HomeMy WebLinkAbout2177 SALK AVE; ; CB062048; Permit08-29-2006
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008
Retaining Wall Permit Permit No: CB062048
Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725
Job Address:
Permit Type:
Parcel No:
Valuation:
Reference #:
Project Title:
2177SALKAVCBAD
RETAIN
2120202300 Lot #:
$28,800.00 Construction Type:
0
NEW
VENTANA REAL, LOT 3
1,600 SF RETAINING WALL, MASONARY
Applicant:
MERRACON
1572 ELON LANE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
Status:
Applied:
Entered By:
Plan Approved:
Issued:
Plan Check#:
ISSUED
07/18/2006
MDP
08/29/2006
08/29/2006
Inspect Area:
Owner:
FENTON CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER L L C
C/O H G FENTON
7577 MISSION VALLEY RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
Building Permit
Add!l Building Permit Fee-
Plan Check
Add'l Plan Check Fee *
Strong Motion Fee
Renewal Fee
Add'l Renewal Fee .
Other Building Fee
Additional Fees
TOTAL PERMIT FEES
$237.43
$0.00
$154.33
$0.00
$2.88
$0.00
' ' $0,00
" $0.00
,$0.00
,$394.64
Total Fees:$394.64 Total Payments To Date:$394.64 Balance Due:$0.00
BUILDING PLANS-r<IN STORAGE
ATTACHED
Inspector:
FINAL APPROVAL
Date:Clearance:
NOTICE; Please take NOTICE that 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 specif ed 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_Qiven a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
PEI®liT< APPLICATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
PLAN CHECK NQ.'gA3<O "2.O to
EST, VAL.
Plan Ck. Deposit
Validated By
Date
Address (include Bldg/Suite #)A an Business Name (at this address!
Legal Description Lot No.Subdivision Mams/Number Unit No.Phase No.Total # of units
Assessor's Parcel #Existing Use Proposed Use
Description of Work SO. FT.*<* Stories ", , » of Bedrooms * of Bathrooms
^/^r V^^f^-
Address " City State/Zip
(Sac. 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 lequives the applicant tot 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 appiicani fora permit subjects tha applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [S500J).
Name
State License #
Address •
License Class
City State/Zip
City Business License ff
Telephone
Designer Name
State License #
Address City State/Zip Telephone
Workers' Compensation Declaration: 1 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.
Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as' required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is
issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:
Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date
(THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$1001 OR LESS)
Q CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shell not employ any person in any manner so as
to become subject to tha Workers' Compensation Laws of California. • .
WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage la unlawful, and shall subject on employer to criminal p0naltla« and civil fines up to one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000), In addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor code. Interest and attorney's fees.
SIGNATURED _. ' •. -___•_..' • DATE
I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
Q 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 Coda: 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).
Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct tha 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 contractors! licensed
pursuant to the Contractor's License Law).
D 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. Q YES QNO
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 nama / address /phone
number / contractors license number): . j '_ ; . •__ _^
5. 1 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
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
13 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 APPLICANT 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 tending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097{i) Civil Code).
LENDER'S NAME '__.' ' _ LENDER'S ADDRESS_
1 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 far inspection purposes. ( 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" dsap and demolition or construction ot structures over 3 stories in height.
EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the buildirA 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 oomfmncedI with f, 180 days Irom the dale o1 such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned
at any time after the work is comm^edfojffiipl jQb oHSOdays {Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). '
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad CA 92008
1~ ' 77L Ifeh1^ ^v £KU £ '"''
0604701-2 0017 "02/16/2006 001 11
- PERMITS £4,114.00
FOR OFFICE USE ONI
PLAN CHECK NO.
7y
Address (include Bldg/Suite #)
3 Of t^Ap "
Lot No.
Assessor's Parcel#
Subdivision Name/NumberLor Unit No.Phase No.Total # of units
Existing Use Proposed Use KJ/A-
Name Address ' / City
^g|g^r^^r^|^^^^^,^fl||g|g^f|g^^^^|^^i
State/Zip
(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 703.1.5 by
leapt for a_permit subjects the aonlicant to a civil nenaltv of not more than^jvejiugdrefi dojlars,($50Q])
Name
tate License #<e>\-5L Address
icense Class
City State/Zip
City Business License #
Telephone #
Designer Name ' rCLr\ Address ' v City ' State/Zip Telephone #
State License # C- I \U~\O
Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations:
D 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.
D I have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My
worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:
Insurance Company •_ Policy No. Expiration Date
(THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS)
Jf 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 trie Wjaflkers1 Compensation Laws of California.
WARNING: Failure k/setv^^rken/con)ftrfisation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand
dollars($100,000), IpadWCTJJbXftteKost of/wmj#n?flt(0^^i«mag*£ are provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees
SIGNATURE_/s J///// Jf[L/j?// DATE ^-JS^
I hereby affirm that I am SerrW from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
D I, as owner o_f the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will d 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).
I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's
.icense Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractors) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's
License Law).
D 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. D YES D NO
2. I (have/have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work.
3. J have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name 1 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/
/ontractors license number):
5. I will provide some of the work, but I ha^«om#acteMhired)i^e following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number /type of work):
PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE
WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance
City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request
For: 01/29/2007
Permit# CB062048
Title: VENTANA REAL, LOT 3
Description: 1,600 SF RETAINING WALL, MASONARY
Inspector Assignment: PY
Type: RETAIN Sub Type:
Job Address: 2177 SALK AV
Suite: Lot ' C
Location:
APPLICANT MERRACON
Owner:
Remarks: Can you final?
Phone:
Inspector:
Total Time:
CD Description
69 Final Masonry
Act Comment
Requested By: CHRISTINE
Entered By: CHRISTINE
Comments/Notices/Holds
Associated PCRs/CVs 'Original PC#
«',/
Inspection History
Date Description Act insp Comments
09/27/2006 65 Retaining Walls WC PY
09/27/2006 66 Grout AP PY
09/26/2006 65 Retaining Walls NS PY
09/08/2006 61 Footing ' AP PY
:CH1
Roger E Morris I! j
Structural Steel & Welding Special Inspector '!
The individual named hereon is CERTIFIEP in the category \
shown, having been so certified pursuant to successful I
completion of the prescribed written requirements. jj
Expiration date: October 19, 2008 • . i
NO. 1026223-35 ./T. %f&w«*4 ^^— ..;_;.- f
Not valid unless signed by certificate holder. ;
Roger E Morris II
Structural Masonry Special Inspector
The individual named hereon is CERTIFIED in the categorv
shown, having been so certified pursuant to successful
completion of the prescribed written requirements.
Expiration date: October 19, 2008 . .
No. 1026223-Sfl W.^M^^n ^--
Hot valid unless sigr>ed by certificate holder.
Roger E Morris M
Reinforced Concrete Special Inspector-Legacy
The individual named hereon is CERTIFIED in the category
shown, having been so certified pursuant to successful
completion of the prescribed written requirements.
Expiration date: October IB, 2003
No. 1026223-88 ___^___J____________
Not valid unless signed by certificate holder-
Roger E Morris tl
Prestressed Concrete Special Inspector-Legacy
The individual named hereon is CERTIFIED in the category
shown, having been so certified pursuant to successful
completion of the prescribed written requirements.
Expiration date; October 19, 2008
No. 1026223-59 W.
Not valid unless signea by certificate holder.
ICC. mtificMion nttehts to competent, knowledge of Locte and standard1;.
Carlsbad O62O48
August 24, 2OO6
EsGil Corporation
In (Partnership witA government for (BuiCtfing Safety
DATE: August 24, 2006 CUAPPC1CANT.
Q JURISJ
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad ' Q^TAKTREVIEWER
• a FILE
PLAN CHECK NO.: 062048 SET: III
PROJECT ADDRESS; 2177 SAlk Avenue
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall for Lot 3
X] 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:
X] 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: Telephone #;
Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #;
Mail Telephone Fax In Person
REMARKS:
By: Bert Domingo Enclosures:
Esgil Corporation
U GA D MB D EJ D PC LOG trnsmtl.dot
EsGil Corporation
In Partnership with government for <Bui(tfing Safety
DATE: August 15, 2OO6
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER
a FILE
PLAN CHECK NO.: 062048 SET: II
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2177 SAlk Avenue
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall for Lot 3
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.
XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Meracon
1572 Elon Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024
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: Scott Merry Telephone #: (760) 944-1668
Date contacted: f/lb/0b(by£j$ Fax #: 0981
Mail Telephone Fax i/m Person
REMARKS:
By: Bert Domingo Enclosures:
Esgil Corporationn GA n MB n EJ n PC s/s/oe
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 4 (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576
Carlsbad 062048
August 15, 2O06
RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2177 SAlk Avenue
DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY
ESGIL CORPORATION: 8/8/06
REVIEWED BY: Bert Domingo
PLAN CHECK NO.: 062048
SET: II
DATE RECHECK COMPLETED:
August 15, 2006
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.
A. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit
prints to:
new complete sets of
B. 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.
C. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original
correction number has been given for your reference. In case you did not keep a copy of
the prior correction list, we have enclosed those pages containing the outstanding
corrections. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items.
D. 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?
QYes QNo
Carlsbad 062048
August 15, 2006
• PLANS
1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list.
Submit three 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. Plans shall have the structural signed and sealed by the California state licensed
engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, along with structural calculations..
(California Business and Professions Code). THIS WILL BE CHECKED WHEN ALL
THE ITEMS BELOW ARE MET.
3. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a
format similar to that shown below. Section 106.3.2. PLEASE SHOW THE
REQUESTED INFORMATION ON THE SHEET.
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
FOUNDATION INSPECTION
STRUCTURAL MASONRY
DESIGNER-SPECIFIED
OTHER
4. 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. PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED FORM.
' CailSbad 062048
August 15, 2006
• FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS
6. Note on the plan the soils classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the
allowable bearing value. Section 106.3.3. PLEASE SHOW THE REQUESTED NOTE
ON THE PLANS.
8. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan
and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the
recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction
documents PLEASE SUBMIT THE REQUESTED LETTER FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE SUBMITTED LETTER SEEMS FOR THE BUILDINGS.
- MISCELLANEOUS
9. Please show the recommended detail on the plans. PLEASE SEE ITEM 10 BELOW.
•10. A complete check will be made when the soils report is submitted. THE SOILS REPORT
RECOMMENDED 50 PCF FOR THE EFP LOADING BUT THE CALCULATIONS WAS
NOT REVISED.
. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item
has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc.
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 in the plans.
Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please
indicate:
Yes O No a
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 Bert Domingo at Esgil Corporation. Thank you.
Carlsbad 062048
August 15, 2006
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM
ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
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 (DEC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at
the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5.
Signed
I, as the engineer/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.
Engineer's/Architect's Seal
& Signature Here
Signed
1. List of work requiring special inspection:
ED Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection ED Field Welding
D Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI D High Strength Bolting
EH Prestressed Concrete Q Expansion/Epoxy Anchors
ED Structural Masonry I I Sprayed-On Fireproofing
ED Designer Specified I I Other
2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above:
A.
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.
EsGil Corporation
In <Partnersfiip with government for <Bui[(fing Safety
DATE: July 28, 2006
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK NO.: 062048 SET: I
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2177 SAlk Avenue
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall for Lot 3
APPLICANT
PLAN REVIEWER
a FILE
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.
XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Meracon
1572 Elon Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024
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: Scott Merry Telephone #: (760) 944-1668
Date contacted: 7^//^CXroy/^) Fax #: 0981
Mail Telephone \/ Fax \/\In Person
REMARKS:
By: Bert Domingo
Esgil Corporation
D GA D MB D EJ
Enclosures:
PC 7/20/06 trnsmtl.dot
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576
Carlsbad 062048
July 28, 2006
PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES
PLAN CHECK NO.: 062048 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2177 SAlk Avenue
FLOOR AREA:
REMARKS: Structural only
DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY
JURISDICTION:
DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW
COMPLETED: July 28, 2006
STORIES:
HEIGHT:
DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY
ESGIL CORPORATION: 7/20/06
PLAN REVIEWER: Bert Domingo
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 access for the disabled. This plan review
is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections
based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire
Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
Present California law mandates that residential construction comply with the 2001 edition of
the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 1997 UBC,
2000 UPC, 2000 UMC and 2002 NEC.
The above regulations apply to residential construction, regardless of the code editions adopted
by ordinance.
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.
To speed up the rechec'k process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each
correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc.
Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans.
Carlsbad O62048
July 28, 2006
• PLANS
1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction
list. Submit three 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. Plans shall have the structural signed and sealed by the California state licensed
engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, along with structural
calculations.. (California Business and Professions Code).
3. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in
a format similar to that shown below. Section 106.3.2.
• 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
FOUNDATION INSPECTION
• STRUCTURAL MASONRY
• DESIGNER-SPECIFIED
• OTHER
4. 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.
Carlsbad O62048
July 28, 2006
• FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS
5. 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.
6. Note on the plan the soils classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and
note the allowable bearing value. Section 106.3.3.
7. If the soils engineer would recommend that he/she review the foundation
excavations, please note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor
requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall
advise the building official in writing that:
a) The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report,
b) The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and
c) The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and
bearing capacity conform to the soils report."
8. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan,
grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been
determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly
incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report).
• MISCELLANEOUS
9. Please show the recommended detail on the plans.
10. A complete check will be made when the soils report is submitted.
To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item
has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc.
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 in the plans.
Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please
indicate:
Yes Q No Q
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 Bert Domingo at Esgil Corporation. Thank you.
Carlsbad 062048
July 28, 2OO6
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM
ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1\*Y\
PLAN CHECK NUMBER: 0(SU>4b OWNERS NAME: fa 5**T>*£6o ftA2Afl
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 re^ired,bv(]Jniforrn Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction
project located «e-ye. UBC Section 106,3.5.
Signed
I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared ihe following special inspection
program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located at the site listed above.
1. List of work requiring special inspection;
Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection
Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI
Prestressed Concrete
Structural Masonry
Designer Specified
_ |
U Field Welding
D High Strength Bolting
Q Expansion/Epoxy Anchors
O Sprayed-On Fireproofing
Q Other '
2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed
above:
A.
B.
C.
3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above:
A.
B.
C.
Special inspectors shall check \n with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site.
City of Carlsbad
Public Works — Engineering
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALL
BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB &£ - -3- 0 T K-\ r
BUILDING ADDRESS: r*Y77 Jht^d —
7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL
The item you have submitted for review has been
approved. The approval is based on plans, information
and/or specifications provided in your submittal;
therefore, any changes to these items after this date,
including field modifications, must be reviewed by this
office to insure continued conformance with applicable
codes. Please review carefully all comments attached,
as failure tocomply with instructions in this report can
result in^dspensio^-ofjB^fmit to build.
Date:
DENIAL
Please see^h^alacFfed report of deficiencies
marked Witn GMake necessary corrections to plans
or speqifications^for^cornpliance' with applicable
codes ancl~sfandards. Submit corrected plans
and/or specifications to this office for review.
ATTACHMENTS
Right-of-Way Permit Application
ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON
NAME: KATHLEEN M. FARMER
City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PHONE:(760) 602-2741
H:\WORD\DOCSVCHKI_sT\Retaining Wail Building Planciieck Cklist Form KF.doc Rev. 8/26/98
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 6O2-272O * FAX (76O) 602-8562
Q
Q
Q
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALLS
1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show:
(A
la
A. North Arrow
B. Existing & Proposed Structures
(dimensioned from street)
C. Property Lines
t
D. Easements
E. Retaining Wall
(location and height)
Q 2. Show on site plan:
At
M
'
A. Drainage Patterns
B. Existing & Proposed Slopes
C. Existing Topography
Q 3. Include on title sheet:
• A. Site Address •
B. Assessor's Parcel Number
C. Legal Description
D. Grading Quantities Cut _Fill Import/Export
(Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required)
4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval
for Project No.
Conditions were complied with by:Date:
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
Q a Q 5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or
private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way.
A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required
for the following: '
Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering
Department.
Page 1
H \WORD\DOcSi.CHKLST\Ret3ining Wall Building Plancheck Odlst Form DR.dOC Rev. 6/26/98
PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS
PERMIT NUMBER DATE
ADDRESS A I 97
RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR
(<$10V000.00)
PLAZA CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
VILLAGE FAIRE
COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING
OTHER
PLANNER DATE
ENGINEER DATE
Docs/Mlsforms/Planning Engineering Approvals
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 07238-42-04
August 21, 2006
Newport National Corporation
1525 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jeffry Brusseau
Subject: VENT ANA REAL LOT 3 • -
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RETAINING WALL FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
AND ACTIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
References: 1. Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During site Grading, Ventana
Real, Lot 2 - Building Path A and B, and Lot 3 - Building Pad C, Tract CT-0020,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon, Incorporated, dated April 24, 2006
(Project No. 07238-42-04).
2. Ventana Real, Lots 2 and 3 of Carlsbad. Tract CT-00-20, Carlsbad, California,
Executive Summary, prepared by Geocon, Incorporated, dated October 12, 2004
(Project No. 07238-42-02).
3. Ventana Real - Site Retaining Wall, Detail 10, Sheet S6.3, prepared by Burkett &
Wong dated June 7, 2006, provided via facsimile from Meracon Corporation on
August 21,2006.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced retaining wall detail prepared by
Burkett & Wong for the subject project. The purpose of our review was to assess whether the detail
had been prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations outlined in the geotechnicai
report (Reference I).
It should be understood thai our review was limited to geotechnicai aspects of project development,
and did not include review of structural elements. Based on our review it is our opinion that the
retaining wail detail has been prepared in accordance with the recommendations of our referenced
report.
It is our understanding that backfill behind the wall will consist entirely of gravel. Reference No. 2
recommended an active equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for 2.0 to 1.0
(horizontal:vertical) sloping backfill for soil backfill that possess an Expansion Index of less than 50.
If gravel is used as backfill, the equivalent fluid pressure can be reduced from 50 pcf to 40 pcf for a
2:1 slope behind the wall.
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fax (858) 558-6159
Should you have questions regarding this review, or if we may be of further service, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Rodney <Z. Mikesell
GE 2533^
RCM:anh
(1) Addressee
(2/del) Meracon Corporation
Attention: Mr. Scott L. Merry
Project No. 07238-42-04 -2-August21,2006
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEQTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 07238-42-04
April 11,2006
Newport National Corporation
1525 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention:
Subject:
Reference:
Mr, Jeffry Brusseau
VENTANA REAL LOT 3
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GRADING AND FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
1. Update Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Tract CT-00-20, Carlsbad,
California, prepared by Geocon, Incorporated, dated April 22, 2004 (Project
- No. 07238-42-01).
2. Ventana Real, Lots 2 and 3 of Carlsbad Tract CT-00-20, Carlsbad, California,
Executive Summary, prepared by Geocon, Incorporated, dated October 12, 2004
(Project No. 07238-42-02).
3. Grading & Erosion Control Plans For: Ventana Real Lot 3, Lot 3 Map No. 15253,
Tract CT 00-20, prepared by Partners Planning and Engineering, undated,
unsigned, five sheets.
4. Ventana Real - Lot 3, Carlsbad, California, Building Plan Submittal, prepared by
Nadel Architects, Inc., sheets variously dated, unsigned.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced grading and foundation plans for
the subject project. The purpose of our review was to assess whether the plans have been prepared in
substantial conformance with the recommendations outlined in the project Update Geotechnical
Investigation and Executive Summary (References 1 and 2). Specifically, we have reviewed Sheets 1,
2, and 3 of the grading plans (Reference 3), and Sheets Sl.l, S1.2, S2.1a, S2.1b, S6.1, S6.2, and S6.3
of Reference 4. It should be understood that our review was limited to geotechnical aspects of project
development, and did not include review of other details of the referenced plans, structural or
otherwise that do not directly pertain to geotechnical aspects of construction. Comments regarding
our review are provided below.
GRADING PLANS
Sheet 1, Grading & Erosion Control Plans: Note 36 of the referenced plans should be
corrected to indicate Reference 1 as the project geotechnical investigation.
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fox (858) 558-6159
STRUCTURAL PLANS
• Sheet Sl.l, Items Requiring Special Inspection: Table Item 13.1 should be modified to
indicate the correct soils investigation report (Reference 1).
• Sheet Sl.l, Note 4, Seismic Design Criteria. SEISMIC SOURCE TYPE "B": The note
indicates an incorrect Cv value. The Cv value referenced in the update geotechnical report is
0.68. We recommend the Cv value shown on the plans be changed from 0.64 to 0.68. A Cv
value of 0.68 should be used for design.
• Sheet S1.2, Typical Details, Note 6, Pipe and Trench at Footings: All trenches parallel
or sub parallel to footings should not be excavated within a 1:1 plane extending downward
from the bottom of the footing. It appears the detail satisfies this requirement for utility
located within 15 feet both vertically and horizontally from the footing. Trenches deeper
than 15 feet may encroach into the 1:1 plane. If deeper utility trenches are planned within the
vicinity of building footings, they should be located outside of a 1:1 projection from the
bottom of the footing.
• Sheet S6.1, Note 8: The detail indicates footing reinforcement of 2 No. 5 steel reinforcing
bars. If the footing is load bearing, minimum footing reinforcement of four No. 4 stee]
reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom should be
shown.
With the exceptions noted above and based on our review, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated
the grading and foundation plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the
recommendations presented in the referenced project soil reports.
Should you have questions regarding this review, or if we may be of further service, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
F. Rzonca
CEG 1191
GFR:RCM:dmc
(5) Addressee
(1) Meracon Corporation
Attention: Mr. Scott L. Merry
c-
Rodney'C^Mikesell
GE 2533
Project No. 07238-42-04 April 11,2006
r
UPDATE
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
H. G. FENTON COMPANY, INCORPORATED
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 22, 2004
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: CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
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 lo 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
- TrT-S""""^ //Brown
GE2176
JLB:GCC:dmc
(3/del)
(1)
(1)
(4/del)
George/CrCopennaver,"r.
Addressee
Ladwig Design Group
Attention: Mr. Bob Ladwig
Newport National
Attention: Mr. Scott Brusseau
O'Day Consultants
Attention: Mr. John Strominger
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (858) 558-6900 • Fox (858) 558-6159
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 A-l, Log of Borings
Figures A-2 - A-16, Logs of Trenches
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-II, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results ,-
Table B-ITI, Summary of Laboratory Density from Submerged Wax Sample
APPENDIX C .
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
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 fist 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 and trench logs
are included in Appendix A.
The base map used to plot boring and trench locations consisted of a copy of the above-referencedigrading 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
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 proposed 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 soils 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 in order of increasing age.
Project No. 07238-42-01 - 2 - April 22, 2004
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-Ar). 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 in 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 in 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
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 Lot 4. The alluvium
is not suitable in 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 Lorna Formation as encountered in our exploratory 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 Cainino 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
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-Cr). 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
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-i 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 Camino
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 in 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.
TABLE 5.1
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Fault Name
Rose Canyon Fault Zone
Newport- In gl ewood
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
0.1 8g
0.1 Og
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.
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-April 22, 2004
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
A dense horizontal or neutral to non-adverse bedding attitudes with respect to slope stability.
A 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 fili will be required with
™ limited removal and recompaction due to the probable extension of the fill beneath the
9 adjacent property to the south (see Cross Section D-D', Figure 10).
9 6.1.5 Nonrippable cemented concretion layers with thicknesses on the order of 12 inches were
9 encountered in the Point Loma Formation. The large concretions appear to be lens-shaped
9 and embedded in a rippable siltstone matrix. However,-other hardrock may exist laterally
9 at different elevations. Oversize rock generated during excavations will require special
9 handling and placement in fills.
•9 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
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
Tabie 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, top'soil and alluvium). These materials
possess moderate to high expansion potential as defined by UBC Table J 8-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.
Project No. 07238-42-01 April 22, 2004
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 in
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
grade to allow for future grading and installation of underground improvements without
encountering oversize materials. Asphalt concrete can be placed in 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 in
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 Subdrains 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 subdrains, 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
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 (horizontalrvertical) 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 inches 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
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. Cri teria 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
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 lop 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
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 times 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
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
fmalization 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
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 year's.
Project No. 07238-42-01 April 22, 2004
SOURCE: 2004 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BORTHERS MAPS.
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHT BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS. IT IS UNLAWFUL TO COPY
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF, WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE ORRESALE. WITHOUT PERMISSION.
NO SCALE
GEOCON <gfc
INCORPORATED \JSr
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 856 556-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
GC/MM DSK/EOOOO
VICINITY MAP
CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20 '
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01 FIG. 1
ici'iilY Mop
ELEVATION
omO
o
73 «o ?
COrn9o
>' S"
eLEVATION
50SOSO
CO 03ro >•
> O
-
«-,y w "^ '-,,-'S-/
ELEVATION
OrnO
OQn
O ;
CO o
CO m
O
IE
»•Ei/
i—r~~r ,00
ELEVATION
>
c/j ro
03 >
> O
n
p
> toO
ELEVATION
o
OmOoQnn^3OCO
CO
COrnn
o2:no
> ro —
hu1"-
X '.
' >"Q
'
A.^ 1^.1 IwrirVM \
"T^itl> . • Mi A
;JJ-VK-Irl" n!: ' i r^v„ 3 '.-(111
* ^t ;
K
X '
£f "; ? I
i JUj
- . s v
" - 1 H5" ' B *)P
:O
ELEVATION
'zgoS;
^ .^ • • i8 Kgs-Ji ^^ >* T
JO
CD >
!>• O
" ?o
> O
igISo
e^Qs
JQ
30;o^o
ornOoo
oCoCO
CO
O
Z9
6
ELEVATION
-I I L-
» r
-| 1—T
ELEVATION
ng
>
O
o>
o
C\i
6 <o -=
rr ^fo
Q Q"
< <
CO CD
CO CO
OO
9 §
CM O
CO CM
CO CM
ff *o ... 0)
o 152 Q
O -D<D OJ
oh-o
LLJ
OJ
uc
CO-I-JCOb
cu
^
O)
u_
co
« tr;£ a
o ' '
O
~rd
£ o>Q 0
"c 2,
n S
JJ'-G
5"-
E
D)
CD . — .
5 "5
'cZ)
Q
Q.
1-
O
CO
oo
o
CO
oCO
uo
ooN
o
CO
o
CO
"o.^.
Q.
o
C\J
6o o
COCM
DC Oh-
Q Q
CQ CQ
CO C/D
OO
CD
CO
Z
O
\-
ULJ
C/3
Q.
O
o
CO
9 §CM O
^ CNJ
CO OJ
CO CNJ
CNJ
0)
13
D>LL
CD
CD
0)
O
Q
oOJCO
oOCO
o
CO
CM
o
CD
CM C\i
o
OJ
CM
cg ^
CD £
o """O
"ra
CD CD
£ TD
"o .1
Q tj
Ol'CC U.
O)
'CD . — .> "o> Q.
'c
OQ.
i^1
"oCO
ooCNJ
O
oCO1~
"EL
O
oo
o
CO
oCO•*~
"o.
^
oo
o
oCO
'"
-
CL
DQ
O CD
75Q
CD CD
"2 3
D- C/D
o
CM
6 <o —
QQ °?< < CQ
CO CD -Z.
C/D tt) O
—I —' ulDC DC 5
< < LLJO O co
9 SCM O
CO CMCO CM
. 0)
O ffl5 Q
O T3
oO)in
UOI1BA0J3
CO
D)
CD
CDH—
CDOC03
b c
'53 C^o S-^ ^io
O
rt
E 03
^3 0
3|
C LL
O)
"o -—.
5 t3
'cZ)
oCL
H"
'o
C/}
ooCM
O
CO
OCO
"a.O
oof^.
o
CO
oCO
"a
oo
T—
O
OCO
w
CL
CQ
Oo
^"
o(TO
OCO
'oO
!
O 03a.- co
o
C\J
6 <o —
oc o
22 6*^ <<.CQ cn -^en co o CO
< <O O mc/)
§
CM O
CO
CO
h-o
o"~z.
0-«—•
CDQ
CD 0)
2 aa. co
CD
13
CD
CD
CD
O
C
03-i— 'C/D
Q co11o """"
O
EBa cu"c "^— ' *"
^ 0_CD -5
C li
_;
O)
0) £-,
^ o
Zi °-'£
oQ.
H1
"o
CO
oor--
oCO
oCO1~
"a.
oo
o
T—
oCO^
CO
CL
CO
Oo
o
oCO
T-
"5caLL
o
C\]
6 <o —
rr ^fE O
Q Q
CD CO
CO CO
OI
O
2
O
croc 5
< < UJOO co
o
°9c\i
9 SC\j O
c o
CO C\J
o -•• 3° "cO
Z Q
"O "D
<P_ <1>'o 5
CL CO
in
CD
^
O)
LL
cu
CDOc
.03
co ^^
o 1j_
o "^o
la
^ D3
0) CD
^ •— -
\4 — C0 _0
^ "ocn-cC LL
.E?'co ^^
5 g_
'c
(UQ.
H"
'o
CO
oor-
oCO
o
"
"o.
oo
o
o
CO
CO
CL
CO
oo
o
o
CO
a
LL
OO
OCO
o
CO
O
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
y( = 130 pounds per cubic foot
4> = 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 + CVYW) Z cos2 i tan c|>
yt Z sin i cos i
= 1.
REFERENCES:
1 Haefeli, R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc.
Second International Conference, SMFE, Rotterdam, 1948,1, 57-62
2...—Skempton, A. W., and F.A. Delory, Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay, Proc.
Fourth International Conference, SMFE, London, 1957, 2. 378-81
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
GEOCON ^
INCORPORATED \/r
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 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. 16
COLfOOTZDWG/oml
APPROVED
"FILTER FABRIC
1" MAX. OPEN-GRADED
AGGREGATE 9 CUBIC FT./FT.
MINIMUM
6" DIA. PERFORATED
SUBDRAINPIPE
NOTES:
1 SUBPRAIN PIPE SHOULD BE 6-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER. PERFORATED. THICK WALLED SCHEDULED
40 PVC, SLOPED TO DRWN AT 1 PERCENT MINIMUM AMD CONNECTED TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR
APPROVED OUTLET.
2 WHgN SUBDRAIN PIPE EXCEEDS 500 FEET, PIPE DIAMETER SHOULD BE INCREASED TO 8 INCHES.
3 FILTER FABRIC TO BE MIRAFI140N OR EQUIVALENT.
TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAIL
GEOCON ^
INCORPORATED XKr
GEOTECHN1CAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 856 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
JB/AML DSK/EOOOO
CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA'
DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO. 06195 - 12 - 01 FIG. 17
FRONT VIEW
F- 6' MIN.
CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL
I— 6" MIN.
6'MIN.
NO SCALE
SIDE VIEW
12""MIN."
CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL
SOLID SUBDRAIN PIPE
T3"
6' MIN. (TYP)
PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE
6" MIN. (TYP)
NO SCALE
RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - 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. 18
R5COW.DWG/oml
FRONT VIEW
SUBDRAIN
24-
18-
12"
SIDE VIEW
SUBDRAIN
CONCRETE
HEADWALL
NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF FILL SLOPE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAfNAGE
NO SCALE
NO SCALE
SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL
GEOCON O
INCORPORATED ^30?
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
JB/AML •pSK/EOOOO _
CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
.DATE 04-22-2004 PROJECT NO. 07238 - 42 - 01 .FIG. 19
E:/TVP/SOHD.DWG/m|
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
inches 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. ' iiI
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
DEPTH
IN
FEET
- n -w
-
_
- 4 -
~
- 6 -
- 8 -
- 10 -
- 12 -
-
- 14 -
- 16 -
_.
- 18 -
- 20 -
-
- 22
- 24
-
- 26
-
- 28
SAMPLE
HO.
Bl-1 1
1Bl-2 B
1
,Bl-3 1
P
Bl-4
Bl-5
O
iO
t
ssrrr^YHr^rM
''%&/&,
^^^'%%%'Y$//J
•m&w»wiim'//A'//,A'//A'jm
^n^
•ii1§•W//Y,
y%WS/SFSS
• s//x/y9
m?/S/V//A/W^%SY//A'9
-ZJff/A
Wy$w
K
J
>
9
o[£
O
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS|
SC
\
ML-CL
,
BORING B 1
ELEV. (MSL) 310. DATE COMPLETED 03-29-2004
EQUIPMENT EZ BORE 100
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
3 inches Asphall Concrete paving and 12 inch Base
Loose to medium dense, dry to humid, light to medium yellow brown,
Gravellv. Clavev, fine SAND; with some silt /
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Hard, damp, medium yellow-brown-olive, very Silly CLAYSTONE; blocky,
massive lo low-angle dipping beds, wealhered
-Becomes more hard, less wealhered al 7 feel
-Bedding N40W, 3S W (ihm, 1 " cemented layer)
-Fault N38W, 50SW with approx. 1/8-inch calcium carbonate lining; fault
offsets cemented layer approx, 3"
-BEDDING PLANE SHEAR (EPS) al 16.5 feet, N9W, 7SW, 'A-'A inch
thick plastic, wet, remolded clay; through-going at lop of 3" cemented layer
-Bedding N10E, 6KW (cemented layer '/=-]" thick)
-Gypsum veinlets
-Cemented zone 2-3" thick
% LLJ -~QOH
h- -Z. U;
!o *^ to
UJ -0
fu ™ ffiCL ^ —
4
8
_
-
-
„
8/6"
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
t
^ ^
fc.
a: ""Q
108.4
K~
i_ 2
2^
SOo
18.6
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 1 of 2
07238-42-01.GP.
SAMPLE SYMBOLS . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
. CHUNK SAMPLE
. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE' THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HSREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
CLASS
(USCS)
BORING B 1
ELEV. (MSL) _
EQUIPMENT
310 DATE COMPLETED 03-29-2004
E2 BORE 100
LU o^O
!!«&
30
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Bl-6
32 -
- 34 -
- 36 .-
- 38 -
- 40 -
- 42 -
- 44 -
- 46 -
- 48 -
- 50 -
- 52 -
54 -
Bl-7
B1-8
Bl-9
Very hard, damp, dark gray-olive, very Silly CLAYSTONE; with interbedded
yellowish to reddish brown, sandy siltstone layers, little or no fracturing or
jointing and massive to low-angle dipping bedding
9/6"105.3
ML-CL
106.9
-44'-50' (moist to wet surfaces along bedding planes)
-Cemented zone 6" to 10" thick (coring bucket used to penetrate)
17/6"
ML
Very hard, damp to moist, dark gray-olive, very Clayey SJLTSTONE; massive
to low-dipping bedding as above
19.1
17.7
BORING TERMINATED AT 55 FEET
Figure A-1,
Log of Boring B 1, Page 2 of 2
07238-42-01.GP.
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
. DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Ik! ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED!
.WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
. INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
DEPTH
FEET
-
- 2 -
-
- 4 -
-
- 6 -
SAMPLE
NO.
O'o
oX
;
-j/1 //!• i/l
/l- i/l
'A\X
'fo
•J&
'w%%/
W/Ztf'Zffiffi
v/%%
W0JM
''%mm9m.
CtLIII
§Oz~)
0OL
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
CL
CL
TRENCH T 1
ELEV. (MSL) 296 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, very moist, dark yellow brown, Sandy, Silly CLAY; very porous,
-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
^2 o H"
""" — n
. . . LU m
o_ K~-'
W -rr-Z LJ.
?£
01a
p.
w ^02S Ou
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
K ...CHUNK SAMPLE
• ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^E ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE.LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
.'
DEPTH
IN
FEET
- 2 -
- 4 -
- 6 -
•
SAMPLE
NO.LITHOLOG1.i/l y•A i/l
j/i •!/
V^V
i
/y///y//f/Ysf
m'/Y/Y/Y,y/7/v//
CfLII
GROUNDWATSOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
CL
CL
TRENCH T 2
ELEV. (MSL) 298 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD 450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft to stiff, very moist, dark brown-oiive. 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
Ziuj-PENETRATICRESISTANC(BLOWS/FT-
,_
U) ^it
Q
„MOISTURECONTENT (DFigure A-3,
Log of Trench T 2, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01 .GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
H ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
£ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
y_ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
DEPTH
IN
"
- 2 -
- 6 -
- 8 -
-
SAMPLE
NO.HOLOGY/?./-/
•//'
//£
'<</-/
/n/ S
/\/\/y
mm NDWATER0
0
SOIL
CLASS
sc
CL
CL
TRENCH T 3
ELEV. (MSL) 295 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
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 9Vi FEET ETRATIONISTANCEOWS/FT.)ill CQ
O. ^ """'
~
-
-DENSITYP.C.F.)K .Q
LJJ S?
g|
s oo
Figure A-4,
Log of Trench T 3, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01. GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
B ... STANDARD PEN ETRATION. TEST
£ ,., CHUNK SAMPLE
I ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
5 ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
DEPTH
FEET
_ o __
-
- 4 -
- 6 -
SAMPLE
NO.
T4-1
T4-2
?~Oo
oX
/yyy
/r/y
'A/A
/AS
w/
i«
y§il'pi•
cc
1Q2D0cr
0
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
CL
-
CL
TRENCH T 4
ELEV. (MSL) 275 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Stiff, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY; very porous, roots, burrows
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Hard, moist, medium olive -brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; horizontally bedded,
laminated
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
^
H Z ti.
fc|g
. . . LLJ rn
CL °- ^
H
2 Ll_
^* ^-~*CLQ
'
LU cr*pi
02
^> C io
Figure A-5,
Log of Trench T 4, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS n ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S • DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
B ..- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
E ...CHUNK SAMPLE
H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
Jf ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE;
PROJECT NO. 07238^42-01
'*'
DEPTH
IN
FEET
n -
-
- 2 -
-
- 4 -
- 6 -
-
0O
- 10 -
- 12 -
1 /\*i
'
SAMPLE
WO.
O
oIEI—
I
/.' '/.'/
%
•kA
4
A,' /
/\
^/f
|
j
/f
&/K ' /
&
fa
faY /
V,
Ii%,#^yy•Jr^
%/
%Py ^\-/
enUJt-iQZD
OEKO
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 SILTSTONE; discontinuous, blocky, fracturing
-Fossil clam shell (1cm x 2cm mold) in calcium-carbonate cemented layer
approx. 2" thick; horizontal bedding
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14 FEET
^ UJ —?Q 0 H
tr z ^
fcli
UJ ^ COQ_ °- "~"
-
_
-
-
1-co -r-
Z LLgo
>- ^^KD
UJ 85,
^Z
OZS OO
Figure A-6,
Log of Trench T 5, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01 .GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
§§ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
|] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
K ...CHUNK SAMPLE
| ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED]
X ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE;
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
DEPTH
IN
FEET
- 2 -
- 4 -
-
- 6 -
SAMPLE
NO.
T6-1 p
T6-2 fI1 LITHOLOGY')(//
/yA'' J,
/ /s Y
-' >
' v/•'. >
'' '\f /
'•',-/
\/> ' /J>j / L/
' j'
/[ H,l GROUNDWATER ]/
/
•1
,
'X
/.
A
'
'
SOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
CL
ML
TRENCH T 6
ELEV. (MSL) 2B1 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-o!ive, Clayey SILTSTONE; with thin
fine sandstone layers
-Bedding horizontal
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET (Near Refusal)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)-
-DRY DENSITY{P.C.F.)108.9 MOISTURECONTENT (%)17.7
Figure A-7,
Log of Trench T 6, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01. GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^§ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
. CHUNK SAMPLE
• ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED]
y_ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE:INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
'
DEPTH
IN
-
- 2 -
-
- 4 -
- 6 -
- 8 -
•t:
SAMPLE
NO.
O
O
/\//y/\/\/^ f
A/yy
/XK7
'XKX/Xl'
9Hy$&.
lIP
ft / /y / /
' '- / /
LJJ
f-iQ
Mcc
CO
SOIL
CLASS
CL-ML
ML
TRENCH T 7
ELEV. (MSL) 282 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY; porous, roots
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Hard, damp, dark olive-brown, very Silty CLAYSTONE;
-4" thick, dense, light brown, silty, fine sandstone layer; horizontal
,
Very- hard, damp, medium olive, Clayey SILTSTONE
-Cemented concretions layer (refusal)
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8'/3 FEE'!' (Refusal)
0^fr z t
LU ^ O
Q. ^ ^
-
-
>;
ir> ^
^ ^-^rVo
Lug
5 7L^ Oo
Figure A-8,
Log of Trench T 7, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [H .. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
1] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
K ... CHUNK SAMPLE
B ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
I ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE'
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
DEPTH
IN
- 4 -
SAMPLE
NO,HOLOGY/I//THWXXXf^-HP
•Hiii
•.r.vi'•..'.•••I'NDWATER j0OL
n
SOIL
CLASS
CL
CL
SM
TRENCH T 8
ELEV. (MSL.) 270 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, very moist, dark brown, Silly CLAY; porous, roots
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Very hard, damp, medium olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE; blocky to massive
-Contact is approx. horizontal
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6!4 FEET ETRATIONISTANCEOWS/FT.)CL LL DENSITYP.C.F.)01Q 3ISTURETENT (%}S OO
Figure A-9,
Log of Trench T 8, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01 .GP J
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
ED ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
|] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
£ ... CHUNK SAMPLE
.DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THELOGOFSUBSURF^
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
••
DEPTH
IN
-
_
- 4 -
.
SAMPLE
NO,
OO
O
«s.
A/\/v
'%$%>
WWM
lUP
HIP
ftlB^iiPIIP
ITLU
NDWATr\ce
SOIL
CLASS
CL
CL
CL
TRENCH T 9
ELEV. (MSL) 282 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY; porous, roots
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Stiff to 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
y
h~- y ti_
Q_ K —
-
LU o
^*" ^"^fVa
^,
li
o
Figure A-10,
Log of Trench T 9, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01 .GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS Q ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
B ... CHUNK SAMPLE
H ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
y_ ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
.•
DEPTH
- 2 -
- 4 -
- 6 -
•
SAMPLE
NO.
T10-1
OO
o
X
//Yy^/yy/yyy
^K
^AWy
Wk$/$'witjj$$w
* yy/yy/:
Q:
LLJ
§o•z.
Mo:0
SOIL
CLASS
CL
CL
ML-CL
TRENCH T 10
ELEV. (MSL.) 278 DATE COMPLETED 03-31-2004
EQUIPMENT JD450
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, very moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY; porous, roots
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Hard, very moist, medium brown, Silty CLAYSTONE; very weathered,
fractured
-Horizontal contact
Very hard, moist, medium to dark olive-brown, very Silty CLAYSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6'/i FEET
fk LLJ T-O Q |_
H ~Z. LL
1— CO 5LLJ FJ5 O
1 . 1 LLJ m
Q.
-
-
1-
Z LL
Q"
^~ ^^C£a
LLJ S^
^z
^ oo
Figure A-11,
Log of Trench T 10, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01. GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS Q ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
K ... CHUNK SAMPLE
| . . DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
I .. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE;INDICATED. IT
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
,
DEPTH
FEET
-
- 2 -
_
- 4 -
- 6 -
-
SAMPLE
NO.
Tll-1
>-OO
oX
!?!C^^!
•\0.'i>-O
''Y/X
$$,
18
Wv
/yyy
/)'//
• 'y^/'s
/)('w-.
£^pzOnffCT
SOIL
cuss
(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. lisht 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 7V4 FEET
~Z- LU° 0 f-b z t
t||
\ 1 1 U-1 m
Q- "~"
^1-tn ->2 U.
?SirD
107.0
«
. ,
LU S^
^Z
Oz^ oo
20.1
Figure A-12,
Log of Trench T 11, Page 1 of 1
07230-42-01. GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
|] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
E -- CHUNK SAMPLE
. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
-'
DEPTH
- 2 -
-
- 4
'
SAMPLE
NO.
>-O. o
oX
.UL-wa
';/-$'///////
v0w!//ys/fft/ffr.^rsm,m
.w/
fas/\X y
o:
3a
a:ri
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
POINT LOMA FORMATION
Very stiff, very moist, light yellowish brown to olive, very Silty
CLAYSTONE
-NI5E, 30NW along orange oxidized sill layer
Very hard, moist, medium to light olive, very Silty CLAYSTONE to Clayey
SILTSTONE
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
° O Kb z t
UJ (X O
Jt III *-J1 1 1 LU rp
Q. K "
\—<f> -?Z U.
^ CL
Q
LJJ o^
P^
s oo
Figure A-13,
Log of Trench T 12, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01. GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS n ...SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
E ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
E ...CHUNK SAMPLE
B ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
3^ ...WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE:
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 -
- 14 _
J
SAMPLE
NO.UTHOLOG/*'//
//
/> //
/ / ?/y^
%
">?,/o'' /\//r /.mx/;
%
%
/ ty /
• 9^ 's\
"i9/
irLU
GROUNDWASOIL
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 /~
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 17 FEET (Refusal On Concrete Debris In
Sidewalis)
O ti ^PENETRATRESISTAN(BLOWS/F-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t-DRY DENS(P.C.F.)LU 5S
MOISTURCONTENT {Figure A-14,
Log of Trench T 13, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
H ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
...STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
...CHUNK SAMPLE
NOTE.
. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
). 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 -
SAMPLE
- NO.LITHOLOGY09 Jf
~%f'
yM^
?VW
p y /
'$/$
^i1 y K
itf//^'
1GROUNDWATER jSOIL
CLASS
(USCS)
GC-OM
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)PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT.)-
-DRY DENSITY(P.C.F.)MOISTURECONTENT (%)Figure A-15,
Log of Trench T 13A, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01.GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
IkJ ...CHUNK SAMPLE
. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OP SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
•''
DEPTH
IN
FEET
-
- 2 -
-
—
- 6 -
1
SAMPLE
NO
^~CDO
OX
/*',•/
.'/*/
r/a////
^/
'%£
;./-/^
'$006
VMJ&
$$&,
WJW
'/C'/yyy
^fP9%%'
$%%
01III
UNDWAri
SOIL
CLASS
(U5CS)
sc
CL-ML
TRENCH T 14
ELEV. (MSL.) 303 DATE COMPLETED 04-03-2004
EQUIPMENT CASE 310
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
Loose, damp, medium to light brown (mottled), Gravelly, Clayey SAND; with
some oversize 12" asphalt concrete, and 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 TA FEET
z:uj~
t z ^t
K to 5
i - » LU m
Q, K ~"
_
~Z- Lt-
O-_
o:Q
x^%_
LU o
o zs oo
™ Figure A-16,
9 Log of Trench T 14, Page 1 of 1
07238-42-01 GPJ
SAMPLE SYMBOLS Q ...SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
1] ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
K ... CHUNK SAMPLE
. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE:INDICATED. IT
APPENDIX A
SELECTED BORINGS
FROM PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
FOR
CARLSBAD TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-01
ewijlNEEHS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
.TYPE
22E
4NW
10W
2W
STRIKEDIPLATIVEMPACTIOH |<co
24" 0
107
113
Y DENSITYBS/CUFTJBucket Auger
14.9
16.1
DI3TURE(%) ,*
10
17
r/i
I-.Ho
33
2.5
Baa
Bag
UlS «« w
a, z
1
4
z
u
a.
5 -
L
n-
10
,.
20-
30-
*Ea. it.
-
'-
-
-
-
-
-
—
_
-
ua
ELEVATION 296.0 BORING 1
^
ff
*
''
,*'
•*
-V\ATEfUALYMBOLX
ML
^RED SOILCLASS.X
COIiUVIUM: Red brawn CIAYEY SILT t-rith
minute voids and roots
DEL'^CUCFOEHATrOM: Poorly bedded moderated
fractured, oxidizfed gray brown CLAYEY
SILTSTONE
... at 7'., -.5-inch thick cemented SILTSTONI
. • CONCRETION '• " :
4- i-\ t
9
NOTES :
1. -Refusal; at 16' due to concretion.
2. No caving.
3. No groundvater encountered.
4. Backfilled and tamped 4/19/89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan, dated
3-14-89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME
AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
LOGGED BY -JKP DATE 4-19-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1939 A-l
K tl & T A B El R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auger
32W
'6NI
49E
3NW
72W
115
UW5SW'
71W
8N
1 im\66E
6NW
/ O J— i
2N
UJ
S «-
**
zo>5t?3iuoCO
105
DENSITY3/cu.rr}»" ".K -Jo "*
NSK
21.3
u
1C3 _
*- 3
o
X
13
9
^
x.«^l
„
2.5
Bag
2.b
w
S «n HJu s_i u
a -•<Bl
1
">
J
Ot
Z
u
3
-E
10 't-
is -
20 -
25 -
-0 -
35 -
,40 -
45 -
z~ t-
[
t
-
—
-
-
-
-_
—
-
a, ifcua
ELEVATION 296.0 |BORJNG 5
<
&>
'."""
S
/
•'
^s-
**
'
' ^
^/
S
^
^/ERIALMBOL5»
ML
\
-i
o .MM
Q5
W^to
Z3
COLLUVIt3M: Daric yellow bro\m CLAYEY STT.-
with minute voids and .roots
.
- DHL.Maa~EOEMft.TION: Foorly Bedded, higlilv '
•• • 'fractured cccidized ; gray, brown' ' *•
' ' CIAYEr SILTSTONE • •• -
...slightly fractured below 10'
...13.5'; 5" tMck concration
...at 20'; 4" thick concrfetion
1 \r i
NOTES:
'1. End of boring 39',
2. No ground-water ancountered.
3. No caving.
• 4. Backfilled 4/21/89.
5. Elevation 'obtained from plan
dated 3/14/89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY ATTHET1WE
AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES,
LOGGED BY i^p DATE 4/21/89
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A.-5
at l ^\ CD c. rv CUI-INICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
TYPE
S5E
2E
.38W
4SW
79W
~8S~
21W
2SW
M4E
3W
UJ
* 0.
*r>f RELATIVE I| COMPACTION j24" 0' Bucket Auger .
167
113
DRY DENSITY•(LB3/CUFT)21.2
14.4
MOISTURE{%)12
24
BLOWS /FOOT j|2400 tfc-lbH2.5
Bag
2.5
1 SAMPLE SIZEi (INCHES)1
2
• o
, SAMPLE N«5 -
t
— L
— i
- „
, . f
; - ^
10 JO-
15-
20-
25 -
30-
35 -
40 -
45 -
'-,
— ,
- -
"
— ,
— .
—
ULiF;
»
— _>-_——
-
z <t- xI HI tU
J- W Ho. u. <U) 3Q
LEVATION 284.0 BORING -y
r. ^*+^
*•
f
i*
**
-
"'
,-
•
,-
„
^,•
-
„-
\SYMBOLUNIFIED SOILCLASS.COLLDVIGMr Rad broiv-n CTAYEY SILT with
. mnuta voids and roots
DEL'-.HARrEQRSS!EION: Poorly bedded, highly
fractured, oscidized gray brcn-m,
CLAYEY ST.LTSTONE•-..•-•
... at 11 *, 4" thick concretion
... at 15', 5" thicjc concretion
... at 21. 51, 5" thick concretion
... at 29.5', 8" thick concretion
Poorly" bedded gray black CLAYEY
SILTSTONE with scattered GYPSUM
crystals
\ 4\ . i
NOTES :
1. Refusal at 35' due to concretion.
2. No groundwater encountered.
3. No caving. . • . .
4. Backfilled and tamped^ 4/20/89. -
5. Elevation obtained from plan. dated
3-14-89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT.THET1ME
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
MOORE & T A B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
TYRE
Z4S
3NW
30E
6NW
LOW
5W
22W
iSW
5W5W
28W
5SW
LIE
5NW
u* a.
* o
M
-.1RELATIVECOMPACTION |24" 0
105
uo
DRY DENsrrr(LBS/CUFT)Bucket Aucjar
22.2
19.0
MOISTURE(%)8
24
1 BUW3/FOOT12400 ftlbj2.5
Bag
2.5
SAMPLE SIZE(INCHES)1
2
-i
<HX
Id-Ja.
«
5~
10-
20-
:o-
?~ -
•/T)-
z
V-I UJH Wa. u.
UJa
~
F-li
-
r-
-
-
ELEVATION 268.0 BORING ^
£
^x"
r^''\.
*r
\ SYMBOLML
\
--**.
\
_!
O .««
a"w<
t°X=>
COLLCT/IIM: Mottled brmm CIAYEY SILT
with Eiinuta voids and roots
DEL' MAR-'HQRMATIQN: Poorly bedded, highly
fracturad o:ddized, gray brm-m.
'•' •' GLAXET SILTSTCWE - '. ..-../
...at 23', 8" thick concretion
...2" thieve sand bed at 32.5'
Poorly baddad gray black CIAY^Y SILTSTOMB
vita scattarad GYPSUM crysualo
7 // f
NOTES:
1. Refusal at 35.5' due to
concretion.'
. " 2 . No graundwatsr encountarad ;
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4/20/39.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-14-89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARr APPLIES OMLY ATTHETIME
AND LOCATION INDICATED, SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES-
LOGGED BY IMP DATE 4-20-89-
Job No. 639-102 - Hay 3.. 1939 A-3
MOORE St TA B E R GEOTSCHNICAL ENGINEERS AND.GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORIN_G_ LOG
TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auger
STRIKE1 DIPf RELATIVE| COMPACTION117
-DRY DENSrTY.(LBs/curr)13.6
MOISTURE(%)18
>•§o-QOrH
^|8
^
Bag
2.5
Bag
-SAMPLE SIZE(INCHES)1
2
3
SAMPLE N*||
5
,
10-
T *~ -LID "f
20-
25-OEPTH INFEET-
—
-
!r-
-
-
—
~
-
-
ELEVATION 175-0 BORING 4
>-;
X*A Jp*.^.:
, v ••
' "'- S*' v. %
•f" vjji^~". >' v_ »'
?•'£
T;^
•^rilr'•• •*
^*j?
' ;- f
:rr
1 MATERIAL IML
\
\[UNIFIED SOIL[ CLASS.COLLUVTUM: Yellow brown CLAYEY SILT
with, minute voids -and: roots
DEL. H^^OSHATIQN: Poorly bedded, moderat;
indurated, oxidized .yellow, and gray"'
. - . ' SILTY SANDSTONE. ' ..; ' ' ' .''...
...at 7-1', 3" -thic!: concretion . •
... at 10 ' , • 3 " concretion
...at 13', 5" thick concretion
\ I
\ 1NOTES: '
1. End of boring 19'.
2. No grounds/a t'er' encountered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4/21/39.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-14-89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME
AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES-
LOGGED BY TMP DATE 4-20-89 _
1;
-
Job Mo. 689-102 - Ma'y 8, 1939 A-4
AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYP£ 24" Wide Bucket
"tH^•5 -
10-
15-
20-^*
ELEV. - 770
^1
CL
\
ALLUVXOM: Brown SILTY
DEL MAH. FORMATION: Lith
• • brown CIAY2Y. SILTS
. • -seams .,-.•.. :
NOTES:
1 . Total -deoth of
2. Wo ground-;at2r
3. No caving.
T.RN« i
CIAY •
ofisd, "bloclcy
TONE Tri-tll CTAT.
I
I
T.?. 61. - "
encountared .
'4. Bacltfilled 4-5-89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-14-89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Bucket
uX
e
fe
a.
Q
-ELATIVEOMPACTION!1 MOISTUREnu-AMPLE SIZE(INCHES)MX
W_J0.a<
5-
10-
•
20-
-
—
—
-
—
—_
-
3C
t- Uo. u.u
ELEV. 220 .'
ff, ^
*•**
jL,
I'
\'4ATEHIAU3YUBOLCL
\
\NIFIEO SOILCLASS.T.P. N* - 2
COLLUVIUM: Bro™ SIXTY CLAY
DEL MAH.FOHM&TIQN: Lithofisd, blocl^y gray
CLAYEY SILTSTONS
stainincr
•with oxidation
Bloclcy dar!-c gray CLAYEY SILTSTONE
1
1
NOTES:
if
I. Total depth of T.P. 6.5'.
2 . No ' groundv/atar encountered .
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4-5-39.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-4-89
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
No. 689-102 - May 8, 1939 A-6
Ot I ^ E3 C.CONSULTING AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYP£ 24" Buckst
93
-.
11.1 3.0
Bag
1
2 Ih-
5 -
10-
15
20-
ELEV. + 160 T.P.N« 3
T.s
'
**
^-'
<*
'i
>
;•:
2:
T:1
CL
\
\
s\
COLLUVIU-1: Dar3c brown SILTY CLAY
RESIDUAL SOIL: Red brown CLAYEY SILT
DEL' MAR FbKMATIOW: Friable -red brown f i^
.; • to tnadi-om SILTY' SANDSTONE' .- . . ' • '-
L {r I
-NOTES:
1. Total death of T.P. 7.5'.
2. No groundwatar encountered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4-5-89.
1 5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-4-89.
0
•
•TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Suckat
M33°^
iu
K
a: -r
£
[I
I
1RELATIVECOMPACTIONW»y DEHS1TYa«/cu.rt:)MOISTURE(%)SAMPLE SIZE(INCHES]SAMPLE N*5 -
10-
15-
20-
X
A. k,
O
ELEV. 1 145 |t P. N» 4
^Sf
fY-
/
~&-
J-F*T
1
-SC
CL
^^
\S
\fUNIFIED SOILCLASS.FILL: White fine CLAYEY SAND
ALLUVIUM: Bar!-: brown SILTY CLAY
RESIDUAL SOLL: Mottled, bloclr/ darle bro:m
SILTY CLAY
DEL MARTOSHATION: Dark brown CLAYEY
SILTSTQNS with CIAY seams
4 4II
NOTES: '
1. Total deotU of T.P. 9 ' .
2. No groundwater encountered.
3. No cavincr-.
4. 3ac!cfillad 4-5-89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-4-39.
LOGGED BY KGF DAT£ 4-5-39
Job Wo. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-7
AND GEOLOGISTS
i/
»
»
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Bucket
5-
10-
/5-
20-
i—
ff
ELEV.
»•
X
X
X
X
x
s*
f*
\'1
ML
S
\
±155 • IRN* 5 '-
ALLUVIUM: Browi CLAYEY SILT
...scattsrad concretions - at 5' - 12"-24"
. in 'diameter •' • :'.'". .
. . . sasoaga
DEL raR FORMATION: Lithofisd, blocky bro^
SIL1Y CrAYSTONE
J .I
MOTES: r f
. . 1. Total depth of T.P. 17'.
' 2. Seapags at 15' .
3. Caving associated with, seepage.
4. Baclcfilled 4-5-89.
Elavation obtained frora plan
datsd 3-4-89.
TEST PIT LOG
TY PE 94" Buc''2t ' i
'
^Q7Or
jgOAr
IS
1RELATIVECOMPACTION97.DRY OCMSITY(LM/CU.FZ118.6
W013TUREf%)3.0
Ba^SAMPLE SIZE{INCHES)SAMPLE Nt5 •
10-
15-
20-
L
W kja. k.wa
ELEV. - 238 T.P.N* 6
X
X
X
K
M^1 MATERIALr SYMBOLCL
X
V\s
IUHIFIED SOILI CLASS.ALLUViraVCOIitTViUJ-i: SroT^i SILTY CLAY
...concretion 2' in diamster
• RESIDUAL SOIL: Bloclcy mottled dark brown
SILTY CLAY
DEL. waa. FORMATION': Litiwfied, bloc.'cy dark
bro:/n SILTT CLAY3TONE
1 ^/ INOTES : . • . '
1. Total dsoth of T.P. 3'.
2. No groundwater encountered.
3. Wo caving.
4. Backfilled 4-5-89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
elated 3-4-89.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 3, 1989
GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Suc.krat •
Nil0
14^
f
T
Bag 1 5 -
10-
15-
20-
-
-
_
-
^
— -
"^
-
ELEV. ± 195 |TP.N8 7
*
f
^>
\
CL
\
COLLUVIUC^: Dark brown SIL7Y Cla^ ^ri.th
SAtTDSTQfiE concretions
DHL'MaR.'FOSMa.TIOEiaL: Lithofiad, blocIr/%
mottled dark broim SILTY CLflYSTO^JS
'with CIAY seams . ."' . . ' . ' . •
' '.
NOTES:
1. Total derDth of T.?. 6.5'.
.2. No groundwatsr encountared.
3. No caving.
4. Backfillad 4/5/89.
5.- Elevation obtained from plan
datad 3-4-89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE - 24" Wida Bucket
N55°
ll^TJ1
tu
I1
r
1RELATIVECOMPACTIONDflY DEMS1TYaM/CU.FTlUOI3TUKE' (%)SAMPLE 3IZE(INCHES)1 SAMPLE H*5-
10-
!5-
«
-
-»
-_
-
^-.
-DEPTH VHFEETELEV. ± 233 JT.P. N* 8.-
>'•<•?
'/>
x'
-''
•'f*
T-lOOHAC' I1VIH3J.VH31^^
ML
\
\
\
\UNIFIED SOILCLASS.SLOPEMASH; Ysllov broT/n fine, to medium
SiLTY SAND
ALLUVIUM: Dark brown CLAYEY SILT .
bloclcy dark blue/rust I7E&THEHSD
CLAYEY SILTSTONE
FORMATIONAL: Lithofied, blodcy, dark
brown CIAYEY SILTSTONE •
NOTES : -
1. Total depth, of T.?. 8.5'.
2. No groundwatar encountered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4-5-39.
5. Elavation obtained from plan.
clatsd 3-4-39.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Mo. 689-102 -May 8, 1989
.... _.,-,tf.«.j-»-> *«O GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Bucket ELEV. ± 163 EHN*
15
20'
a.ALLUVIIiM: Dark brown SILTY CtAY
DEL -HAS- FORMATION:--• Lithofied, blacky,
dark broT/n CLAYHT SILTSTONE.
f
NOTES:
1- Total depth :of-tast pit-101.
2. Seepage betweaa .5 .r" and 10r" (approx,
5 gal/min.)
3. Caving associated with sespaga.
4. Backfilled 4/5/89,
5. Elevation obtained from plan, dated
3/4/89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE '24" Wide Bucket'
w
Xo
1 RELATIVE1 COMPACT)EP
DAYDEKS(LBS/CU.W
yotftTunOUi
wN „.IS AMPLE 81(IHCHttSAMPLE. 5-
10-
15
_
—
-
-_-H
-
-DEPTH IfFEETELEV. '215 . T.P. NV 10
S•b-i
1 MATE HIML 3VMBOLCL
\V\
o .UNIFIED 3CLASSALL0VIUM: 'Bar1,; bro-m SILTY CIAY ' '
DEL MAR FOSMATIONr • Fractured, lithofind.
blocKy, light broivn ^"EAIHERED SILTY
CLAYSTONE ,I 4-r i
NOTES:
1 - Total death of test pit 4 ' .
2. No groundvater encounterad.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4/5/89,
5. Elevation obtained froa plan dated
3/4/89.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 3, 1939 A-10
>^P'^-::r^V4-v^ i'* '%^K^-*r^^ r;"** V^"^^^ *.'N-}^-*^,ii- ^-^-V •"'^•^ v£X*-.->v i,T
i^C'.-W *','•.•"* ''y'":.C'^: ',\.:\ -' V--l"'^.'V^-.'?v~U>'; ..^''yr-.V-/^1 '>-,-".''*'. -^i-,^^/^^C,--"'^--1>:- A*v-- '-'.V'.-'"•-/•..' t\f%>''^i:-;V-'v-^,->^-J^i-Vi A'-"''-'^ *"v V'" ^"-'fc^HfrfC.^-^t s%.^-; .^',-,>-v- •".-;.;.-4. -•-« 3--W -' */ -A-.'-> .'.-- -. •v^'., •> ; „:-.- -•%"-' ,^ - *.-' ^:'.-','y-^'- l---v-•"..--"'""•• "-^^-4 "•• V-.v' " 4.'? 'V v - v-t-v^.*v-^£^pj£v#^Y^^r'^^^^
llS^^^^^i^^
^c-^^-U^^1?,^^^^^
^^^^'•^:^¥^?V^V:^|'^'->S;3:^4^\^i^^u-^
^:;"¥^%<.'.^C^K'^/^
I>i7j^y^vt>*-r^^'JvJ^^^^''-^-;^^^^-"^,^^-^?:^^ r>^"':lCfe?/-;'?^" :^ni~—f-.c:i^;0''-^^
J^li$?S^?%i S?S ;X";5^
?^^'^^i-i.!cKC.^:.-@^"^
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-place 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-place 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
7^y^'#\V-"-»^ 4-";s/;^;r,-.;;;^i_;.,^:^;,.^vTo; ^.-"''^IM^HSy;'':^;
.•'••>•• ^v-;\:'"^;;' .':-;>,;. '"-;'/ ; /:- •?•:••;«••.-> _?•- ' -.'" v/; ^ ':>y .7 :-T-;;'::'v^;. ;V^U' ^vX^V-"^
•<^*'V4'*'^V^ '<Sv-r; *V;> "'•'" ^i-'"1' >;^>--'~'.'.<v^^*•-• '.^J^:iX'^^"'"•-''- --"'V ^•r*"-'''':f/.-'' ^x'-.u^' V""'i "-'^" r^'^'-"''"-X'^i-s''^-'.^'-'"*^' •";-^"
^r^'^-'^V^/./''^ :^'?.:''-^v-:-t^v*^'-^^
r^'A' •;', '"^r^"''';—^"^'."V- .'>'''; "-;i'l:''"'':-''V:: • '" ""*'"-''."•*' '*;%'""'• V"- 7--'!':'-"" '-::?/'*//"'^"^ /'-'• V.v ^" -'.^V' ^V''^':^/' ;";•/-'< "'-. ' ^^-ft' V-'-'/V
.;V; ,X "5^^'r^V^-'V ^:"v.1'i ^/;i;.V~ ,/^i V''*-"VV"* ''•:C;'--'. "'V' -''"•• v K-''!-•;"' ^v - *^ v^-"•"'•", -" ^''-'sif .';'?*, ':'':- ' ^'s^J-^?-'^'^"^'-
' ' ' " ' "
^A^/^^^v;'^^>>•^v:'::vv>^K•^^•v;;^^^J\ .?W 'V^:-^;V^:^'.> ••^v^'v^':V'V;vV'--^,'^vi*v\^^;rVV~;-:'^ ^:-'-'^^"'^
^-V-;V'Y^.>V \.V- ,~;.^--'': V.":.' .v >y":.-*"• <T." -:•". >^"-'';:'-"" '• '""'. ""'• ^',--:'- ''' Vl: *„'•* ,v- '/'"'.V< '•- ' <•', :-'Vi\:"-V-" ..'^•'.^^^%r-^':^-^X^ "^>^"'1*^>.".^"'^ ^•',..;-^ -V"' '-,'"• •'-'- .O •>.1.^::*: *-• x/v,-'_: .!*"$&''•'* .'V;'-'^1 X^'\a:":^p'»i' -'''^^-'"-i-i'-^^i''"-
"^•',-•;';>-<^ ^^.H-y'^^-;. '*1P'p7-'X :^;'^^'>""v"'V^"^V^':'-'^'>i"""'- •" "^--^ "'•^'•yvy^:^:^^^^;^;?^'->:';^'.^-^.:l';' ''-.v'^ '
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
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. The 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 as
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
Geotechm'cal 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 that 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 Varies
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 f\[\ 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.
Gl 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 in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-00. 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 than 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 the face 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
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.
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 the rock 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
verify 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.
hi 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
1 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 fill material 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
f 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 D1556-00, 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 J 0-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 l(horizontal 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 Rcy, 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
JAM
ICAL
INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
VENTANA REAL
LOT 2 - BUILDING PADS A AND B
LOT 3-BUILDING PAD C
TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
VENTANA REAL MASTER, LLC
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 24, 2006
PROJECT NO. 07238-42-04
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 07238-42-04
April 24, 2006
Ventana Real Master, LLC
1525 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jeff Brusseau
'Subject: VENTANA REAL
LOT 2 - BUILDING PADS A AND B, AND LOT 3 - BUILDING PAD C
TRACT CT-00-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we 'have prepared this interim report of grading to verify that
grading for Lot 2 - Building Pads A and B and Lot 3 - Building Pad C has been performed in
substantial conformance with the project soils report, and that fill soils have been properly placed and
compacted. Our services were provided during the period of January 26, 2006 through April 20,
2006. Upon completion of grading, we will prepare and submit a final report of compaction testing
and observation services, including an "As-Graded" Geologic Map for Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Tract
CT-00-20 (Ventana Real).' The scope of our services included the following:
• Observing the grading operation, including removal and/or processing of loose topsoil and
undercutting the cut portion of cut-fill transition building pads.
• " ' Performing in-place density tests on fill placed and compacted at the site.
• Preparing this interim report of grading.
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the project was WR Connelly Incorporated. The project plans are entitled
Grading, Plans For: Fox - Miller Property, prepared by O'Day Consultants, with City of Carlsbad
Engineer signature date of December 19, 2005 and Grading Plans for: Fox - Miller Property, red
line set with pad and basin grading revision, prepared by O'Day Consultants with City of Carlsbad
Engineer signature date of December 19, 2005. The project soils reports are entitled Update
Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Tract CT-00-20, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, and Executive Summaiy, Ventana Real, Lots 2 and 3 of Carlsbad Tract CT-00-20,
6960 Flanders Drive B San Diego, California 92121-2974 B Telephone (858) 558-6900 B Fax [858] 558-6159
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated April 22, 2004 and October 12, 2004,
respectively.
References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyors' or grade-checkers' stakes in
the field and/or interpolation from the referenced grading plans. Geocon Incorporated does not
provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded
elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage.
GRADING
Grading for Lot 2 and Lot 3 was performed as a part of mass grading for the Fox Miller project. Mass
grading began with removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded. Topsoil was removed
to firm, natural ground. Finish grades for the building pads were completed as fill soils were placed
and compacted to design subgrade pad elevations. The cut-fill transitions at finish grade of the
buildings pads were undercut (overexcavated) a minimum of 3 feet below the bottom of footings and
replaced with properly compacted fill soil.
Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
In general, oversize materials (greater than 2 feet in size) were incorporated into the fill and kept at
least 10 feet below subgrade on the pads. Rock greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension was
placed at least 5 feet below pad grade. On-site soil fill material generally consists of silty clay with
silt and fine sand.
During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
peiformed to evaluate the dry density of fill material. In-place density tests were performed in general
conformance with ASTM Test Method D 2922-01 (nuclear). Results of in-place dry density and
moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In place dry density and moisture content tests
shown on Table I include only those tests taken on Lots 2 and 3. As such, the tests are not in
sequential order. In general, in-place density test results indicate fill soils have a dry density of at
least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density at the locations tested.
Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density
relationships (optimum moisture content >and maximum dry density, ASTM D 1557-02). The results
of the laboratory tests are shown on Table II.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
Observations and test results indicate silty clay soils were placed within the upper approximately 6 to
9 feet of finish grade on Lots 2 and 3. hi place field density tests yielded relative compaction equal to
or greater than 90 percent of maximum dry density and moisture contents near optimum.
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 2 - ' April 24, 2006
All expansion index (UBC 29-2) test results collected during mass grading of Tract CT-00-20 yielded
index results less than 90. Samples have been collected from each building pad (A, B, and C) and are
being tested for expansion index. It is anticipated, based on all index test results to date, that the
building pad samples will yield results less than 90. The expansion index test results for each of the
subject building pads will be reported in the final report of compaction and observation services.
It should be noted that although rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter were not intentionally placed
in the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some rock up to approximately 1 foot in dimension might exist.
Additionally, the presence of rock, • even though smaller than 6 inches, should be taken into
consideration when contemplating the type of equipment to utilize for future trenching and fine-grade
landscape operations.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the project geotechnical reports. Compacted soils were placed in areas of fill. Fill depth
varied between 9 and 51 feet and 6 to 19 feet across Lot 2 - Building Pad A and Lot 3 - Building
Pad C, respectively. The depth of fill below Lot 2 - Building Pad B was approximately 9 feet.
Sedimentary rocks of the Point Loma Formation were exposed at the base of excavations during
grading and underlie fill soil placed within the building pads. The Point Loma Formation consists of
dense to very dense massive to thinly laminated clayey siltstone with sporadic interbeds of fine
sandstone. Overexcavation of cut areas resulted in a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fUJ below
footing depths.
No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued
development of the property as planned.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
soil engineering and engineering geologic aspects of grading to which this report
pertains have been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations
of the previously referenced approved geotechnical report. Soil and geologic conditions
encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are
not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the
recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described herein.
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 3 - April 24, 2006
2.0 Future Grading
2.1 Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with
our observation and compaction testing services. Geocon Incorporated should review
grading plans for any future grading prior to finalizing. All trench backfill should be
compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density
near to slightly above optimum moisture content. This office should be notified at least 48
hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations.
3.0 Foundations
3.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for two-or three-story concrete tilt-up
structures and/or steel framed with exterior glass facing. The recommendations assume a
moderate expansion index which will be confirmed with laboratory testing.
3.2 Conventional continuous and/or isolated spread footings are suitable for support of the
buildings proposed for the pads. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and
have a minimum embedment depth (below lowest adjacent grade) of 18 inches. Isolated
spread footings should be at least 2 feet wide and extend 18 inches below lowest adjacent
grade. Because of fill differential thickness, footings (continuous and spread) for Lot 2 —
Building Pad A should have a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches.
3.3 Continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 steel reinforcing*
bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. Reinforcement for
, Lot 2 - Building Pad A should consist of four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars. The project
structural engineer should design reinforcement for spread footings.
3.4 Foundations proportioned as recommended above may be designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) dead plus live load. 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. The allowable soil bearing recommendations presented above are for dead plus
live loads only and may be increased by one third when considering transient loads such as
those due to wind or seismic forces.
3.5 The use of isolated footings that are located beyond the perimeter of the building and
support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Lot 2 -
Building Pad A. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be
connected to the building foundation system with grade beams.
Project No. 07238-42-04 - 4 - April 24, 2006
3.5 Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be reinforced
with No. 3 bars spaced 18 inches on center in both directions. If building concrete slabs
will be subjected to heavy loading from forklifts, mechanical equipment, or storage of
supplies, consideration should be given to increasing slab thickness. The structural
engineer should be contacted to provide concrete slab-on-grade recommendations to
accommodate loading requirements.
3.6 Concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand. Where
moisture sensitive floor coverings or slab moisture is 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 clean sand beneath the slab.
3.7 The use of interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the
slab thickness should be considered at Lot 2 - Building Pad A for structural slab design. In
addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs that exceed 5 feet in
width to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
3.8 No special subgrade presaturatlon is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; the
exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled as necessary, however, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
3.9 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for slabs to crack
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
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.
4.0 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
*4.1 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
35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0 (horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 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
Project No. 07238-42-04 -5-April 24, 2006
than 50. We recommend samples of stockpiled material to be used as retaining wall
backfill be tested prior to placement to determine its suitability for use as wall backfill.
4.2 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 above active soil pressure.
4.3 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.
4.4 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 (horizontal:vertical) could impact the
allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where
such a condition is anticipated.
4.5 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 filJ soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times 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.
4.6 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 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.
Project No. 07238-42-04 . - 6 - April 24, 2006
5.0 Drainage
5.1 Adequate drainage provisions are critical to future performance of the project. Under no
circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads
should be properly finish-graded after 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.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
grading and represent conditions at the date of our observations between January 26, 2006 and
April 20, 2006. Any subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and
testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of
the work with which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or
identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and
opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our
observations, experience and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to
measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make ho warranty, express or implied,
except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted
at this time and location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, the
uncontrolled action of water, or the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations 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 from the date of this report.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please
contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
GFR:RCM:anh
(3) Addressee
(3) Meracon Corporation
Attention: Mr. Scott L. Merry
Rodneyrfikesell
GE 2553
Project No. 07238-42-04 April 24, 2006
C/)
LU
H
Q
_i
UJ
u.u_
O
tr
• O- ,TJ _^ &-<LJ Hi C•- co o2 U
2 >, 2 CT
UJ ^cc j ^ ~s
i D- ro ~;
a*
^\*— '— -,. '
^
— *s
D.
* \
*^-^
— '
—\
z
^
g
uc
Q
0
H
O O O O OOx Ox Ox Ox Ox— — O O CNOx Ox Os OS Osin ' — * ^j- xD co
r- r-. ox oa t—
XO -— OO Ox r-
OX O DO DC OOx O Os OS O
XD XO O XD XO
r- r- r- r-- r-
O1 Ox Os Ox OS
O O O O O
o o o o o
ro ro ro ro ro
't CN fN —r-1 rN CN rN
ri r;S 5
0 0
C 'CQ Q
c c
o 5—j i — ,
M r-; CO m ^
3 3 j 3 ,3
o o o o o
•^ ro ro CO CO
CN CN fN CN CNO O O O O
t~~ oo Ox O —CO OO OO Ox Ox
Nt/3
0 0 0 O OOv Q\ O*i Q*1! O*^0s! ON C\ 0s! Q\^f ^O CS Q> 1—f
CO ^ C\ CT^ *— '
r^ o *o o r^
o\ oo 06 r^ 06C% ON O^ O\ O\
tn oo oo oo oo
^ ON Q^ ON O\
^ c, ^ „ „
0 O 0 O O
0 O O O O
~^,*
>n r^ o CN r^
CN (M C-J CN CN
TO c^ d
tj OJ ftj
Q Q Q
c c co o 5—i—i i— i
f~> CN en m fN
33353
o o o o o
£ 2 2 — 2
?5 rN (N (N OJ
O O O O O
CN cn ^ ^n xoOx OS Os OS OS
N NCO W
o o o o oOs Ox 0s. Ox OxCN — CN O CNOs Ox Ox Ox OxOx r^ "^ oo os
oo ox O Ox O
^~ f — r~- *^t fN
O xc t~- in 06O OS Ox O-> OS
f] OC OO DO OO
XD Ox Ox . OS Ox
os xo XD XD' XD'o o o o o
o o o o o
fj •* •* Tf Tf
O OO 'vC OO OS
fN fN CN CN CN
CN CN CN CN CN
.5 3 3 3 3
o o o o o
5 2 ^ ^ C;
CN fN (N CN CNO O O O O
v^i \c r~~ o • — •fN CN fN m (O
o o o o oOx O\ Ox Ox Cx(N Tf O — OOx Ox Ox OS OxO in CN Ox O
— i o — 06 —
[^ oo r^ en •^-
t> Os O — OOx OS O O O
OO OO Ox Ox Ox
O\ OS XD XD XD
CN 01 oo oo oo
00^^^
0 O O O O
-----
CN CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN OJ fN
33333
o o o o o
r- r- — ' — — •
fN (N fN CN Olo o o o o
;* £ g: $ g
N
o o o o oOx Ox OX Ox O1— • o T— m — •Ox. Ox OS OS OxCN tN oo in XD
OS O — Ox XD
fN CN 'd" in —
— • in XD oo fNO Ox Ox OS O
Ox OO OO DO Ox
XD Ox Ox Ox XD
OO CN CN CN 00
— O O O — '
o o o o o
------
Ox O r-, r- OCN ^n ^t XD ^OCN CN CN CN (N
!"
o
c
c
o
fh" CN fN CM fN
C Q Q Q O
XD XD XD O OO O O O O
CN CN CN CN CNO O O O O
xo oo ox xo r-"^ TJ- TJ [-^ r"-
O o o o oOx OS Ox Ox OSO O CN CN COCx OS Os Ox OSOx CN in fN •<*
Ox t~~ OS Ox T— •
ro XD Ox oo —
^O ^^ 'C^ ^^ fNOs O O O O
Oo Ox ro fO ' CO
Ox XD XD O XD
CN oo' r- r- r-
O — O O O
C o o o o
- - —
"n r'", T^ ro xorj r-j CN r-t r-i
fN rO fN fO fN
3 3 3 3 3
O XO XD XO XDO O O O O
Tt ** r- r- r—
fN CN fN fN fNo o o o o
oo' Cs CN -^- t~~r-- r-- oo oo oo
oOxOS^—
o
XD
oo
o
CO
inCN
IN
—
xO0
CN
O
Ox
to -O . O-~cr"o S—<u E
12
COLU
CC
h-WLU
-q Q y
C o3 2U ^
UJ
UJ
u_
LL
O
>•
DC
to
Q
o o o o oON ON ON Os ON— — 0) CN OON O1 ON ON ON— "* ON *£> ON
O — ' O ON CNCN CN CN — i CN
m r- — oo ^o
ON ON T— O l/"iON ON O O ON
m n m m oo
>O ^O \O no ON
r- r- r- r- CN
O-i ON ON ON \OO O O O O
o o o o o
m m en m TJ-
— oo — \O Ovo io r~~ r~ ifCN CN CN c-i CN
CN CN CN CN m
5 3 5 .3 3
SO ^O O NO ^DO O O O O
CN (M CN" CN CNO O O O O
m f-~i fi r«l r"iO O O O O
M m Th m \O
O 0 0 O OON ON ON ON ONm o o o CNON ON ON ON ON-^ ON r~- m •*06 o — i o oo— CN CN CN — i
m (N vo oo -t
>/-i m m o oO ON ON O O
ON oo oo ON m
is-i Os ON vO VD
r- CN cs oo r^
rn sji \o — i os
— O O — O
o o o o o
m Tt Tt <— ro
\O m -^ oo couo iio 10 w~, r--O) (N M r4 CS
CN CN fN CN tN
2 3 3 .3 5
\O >C ND \O \OO O O O O
m rn rn ro \OO O 0 O O
m r^i m m rnO O 0 O O
ON O — m ^D
— tN CS (N IN
O 0 O O OON ON ON O^ ONCN — ft O — •ON ON ON ON ONt~- <N oo O ro
— O O O CN<N CN CN CJ CN
m oo m ^- O
K ^d ON un r^ON ON ON ON ON
OO OO OO OO DO
O> ON ON ON ON
CN CN CN CJ CN
\O *O *O vo WO O O O O
O O O O O
•* Tt Tt Tt -rf
o r^ n n mr^ ^D sC cc u-iM (N CN CN CN
CN CN CN (N CN
2 3 3 2 a
O SO o ^D OO O O O O
S ^O ^D ^D SO O O O- O
r"i rn ro m mO O O O O
C^- OO ON O -^
CN CN 01 CN 0)
O O O O OON ON ON ON ON(N — rN m v,O\ O^ ON ON ONO ON CN r~ ^D
CN ON O ON ON
CN — CN -H —
_ [- \o t~~ (N
oo O r- >n ooON Os ON O O
OO OO OO ON ON
ON ON O^ 1") IT)
CN CN CN t— t^
vo NO to m nO O O — < —
O O O O O
T)- Tt Tf- m i^-.
oo m o- -rt ij^^o ^ \o r- TfCN c^i r-i CN CN
Drivewayc
o"->
CN (N CN CN r-I
O O O O O^ _3 _J _J _J
\O NO >O ^O ^Oo o o o o
O VD *S O OOo o o o o
r*-j m m fi niO O O O O
CN fO •* i^> ^3
CN CN CN CN CN
O O O O OON ON ON ON ONCN •* O CN fNON ON ON ON O"1O> r*~j ON r<l O
r- — ON — O— CN — i CN CN
— ro — r- O
Tf ON *£> c-~ ooO ON ON ON ON
ON OO OO OO OO
10 ON ON ON ON
1— CN (N CN CN
<-o ^o *o c> &— o o o o
O O 0 0 C
m ^t •* -st Tt
o o ' o o •*IA-J o r- r- ^oCN CN (N CN CN
CN m CN fS CN
3 3 a .3 .3
^D NO ^O 'O O0 O O 0 0
oo oo oo oo ooo o o o o
f"s fi r". ro mO O O O O
r- oo ON o ~
— — — < CN (NCN CN OJ CN CN
o o o o oON ON ON ON ON-* Tf m -H CNO^ ON ON ON ON00 \O OO r-1 O
vo r^ wr r^ — •
— ' — ~ — CN
r^ — in — < O
t-~ ro — o oo
O O O O ON
ON m (<-j ro oo
m C* \o ^O ON
r- r- r- r- CN
fO ON ON O> ^>— ,o o o o
o o o o o
u~, rn P-. fj -^t
I— CN oo CO —r~- r~ o o oo.CN CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN (N CN
2 3 5 5 3
vO O ^C ^D NOO O O O Ooo oo oo • oo ooo a o o o
cO rn m ro roO O O O O
CN m Tj- vn ^DCN (N CN fN (NCN CM CN fNl CN
OONONO-oo
m
Oo
m
NO
r~-
ON
O
O
fi
CNr-(N
CN
u
O
Q
00O
r*-,O
t^-CNCN
LJ
CC
LU
H Q
UJ
U-u_o
CO
• o I_:o o E
o
— o 1J
Q
o o o o oON ON ON ON ONON ON ON ON ON[~- SO if~i ro ONON ON ON O ON
— — — CN 1-1
— ' <0 <O 00 — (
ON m co so r^ON O ON ON ON
ro rn oa oo co
sO ^O ON ON ON
r~" C^ CN CN CN
0s ON SO NO NOO O O O O
o o o o o
— - - -
oo CN oo r- oso oo NO NO w~»CN CN CN CN CN
CN CN CN CN CN
S 5 3 3 3
SD SD SD SO SOo o o o o
oo co ON ON ONo o o o o
co co co co eno o o o o
CO ON — CN ONfN CN rn m CO
CN CN CN fN CN
O O O O OON ON ON ON ONm -* T— CN cnON ON ON ON ONoo so i/i co co
O — CN — —fN CN CN CN CN
— i/i O ro r-
Tt so cn i~~ "— '
O ON O ON O
ON OO ON oo m
^Q Q% l/~l ON SD
oo CN r— CN r-
•— < \D rn so ON— O — O O
o o o o o
—* ^ "o ^ co
o * — ' r^- w~i r"~sD Vi V~i SO SOfN CN CN r) fN
>i«£o>
Q
c"o
1—5
CN CO CN .CO CN
O O Q Q O
SO SO SO \0 NOO O O O O
ON XT) ITl IT) U-Jo ----- —
O O 0 0 0
O ^^ r-i m 2
CN CN CN CN CN
O O O O OON ON ON ON O^O TJ- — i rn CNON ON ON ON ON-H ON cn oo OCN ON — CN —CN — CN CN CN
O ON oo m —
so ON NO oo ooON ON ON ON ON
oo oo oo oo oo
ON ON ON ON ON
CN CN CN CN CN
^O SO SO O Oo o o o o
O C; O O O
„„.,,
cc »— ^t r^ r^^t io 10 ^r 'Or-J ri rj CM CN
co to to ro rn
Q Q Q O O
—I «-J t-J >— J t—J
SO SD SO SO soO O O O O
in in v~. in u-i
rn cn cn rn coO O O O O
U-) SO r~ CO ON^ ^* Tf Tf .^
CN CN CN CN CN
O C O O OON ON ON O\ ONO m — tN —ON 0s. O"1 ON ' ONSD "-O fN O ON
ON — ' O O O
" CN CN CN CN
V-> SO CN CN —vi oo o oo r-ON ON O ON ON
oo oo cn oo co
ON ON VD ON ON
CN CN r- CN fN
SO SD ON SD SD
O O O O O
O O O O O
, , m , *
' — : CO •*? O ^S"so "/~i i/^ r^- ^oCN CN CN CN CN
-
CN CN CN CN cn
j £ 3 3 j
so o 'so so SDo o o o o
SO SO SO SD so
ro cn cn cn mo o o o p
O *— • fN rn *^l/"j IA"H ^/~j */^j V*CN fN CN CN fN
N"W
O O O O O0s. ON ON ON ON-H — CN cn'. OON ON ON ON ONr- ON oo o r-t-- 00 O >— ' ON— — CN fN — i
CN SD ON t^ T)
rn co r~~ co 1/1
O O ON ON ON
ON ON CO CO 00
K~i i/~j ON ON ON
r- r- CN CN CN
r1" cn so so so— — O O 0
o o o o o
— -*
r-~ SD SD — * sC
i/~j [-^ >O I"— soCN CN CN CN CN
rj . c3& 5o oj
•r- •-
P D
C C"o '5
ro fN CN f~. CN
Q O O Q Q
M-J — ^ — ] P J l^~J
^D ^O SO SO SDO O O O O
^ S 2 — ^
rn m cn cn rno o o o o
V, SO t~~ OO ON
V-, IO U~J "~1 !/^CN CN CN CN CN
O O C O OON ON ON O*- ON— — CN — CNO^ O^. ON ON ONOO ON r- — O
ON ON O — -^— — • CN CN CN
O CN t— m >/-j
r~~ so r~~ ^O P^.ON ON ON ON ON
oo oo oo oo oo
ON ON ON ON ON
CN CN fN CN CN
SO SD SD O SO
0 O O O 0
O O O O O
-----
ro O NO CN OOv/~", r~- 'O NO \c<CN CN CN ri n
rn fN fN CN cn
.3 2 a 3 3
SD SO SD SO SOo o o o o
r~ r~- r- r~~ r-~
co m rn rn cnO O O O O
O — rN rn •^-
o ^> ^ ^o ^CN CN CN CN CN
OO-cna.ON
u-i
CO
CN
00
ON
CN
SDO
O
-
ON
CN
CN
-J
SOOl-
coO
LTi^OtN
N
C/)LU
DC
(-CO111I-
W 2
^1
LU
U.
LL
O
tf)
i3 _. a,~cr o £ :2-: §•fr & §;^ ^ U
>,
•2 QU. "
--^^
< o
•a1 Q<s
> •=
-°SCL ,
BJ
o o o o oOs Os Os Os OsO CN — 'tf- OOS OS Os ON OsO m o VD CN
o vo — — —tN — CN fN tN
oo m \o oo o
14". •» VD Os VOOs O O\ OS ON
OO ON OO OO OO
OS T~i OS OS ON
tN r- CN CN CN
VD m O VD VOo — o o o
o o o o o
^ m 'd- •* -d-
O fN 10 •* OOir,t/~iv-;ty:if*ifN (N CN CN CN
IE
>^
15
fi rn fO CN C^i
33^33
O O O NO VOo o o o o
CN m f~> ro fiCN (N CN (N rN
fi m r<i fj fiO O O O O
VD r- oo ON oVD NO o \o r-CN CN CN IN (N
Nn N N
CO C/3 CO
O O O O OOs ON ON ON ON(N O •* — •*ON Os ON Os OssO oo ij", oo O
OS (N ON OO m
— Csl — — (N
— Tf t- '- VD
— ij-i OS O OsO Os OS O OS
f; OO OO m OO
sd Os ON \O ON
r~ CNI rJ r- tN
ON O ^O ON, sOO O O O 0
o o o o o
m "t Tj- r-i Tf
O f. — • r-1 Ooo r- vo O oo(N (S CM (N CN!
>* >^rt raS S =
^ g £
'C *C >No o ^
S S ^£ £ w
fn OJ r~, rn m
^ 3 J ^ 3
\O O O \D OO O O O O
Tl- -rf- tj- t~~ F-(N (N rsi (N M
m r^i r^i m mo o o o o
— CN! ro ** u-ii^ t— r- t> p-CN fN M rN OJ
N<s>
o c o o oON ON ON ON ONO — r-1 p~> OOS O OS Os OSIT-, \o m — o-
— — O O ONCN CM (N rs| —
CN \O ON — ON
10 ~O oc c> viON ON ON Os ON
oo oo oo oo oo
Os Os ON Os Os
CN CS fN fN CS
VO sD O \O ^OO O O O O
o o o o o
•t -d- ->* -<t -*
sO '^O *O -rf- r<-:O O O sD son m r*-i CN C-l
X X- _ _ O Oi*: £ £ u u
>,>>>, W M
— — — ^ T3JO ^ ^3 — —
CN CN CN fO fl
3 3 5 3. 2
^D \O ^C \D \OO O O O O
r- t— r— oo oo[N CN CN rsl fN
fi r^1. fi f*l COO O O O 0
— CN ro ** moo oc oo oo oo
CM CN <N fsi tN
N N NCO CO OD
O O O O OOs Os Os Os OS•^- O CN CN mON Os Os O\ OSc^i ^C en Os oo
O — O CN —fN (N CN CN tN
CN QO f<l \D Oso ^ t~~ r~ odO Os Os Os Os
oo oo oo oo oo
Os Os ON ON Os
CN rN CN CN fN|
O sD O ^D sDO O O O O
o o o o o
Tt rj- t -rj- Tt
•3" '(N Qv O OO^D oo r^ ON ooCN r-i 01 r-i CN
% £ & & &O $ % % %
r j OJ O OJ (U^ > > > >W) -C 'C 'C 'C.S Q Q Q Q•o „ „ _. ^— c s c c
IB 5 3 5 5
c"i r". fi m m
3 .3 5 5 5
\c -o \o o oc o o o o
oo oo oo O OCN! tN CN m fi
t-^ m ro pr, rno o o o o
vo r^ oo os ooo oo oo oo osCN CN CN CN CN|
O 0 O O OOS ON O\ OS ONo ri o f) CNOS. O1. OS OS ONvo r- o oo —CN] os o r- CNr-i — CN — • CN
\O ^ O sO O
in r- so — —Os Os Os O O
oo oo oo m m
ON Os Os XO vO
fN fN CN C^ r—
vO \O NO Cs Os
O O 0 O O
o o o o o
Tt" •**• •<* rr-, r^i
fN t~- o r- soOC OS O O vDCN CN f~i CN tN
r r = s s
£ £ i£ U U
£ S £- c c1
~ _ ^ ^5 ^3c c -£ = —
P-, r*-s tN ro f)
3 3 3 3 3
NO O VD 'O NOO O O O OQ, O ^_ _ _
rn m m rn irim r*i m n rnO O O O O
— CN r^i Tf u-iON O1 Os Os ONrsl CN CN CN CN
NCO
O O O 0 0Os Os Os Os Os(N — < O O CNOs ON ON ON OsNO OO CN Tt r-m — o — ONCN CN CN CN —
tN [-- CN — \O
OO sD i/~i \O t~-ON OS ON OS Os
co oo oo oo oo
Os ON OS Os OS
CN CN tN tN CN
VO sO \D VO ^DO O O O O
O O O C 0
Tt •* -^ -Tf Tf
r- r- vo vo oovo \O r- r~ r~OJ CN CN ri M
X XO Ou u
CJ) Gil
2 2
t*i ro IN (~NJ CN
q C c^ ^ o
\o \o \o o voo o o o o
— — f> m rnr*~. rrj O O O
f~) m 't Tj- -rtO O O O O
VO t^ 00 Os O
ON O> ON ON OtN CN CN] CN m
OONONO
O0)
m
VOON
oo
ON
CN
VOO
O
^
r~inri
CN
-2
o
flo•*to
om
Nw
EOU'I oU
LU
CO
LU
CC
C/3
til
CO
UJ
LL
U.
O
>-DC
•Au —
< o -
^Q a
-5 ^L oCu r<-j Q;
W
o o o o oOs ON ON ON ON— CN CO CN TfON ON ON ON 0s,V] ^O — ^ oo '"—CN CN ON OO ON
CN CN, — — —
<O CO O O CN
NO f~~ ON OO OON CN. ON ON O
oo oo oo oo oo
ON ON ON ON ON
CN CN CN CN CN
O O O O O
O O O O O
„ „ „ „ „
— CN CN r^j OO
CN CN CO rO CN
E E tH
." .ti .—
ctf cd C3
CO CO W
CN CN 0) CN CJ
Q O O O 0J -2 _j _J J
o o o o o
O 0 O O O
in r- - CN CO
C*~l P~j C*"j f"i f~J
N H E- HCO t/3 CO W
o o o o o— CN CN CO CN— - OO CN rO ONCN ON •— i CN —iM — i CN CN CN
CN O \O OO Od — K 06 —O O ON ON O
rO rO OO OO (O
NO \O ON Os ^D
t~- r-- CN CN r-
0 O 0 O O
0 0 0 C O
t~- t~- ON ON Or~ t~~ r~~ t~~ ooCN CN CN <N Ol
Si-" "s^ ^* *s^ S^
N^, J^v ^1^,1^o o o o o
cq m CQ CQ ca
&C CJJ OJJ OJ) WJ"3 "^ '^ "^ T3
CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ
fN fN CN M fN
3 .3 3 3 ^
o o o o o
?3 CN CN CN CO
^T "^ ^" ^1" ^to o o o o
•* u~i ^D r- oo
CO CO ro rO to
O O O O OCN CO Tf CN (Oco r — CN O rooo ON c~- o r-
— — -H CN —
XO rj- ON OO O
O CN CN (^ ONO O O ON ON
ro to co oo oo
NO' O \D ON ON
r- i— r~ CN CN
O O O O O
o o o o o
CO ro ro •"* •**
CN CN CN CN CN
^N r\ ^S ^S ^"^o o o o o
U U U U O
OH WJ DJJ OJj CJJ"^J "^ 'O TO "O
CC CO CQ CQ CQ
ro m ro co co
3 .3 3 .3 ,3
o o o o o
CO -<t --t -^t t
O O O O O
ON O •— CN to
CO CO CO CO CO
O 'O O O OUH LL, [i, U. U-
0 O O O OIO CN CN O CNO *O • — ' ^> OCN OO — CN •—CN — CN CN CN
oo CN o r- co
d -^ 06 >/•) rSC^ ^D ON ON ON
OO ON OO oo OO
0s, V} ON ON OS
CN r- CN CN CN
O " O O 'O
o o o o o
, ^. ^ ^ ^
CN CN CN OO — 'r-- oo oo r~ ooCN <N CN CN CN
X X X X Xo o o o o
CQ CO CQ < <
bO W W W) M
OH CQ CQ CQ CQ
CN CN CN CN CN
^^33^
O O O O O
•* •* 2 "* ^
o o o o o
TT m vo r^ OG
co (O co rO to
0 0 O O OO\ ON ON ON ONCN CN rO tN —ON ON ON ON ONCN — NO ON —— O (N ON OCN CN CN — CN
ir: oo co t— CNd d oo d dO O ON O O
t^ ro oo co co
NO NO ON ^3 ^O
r^ r- CN r- c^
ON ON *O ON ONO O O O O
o o o o o
"••'*«">
— — r- CN tooo GO r^ oo ooCN CN CN • CN CN
X X
O 0
< < < < <
bo oti on an oa"a "O *3 "O "O
CQ CC CQ CQ CQ
CN CN CN CN CN
a j 3 3 5
\O vO ^ NO NOO O O O O
[~~ r~ oo oo oo
o o o o o
ON O — CN CO
ro co co co co
O O O O OON ON ON ON ONCN CO — — TfON ON ON ON ONON fO -^- ''t vo— - CN ON O OOCN CN — (N —
OO ON Tj- Tf \O
ON Os ON Os O
OO OO 00 00 ON
ON ON ON ON in
CN CN (N CN r-
iQ i£> vD \o roO O O 0 —
o o o o o
,..*..
O CN ON •* co
CN CN CN CN tN
CN CN CN CN (N
o c o o qJ -J -J _i J
o o o o o
^ ON ON ON ON
O O O O O
TI NOt r- oo ON
to m ro co ro
oONCNONo
CN
CN
DOON
OO
ON
CN
O
O
-
CNr-CN
CN
.3
NOO
ON
O
o
CO
J* , . r*CT <U fc& ** u•3 £ g<*
P-U
^o<S
COLJJcr
UJ
UJ
w
UJu_
U.
O>-cc
c
O O'Os Osen CNOs OsK-J OOOs Os
I- CN
oo ooOS OS
oo oo
OS Os
CN CN
sD soO O
0 O
m mDO DO
-o -o
CQ CQ
CN (N
0 O
-4 -J
o oo o
o o
— CN
O OTT . [T |
O*„«
s£>
OS
oo
OS
O
O
ft
oo
W)
CO
CN
3
oo
o
3
a.
oOs
£
m
2
en
SO
r-
o
o
m
ooCN
WJ-a
CQ
CN
3
oo
fto
3
OP-
oOSCNOsOOfN
CN
5
m
vo
osO
O
en
enooCN
OJi-o
CQ
CN
3
SO
O
fto
IT)
O
oOsCNOS
0)
CN
ooOs
00
Os
CN
O
O
-
en
CN
CN
3
o
orN
O
SO
OOsOsOOoCN
m
OsOS
en
sO
r-
OsO
o
en
en
CN
CN
O
-j
O
OCN
O
r-
en
OOsOs
~
m
\oOs
oo
Os
CN
O
o
-
ft
CN
CN
O
OorN
O
OO
en
OOsenm
CN
m
ooOS
oo
Os
CN
O
O
-
CN
CN
3
XDO
Or>i
O
Os
en
oOsCNOSr-
CN
Os
Os
OO
Os
CN
O
O
ft
ooCN
CQ
M
CQ
CN
3
oorN
O
O
OU,
oCsOsenOs
en
Os
oo
OS
CN
sDO
O
ft
ftOOCN
CQ
WJ-3
CQ
CN
3
VOoo
o
en
u-
oasOs
m
OsOs
QO
OS
fN
O
O
-
CN
on•o
ca
fN
3
0o
o
CNv>
g
o oOs Os— enOs OSoo r^O OS
CN —
m fN
sO CNOs O
oo en
Os \0
CN l>
O Os
O O
0 O
ft en
ft ft00 DOCN CN
CQ ffi
M) Oh-o -a
ca CQ
CN CN
3 3
o o
o oCN CN
ft TO O
en fti/~i inen en
a oH, U.
M>oo(Nc.<TABLE 1EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMSEST SUFFIXH density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction3O
QJ
O
t«
"5t*
: j
PQ f
< C
•Ea
'o
-o
U
o.• soU
QJ
O
D-
QJ
CJ
"E.QJu.
T3C
•aQJ
O£QJ
cd
QJ
3
ELJ
-4-1
OT3
O
H re
3 £
5 E
•Hb |R TEST NUMBERSu
REFIX CODE DESIGNATIONOH
H
^CHO
H
FG - FINISH GRADEO'N
WOHO
CO
N
CO
Oz
UJ
U sted in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum—Corresponds to curve number3 for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation3
moisture content test results t;.OCK CORRECTIONK ntage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimumu
HQJa,
oS
•S
QJX)i-£
|
reVH
O-Qre
o"U'a>N
O-t-J
15Scr
QJ
Co+Jco
CJJujUoi-
.r:
'^
Ul
1/3_o
op-
«-j
QJ
CU.VUo
T3
moisture content were adjusteam moisture content values are unadjusted..1
maximum dry density and optHCOa
o
H
IT)5
H
CO
QJH
QJCoU
T3Cn)
CO
U
r?(N
OJQ
HCO
(UH
inC3
Q
0 HLEVATION/DEQJ-C
•O
3O
i—CUaj
QJ
reJS
0,
QJ
H
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTMD1557
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4 '
5
Description
Dark brown, Sandy CLAY, trace silt
Dark gray, Silty CLAY
Olive, Silty CLAY
Brown, fine, Sandy CLAY
Yellowish brown, fine to coarse, Sandy
CLAY, trace gravel
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
111.8
113.0
109.7
106.2
113.7
Optimum Moisture
Content (% dry wt.)
16.9
16,0
16.3
19.8
15.9
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
VENT ANA REAL LOT 2 BUILDING PADS A AND B AND LOT 3 BUILDING PAD C
Lot No ./Pad
Lot 2/Pad A
Lot 2/Pad B
Lot 3/Pad C
Pad Condition
Transition Lot
Transition Lot
Transition Lot
Remarks
Undercut due to
cut/fill transition
Undercut due to
cut/fill transition
Undercut due to
cut/fill transition
Approx.
Depth of
Undercut
(feet)
9
9
6
Approx,
Depth of
Fill
(feet)
51
9
19
Approx.
Depth of Fill
Differential
(feet)
43
0
13
Project No. 07238-42-04 April 24, 2006