, 2007 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. • Please make all corrections and submit two new complete sets of prints to: ESGIL CORPORATION. • To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. • Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? Yes a No City of Carlsbad O7-O561 March 12, 2007 1. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit three new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 2. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date of license expiration and the date the plans are signed. Business and Professions Code. 3. Any portion of the project shown on the site plan that is not included with the building permit application filed should be clearly identified as "not included" on the site plan or Title Sheet. Sec. 106.3.3. 4. Provide a Building Code Data Legend on the Title Sheet. Include the following code information for each building proposed: a) Occupancy Group. S-3 b) Type of Construction c) Sprinklers: Yes or No d) Floor Area 5. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans stating that this project shall comply with the 2001 editions of the California Building, which adopt the 1997 UBC. 6. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. • REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec. 1701 of the Uniform Building Code. ITEM REQUIRED? REMARKS SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO This will be rechecked after soils report has been provided FOUNDATION INSPECTION • PILES/CAISSONS YES DETAIL D/A-1 City of Carlsbad 07-0561 March 12, 20O7 7. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the attached form. If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the attached Special Inspection Notice. 8. Clearly dimension building setbacks from property lines, street centerlines, and from all adjacent buildings and structures on the site plan. Please show on plans the distance between carports. 9. Provide a statement on the site plan stating: "All property lines, easements and buildings, both existing and proposed, are shown on this site plan." 10. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804. a) According to the CARLSBAD SPECIAL CODE REQUIREMENTS, all new residential buildings, including additions, require a soils report. An update letter is required if the report is more than 3 years old. If a room addition is less than 1000 sq. ft. in area and only one story, then a soils report is not required. 11. Provide calculations for wind loads, shear transfer and related. Please note that for this structure uplifting forces may control design; please check the uplifting wind pressure. Section 106.3.1.7. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. City of Carlsbad 07-0561 March 12, 2007 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 07-0561 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE: March 12, 2007 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2173 Salk Ave. 3 carports/Ventana Real BUILDING OCCUPANCY: S-3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION Carports Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq. Ft.) 5100 cb Valuation Multiplier 18.85 By Ordinance Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) 96,135 96,135 Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: I Repetitive FeeRepeats Complete Review D Other ,—i Hourly Structural Only Hour* Esgil Plan Review Fee $526.01 $341.91 $294.57 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc City of Carlsbad O7-O561 March 12, 2007 City of Carlsbad Building Department BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No. O7-O561 Job Address or Legal Description 2173 Salk Ave. Owner . J&t'c Sttv-D uup Pfo*^ IE Address- . . ______ / *> A. ^ ELr&*><a A , A/i. ^ ^ < 6 l ' ' You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified. The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department. The inspections by a Special Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code. The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned" to inspect. The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes. The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved. The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department. Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. (over) City of Carlsbad O7-O561 March 12, 2007 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2^3 PLAN CHECK NUMBER:OWNER'S NAME: I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector(s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Seeton 106.3." Signed/- i I, as the erfgindjer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located at the site listed above. Signed 1. List of work requiring special inspection: KpfKl Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection Q Field Weldin* Q Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI D High Strength Bolting D Prestressed Concrete Q Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Structural Masonry Q Sprayed-On Fireproofing D Designer Specified Q Other 2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above: A. (j\,-(J^Sr^ , I ^^ • B. C. 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A, B, C. Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site. 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING INC. 1046 CALLE RECDDD, SUITE J SANCLEMENTE.CA.92G73 PHDNE#: (949) 492-5381 FAX#: (949) 498-3020 April 2, 2007 Project: 4S.T.E.L. JOB#: Ventana Real 06D155 To Whom It May Concern: This is to address the requirement fro special inspection of the footings for the above listed job. Special inspection of the footings is NOT required by this office. APR 0 3 2007 Sincerely, William Major, CE, 18757 4 S.T.E.L ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 Calle Recodo, Suite J San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: (949) 492-5981 Fax: (949) 498-3020 PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER DATE 3H -O7 ADDRESS .3173T Sslk TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL (<$1 0,000.00) CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES POOL / SPA VILLAGE FAIRE RETAINING WALL COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER ENGINEER V) DATE DATE 4S.T.E.L ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMgNTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT2 SHEET:1OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR to CO CL>- ,02 -9-.H IAIV39 3d01S IAIV38 CO CO o:^a. a: IDCL LLJ 3 CO CD LJJ 2 x o s ^ "? CO O) I I •1 I I I I 1 I fault and is more dominant that the nearest Type B fault due to its close proximity to the site. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Seismic Zone Factor Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, CA Seismic Coefficient Cv Near Source Factor, N,. Near Source Factor Ny Seismic Source Design Value 0.4 Sd 0.44 0.68 : 1-0 1.0 -B UBC Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J TaMel6-Q Tabtelfr-R Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-U 6.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 6.3.1 The oil-site sutficia! soils consist predominately of clayey silts, clays and interbedded fine-grained, silry sands (undocumented fill, topsoil and alluvium). These materials possess moderate to high expansion potential as defined by UBC Table 18-I-B. 6.3.2 Surficial deposits can be excavated using light to moderate effort with conventional heavy- duty grading equipment A moderate to heavy effort is anticipated to excavate dense Point Loma Formation materials. Some zones will likely be encountered that require ripping with a single-shank ripper on a D-9 or larger bulldozer. 6.3.3 Interpretation of data obtained from previous investigations and observations during our recent update study suggest that rippable to marginally rippable conditions exist for most areas of the site. Localized areas of hard concretions may require rock breaking. It is recommended that breaking be performed such mat the resulting broken materials are generally 2 feet or less in maximum dimension in order to reduce the rock to a manageable size for moving and placing in fill areas. 6.4 Grading 6.4.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C Where the recommendations of Appendix C rOTlflirt With tMfF ffTTi™*jth* "^nmm^dali^ns nf this gftrfinn takft precedence. Project No. 9'd -9-April22,2004 90 IZ 4 S.T.E.L.1-C VENTANAREAL LOT 2 SHEET:20F:21 JOB NO:06D155 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CIEMENTE. CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 Dead Loads Roof Deck Purlins Beam Total Decking SIMPLE SPAN Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Fp - w = TL*TW = M= (w*L2)/8 = Sreq = M/Fb = 1.00 1.50 1.50 4.00 1.00 11.50 47,904.19 21.00 347.16 0.0870 HR-36 AEP 26 GAUGE Fy=80 ksi CANTILEVER SPAN Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = F -\> w = TL*TW = M= (w*L2)2 = Sreq = M/Fb = 1.00 4.25 47,904.19 21.00 189.66 0.0475 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR psf psf psf psf ft Dead Load (DL) = 1.00 psf ft Live Load (LL) = 20.00 psf psi Total Load (TL) = 21.00 psf plf ft-lb in3/ft S= 0.0895 in3/ft OK ft Dead Load (DL) = 1.00 psf ft Live Load (LL) = 20.00 psf psi Total Load (TL) = 21.00 psf plf ft-lb inJ/ft SIMPLE SPAN GOVERNS DECKING HR-36 AEP 26 GAUGE Fy=80 ksi 4 S.T.E.L M-C SHEET:30F:2 ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 PURLIN SIMPLE SPAN Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Trib. Area (TA) = Fb = w = TL*TW = WLL= LLTW = VL=VR= (w*L)/2 = M= (W*L2)/8 = Sr9q*M/Fb = AMAX = A MAX = 10.00 17.00 170.00 29,940.12 225.00 200.00 1,912.50 8,128.13 3.2578 L/180 1.13 VENTANAREALLOT2 ft Dead Load (DL) = 2.50 ft Live Load (LL) = 20.00 ft2 Total Load (TL) = 22.50 psi E = 29,000,000 plf plf Ib ft-lb in3 in JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR psf psf psf psi U = ((5*wLL*L4*1728)/(384*E*AMAx)) u = Use C8X2.5x12 OR 11.4354 GA. AEP UseClOX2.5X12GA. AEP OR Use C 10 X 3.25 X OR 12GA. AEP Use C 10 X 2.5 X 14 GA. POWER OR Use C 12X4X14 GA. POWERS in4 S = 3.4280 in3 l= 13.7120 in4 S= 4.6850 in3 I = 23.4260 in4 S= 5.5270 in3 l= 28.1040 in4 S= 3.4720 in3 l= 17.3600 in4 S= 5.5470 in3 l= 33.9200 in4 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK PURLIN UseCSX 2.5x12 GA. AEP OR Use C 10X2.5X12 GA. AEP OR Use C 10 X 3.25 X 12GA.AEP OR Use C 10X2.5X14 GA. POWERS OR Use C 12X4X14 GA. POWERS 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE,CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:4OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE: 11/21/2QQ6BY: DKR PURLIN CANTILEVER SPAN Trib. Width (TW) = 10.00 Length (L) - 8.50 Trib. Area (TA) = 85.00 Fb= 29,940.12 w = TL*TW - WLL= LL*TW = 225.00 200.00 VL=VR=w*L~ 1,912.50 M=(w*L2)/2~ 8,128.13 Srea = M/Fb^ 3.2578 ^ MAX A MAX L/(180/2) 1.13 ft ft ft2 psi plf plf Ib ft-lb inj in Dead Load (DL) = Live Load (LL) = Total Load (TL) = E = 2.50 psf 20.00 psf 22.50 psf 29,000,000 psi SIMPLE SPAN GOVERNS ((WLL*L4*1728)/(8*E*AMAX)) .4 req 6.8613 n SIMPLE SPAN GOVERNS ' 4S.T.E.L.M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:50F:21 JOB NO:06D155I_l*V?ll^^biXH1VJ, Il^Vf. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENte, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 BEAM CANTILEVERED SHORT Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Trib. Area (TA) = Fb = WSD = DL*TW = WSL = LL*TW = ws = TL*TW = VLORVR=WS*L = MSD = (wD*L2)/2 = MSL = (wL*L2)/2 = MS = (ws*L2)/2 = S^ = M/Fb = AMAX = A MAX = 'req ~ 'req ~ CANTILEVERED LONG Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Trib. Area (TA) = Fb = WDL = DL*TW = WLL = LL*TW = SPAN 17.00 8.00 136.00 29,940.12 68.00 340.00 408.00 3,264.00 2,176.00 10,880.00 13,056.00 5.2328 L/(180/2) 1.07 ((wSL*L4*1728)/(8 9.7245 SPAN 17.00 12.00 204.00 30,000.00 68.00 272.00 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR ft Dead Load (DL) = 4.00 psf ft Live Load (LL) = 20.00 psf ft2 Total Load (TL) = 24.00 psf psi E = 29,000,000 psi plf plf plf Ib ft-lb ft-lb ft-lb in3 LONG SPAN GOVERNS in *E*AMAX)) in" LONG SPAN GOVERNS ft Dead Load (DL) = 4.00 psf ft Live Load (LL) = 16.00 psf ft2 Total Load (TL) = 20.00 psf psi E = 29,000,000 psi plf plf BEAM Use (2)- C 10 X 3.25X12GA.AEP OR Use (2) -C 12 X 2.25X12GA.AEP OR Use (2) -C 12X4 X 14 GA. POWERS 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:6OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR BEAM CANTILEVERED LONG SPAN WL = TL*TW= 340.00 VLORVR=wL*L= 4,080.00 MDL = (wDL*L2)/2 = 4,896.00 MLL = (WLL*L2)/2 = 19,584.00 ML = (wL*L2)/2 = 24,480.00 MREDUCED =MR = MU-MSD MR = 22,304.00 Sreq = ML/Fb = 9.7920 AMAX = 'req 1.60 plf Ib ft-lb ft-lb ft-lb ft-lb in3 in ((wLL*L4*1728)/(8*E*AMAX)) 'req ~in26.2561 USING 2 SECTIONS (ONE EACH SIDE OF THE COLUMN) Sreq.FOR2 = <M/Fb)/2= 4.8960 in' inlreq-FOR2= 13-1280 Use (2) - C 10 X 3.25 X 12 GA. AE S = OR Use (2) - C 12 X 2.25 X 12 GA. AE S= I = OR Use (2) - C 12 X 4 X 14 GA. ROW S= 5.5270 28.1040 5.9890 35.9340 5.5470 33.9200 in in' irr OK OK OK OK OK OK 4 S.T.E.L ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CAlLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:70F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN VERTICAL LOADS Trib. Width (TW) = 17.00 ft Length (L) = 20.00 ft Trib, Area (TA) = 340.00 ft2 Total Dead Load (TDL) = DL*TA TDL= 1,360.00 Ib Total Live Load (TLL) = LL*TA TLL = 5,440.00 Ib Total Vertical Load (TVL) = TDL+TLL TVL = 6,800.00 Ib WIND LOAD 70 MPH EXP. C P = Q *C C I qs= 12.60 Ce= 1.06 Cq= 1.30 Iw = 1.00 Dead Load (DL) = Live Load (LL) = Total Load (TL) = 4.00 psf 16.00 psf 20.00 psf horizontal 0.70 upward PH = 17.36 Pu = 9.35 HEIGHT OF ROOF (H) = SLOPE 1/48 psf psf SLOPE * LENGTH (L) L = 20.00 H =0.42 Trib. Width (TW) = 17.00 Length (L) = 20.00 Trib. Area (TA) = 340.00 NUMBER OF COLUMNS (n) = ft ft ft ft2 1.00 Dead Load (DL) = Live Load (LL) = Total Load (TL) = COLUMN HT (CH) = 4.00 16.00 20.00 9.42 psf psf psf ft WIND FORCE (W) = PH*H*TW/n W= 122.99 Ib COLUMN (2)-C10X3.25X 12 GA. AEP 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE.CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:8OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN SEISMIC LOAD ZONE = Ca = Cv = R = 1 = hn = c,= T = Na = Nv = Z = Soil Profile Type = Seismic Source = Distance To Source = Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Trib. Area (TA) = W = W = vram = rmax = P = P = E = E = E/1.4 = 4.00 DESIGN BASE SHEAR 0.44 V = (CVTW)/(R*T) = 2.62 0.64 V= 3,562.38 2.20 1.00 MAX DESIGN SHEAR 9.83 V = (2.5*Ca*l*W)/(R) = 0.50 0.02 V= 680.00 0.11 1.00 MIN DESIGN SHEAR (ZONE 4) 1.00 V=(.8*Z*N/I*W)/(R) = 0.15 0.40 V= 197.82 sd B > 10 km 17.00 ft Dead Load (DL) = 4.00 20.00 ft Live Load (LL) = 16.00 340.00 ft2 Total Load (TL) = 20.00 COLUMN HT (CH) = 9.42 DL*TA 1,360.00 Ib 1,400.00 Ib AB= 700.00 0.49 2-((20}/{rma/sqrt(AB})) 1.00 p*V 680.00 Ib 485.71 Ib *W Ib *W Ib *W Ib psf psf psf ft ft' 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX {949)498-3020 1-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:90F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN STRONG DIRECTION LOAD CASE 1 D D = LOAD CASE 2 D + L D + L = LOAD CASE 3 D+(WorE/1.4) D+(WorE/1.4) = LOAD CASE 4 .9D+/-E/1.4 .9D+/-E/1.5= . LOAD CASE 5 D + .75*[L+(WorE/1 D + .75*[L+(W or E/1 TRY TDL DOES NOT GOVERN LESS THAN LOAD CASE 2 TVL D + E/1.4 9D +/- E/1 .4 DOES NOT GOVERN LESS THAN LOAD CASE 3 •4)] 4Y1 - n + 7*1*1 + 7S*/F/1 41!11 UT./'JI_T./iJ \^.l 1 .*t f (2)-C10X3.25X12GA. AEP Fy = A = Sx = rx ~ COLUMN HT (I) = LOAD CASE 2 D + L = D + L = M= M M = fa" fa = Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa- fb/Fb = 50,000.00 psi Fb = 30,000.00 psi 2.59 in2 11.05 inJ Sy= 2.38 inJ 7.71 in ry= 2.41 in 9.42 ft K= 2.10 TVL 6,800.00 Ib R FROM BEAM 22,304.00 ft-lb TVL/A fb = M/S 2,627.51 psi fb= 24,212.77 30.77 27,057.57 psi Fb = 30,000.00 psi 1.00 0.90 OK -0.71 OK 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 1-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:100F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/20Q6BY:DKR COLUMN STRONG DIRECTION LOAD CASE3 D+(WorE/1.4)= D + E/1.4 D= TDL D= 1,360.00 E/1.4 = M = Kl/r = 'a ~ fa/Fa +/-fb/Fb< fa/Fa + fb/FD = fa/Fa-fb/Fb = 485.71 E/1.41+MDL 9,469.81 TDL/A 525.50 30.77 27,057.57 1.00 0.36 -0.32 LOAD CASE^ GOVERNS + .75*[L+(WorE/1.4)] = D = D = ,75*L = .75*L = VL = VL = .75*(E/1.4) = .75*(E/1.4) = TDL 1,360.00 .75*TLL 4,080.00 D+.75*L 5,440.00 .75*(E/1.4) 364.29 Ib VERTICAL LOAD Ib HORIZONTAL LOAD ft-lb psi fb = psi Fb = OK OK Ib Ib .75*(E/1.4) Ib M/S 10,280.23 psi 30,000.00 psi Ib (.75*(E/1.4)*I)+(MDL)+(.75*MLL) 23,014.36 ft-lb 4S.T.E.L ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE. CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:11OF:21 JOB NO:Q6D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN STRONG DIRECTION LOAD CASE 5 fg = fa = Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/-fb/Fb£ fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa -fb/Fb = WEAK DIRECTION LOAD CASE 1 D D = LOAD CASE 2 D + L D + L = LOAD CASE 3 D+(WorE/1.4) D+(WorE/1.4) = LOAD CASE 4 .9D+/-E/1.4 .9D+/-E/1.5= . LOAD CASE 5 D + .75*[L+(WorE/1 D + .75*[L+(WorE/1 VL/A fb = M/S 2,102.01 psi fb= 24,983.92 psi 30.77 27,057.57 psi Fb= 30,000.00 psi 1.00 0.91 OK -0.76 OK TDL DOES NOT GOVERN LESS THAN LOAD CASE 2 TVL D + E/1.4 9D +/- E/1.4 DOES NOT GOVERN LESS THAN LOAD CASE 3 .4)] .4)]= D + .75*L + .75*(E/1.4) (2)-C10X3.25X12GA. AEP A = sx = rx = COLUMN HT (I) = LOAD CASE 2 D + L = D + L = 2.59 in2 11.05 inJ Sy= 2.38 inJ 7.71 in ry= 2.41 in 9.42 ft K= 2.10 TVL 6,800.00 Ib 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:12OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN WEAK DIRECTION LOAD CASE 2 M = NO WEAK DIRECTION MOMENT DUE TO DEAD OR LIVE LOADS M = 0.00 ft-lb f.= fa = Kl/r = TVL/A 2,627.51 psi 98.63 15,025.46 fa/Fa+/-fb/Fb £ 1.00 fa/Fa + fb/Fb = 0.17 fa/Fa-fb/Fb = 0.17 LOAD CASE 3 GOVERNS D+(WorE/1.4)= D + E/1.4 D = E/1.4 = M = Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa - fb/Fb = LOAD CASE 5 TDL 1,360.00 485.71 E/1.41 4,573.81 TDL/A 525.50 98.63 15,025.46 1.00 0.80 -0.73 psi OK OK ft-lb psi psi OK OK fb = fb = F = M/S 0.00 30,000.00 psi !b VERTICAL LOAD Ib HORIZONTAL LOAD fb = M/S fb= 23,041.86 psi F=30,000.00 psi D + .75*[L+(WorE/1.4)] =.75*(E/1.4) 4 S.T.E.L ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX {949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:130F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN WEAK DIRECTION LOAD CASE 5 .75*L = .75*L = VL = VL = .75*(E/1.4) = .75*(E/1.4) = M = M = f ='a f.= Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/-fb/Fb< fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa -fb/Fb = TDL 1,360.00 .75*TLL 4,080.00 D+.75*L 5,440.00 .75*(E/1.4) 364.29 .75*(E/1.4)*I 3,430.36 VL/A 2,102.01 98.63 15,025.46 1.00 0.72 -0.44 Ib Ib Ib Ib ft-lb psi psi OK OK fb fb M/S 17,281.40 psi 30,000.00 psi 4 S.T.E.L.M-C SHEET:140F:21 ENGINEERING 1046CALLERECODOS SAN CLEMENTE, CA 926 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 COLUMN ALTERNATE j iNC VENTANAREALLOT2 JOBNO:06Q155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR UITEJ 73 STRONG DIRECTION HSS 10 X 6 X 3/16; ASTM A500 GRADE B Fy = 46 ksi Fy = A = sx = rx = COLUMN HT (I) = LOAD CASE 2 D + L = D + L = M = M = f.= f.= Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa - fb/Fb = LOAD CASE 3 D+(WorE/1.4) = D = D = E/1.4 = M = M = 46,000.00 psi Fb = 27,600.00 psi 5.37 in2 14.90 in" Sy= 11.40 in1* 3.73 in ry= 2,52 in 9.42 ft K= 2.10 GOVERNS TVL 6,800.00 Ib MR FROM BEAM 22,304.00 ft-lb TVL/A fb = M/S 1,266.29 psi fb= 17,962.95 63.62 22,088.53 psi Fb = 27,600.00 psi 1.00 0.71 OK -0.59 OK D + E/1.4 TDL 1,360.00 Ib VERTICAL LOAD 485.71 Ib HORIZONTAL LOAD E/1.4*I+MDL 9,469.81 ft-lb COLUMN ALTERNATE HSS 10X6X3/16; ASTM A500 GRADE B Fy = 46 ksi 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:150F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN ALTERNATE STRONG DIRECTION LOAD CASE 3 K!/r = fa/Fa+/-fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa - fb/Fb = TDL/A 253.26 63.62 22,088.53 1.00 0.29 -0.26 psi psi OK OK fb fb F = LOAD CASE 5 ) + .75*[L+(WorE/1.4}] =.75*(E/1.4) D = D = 75*L = 75*L = VL = VL = 75*(E/1.4) = 75*(E/1.4) = M = M = TDL 1,360.00 75TLL 4,080.00 D+75*L 5,440.00 75*{E/1.4) 364.29 Ib Ib Ib Ib (75*(E/1.4)*I)+(MDL)+(75*MLL) 23,014.36 ft-lb Kl/r = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa - fb/Fb = VL/A 1,013.04 63.62 22,088.53 1.00 0.72 -0.63 f = psi psi OK OK F = M/S 7,626.69 psi 27,600.00 psi M/S 18,535.05 psi 27,600.00 psi 4 S.T.E.L M-C VENTANAREAL LOT 2 SHEET:16OF:21 JOBNO:Q6D155 ^•1 *I\J 1 1 » ^•^•1 XI 1 « \J y II^V^i 1 046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 COLUMN ALTERNATE WEAK DIRECTION HSS 10X6X3/16 Fy = A = sx = TX- COLUMNHT(I) = LOAD CASE 2 D + L = D + L = M = M = fa = f* = Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb £ fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa- fb/Fb = LOAD CASE 3 D+(WorE/1.4) = D = D = E/1.4 = M = M = fa = fa = ; ASTM A500 GRADE B Fy = 46 ksi 46,000.00 psi Fb= 27,600.00 5.37 in2 14.90 inJ Sy= 11.40 3.73 in ry = 2.52 9.42 ft K= 2,10 TVL 6,800.00 Ib NO WEAK DIRECTION MOMENT DUE TO DEAD OR LIVE 0.00 ft-lb TVL/A fb = M/S 1,266.29 psi fb= 0.00 94.17 16,023.33 psi Fb = 27,600.00 1.00 0.08 OK 0.08 OK D + E/1.4 TDL 1,360.00 Ib VERTICAL LOAD 485.71 Ib HORIZONTAL LOAD E/1 .4*1 4,573.81 ft-lb TDL/A fb= M/S 253.26 psi fb= 4,814.54 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR psi inj in LOADS psi psi 4S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1045 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 1-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:170F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR COLUMN ALTERNATE WEAK DIRECTION LOAD CASE 3 Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa - fb/Fb = LOAD CASE 5 94.17 16,023.33 psi Ffa = 1.00 0.190 OK -0.16 OK GOVERNS 27,600.00 psi D + .75*[L+(W or E/1.4)] = D + .75*1 + .75*(E/1.4) D = .75*L = .75*L = VL = VL = .75*(E/1.4) = .75*(E/1.4) = Ijj: f.= Kl/r = Fa = fa/Fa +/- fb/Fb < fa/Fa + fb/Fb = fa/Fa - fb/Fb = TDL 1,360.00 Ib .75*TLL 4,080.00 Ib D+.75*L 5,440.00 Ib .75*(E/1.4) 364.29 Ib .75*(E/1.4)*I 3,430.36 ft-lb VL/A fb = 1,013.04 psi fb = 94.17 16,023.33 psi Fb = 1.00 0.194 OK -0.07 OK M/S 3,610.90 psi 27,600.00 psi 4 S.T.E.L ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:180F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR FOOTING LATERAL 24" DIAMETER BY 5'-9" DEEP A= (2.34*P)/S1*b d = A/2 * (1+ SQRT(1 + (4.36*h)/A))) P = 2,444.00 GOVERNING LATERAL LOAD PASSIVE = 300.00 DEPTH = 5.75 ST = 575.00 DIAMETER = 2.00 ft b= 2.00 ft HEIGHT (h)= 9.42 ft A= 1.86 d = 5.41 OK TOTAL LOAD Trib. Width (TW) = 17.00 ft Dead Load (DL) = 4.00 psf Length (L) = 20.00 ft Live Load (LL) = 16.00 psf Trib. Area (TA) = 340.00 ft2 Total Load (TL) = 20.00 psf TOTAL DOWNWARD LOAD (TDL) = TL*TA TDL= 6,800.00 Ib SKIN FRICTION (SK) = CIRCUMFERENCE OF FOOTING * FRICTION WITH SOIL SK= 18,064.16 Ib END BEARING (B) = END AREA OF THE FOOTING * SOIL BEARING VALUE SOIL BEARING VALUE = 4,000.00 psf B= 12,566.37 Ib BORSK = 18,064.16 > 6,800.00 TDL OK UPLIFT UPLIFT {U)= Pu*TA U= 3,178.73 Ib RESISTING DEAD LOAD {RDL)= DL*TA RDL= 1,360.00 Ib CONCRETE WT (CWT) = VOLUME OF CONCRETE * WT CWT= 2,709.62 SK= 12,042.77 Ib RDL+CWT+SK= 16,112.40 > 3,178.73 U OK FOOTING 24" DIAMETER BY S'-Q" DEEP EMBED COLUMN 4'-9" OK FOR TOTAL LOAD OK FOR UPLIFT 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANAREALLOT2 SHEET:190F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/20Q6BY:DKR ALTERNATE FOOTING LATERAL 30" DIAMETER BY 5'-3" DEEP A= (2.34*P)/S1*b d = A/2 * (1+ SQRT(1 + (4.36*h)/A))) p = 2,444.00 GOVERNING LATERAL LOAD PASSIVE = 300.00 DEPTH = 5.25 Si = 525.00 DIAMETER = 2.50 ft b = 2.50 ft HEIGHT (h)= 9.42 ft A= 1.63 d = 4.99 OK TOTAL LOAD Trib. Width (TW) = 17.00 ft Dead Load (DL) = 4.00 psf Length (L) = 20.00 ft Live Load (LL) = 16.00 psf Trib. Area (TA) = 340.00 ft2 Total Load (TL) = 20.00 psf TOTAL DOWNWARD LOAD (TDL) = TL*TA TDL = 6,800.00 Ib SKIN FRICTION (SK) = CIRCUMFERENCE OF FOOTING * FRICTION WITH SOIL SK= 20,616.70 Ib END BEARING (B) = END AREA OF THE FOOTING * SOIL BEARING VALUE SOIL BEARING VALUE = 3,875.00 psf B= 19,021.36 Ib BORSK = 20,616.70 > 6,800.00 TDL OK UPLIFT UPLIFT (U) = P(/TA U= 3,178.73 Ib RESISTING DEAD LOAD (RDL)= DL*TA RDL= 1,360.00 Ib CONCRETE WT (CWT) = VOLUME OF CONCRETE * WT CWT = 3,865.63 SK= 13,744.47 Ib RDL+CWT+SK = 18,970.10 > 3,178.73 U OK ALTERNATE FOOTING 30" DIAMETER BY 5'-3" DEEP EMBED COLUMN 4'-3" OK FOR TOTAL LOAD OK FOR UPLIFT 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX {949)498-3020 1-C VENTANAREALLOT2 SHEET:200F:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR CONNECTIONS Ib PURLIN TO BEAM PURLIN VL=VR= 2,868.75 USING 2 BOLTS Ib/BOLT = VL.OR.R/2 lb/BOLT= 1,434.38 USE 2 -1/2" DIAMETER A307 BOLTS BEAM TO COLUMN USING 2 SECTIONS ML= 24,480.00 ft-lb TDL = 6,800.00 Ib USING 4 BOLTS DUE TO MOMENT Ib/SET OF BOLTS = (M/d)/2 d = DISTANCE BETWEEN BOTTOM LEFT BOLT AND TOP RIGHT BOLT d= 9.90 in Ib/SET OF BOLTS = 14,837.12 Ib Ib/SET OF BOLTS/SECTION = (Ib/SET OF BOLTSJ/2 Ib/SET OF BOLTS/SECTION = 7,418.56 DUE TO LOAD Ib/SECTION = Ib/SECTION = Ib/SECTION/BOLT = Ib/SECTION/BOLT = TOTAL TDL/2 3,400.00 (lb/SECTION)/4 850.00 R = SQRT((DUE TO MOMENT)2 + (DUE TO LOAD)2) R= 7,467.10 Use 4 -1" DIAMETER A307 BOLTS OR 4 - 3/4" DIAMETER A325 BOLTS PURLIN TO BEAM 2-1/2" DIAMETER A307 BOLTS EACH PURLIN TO EACH BEAM W/ A 12GA. CLIP ANGLE BEAM TO COLUMN USING 2 SECTION USE 4-1" DIAMETER A307 BOLTS OR 4 - 3/4" DIAMETER A325 BOLTS IN A 7" BY 7"PATTERN 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANA REAL LOT 2 SHEET:210F;21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR CONNECTIONS DECKPULLOUT PU= PU-EFFECTIVE= PU-EFFECTIVE= w= 9.35 PM-ROOFDL 8.35 psf psf PU-EFFECTIVE w= 83.49 SCREWS PER FOOT= PULLOUT= 349.00 SCREWS PER FOOT= SCREWS PER 15" = USE 1-#10 SMS EVERY 15" 'TW plf w/PULLOUT Ib 0.24 0.30 DECK PULLOUT 1-#10 EVERY 15" INTO EACH PURLIN 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX {949)498-3020 M-C VENTANAREALLOT2 SHEET:1OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR CO CO s? ' ,£ L-- — - — ,02 •z.__i —o: gj 2 £ WV39 ^ ne g 3d01S £ NV39 "~~ — ~i- — — -1 ~~—- — 1AIV39 CO CO o:r>Q_ NO EXCEPTIONS D TAKEN D D REJECTED D This review was performe formance with the desiii concept of the project and genera] compliance ivi t information given in the Contract Documents. ments mada on the shop view do not relieve contrac the requirements of the p Approval of a specific Item i of the assembly of which FURNISH AS CORRECTED REVISE AND RESUBWHT SUBMIT SPECIFIED ITEM only for general con- Modifications or com- rawings during this re- r from compliance with ins and specifications. i not inclurte approval item is a component. Contractor te responsible for. dimensions to be confirmed and correlated al the jobsite; information that pertains solely to the fabrication processes or to the means, methods, tech procedures of construction; of all other trades; and for safe areyfeisfactory manne O ilques, sequences, and nomination of the work jerforming all work in a C607OT6/ I I I 5" I 1 I I I I I I I I I fault and is more dominant that the neatest Type B fault due to its close proximity to die she. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Seismic Zone Factor Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, CA Seismic Coefficient Cv Near Source Factor, N* Near Source Factor N, Seismic Source Design Value 0.4 s. 0.44 0.68 : 1-0 1.0 -B UBC Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J TaWel6-Q Table 16-R Table I6-S Table 16VT Table 16-U 6.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 63.1 The on-sitc sudxcial soils consist predominately of clayey silts, clays and interbedded fine-grained, silty sands (undocumented fill, topsoil and aHuvium). These materials possess moderate to high expansion potential as defined by UBC Table 18-I-B, 6.3.2 Surfjcifll deposits can be excavated using light to moderate effort with conventional heavy- duty grading equipment A moderate to heavy effort is anticipated to excavate dense Point Lotna Formation materials. Some zones will likely be encountered that require ripping with a single-shank ripper on aD-9 or larger bulldozer. 6.3.3 Interpretation of data obtained from previous investigations and observations daring our recent update study suggest that rippable to marginally rippable conditions exist for most areas of the site. Localized areas of hard concretions may require rock breaking. It is recommended that breaking be performed such mat the resulting broken materials are generally 2 feet or less in m?mmnm dimension in order to reduce the rock to a manageable size for moving and placing in fill areas. 6.4 Grading 6.4.1 Grading .should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C, Where the recommendations of Appendix C conflict with this section, me reconmjmdations of this section take precedence. Project No. Q'd .9.April 22.2004- 90 \Z 6nV 4 S.T.E.L.M-C SHEET:20F:21 ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 Dead Loads Roof Deck Purlins Beam Total Decking SIMPLE SPAN Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Fb = w = TL*TW = M= (w*L2)/8 = Sreq = M/Fb = 1.00 1.50 1.50 4.00 1.00 11.50 47,904.19 21.00 347.16 0.0870 HR-36 AEP 26 GAUGE Fy=80 ksi CANTILEVER SPAN Trib. Width (TW) = Length (L) = Fb = w = TL*TW = M= (w*L2)2 = Sreq = M/Fb = 1.00 4.25 47,904.19 21.00 189.66 0.0475 VENTANA REAL LOT 2 JOB NO:Q6D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY:DKR psf psf psf psf ft Dead Load (DL) = 1.00 psf ft Live Load (LL) = 20.00 psf psi Total Load (TL) = 21.00 psf plf ft-lb in3/ft S= 0.0895 in3/ft OK ft Dead Load (DL) = 1.00 psf ft Live Load (LL) = 20.00 psf psi Total Load (TL) = 21.00 psf plf ft-lb irvVft SIMPLE SPAN GOVERNS DECKING HR-36 AEP 26 GAUGE Fy=80 ksi 4 S.T.E.L. ENGINEERING, INC. 1046 CALLE RECODO SUITE J SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 PHONE (949)492-5981 FAX (949)498-3020 M-C VENTANAREALLOT2 SHEET:1OF:21 JOB NO:06D155 DATE:11/21/2006BY: DKR tO CO CL o F^ ,02 x-.t- ZL -O- IAIV39 o: 3d01S o: WV38 CD OO o:r>Q. NO EXCEPTIONS D FURNISH AS CORRECTED TAKEN D REVISE AND RESUBMn REJECTED D SUBMIT SPECIFIED ITEM Tills review was perfbrmel onfy for genera! con- fbrmmce virith the desiti concept of the project and generail compliance w i information given in the Contratf Documents. merits mad a on the shop view do not relieve contrac the requirements of the p Approval of a specific Item ( >es not include approval of the assembly of which t Contractor fs responsible confirmed and correlated a that pertain;} solely to the fa rication processes or to the means, methods, tech iques, sequences, end procedures of construction; of all other trades; and for safe an£|atisfactory man CD ft^DELARC Modifications or com- rawings during this re- r from compliance wrth ms and specrfi'-ations. e item is a component. or: dimensions to be the jobsita; information xrardination of the work lerforming all work in a c. Ml UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR H. G. FENTON COMPANY, INCORPORATED SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA C GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS Project No. 07238-42-01 April 22, 2004 H. G. Fenton Company, Incorporated 7588 Metropolitan Drive San Diego, California 92108 Attention: Mr. Allen Jones Subject: Gentlemen: CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 ' CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION In accordance with your authorization of our proposal No. LG-04013 dated January 12, 2004; we have performed a supplemental geotechnical investigation at the subject property. The study was conducted to augment and update previous studies for the site in order to evaluate stability of proposed cut slopes and to provide grading recommendations for development of the property. The accompanying report describes the site soil and geologic conditions and. provides updated grading recommendations and foundation design criteria. Geotechnical conditions that will require special consideration include a relatively large undocumented fill with large oversize chunks of concrete within the southeastern margins of the property and localized shallow clay seams that exist within one of the proposed cut slopes. The site is considered suitable for the planned development provided the recommendations of this report are followed. Should you have questions regarding this update report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED JLB:GCC:dmc (3/del) (1) (1) (4/del) Addressee Ladwig Design Group Attention: 'Mr. Bob Ladwig Newport National Attention: Mr. Scott Brusseau O'Day Consultants Attention: Mr. John Strominger 6960 Flandere Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 55^6900 • Fax (858) 558-6159 I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) 3 3.2 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) 3 3.3 Topsoil (unmapped) 3 3.4 Alluvium (Qal) 3 3.5 Point Loma Formation (Kpl) 4 4. GROUNDWATER 6 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity 6 5.2 Liquefaction Potential 7 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 6.1 General 8 6.2 Seismic Design Criteria 8 6.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics , 9 6.4 Grading 9 6.5 Subdrains 11 6.6 Slopes 12 6.7 Foundations 12 6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 14 6.9 Slope Maintenance 15 6.10 Drainage 15 6.11 Grading Plan Review 16 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Map Figure 2-6, Geologic Map (Map Pocket) Figure 7 - 10, Geologic Cross Sections Figure 11-15, Slope Stability Analyses Figure 16, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis Figure 17, Typical Canyon Subdrain Detail Figure 18, Recommended Subdrain Cut-Off Wall Figure 19, Subdrain Outlet Headwall Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figure A4, Log of Borings Figures A-2 - A-16, Logs of Trenches I l • l I I l l I l l l l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table B -I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results Table B-n, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results Table B-IH, Summary of Laboratory Density from Submerged Wax Sample APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS LIST OF REFERENCES I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of an update geotechnical investigation for Carlsbad Tract CT 00-20 located adjacent to the west side of El Camino Real and north of Faraday Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of our study was to update previous studies performed for the property and perform additional field studies to evaluate excavation characteristics and slope stability of proposed cut slopes. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the conditions encountered. The scope of the investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of published geologic literature pertinent to the site, and conducting a field investigation. In addition, we have reviewed numerous geotechnical investigations for the property prepared by AGRA, AMEC and Leighton and Associates. A detailed list of previous geotechnical investigations reviewed is summarized in the List of References at the end of this report. Development plans reviewed include the following: 1. Tentative Map For Fox-Miller Property, (reduced copy) with portion of three sheets depicting slopes that may require buttressing, undated. 2. Grading Plans For: Carlsbad Tract CT 00-20 Fox-Miller Property, prepared by Buccola Engineering, Inc., dated February 4,2004. Our field investigation was conducted between March 29 and April 3, 2004, and consisted of geologic mapping and excavation of one large-diameter boring and 14 exploratory backhoe trenches. Trenches were located in areas of planned cut slopes to evaluate contacts, lithology and structural attitudes of the Point Loma Formation. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on Figures 2 through 6 (Geologic Map, map pocket). The geologic maps also include approximate locations of previous borings and trenches from earlier studies. Boring imd trench logs are Included in Appendix A. The base map used to plot boring and trench locations consisted of a copy of the above-referenced grading plans prepared by Buccola Engineering, Incorporated, dated February 4, 2004 that were provided to us on an electronic AutoCAD file. Laboratory tests were performed on soil samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to determine pertinent physical soil properties. Test results are summarized in Appendix B. Project No. 07238-42-01 -1 - April 22,2004 I I I I 2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site occupies approximately 54 acres of irregularly shaped land located southwest of El Camino Real and north of Faraday Drive in the city of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). It is understood that a four-lot industrial subdivision is planned for the property. Presently, the property is vacant and mostly covered with non-native grassland with some coastal sage scrub in lower canyon areas. Topographically, northwest-trending rounded hills are dissected by two tributary canyons and a major drainage called Letterbox Canyon. The tributary canyons drain northward, merging into the east-to-west major drainage (see Geologic Map, Figures 2 through 6). Site elevations range from a high of approximately 310 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) along the southern boundary to a low of approximately 140 feet MSL in Letterbox Canyon near the western boundary. The confluences of the two tributary drainages with Letterbox Canyon are located where planned fill slopes on the order of 60 feet high will be constructed. Review of the referenced Tentative Map indicates site development will consist of mass grading to construct four large sheet-graded pads industrial pads with associated streets, underground utilities, and surface improvements. Access to the site will be via an extension of Salk Avenue that will cross the site and intersect with existing El Camino Real. Grading will be fairly significant, consisting of cuts and fills on the order of 40 feet and 60 feet, respectively. Slopes are proposesd at inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) with slope maximum heights on the order of 40 feet for cut slopes and 60 feet for fill slopes. Localized cut slopes proposed at inclinations of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) are also planned near the intersection of Salk Avenue with El Camino Real (see Geologic Map, Figure 3). This cut will lower an existing 1:1 cut slope on a portion of the site bordering El Camino Real. The locations and descriptions of the site and proposed development are .based on a site reconnaissance, review of the referenced plans and geotechnical reports, conditions encountered during our field investigation, and our understanding of proposed development. If conditions and/or project details vary significantly from those described above, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional recommendations and/or analyses. 3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Four surficial soil types and one geologic formation were encountered during our field investigation. Surficial soil§, include undocumented fill, previously placed fill, topsoil, and alluvium. The geologic formation consists of Cretaceous-age Point Loma Formation. Each of the surficial soil types and the geologic unit are discussed below hi order of increasing age. Project No. 07238-42-01 - 2 - April 22,2004 I I I I *:_•=•• I I I I I I f I I I I I I I 3.1 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) Undocumented fills exist in several areas surrounding and extending within the site and are primarily associated with previous adjacent developments. The largest undocumented fill extends along the southwest margins and at the corner of proposed Lot 2 and the southeast corner of proposed Lot 3. This undocumented fill contains significant amounts of oversize chunks of concrete and asphalt concrete debris (see Geologic Map, Figure 3 and exploratory trenches T-3, T-4, T-13, T-13A, and T-14). The maximum fill depth in this area exceeded 16 feet in trench T-13 and appears to extend offsite to the southeast (see Geologic Map, Figure 3, and Cross Section A-A'). Significant settlement of this fill offsite is evident based on observed cracks in a concrete block wall and a leaning lamppost immediately adjacent to the southeast property limits of the site. This fill is situated within a planned cut slope, and extends into building pads. Undocumented fill is considered unsuitable hi its present condition'and will require removal and replacement with properly compacted fill. 3.2 Previously Placed Fill (Qpf) Previously placed fill is present along the margins of the site, particularly along El Camino Real and along the south and west boundaries of the site. Proposed cut slopes along the east side of Lot 2 may encounter previously placed fill associated with El Camino Real (see Geologic Map, Figure 3). Another area of previously placed fill may be encountered hi planned cuts to grade a proposed detainment basin near the west site boundary and the extension of Salk Avenue in Lot 4 (Figure 5). Fill associated with El Camino Real and the adjacent developments may have received compactive effort, but may be underlain by unconsolidated surficial soils in offsite peripheral areas. As such, the fills are not suitable for support of additional fill or structures and will require removal and recompaction in areas of planned development. 3.3 Topsoil (unmapped) Topsoil and/or residual soil was encountered as a blanket from 1 to 4 feet thick across most of the site. The topsoil typically consists of porous, soft, moist, dark brown, silty clay to clayey silt. Thicker topsoil layers were found in the upper portions of drainages and as a residuum above weathered claystone bedrock. The topsoil exhibits high expansion (see also AGRA report, July 6, 2000) potential and is compressible. Removal of the topsoil will be necessary in areas, to receive fill and/or site improvements. 3.4 Alluvium (Qal) Alluvial deposits are present in the lower elevation portions of the three major drainages (see Geologic Map, Figures 2 through 6). The alluvium generally consists of loose, dark brown, gravelly Project No. 07238-42-01 -3- April 22,2004 I I 1 |. -- - Ir "• I I (I i, . I I I Ix;r.rI ii\ .i silt and clay indistinguishable, except in its greater thickness, from the topsoil and/or residual soils described above. In one of the previous studies over 15 feet of alluvium was encountered near the confluence of Letterbox Canyon and a tributary at the western edge of proposed Ix>t 4. The alluvium is not suitable hi its present condition for support of structural fill and/or loading and will require complete removal and recompaction. 3.5 Point Loma Formation (Kpl) The Cretaceous-age Point Loma Formation is a well-indurated marine sedimentary unit that extends to the surface or at shallow depths beneath the entire site. This unit consists predominately of dense to very dense, damp to moist, medium to dark, olive grayish clayey siltstone with interbedded layers of light yellowish brown, fine sandstone. Light gray calcium-carbonate-cemented concretions are also present in this unit. Our investigation included exploratory backhoe trenches and a single large- diameter boring to supplement previous studies and to obtain more geologic structure data for slope stability evaluation. Exploratory excavations were specifically located in the areas that have been identified by previous studies as possibly needing buttress slope stabilization (AGRA report, dated July 6, 2000). In general, we encountered dense, horizontally bedded Point Loma Formation siltstones in most exploratory excavations; exceptions were local undulatory variations in dip that inclined 10 degrees or less toward the west. A lot-by-lot summary with respect to structural attitudes and slope stability of the Point Loma Formation as encountered in our exploratoiy excavations is as follows: Lot 1 A buttress approximately 400 feet long extending approximately north-south along a proposed 25-foot-high cut slope was recommended previously by AGRA (2000). This was based on projected adversely dipping bedding plane attitudes measured in a road-cut of El Camino Real and a boring (B-2), both approximately 100 feet away from the proposed cut slope (see Geologic Map, Figure 6). Geocon excavated trenches T-9 and T-10 within the proposed cut slope outline and encountered 2 to 6 feet of surficial soil and weathered Point Loma Formation underlain by horizontally bedded, hard, very silty claystone and siltstone. Previous studies likely encountered irregular (undulating) bedding or discontinuous parting-planes that commonly occur in the formation. However, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that a buttress to stabilize the slope is unnecessary. Moreover, an engineering geologist should observe the undulating character of the bedding during grading to confirm bedding maintains non-adverse attitudes. Lot 2 Previous studies recommended a buttress approximately 350 feet long paralleling the property line along a proposed 20-foot-high cut (see Geologic Map, Figure 3). This was based on adverse (dipping out-of-slope) bedding planes projected from a single boring approximately 200 feet from the proposed cut slope (AGRA, 2000). Geocon excavated trenches T-ll and T-12 within the Project No.07238-42-01 -4- April 22,2004 8 I i I I proposed cut slope area and encountered 1 to 4 feet of surficial fill and topsoil underlain by dense to very dense, clayey siltstone with bedding planes striking perpendicularly or at steep angles to the proposed cut slope and dipping from horizontal to 5 to 10 degrees parallel to the proposed slope. The bedding undulates, averaging approximately 5 degrees dip parallel to the slope. This represents a neutral or non-adverse condition with respect to slope stability. The western end of the same proposed cut slope, however, will expose the transition into the concrete-debris fill described above that extends into Lot 3 and will require remedial grading. Lot 3 Previous studies recommended buttressed cut slopes extending approximately 700 feet along the south boundary of the site, again based on projected bedding-plane attitudes measured from distant excavations (see Geologic Map, Figure 4). Geocon advanced one deep large-diameter boring (B-l) to a depth of 55 feet that was down-hole logged by an engineering geologist, adjacent to a proposed 40-foot-high cut slope along the southern site boundary. In addition, exploratory trenches T-3, T-13 and T-13A were excavated in the southeast corner of the lot. The findings in the deep boring indicated similar bedding-plane structure as that found in Lot 2; very low-angle undulating bedding striking perpendicular and dipping less than 7 degrees parallel to the proposed cut slope. A single bedding-plane-parallel shear was found at a shallow depth approximately 10 feet below proposed finish cut grade (see Geologic Cross Sections B-B' and C-C"). In addition, calcium- carbonate cemented layers were encountered, with the thickest layer being approximately 10 inches. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that these represent neutral or non-adverse bedding conditions that will require as-graded observation by an engineering geologist to confirm that the locally variable bedding structure maintains non-adverse attitudes. The proposed buttress in the southeast corner of Lot 3 is in the transitional area previously described above to have an undocumented oversize concrete-debris fill. Remedial grading will be required in the southeast portion of Lot 3 where debris-fill is encountered. Lot 4 Buttressing of the proposed approximately 700-foot-long cut along the east-southeast lot boundary was proposed in previous studies based on projection of adversely dipping bedding attitudes from distant exploratory trenches (see Geologic Map, Figure 5). Geocon excavated three trenches (see Trenches T-4, T-7 and T-8, Geologic Map, Figure 5, and Appendix A) along the proposed cut slope. All trenches encountered horizontally bedded, dense to very dense siltstone with interbedded thin sandstone and claystone layers. In one trench, T-7, an extremely dense, cemented sandstone caused refusal of excavation. It is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the proposed buttress is not necessary. Project No. 07238-42-01 -5- April 22,2004 I I I I I I 1 4. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during our recent field investigation or during previous studies. Minor wet bedding planes surfaces between approximately 44 and 55 feet in Boring B-l were encountered and were likely the result of surface water percolating down through the upper loose deposits and perching on the underlying very dense cemented concretion layers. Observations should be made during grading to evaluate the presence of surficial seepage and to provide recommendations for subdrains, if necessary. Subsurface drainage systems will be required at the base of debris-fill and alluvium removals to preclude the buildup of groundwater within fills. Groundwater is not anticipated to adversely impact the proposed development. 5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5.1 Faulting and Seismicity Review of geologic literature, observations during this study and previous geotechnical reports prepared for the property indicate that no active faults exist on-site. The nearest active faults are the Rose Canyon fault located approximately 5 miles west of the site and the Elsinore Fault located approximately 24 miles east of the site. The City of Carlsbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis and Mapping Study, Sheet No. 10 shows a fault exposed in the existing cut slope adjacent to El Cammo Real (AGRA, 2000). Also, Geocon's boring B-l encountered a fault that offset a cemented sandstone layer approximately 3 inches. This is in a zone of faulting shown on the California Geological Survey geologic map (S. S. Tan and M. P. Kennedy, 1996) to be comprised of short, discontinuous faults that displace only Pre-Holocene formations. Moreover, the fault encountered in boring B-l has a very thin gouge zone approximately 1/8-inch wide, lined with undisturbed calcium carbonate and iron-oxide deposits. Such coatings in arid climates are estimated to take hi excess of 10,000 years to form (Birkeland, 1984). This finding, along with the previous fault studies by AGRA (2000), supports the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the faults on the site are inactive. The distance of known active faults to the site was determined from the computer program EQFAULT(Blake, 1989a, updated 2,000). The program estimates ground accelerations at the site for the maximum credible and maximum probable seismic events based on distances from the site to known California active faults that have been digitized in an earthquake catalog. Principal references used by EQFAULT in selecting faults to be included were Jennings (1994), Anderson (1984) and Wesnousky (1986). Attenuation relationships by Sadigh (1997) were used in the analysis. The results of the deterministic analysis indicate that the Rose Canyon fault is the dominant source of potential ground shaking at the site. The Rose Canyon fault is estimated to have the capability to generate a maximum credible earthquake event of Magnitude 7.2. The estimated maximum peak site Project No. 07238-42-01 ^6~- April 22, 2004 accelerations were calculated to be 0.37g. Presented on the following table are the earthquake events and calculated peak site accelerations for the faults most likely to subject the site to significant ground shaking. I I TABLE 5.1 DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Fault Name Rose Canyon Fault Zone Newport-Inglewood Coronado Bank Elsinore-Temecula Elsinore-Julian Elsinore-Glen Ivy Distance from Site (miles) 5.2 7.2 21.2 24.0 24.0 35.3 Maximum Earthquake Magnitude 7.2 7.1 7.6 6.8 7.1 6.8 Peak Site Acceleration 0.37g 0.31g 0.18g O.lOg 0.20g 0.06g The site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the above listed faults or other regional faults in the southern California or northern Baja California area. Structures for the site should be constructed in accordance with current UBC seismic codes and local ordinances. I I 1 I I 5.2 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated and relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, characteristics of the subsurface soil, in situ stress conditions, and depth to groundwater. Due to the very dense nature of the Point Loma Formation, lack of a permanent shallow groundwater table and removal and recompaction of surficial deposits as recommended hereinafter, the potential for liquefaction of the site subsoils is considered to be very low. Project No. 07238-42-01 -7-April22,2004 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 General 6.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered during this and previous geotechnical studies that would preclude the development of the industrial subdivision as planned, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. 6.1.2 Remedial grading to remove oversize debris fill, previously placed fill, topsoil, and alluvium within planned areas of development will be required to properly compact compressible surficial deposits to make the materials suitable for support of structural fill and/or loading. 6.1.3 Recent trenching and drilling indicates that previously recommended buttresses on proposed cut slopes in the Point Loma Formation are, in general, unnecessary. Exploration at proposed cut slope locations encountered generally favorable geologic structure such as dense horizontal or neutral to non-adverse bedding attitudes with respect to slope stability. Localized adverse bedding planes and shallow bedding-plane-parallel shears, however, are possible because of the undulating character of the bedding, as well as surficial slope creep within highly weathered zones. Observation by an engineering geologist during grading is recommended. 6.1.4 The oversize concrete-debris fill in Lots 2 and 3 require removal and replacement with suitable fill within planned building pad areas. Complete removal will be required beneath building pads. Stabilization of the proposed cut slope within this fill will be required with limited removal and recompaction due to the probable extension of the fill beneath the adjacent property to the south (see Cross Section D-D', Figure 10). 6.1.5 Nonrippable cemented concretion layers with thicknesses on the order of 12 inches were encountered in the Point Loma Formation. The large concretions appear to be lens-shaped and embedded in a rippable siltstone matrix. However, other hardrock may exist laterally at different elevations. Oversize rock generated during excavations will require special handling and placement in fills. 6.2 Seismic Design Criteria 6.2.1 The following table summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 1997 UBC. The values listed are for the Rose Canyon fault, which is identified as the nearest Type A Project No. 07238-42-01 - 8 - April 22,2004 T - - .' I I h'' I • I I f I I fault and is more dominant that the nearest Type B fault due to its close proximity to the site. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Parameter Seismic Zone Factor Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, CA Seismic Coefficient Cv Near Source Factor, Na Near Source Factor Nv Seismic Source Design Value 0.4 sd 0.44 0.68 1.0 1.0 -B UBC Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J Table 16-Q Table 16-R Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-U 6.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics 6.3.1 The on-site surficial soils consist predominately of clayey silts, clays and interbedded fine-grained, silty sands (undocumented fill, topsoil and alluvium). These materials possess moderate to high expansion potential as defined by UBC Table 18-I-B. 6.3.2 Surficial deposits can be excavated using light to moderate effort with conventional heavy- duty grading equipment. A moderate to heavy effort is anticipated to excavate dense Point Loma Formation materials. Some zones will likely be encountered that require ripping with a single-shank ripper on a D-9 or larger bulldozer. 6.3.3 Interpretation of data obtained from previous investigations and observations during our recent update study suggest that rippable to marginally rippable conditions exist for most areas of the site. Localized areas of hard concretions may require rock breaking. It is recommended that breaking be performed such that the resulting broken materials are generally 2 feet or less in maximum dimension in order to reduce the rock to a manageable size for moving and placing in fill areas. 6.4 Grading 6.4.1 Grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications contained in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of Appendix C conflict with this section, the recommendations of this section take precedence. 1 •j Project No. 07238-42-01 -9-April 22, 2004 I I I II I p I I I I I I I II III I I 6.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with he owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer hi attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time. 6.4.3 Site preparation should begin with removal of all deleterious material and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that soil exposed in cut areas or materials to be used as fill are relatively free of organic material. Extensive grubbing to remove stumps and roots should be anticipated in areas of dense vegetation. Materials generated during clearing and grubbing should be exported from the site. 6.4.4 Undocumented fill, previously placed fill, topsoil, and alluvium within areas of planned grading should be removed and recompacted. Surficial soil removals should extend at least 10 feet horizontally beyond the edges of slopes or structural areas (i.e., building pads and roadways). Dependent upon the conditions observed in the field, isolated areas of deeper removals might be required. 6.4.5 Existing undocumented fill in the vicinity of the proposed cut slope at the southern end of Lot 2 will require remedial grading to stabilize the slope. Remedial grading should consist of excavating a 5-foot vertical at the property line and then a 1:1 slope projecting down to the base of the undocumented fill. The slope should then be rebuilt back to planned design grades with properly compacted fill. Figure 1 (Geologic Cross Section D-D') presents a typical detail for the proposed stability fill. 6.4.6 After removal of compressible surficial soils as recommended above has been accomplished, and prior to placing fill, the base of overexcavations should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. Fill soils may then be placed and compacted to design finish grade elevations. All fill, including scarified ground surfaces and backfill, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557-02, at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Fill areas . with in-place density results indicating moisture contents less than optimum will require additional moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill. 6.4.7 Oversize materials (rocks larger than 12 inches in maximum dimension) will be generated during excavation of concretion zones and during remedial grading of undocumented fill. Oversize rock and concrete chunks can be placed in fill areas in accordance with the recommendations of Appendix C, It is recommended that oversize materials be kept at least 10 feet below proposed finish grade in building pads and 2 feet below the deepest utility within streets. This recommendation is intended to have a sufficient soil cap at Project No. 07238-42-01 -10- April 22,2004 I I I I K--I I I I I I i • I I .I p I II i • Ii I I grade to allow for future grading and installation of underground improvements without encountering oversize materials. Asphalt concrete can be placed hi fill provided it is kept within proposed street right-of-ways and kept at least 5 feet below proposed subgrade elevations. 6.4.8 Where practical, the upper 3 feet of all building pads (cut or fill) and 12 inches hi pavement areas should be composed of properly compacted or undisturbed formational low to medium expansive soils (Expansion Index of 90 or less). 6.4.9 Import fill, if required, should consist of granular, low expansive (Expansion Index less than 50) soil. Soil samples should be obtained from proposed borrow sites and subjected to laboratory testing to verify they conform to the recommended expansion criteria. 6.5 Subdrains 6.5.1 Subdrauis should be installed in the canyons to be filled. Typical subdrain installation details are presented on Figure 17. Subdrains should extend up the canyons to approximately 15 feet below proposed finish grade elevations and/or at least 2 feet below any proposed utilities. 6.5.2 The lower 20 feet of subdrains exiting the base of compacted fill slopes should consist of non-perforated pipe. A cutoff wall should be constructed immediately below the junction of the perforated pipe with the non-perforated pipe. The cut-off wall should extend at least 6 inches beyond the sides and the bottom of the subdrain trench and 6 inches above the top of the pipe, as depicted on Figure 18. 6.5.3 Where subdrain systems do not outlet into permanent structures such as storm drains, the outlet pipe should be provided with a concrete headwall, riprap, or similar device. A typical subdrain outlet headwall detail is shown on Figure 19. 6.5.4 After installation of the subdrahis, the project civil engineer should survey the locations and prepare accurate as-built plans of the subdrain locations. The project geotechnical engineer should verify the as-built subdrain outlet The contractor should ensure that an adequate drainage gradient is maintained throughout the system and that the subdrain outlet is free of obstructions. Project No. 07238-42-01 -11 - April 22,2004 I I I II I I I I I I II I II I I 6.6 Slopes 6.6.1 Cut slopes excavated in dense Point Loma Formation or fill slopes comprised of the on-site materials constructed at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be stable to the planned heights. Slope stability analyses were performed for proposed cut and fill slopes using SLOPEW, a computer program that calculates factors of safety using conventional 2-dimensional slope stability equations. The analyses were based on direct shear test results and the analyses indicate factors-of-safety against deep-seated instability of at least 1.5. Results of the analyses are presented on Figures 8 through 12. A surficial slope analysis was also performed and results indicate stable slope conditions (see Figure 13). 6".6.2 The upper portion of the proposed cut slope depicted on Geologic Cross Section B-B' will require construction of a drained stability fill to mitigate the presence of a bedding plane shear. The recommended limits of the stability fill are shown on the Figure 4. A typical detail is shown on Figure 8. 6.6.3 Fill slopes should be overbuilt at least 3 feet horizontally and cut to the design finish grade. As an alternative, fill slopes may be compacted by backrolling at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and then track-walking with a D-8 bulldozer or equivalent, such that the soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent to the face of the finish slope. 6.6.4 All slopes should be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion. 6.7 Foundations 6.7.1 Foundation recommendations presented herein are based on low to medium expansive (El less than 90) within 3 feet of ultimate finish pad grade placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented above. 6.7.2 Conventional continuous and/or isolated spread footings are suitable for support of typical concrete tilt-up or masonry block industrial buildings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 niches wide and 18 inches deep (below lowest adjacent grade). Isolated spread footings should be at least 2 feet wide and extend 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. 6.7.3 Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. The project structural engineer should design reinforcement for spread footings. Project No. 07238-42-01 - 12 - April 22,2004 P I ! I I I I I I I 6.7.4 Foundations proportioned as recommended may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (dead plus live loads). This bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. 6.7.5 The allowable soil bearing recommendations presented above are for dead plus live loads only and may be increased by up to one third when considering transient loads such as those due to wind or seismic forces. 6.7.6 Industrial building concrete slabs will likely be subjected to heavy loading from forklift loading and/or storage of supplies. We recommend that the slab be designed by the structural engineer to accommodate loading requirements. Based on soil conditions, we recommend a minimum 5-inch thick concrete slab reinforced with No, 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center in both directions and placed at the slab midpoint. The slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand and where moisture sensitive floor coverings or slab moisture would be objectionable a visqueen moisture barrier should be placed in the middle of the sand blanket. If a structural section is required beneath the slab to support forklift loading or to support cranes for lifting of tilt-up panels Class 2 aggregate base should be used in lieu of the clean sand beneath the slab. 6.7.7 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. All concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Control joint spacing should be provided by the structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control spacing. Prior to placing, the subgrade should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content. 6.7.8 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled as necessary, to maintain a moist soil condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 6.7.9 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills, or fills of varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of Project No. 07238-42-01 ,13- April 22,2004 I II I i I I I { > I I I concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and the placement of crack-control joints at periodic intervals, particularly where re-entrant slab corners occur. 6.8 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 6.8.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 6.8.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the active soil pressure presented above. 6.8.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 6.8.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated. Project No. 07238-42-01 -14- April 22,2004 I I I I «•>''I I I I iI I . (I I IJ I I I III I 6.8.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet horizontally beyond the footing or three tunes the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. 6.8.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls (such as crib-type walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 6.9 Slope Maintenance 6.9.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions that are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near-surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer 3 feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is therefore recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. 6.10 Drainage 6.10.1 Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded Project No. 07238-42-01 -15- April 22,2004 I I II I II I I IIIII I I III I after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices, 6.11 Grading Plan Review 6.11.1 The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans prior to finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the necessity for additional analyses and/or recommendations. Project No. 07238-42-01 -16- April 22,2004 I I I *-• ji iii ii iiiiiii LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. Project No. 07238-42-01 April 22,2004 SOURCE 2004 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REPRODUCED WITH PERMSSION ORANTHJ BY THOMAS BORTHBtS IMPS. THIS MW IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. HAP& IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY I»ART THffiEOF, WHETHER FOR PBBONAL USE OR RESALE. WITHOUT PSWSSON. N NO SCALE GEOCON C» INCORPORATED \flr GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 555-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 GC/MM DSK/EOOOO VICINITY MAP CARLSBAD TRACf CT-OQ-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 FIG.1 I ELEVATiON ELEVATION 1Q .105O ELEVATION 7... 7 . 7 . 7 . 700 p •" i p"q5j S"5!to MS i §51^ *« «^ 8 SO SO 8 ft 9 s o O3 O3 i- r ^ i T i ' i ' i mu u u u u ^A/ ELEVATION n En oQ ELEVATION o to ELEVATION iOso > 0 og Iso ~-.~"J fc^-'/-^ ELEVATION §IQ =0 5 5 so > P -4 o OJ 6 <o -= CO CQ CO CO_J -J DC DC « OO 9 S OJ O COCO <D o a2 Q t5 -o <D CDi1 a CL W O OLU CO • «LO '-.^. co <D 0>Oc CO+-•COb U011BA9I3 £-3 D> \L. co '«^<i 8oO "(0 E 0> ^ CD ogCD '•§o)"En 5"- *•* C3> «,-. 5 "> D. "cO CD Q. f-' O CO oo o03 o03 •sO oo oCO o CO D.M o CMi O <o —&5^ DC I-o QQ CQ CQ O) (D_J _l DC DC 00 CD CQ O h-oUJ CO oo CM m 9 S _ C\J O CO C\lCO 5\l — o CSJ 0) 13O)u_ 0)03 CDOcCO•*->COb co ISoO Id EB^ (D — •— ' °-2 cit D) If "c (D "5CO ooCM 0 CO OPJ D. O Ooh- 0 CO oCO Q. OO O 8 (0 Q. CD Q t> *a0) 0) Q. CO 6o - < o Q9 S<; <£ DO CO CO Z C/)C/) O ^^ ^- oo UJ 9 SCM O t CNj co c\ico c\j 0)o ro2 Q B -oCD 0 "S §a. w iq c\j UOI}BA8|3 co T— 03 3 O) li. O0) occd b cgs^ -^ iioO "c5 E O)5J <D ^o "D)-CZ j?11- _gi 'S g^ 5 §. 'c 0} ow ooCM OCO OCO 5 Oof^ oCO oCO "S. oo T~- O OCO CL CD OO ^f OCO oCO s oOJ o ^ H? 39 8^ ^c CQ OQ 2 COOT O 55 o<C <C HIOO co 9 § oo ^5Z Q tS -a<D O COO3 ^ I 0) LL 0)«4— CDO C CO c,g lloO "5 ^ E CD0) 0> .E *-^ "o o ^ Barcc u. ^O)'5 -p. 5 g^._ aQ. 1— "oW oo oCO oCO "Q. oo o oCO CO CL CO OO o T— oCOt— <au. ts £ Q 1 i i zsu. D_ CO o OJ6 <o — in r Q Q !- CQCQCO 0)r •—* —iI ceo: - oo o62:o oUJco ooq c\i S— T3-<M O CO C\jCO 04 CD £ CD O C 3"w b coIfoO "(0 C -t^ fe 0) H- C °.2 "DJ-C:c u. ,0) |f "c 13 1 "o O o CO oCO "o. oo o oCO W CL CO OO O OCO T— 3 u. oo oCO oCO o 10 CJ i ii z E ^ Q •5 -oCD CD ASSUMED CONDITIONS : SLOPE HEIGHT DEPTH OF SATURATION SLOPE INCLINATION SLOPE ANGLE UNIT WEIGHT OF WATER TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION APPARENT COHESION H = Infinite Z = 3 feet 2:1 (Horizontal : Vertical) i = 26.6 degrees yw - 62.4 pounds per cubic foot yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot <j> - 30 degrees C = 200 pounds per square foot SLOPE SATURATED TO VERTICAL DEPTH Z BELOW SLOPE FACE SEEPAGE FORCES PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE ANALYSIS: FS =C + CVYJ Z c°s2 i tan yt Z sin i cos i = 1. REFERENCES: 1 Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Para/to/ Seepage, proc. Second International Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam. 1948.1,57-62 2 Skempton, A. W., and FA Detory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Gay, Proc. - Fourth International Conference. SMFE, London, 1957.2,378-81 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTKHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JB/AML DSK/EOOOO DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO. 07238 - 42 - 01 FIG. 16 •— COUOOUDWG/oiJ APPROVED FILTER FABRIC 1" MAX. OPEN-GRADED AGGREGATE 9 CUBIC FT./FT. MINIMUM 6" DIA. PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE -5'WIN. NOTES: 1._.SUBDRAIN PIPE SHOULD BE WNCH MINIMUM DIAMETER. PERFORATED, THICK WALLED SCHEDULED 40 PVC, SLOPED TO DRAIN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM AND CONNECTED TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR APPROVED OUTLET. 2__.WHEN SUBDRAIN PIPE EXCEEDS SOD FEET, PIPE DIAMETER SHOULD BE INCREASED TO 8 INCHES. 3-.-RLTER FABRIC TO BE Mf RAFl WON OR EQUIVALENT. TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTKHNICAI CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDB& DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 CARLSBAD TRACT CT-OQ-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JB/AML DSK/EOOOO DATE 04 - 22 - 2004 PROJECT NO. 06195 -12 - 01 FIG. 17 FRONT VIEW r- 6" MIN. CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL r- 6- MIN. 6" MIN. NO SCALE SIDE VIEW CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL SOLID SUBDRA1N PIPE P MIN. (TYP) PERFORATED SUBDRAIH PIPE P MIN. (TYP) NO SCALE RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL GEOCON <@> INCORPORATED ^30? GEOTECHNICAL CX)NSULTA^4TS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, GUJFORNK 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 JB/AML DSK/EOOOO CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO. 07238 -42 -01 | FIG. 18 FRONT VIEW NQ. SCALE SIDE VIEW NOTE HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE NO SCALE SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTKHNKAL COKSULTANTS 6960 BANDERSDRIVE- SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974 PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JB/AML DSK/EOOOO DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO.07238-42-01 FIG. 19 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed between March 29 and April 3, 2004, and consisted of a site reconnaissance, geologic field mapping, and excavation of 14 exploratory backhoe trenches and one large-diameter boring. Trenches were excavated using a John Deere JD450 track mounted backhoe equipped with a 24-inch-wide rock bucket. During trenching, chunk samples and disturbed bulk samples were obtained for laboratory testing. The large diameter boring was drilled using an EZ Bore-100 truck mounted drill rig equipped with a 30-inch diameter bucket auger. During Drilling, relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained by driving a 2.5-inch O.D., split-spoon sampler 12 niches into the undisturbed soil mass using a Kelly Bar. The sampler was equipped with 2-3/8-inch diameter brass sampler rings to facilitate laboratory testing. Soil conditions encountered in the boring and trench excavations were visually examined, classified, and logged in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2844). Logs of the boring and trenches are presented on Figures A-l through A-16. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the exploratory excavations are shown on the Geologic Map (Figure 2, map pocket). Exploratory excavations (borings and trenches) pertinent to the new Tentative Map from previous geotechnical investigations have also been included herewith. The logs are presented to provide additional subsurface information regarding the depths and types of materials that were encountered on site. Project No. 07238-42-01 April 22,2004 PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 J J '- i ^P" V-' P" — 1 ,_ •w -•'-" — *•* ;..! DEPTH IN FEET 0 _ - _ 4 - — 6 - B - 10 - - 12 - - 14 - - 16 - - 18 - 20 - - 22 - 24 - - 26 - - 28 SAMPLE NO. I Bl-1 I IBl-2 | CBB Bl-3 1 F Bl-4 Bl-5 O3o b §§35S^ Wffi»HI •mMM,w» •••• 9m% y0y%/ •\/X%w WjjJM, w w yj^yjjfa Wvj&, w. ^^2 j INDWAT1^jo£O SOIL CLASS (USCS) SC \ • ML-CL BORING B 1 ELEV. (MSL.) 310, DATE COMPLETED 03-29-2004 EQUIPMENT E2 BORE 100 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL 3 inches Asphalt Concrete paving and 12 inch Base Loose to medium dense, dry to humid, light to medium yellow brown, Gravelly. Clavev, fine SAND: with some silt / POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, damp, medium yellow-brown-olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE; blocky, massive to low-angle dipping beds, weathered -Becomes more hard, less weathered at 7 feet -Bedding N40W, 3SW (thin, 1 " cemented layer) -Fault N38W, 50SW with approx. 1/8-inch calcium carbonate lining; fault offsets cemented layer approx. 3" -BEDDING PLANE SHEAR (EPS) at 16.5 feet, N9W, 7SW, W-'/S inch thick plastic, wet, remolded clay; through-going at top of 3" cemented layer -Bedding N10E, 6NW (cemented layer VrV thick) -Gypsum vetnlets -Cemented zone 2-3" thick ZUJ~ S ^ wt- togUJ rn Oiy Uf 1 ill U; [Qa.01 ~ 4 8 - - _ " 8/6" - - - - - - _ - v O "^~y it LLJ f } o:~a 108.4 srIj soo 18.6 Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 2 07238-42-01-GPv SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... CHUNK SAMPLE DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE 3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TCj BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07236-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET _ - - 32 "- - 34 - - 36 - - 38 - - 40 - - - 42 - - 44 - - 46 - 48 - 50 - - 52 - - 54 SAMPLE NO. B1-6 •,n y Bl-8 K Bl-9 I >-O _, OX ^ i£tw&W&w w iH • • IPa mh 83§i2832H, , • , // , - , ' 1 ' ' ' ! ] : f2 ID ) SOIL CLASS (USCS) ML-CL ML BORING B 1 ELEV.(MSL) 310 DATE COMPLETED 03-29-2004 EQUIPMENT E2 BORE 100 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Very baid, damp, dark gray-olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE; with interbedded yellowish to reddish brown, sandy siltstone layers, little or no fracturing or jointing and massive to low-angle dipping bedding • - -44'-50' (moist to wet surfaces along bedding planes) • -Cemented zone 6" to 10" thick (coring bucket used to penetrate) Very bard, damp to moist, dark gray-olive, very Clayey SILTSTONE; massive to low-dipping bedding as above ; BORING TERMINATED AT 55 FEET Q y* • & 2 Es ?^ to fcj-l S S m Q_ It —• 9/6" ~ 10/6" - - " 17/6" - _ - - ^w^' z ^: b- i-ao 105.3 106.9 UJ £. ^ y 5. ^ O 19.1 17.7 Figure A-1, Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 2 07236^2-01 .GP. SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL i§ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE E _. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ..CHUNK SAMPLE I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET . 2 - - • 4 - - - 6 - - SAMPLE NO.HOLOGYh .y\ y/I- i/f '^•x $% ^wf/ lipzjjjjjt v/y$/ wftw im •ii$< a:NDWATEOa:o SOIL CLASS CL CL TRENCH T 1 ELEV. (MSL) 296 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT , JD 450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Soft, very moist, dark yellow brown, Sandy, Silty CLAY; very porous, burrows, roots -Irregular contact POINT LOMA FORMATION Very stiff to hard, moist, dark olive-yellow brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; weathered, fractured, with interbedded thin, cemented layers -Bedding N32W, 6SW -Becomes hard at approx. 6.5 feet TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET z in— OHtz£ 2£g uj s;O Q_tt~ - - - - - - W-T s^ Q- £ D U-t I>^wH! soo Figure A-2, Log of Trench T 1, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...CHUNKSAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE"D. IT IS NOT WARRAmED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDfTIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET - 2 - - 4 - - 6 - SAMPLE NO.LITHOLOGY.i/l y•A- j/i ' X'X % 1 ! m. m OUNDWATER |tcn SOIL CLASS (USCS) CL CL TRENCH T 2 ELEV. (MSL) 298 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOBL Soft to stifC very moist, dark brown-olive, Silty, Sandy CLAY; porous, with roots, shrinkage cracks POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, medium to dark olive-brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; laminated bedding N60W.2SW -3" thick cemented layer TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET ENETRATIONESISTANCE .BLOWS/FT.)o.11"RY DENSITY(P.C.F.)O MOISTUREONTENT {%)O Figure A-3, Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1 0723B-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE (3 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... CHUNK SAMPLE • ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) 5 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN " - 2 - - 6 - - 8 - - SAMPLE NO. 3o t- yj'/:/ f/ '<</:/ /"(¥ %/*/ •ilp ill E-U | :> 0 SOIL CLASS SC CL CL TRENCH T 3 ELEV.(MSL) 295 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD 450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, moist, light to dark brown (mottled), Gravelly, Clayey SAND; wood, plastic, oversize concrete chunks POINT LOMA FORMATION Soft, moist, dark brown-olive, Silty CLAY; very weathered, claystone, fractured, creep layers approx. 5-10 degrees out of slope Hard, moist, medium to dark olive, Silty CLAYSTONE; bedding approx. horizontal TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9'/3 FEET §flfI- z y-5^ wOL t- >t wS Z |8 -1 a.* — £w~?ZU-gq ^* •**"(Vo tU eS 1| ^-J tC.50O i! Figure A-4, Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1 0723B-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL EH ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... CHUNK SAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE 3. IT IS NOT VWRRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET - - 4 - - 6 - SAMPLE NO. T4-1 T4-2 LITHOLOGY'Xyy M& Yyy'YYVW/YAYr/m WWW MMfcw& w GROUNDWATER |SOIL CLASS {USCS) CL CL TRENCH T 4 ELEV. (MSL.) 275 DATE COMPLETED 03-31 -2004 EQUIPMENT JD 450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Stiff, moist, dark brown, Sflty CLAY; very porous, roots, burrows POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, medium olive-brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; horizontally bedded, laminated TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)- - -DRY DENSITY(P.C.F.)MOISTURECONTENT (%)t_~" Figure A-5, Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1 0723S-42-01 .GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE |] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... CHUNK SAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET - - 2 - . 4 _ - 6 - - - 8 - - 10 - - 12 - 4 Al*t SAMPLE NO. >-O3o \— /: '/•/• % iX x% % '$ X%'}( 4A%A, X % /( x; $'',k & ¥' ^fc y-v< Y f y / V - £ y'f\/ tr LI 13 DOo:o SOIL CLASS (USCS) SC-CL - CL-ML TRENCH T 5 ELEV.(MSL) 278 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT . JD450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Loose, damp, dark brown, Clayey, fine SAND; very porous, roots POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard to very hard, damp, medium olive brown, very Silty CLAYSTONE to Clayey S1LTSTONE; discontinuous, blocky, fracturing -Fossil clam shell (1cm x 2cm mold) in calcium-caiiionate cemented layer approx. 2" thick; horizontal bedding TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET Zuj~ §iS t|o J*j-j LLt (T) Q_ °" "" fe zuT1 1 1 / % fl oco • ^ ^h Ig soo Figure A-6, Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS Q ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ...CHUNKSAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . VWOER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE 3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 0723&-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET - 2 - - 4 - - " - 6 - SAMPLE NO. T6-1 I T6-2 f1 fHOLOGY/[/ /[/ /l/l/l' , , , ' 1 , ' , , , 'x ,'• ;;; •V i ' -,' ',- , ' , •'_ '.'1 aaivMQNnn OLn SOIL CLASS (USCS) CL ML TRENCH T 6 ELEV.(MSL) 261 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Soft, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY POINT LOMA FORMATION Very hard, damp, light yellow-brown-olive, Clayey SILTSTONE; with thin fine sandstone layers -Bedding horizontal TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET (Near Refusal)CTRATIONSISTANCELOWS/FT.)fij COa.* —Y DENSITY{P.C.F.)ECO '- 108.9 OISTUREINTENT {%)SOO 17.7 Figure A-7, Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1 0723&-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... CHUNK SAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:D. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN _ - 2 - - - 4 - - 6 - _ - 8 - SAMPLE NO.HOLOGY/j/l/L/ W WWAB B ^^gm> 9 . ., • •* •. • .• i •* *NDWATER |nccCO SOIL CLASS CL-ML ML TRENCH T 7 ELEV. (MSL.) 282 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Soft, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY; porous, roots POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, damp, dark olive-brown, very Silty CLAYSTONE; -4" thick, dense, light brown, silty, fine sandstone layer; horizontal *- Very hard, damp, medium olive, Clayey SILTSTONE -Cemented concretions layer (refusal) TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8!/a FEET (Refusal)ETRATION.ISTANCEOWS/FT.)Z iy -J Q. _ - - - _ _DENSITYP.C.F.)£o 3ISTUREfTENT (%}S OO , Figure A-8, Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1 07236-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 88 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE |] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ^ ...CHUNKSAMPLE • ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:3. fT is NOT WARRANTED™ BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER IDCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH tN - 4 - SAMPLE NO.HOLOGYL_ ^^ //Vvi1HI ••$:'>l:NDWATER |-»* SOIL CLASS CL CL SM TRENCH T 8 ELEV. (MSL.) 270 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD 450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Soft, very moist, dark brown, SUty CLAY; porous, roots POINT LOMA FORMATION Very bard, damp, medium oJive, very Silry CLAYSTONE; blocky to massive •v -Contact is approx. horizontal Very dense, damp, light brown to tan, very Silty, very fine SANDSTONE TRENCH TERMINATED AT 61/* FEET ETRATIONJfSTANCEOWS/FT.)1 - 1 UJ fi f Q.^" - -DENSITYP.C.F.)fVo HSTUREfTENT (%)¥ £2OO Figure A-9, Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 13 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... CHUNK SAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) .WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:J. IT ts NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN - 4 . - - SAMPLE NO.HOLOGY7)GO( /vVu mnn|f| • &/, 'im NDWATER jDOLto SOIL CLASS CL CL CL TRENCH T 9 ELEV. (MSL) 282 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOBL Soft, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY; porous, roots POINT LOMA FORMATION Stiffto very stiff, moist, medium olive, Silty CLAYSTONE; very weathered and fractured -Contact is approx. horizontal Hard, damp, medium olive, Silty CLAYSTONE; blocky, less fractured TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET ETRATION5ISTANCEOWS/FT.)fTj 111 JQ Q_ U. - _ " _DENSITYP.C.F.)^" ****KQ »STUREJTENT {%)SOO Rgure A-10, Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-01 .GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL i§ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ...CHUNKSAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . VWVTER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE >. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET - 2 - - 4 - - 6 ~ SAMPLE NO. T10-1 HOLOGYt /)00(A/Cv T/X./yyy /X/ ii$06%9*m. Jo>jlo^iv NDWATER |§ SOIL CLASS CL CL ML-CL TRENCH T 10 ELEV. (MSL) 278 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004 EQUIPMENT JD 450 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL Soft, very moist, dark brown, Silly CLAY; porous, roots POEVT LOMA FORMATION Hard, very moist, medium brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; very weathered, fractured * -Horizontal contact Very hard, moist, medium to dark olive-brown, very Silty CLAYSTONE TRENCH TERMINATED AT &A FEET ETRATION>ISTANCEOWS/FT,)jjigg DENSITYP.C.F.)frQ '>1STUREITENT(%)SOO Figure A-11, Log of Trench! 10, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS Q ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 13 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... CHUNK SAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TtMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET ~ - 2 - - - 4 - - e - SAMPLE NO. TIM k JTHOLOGYlo.^.O - ® V' /t/l/l' W ^ 1 , *1 >y '/ r X* I/ / / X ' A I//OUNDWATER |a:o - SOIL CLASS (USCS) GM CL CL-ML TRENCH T 11 ELEV. (MSL.) 305 DATE COMPLETED 04-03-2004 EQUIPMENT CASE 310 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2 inches ASPHALT CONCRETE and BASE UNDOCUMENTED FILL Medium dense, drv. lidit reddish brown to brown. Sandv, fine GRAVEL TOPSOIL Stiff, very moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY - POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, medium olive-brown, very Silty CLAYSTONE to Clayey SILTSTONE -Bedding N25W, 5SW to horizontal (undulating) TRENCH TERMINATED AT TA FEET =NETRATIONESISTANCEBLOWS/FT.)o. "•"-' - - - - -RY DENSITY(P.C.F.)a 107.0 MOISTUREONTENT (%)O 20.1 Figure A-12, Log of Trench T 11, Page 1 of 1 Q723B-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE |] ...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B ... CHUNK SAMPLE H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) y_ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE 3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN 2 - - 4 , - SAMPLE NO.HOLOGY'?//, YX/y/x/ WM WW// 'wijb A//iv/ '$('NDWATER |r>o:CO SOIL CLASS SC\ CL-ML CL-ML TRENCH T 12 ELEV. (MSL) 308 DATE COMPLETED 04-03-2004 EQUIPMENT CASE 310 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ASPHALT CONCRETE and BASE UNDOCUMENTED FILL Medium dense, moist medium brown (mottled! Clavev SAND f POINT LOMA FORMATION Very stiff, very moist, light yellowish brown to olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE -N15E, 10NW along orange oxidized silt layer Very hard, moist, medium to light olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE to Clayey SILTSTONE - TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET ETRATIONJISTANCEOWS/FT.)jtj "J CO 0. K~- - -DENSITYP.C.F.)f* "••**Ka >ISTUREITENT (%)£OO Figure A-13, Log of Trench T 12, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST £ ... CHUNK SAMPLE NOTE: • ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) X ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE >. IT PROJECT NO, 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN PEET - - 2 - - 4 - - 6 - - - 8 - - 10 - - - 12 - - 14 - IK -ID SAMPLE NO. > O OX I /// • // J) / / $ SY A/ jQ ri? / Jj f / f^ ^f / * '/'//a '?/• ty, ,oy/ P ' / /^X ^ o: 10 3OIT O SOIL CLASS (USCS) GC SC \ TRENCH T 13 ELEV.(MSL) 303 DATE COMPLETED 04-03-2004 EQUIPMENT CASE 310 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, moist, dark to light brown (mottled), Clayey, very coarse GRAVEL; very porous, debris fill consisting of oversize 1-5' diameter concrete chunks (curb, pavement) and wood, plastic and asphalt concrete chunks TOPSOIL Loose, very moist to wet, dark gray-brown, Clayey, Gravelly SAND; with chunks of Point Loma Formation r TRENCH TERMINATED AT 17 FEET (Refusal On Concrete Debris In Sidewalls) Q o? £^fe fc|| f^ UJ Q)t±t£ —" — - - - _ - - K 2? <J>£ £~Q UJ ^ ^ <Q§O Z5OO Figure A-14, Log of Trench T 13, Page 1 of 1 0723B-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL i§ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST £ „. CHUNK SAMPLE DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE KIOTE 3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDrOONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN . - 2 - - - 4 - - - 6 - - 8 - SAMPLE NO.THOLOGY51?^ $%JH/u *y$TJjT wf'fc m '$Mjrfr\cn ^m UNDWATER |[>K(T BOH. CLASS (USCS) GC-GM TRENCH T13A ELEV. (MSL.) 301 DATE COMPLETED 04-03-2004 EQUIPMENT CASE 310 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UNDOCUMENTED FILL Loose, damp, dark to light brown (mottled), Silty to Clayey, very coarse GRAVEL; very porous, debris fill consisting of oversize (over 12" diameter) concrete, asphalt concrete, wood, plastic, trash TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET (Caving)NlETRATIONSISTANCELOWS/FT.)iTi ^^ ffiQ.Y DENSITY(P.C.F.)ono OISTURENTENT (%)£ OO - Figure A-15, Log of Trench T 13A, Page 1 of 1 07238-42-W.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE |] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B- CHUNK SAMPtE ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) ... WATERTABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE THE LO^ OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWJ HEREON APPLES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. FT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 DEPTH IN FEET " - 2 - - 6 - - SAMPLE NO.THOLOGY«>/ ?'/& '</:/ • ~ Qf ~/ fCy flffifayjjjjiyjjjt W%/% Ww 'Wk.UNDWATERQ :*> SOIL CLASS -(USCS) SC CL-ML TRENCH T 14 ELEV. (MSL) 303 DATE COMPLETED 04-03-2004 EQUIPMENT CASE 310 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION UNDOCUMENTED FDLL Loose, damp, medium to light brown (mottled), Gravelly, Clayey SAND; with some oversize 12" asphalt concrete, aid concrete debris, wood POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, light to medium olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE; weathered, fractured -Bedding N9E.10NW -Becomes very hard, massive TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7'/2 FEET i 4ETRATIONSISTANCELOWS/FT.)rr: LU rn Q_ CO *T*«£ ' ' QLa OISTURENTENT {%)SO0 Figure A-16, Log of Trench T 14, Page 1 of 1 0723B-42-01.GPJ SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 81 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 13 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST K ... CHUNK SAMPLE . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) .WttTER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE:3. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. APPENDIX A SELECTED BORINGS FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS FOR CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 CL Qt I /A C3 C-sNCilNEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TEST BORING LOG TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auger 22E 4NW 10W 2W £ «• .n a io ucCO 107 113 1 it 5*1 o — 14.9 16.1 Id « # Oa 10 12 -3Tt-Ho ^Jws 2.5 Bag 2.5 Bag Ul H S -i *» * — 1 2 3 4 X w-1«. 5-nrA 10- ,- 20- 30- 35- ' z X"£"wo ^ Jl 1 •" ELEVATION 296.0 BORING 1 -^- n f _ ,- ' "" f f •* * * IT - - - - - - - - - - ^ £« a* ML •^ ; 5 . a*1 3 COLLDVUM: Red brown CLAYEY SILT with minute voids and roots DEL JCUirFORMSrra&r: Poorly bedded moderate} fractured, oxidlzfed gray brown CLAYEY SILTSTONE ... at .7 '-, .5- inch thiclc. cementsd SILTSTOKI I 4-- / i NOTES: 1. Refusal; "at 16' due to concretion. 2. No caving. 3. No groundwater encountered. 4. Backfilled and tamped 4/19/89. 5 . Elevation obtained from olan . dated 3-14-89. THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY ATTHETIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. LOGGED BY IMP JPATE 4-ig-89 Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-l £NG1NEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TEST BORING LOG TYPE N5E 2E 38W 4SW 79W 8S 21W 2SW N4E 3W w K Q RELATIVE jCOMPACTION |24" 0 107 113 0«Y DENSITY(LM/tamBudget Auqer 21.2 14.4 MOISTURE{%)12 24 1 BLOWS /fOOT 112400 gtlbsl2.5 Bag 2.5 SAMPLE SIZE 1(INCHES) 11 2 3 X u-J n 5- - _ -10 JL 15- 20- 25 • 30- 35- 40- 45- z X u 0, X.uo : - - - - ~ L F - - - - ELEVATION 284.0 BORING ,_^w_ , ( f .* * ' , t * " i 1 MATERIALSYMBOLML \ / x UNIFIED SOILCLASS.COLLOVZDM; Red brown dAXET SILT vith minuta voids and roots EEL'.jaaR^SC3RHKEroW: Poorly bedded, highly fractured, acidized gray bro-sn dAYEY SILTSTONE ... at II1, 4" thick concretion ... at 15 ', 5" thick concretion ... at 21.5', 6" thick concretion ... at 29.5', 8"- thick concretion Poorly' bedded gray black CLAYEY SILTSTONE with scattered GYPSDM crystals 1 4r . • I NOTES: 1. Refusal at 35' due to concretion. 2. No ground-water encountered. 3. No caving. . - ... 4. Backfilled and tamped 1 4/20/89. 5. Elevation obtained from plan. dated 3-14-89. THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY" APPLIES ONLY AT.THETIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. LOGGED BY IMP DATE 4-19-89 Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 -V-2 MOORE X TA B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TEST BORING LOG TYPE 24E $NW 30E 6M^ LOW iff 22W iSW 5W 3?f 28Wist^r LIE u K 0.f 5n -.IHELATIVe 1COMPACTION |24" 0 105 110 DRYDeNairr(LVS/CUFT)Buclcet Auaar 22.2 19.0 NOISTUflE(%)8 24 1 BLOWS /fOOT 112400 ftlW2.5 Bag 2.5 SAMPLE SIZE 1(INCHES) 11 2 3 I SAMPLE N*io-| i -_ 20- 7^ - 30- TT- ^n. - _ - ^ ' r- - - z ~ V- X wH wa. u. " . •HP^^^V^^— • lUEVATION 268 .0 BORJNG 3 £ r^ 1. * if ML X "^^, \| UNIFIED SOIL| CLASS.CQriSVTUM: Mottled brown ClAYE* SILT with minuta voids and roots DEL' MaRTFQHMaTION: Poorly bedded, highly fractured oxidized, gray brown - -' CLAYEY SILTSTONE. ! ..-..- ...at 23', 8" thick concretion ...2" thick sane! bed at 32.5' Poorly bsddad gray blaclc CtAYSY SILTSTOME vith scattarad GYFSLM crystals / J 'r r NOTES: 1. Refusal at 35.5' due to concretion.' • : .2. No groundirater encountered; 3. No caving. 4. Bacfcfilled 4/20/89. 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3-14-89. THIS BORINQ LOS SUMM ART APPLIES OMUY ATTHETIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. _;_ LOGGED BY IMP DATE 4-20-89 V'--". Job No. 689-X02 - May 8- 1939 A-3 MOORE & TA B E R GEQTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND.GEOLOGISTS TEST BORING LOG TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auger u £ * M | HELfcTlVE || COMPACTION 1117 -0 AY DENSITY(t> a/cum13.6 -,MOISTURE(%)18, 831*^_ ^MB Bag 2,5 Bag -1SAMPLE SIZE(INCHES) |1 2 3 SAMPLE N«5 10- 15 T 20- 25- ' X ~ V- O. Ikuo . • • !•! 1 ' - "" F - - "•- ~ ^ " ELEVATION 176.0 BORING 4 x^ ' '•' ** I- % + V 1 V* t. •\ «l i:< |§t J *H il P ij B > Is1 1 IIATEfliAL 1ML \ \1 UNIFIED SOIL]1 CLASS. 1COLLUVIDM: Yellow brown CL&2EY SILT with minute voids -arid .-.roots DEL MAR^ORfffiSTON: Poorly bedded, moderate indurated, ccddizad yellow, and gray .- ; • SILTTt SANDSTONE-; ' ' ,V - " : '. '. - , ...at 7r, 3" -thick concretion . "- • ...at 10*, 3" concretion ...at 13', 5" thiclc concretion . \ I\ rNOTES: ' 1. End of boring 19'. 2. No groundwat'ar" encountered. 3. No caving. 4. Backfilled 4/21/39. 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3-14-89. - THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES OMLY AT THE TIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TI«£S. LOGGED BY IMP I DATE 4-20"89 1; - * te Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1939 A-4 «•* e. a« r A B E K GEOTECHN'ICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TEST BORING LOG TYPE 24" 0 Bucket 32W '6NI 49E 3NW 72W IIS 22W 5SW 71W 8MTIPiS* 6NW 78E 2N u2 »• C n ~ °•» 5§*G>-?21eo 105 il£| A «** w fcS O *^ NSR 21.3 w KEg oX ^•^WVlAHH^Bl Auger 13 9 — F s£ ^H-M ^*2^-*Si«Cv A**H*P 2 s £• * fj Bag 2.5 us«•i hiu XJ o& xa c.•<w •^HV^K I 2 3 «•X wJft. « m^^*** •• 10- -_ 15 - 20 . 25 • 30 - 35 - /»A -i ^f W 45 - -FL-_ _ —_ . : - - z~ 1-1 s1- W(L U,Uo HB^^^H^I^^^^"* ELEVATION 296.0 IBORING 5 ^ & / f* s* / / ,*' / / jf/^ ff" S"•rs / s ,'* / X / s'' / •ff / <T" _i•< j Si& ML \ -i5 .«•• °2!^j?«za COLLOTOM: Dark: yellow hrotm dAYTf SIL" ^-rlth minuta voids and roots ^ . • "pEL.MaSTBDEMaTION: Poorly b^ddegt, higiilv •fractursd oxi'dized- gray 'brown' ' *•• '"' CLftJEY SILTSTCNE . .- • ' ...slightly fractured beloar 10* - ...13.5'; 6" thick concretion . ' ...at 201; 4" thicfc concrfetion \ \] I NOTES: '1 . En<3 of boring 39 ' . 2. Nb groundwater encountered. 3. No caving. 4. Baclcfilled 4/21/89. 5. Elevation 'ob€ained from plan dated 3/14/89. THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THETIME AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES. LOGGED BY >&& | PATE 4/21/89 ^_ . Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-5 GEOLOGISTS TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Wide Buckat -N2°W 9^5v * - - , f 5- 10- 15- 20- - " ~ ™ I ^ ^* - ^_ ««•_ ELEV. .»* f*' T* •r CL \ ~ 270 T.RN* l ALLDVHM: Brcrem SILTY dAY - 'DEL MAR. FOSMXTIOH: Lithof isd, bloclcybrOTjn ciAYEr. SILTSTOJE with CIAY. "Seains .-.-.. *••.-• - " .- • . ' •-, -.-: ' ,/ "... v -•- •• '•• / i tJOTES: 1. Total 'depth of 1.?. 6* . . " • '2. No ground-^atar sncountared. "3. No caving. ' '4. Badcfilled 4-5-89. 5, Elevation obtainad from plan - dated 3-14-89. TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Wide Bucket | srrtiKES 1 ItEtATIVECOMPACTIONt»Y DENSITY(LM/CU.FT)UOISTUflEnu-SAMPLE SIZE(INCHES)SAHPUC HI5- • ,0- 1^- 20- - - - - - ft- X t u.Uo ELEV. 220 . ?f ,, "\(MATERIAL1 3YUBOLCL X. \ \UNIFIED SOIL1 CLASS.|T.RN« 2 COLLUVTUM: Brown SH/ZY CTAY DEL MAR.FOFM&TIQN: Lithofiad, l^loclzy gray CIATEY SILTSTONE with oxidation stainincr Bloclcy dar>; gray CJAYET SILTSTONE J- 1 "NOTES: 1f 1. Total depth of T. P. 6.5' . 2. Mb'groundaatar encounfcared. 3. No caving. 4. Backfilled 4-5-39. 5. Elevation obtained frcd plan dated 3-4-89. LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89 Job Wo. 689-102 - Way 8, 1939 A-6 r\ c. G* l f\ O C. « CONSULTINO ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Bucket • 93 '-. 11.1 3.0 Bag 1 2 F 5 - 10- 15- 20- ELEV. 4- 160 T.P.N« ^ \* ' $* i***ff X £ xe * • : : * ; o. ^x •x \ COLLUVldc-l: Darlc browi SILTY CIAY RESIDUAL SOIL: Red brown CLAYEY SILT DEL MAR FORMATION: Friable -red brown fins ..; • to mediurrt''SILTy SANDSTONE - • "- I \r t NOTES: . 1. Total depth of T.P. 7.5'. 2. Ito groundwater encountered. 3. No caving. 4. Backfilled 4-5-39. ' 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3-4-89. TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Bucket N33^1A^OCT * u t" f Xo SJPio K<21«o EE•» -.§? g3 u Kat-3 oa uM nsg3§it«» •» w-t a<n 5 • 10- 15- ao- ^ — — _ - _ *- v- u.wo ELEV. 1 145 ' |tP.N« 4 ^/ "^ / _i•<jssp sc•*~.^ CD ^^ \ \ \ _i 3 .*»«»°2tt* k.0z FILL: Tftiite fine CLAYEY SfiND AUtfVTOl: Dar!^ brot-m SILTY CIAY 5ESTJXTAL SOIL: Mbttlad bloclcy darlc bro-.m SIXTY CIAY DEL MAH'PORHATI(»J: Dark brown CLAYEY STX7STOJE with CIAY seams 4 4.if.- NOTES: ' ' ' 1. Total depth of T.P. 9'. 2. No groundwater encountered. 3. No cavincr. 4. Sacicfillad 4-5-89. 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3-4-89, LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-39 R.A-7 AND GEOLOGISTS TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Buckst .-• 5- 10- ID 20- m« m+ mm ^ ^ ELEV. s * / <?•\-1 ML \ ± 153 T.P.N* 5 ALLDVICM: Browi CLAYEY SILT ...scattered concretions -at 61 - 12"-r24'1 in "diaraatar -' .!•-"•.. . . . seeoaga DEL {fflR .OTMft-TION: Lithof iedf blocKy brba: SILTY CLAYSTOJE • ' j • J NOTES: r ' . . 1. Total depth of T.P. 17'. " 2. Seepage at 15'. 3. Caving associated witTi seepage. 4. Backfilled 4-5-89. 5. Elsvation obtained from plan datad 3-4-89. TEST PIT LOG "^PE 24" 'Bucket ' i NHTOt JS^f w I1 1 RELATIVE iCOMMOTION ,97.DAY DENSITY(LU/CaFt)18.6 MOISTURE<%»3.0 Bag 1 AMPLE SIZE(INCHES)i ^ •tX w.1 a • 10- 15- " 20- . _ * ™ -* ^ ' z~ »- £«0. Ik.wQ ELEV.i 238 |T.P.N« 6 s' s '/ ^'^ T" 1 CL x \(UNIFIED SOIL1 CLASS.AIlJJVlUM/OTIiaVIUI-I: Broun SILTY CLAY ...concretion 21 in diameter RESIDUAL SOIL: BlocHy mottled dark brown SILTY ttAY DEL. MAR. FORMATION: Lithofied, bloclcy dark broan SILTY CLAYSTONE / /A 41 iNOTES: .- ' - .1. Total depth of • T.-p; 8'. 2. Mo groundwatar encountered. 3. Wo caving. 4. Backfilled 4-5-89. 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3-4-89. LOGGED SY KGF DATE 4-5-89 Job No. 689-102 - May S/ 1989 GEOLOGISTS TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Wide Bucket N115 14°S ^r Bag 1 - 5- 10- 15- 20- ^ mf ^ ff -<V ** i^;Ftrr \r ! ELE-V. -I- 195 |Tp.N« J 1 X ffj^ [' CL X •• •• COLLUVTJK: Dark brown SILTY Clay vith SAtCDSTONS concretions TJEL ^an FOSMS-TIOfctaL: Lithofiad, blodc^/', mottled dark broun SILTY dAYSTC^-rE '. ' "with CLAY seams . .". - -. '"• NOTES: 1. Total death of T.?. 6.5'. 2. Mo ground-water encountered . 3. No caving. 4 . Backfilled 4/5/89 . 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3-4-89. TEST PIT LOG TYPE - 24" Wida Bucket 11°N Ul £fe •L a -I f IHCLATtVCCOMPACTIONMr DENSITY(LM/CO.FT:)MOISTURE' onSAMPLE SIZE(IMCHE*)• x MJ 91 ti 5- 10- 15- 2Q ^ — X" t- t£wo ELEV. -f- 238 P*• x ; » X X >1 MATERIAL1 .SYMBOLSM *\. ML \\\1UNIFIED SOILGLASS.T.RN« 8.: SLOPEK&SH: Yellow bro^n. fine, to siedimSILTY SJ\ND ALLUVIUM: Daric brown CLAYEY SILT P^T. MA*? FORA*A7TOI\T * Fr-ar-f-nr-^ri 7 i fHn-1* a*' bloc?qr dark blus/rust TCEATflERED CLAYEY SILTSTONE FORMATIONS!*: Lithofied, bloclcy, dark brown CLAYEY- SILTSTONE NOTES: • ' " 1. Total depth of T.P. 8.5'. 2. Wo groundwatar encountered. 3. No caving. 4. Backfilled 4-5-89- 5. Elevation obtained from plan datad 3-4-89. LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89 Job No. 689-102 -May 8, 1989 A-9 GEOLOGISTS TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Wide Buckat -• _- - • , -, 5- . 10- 15- .' 20- —- j :_— : : :_ i^ ELEV. ± 163 T!P.N* • y . "" s s ' •'• t *• f * ' i CL \ AIIBVITH: Dark brown SILTY CLXX ' ' DEL WAR- FQRM&tldfiTr *•' Littefiad/ blockv, " dark brotm dAYET' SILTSTONE. 1 I NOTES: 1". Total depth :of-tast pit-*10'". 2, Seepage batwasn 5 5' and 10r" (approx.- 5 gal/min. ) 3. Caving associated with seepage. 4. Backfilled 4/5/89. 5. Elevation obtained from plan dated 3/4/89, TEST PIT LOG TYPE 24" Kide Bucket'[ STRIKE !OL5 I RELATIVE iCOMPACTIONDHV DENSITY(LM/W.FT)MOUTUItCno-IKINOHI)azit rwrrvs•AMfLENt5- 10' 15- 20- _ - - - ** " n* " - " - X- 1- X w P klL h.HIO ELEV. ' 215 s1 f^* /1I 1 CL \\ \ -i S«- 0**u" Et X . IT.P. w«. 10 ALLUVHK: Bar1.; hrom SXLTST CTAY T)PT, TJfA'c! FOrJMJVTTON*" • blocky, light brown WEATHERED SILTiT dAYSTONE J i VOTES: J1 1 . Total depth of test pit 4 ' , 2. No groundwater encountered. 3. Ko caving. 4.' Backfilled 4/5/89. 5. Elevation obtained 3/4/89. LOGGED BY KGF from plan dated DATE 4-5-89 Job No. 689-102 - May 3, 1939 A.-10 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. The chunk samples were tested for their in-piace dry density and moisture content. Disturbed bulk samples were tested to determine compaction and expansion characteristics. The results of the tests are summarized in tabular and graphical form herewith. The in-piace dry density and moisture content of the samples tested are presented on the logs in Appendix A. TABLE B-l SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557 Sample No. Bl-2 TA-2 Description Dark gray, Silty CLAY Olive, Silty CLAY Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 113.0 109.7 Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) 16.0 16.3 TABLE B-ll SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample No. Bl-1 Bl-7 T6-1* Dry Density (pcf) 109.2 106.9 94.5 Moisture Content (%) 17.0 17.7 19.8 Unit Cohesion (psf) 702 694 742 Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 27 34 43 *Soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative density at near optimum moisture content TABLE B-lll SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DENSITY FROM SUBMERGED WAX SAMPLE Sample No. T6-1 Tll-1 Dry Density (psf) 108.9 107.0 Moisture Content (%) 17.7 20.1 *Sample allowed to air-dry from as-received moisture content. Project No. 07238-42-01 -B-l-April 22,2004 APPENDIX C FOR CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL 1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom- mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. 1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these specifications. It will be necessary that "the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly. 1.3. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable conditions are corrected. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading performed. 2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work. 2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topography. GI rev. 07/02 2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. 2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner, who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. Hie Soil Engineer shall be responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site grading. 2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report (including all addenda) which may include a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are intended to apply. 3. MATERIALS 3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or rock fills, as defined below. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of material smaller than 3/4 inch in size. 3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4 feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps ds specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12 inches. 3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity. GI rev. 07/02 3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the Consultant shall not be used in fills. 3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9 and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations. 3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes. This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner and Consultant. 3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and, where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil. 3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials. GI rev. 07/02 4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of this document. 4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features feat would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. 4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL Finish Grade Original Ground Finish Slope Surface Remove All Unsuitable Material As Recommended By Soil Engineer Slope To Be Such That Sloughing Or Sliding Does Not Occur See Note 1 See Note 2 No Scale DETAIL NOTES:(1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is exposed in the bottom of the key, the depth and configuration of the key may be modified as approved by the Consultant. GI rev. 07/02 4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications. 5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the soil or soil-rock fill to the specified relative compaction at the specified moisture content. 5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3. 6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL 6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts. Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications. 6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-00. 6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range specified. 6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is within the range specified. GI rev. 07/02 6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed hi percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Dl557-00. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the entire fill. 6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph. 6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least twice. 6.2. Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.2.1. Rocks larger man 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured 15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper. 6.2.2, Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement. GI rev. 07/02 6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow for passage of compaction equipment. 6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4 feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an "open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should first be approved by the Consultant. 6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either parallel to or perpendicular to thaface of the slope depending on the site geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher windrow. 6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative. 6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with the following recommendations: 6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2 percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to control post- construction infiltration of water. 6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be GI rev. 07/02 utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil-fill. j 6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM Dl 196-93, may be performed in both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill (minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the soil fill and theroci fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required number of passes be less than two. 6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to verity that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately 5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed. 6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that, in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be required in the rock fills. 6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the commencement of rock fill placement. GI rev. 07/02 6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by representatives of the Consultant. 7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING 7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and compacted. 7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fillvmaterial is compacted as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The maximum deflection in the rock.fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient moisture applied. - 7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed during grading. GI rev. 07/02 7.5, The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains, to verify that the drainage devices have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications. 7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate: 7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills: 7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM 01556-00, Density of Soil In-Place By the Sand-Cone Method. 7.6.1.2. Field Density Test, Nuclear Method, ASTM D2922-96, Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth). 7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-00, Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer and 18-Inch Drop. 7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, ASTM D4829-95, Expansion Index Test. 7.6.2. Rock Fills 7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-93 (Reapproved 1997) Standard Method for Nonreparative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and Highway Pavements. 8. PROTECTION OF WORK 8.1. During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures. 8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the Consultant. GI rev. 07/02 9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS 9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions. 9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications. GI rev. 07/02 LIST OF REFERENCES Geotechnical Investigation Update, Fox-Miller Property, prepared by AGRA, dated July 6,2000. Second Response to City of Carlsbad Review Comments, prepared by AMEC, dated April 18, 2001. Peer Review of Geotechnical Recommendations for 1.5 to Ifhorizontal to vertical) Slope, Fox-Miller Property, prepared by Leighton and Associates, dated November 30,2001. Geotechnical Response to City of Carlsbad/Peer Review Comments, Fox-Miller Property, prepared by AMEC, dated December 14, 2001. Peer Review of Geotechnical Response for the 4-Foot-High Vertical Cut at the Base of the 1.5 to 1.0 (Horizontal to Vertical) Slope, Fox-Miller Property, prepared by Leighton and Associates,' dated December 30,2003. Anderson, J. G., Synthesis of Seismicity and Geologic Data in California, U.S. Geologic Survey Open-File Report 84-424,1984, pp. 1-186. Birkeland, P. W., Soils and Geomorphology, Oxford University Press, 1984. Blake, T. F., EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, User's Manual. 1989a, p. 79. , EQSEARCH, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs, User's Manual. 1989b, p. 94. Jennings, C. W., Fault Map of California with locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975 (revised 1987). Tan, Siang S. and M. P. Kennedy, Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open- File Report 96-02, Plate 1,1996. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated. Weber, F. H., Jr., Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, No. 3,1963. Wesnousky, S. G., Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California, Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 91, No. B12,1986, pp. 12,587,631. Project No. 07238-42-01 April 22,2004