HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 01-04; STATE STREET COMMERCIAL BLDG; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASE NO: gPOV -OM
DATE RECEIVED: s/l^loV
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASENAME: C^s,\gi3&gvV3> \y\UUAC^£. ^COO
2. APPLICANT: UgP^^. t-AtcP-inrzi.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: f. O. Sox I a
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: •RI5^A£^/e &(^^tlN6f '^l^^ ^P. GbMp^HSl/^OAL gUO'Cf ,
iAJ(Th4 3 oNSi-qg f=?<vp>icihif-f space's
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
Q Air Quality
XI Transportation/Circulation Public Services
I I Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
I I Hazards Cultural Resources
I I Noise Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR FILLING OUT
ENVIROIVMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART I
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Form - Part I will be used to determine what type
of environmental documentation (i.e., Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Negative Declaration or Exemption) will be required to be prepared for your
application, per the Califomia Enyironmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 19 qf Carlsbad's
Municipal Code. The clarity and accuracy of the information you provide is critical for purposes
of quickly determining the specific environmental effects of your project.
Recent judicial decisions have held that a "naked checklist,", that is checklist that is merely
checked "yes" or "no," is insufficient to comply with the requirements of the Califomia
Environmental Quality act. Each "yes" or "no" answer must be accompanied by a written
explanation justifying the "yes" or "no" answer. This is especially important when a Negative
Declaration is being sought. The more information provided in this forrn," the easier and quicker
it will be for staff to complete the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II.
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impacf answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but aU potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared ifthe City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the enviromnent.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impacf is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): ( )
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( )
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
( )
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? ( )
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
' minority community)? )
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( * )
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
, indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
( f )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (>^ )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
• expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (# * )
b) Seismic ground shaking? (4< )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
)
Landslides or mudflows? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e)
f)
g)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
)
Subsidence of the land? ( iK -Jc )
h) Expansive soils? (* i< )
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
)
5li* PRfeL . (3rBC>TBcH'L. |5N(4L./ ^i/^W<?i/ (^BC>S(7ICS,|NC
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
^MALL, lNni.L. PfsQAGCJ THAT lAJlLL fVT
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • /
• • • ;<
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • • X
• • • %
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • K
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( ^ )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water m any water
body?(^ )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ()
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (^ )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(* )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Tif )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
( * )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
( * )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( *" )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( * )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (* )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(^ )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
•(* )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( ^ )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ( ^ ) CfEK^ePATW- ClfcrHlf-l9^MT tNyif^MCNT XWAOJ
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• m
•
•
•
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • m •
• • • m
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • ><
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (*- )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
(* )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(* )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • ><
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(* )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (* )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
. resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (if )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( v )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (if )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (^ )
d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential
health hazards? (^ )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (It )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( *• )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
' (* )
• • • K
• • • K
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • m
• • 0 •
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? { * ) • • m •
b) Police protection? ( * ) • • •
c) Schools? (•)( ) • • •
* 5MyAU, , IMhU- fiaouecT T^T MC?T
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • X •
• • ?< •
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal? (
g) Local or regional water supplies? (
)
)
XIII. . AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
' ( )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paieontological resources? ( )
Disturb archaeological resources? ( * )
Affect historical resources? (=K )
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( )
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
-site le wr utrtfeo/ usc/^^ Hi^ioiaJic p.Ea5ai2.ce iNveNTPp-V MST
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) _ Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
a)
b)
c)
dj
• • X •
• • X •
• • X •
• • X •
• • X •
• • X •
• • X •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • n X
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
m •
m •
m •
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impacf or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
9 Rev. 03/28/96
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
LIST OF MITIGATTNG MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
10 Rev. 03/28/96
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
For
New (Redeveloped) Commercial Building
2917 State Street, Carlsbad
Prepared by
David J. McKinley, P.E.
Principal Engineer
McKinley Engineering
RECEIVED
If) 200?
HOUSIMG&REDEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
April 24,2002
Revised July 23,2002
L Introduction
The current rapid flux in application of stormwater rules can make it difficult to keep perspective.
We all affirm that it is important to protect receiving waters from pollution that can be associated
with stormwater. At the same time, application of stormwater rules should try to keep focused on
meaningful amounts of pollution, that could actually make a difference in the enviroimient. It is a
waste of valuable resources to try to eliminate every possible or perceived negative environmental
influence, no matter how insignificant. Here we have tried to provide common sense rationale for
which stonnwater issues in this small project are significant, and address those.
The rapid flux in rule and guideline development also opens up the question of which guidance to
use. The City of Carlsbad has a stormwater ordinance that provides legal imderpinnings for city
staff to request a stormwater pollution prevention plan. However, Carlsbad's ordinance is not
exhaustive, so city staff must rely on other materials as administrative aids.
One aid which was provided to us by staff is the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and
Monitoring Program Review Sheet. This Sheet was a useful thought trigger to help us key on and
address the issues pertinent to this project. However, the Sheet's original purpose was to help
administer projects that triggered the need for a General Constmction Activities Storm Water
Permit, which applies to projects 5 acres and larger. Hence, many of the items on this Sheet do not
apply to the subject project.
n. Description of Proiect and Associated Drainage
The project in question is a small redevelopment project in the urbanized area of Carlsbad. Several
small old buildings will be removed and replaced with a new building. The character of the
business district where the project is being built does not include significant unpaved areas.
Parking for the project will be off-site on lots operated by the City of Carlsbad.
At the front of the building is a sidewalk adjacent to State Street. At the back of the building is a
paved alley. The gutter on State Street and the drainage grate in the alley both lead to a storm drain
system that discharges to the beach, and on to the Pacific Ocean.
The primary receptors for rainfall are the second story roof and balcony areas. These surfaces are
about as clean as can be found anywhere in downtown Carlsbad. Rain runmng off of these surfaces
will pick up essentially no contaminants. Our plan is to collect this mnoff and pipe it to a discharge
point on pavement adjacent to the alley.
in. Characterization of Potential Stormwater Pollution
For purposes of stormwater, the project is best broken into two phases: the constmction phase, and
the post-constmction phase.
III.A. Constmction Phase Pollutants
Early in the constmction phase, the existing buildings on the site will be demolished down to the
underlying soil. This demolition may create building materials particulates, that could contaminate
stormwater. The soil exposed by the demolition represents potential stormwater turbidity
pollution.
After demolition is complete, and the site cleared, new foundation wall and utility trenches wdll be
excavated on the site. The piles of soil removed from these excavations are potential sources of
stormwater pollution.
Following excavation, a new slab foimdation will be poured. The new building wdll then be
constmcted. During these constmction activities, a variety of constmction materials will be
brought onto the site whose use could result in stormwater pollution. These include powdered and
liquid constmction products, sawdust, bits of paper and fibrous debris, sand, surface finishing
waste and painting materials.
ni.B. Post-Constmction Phase Pollutants
The project includes four planters that will contain exposed soil, and will be irrigated. The
Carlsbad City Ordinance exempts landscape irrigation from consideration as a source of pollutants
of the stormwater conveyance system. (Carlsbad City Ordinance 15.12.055 B.2). However, we do
consider the planter soil a potential stormwater pollutant, because it could be mobilized by rainfall.
There really is no other significant ongoing source of stormwater pollution associated with the
post-constmction phase.
The building will have surfaces that urban dust can settle on, but such dust ubiquitous, and is in no
way increased by the presence of the building.
The outside surfaces of the building, such as the exterior walls and the roof will be of durable
materials whose erosion is insignificant as a source of stormwater pollution.
The use of the building will be to house a commercial enterprise downstairs, and offices upstairs. In
general, offices do not involve processes that generate significant sources of stormwater pollution.
Commercial enterprises in the downtown Carlsbad area are most often retail establishments, or
restaurants. Such enterprises have some limited potential for stormwater pollution, depending on
the processes involved in the specific businesses. This potential will have to be addressed after the
occupants are identified, probably during the tenant improvement process.
Therefore, the post-constmction phase stormwater pollution control management in this stormwater
pollution prevention plan will focus on the planters.
IV. Construction Phase Best Management Practices
IV.A. Demolition Weather Scheduling
Prior to demolition, weather forecasts will be consulted. If rain is predicted, demolition will
be postponed until a time when no rain is predicted for at least two days.
TV.B. Dailv Clean-Up
Thejob specifications shall require that before simdown each workday, the site shall be
cleaned of all potential stormwater pollutants. All loose material shall be collected and either
removed from the site, or placed in a trash container. The outdoors impervious surfaces on site and
adjacent to the site shall be swept clean with a broom. Sweepings shall be deposited in a trash
container.
IV.C. Trash Containers
Trash containers shall be available on site at all times during the constmction phase. All
trash containers shall be closed with a lid designed not to blow open due to wind, or shall be kept
indoors. Trash containers shall not be overfilled, such that the lids cannot be closed.
IV.D. Dirt Pile Management
Any excavated dirt awaiting final disposition shall be collected on plastic sheeting of at
least 10 mil thickness. Except while being added to, dirt piles also shall be completely covered
with plastic sheeting of 10 mil thickness. The cover must be complete enough to prevent
stormwater contamination due to any reasonably anticipated rainstorm. The plastic sheeting shall
be held in place by durable weights such as blocks, rocks or gravel bags sufficient to stabilize the
position of the sheeting against any reasonably anticipated wind. On the up-gradient side of each
pile, gravel bags, or an equally effective device, shall be placed to protect the pile from erosion due
to stormwater run-on.
IV. E. Exposed Soil Management
After the old building are demolished and removed, the soil on the lot will be exposed. To
prevent erosion due to rainfall, the low side of the lot (the alley side) shall be lined with gravel
bags, hay bales, hayrolls or an equally effective erosion control measure. A portion of the erosion
control measure may be moved out of the way to facilitate materials transport on the site during dry
weather daytime constmction, but shall be replaced to create an unintermpted line before sundown
each evening. Use of the erosion control measure shall continue until the foundation slab for the
new building is poured.
V. Post-Construction Phase Best Management Practices
As discussed in section III.B., the only significant post-constmction potential stormwater pollution
sources are the four planter areas.
V. 1. Planter Drip Irrigation Svstems
All planters shall be outfitted with drip irrigation systems controlled by a timer. Drip irrigation is a
water-conservative technique that minimizes overspray and over-watering.
V.2. BMP First Floor State Street Planters
There will be two sections of planter located near each other on the first level on the State Street
side of the building. These are to be about 18 inches tall, and set on a concrete base. These
planters are set back under the balcony. Hence, they are protected from rainfall, and are unlikely to
be sources of stormwater pollution. Even so, there is potential for the planter sections to become
saturated from an unusual rainstorm, or an irrigation system failure. Hence, the planters need
drains.
Each planter will have at least one 2- inch diameter drain in the bottom made of minimum schedule
40 PVC. The drain piping will run undemeath the sidewalk to a hole cored in the curb. To control
loss of sediment, the drain in the bottom will be covered with a 12" x 12" square of 1/16" opening
stainless steel wire screen. The screen will be covered with a pile of nominal 1/4 inch gravel
extending at least 6 inches above and beyond the drain in every direction.
V.3. BMP for First Floor Rear Planter
There will be a large planter (over 100 square feet) located at the rear of the building adjacent to the
alley. This planter shall be located above unpaved soil. To aid infiltration, the soil shall be
cultivated with soil amendment to a depth of at least 6 inches. To prevent both run-on and run-off,
the planter shall be surrounded by a continuous concrete or brick curb at least 3 1/2 inches tall.
V.4. BMP for Second Level Rear Planter
There will be a narrow planter upstairs outside the rear upstairs office. This planter will have a
closed bottom, and drains. To prevent pollutants which may enter the drains from depositing in the
storm drain system, the drains shall be plumbed to discharge to the First Floor Rear Planter below.
There any drainage will be confined within that planter's curbing until it can infiltrate.
V. 5. BMP for Second Level Front Planters
There will be two small planters (approximately 20 square feet each) located at the front upstairs
comers of the balcony. They will be closed-bottom planters with drains. Because of the very small
size of these planters, and the use of drip irrigation, very little drainage is expected. For this special
case, the most practical place to plumb this upstairs front planter drainage is the sanitary sewer.
This will provide complete pollution protection for the stormwater system, with very little load on
the sanitary system.
VI. Summarv and Conclusion
This project is simply not one where we expect a major impact on stormwater even if it were
managed poorly. The best management practices delineated above can be expected to successfully
prevent any significant stormwater pollution from this project. Following is a summarized list of
the best management practices for this project
Proiect BMP Checklist
1. Demolition Weather Scheduling
2. Daily Clean-Up
3. Trash Containers
4. Dirt Pile Covers
5. Exposed Soil Runoff Protection
6. Planter Drip Irrigation System
7. Specific Measures for Each of Four Planters
r I
1*4
I
HSMIC
CHRISTIANSEN WAY
.if. t 1
.IL.
3 I
w
4!1
GRAND I
8 i
—
CO
m
4ISfS-
79r
AVENUE
-S3—5; 1
I
CARLSBAD
all PROJ6CT
SIT6 Oi H
m m
r
X
IN ilk -.a
3J
1 - m
So ?
TP-
mar
MSOttt
VILLAGE DRIVE
c
"WW *
1 1
NEW COMMERCIAL BUILD1NC3
CARLSBAD VILLAC3E DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
2917 STATE STREET
REFERENCE NORTH
APPROX. SCALE 1" = 20a
alley
E?URIN<5 EPEMaJTOM AND CONBTRJCTION
1. DEMOLITION SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE
DURIN(5 RAIN.
2. TEMPORARY STOCKPILE OF SOIL SHALL
BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC SHEETING
WEIGHTED WTH ORAVEL BAGS OR
CONCRETE BLOCKS.
3. EXPOSED SOIL SHALL BE RETANED
WITH ORAVEL BAGS ALONG THE LOW
END OF SITE / ALLEY.
A. ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL BE
BE PLACED (DALY) IN TRASH RECEPTACLE
AND/OR DUMPSTER WITH A PROPER LID.
UJ a O
Q.
z
D
D
CD
1- UJ z z W o
X UJ
PROPERTY-
LINE
Sidewalk
WOOD PEDESTRAN
BARRIER
(3RAVEL BAC5S 7
CONSTRUCTION
SITE
(3RAVEL BA(3S 7
EiKEiizinnnnc Dm:
37.5'
PROPERTY LINE
z
Q
lU S
< lij
State Street
NOT TO SCALE
BMP - CONSTRUaiON
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
2917 STATE STREET
RAISED PUANTER
W/ DRAIN FILTER
-TYPICAL
alley
ROOF DRAIN
UJ Q. O
OL Q.
V-Z lil
ID z
Q
-J D
CQ
Ul z 0
""• ' FROM ABOVE
RAJSED CONC.
CURB
I— ROOF $ FILTERED
PLANTER WATER
FROM ABOVE
DOWN TO PAVINO
DOWN TO
PAV1N(5
DRAINUNE FROM >|
ADJACENT BLD'S. j
ROOF WATER 11
r-RAISED PLANTER
W/ DRAIN FILTER
-TYPICAL
z
lil
lil c
Q X
< Ui
ROOF £ FILTERED
PLANTER WATER
FROM ABOVE
CURB OUTLET
SECOND FLOOI^ FIRST FLOOR NOT TO SCALE
OMP - BUIIDING
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
2917 STATE STREET
CLEAN GRAVEL
14-" 0
IS" SQ. STAINLESS STEEL
1/8" X1/5" WIRE FABRIC
DRAIN ANCHOR
FLANGE
DRAIN LINE
DRAIN BODY
PLANTER BAsSE
DRAIN FILTER
CO
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
2917 AND 2925 STATE STREET
CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
MR. LEOR LAKRITZ
C/O ROY A. BLACKFORD, ARCHITECT
P.O. BOX 2046
CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA 92008
W.O. 2968-A-SC JANUARY 9, 2001
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
January 9, 2001
W.O. 2968-A-SC
Mr. Leor Lakritz
c/o Roy A. Blackford, Architect
P.O. Box 2046
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Roy A. Blackford
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 2917 and 2925 State Street, City of
Carlsbad, California, APN# 203-293-10
Dear Sir:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a
geotechnical evaluation of the subject site. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the
onsite soils and geologic conditions and their effects on the proposed site development
from a geotechnical viewpoint.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory
testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, development ofthe property appears to
be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the
text of this report are properly incorporated Into design and construction of the project.
The most significant elements of this study are summarized below:
• All existing colluvium (on the order of 2 to 272 feet thick) is generally loose and
potentially compressible, and is not suitable for the support of settlement sensitive
Improvements. These materials will require removal and recompaction If settlement
sensitive Improvements are proposed within their Influence. Depths of removals are
outlined in the conclusions and recommendations section ofthis report. In general,
removals will be on the order of 2 to 3 feet across a majority of the site. Removals
may extend deeper due to buried utilities.
• Owing to the proximity of existing Improvements and the proposed excavations
associated with the planned structure, shoring and/or underpinning may be
necessary, at least on portions of the site. The actual need for shoring on the north
and south sides of the project should be evaluated by the design and/or structural
engineer based on the design elevation subgrade of the proposed structure, and
proximity of existing improvements, and any surcharge loadings. Vertical
excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements, or should
be shored. Temporary cut slopes may be excavated at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical)
gradient, or flatter, based on the available data. If shoring Is necessary, the shoring
should be Incorporated into the foundation design by the structural engineer.
Consultation with a qualified shoring contractor should be considered.
Our laboratory test results indicate that soils onsite are generally very low to low In
expansion potential. Sulfate testing indicates that site soils have a negligible
exposure to concrete per Table 19-A-4 ofthe 1997 UBC (sample = 0.004 percent
by weight). Corrosion testing (ph, resistivity) Indicates that the soils are essentially
neutral (pH=7.3) and moderately corrosive to ferrous metals (saturated resistivity=
4,300 ohms-cm). Alternative methods and additional comments should be obtained
by a qualified corrosion engineer.
Groundwater was not encountered onsite and is generally not anticipated to affect
site development, providing that the recommendations contained in this report are
Incorporated into final design and construcfion and that prudent surtace and
subsurtace drainage practices are incorporated Into the construction plans.
Perched groundwater condifions along zones of contrasfing permeabilities should
not be precluded fi'om occurring In the future due to site Irrigafion, poor drainage
condifions, or damaged ufilifies. Should perched groundwater condifions develop,
this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate
recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater condifions.
Our evaluation Indicates there are no known active faults crossing the site.
Our evaluafion also indicates that the site has a very low potenfial for liquefacfion.
Therefore, no recommendations for mitigation are deemed necessary.
The seismic design parameters presented herein should be considered during
project planning and design.
Convenfional foundafion systems ufilizing slab-on-grade may be used onsite.
The geotechnical design parameters presented herein should be Incorporated into
project planning, design, and construcfion by the project structural engineer and
architect.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
Rle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page Two
GeoSoils, Ine.
The opportunity to be of service is greafiy appreciated. If you have any quesfions
concerning this report or If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any ofthe undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
m voss
Staff Geologist
Reviewed by:
iavid W. Sl<»
Civil Engineei^g%te4^§'ik
BV/RGC/JPF/DW^yrfe
Robert G. Crisman ^
Engineering Geologls^^6|f^^|l3 lO
Distribufion: (4) Addressee
Mr. Leor Lakritz
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge
W.O. 2968-A-SC
Page Tiiree
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
FIELD STUDIES 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3
EARTH MATERIALS 3
Colluvium (Not mapped) 3
Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol-Qt) 5
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 5
Faulfing 5
Seismicity 7
Seismic Shaking Parameters 7
Seismic Hazards 8
LABORATORY TESTING 8
General 8
Laboratory Standard 8
Expansion Potential .9
Direct Shear Test 9
Corrosion/Sulfate Tesfing 9
Sieve Analysis 9
CONCLUSIONS 10
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 10
General 10
Site Preparafion 10
Demolifion/Grubbing 10
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) 11
Fill Placement 11
Overexcavafion 11
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 11
General 11
Preliminary Foundation Design 12
Bearing Value 12
Lateral Pressure 12
Construcfion 12
Expansion Classification - Very Low to Low (El 0 to 50) 13
GeoSoils, Ine.
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS 14
General 14
Restrained Walls 14
Canfilevered Walls 15
Wall Backfill and Drainage 15
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 16
Landscape Maintenance and Planting 16
Addifional Site Improvements 16
Trenching 16
Drainage 17
Ufility Trench Backfill 17
PLAN REVIEW 17
LIMITATIONS 18
FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Site Locafion Map 2
Figure 2 - Boring Locafion Map 4
Figure 3 - California Fault Map 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - References Rear of Text
Appendix B - Boring Logs Rear of Text
Appendix C - Laboratory Data Rear of Text
Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text
Mr. Leor Lakritz Table of Contents
Rle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page ii
GeoSoilSf Ine.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
2917 AND 2925 STATE STREET
CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A), including the
previous geologic report for the site.
2. Subsurtace explorafion consisfing of 3 hand auger boring excavafions to determine
the soil/bedrock profiles, obtain relafively undisturbed and bulk samples of
representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters for the proposed
development (Appendix B).
3. Laboratory tesfing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface
explorafion program (Appendix C).
4. General areal seismicity evaluafion.
5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparafion
of this report.
SITE CONDITIONS/PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site consists of a rectangular shaped parcel located on the west side of State Street
In Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The exisfing site Is bounded by retail structures on the
north and south, and an alleyway on the west. Exisfing structures onsite consist of a retail
structure fi'onfing State Street, a small residenfial duplex structure fi-onfing the alley and a
single-story structure located between the two. The site drainage Is generally to the
northwest. According to a 1968 (photorevised 1975) San Luis Rey, California Topographic
Map, the subject site Is approximately 46 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL).
The proposed site development will consist of removing the exisfing structures and
preparing the pad for the construcfion of a mulfi-story office building, it Is also our
understanding that cut and flll grading techniques would be ufilized to create design
grades for the proposed mulfi-story building. It Is anficipated that the development will
consist of a multi-story structure with slab-on-grade floors and confinuous foofings, ufilizing
wood-frame construcfion. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of
relafively light construcfion. The need for Import soils is unknown.
GeoSoilSf Ine.
ft3»-10'
Ktt)
*r vJrHifehSch* '\
4c
Base Map: San Luis Rey Quadrangle, Caiifornia—San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic),
1968 (photo revised 1975), by USGS, 1"=2000'
N
2000
Scale
4000
Feet
W.O.
2968-A-SC
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
FIELD STUDIES
Field work conducted during our evaluafion ofthe property consisted of excavafing 3 hand
auger borings within the lot to evaluate near surface soil and geologic conditions. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm. Representative bulk and in-place
samples were taken for appropriate laboratory tesfing. Logs of the borings are presented
in Appendix B. The approximate locafions of the boring logs are shown on Figure 2.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in
southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. It Is characterized by steep,
elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly. The mountain ranges are
underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks,
Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California
batholith.
In the San Dlego region, deposifion occurred during the Cretaceous period and Cenozoic
era In the confinental margin of a forearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age
plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep,
coastal plain and confinental margin ofthe basin. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded
and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene fime, a broad coastal plain was developed
from the deposifion of marine terrace deposits. During mid to late Pleistocene fime, this
plain was uplifted, eroded and incised. Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys,
and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and
beach areas.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials encountered on the site are shown on Figure 2. The materials consist of
colluvium and terrace deposits.
Colluvium (not mapped)
The site colluvium generally consist of a brown to dark brown, dry to moist, loose, silty
sand. Thickness of the material is approximately 2 to 2>h feet. Colluvium at the subject
site Is considered potenfially compressible In Its present state. Accordingly, these soils are
considered unsuitable for support of addifional fill and/or settlement sensifive
improvements in their exisfing state.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Ine.
SIDEWALK
I
I
373"
EXISTING RETAIL
B30±
d o «B-2
EX1ST1NC5
B-1
Qt
I
Qt
IT
EXISTINO
DUPLEX .5,
l\
nr:.:T:zr: jrp.-..z\-
373 PROP.LINE
ALLEY
ALL EXISTINO BUILDINC3S
TO BE REMOVED
OUTLINE OF PROPOSED
2 STORY BUILDINO
LEGEND
Qt Quaternary Terrace deposits
^ B-3 Approximate location of
exploratory boring
Base map provided by client
mn
LOS ANGELES CO.
RIVERSIDE CO.
ORANGE CO.
SAN DIEGO CO.
BORING LOCATION
MAP Rgure 2
W.O. 2968-A-SC DATE 12/00 SCALE none
Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt)
Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlies the enfire site at depth. As encountered, the
terrace deposits generally consist of brown, silty sands, and are medium dense. Due to
the relatively loose and weathered condition ofthe upper ±1 foot, these materials should
be removed, moisture condifioned, and recompacted and/or processed in place, should
settlement-sensitive improvements be proposed within their influence. This unit typically
has a low to medium expansion potenfial.
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
Faulting
The site is situated in a region of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review
indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed
for development (Jennings, 1994), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone
(Hart and Bryant, 1997).
There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered acfive and
would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source
of an earthquake (Figure 3). These faults include-but are not limited to~the San Andreas
fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the
Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The possibility of ground accelerafion or
shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California
region as a whole.
The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could
have a signiflcant effect on the site should they experience signiflcant activity.
ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
MILES (KM)
Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca 21(33)
Elsinore 24 (39)
La Nacion 25(40)
Newport-lnglewood-Offsliore 7(12)
Rose Canyon 4(6)
San Diego Trougii-Bahia Sol. 30 (48)
Mr. Leor Lakritz
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O. 2968-A-SC
January 9, 2001
Page 5
SAN FRANCISCO
SITE LOCATION
Latitude - 33.1596 N
Longitude - 117.3491 W
UKRITZ
W.O. 2968-A-SC
CALIFORNIA FAULT
Figure 3
GeoSoils, Ine.
Seismicity
The accelerafion-attenuafion relafions of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and
Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1987) have been incorporated into EQFAULT
(Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerafions anficipated at the site
were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuafion curves
developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and
others (1989). These accelerafion-attenuafion relafions have been incorporated in
EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs determinisfic
seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digifized California faults as earthquake sources.
The program esfimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file.
If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program esfimates peak horizontal
ground accelerafion that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible")
and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault.
Site accelerafion, as a percentage ofthe acceleration of gravity (g). Is computed by any of
the 14 user-selected accelerafion-attenuation relafions that are contained in EQFAULT.
Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerafions from an upper bound
(maximum credible) earthquake may be on the order of 0.66 g to 0.80 g, and maximum
probable event may be on the order of 0.45 g to 0.47 g, assuming upper bound (maximum
credible) and maximum probable event of a magnitude about 6.9, on the Rose Canyon
fault zone, located approximately 4 miles from the subject site.
Seismic Shaking Parameters
Based on the site condifions. Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (Internafional
Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided.
Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4
Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*) 0.40
Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) SD
Seismic Coefficient C, (per Table 16-Q*) 0.44 Na
Seismic Coefficient C^ (per Table 16-R*) 0.64 N^
Near Source Factor N, (per Table 16-S*) 1.0
Near Source Factor N^ (per Table 16-T*) 1.1
Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B
Distance to Seismic Source 4.0 mi. (6.4 km)
Upper Bound Earthqual<e 6.9
* Figure and table references from Ciiapter 16 of tlie Uniform Building Code (1997).
Mr. Leor lakritz
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad
Flle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge
W.O. 2968-A-SC
January 9, 2001
Page 7
GeoSoils, Ine.
Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during
our evaluafion ofthe site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely
mitigated as a result of site location, soil characterisfics and typical site development
procedures:
Liquefacfion
Tsunami
Dynamic Settlement
Surface Fault Rupture
Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
It is important to keep in perspecfive that in the event of a maximum probable or credible
earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would
occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely
be greatest from the vibrafions and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's
mass, than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potenfial would be
no greater than that for other exisfing structures and improvements In the immediate
vicinity.
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory tests were performed on representafive samples of the onsite earth materials
in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. The test procedures used and results
obtained are presented below.
Laboratory Standard
The maximum dry density and opfimum moisture content was determined forthe major soil
type encountered in the trenches. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The
moisture-density relafionship obtained for this soil is shown below:
SOIL TYPE
BORING OR TEST
PIT AND DEPTH (ft.)
MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY (pcf)
OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
Silty SAND, strong brown B-1 @ 0-5 127.5 12.0
Silty SAND, strong brown B-2@ 0-5 131.0 9.0
Mr. Leor Lakritz
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O. 2968-A-SC
January 9, 2001
Page 8
Expansion Potential
Expansion testing was performed on a representafive sample of site soil in accordance
with UBC Standard 18-2. The results of expansion testing are presented in the following
table.
LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
B-2@ 0'-5' <5 Very Low
Direct Shear Test
Shear testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a
direct shear machine ofthe strain control type. The shear test results are presented below:
Sample Location
Primary Residual
Sample Location Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(Degrees)
Cohesion
(psf)
Fricfion Angle
(Degrees)
B-1 (Remolded composite sample) 368 31 457 27
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing
Sulfate tesfing Indicates that site soils have a negligible exposure to concrete per Table 19-
A-4 of the 1997 UBC (water extractable sulfate = 0.004 percent by weight). Corrosion
tesfing (pH, resistivity) indicates that soils are neutral (pH = 7.3) and moderately corrosive
(saturated resistivity = 4,300 ohms-cm) to ferrous metals.
Sieve Analysis
Sample gradafion for various representative samples was determined in general
accordance with ASTM test method D-422. Test results are presented as Plates C-1 in
Appendix C.
Mr. Leor Lakritz
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge
W.O. 2968-A-SC
January 9, 2001
Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon our site reconnaissance, test results, it is our opinion that the subject site
appears suitable for the proposed office building development. The following
recommendafions should be incorporated into the construcfion details.
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Grading
Guidelines presented in Appendix D, except where specifically superseded in the text of
this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction
meefing to provide addifional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork
schedule.
During earthwork construcfion all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed
by this office and if wan'anted, modifled and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety
orders, the Occupafional Safety and Health Act, and the Construcfion Safety Act should
be met.
Site Preparation
Debris, vegetafion and other deleterious material should be removed from the building
area prior to the start of grading. Sloping areas to receive flll should be properly benched
in accordance with current industry standards of practice and guidelines specifled in the
Uniform Building Code.
Demolition/Grubbing
1. Any exisfing subsurface structures, major vegetafion, and any miscellaneous debris
should be removed from the areas of proposed grading.
2. The project soils engineer should be notified of any previous foundafion, irrigafion
lines, cesspools, or other subsurface structures that are uncovered during the
recommended removals, so that appropriate remedial recommendafions can be
provided.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 10
GeoSoils, Ine.
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials)
Due to the relatively loose/soft condifion of colluvium and weathered terrace deposits,
these materials should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for settlement
sensifive structures or areas to receive compacted flll. At this time, removal depths on the
order of 2 to 3 feet should be anficipated, however, locally deeper removals may be
necessary, specially if buried utilifies are encountered. Removals should be completed
below a 1:1 projecfion down and away from the edge of any settlement sensitive structure
and/or limit of proposed fill. Once removals are completed, the exposed bottom should
be reprocessed and compacted.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to ground preparafion, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6±inch) lifts,
cleaned of vegetafion and debris, brought to a least opfimum moisture content, and
compacted to achieve a minimum relafive compacfion of 90 percent. If soil Importafion is
planned, a sample ofthe soil Import should be evaluated by this offlce prior to importing,
in order to assure compafibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendafions
presented in this report. Import soils (if any) for a fill cap should be low expansive (E.I. less
than 50). The use of subdrains at the bottom of the flll cap may be necessary, and
subsequenfiy recommended based on compafibility with onsite soils.
Overexcavation
In order to provide for the uniform support of the structure, a minimum 3-foot thick flll
blanket is recommended. Any cut portion of the pad for the building should be over
excavated a minimum 3 feet below flnish pad grade. Areas with planned flils less than 3
feet should be over excavated in order to provide the minimum flll thickness.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
General
In the event that the informafion concerning the proposed development plan is not con'ect,
or any changes in the design, location or loading condifions ofthe proposed structure are
made, the conclusions and recommendafions contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are
modified or approved in wrifing by this office. It is our understanding that slab-on-grade
construcfion is desired for the proposed development.
The informafion and recommendafions presented in this secfion are not meant to
supersede design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide
additional input/consultafion regarding soil parameters, as related to foundafion design.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 11
GeoSoils, Ine.
Preliminary Foundation Design
Our review, field work, and laboratory tesfing indicates that onsite soils have a very low to
low expansion potenfial. Preliminary recommendafions for foundation design and
construction are presented below. Final foundafion recommendafions should be provided
at the conclusion of grading, and based on laboratory tesfing of fill or natural materials
exposed at finish grade.
Bearing Value
1. The foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines presented in the latest edifion of the Uniform Building Code.
2. An allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for the
design of confinuous foofings at least 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep, and
column foofings at least 24 inches square and 24 inches deep, connected by a
grade beam in at least one direcfion. This value may be increased by 20 percent
for each addifional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 2500 pounds per square
foot. No increase in bearing value is recommended for increased foofing width.
Lateral Pressure
1. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of fricfion may be ufilized for a
concrete to soil contact when mulfiplied by the dead load.
2. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
300 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2500 pounds per
square foot.
3. When combining passive pressure and fricfional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
Construction
The following foundafion construcfion recommendafions are presented as a minimum
criteria from a soils engineering standpoint. The onsite soils expansion potenfials are
generally in the very low to low range (expansion index 0 to 50). Due to potenfial property
line restricfions in the vicinity of adjacent structures, footings in these areas may need to
be deepened to penetrate any near-surface colluvial soil and embedded into the
underlying terrace deposits. Should this become necessary, recommendafions for
mitigation of differential settlement of the slab should be obtained from the structural
engineer.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carisbad January 9, 2001
Flle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 12
GeoSoils, Ine.
Recommendafions by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may
exceed the soils engineer's recommendafions, should take precedence over the following
minimum requirements. Final foundation design will be provided based on the expansion
potenfial ofthe near surface soils encountered during grading.
Expansion Classification - Very Low to Low (El 0 to 50)
1. Convenfional confinuous foofings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12
inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for one-story fioor loads and 18
inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two-story floor loads. Interior
foofings may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground
surface.
Foofings for one-story floor loads should have a minimum width of 12 Inches, and
foofings for two-story floor loads should have a minimum width of 15 inches. All
foofings should have one No. 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and one No. 4
reinforcing bar placed at the bottom ofthe foofing. Isolated interior or exterior piers
and columns should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest
adjacent ground surface.
2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches square, should be
provided across the garage entrances. The base of the reinforced grade beam
should be at the same elevafion as the adjoining foofings.
3. Concrete slabs in building and garage areas should be undertain with a vapor
barrier consisfing of a minimum of 6-mil, polyvinyl-chloride membrane with all laps
sealed. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of 2 inches of sand to
aid in uniform curing of the concrete.
4. Concrete slabs, including garage slabs, should have a minimum thickness of 4
inches and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcement bars placed on 18-inch
centers, in two horizontally perpendicular direcfions (i.e., long axis and short axis).
Equivalent reinforcement may be used if necessary.
All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height
poslfioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" is not an acceptable
method of poslfioning the reinforcing wire.
5. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the building foofings and be
quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings
should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement.
6. Pre-moistening of slab areas is recommended for these soil condifions; the
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than opfimum
moisture to a depth of 12 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas,
and verified by this office within 72 hours of the vapor barrier placement.
7. Soils generated from footing excavafions to be used onsite should be compacted
to a minimum relafive compacfion 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether
it is to be placed inside the foundafion perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas.
This material must not alter posifive drainage patterns that direct drainage away
from the structural areas and toward the street.
8. As an alternative, an engineered post-tension foundafion system may be used.
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Foundafions may be designed using parameters provided in the "Design" secfion of
Foundafion Recommendafions presented herein. Wall secfions should adhere to the
County of San Diego guidelines. All wall designs should be reviewed by a qualified
structural engineer for structural capacity, overturning and stability.
The design parameters provided assume that onsite or equivalent low expansive soils are
used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the proposed walls
within this wedge. Increased acfive and at-rest earth pressures will need to be utilized for
retaining wall design. Heavy compacfion equipment should not be used above a 1:1
projecfion up and away from the bottom of any wall.
The following recommendafions are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, loffel,
earthstone, etc.). Recommendafions for specialty walls will be more onerous than those
provided herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the walls
constructed should be anficipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This
movement could cause some cracking dependent upon the materials used to construct
the wall. To reduce
wall cracking due to settlement, walls should be internally grouted and/or reinforced with
steel.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacfing backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressures of 65 pcf for nafive soil or 38 pcf for gravel backfill, plus any applicable
surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design
should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
Flle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.
Building walls below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the
degree of moisture protecfion desired. Refer to the following secfion for preliminary
recommendafions from surcharge loads.
Cantilevered Walls
These recommendafions are for cantilevered retaining walls up to fifteen (15) feet high.
Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall
is not restrained from minor deflecfions. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure (EFP)
approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate
fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients ofthe retained material. These
do not include other superimposed loading condifions such as traffic, structures, seismic
events or adverse geologic condifions.
SURFACE SLOPE OF EQUIVALENT SELECT
RETAINED MATERIAL FLUID WEIGHT MATERIAL
HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL P.C.F. (Native soiU P.C.F. (Graven
Level 45 33
2 to 1 60 ~
The equivalent fiuid density should be increased to 65 pounds per cubic foot for level
backfill at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended a minimum
lateral distance of 2H (two fimes the wall height) on either side of the corner.
Wall Backfill and Drainage
All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe backdrain and
outlet system (a minimum 2 outlets per wall), to prevent buildup of hydrostafic pressures
and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. Pipe should
consist of schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should
be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of % to iy2-inch clean crushed rock
encapsulated in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Perforafions in pipe should face
down. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches
compacted to 90 percent relative compacfion with native soil. Proper surface drainage
should also be provided.
As an alternative to gravel backdrains, panel drains (Miradrain 6000, Tensar, etc.) may be
used. Panel drains should be installed per manufacturers guidelines. Regardless of the
backdrain used, walls should be water proofed where they would impact living areas or
where staining would be objecfionable.
Mr. Leor Lakritz
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge
W.O. 2968-A-SC
January 9, 2001
Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.
Retaining Wall Footing Transitions
Site walls are anficipated to be founded on foofings designed in accordance with the
recommendafions in this report. Wall foofings may transifion from formafional bedrock to
select fill. If this condifion is present the civil designer may specify either:
a) If transitions from rock fill to select fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle
of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum
2-foot overexcavafion for a distance of two fimes the height of the wall and increase
overexcavation until such transifion is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall
alignment.
b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints
or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H
(where H=wall height in feet) on either side of the transifion may be
accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink
grout.
c) Embed the foofings enfirely into a homogeneous fill.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil and slope stability is
significantly reduced by overiy wet condifions. Positive surface drainage away from graded
slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant
life should be provided for planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided.
Graded slopes constructed within and ufilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded
debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and
maintaining a suitable vegetafion cover soon after construcfion. Plants selected for
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Compacfion to the face of fill slopes would
tend to minimize short term erosion unfil vegetafion is established. In order to minimize
erosion on a slope face, an erosion control fabric (i.e. jute matting) should be considered.
From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing
landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments
they should be recompacted to 90 percent relative compacfion.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street. Carlsbad January 9, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.
Additional Site Improvements
Recommendafions for addifional grading, exterior concrete flatwork design and
construction, including driveways, can be provided upon request. If in the future, any
addifional improvements are planned for the site, recommendafions concerning the
geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could
be provided upon request.
Trenching
All foofing trench excavations for structures and walls should be observed and approved
by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and
any excess soils generated from ufility trench excavafions should be compacted to a
minimum relafive compacfion of 90 percent if not removed from the site. All excavations
should be observed by one of our representafives and conform to CAL-OSHA and local
safety codes. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineers.
In addifion, the potential for encountering hard spots during foofing and ufility trench
excavafions should be anficipated. If these concrefions are encountered within the
proposed foofing trench, they should be removed, which could produce larger excavated
areas within the foofing or ufility trenches.
Drainage
Posifive site drainage should be maintained at all fimes. Drainage should not fiow
uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from
foundafions and not allowed to pond and/or seep Into the ground. Pad drainage should
be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts
should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of
5 feet from the proposed structure or into a subsurface drainage system. We would
recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be
eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternafive, closed bottom type
planters could be utilized. An outiet placed in the bottom ofthe planter, could be instailed
to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork.
Utility Trench Backfill
1. All utility trench backfill in structural areas, slopes, and beneath hardscape features
should be broughtto near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
Flooding/jetting is not recommended for the site soil materials. As an alternative.
Imported sandy material with an S.E. of 30 or greater, may be flooded/jetted in
shallow (12±inch or less) under-slab interior trenches, only.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 17
GeoSoils, Inc.
2. Sand backfill, unless trench excavafion material, should not be allowed in exterior
trenches adjacent to and within an area extending below a 1:1 plane projected from
the outside bottom edge of the foofing.
3. All trench excavafions should minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety
codes.
4. Soils generated from ufility trench excavafions to be used onsite should be
compacted to 90 percent minimum relative compacfion. This material must not alter
positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural area and
towards the street.
PLAN REVIEW
Final site development and foundafion plans should be submitted to this office for review
and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any
misunderstandings between the plans and recommendafions presented herein. In
addifion, foundafion excavafions and any addifional earthwork construction performed on
the site should be observed and tested by this office. If condifions are found to differ
substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that
time.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our study are believed
representative ofthe area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading, site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no
responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by
others. The scope of work was performed within the limits of a budget. Inasmuch as our
study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and
engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions.
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and
no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with
time.
Mr. Leor Lakritz W.O. 2968-A-SC
2917 and 2925 State Street, Carlsbad January 9, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 18
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Benton Engineering, Inc.,1970, Final Compaction Report, La Costa South Unit 7, August
10,1970, Project # 69-12-8D.
Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program for the deterministic prediction
of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal
acceleration from woridwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993;
Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, volume
III, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A. 1997, Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning act with Index to Earthquake Fault Maps; California
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publicafion 42.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier,
California, vol. 1, 2, and 3.
Jennings, C.W.,. 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1982, Esfimafion of response-spectral values as fijncfions
of magnitude, distance and site condifions, in eds., Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W.,
and Blake, T.F., AEG short course, seismic hazard analysis, dated June 18,1994.
Petersen, Mark D., Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H., 1996, Interim table of fault parameters
used by the California Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilisfic
seismic hazard maps of California.
Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predicfive ground mofion equafions reported
in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterizafion, and
predicfion of strong ground mofion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American
Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102.
Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geologic maps ofthe northwestern part of San
Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File
Report 96-02.
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: LEOR LAKRITZ
State Street, Carlsbad
W.O. 2968-A-SC
BORING B-1
Sample
I T3 Ul 0)
- n
X) L C 3 3 +-
0 CO Sl U E
CO 3
3 M
SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger
SHEET1
11-13-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
SM COLLUVIUM:
@ 1', SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; porous.
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS:
(5) 2 1/2', SILTY SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense.
10-
15-
20-
25
Total Depth = 4'
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 11-13-00
State Street, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc, PLATE B-1
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
P/?0JFC7. LE0R LAKRITZ
State Street, Carlsbad
W.O. 2968-A-SC
BORING B-2
Sample
I T3
Ul 0)
- .D XJ L C 3 3 +•
0 C/) il
U E
(/) D) D M
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger
SHEET 1 0£ 1
11-13-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
SM COLLUVIUM:
@ 0-2', SILTY SAND, dark brown, moist, loose; porous.
10
15-
20-
25
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS:
@ 2', SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense.
\@ 6', SAND, light yellowish brown, medium dense.
Total Depth = 6'
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 11-13-00
State Street, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-2
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
P/?0J£C7. LE0R LAKRITZ
State Street, Carlsbad
W.O. 2968-A-SC
BORING B-3
Sample
I -D
Ul 01
- XI Xl L C 3
=) -t-
o
V) n
u E (A 3
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: Hand Auger
SHEET 1 OF 1
11-13-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
f<\j Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
SM COLLUVIUM:
@ 1', SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose; porous.
SM TERRACE DEPOSIT:
@ 2 1/2', SILTY SAND, brown, slightly moist, medium dense.
5-
10-
15-
20
25
Total Depth = 4'
No groundweater encountered
Backfilled 11-13-00
State Street, Carlsbad GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-3
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY DATA
100
90
80
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
6 ^3 ^ 1.5 ^ 3i4 ^'^m 3 4 8 8^° 14^6 20 ^0 4O ^0 go uo^^^
HYDROMETER
70
60
>
CO
mso
UJ40 O a:
III
30
20
10
100 10 1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
0.01 0.001
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY COBBLES coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY
Sample Depth Ciassification LL PL PI Cc Cu
B-1 15.0
Sample Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand '/oSilt %Clay
• B-1 15.0 19 0.288 0.171 0.3 85.5 14.3
GeoSoils, Inc.
.5741 Palmer Way
Carisbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760)438-3155
Fax: (760)931-0915
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Project: LAKRITZ
Number: 2968-A-sc
Date: November 2000 Figure: C-1
APPENDIX D
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
General
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading
as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled,
placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report are part ofthe earthwork and grading guidelines and
would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of confiict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with provisions of the project plans and specificafions. The project soil engineer and
engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide
observafion and tesfing services, and geotechnical consultafion during the durafion of the
project.
EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer
and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork
procedures and tesfing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and
ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide tesfing and observafion so that determination
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. \t is the responsibility of
the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work
schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavafions, and subdrains should be
observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior
to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist
and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratory and Fleld Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed
in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation
D-1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test
method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at inten/als of
approximately 2 feet of flll height or every 100 cubic yards of flll placed. These criteria
GeoSoils, Inc.
would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The locafion and
frequency of testing would be at the discrefion of the geotechnical consultant.
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing, site preparafion, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted
by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by
the governing agencies, as applicable. \X is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the
ground surface to receive the fill, to the safisfacfion of the soil engineer, and to place,
spread, moisture condifion, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the
recommendafions of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-
earth material considered unsafisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods
to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or
agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and
compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for
the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, In the opinion of the
geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather,
excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are
resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the
contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop
work until conditions are satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good
drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to
control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent
drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other
deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be
concluded prior to placing fill. Exisfing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials
determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place
should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil condifions, these
materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the
compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, sepfic
tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed
or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly
fractured, or othen/vise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
Flle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations
continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and
moisture conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relafive compacfion as
specified in these guidelines.
Existing ground which is determined to be safisfactory for support of the fills should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the
scarified ground is brought to opfimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the
materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6
inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts
restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be
overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer
and/or engineering geologist. Scarificafion, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of
mixing should confinue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods,
until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or
other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical),
the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key,
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material,
and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope
condifions, the recommended minimum width ofthe lowest bench or key is also 15 feet
with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As
a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the
minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to Vz the height of the slope.
Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable
material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood
that the vertical height ofthe bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered
for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet In thickness.
All areas to receive fill. Including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill
benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering
geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted unfil
design grades (elevafions) are aftained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be ufilized in the fill
provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer.
These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other
deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradafion, undesirable expansion potenfial, or
substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable
and may require blending with other soils to sen/e as a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill
area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operafions should not
result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away
from the fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum
dimension greaterthan 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the locafion
of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer.
Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations
ofthe soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material
should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevafion) or within 20 feet
horizontally of slope faces.
To facilitate fljture trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundafion
excavafions, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by
the soil engineer and/or the developers representative.
If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be
utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to
determine Its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted
by the soil engineer as soon as possible.
Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal
layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer
may approve thick lifts if tesfing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate
compacfion is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread
evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compacfion.
Fill layers at a moisture content less than opfimum should be watered and mixed, and wet
fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue unfil the fill
materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture condifioned and mixed, it should be
uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by
ASTM test designafion, D-1557-78, or as othenA/ise recommended by the soil engineer.
Compacfion equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed
for soil compacfion or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of
compacfion.
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
nie:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compacfion, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be re-worked unfil the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No addifional fill shall be placed in an area unfil the last placed lift of fill has been
tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the
soil engineer.
Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet
horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configurafion. Tesfing
shall be performed as the fiil is elevated to evaluate compacfion as the fill core is being
developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill
slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose
materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determinafion of fill slope compacfion should
be based on observafion and/or testing ofthe finished slope face. Where compacted fill
slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a
higher minimum relative compacfion, and special grading procedures, may be
recommended.
If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected,
then special effort should be made to achieve the required compacfion in the outer 10 feet
of each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should
be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes confinuously as fill is placed. The
sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and
extend out over the slope to provide adequate compacfion to the face of the slope.
2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is
compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be
trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling.
3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope
at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compacfion operafions.
4. After complefion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
Subsequent to tesfing to verify compacfion, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compacfion to the slope face. Final tesfing should be used to confirm
compaction after grid rolling.
5. Where tesfing indicates less than adequate compacfion, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to
achieve compaction. Addifional testing should be performed to verify compaction.
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
engineer in compliance with ordinances ofthe controlling governmental agencies,
and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering
geologist.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION
Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locafions or
materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical
consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct
changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed
condifions. The locafion of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil
engineer.
EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering
geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation
and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes
should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise
approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist
prior to placement of materials for construcfion of the fill portion of the slope.
The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the
contractor when cut slopes are started.
If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potenfial adverse geologic
condifions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should
invesfigate, evaluate and make recommendafions to treat these problems. The need for
cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluafion by the
engineering geologist, whether anficipated or not.
Unless otherwise specified In soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be
excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling
governmental agencies. Addifionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the
contractors responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and
should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances ofthe controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendafions of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
Flle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
COMPLETION
Observafion, tesfing and consultafion by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted
during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are
graded in accordance with the approved project specificafions.
After complefion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have
finished their observafions of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review
by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavafion or filling should be
undertaken without prior notificafion of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in
accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape
architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as pracfical after
completion of grading.
JOB SAFETY
General
At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is
the company's safety considerafions for use by all employees on mulfi-employer
construcfion sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality
on grading and construcfion projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary
on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however,
everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all fimes. To achieve our goal of
avoiding accidents, cooperafion between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must
be maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical tesfing and observafion, the
following precaufions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading
and construction projects:
Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regulariy
scheduled and documented safety meefings.
Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at
all fimes when they are working in the field.
Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI fleld technicians; one is to be
affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other Is to be placed atop the
spoil pile on all test pits.
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
File:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
Flashing Lights: All vehicles stafionary in the grading area shall use rotafing or flashing
amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all fleld tesfing.
While operafing a vehicle In the grading area, the emergency flasher
on the vehicle shall be acfivated.
In the event that the contractor's representative obsen/es any of our personnel not
following the above, we request that it be brought to the attenfion of our office.
Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance
The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be
the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading
contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the
established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized
representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct
excavafion ofthe pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be
the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill.
Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic,
whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite
the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condifion.
Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test
holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access.
A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment
should enter this zone during the tesfing procedure. The zone should extend
approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for
safety and to avoid excessive ground vibrafion which typically decreased test results.
When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the
test locafion. If this is not possible, a prominent fiag should be placed at the top of the
slope. The contractor's representafive should effecfively keep all equipment at a safe
operafion distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this tesfing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible
following tesfing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in
a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern.
The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas
or other factors that may affect site access and site safety.
In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the
contractors failure to comply with any ofthe above, the technician Is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supen/isor. The grading contractors
representafive will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solufion. However, in the
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
Flle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
Interim, no fijrther tesfing will be performed unfil the situafion is rectified. Any fill place can
be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompacfion or removal.
In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established
safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attenfion and notify
this office. Effecfive communication and coordination between the contractors
representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged In order to implement the
above safety plan.
Trench and Vertical Excavation
\X is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compacfion
tesfing is needed.
Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or
deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose
rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of
any unsafe condifions regardless of depth.
All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters,
should be shored or laid back.
Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local
standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding
down" on the equipment.
If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compacfion tesfing, our
company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor.
The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution.
All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to
reprocessing and/or removal.
If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or
vertical excavafion, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer
on nofice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then
has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities.
Mr. Leor Lakritz Appendix D
Rle:e:\wp7\2900\2968a.pge Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
TYPE A
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
NATURAL GROUND
COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE)
—> y\
TYPICAL BENCHING ^^^^^
^
SEE ALTERNATIVES
TYPE B
\ \ \
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
NATURAL GROUND
COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE)
^ BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
SEE ALTERNATIVES
NOTE: ALTERNATIVES. LOCATICN AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED
BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING.
PLATE EG-1
CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS
ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL
A-1
MINIMUM
12" MINIMUM
FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.> '^^fT^.
/LINEAR FT. 6' iJ ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED ^••.V. '.V.
SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 iUrfi PERFS. ^^- -^
LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE.
ASTM D2751. SDR 35 OR ASTM D1527, SCHD^ ^0
ASTM D303^. SDR 35 OR ASTM D1785. SCHD. AO
FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF56o FT.
USE 8"^f PIPE
6' MINIMUM
B-1
FILTER MATERIAL
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PA??|N(?
1 INCH :100
3/4 INCH 90-100
3/8 INCH 40-100
NO. 4 25-40.
NO.S 18-33
NO. 30 .5-15
NO, 50 .0-7
NO. 200 0-3
ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND.FILTER FABRIC
6'MINIMUM OVERLAP 6-MINIMUM OVERLAP
6'MINIMUM COVER
= 4-MINIMUM BEDDING
A-2 B-2
4- MINIMUM BEDDING
GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 Fr/LINEAR FT.
PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1
GRAVEL CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE
FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE
PLATE EG-2
DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT
ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE
RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL
BACKCUT\J/ARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS./^
COMPACTED RLL
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
BACKCUT SHOULD BE MAOE NO
STEEPER THAl\j:l OR AS NECESSARY -^N
FOR SAFETY v,^^ONSIDERATIONS, ^ r /
ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL
DEPTH PER SOIL ENQINEER.
PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF
SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED
REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS ANO/OR
LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS.
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
ADJOINING CANYON FILL
COMPACTED RLL LIMITS LINE
Qcf
U TEMPORARY COMPACTED RLL
NLY '
Qal (TO BE REMOVED)
'vox
(EXISTING COMPACTED RLL) ^^'N
BE REMOVED BEFORE
PLACING ADDITIONAL
COMPACTED FILL
Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL
Qal ALLUVIUM
PLATE EG-3
TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
15' TYPICAL
1-2' CLEA
r"
>
m
m o
I
^TOE
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100* MAXIMUM INTERVALS. AND SHALL EXTEND
12' BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF. ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION.
DESIGN FINISH SLOPE
^J%5'MINIMUM I j
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
10'MINIMUM
W = 15'MINIMUM OR H/2
2 5 • M AX IM U KOrflJj;;^
TYPICAL BENCHING
BUTTRESS OR SIDEHILL FILL
^2% GRADIENT
DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE
AND BACKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES)
BEDROCK
3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL
4- MINIMUM
PIPE
2" MINIMUM
L' MINIMUM
PIPE
r"
>
m
m
o
I
Ol
2" MINIMUM
FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM OF FIVE FtVLINEAR Ft OF PIPF
OR FOUR FtVLINEAR Fl OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE
CUT TRENCH.
ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE
ENCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. RLTER FABRIC
SHALL BE MIRAFI 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC
SHIALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12" ON ALL JOINTS.
MINIMUM 4- DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM D-2751. SDR 35
OR ASTM D-1527 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM D-3034.
SpR 35 OR ASTM D-1785 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHING
STRENGTH OF 1.000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF
8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE
INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE.
PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2%
TO OUTLET PIPE. OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO
SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW.
NOTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED
WITH ON-SITE SOIL
2. BACKDRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE
LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN.
RRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE
LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE
REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS
ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF
THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
1 INCH 100
3/4 INCH 90-100
3/8 INCH 40-100
NO. 4 25-40
NO. 8 18-33
NO. 30 5-15
NO. 50 0-7
NO. 200 0-3
GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE
FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING
1 1/2 INCH
NO. 4
NO. 200
100
50
8
SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50
FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL
SIDEHILL FILL
PROPOSED GRADE
TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM
DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY
AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT
1—
>
m
m
o
I
cn
NATURAL SLOPE TO
BE RESTORED WITH
COMPACTED FILL
BACKCUT VARIES
I^WOTT-MINIMUM
15'MINIMUM KEY WIDTH
2'X 3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
2'MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR
APPROVED MATERIAL.
f^^\y/^V/AW^ B^NCH WIDTH MAY VARY
^Jr. MINIMUM
NOTE: 1. WHERE THE NATURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE
DESIGN SLOPE RATIO. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE
PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED
BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS.
RLL OVER CUT DETAIL
CUT/RLL CONTACT
L AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN
2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT
MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15'FILL SECTION FROM
BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE
^'MINIMUM
^^/^ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
LOWEST BENCH WIDTH
15'MINIMUM OR H/2
MINIMUM
BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY
>
m
m o
I
NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND
EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE FILL PORTION.
STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL
EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT SLOPE
RNISHED GRADE
>
m
m o
I
OO
<fi. 1^ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
OR APPROVED MATERIAL
COMPACTED STABILIZATION RLL
V MINIMUM TILTED BACK
IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST. THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY
REQUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED RLL
NOTE: 1. SUBDRAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED BY SOILS ENOINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST,
2. -W- SHALL BE EQUIPMENT WIDTH (15'» FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER
THAN 25 FEET "W SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENOINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL "W" BE LESS THAN H/2.
SKIN RLL OF NATURAL GROUND
ORIGINAL SLOPE
ROPOSED FINISH GRADE
15'MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM
PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACKCUT
PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE
•Ei MINIMUM
^^^^^^
^ '3'MINIMUM KEY DEPTH
^V^WV^ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
H
m m o
I
CD
NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON RELD CONDITIONS.
2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE
NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERINO GEOLOGIST.
DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL
RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED RLL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER
IMAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREAL
OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
REPLACEMENT RLL PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
AVOID AND/OR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF
MATERIALS ON THE NATURAL SLOPE
Ta* MINIMUM BLANKET FILL
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
% GRADIENT,x/^.
"0 r-
>
m
m o
o
NOTE: 1. SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE
CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN.
2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY
THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION)
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED FILL OVEREXCAVATE AHD RECOMPACT "y^^
3- MINIMUM'
^ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
CUT-FILL LOT (DAYUGHT TRANSITION)
TYPICAL BENCHING
VV-^''.^^ |/A\V/\\V//\\V^\-^^^^ 3-MINIMUM'
y, UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS.
PLATE EG-11
SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL
2'X 2'X 1/4" STEEL PLATE
STANDARD 3/4" PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP
OF PLATE.
3/4" X 5* GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE
THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS
THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5'
INCREMENTS.
3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN
5'INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS.
FINAL GRADE
MAINTAIN 5* CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL
-rAr LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND
I ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5*
VERTICAL WITHIN A 5* RADIUS OF PLATE BASE.
V... ..ryrvTr^^ :./ BOTT
' 1 f \» »...... ... » .ji
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT
PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1'BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND
NOTE:
1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY
VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5* RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND
WITHIN 5'(VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. RLL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD
BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIRCATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE
APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
3. AFTER 5*(VERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5'RADIUS
EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER.
4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2* OF RLL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING
THE INITIAL READING.
5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING
FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER.
5. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.
PLATE EG-U
TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT
RNISH GRADE
3'-6*
3/8- DIAMETER X LENGTH
CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT
•-6" DIAMETER X 3 1/2* LENGTH HOLE
CONCRETE BACKRLL
PLATE EG-15
TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM
SIDE VIEW
( NOT TO SCALE )
TOP VIEW
100 FE£T
50 FEET
FUkG
SPOIL
PILE
iii
u. a in 50 FEET
APPROXIMATE CENTER
GF TEST PIT
VB«CLE
III
FLAG
I NOT TO SCALE )
PLATE EG—16
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
OO
20'MINIMUM
oo
J5'MINIMUM (AL^
MINIMUM (C)
oo
oo
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
10'MINIMUM (E)
CO CO
15'MINIMUM (A)
oo
^oo oo
oo
(G)
ooiF)
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
PROPOSED RNISH GRADE
FROM jlMINIMUM (C)
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
NOTE: (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(R
(G)
ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.
HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100* MAXIMUM.
IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.
WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK
PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION.
ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF
WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED.
CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS.
ALL RLL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED.
AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF
FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A
D-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT.
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY RLLED IN. PLATE RD""1
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY RLLED IN.
RLL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER
ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT r I
I
I
GRANULAR MATERIAL
j COMPACTED RLL
SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE
COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS
GRANULAR SOIL TO RLL VOIDS.
DENSIRED BY FLOODING
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH \1
^OMPACTED RLL
I
PROPOSED RNISH GRADE
10'MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIUT
QCXXDOCC
OVERSIZE LAYER ^ ,
COMPACTED RLL
fs'MINIMUM
PROFILE ALONG LAYER
LOPE FACE
J^CLEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH
PLATE RD-2