HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-22; REDEEMER BY THE SEA LUTHERAN; PROJECT GRADING REPORT; 2004-11-14--
-
-4 - • .-..•
• S
*j • 1 IL -c - - • 0 - -
GEOPM; IF - • __3 -
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS /
STUDIES IN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES
-,
a - •. 's
S 4-
4-.-
--
4 4 4 4-
-, -
--
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS
November 14. 2004
Mr. Ken Voertman
Redeemer by the Sea
1617 South Pacific Street
Oceanside, California 92054 _
Subject Project Grading Report
Redeemer by the Sea Project
I
Carlsbad, California
Reference Documents:
1 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Church and Residential
Development, Redeemer by the Sea, Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road,
I
Carlsbad, Ca, by Geopacifica Inc., dated November, 20, 2000
2 Addendum Geotechnical Report, Proposed Church and Residential Development,
Redeemer by the Sea, Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road, Carlsbad, Ca, by
Geopacifica Inc., dated September 12, 2002 '
3 Grading Plans for Redeemer-By-The-Sea, Lutheran Church of Carlsbad, by
Sowers and Brown Engineering Inc., 11 sheets, project no CT 00-22, stamp date
September 26, 2002
4 Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City,
of Carlsbad California
I
F t 5 Private Improvement Plans for Redeemer by the Sea Lutheran Church, by Sowers
and Brown Engineering Inc. dated 10/10/02 signed 11/12/02, 11 sheets, no CT
00-22
P 6 Interim Geotechnical as-Built Letter Reort for Santuary Building Pad, Proposec
Church and Development, Redeemer by the Se& Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail
Road, Carlsbad, California, by Geopacifica Inc., dated April 1, 2003
I T. Pavement Section Design Recommendations fork FishermaiT Drive aid Private
Driveway. connecting Fishermn Drive to Blck Rail Road, Rdeemer by the Sea
Project, Carlsbad, California, by Geopacifica Inc , datei April 27, 2004
:
3 0 6 0
INDUSTRY ST - I SUITE 105 -- F
OCEANSIDE
92054. .
I . TEL: 760.721.5488 ..
FAX: 760.721.5539
I
fl.
I
Page 2 GFDPACIFrA
Redeemer GEOIE U L IA
November 14, 2004
Dear Mr. Voertman:
Presented herein are our geotechnical data and compaction test results pertaining to the
rough graded earthwork operations at Lots 1 through 12 and the rough and finish grade
for the Sanctuary and Church property, Redeemer by the Sea project, Carlsbad,
California.
Rough grading and precise gradihg of the subject site occurred during the time interval
from December 2002, through August 2004.
The rough grading consisted of removal, over-excavation and re-compaction of on-site
top soil and undocumented fill soils. The undocumented fill soils were screened of debris
and oversize material and re-used for compacted structural fill. The rough grading also
consisted of excavation, placement and compaction, preparation earthwork, cuts and fills
to achieve the. general configuration of the rough grading plans (Document 3) in the as-
built rough graded configuration.
Precise grading consisted of completion of slopes and building pad areas for • the
Sanctuary, including private driveway along the south perimeter of the Sanctuary project,
Fisherman Drive to the juncture with Lots 1 through 12, and improvement of Black Rail
Road
SUMMARY
The data and test results developed during the project rough grading are summarized in
the text of the report, in the tables of the report, and on the enclosed reduced grading plan
(Document 3 modified as shown for Plate 1 in this report)
Cuts, fills, and processing of original ground have been completed under our observation
and testing Based on our observations and testing, the grading work is considered to be
in general compliance with the City of Carlsbad Requirements, the grading plans
(Document 3 and 5), and the project geotechnical reports (Document 1, 2, and 7)
The finish cut and/or fill slopes are considered surface and grossly stable and should
remain so under normal climatic conditions To reduce the impact of erosion, adequate
landscaping and runoff control devices of slopes and rough graded surfaces was
implemented and should be maintained as necessary and required Drainage berms,
swales, ditches, and similar type devices should be established and maintained to aid in
longer term slope and graded pad surfaces
LDPACWICA
G E 0I 5 C U N -I C A I
CONSUL TANS S
Page
Redeemer
November 14, 2004
The result of our observations/work is provided onto a reduced set of the Grading plan
(Document 3). Our observation/work results are plotted onto the reduced Document 3,
modified by addition of our data and attached herein as Plate 1.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING/GEOLOGY
Three soil types exist on and adjacent to the surface graded area of the Collins Property,
consisting of compacted fill (Qfg , and Qaf), Pleistocene Terrace Deposits (Qt), the
Santiago Formation (Ts), and undocumented fill and top soils soils (QuO.
Undocumented fill and top soils (Ouf)
Compressible recent apparent dumped fill were encountered a section of the south
perimeter of Lots 8 through 12 and along the eastern side of Lot 12. These soils were
removed by the planned grading along the southern perimeter of Lots 8 through 12 There
are remnants of trash fill on the hillside beyond the planned grading, but is not a
constraint to the graded pads. The contractor was restricted from encroachment onto the
hillside
There was a thicker section of undocumented fill along the northeastern portion of Lot 12
that required special handling during earthwork as described elsewhere in this report The
constructor was restricted from entry onto the hillside as well as entry to the adjacent
property to the east Those undocumented off site fills are still present but should not be a
constraint to the graded pads
Complete removal of top soils and undocumented fill under all areas to receive structural
fill and within a 1 1 projection of the base of structural fills was accomplished prior to the
placement of any structural fills..The base of all removals was verified by an engineering
geologist to have been into either Pleistocene Terrace Dejosits and/or the Santiago
Formation prior to placement of structural fills"
I
1 ..
I •GEOPACIFA
GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANTS
• Page
Redeemer
November 14, 2004
Certified Compacted Fill (0 f)
I These compacted fill soils certified by Geo Con Incorporated exist along the northern
property boundary. The fills were reported and certified by Geo Con Incorporated as part
I of their work on the Poinsettia Lane extension Project.
Grading operations for this project along the north property boundary included horizontal
I • keys into Geo Con fills as the earthwork filling operations were performed on the
Redeemer Property.
I Compacted Structural Fill (Oaf)
These fills were as planned for the subject project and placed within areas as shown on
I Plate 1. The documentation of these fills is presented in the tables.
I
Pleistocene Terrace Deposits (Qt)
The primary base of removals, cut slopes, and cut pad exposures included excavation into
the Pleistocene Terrace Deposits These units as exposed consisted of very dense, reddish
I brown, silty fine sand with occasional pebble layers toward the basal sections In places,
the unit appeared massive to crudely cross bedded There were no clay layers exposed or
encountered during earthwork operations There were no adverse joints, fractures or
I bedding exposed during grading operations
I
Santiago Formation (Ts)
A T
The removals along the extreme northeast portion of Lot 12 included excavation into the
Santiago Formation Overall the formational "bedrock" cdnsists primarily of very dense,
I light gray, silty sandstone
There were no clay layers exposed in this unfl during earthwork operalions There were
I.
I S GE OlE C IlNICAL
C 0 N S U .1 A N I S - -
I Page -
Redeemer S
November 14, 2004
Structure
I In the subject area, the Terrace deposits and Santiago Forthation are generally flat lying
with slight bedding dip (less than 5 degrees) to the southwest. There were no adverse
I joints, fractures, clay beds, or bedding exposed during earthwork operations. -There were
no faults exposed during earthwork operations.
Ground Water
There was no ground water encountered and no water seepage areas encountered during
I earthwork operations.
I
Corrective Grading/Special Handling
No corrective grading because of adverse geologic units and/or structure, in the. form of
stabilization fills, or buttresses, was required during-this phase of earthwork operations.
However, a thick section of undocumented fill was encountered along the northeastern
corner of Lot 12 The restrictions imposed on the grading contractor precluded entry onto
I the hillside for complete removal. In addition, the undocumented fill extended under the
adjacent project to the east
I In order to provide a usable building pad and to complete removals under the project the
backfill for the limited section included the following procedure and methods
I 1 The base of removals on site was extended to an elevation of roughly 293 feet as
determined by the grade checker. The edge of the removal was near vertical along
the east side but did extend (as determined by the grade checker) along the
I property boundary.
2 Fill soils were placed in lifts that did not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness One
I
50 pound sack of cement was rough mixed for each 200 square feet of surface
with each layer.
3 The acceptable compaction value for the limited section was set to be 92 % At
I
least one test was taken on rough 2 to 3 foot vertical increments
51 -- 'S ,5•• .- •:-. f.
+ -S
GEOIEC AN IC A I.
CONSULIANIS
Page 6
Redeemer
November 14, 2004
Geo Fabric was placed in two directions on maximum three foot intervals. The
I vertical increments were determined by the 'grade checker. Elevations were
established at 296, 299, 302, 305, 308, 311, 314, 317, and 320 feet.
Deep drain systems were not possible because of the thickness of the
I .undocumented fill and extension onto off site and hillside areas. A drain system
was placed in the fill near the upper edge.
The area of special handling is depicted on Plate 1. Engineered structures should
I not be placed within 10 feet of the eastern edge, of the special handling area or
within 5 feet of the top of slope on the south edge of the special handling area.
I . GRADING/COMPACTION
I Removals/Ground Preparation
.
During this phase of grading, the removal of unsuitable soils was accomplished under all
structural fill areas to expose Santiago Formation (Ts) or Pleistocene terrace deposits
(Qt)
I Prior to placement of compacted fills, the base of removals was scarified, moisture
conditioned as necessary for near optimum moisture conditions and compacted in place
I
to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density (ASTM D 1557-91)'.
The base of removals, excavations, cleanouts, and processing in preparing areas to
receive fill were observed by Geopacifica, Inc representatives including a certified I engineering geologist, prior to placement of compacted fill soils
I
! Compacted Fill Placement
Fill soils consisted of the soil types listed in Table I The fill soils were placed in thin lifts
(several inches thickness), moisture conditioned to/near optimum moisture content or
I above, and compacted (6 to 8 inch compacted thickness) to a minimum 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557-91) This was accomplished utilizing
self propelled, rubber tired compactors along with heavy earthmoving equipment Each
I succeeding fill lift was treated in a similar manner.
I -
ACUT I GEOP GE 0 T E C H N IC AL
CO N S U I I A N I S
Page 7
Redeemer
November 14, 2004
Compaction Testing and Results
In general, field compaction testing was performed for each approximately two foot
elevation placement of fill soils. Compaction test results are listed in Table II with
relative density determined by the use of the maximum density test results listed in Table
I.
Compaction testing was conduted utilizing the nuclear test gauge method (ASTM: D
2922, and D 3017). Approximate locations of field density tests are depicted on Plate 1.
Locations of density tests are +1- 50 feet horizontal and vertical elevations are +1- 3 feet.
Depth/Thickness of Fill
The thickness of fill soils at the project ranges from roughly 3 feet to 15 feet. In the area , '
I
of special handling, the thickness is up to 30 feet.
Fill Slopes
The finish fill slopes were probed and tested as necessary to satisfy the requirements of
the project report (Document 1 and 2) and the City of Carlsbad All fill slopes are subject
to weathering, erosion, and creep As such, control of runoff and erosion protection, as
well as landscaping and irrigation management, are important elements for the longer
'
term performance of fill slopes and should be repaired as needed, and maintained as soon
as possible and throughout the life of the project
Sub grade Finish Grade and Pavement H
Sub grade preparation for curb gutter, and street improvements on the Sanctuary portion
of the project were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project
reports (document 1, 2, and 7)
The placement of aggregate base and asphalt pavement was performed in conformance S
with the requirements of the project reports (documents 1, 2, and 7) and the City of
Carlsbad H
GEOPACWICk
G EQ IL CAN IC AL
CONSULIANIS
Page 8
Redeemer
November 14, 2004
Precise Grading - Lots 1 through 12
The completion of precise grading, underground utility, curbs/gutters and pavement are
being performed under separate contract with anew owner.
N
Those findings will be, presented upon completion of that work.
Should you have any questions, please do not hes contact me.
Respectfully, /
I ,
•
I
I
H Table I
. I
Redeemer by the Sea 'Project
I List of Maximum Density/optimum Moisture Results
I Soil Maximum optimum Description Type VDry Density Moisture
(pcf) (%)
I 1 122.5 11.0 red-brown-gray, silty sand
(on-site terrace) I 2 116.0 V 12.0 red-brown, silty fine sand V
(on-site terrace) 1 3 121.5' 8.3 it gray, silty fine-med .
sand (Santiago Formation)
4 119-.7 10'.0 red-brown, silty sand (on-
site terrace mix)
V
I 5 117.5 13.4 brown-gray, silty sand (on-
site fill screened of trash - and organics)
I , 6 113.2 13.0 brown-gray, silty fine sand
(on -site terrace)
I 7 144.3 4_7: class II base
8 137.0', 6.3- class II base I 9 119 9 10.8 Recycled class II base
(not used) •
I 10 142.9 asphalt
11 146 asphalt I
I - -
I
I 1
I Table 11
I Redeerer by the Sea
Results of Field Compaction Tests
I Test Date Dry Den Field Soil Comp Elev. Notes # (pcf) Moist Type Results (ft)
." . I
.
100 12-12-02 115.7 9.8 1 94.4 310 101 - " 111.0 9.5 1 90.6 312 I , r-1-. 12-30-02 113.5 104 1 92.6 295. r-2 114.3 11.0 1. 93.3 297 r-3 111.5.. 10.8 1 91 299... Fail . - r-3a 113.4 10.7 I 92.5 . 299 Retest I . r-4 115.5 9.8 1 94.3 301 r-5 113.3 - 9.9 1 92.4 303 - r-6 112.9 10.1 1 92.1 305 I r-712-31-O2 113.1 10.2 1 92.2 307 . r-8 115.1 9.9 1 94.1 309 r-9 114.2 10.9 1 93A 311 r-10 113.3 9.5 3 . 93.2" 313 I - r-11 1-2-03 110.5 12.5 5 94 315 , r-12 " 110.3 12.1 5 93.8. 317-
r-13 1-3-03 111.2 11.5 5 94.6 319- 102 111.'0 10.5' 1 90.16 314
r-14 1-6-03 113.1 " 11.1 1 92.2 320 I r-15 " 113.5 10 .4, 1 92.6 321
103 1-10-03 110.3 10.1 1 90 329
.I 104 1-15-03 113.0 .. 9.9 4 94.4 . '320 . . ...... .. 105 Be 111.1. 9.6 4 '92.9 322 106 110.6 11.0 4 92'.4 320 107 107 8 9 8 4 90 321 108 114 0 11 0 1 93 1 322 I 109 Be 114.4 10 8 1 93A 323
110 1-16-03 111.3 13 8 5 §4.6 324 :1.11 .111.4 11.6 5 94.7 323 I 112 111 1 11.7 5 '94.4 - 325 113 110 4 10.1 5 93.9 324 114 110.2
-
.
11.'0 5 93 7 326
, I 115 1-17-03 109.3 13.7 5 93.0 325 116 - . 112.9 . 10.5 4 94.3 ,326 . 117 112.3 12'0 4 93.8 328 • 118 107 8 10.5 4 90 ,326
119 1-20-03 108.5.. -10.0 , 4*-' 90.6 332 120 109 8 .9.&, 4 91.7 328 I
I
121 " 108.7 10.5' 4 90.7 326' 122 107.9 10.7 4 90 334
1-21-03,112.8 11.2 1 92.1 334- 124 . 109.6 10.8 .4 91.6 '331 125 1 108;6 10.0 4 90.7' 332
126
It '113.6 10.9 1 92.6 336
127 .1-22-03 .107.9 10.8 4 90 .336' 128 it 110.3 ' 11.5 1 90 337' 129 " 111.1 9.8 1 90.7. 338
'
130 " . 111.1 ' 9.5 , 1 90.7 337 131 ' "' 112.6, 10.8 ' 1 92 337
132'1-23-03 .110.6 9.5 1 90.2 342 if133 ' 110.3 9.0 1 90 , 343 134 . " 108.5 '12.7 ' 4 90.7 340
.
135 1-24-03 109.1 . 10.1 . 4 91.1. 334 . 136 " '
' 111.3 . 9'.9 1 90.8 '332 137 " 112.5 .10.2
,
1
,
91.9 337
,
1381-28-03 108.9 10.6 4 90.9 338 . . 139 " ,
: 112.6 10.7 1 92 334 140 " 112.3
,
10.9. 1 '91.8 336'
.
141 1-29-03 112.5 9.9 ' 1 91.9 354 142 " 108.9 12.6 .4 . 90.9 356 143 " 111.3 9:6' 1. 90.8 366 .. . 144 . 112.3 ,10.7 1 91.8 364 ' I 1453-20-03 114.6 10.5 1 . 93.5 ' 318
. 146 " . "114.9 ' 10.3' 1 93.7 316 .. . . 147 " 114.0 9.0 .. 1 93.1 314 ' I .
.' 148 3-21-03 111.3 . 9.5 1 90.8 350 149 . "
,
' 111.6 11.2 . 1
, 91 ' 352
150 3-24-03 112.1 ' 9.7 , 1' " 91.6 328 151 "
' '110.4 11.4' .
.
. 1 90 332. '. . .. . . . .152 ' . . 111.2 ' 9.9 . 1 90.7
153 .3-25-03 113.6 11.4 1 .92.6 34'5
I . 154." ' 114.6' 11.4 1 . 93.5 335 . 155 .
,
1112 .10.7 . 1 . 90.7 ' 329 ,
156 '3-28-03 111.4. 10.1 '. '1 ' 90.9 347 157 ' " 111.8 9.6 ' 1' ' 91.2 336 158 ' 111 9 1.1 .1 1 91 3 330
159 1-6-04 114.8 10.5 1 93.6 330 160 " . .. 113.5. '11.3 ' 92.5 .... . ,. .'
.334 161 " '111.0 '11. 6 ' '. 1 ' '90.5 353
162 , '." .112.1
,
fl .. ... 1 91.6 ' 350
, '... ., .. . ..
- ' 163 3-9-04 115.1 " 12.1.' . 1 '. 94.1 E.G. .114.3 . , '13.1 ' 1 . 933
165 " . 114.5 -142 ' 1'' '93.5 F. 6. - - 166 " .115.6 .11.7 1 94.3.
167 " 113.4 12.5 - 1 92.5 F.G. 168 . -' 113.5 12.0. -1 92.5
I
I
I
I Table II
I Redeemer by the Sea
Storm Drain! Sewer ! water Backfill
Results of Field compaction Tests
Test Date Dry Den Field Soil Comp Elev Notes -(pcf) Moist Type Results' (ft)
, I .
SD101 .2-5-03 109.1 7.1 3 89.6 5 Fail, I '
SD102 109.0 9.2 ' ' 3 89.5 -3 Fail SD103 " 108.8 8.41 3 89A -3 Fail
'sj0j 2-6-03 111.2 9'0 3' 91.5 -5 Retest I SD102a " 110.9 9.8 3 91.3 ' -3 (Retest SD103a , 113:.3 8.9 3 ' 93.2 'L -3 Retest '
51 11-20-03 113.4 12.7 1 92.5 -4 ,' Sta 1+55 I '
52 . 105.1 14.7 - '' Fail -7 1+75 S2a H 113.7 12.5
, 1 92.,6 -7 Retest
53 11721-03 111.0 11 9 1 90.6 -3 2+50 I 54 . " 110.8 13.6 1 90.4 -1 . 2+90 55 110.6 . 13.6 1 90.2 -1 ' 10+70 S6 " 111.4!. 10.7 1 90.8 -3 1+75 I swloo 2-4-04 110.6 12.5 1 90.2' 342 6+75 sw101 ." 110.8 15.5 1 . 90.4 335 8+50 SW102 " 111.2 13.1 1 90.7 327 10+30 Sw103 " ,110.4 13.1 1 '90.1- 347 6+05 I SW104 112.6 15.1 1 92 357 4+90 SW105 . , 113.5 12.0 1 '92.5 328 , 2+85 1
I -
I
1
I:
I
I 4
I
I
I Tablell
I Redeemer by the Sea
Results of Field Compaction Tests
I Test Date Dry Den Field Soil Camp Elev.- Notes # (pcf) Moist Type Results (ft)
I
T-1 4-30-04 i16.8 12.0 1 95.3 2 ft above wall base I T-2 114.3 13.1 1 93.3. 2 ft above wall base T-3 U 116.1 12.8 1 94.8 4 ft above wall base T-4 5-3-04 .115.5 12.1 1 94.3 6 ft above wall base T-5 113.2 12.4 1 92.4 2 ft below wall top
.. I T-6 . 118.9 12.0 1 97' 2 ft below wall top T-7 5-4-04 112.6 .11.2 1 91.9 finish grade T-8 118.1 12.3 1 96.4 2 ft above wall base T-9 116.4 12.5 1 95 3 ft'above wall base, I , T-10 5-5-04 117.3 '12. 1 1 95.7 4 ft above wall base T-11 5-6-04 .114.5 12.9 . 1 , 93.5 _4 ft above wall base T-12 7-14-04 110.4 9.8 1 90 2 ft. below wall top I T-13 112 4 10 .3 , 1 91.7 1 ft below wall top
I T designates backfill santuary retaining wall
I
I
I
..
I
I
I
r
I 45 *
Tablell , ...
.
..Redéerier by the Sea ... I Results of Field cornpactionTests
I Test Date Dry Den. Field soil comp. Elev. . Notes # (pcf) ". . Moist Type Results (ft)
I
CG-1 5-13-04 116.1 12.1 3 95.5
F1
349' - CG-2 " 115.3 11.5 3 95 . 343' •' I CG-3 . 118.2 13.2 1- 96.5 '334' 'CG-4 " 118.1 10.4 . 1 96.4 334' CG-5 " 117.9, 11.1' 3 97 . 340' CG-6 " •1161 12.4 3 95.5 345' I .,
CG-7 ' 115.3 9.7 . 3 95 346' CG-8 " 119.7 9.4 1 97.7 347' CGB-9 5-19-04 .130.5 6.2 8 95.2
. CGB10 ." '130. 5
..
8.1.. 8 95.2 • I .
CGB-11 " 133.1 8.2 8 - CGB-12 ". 130.1 . 7.4 8 .95 CGB-13 5-20-04 134.0 6.0 8 97.7 • . CGB-14 " 135.4 7.2 8 98.2 5
5 I CGB-15 "134.2 7.8 . 8 97.8
CGB-16 5-24-04 1320 5.1. 8 96.3 5 .,
CGB-17 " 131.0 47 8 95.6 4: .
I •
CGB-18 " 130.9
S .
4.2 8 •
.S
95.5 .
5
'. S
CG desi9nates curb/gutter sub-grade test " . - .. CGB designates curb/gutter base test -
.I 4 5
•
I
F
I
I
V:
I Table II
I Redeemer by the Sea
Results of Field Compaction Tests
I Test Date Dry Den Field Soil Comp Elev. Notes #. (pcf) Moist Type Results (ft) V
I
SG-1 6-22-04 118.8 8.1 1 96.8 - :SG-2 119.8 9.0 1 97.8 • SG-3 118.3 8.4 1 965 V
SG-4 V 118.61 10.7 1 96.7
V
SG-5 6-24-04
11
114.1 9.8 4 95.3 upper.parking lot V
SG-6,- 114 0 8.4' 4 95.2 V It V I SG-7 I t 115.6 9.8 4 96.5 V U
SG-8 113.8, 8.0 - 4 95 SG-9 6-25-04 V
. V
I
SG designates sub-grade test
-
U .. V
I
I J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I Table II
I Redeemer by the Sea
Results of Field compaction Tests
I .-Test Date Dry Den, Field Soil Comp. Elev. Notes (pcf) Moist Type Results (ft)
I
B-i 6-25-04 124.5 2.0 8 90.8 Fail I B-2 "- 138.9 4.9 7 96.2.
- B-3 138.9 4.5 7 96.2 B-4 130.0 2.'6 8 95 Fail-moisture I .B-5 if 135:0 - 4.0 8 -98.6. B-la 6-28-04 135.9 .. '4.6 . 8 99 . Retest B-4a .135.6 4.0 8 98 Retest B-6 - 136.3 4.3 8 99
.I B-7 " 136.7 4.6 8 99 B-8 136.4 4.8 8 99 . B-9 136.3 4.3 8 99 . B-10 " 136.2 4.6 8 99 I B-11 6-29-04 137.2 4.3 7 95.3 B-12 ' 1440 42 7 99 B-13 of 138.9. 4.5 . 7 96.2 ., * B-14 " 1438 47 7 99 I B-iS " 137.8., 5.4 7 95.7 . -. 8-16 " 138.2 '5.9 7 . 96 8-17 " 142.1 5.1 7 98 - 8-18 " 136.6 6.0 8 99 - - I 8-19 " 135.4 6A 8 98 8-20 " 136.9 7.4 8 99
B designates aggregate base test
I
4 I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I Table II
Redeemer by the Sea I Results of Field Compaction Tests
Asphalt - Private Drive I .
Test Date Dry Den Field soil Comp location Notes # (pcf) Moist, Type Results
I . ,(%)', (%)
AC-1 6-29-04 143.1 ii 98 Sta. 10+40 AC-2 . " 140.1 11 96 " 10+20 I AC-3 " 140.0 11 96 9+76 AC-4 " .140.7 11 96.4 AC-5
" 138.7 11 95 . 9+10 . AC-6 . " , 139.8 11 . 95.7 .. 9+00 I AC-7 " 140.4 11. 96.3 8+20 AC-8 " 138.7 11 95 . 6+50 AC-9 139.4 . . ii 95.5 5+80 AC-10 141.0 11 96.5 4+90 I .AC -11 " 151.3 ' ii 100 + 3+80 AC-12 " 139.3 . ii 95.4 4+30 'AC-13 . 139.6 ' ii . 95.5 '2+85 AC-14 " 142.5' ' ii 97.4 2+04
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
____
I
I (
I H TablelI
Redeemer by the SeaS I ..
Fisherman Drive Street subgrade/base/asphalt
I Results of Field TestS
'
Compaction
Test Date Dry Den Field Soil Comp. Elev. .'1 Nqtes (pcf) Moist Type Results (ft)
FM 1.6-25-04 120.1. 9.5 1' 98; Subgrade I FM2 116.7. 8.3 1 95.2. subgrade
FM3 "-6-29-O4 136.6 . 6.0 8 99 : Class II Base FM4 ..
" 132.4 6.3 8 96.6 Class 11 Base I 'FMS 136.9 7.4 .8•' 99 class II.-Base
FM6 6L2g04 139.6 11 95:6 Asphalt 1425 : 11 97 Asphalt i
FM7
*
I .-
I I
t
I:
p t
I
I .
Table II
- Redeemer by the Sea . I . • Blackrail Road Street subgrade /base I asphalt • . t.
I '
Results of Field Compaction Tests
Test Date Dry Den. Field Soil Comp. Elev. Notes (pcf) Moist Type Results (ft)
I ' ..M ;•
(%)
.
.
BR1 7/21/04 117.3 10.5 1 95.8 subgrade • I . BR2 '" 118.1
*
10.1"'.1 96.5 subgrade
-
BR3 7/21/04 137.6 4.0 7 95.4 class II Base BR4 137.4 ' 4.5 7 95.2 Class II Base I .
-
BRS 7/21/04 141.0 11 96.9 Asphalt • - BR6 138.9 11 95.5 Asphalt
1
BR7 140.4 11 96.5 Asphalt
I
I
I
I
I
It
!
:.
•' •
I
I . . I - • . ,.
I
- :
_______________________
A — .
Q g
- — -_ ---—------ -T.----- - ——-
lli Ii _1- 4 \
. — . . . . - .. --
_. —..F — . •. ---. ....a . -- .CG
'Qf . : \ . (:O7 ', it
car
115 As 0.190T I
_
cr
iC 4
. \ . .
Qf
- - — APN2i544i-D2
/ • .
.. S .— . . I I -- - ...- .
"'IHHr-4wA ,aE•
IL J72M ' — — I 'S..'-.- -j-6-?L SI°5 N-Il t ct51 =. 155'58== — 1>3
-. . .-. '.\ .. . o-c.- ____15'- Am 03
—!
-
It
-- —
— - A-' . — .f-L1 — --• .•:.
.
—
—
...
\ .5.. '. \ '. '. . \ fr I ) // f
LEGEND Of
x ins
PLATE 1
REDEEMER-BY-THE-SEA PROJECT Uaf
GEOPACIFICA INC Special Soil Handle Area
3060 Industry Street, Suite 105
Oceanside, California 92054 I I J I / .isj .i / '.' I- /J
''\
.._i •_-/i !_ —'i! ":1/ / 'S
(Ts) Tests r-1 through r-13
Qf designates limits/locations of compacted structural fill
Qfg designates limits/locations of Poinsettia Lane compacted structural fill X\N,
I ! i / / / .. •.• /_ /_5 / ( 9 -- - .- .
-project undocumented and trash fill uaf designates limits/locations of off Of
/103 Qt designates limits/locations of Pleistocene Terrace Deposits 1`40
Wks
Ts designates limits/locations of Eocene Santiago Formation
.01
'designates boundary between soil types 101
\ designates location of density test Refer to Table II for sub-designation legend I/f!IIiII /i
'//ii,';/i i/I I I \ r— / / Id •_
aq
/
-tP — -