HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-27; La Costa Greens, Lots 4 and 5; Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation; 2002-10-08o
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LA COSTA GREEN, LOTS 4 AND 5
V OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
SCI ENTERPRISES, LLC
567 SAN NICOLAS DRIVE, SUITE 320
NFWDODT BCArMJ f+AI ie/M!»MIA nneen
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LA COSTA GREEN, LOTS 4 AND 5
CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
SCI ENTERPRISES, LLC
567 SAN NICOLAS DRIVE, SUITE 320
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
W.O. 3401 -A-SC OCTOBER 8, 2002
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
October 8, 2002
W.O.3401-A-SC
SCI Enterprises, LLC
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 320
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention: Mr. Bret Shaves
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, La Costa Green, Lots 4 and 5, City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Shaves:
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our
preliminary geotechnical evaluation on the subject site. The purpose of our investigation
was to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the site, relative to the
proposed additions, and present recommendations for foundation design and construction
based on our findings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our field exploration, geologic and geotechnical engineering analysis, the
proposed development appears feasible from a geotechnical and geologic viewpoint,
provided that the recommendations presented herein are properly incorporated into the
design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of our study are
summarized below:
• The subject site is underlain by artificial fill, which in turn is underlain by native
formational sediments. A final compaction report of rough grading for the site could
not be supplied nor acquired.
• Based on our evaluation, including a review of the previous geotechnical report
prepared by Testing Engineers of San Diego, Inc. (see Appendix B.TESD, 1988), the
existing fill does not meet the current industry minimum relative compaction of
90 percent, is non-uniform, potentially compressible, and is therefore not suitable for
the support of settlement sensitive improvements in its present condition.
Removals onsite will consist of all existing artificial fill. Removal depths on the order
of 5 feet to 11 feet should be anticipated.
Groundwater was encountered at depth onsite, but is generally not anticipated to
affect site development, providing that the recommendations contained in this report
are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and
subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched
groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeability should not be
precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions,
or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office
could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to
mitigate the observed groundwater conditions.
Our laboratory test results indicate that soils onsite are generally medium in
expansion potential (expansion index range 51 to 90), per the 1997 UBC. Sulfate
testing indicates that site soils present a severe exposure to concrete per Table 19-
A-4 of the 1997 UBC (sample = 0.24 percent by weight). Corrosion testing
(pH, resistivity) indicates that the soils are slightly acidic (pH = 5.9), but corrosive to
ferrous metals (saturated resistivity = 435 ohms-cm). Alternative methods and
additional comments should be obtained by a qualified corrosion engineer.
Conventional foundation systems utilizing a slab-on-grade may likely be used
onsite. Post-tension foundations may also be used.
Based on our review, the site is expected to have a low risk to be affected by seismic
hazards. The seismicity acceleration values provided herein should be considered
during the design of the proposed development.
The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during
project planning design and construction by the project structural engineer and/or
architects.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.0.3401 -A-SC
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page Two
GeoSoils, Inc.
m
M
p
b
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully submitt
GeoSoils, Inc. /^
Robert G. Crisman
Engineering Geologist
Reviewed by:
David W. Skelly
Civil Engineer,RCI
fB. Boehmer
Staff Geologist
RB/RGC/JPF/DWS/ki
Distribution: (4) Lightfoot Planning Group, Attention: Ms. Alexis Pagnotta
SCI Enterprises, LLC
Rle:e:\wp7\3400\3401 a.pge
W.O.3401-A-SC
Page Three
GeoSoils, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
PREVIOUS WORK 3
FIELD STUDIES 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3
EARTH MATERIALS 4
Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Af) 4
Santiago Formation (Not Mapped) 4
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 4
Faulting 4
Seismicity 6
Seismic Shaking Parameters 7
Seismic Hazards 7
GROUNDWATER 8
LABORATORY TESTING 8
Laboratory Standard 8
Expansion Potential 9
Shear Testing 9
Consolidation Testing 9
Atterberg Limits 9
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing 9
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 10
General 10
EXISTING FILL EVALUATION 10
EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 11
General 11
Site Preparation 11
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) 11
Fill Placement 11
Slopes 12
GeoSoilSj Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS 12
General 12
Foundation Design 12
Foundation Construction 13
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS 14
General 14
Restrained Walls 15
Cantilevered Walls 15
Wall Backfill and Drainage 15
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 16
Tile Flooring 16
Gutters and Downspouts 16
Exterior Slabs and Walkways 16
Landscape Maintenance and Planting 17
Drainage 18
Footing Trench Excavation 18
Trench Backfill 18
FOOTING SETBACKS 19
PLAN REVIEW 19
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS 19
FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2 - California Fault Map 5
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - References Rear of Text
Appendix B - Previous Report by TESD (1988) Rear of Text
Appendix C - Boring Logs Rear of Text
Appendix D - Laboratory Data Rear of Text
Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Rear of Text in Pocket
SCI Enterprises, LLC Table of Contents
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page ii
GeoSoils, Inc.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LA COSTA GREEN, LOTS 4 AND 5, CITY OF CARLSBAD
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
<* SCOPE OF SERVICES
m
The scope of our services has included the following:
m 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). A copy of the
m previous soils report, prepared by Testing Engineers of San Diego (TESD, 1998) is
included in this report as Appendix B.
m 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of five exploratory borings with
— a hollow stem auger drill rig, in the areas of proposed improvements, for
geotechnical logging and sampling (Appendix C).
m
m 3. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface
exploration program (text and Appendix D).
IP
M 4. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of
this report.m
m
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The subject site consists of two previously graded, vacant parcels located on the north side
of La Costa Avenue, between 2320 and 2348 La Costa Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad,
California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). Existing condominium complexes border the
site to the west and east; and a golf course and La Costa Avenue border the site to the north
and south respectively. The property appears to be underlain by fill materials with fill
slopes ranging from approximately 4 to 10 feet in height on the eastern end of the site, and
cut slopes ranging from approximately 8 to 15 feet in height on the southern reaches of the
property. The site appears to be at elevations ranging from approximately 20 to 40 feet
mean sea level (MSL). Onsite vegetation consists of grasses, weeds and bushes.
Drainage onsite appears to be directed offsite to the north, into San Marcos Creek. Site
development is anticipated to consist of preparing the site for the construction of
10 residential condominium structures with underground parking and associated
improvements. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light
construction. Proposed site development is shown on the attached geotechnical map
(Plate 1), which uses the 20-scale map prepared by O'Day Consultants as a base.
GeoSoils, Inc.
J DTopoQuwh Copyright* T999 Mamt Varmouth, ME M0% Source Data: USGS
Base Map: Encinitas Quadrangle, California—San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic),
1968 (photo revised 1975), by USGS, 1"=2000'
2000
Scale
4000
Feet
W.O.
3401-A-SC
SITE LOCATION MAP
Figure 1
PREVIOUS WORK
Based on the presence of existing artificial fill, graded building pads and slopes, it appears
that the site has been previously graded. However, a compaction report of rough grading
was not available for review. As such, the fill materials are undocumented. A previous
geotechnical investigation was completed at the site by TESD in 1988, with the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of their study presented in TESD (1988).
Recommendations presented in TESD (1988) included the removal and recompaction of
existing fill materials, for the support of planned structures. A partial copy of TESD (1988)
is included in this report as Appendix B.
FIELD STUDIES
Field studies conducted by GSI consisted of advancing five exploratory hollow stem auger
borings to depths ranging from 51/2 feet to 21 feet below existing grades, for evaluation of
near-surface soil and geologic conditions. Borings were logged by a geologist from our
firm who collected representative bulk and undisturbed samples for appropriate laboratory
testing. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix C. The locations of the borings are
presented on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
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 Diego region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous period and Cenozoic
era in the continental margin of aforearc basin. Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age
plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep,
coastal plain and continental margin of the basin during the Eocene and early Miocene
time. These rocks have been uplifted, eroded and deeply incised. During early Pleistocene
time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits.
During mid to late Pleistocene time, 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. The site is generally underlain by
Eocene-age sedimentary deposits.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials encountered on the site consist of artificial fill and Eocene age sedimentary
bedrock belonging to the Santiago Formation.
Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Aft
Artificial fill was encountered in all borings, to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 11 feet
below existing grades. Where encountered, artificial fill materials generally consisted of
yellow brown to brown sandy clay to clayey sand. The materials were typically dry and
loose near the surface, then become moist to wet and stiff/medium dense with increasing
depth. Field density testing and laboratory testing indicate that existing fills are generally
compacted to 84 to 89 percent relative compaction. Based on the relatively dry condition of
near surface fill soils and relative compaction values determined to be less than the industry
minimum standard of 90 percent, this material is non-uniform, potentially compressible, and
is not considered suitable for structural support. The existing fill should be removed,
moisture conditioned, and recompacted in areas support to settlement sensitive
improvements. These findings are generally consistent with those presented in TESD
(1988).
Santiago Formation (Not Mapped!
The Eocene age Santiago Formation underlies the site at depths on the order of 5 to 11 feet
(this study and TESD, 1988) below existing grades. As encountered in our test excavations,
this material generally consists of a brown to yellow brown silty/clayey sandstone and dark
gray claystone. These materials are generally moist to wet and medium dense and stiff to
very stiff. Bedding structure was observed to be generally flat lying.
FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
Faulting
The site is situated in an area 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; Tan and Kennedy, 1996), 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 active and
would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of
an earthquake. These 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-lnglewood/Rose
Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are
indicated on Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be
considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O.3401-A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
SAN FRANCISCO
SITE LOCATION ( + ):
Latitude - 33.0875 N
Longitude - 1 17.2593 W
S.C.I. ENTERPRISES
CALIFORNIA FAUL
W.O. 3401-A-SC Figure 2
The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could
have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity.
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
Coronado Bank - Agua Blanca
Elsinore
La Nacion
Newport-lnglewood-Offshore
Rose Canyon
San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
MILES (KM)
21 (34)
25 (40)
18 (29)
12(19)
6(10)
32J51)
Seismicitv
The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982a, 19825), Campbell and
Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT
(Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site
were determined based on the random mean plus 1 - sigma attenuation curves developed
by Joyner and Boore (1982a, 1982b), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and
others (1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in
EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic
seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources.
The program estimates 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 estimates peak horizontal
ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the upper bound ("maximum credible")
and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by
any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in
EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound
event may be on the order of 0.44 g to 0.64 g, and a maximum probable event may be on
the order of 0.29 g to 0.35 g.
SCI Enterprises, LLC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge
W.O.3401-A-SC
October 8, 2002
Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
Seismic Shaking Parameters
Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International
Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided:
Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*)
Seismic Zone Factor (per Table 16-1*)
Soil Profile Type (per Table 1 6-J*)
Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16-Q*)
Seismic Coefficient Cv (per Table 16-R*)
Near Source Factor Na (per Table 16-S*)
Near Source Factor Nv (per Table 1 6-T*)
Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*)
Distance to Seismic Source
Upper Bound Earthquake
4
0.40
SD
0.44 Na
0.64 Nv
1.0
1.0
B
6 mi (10km)
MW6.9
* Figure and table references from Chapter 1 6 of the Uniform Building Code (1 997).
Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during
our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely
mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development
procedures:
• Liquefaction
• Dynamic Settlement
• Surface Fault Rupture
• Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
• Tsunami
It is important to keep in perspective 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 vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass,
than from those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be no
greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate vicinity.
SCI Enterprises, LLC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad
File:e:\wpA3400\3401 a.pge
W.O.3401-A-SC
October 8,2002
Page?
GeoSoils, Inc.
GROUNDWATER
Based on a review of TESD (1988) and the results of this study, a perched groundwater table
is present at a depth of approximately 20 feet to 27 feet below existing grades. Groundwater
was not observed within bedrock materials encountered below these depths (TESD, 1988).
Subsurface water is not anticipated to adversely affect site development, provided that the
recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction. These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation and
do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation,
precipitation, or that were not obvious, at the time of our investigation.
Seeps, springs, or other indications of a high groundwater level were not noted on the
subject property during the time of our field investigation. However, seepage may occur
locally (due to heavy precipitation or irrigation) in areas where fill soils overlie bedrock
deposits. The regional water table is estimated to be at least 60 feet to 100 feet below
existing grade.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on a representative sample of representative site earth
materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and
results obtained are presented below.
Laboratory Standard
The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil
type encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The
moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is shown in the following table:
LOCATION
B-1 @ 0-5'
SOIL TYPE
Sandy Clay, Yellow Brown
MAXIMUM DENSITY
(PCF)
121.0
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT (%)
13.5
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401-A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
Expansion Potential
Expansion testing was performed on representative samples of site soil in accordance with
UBC Standard 18-2 (UBC, 1997). The results of expansion testing are presented in the
following table:
LOCATION
B-1 @ 0-5'
EXPANSION INDEX
73
EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Medium
Shear Testing
Shear testing was performed on a representative, "undisturbed" sample of site soil (B-1 @
2 feet) in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of
the strain control type. The shear test results are presented in the following table:
SAMPLE
LOCATION
B-1 @ 0-5'
(remolded)
PRIMARY
COHESION
(PSF)
1400
FRICTION
ANGLE
(DEGREES)
26
RESIDUAL
COHESION
(PSF)
1450
FRICTION
ANGLE
(DEGREES)
24
Consolidation Testing
Consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was
performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435. Test results are
presented in Appendix D.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits, i.e., Plasticity Limit, Plastic Index and Liquid Limit, were determined for a
representative sample of site soil in general accordance with ASTM D-4318. Test results are
presented in Appendix D.
Corrosion/Sulfate Testing
Sulfate testing indicates that site soils have a severe exposure to concrete per Table 19-A-4
of the 1997 UBC (water extractable sulfate = 0.0237 percent by weight), therefore, the use
SCI Enterprises, LLC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401 a.pge
W.O.3401-A-SC
October 8, 2002
Page9
GeoSofls, Inc.
of Type V cement should be anticipated. Corrosion testing (pH, resistivity) indicates that
soils are slightly acidic (pH = 5.9); and appear to be corrosive (saturated resistivity =
435 ohms-cm) to ferrous metals. As such, a corrosion engineer should be consulted. Test
results are presented in Appendix D.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
General
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis,
it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed additions from a
geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations
presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases
of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed
development and improvements are:
Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material.
Potential for settlement.
The quality of the existing fill.
Expansion and corrosion potential of site soils.
Subsurface water and potential for perched water.
Regional seismic activity.
The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site.
In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or
modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary
until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review.
EXISTING FILL EVALUATION
As indicated in the "laboratory testing" section, GSI performed in-situ moisture and density
testing of the existing fill. The fill tested appears to have relative compactions on the order
of 84 to 89 percent. As indicated previously, the fill does not appear to meet the minimum
industry standard of 90 percent relative compaction. Due to the relative age, non-uniformity,
lack of documentation, low relative compaction and changes in standards of practice since
the fill was initially placed, it is our opinion that the existing fill does not meet the current
standards of practice, is not suitable for the support of structures or other settlement sensitive
improvements, and should be removed and recompacted.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
Rle:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.
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, the requirements of the
County of San Diego, as presented in the text of this report and Appendix E. Prior to grading,
a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional
grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule.
During earthwork construction 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 warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety
orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be
met.
Site Preparation
All debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the building
area prior to the start of construction. Sloping areas to receive fill should be properly
benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice and guidelines specified
in the Uniform Building Code.
Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials)
Removals should consist of all existing fill material in areas proposed for settlement
sensitive structures or areas to receive compacted fill. At this time, removal depths on the
order of 5 feet to 11 feet should be anticipated; however, locally deeper removals may be
necessary. Removals should be completed below a 1:1 projection down and away from
the edge of existing structures on adjacent properties. Once removals are completed, the
exposed bottom should be reprocessed and compacted.
Fill Placement
Subsequentto ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6-inch) lifts, cleaned
of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to
achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. If soil importation is planned, a
sample of the soil import should be evaluated by this office prior to importing, in order to
assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the recommendations presented in this
report. Import soils should be low expansive (expansion index [E.I.] less than 50).
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
Slopes
Graded slopes constructed to maximum anticipated heights on the order of 15 feet, or less,
are anticipated to be grossly and surficially stable, provided that slope are designed and
constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS
General
In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct,
or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are
made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are
modified or approved in writing by this office. It is our understanding that slab-on-grade
construction is desired for the proposed development. In addition to this type of floor
construction, a raised wood floor may also be considered.
The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede
design by the project structural engineer. Upon request, GSI could provide additional
input/consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design.
Foundation Design
1. Conventional spread and continuous footings may be used to support the proposed
residential structure provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill or
other competent bearing material (i.e., Santiago Formation). Footings should not
simultaneously bear directly on Santiago Formation and fill soils.
2. Analyses indicate that an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot
may be used for design of continuous footings 18 inches deep by 15 inches wide,
and design of isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 18 inches deep into
properly compacted fill or terrace. The bearing value may be increased by one-third
for seismic or other temporary loads. This value may be increased by 20 percent for
each additional 12 inches in depth, to a maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot.
3. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a
concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
4. Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per
square foot.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
Rle:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 12
Inc.
5. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
6. Footings should maintain a horizontal distance or setback between any adjacent
slope face and the bottom outer edge of the footing. The horizontal distance may be
calculated by using h/3, where (h) is the height of the slope. The horizontal setback
should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet (per code). The
setback may be maintained by simply deepening the footings. Flatwork, utilities or
other improvements within a zone of h/3 from the top of slope may be subject to
lateral distortion. Footings, flatwork, and utilities setbacks should be constructed in
accordance with distances indicated in this section, and/or the approved plans.
7. Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into
final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the
anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction.
Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately 1/2 inch and should
occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated
to exceed 1 inch between similar elements, in a 40-foot span.
Foundation Construction
1. Conventional continuous footings may be constructed per UBC guidelines regarding
width and a minimum of 18 inches deep for medium expansive soils. Foundations
should be founded at least 18 inches into suitable native soil. Footings should be
reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top, and two placed
near the bottom of the footing.
2. Detached isolated interior or exterior piers and columns should be founded at a
minimum depth of 24 inches (medium expansive), below the lowest adjacent ground
surface and tied to the main foundation in at least one direction with a grade beam.
Reinforcement should be properly designed by the project structural engineer.
3. 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 elevation as base of the adjoining footings.
4. The residential floor and garage slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches.
Concrete used in floor slab construction should have a minimum compressive
strength of 2,500 psi. For preliminary design purposes, the use of Type V cement
(severe sulfate exposure) should be anticipated. This will be verified at the
completion of site grading.
5. Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of sand. In addition,
a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of 10-mil, polyvinyl-chloride membrane, with
all laps sealed, should be provided at the mid-point of the sand layer. The slab
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401-A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401 a.pge Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
subgrade should be free of loose and uncompacted material prior to placing
concrete.
6. Concrete floor slabs should be minimally reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars
placed 18 inches on center each way. All slab reinforcement should be supported
to ensure proper mid-slab height positioning during placement of the concrete.
"Hooking" of reinforcement is not an acceptable method of positioning.
7. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be greater than optimum moisture
to a depth of 18 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas for low
expansive soil conditions. Soil moistures should be verified by this office within
72 hours of the vapor barrier placement.
8. Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it
is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas. This
material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the
structural areas and toward the street.
9. As an alternative, an engineered post-tension foundation system may be used.
Recommendations for post-tensioned slabs can be provided on request.
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS
General
Foundations may be designed using parameters provided in the "Design" section of
Foundation Recommendations presented herein. Wall sections 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 medium expansive soils
or selected fill are used to backfill retaining walls. If expansive soils are used to backfill the
proposed walls within this wedge, increased active and at-rest earth pressures will need to
be utilized for retaining wall design. Heavy compaction equipment should not be used
above a 1:1 projection up and away from the bottom of any wall.
The following recommendations are not meant to apply to specialty walls (cribwalls, loffel,
Keystone, etc.). Recommendations for specialty walls will be greater than those provided
herein, and can be provided upon request. Some movement of the walls constructed should
be anticipated 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.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O. 3401-A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressures of 78 pcf for native soil backfill, plus any applicable surcharge loading. The
equivalent fluid pressure can be reduced to 62 pcf if a selected backfill material of friction
angle 30 degrees is used. 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. Building walls below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending
on the degree of moisture protection desired. Refer to the following section for preliminary
recommendations from surcharge loads.
Cantilevered Walls
These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 15 feet high. Active earth
pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained
from minor deflections. 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 of the retained material. These do not include other
superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse
geologic conditions.
SURFACE SLOPE OF
RETAINED MATERIAL
HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL
Level
2 to 1 (H:V)
EQUIVALENT
FLUID UNIT WEIGHT
P.C.F. (Native soil)
48
62
EQUIVALENT
FLUID UNIT WEIGHT
P.C.F. (Fill with Phi=30)
40
55
The equivalent fluid density should be increased to 75 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill
using the native soil at the angle point of the wall (corner or male re-entrant) and extended
a minimum lateral distance of 2H (two times the wall height) on either side of the corner.
However if the select backfill with angle of friction of 30 degrees is used, this value may be
reduced to 62 pounds per cubic foot.
Wall Backfill and Drainage
All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate gravel and pipe backdrain and outlet
system (a minimum two outlets per wall), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic 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 3/a- to 1 Va-inch clean crushed rock encapsulated
in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Perforations in pipe should face down. The surface
SCI Enterprises, LLC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401 a.pge
W.O.3401-A-SC
October 8,2002
Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.
of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent
relative compaction 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 objectionable.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Tile Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, typically reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile.
Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement of concrete slabs on-
grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that
reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation
membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) is recommended
between tile and concrete slabs on grade.
Gutters and Downspouts
Consideration should be given to the installation of gutters and downspouts to collect roof
water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. The downspouts
should be drained away from the foundation and collected in drainage swales or other
approved non-erosive drainage systems designed by a registered civil engineer
(specializing in drainage) to convey water away from the foundation. Gutters and
downspouts are not a geotechnical requirement, however, provided positive drainage is
maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer.
Exterior Slabs and Walkways
Exterior concrete slab on grade construction should be designed and constructed in
accordance with the following criteria:
1. Driveway pavement and all other exterior flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches
thick. A thickened edge (12 inches) should be considered for all flatwork adjacent to
irrigated and landscape areas.
2. Slab subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to
a minimum 95 percent relative compaction for driveways and 90 percent for
walkways. Subgrade should be moisture conditioned based on the representative
expansion potential of the subgrade exposed (i.e., at least optimum moisture
content). The subgrade moisture content should be maintained until the slab is
poured.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.0.3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401 a.pge Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.
3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways
to control this movement is: 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing
tensile strength of the slab; and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or
expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion.
We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing for un-reinforced slabs be
placed on 8-foot centers (4-inch slab), 10-foot centers (5-inch slab) or the smallest
dimension of the slab, whichever is least.
4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have
been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength.
5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping
should be graded to drain into an approved area. All surface water should be
appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage.
6. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi.
Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. 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. Over-watering should be avoided. Onsite soil
materials should be maintained in a solid to semisolid state.
Brushed native and graded slopes (constructed within and utilizing onsite materials) would
be potentially erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability
enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after
construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep rooted types that
require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Planting of large trees
with potential for extensive root development should not be placed closer than 10 feet from
the perimeter of the foundation or the anticipated height of the mature tree, whichever is
greater. In order to minimize erosion on the 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 is processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should
be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Moisture sensors, embedded
into fill slopes, should be considered to reduce the potential of overwatering from automatic
landscape watering systems. The use of certain fertilizers may affect the corrosion
characteristics of soil. Review of the type and amount (pounds per acre) of the fertilizers by
a corrosion specialist should be considered.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.0.3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 17
GeoSoils, Inc.
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided
upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site,
recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and
construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be
notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfilling
after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and
retaining wall backfills.
Drainage
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow
uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations
and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed
toward the street or other approved area. Landscaping should be graded to drain into the
street, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas
designed for site drainage.
Roof gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof drainage. Down spouts
should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from proposed structures or tightlined into a subsurface
drainage system. We recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to
proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 1 0 feet. As an alternative,
closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter,
could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork.
Drainage behind top of walls should be accomplished along the length of the wall with a
paved channel drainage v-ditch or substitute.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing trench excavations should be observed and approved by a representative of this
office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated
from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent, if not removed from the site.
Trench Backfill
All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to OSHA and
local safety codes. Exterior trenches should not be excavated below a 1 :1 projection from
the bottom of any adjacent foundation system. If excavated, these trenches may undermine
support for the foundation system potentially creating adverse conditions.
1 . All utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas and beneath hardscape features
should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
Observations, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a
representative of this office to verily compactive efforts of the contractor.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.O.3401-A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8, 2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401 a.pge Page 1 8
GeoSotls, Inc.
2. Soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent (ASTM D-1557) if not removed from the site.
3. Jetting of backfill is not recommended.
4. The use of pipe jacking to place utilities is not recommended on this site due to the
presence of gravels and cobbles.
5. Bottoms of utility trenches should be sloped away from structures.
FOOTING SETBACKS
All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the
footing to any descending slope. This distance is measures from the footing face at the
bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H=slope
height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than 7 feet nor
need to be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be
deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale.
PLAN REVIEW
Final project plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that
construction is in accordance with this report. Based on our review, supplemental
recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted.
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS
Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory
testing and engineering analysis, the conclusions 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.
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.
GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, for our
scope-of-work was expressly limited to the evaluation of the sediments/soils underlying the
proposed residence. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling
authorities.
SCI Enterprises, LLC W.0.3401 -A-SC
La Costa Green, Carlsbad October 8,2002
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 19
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program and users manual for the
deterministic prediction of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults.
Campbell, K.W., 1994, Empirical prediction of near-source ground motion from large
earthquakes, ]n Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short
Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18.
Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in
California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Hart, E.W. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Housner, G. W., 1970, Strong ground motion in earthquake engineering, Robert Wiegel, ed.,
Prentice-Hall.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier,
California.
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., 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions
of magnitude, distance and site conditions, ]n Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and
Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18,1994.
, 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, ]n Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W.,
and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18,1994.
Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1989, Predictive ground motion equations reported in
Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of
strong ground motion", ]n 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.
Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (after U. S. Waterways
Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York.
Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San
Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report
96-02.
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
PREVIOUS REPORT BY TESD (1988)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1
PROJECT SCOPE 1i
FIELD EXPLORATION 2
GEOTECHHICAL CONDITIONS 3
REGIONAL QEOLOOT 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.... 3
FAULTING AND SEISMICITT *
LABORATORY TESTING... , 4
CLASSIFICATION „... *
HDISTURE/DEN5ITT 5
SHEAR TESTS 5
LABORATORY STANDARD,.,.. S
EXPANSION INDEX 6
CONCLUSIONS ... 6
RECOMMENDATIONS .*. \
FOUNDATION DESIGN AMD CONSTRUCTION 9
FOOTINGS 9ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY 11
RETAINING WALLS 11
DRAINS 12
REVIEW 12
INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS 14
ENCLOSURES;
SITE LOCATION NAP FIGURE 1
BORING LOCATION HAP FIGURE 2
BORING LOGS ;..... PLATES 1-8
SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BORING LOGS. PLATE 9
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION PLATE 10
CONSOLIDATION CURVES PLATES 11-12
SHEAR TEST RESULT..... - PLATE 13
B-1
G4otechnical Investigation Hay 24, 1988Proposed Condosjiniua coaplex jo& NO. 7361La Co*t«i California
mitODUCTIOM
PROJECT PS3CKIPTIOII
Our investigation was perforead at the »ite of the proposed two-
stcry condominium aoaplox, leoaUd on tho northern aide of La
Coata Avenu«, in CarleDad, California. Plaiae rarer to the Site
Looatlon Hap, Figure 1.
PKOJICT DEVELOPMENT
The aite is to be developed with the eonatruetioit of aeveral two-
atory« wood fraae, atuono exterior builaingi of al«b«on-grBda
deaicn. laenitlaa will include parking areaa ana landaeaped
grounoa.
PBOJECT acopg
Thta inve»ti(atlon eonciated oft aurfaee reeognixanoe,
Bubtur^aoa explorations, obtaining representative diaturbed and
undiBturbett aanplea( laboratory te»ting, analysts of field and
laboratory data« and preparation of our report. This report
oontaina 'our conclusions ana reooaejendationa and the results of
our field and laboratory data. Specifically, the intent of this
study la tos
a) Explore the subsurface «onditions to the depths noted
on the boring logs*
B-2
Geoteehnioal Investigation Kay a«, 1986Proposed Condominium Complex Job Mo. 7361La Coata, California Page 2
b) Evaluate, By laboratory taata ana the field
inveatigntioa, the parttnant engineering propertiea of
the various atrata which will influence the
davolopaent, inoluding their bearing capacities,
expanaive eharaetariatioa and settlement potential*
e) Develop aoil engineering criteria for alt a grading.
d) Reoonaena en appropriate foundation eysten for the
propoaad two-atory condominium buildinga and develop
aoil engineering design criteria for the recommended
foundation design.
PIELP
Subaurfaee donditiona were explored by drilling B-inch diameter
borlnga with e Beaver Mobile drill rig- Boring locations are
•hown on the Site Flan, Figure 2, end ranged in depth fro* 21.5
to 66.5 feet. Loga of the boringa are preoented on Flatea t
through I. A geologist froa our office wee preaant during the
drilling of the boringa to log aateriala encountered end to
obtain repreaentatlve eaaplea at aeleetad depths for
•
tranaportation to our laboratory. Saaplea consisted of
relatively undiaturbed aaterial collected In one-lneh^high, 2.37-
inch-inaide-dlaneter rings* bag* and bulk aanplea. The ring
aaaplea were collected by driving tha aaapler eighteen inehea
Into the aoil by eoaaeoutive thirty-inch drops with a one-
G«otechnical Investigation fay gf, 1988
Proposea Condoainiua Complex job tto. 7361La Coata, California Peg* 3
hundred-forty-pound heaaer. In the eeee of the standard two-Inch
dlanater »ampler, the number of blova required to a«hiave the
final twelve inehea of penetration la referreo to •» the •N-
valuo* of the Standard Penetration Toat (8PT). Tbia' value
providea a ameauro of aoil atrength and bearing aopaeity, ea It
related to the aoil coaaiatenoy or condition. It la defined on
the Syaoola and Teraa Chart (Plate 9) and uaed on the boring
loga.
GEOTlCHIIICaL COHDITIOM3
•EOIOIHt QEOLOQT
The aubjeet aite ia aituateo in the lowland area of the Peninaula
Range Geo«orphlO frovinee. The aite la underlain by reoent
alluvlua oonaiatint of unoonaolidated streaa, river channel, and
alluvial fan depoaita* Interbedded peat and lagoontl d«ooalta
ere oonmonly found in theae fornationa.
flUBSUKFACZ COMDITIDH3
All four bore holea eonalated of an andlfferentiated con* of fill
aoil to depths Of 8-11 feet. This aoil aonaieted of oedoretely
expansive (ray aandy alaya. Underlying thl«, up to the deptna
•inveatlgatetf, were Intaralnglad layers of aandy o'lay and organio
elay with aand l«na.
B-4
Oeotaohnloal Inveatigatien Hay 24, 1988
Proposed Condoainiuo Coaplex Job No. 7361La Costa, California pwge n
Groundwater ya* not encountered in the boring* to • depth of 66.5
feet at the tine of our field investigation. However, perched
water Mia encountered ID Boring* 1, 2 ana *..
IMP
Sol a ale hazard* within tb« aita aay b« attributed to ground
•baking raaulting from avonta on distant, active faults* Liated
on Table 1 are the aotiire fault* in tbe arae which nay
aignifloently affect the site.
TABLE 1
SEISMICITt FOK HAJOH FAULTS
Diet. Haximtn Credible Predominate
From Probable Bedrock Period In Activity
Fault _ Site larthquake Acceleration aejcond* Rating
Roae Canyon 12 BI. 7.0 0.35S .35 Seconds Aotive
Fault ZoneNewport 15 •!. 6.75 0.35| .35 Second* Aotive
Znglewood
After Inveatigating the poaaible earthquake acceleration* of the
alte, in our opinion, an event en either fault cone would be
aignificant. Deaign of atruaturej should oomply with the
requireaenta of the governnent agenaiea, building codes and
atandard praeticea of the Aaaoolation of Structural gngineera of
California.
L1BOBATOHT TISTIKC
Soil* were viaually elaaaified according to the Unified Soil
B-5
Gaobechnlaal Inveabigation May 2«l, 1968
Proposed Condominium Complex job No. 7361
La Coata, California Page 5
Classification System aa presented on Plata 10. Soil
olaaelflaatians are also •houn on the boring logs.
HOI3TUKE/PEK3IT7
The field aolatura content and dry unit weight determined for
aalaatad undlaturb«d aoll aamplea obtained from the teat boringa.
Whan dloturbed a amp las were obtained, only the field aolatura
aontenta wara determined for these aanplea. the dry unit weight
waa determined in pound* p«r aublo foot, ena the field molature
content waa oettmined aa a paroantaga of the dry aoll weight,
The reeulta of thaae teats are ahown on the attaohed boring
SHBAH TE3T3
Shear teat a ware performed on raaolded ae«pl«a of repreaentatlve
xlte aoll. Saaplea were tested utilising a direot ahear naahine
of the atraln control type. The rate of deformation waa
approsiaately 0*05 inehea par minute. Each sample waa ah eared
under varying normal loada to aatermina the Coulomb Shear
parameter a i angle of internal friction and ooheaion* Shaar teat
reaulta arm preaentea on Plate 13.
UBO«ATO«Y STAMPED
The maximuaj dry «enaity ana optimum molature content were
determined for rapreaentatlva aamplea of aita aoll* The
laboratory teat atandard uaed waa ASTH 6-1557* Method A. Naxlaam
denaity ana optimum molature oontent teat reaults are preaentea
belowt B-6
Geotechnioal Investigation Hay 2*1, 1988
Proposed Condominium Complex Job Ho. 7361
La Cotta, California Page 6
OptimuBBoring Depth Moiiture Maximum DryMumoer (feet) Content (I) Penalty (naf)
B-1 2-5 11.5 123.0
Expenalon Imaeac Teeta«
Expanoion index teata were performed on aeleeteo saaplea. Teat
proeedurea were conducted In aooordanee with the Uniform Building
Code, Standard Ho. 29-2. The olaealfloatlon of the expanalve noil
baaed on the expanalon index, are as Indicated In Table- 29-C of
the Uniform Buildlna Code.
Boring Depth Expansion Potential
Number (feet) Index Utpanaten
B-1 2-5 73.5 Media*
COMCL08IOM3
Baaed on our field Inveetigation, laboratory teating, and
engineering enelyaia, it la our opinion that the aubjaot alte la
auited for the proposed oonatruotlon of the eforementloned
facility provided the reeommendatiDna given in this report are
incorporated into the dealgn, grading^ and cenatruotlon
consideratlona.
1. Site materlele eonalat of a layer of fill aoll to depth* of
8 to 11 feet* Thla aoil eonaiated of moderately expensive
gray aandy olaya. Although thia material waa placed unaer
B-7
Gaoteohnical Investigation Ma/ 24, 1988
Proposed Condoninlua Complex Job MO. 7361
La Coata, California
supervision by • Engineer repreaentative( due to the tin*
period the ait* haa been undeveloped, the near surface soil*
beneath the proposed building will require denaification.
2. The aa'terlala present ere considered to have a moderate to
high expanaion potential.
3. Groundwater la not expected ta ba • factor in the
oevelopoant of tha aite. Hovra««r« perched water waft praaent
in Borings 1, 2. end 4.
4. There are acme ooajpreaaible elaya beneath the northern
aeotlon of the nite. Theae ahoula not be e ooneern ea long
•a the propoaed development i« two atory oonooajiniuNS and
the exiatlng grede la not ralaed more than 3 feet above the
existing elevations.
•tCOHHEfcDMriOIIS
OTME1AL
1. Prior to the atart of any earthwork operaiiona all exiatlng
potential hazarda auoh as aetive utility aerviaea and
utility fiolea, ahould be located and- aeoured. Bxloting
atrueturea ahould be raised or reaoved, and all debrla
reooved off-aite.
B-8
Qeoteohnicil Investigation May 24, 1988
Propose* Condoffllniua Conplex Job Ho. 7361
La Costa, callfornlB Page 8
2. All vegetation, saphelt, deleterious material, and loose
aurfaoe aolls ahoulo be removed prior to the start of
grading. All are an of proposed building pads should be
undercut 3 feat from the ex lating grade, the material
brought In 8 Inoh looae llfta and mechanically compacted to
• minimum of 90 pereant of the laboratory standard and
brought to 3 to 5 pereaat over op Maun moisture.
Additionally, it *la reeoanendeb that the existing elevated
pad (»«• Figure 2) be lowered to the aajaocnt pad
elevation*. The Material generated fron thla gradln« should
be plaoe4 over the prop««ed building P«4 ereM and brought
to 3 to 5 percent over optima ooisture, and neohanieally
ooapeoted to • ainiauB of 90 peroent of tha »exi«uB
laboratory dry density as determined by A3TH D-1557. The
lateral extent of removal and reeoapnotion shall be the
building perimeter plua five feet.
3. Prior to piaoemant of reinforcing ateel sna pouring
concrete, the footing excavations should be inspected by a
qualified g«otechnics! engineer.
it. Cxoavsted materials may be reused except for orgsnlo
•aterial and trash whioh muat not be used in atruotural
fill.
B-9
Geotechnical Investigation Hay 24, 1988
Proposed Condonlniuo Complex Job No. 7361La Coata, California Page 9
5. All fill or backfilling afaould be plaacd in uniform lifts of
approximately 8 inches leeac thickness, depending upon
equipment type and approval of tht field coil technician.
brought to approximately optimum moisture content* ana
mechanically compacted to at laaat 90 percent of the
laboratory standard, ASTM D-1557.
6. A flhatpa-foot typa oaopaQtor la noraally affeotlv* on olayey
•at trial. If granular material is ua«a for the atructural
fill* a vibratory roller la noroally aora affaetiv.e and 10
recommended.
7. A qualified aolli teohnloian under the supervision of a
geotaannloal engineer aitould be preaent for all fill or
beokfilling placement operattona. The aoila taehnleian
ahould evaluate all materials to be plao«d, sna ahould
perform in^plaoe density taata mt appropriate intervals to
evaluate the compaction effort relative to 90 percent of the
maximum dry density aa determined by ASTN 0-1557.
8. Hew filie raising the existing grade at the elta ahould not
exceed 3 feet in height.
FOUiPATlOl M8ICT A«D COM3THUCTIOM
1. All footings ahould be reinforced aa per a regiatereo
structural engineer 'a raconaendatlons*
B-10
Gaotechnleal Investiiation Hay 34,
Proposed CondOBlnlua Conplex Job No. 7361
La Coata, California Page ID
2i All foot'inga for individual atruoturea ahould Be founded in
similar natural Mil or atruotural fill to Minimize poaaible
differential a eminent.
3. Katorlor footlnga ahoula be founded a ajinloum depth of 18
inohoa below the lowest adjacent grad«. Interior Foottnia
•ay M founded at a depth of 12 inehea below the loweat
adjaoent (round aurfaoe. All footing* ahould have a •Ininum
of oti* Mo. 4 relaforetni bar placed at the top eno bottoe of
the footing, or aa apeoifiea by the atruatural entineer.
rooting width ehoula be a ainlnuM of 15 inohea.
4. Conoreta alaea ahould be underlain by four inohea of oleen
aand or aruvhed rook. In addition, a vapor barrier
oonalatlnf of • anniawa of alx mil polyvinyl chloride
•embranc. with all lapa aeeled, ahould be provided for all
interior living area alaba and areaa that aay be advaraely
affeeted by aolature. One Inoh of sand ahould be plaeed over
the MBbrane to aid in the uniform during of the eon«rete.
5. Concrete alaba ahould be relaforeed with at Zea»t Ho. 3
reinforoing bar* 18 inahea 0n eenter eaoh way. All slab
reinforcement ahould be supported to enaure '.proper
ponitloning in the alab during plaoeoent of oonarete.
6. Concrete alaba ahould be aoored, or fitted with ospanaion
Joints at appropriate intervelo.
B-11
Ceo technical Investigation Hay 21, 1988
Proposed CondoalnluB Complex Job Ho. 7361
La Costa, California Paga 12
Lateral reaiatanoe aey be developed using p waive Boil pressure
sp proxies ted by an equivalent fluid unit weight of 150 pounds per
oil bia foot. In addition, frldtional resistance nay b« eetlnsted
between soil tna oonorete using s opefficient of f nation of
*0.30. Drainage behind ell walla should be sufficient to ensure
that no free Moisture aeouaulatea behind the wall. A 12 Inch
width of granular backfill in conjunction with a avata» of
perforated drain pipe should be detained and oonatructed Tor thia
purpoaa«
MAMS
Positive drainage away fro« the proposed structure should be
•alntained within a ainlaua of ten feet of the building, Stepa
should be taken to avoid ponding near the footings. loof~guttera
and dovn-apouta ahoulo be used to svoid ponding of water near the
foundation line. Pl*eeawnt of planter* and extensive landaoaping
le not roooanended within tan faet of the footiaga. Drainage
requiraaenta ahould be ispleswnted in aooordenee with Unified
Building Cooaa and the loeal regulations.
The final foundation and grading plana ahould be reviewed by thia
office to •iniajise any •iaundaratandlnga between the plans and
reeoamendatlona presented herein. In addition, foundation
excavations ana earthuork perforaeo on-site ahould be evaluated
B-12
* Geotechnical Inrestlgatlon Hay 24, 1988
„ Propoied Condoainiua Complex Job No. 7361La Coata, California Pige 13
m
"* Dy » qualifivd tngln««rlng a«ologl«t or Geotcohnteal Enflitor. If
•m oondltlons »re found to vary subitantlslly from those «tBt*d
*" herein, appropriate roaoatMndatlana ahould b« raqueataa.
B-13
Geetechnical Investigation Hay 24, 1988
Proposed Conflonlniun Complex job Mo. 7361
La Coata, California Page 14
IIVESTIOATIOII LIMITATIOHS
The naterlela encountered on the project aita and utilized in our
laboratory Investigation ar« bell«v«d repraaentativea of the
total area; however, coll and bedrock eater!ala very in
oharaeteriatloa between exoavatlona and natural outcrop*. This
report in no way oonatltutra oertlfioation of th« exiitirtg fill
or aubaurfacc aolla.
Slnoe our Invaatltation la baaed on the aito oateriala obaerved,
aaleativc laboratory taatlnf and engineering analyaea, the
oonoluaiona and raooauaandationa ar« profeaolonal opinion. Thaae
opinion have ba«n derived in aooordaaoa nith current atandarda of
practice and no warranty la «rpr«aaed nor iapliea.
It ia reooauaandea that Taatiac En|ln«ara-San filega, be retained
to provide continuous aoll enfinearlog aervloea during the
earthwork operationa. Thla la to obaerve ooaplianoe with the
deaign ooneepta, apealfloatlone or reeommannatlona and td allow
daaign change* In the event that aubaurfaoe eondltlonn differ
frea thoae anticipated prior to atart of eonatrudtlon.
Inapectlon aervioea allow the teating or small pereantagaa of the
fill placed at the site. Contractual arrangements with the
grading contractor ahould contain the provialon that he la
reapanaibla for excavating, placing, and eoapactlng the fill in
aocoraance with the project apecifieatlona. Inapectlon by tha
B-14
Geotaohnlcal Invalidation May 24, 1988
Proposed Condooinlun Complex Job Ho, 7361
La Costa, Cillfornla Page IS
gootechniesl engineer during grading should not relieve the
grading contractor of his prlMry responsibility to perform ill
work in accordance with the specifications.
This off lot should be advised of any changes In tho project scope
of tho proposed Site grading so that it may bo aotarmined if the
roaoaiaand«tion« contained herein ere appropriate. This ahoulo be
verified in writing or aodificd by e written atfdendua.
Tne findings of this report are valid as of thia date. Changes in
the oondltiono of • property oan, however, ooour with the paoaage
of time, whether thoy be due to natural prooo»aea of the work of
tt«n of Its or adjaoent proper-ties. In addition, changes in the
•tate>of«the-art and/or Government Codes may oeour. Due to such
changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or
in part by changes beyond our control.
It is the) responsibility of the owners, or their repreaentative
to enaure that tha information and recommendations contained
herein are brought to the attention or the engineer and architect
for the project and incorporated Into the project's plans and
•pacifications. It it further the responsibility to take the
necessary meaaures to ensure that the oontrmotor and hi*
•ubcontracta carry out aueti recommendations during construction.
B-15
Testing Engineers-San Diego
BORING LOG
Project;
Hampiir
si
-
.4
•e
•a
-MZ
•H
,.
•18
.20
•22
24
.20
28
|
SO
CH
La &»•«• Coitdo Flute. 4-H-fA
f)|f . JSUULB"?? Hule Ol'fwlff • s iufhui-
WtlflM H Ml; 140,ibB/?Pll.. Gruuntf Wfltir: _
HELD BUCWTION
Clay tend! clay approximately J3X. i«nd
««i *mdiia to eoatMi •liglitly anise,
loot* olivft gray, idth grtval up to 1/4
inch id length
.
S. 0-1 1.0' OUyeontwfc incr««a««, ehunkn
et cluy MfemM pr«a«oc.
•
11.0* Clayi^ (Ibcural) ULgbC ollvw grey
•lightly Mmdly approxiiMkaly 10X, cl*y
•pyrralM««ly 90X» avlt. voivt.
At 12-13.0' davfc arganle lay«r» present. .
At 15*17.0* MINI Mutant ineraaaaa,
!•»(• aaVwigulnr gravel 2.5 by 2.5 incblq
•aaplnr
17-20* Clay, !••• land eoncvnc
Clay becoWM black in ealor •ppxaxi»aecly
152 fine Co Mdiiw ««nd, miit, nit.
At 23.0* •otaeure eootant lncc««a«a.
At 28.0' color cnangM to grey.
t
§
21
14
19
19
11
Hfl- _,- »
ElfvatliM.
. LojgM By: JSL_
M
I
DH
Bulk
Oil•ulk
OR
Bulk
DR
DR
bi*
121
117
90
•
104
96.0
if
11.2
n
16.2
14. B
26.1
2
8i
.
•
I
PLATE.
B-16
lesnng Lngjneer$-Son Diego
I
*
BORING LOG
Prtjiet: I* Co«U Cendfl fafe, 4-28-88
Typt of rag:J£!ZiLi2Z__ Holt DlnmtUr, «JJ2S*
HBirirocr Weigh' ft Pm-.J*P--iM/ao* ._ Groond Wni»
:^ iif.
.30
1-32
34
•M
f-ae
Mo
42
48
ao
52
94
SM
SC
AC 31.0*lmco«M very wit«e.
34-40.0*iMuiy Silt: SccuraCMl
«ly UZ M41w iwul» 10X el«y.69t •lie, mffe, any in color.
40-61.0* ftwdy
•edlluri »M«4, 952 Aravaxiutrty »I
»M«4, 952 cLiy» vary •oiat.Mdiua
«n4 gr«y In toloc.
At 4o.O* mnd coatM
At 40.0' ctey becowu wdtiiM «iff to
•tiff. J«rk organic l«y«r« inc«minBi«d.
At 56.0* chunk* of clay»ton« pr««mc.•oict. 4*0»«.
20
34
54
M
OK
m
DK
toi
107
101
lot
JD9
24.5
22,5
24. «
12.7
J9.3
26,6
B-17
res//ng Engineers-Son 0/ego
BORING LOG
Prfljtct>La Ca«t* Cmdo fViU. 4-28-81
Typ. *f Hla-WattE 1-37 _ ||fli, DJH^,ta,, 8 inch..
Boring Kin. f.
FMwflflAn*
Hffinmw VMnM ft Pull 440 lfc«/W C,m..rf W*IM. 1 MMrf R«. SEW
f
58
eo
••a
94
•99
• •*
>
H»
• 99 1 * ^™"
FIELD DCSCMpTiOM
i
•
m
61-44.0' Said1 Iwu, wMltUB to caarM.
*Mtftat«4> iafc«nataal*d «dfek t»4y d«yt .
approjdMCaly UX aadiiai aanl, approidMta:
7« clay, Mi«t. nadiiM atif£» ftny in tcolor. 1,
•
TOTAL DEPTH 63,0*
60-46. 0' Xntmingltd land lm« Mdlm
ta cotr««, with Cl«y Wnd !•»• Mturatcd-
clay ia aolae.
1
33
r .
25
|
OR
DB
h
S"
110
101
•
ifII
20.4
24.8
S1
•
*
J
FLUTE.
B-18
Testing Engineers-Son Diego
BORING LOG
Project:
Tjpo Of
Hoinintr
i
• a
4
6
i (
12
•14
10
•20
•22
•24
•28
•28
|
SM
OH
SC
u co.ta cattda r^tm. 4-u-ae
B|q. HOBZLS i-37 Hfl(| oiani.jg,. 8 loehaBoring
•
*.b,M A Ml. 148 l»a./30" fl^rf *«,.,.
rieui oeicmpTKM
0-1.5* landy tllti avatoxlaatalf 302
•adiuai aan4. 552 "illt, aliajitly ooiat.
100M, yallowish tan in COlat
Clay eratant inoraaaca with doth,
mftattura iacTwasca with tfavch.
-
1,5-13.0* Clayj^ approxiBataly 102 (in*
aaa4. 902 clay wLth ngaalei pcaacnt.•olat, Bwllun aeiff , black or dart gray'*ty colav.
13-19.0' tmnAy Clay! Band content
incraaaaa Co •ppmiMCaly 252. sut
cantmfc inet«a»aa with depth.
19* aaady »ilt Clay; faceantagaa of
•and. allt. and clay 'appear almat
21 .5 TarebaA iMtw, tottoai of aawalar
aacuratadt alight hydraatatls praaaura•rritfant
At 25* oaapla aaniratM auovs/'r17
20
23
24
23
10
No- 2
Elovotk
. Lofloc
J
DR
Bulk
mi
DR
W
DR
DR
rfflr'™
!T^^
h
i
100
106.0
112
113
109
101
it
,,a
20.3
11.9
20.7
19.6
25.6
§
•
-
1
B-19
Testing Engineers-San Diego
£
4
BORING LOG
P^f UCMC»Ca«4o B,.,.. 4-M-M lb.ta.lta, J
RmJIOBTI.e 1-57 M«h Item,.!.*. I incb««
Hflmifi* W.lnM A Bull. 140 lbo/30" e«,11M| «„!..
I
30
32
•34
,M
•40
• 42
.44
1
•
FIELD DEttftiniOM
Batunted Mndy eUycy ailt, IODM,
•ole«4 dark bran* and fray.
•
.
35* Sandy clay ailt aatu«*t«d
•aturacad alley aand In aaaplar ta 41.0'
•1.0* Silty and, molac, Mdltta danaa
aach Vrewn in color
TOTAL nrn 41.3'
ElMftfh in.
1 iimuil Rw. 8EU
BLOWS/FT15
Z&
27
Ul
OX
Da
DK
•
!E
S"
101
100
105
gfSi
25.2
«
23.7
•
if
8
•
PUTE.
B-20
resting E/ig/neers-San. Diego
BORING LOG
Pmjicl:Cnnila
Big.MDBlU.
*fIKU)IPTION
lI
§
•10
18
18
0
2
SC
sc
OH
sc
0-2* lAMft CtATiopproKl^C»ly 301 •ediuai ti
KM Mod, Appvoxiaatoly 70S cl«y, »wli
aaditav-fttlf f, tan in evloz.
,-8.0* fMOHKlT!appro*t»at«ly 20Z M<Slun
'02 ciJ,c> Boiofci g^^^mg ^ttHB( and kon in
e«lar.
1-11.0*
202
31
•pptoxiwtoly BOX clay.
Mice, acift, and gray la color.
47
69
it iff.11-13 .fl' WLTT OATtatm to
wile. d«slt gray in colqr.
13-16.0* JAMM CUY;appto3ci»«t.ly 20X
•MX dlQfa •aWASt
•tiff, gray in color. Sand contant iim«*a4*..
with d*pcb.
16-ie.O' Smd Uno;appttmiMt«ly 202 *ilt.'
a>p»tOHilHtaly got mmAltim to coorm Mnd.
in eolo*.
59
18-21.5* B1MPT CTJOftapprmUattt^ily 30t
apprmlaweo&y 70S clvyi ««iat
acift to atiff, gray in colav.
. TOTAL DEPTH 21.5*
OH
DK
DK
Dt
M
14.3
101
16.5
17.6
114 15.5
104 21.2
PLATE.
B-21
Testing Engineers-Son Diego
BORING LOG
PM]M>». L« Cuoeo Coiuio n-u. S-Z-M , ft-.f^j M«. 4
TflU «f ftlg.linmTT * •-*! U«l^ nfmM^,. ff l-rl— , ~ rhiMllmr. , , ,
Hommir Wotyil ft Fall; u° i»«T . *»".. Ground «•!«: JP^l*-. 1 oggid By: JflL..
i
•2
.4
•ft
•0
•10
ta
.14
•lotIV
IB
•20
•22
•24
•20
|
sc
OH
• * • *
ncu otxwfwoN
0*11.0* IAWW CUti (ItU). •porowbMeoly
UX cloy, oolot. oclff . COB ta color.
At 4.0' bocOMI |voy in «ol0lt.
.
OnoJiB ol elayicono i* eh* boetcm of the
w«pl«r M«y hiv« «wuor»M4 Bb* blow couol
m
U-13.5' BABOl CtAti (Nattttal). oftirndMCi
YT 71KC B^fl'Tiii f *ini1 1 f[it|||"Tn'im'[^l'y 7ffi( cY^y
•0i*c, skiff, iroy to olivo-griy la color.*
13.3-17.0' S«4 Unot •potoafJMtoay J3Z•lie, oop«oxi«oe«ly *3X MMUMI to CO«XM
0004, *Mty rtoiot, 4oBM| gc**/ *" color.
17-31.01 «UT OJlTi HMim ttlfl to oclff
•olot, fJ«ck ft«y in color.
,
27-JO.' rorehod w»t«r.
5
33
32
43
-
7)
7ft
34 .
m
OK
OK
lit
OH
OH
BeI£
99
106
114
,
IIS
i«e
9*
I*ii
20.4
18.2
17 '
13.7
11.7
23.3
2
B
*
PUTE.
B-22
Testing Engineers-Son Diego
*
I
4
BORING LOG
p^,,. U C..f CmuJo ^|B. S-2-ii B-i^, II-. *BOTNflFrl•30
M
••4
•
•
J
sc
AM A A A KfeM^^dAMBKMFIELD DCSOttFilOM
31-31.3' SAOTJ_ttttiwptoxla»t«ly Z3X
•flllf "^^ •MA^^^^BttVttttilBAt AXV 79^ £ IM¥ ttBlK
•(if ft can In «alor.
WtAl BBFtH 31.5*
•
«
4
I
1 M/SMH22
j
DX
i"
9ft
s
ifii
27.4
88
PLATE.
B-23
Testing Engineers-San Diego
SYMBOLS AND TERMS USED ON BORING LOGS
•%a«r »*0 SAMPLER TYPES
» to J«Mlf
«MfU
H wW SS
TERMS OCSCfllBlNQ COH3GTEHCY OR CONDITION
QMMK (MHO UU l«wtoi )*«MMMMi«i Nt tM iMh totMa HI <liM *w«li
pucmmvt mm
«M tt
O te 4
4 M10
M> 1*90
90 H90
tin tMfHr.jMjk wiiiif not. «M tsi dHtf un Until tweMti (II IwiMlc «M
Vtri Mil
Ml
nim
SMI
Vfcr| tltff
WIBIIMMKD
1NCM VmlNOTNwrt/nrt
IH« IMA O.IS
aa i« USD
OM te 1.00
1JM to IAD
toj 4.00
liMMltaMUt
TERMS CHARACTEmziNQ SOIL STRUCTURE
r mu4 Hm KM «m« «r H», iwM«f MM i
ftfl ftf
•A* M UMTOO SOIL CLunnarMW sort* « *»<»•¥» HUWMI
B-24
H
LA COSTA AVENUE
•CALK 1 tNCH - «0 FEET Testing Engineers-San Diego
BORING LOCATIONS
TM1 I *'•*-»«.••I FIOIffiEa
B-25
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: SCI ENTERPRISES
La Costa Green
§
f
&
5-
m-
15-
-
20-5
25-
Sample
•
I
»-$
i|
1
1
w,
n
1
WA
!
36
22
16
28
13
12
•g
§1
CL
SC
CL Dry Unit Wt.(pcf)108.6
107.0
93.0
114.1
91.9
101.9 Moisture (%)12.8
13.9
24.8
14.5
28.5
22.3
g
w
64.9
67.5
84.4
85.6
94.4
95.0
BORING LOG
W.O. 3401 -A-SC
BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1
DATE EXCAVATED 9-12-02
SAMPLE METHOD: MODIFIED CA SAMPLER 1 40LB HAMMER @30" DROP
i
Y//
Standard Penetration Test
, . -*- GroundwaterUndisturbed. Ring Sample
Description of Material
I
^
I
^
I
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
@ 0' SANDY CLAY, light brown, damp, soft.
@ 2V£' SANDY CLAY, light brown to yellow brown, damp to moist, very
stiff.
@ 5' SANDY CLAY, light brown to yellow brown, moist, very stiff.
@ Tfi CLAY, light brown to gray to yellow brown to orange, moist, stiff.
DELMAR FORMATION:
@ 10' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, yellow brown, moist to wet, medium
dense; massive.
@ 15' CLAYSTONE, dark gray to black, wet, stiff, sub horizontal
bedding.
@ 20' SANDY CLAYSTONE, gray to yellow brown to orange,
x saturated, stiff; groundwater encountered. /-
Total Depth = 21'
Groundwater Encountered @ 20'
No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 9-12-02
LaCostaGreen GeoSoils, IPC. pM7E w
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: SCI ENTERPRISES
La Costa Green
Depth (tt.)-
10-
15-
20-
25-
Sample
J£
m
»!•ojS
§1
H
w/,
w/,
n
CD
35
33
32
69
s!w 5.3 CO
SC
CL
SC Dry Unit Wt.(pcf)104.7
106.7
110.9
116.3 Moisture (%)12.4
15.1
13.3
12.4 Saturation (%)56.5
72.7
71.1
77.7
BORING LOG
IV. O. 3401-A-SC
BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1
DATE EXCAVATED 9-12-02
SAMPLE METHOD: MODIFIED CA SAMPLER 140LB HAMMER @30" DROP
i
m
Standard Penetration Test
, . -^- Groundwater
\ Undisturbed. Ring Sample
Description of Material
I
m
1
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
@ 0' CLAYEY SAND, light brown, dry, loose.
@ 1' CLAYEY SAND, light brown to yellow brown to orange, dry to
damp, medium dense.
@ 3' SANDY CLAY, light brown to yellow brown to orange, moist, very
stiff.
DEL MAR FORMATION:
@ 5' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to yellow brown to orange,
damp, medium dense.
@ T CLAYEY SANDSTONE, yellow brown to gray to orange to black,
x moist, dense; massive. /-
Total Depth = 8'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 9-12-02
LaCostaGreen GeoSoilS, JHC. ^ „
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 3401 -A-SC
PROJECT: SCI ENTERPRISES BORING B-3 SHEET 1 OF 1
La Costa Green
DATE EXCAVATED 9-12-02
e
f
_
5-
-
_
-
10-
-
15-
20-
25-
Sample
i•5.2
53
^tffr*
^'///I
.
I
30
21
35
w t3 CO
SC
CL
SC
CL
jj
I
107.5
102.3
109.7
•?
¥
1
15.2
14.7
16.8
oS
§
3
CO
74.6
62.9
82.6
&4MP/.E METHOD: MODIFIED CA SAMPLER 140LB HAMMER @30" DROP
Standard Penetration Test
AZ. Gmnntiwator
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
//?,
'%
%.///
//.
fa
yfy><xxx>
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
@ 0' CLAYEY SAND, light brawn, dry to damp, loose.
@ 2VJ SANDY CLAY, yellow brown to gray, moist, very stiff.
DEL MAR FORMATION:
@ 5' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, yellow brown, moist, medium dense;
massive.
@ 7Vi' SANDY CLAYSTONE, yellow brown to gray, moist to wet, very
-v stiff; massive. /-
Total Depth = 81/*1
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 9-12-02
, „ . ^ GeoSoils, Inc. ,. r.La Costa Green ' PLATE c"3
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: SCI ENTERPRISES
La Costa Green
f
§
-
5_
-
15-
20-
25-
Sample
^"3.2si
M
i
M
M
m
CO
34
17
36
18
35
col
§1
SC
CL
CL Dry Unit Wt.(pcf)111.1
108.3
112.7
105.0
109.6 Moisture (%)9.4
11.5
13.3
18.6
15.0 Saturation (%)50.9
57.8
75.4
85.4
78.2
BORING LOG
W.O. 3401-A-SC
BORING B-4 SHEET 1 OF 1
DATE EXCAVATED 9-12-02
SAMPLE METHOD: MODIFIED CA SAMPLER 1 40LB HAMMER @30" DROP
m
%
Standard Penetration Test
AZ. Groundwater
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
|
!\
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
@ 0' CLAYEY SAND, light brown to orange, dry, loose.
@ 1' CLAYEY SAND, light brown to orange, dry to damp, medium
dense; scattered pebbles.
@ 3' CLAYEY SAND, light brown to yellow brown to gray, moist, loose;
scattered pebbles.
@ 5' SANDY CLAY, light brown to gray to yellow brown, moist, very
stiff.
DEL MAR FORMATION:
@ 7 SANDY CLAYSTONE, yellow brown to gray, moist to wet, stiff.
@ 10' SANDY CLAYSTONE, yellow brown to gray, moist, very stiff.
Total Depth = 11'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 9-1 2-02
LaCostaGreen GeoSoils, |flC. ^ „
GeoSoils, Inc.
PROJECT: SCI ENTERPRISES
La Costa Green
§
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
Sample
.*1 Undis-turbed^m
m
03 E
HI0(0
SC/CL
CL
CL/SC
CL Dry Unit Wt.(pcf)101.3 Moisture (%)10.7
10.1
1
1
CO
42.4
BORING LOG
IV. O. 3401 -A-SC
BORING B-5 SHEET 1 OF 1
DATE EXCAVATED 9-12-02
SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER/ RING SAMPLER
Standard Penetration Test
-VL Gmundwafar
M.Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Description of Material
.J
M
••J
Y///
ARTIFICIAL FILL:
-\ @ O1 CLAYEY SAND/SANDY CLAY, gray, dry, very loose/very soft. /-
@ 1' SANDY CLAY, gray, dry to damp, very soft.
@ 2' SANDY CLAY, gray to yellow brown, dry to damp, medium stiff.
@ 3' SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND, yellow brown to gray, damp,
•x medium stiff/medium dense. /-
@ 4' SANDY CLAY, dark brown to orange, moist, stiff.
^ @ 5' SANDY CLAY, dark brown to yellow brown to orange, moist, stiff. ^
Total Depth = S1/*1
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 9-12-02
LaCostaGreen GeoSoilS, IRC. pM7F „
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY DATA
3,000
2.500
2,000
a
i
$ 1.500
(0
(0
1,000
500
0
^
,
^
k^
^
<
^^\
i
I
0 500 1,000 1.500 2.000 2,500 3.000
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
Sample Depth/El.
• B-1 0.0
• B-1 0.0
Primary/Residual Shear Sample Type % MC% c <|>
Primary Shear Remolded 110.8 13.5 1444 26
Residual Shear Remolded 110.8 1469 24
Note: Sample Innundated prior to testing
GeoSoils, Inc.
jam 40* « 5741 Palmer Way
(g&tSJlSc. Carlsbad, CA 92008
^WFiiP* Telephone: (760)438-315!
Fax: (760)931-0915
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project: SCI. ENT.
5 Number: 3401-A-SC
Date: September 2002 Figure D-1
as
z
«
•
i
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.011
^
------
~^1
{
^
^
\
^
<
"~<
-
^^
^\
^\,
\
\
^
DO 1,000
STRESS, psf
Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification
B-3 2.5 Sandy Clay
GeoSoils, Inc.
jrttmr 5741 Palmer Way
ARlSc. Carlsbad, CA 92008
«F* Telephone: (760)438-3155
Fax: (760)931-0915
\1
\
^-~^
\\
~-
\
^~^
^1
»
10,000
%
Initial
107.5
MC
Initial
15.2
MC
Final
18.5
H20
1000
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Project: SCI. ENT.
Number: 3401-A-SC
Date: September 2002 Figure D-2
^
z
•€
•
%iSi3S
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
1
•\
^N•x
V
N,
N,
\
\
X
\
X,,
\1
X
\
N
\
\,
i
\
\
^
30 1,000
STRESS, psf
Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification
B-1 7.5 Clay
GeoSoils, Inc.
4Pt<» 5741 Palmer Way
DpKlie. Carlsbad, CA 92008
W* Telephone: (760)438-3155
Fax: (760)931-0915
\
\
^\
\
"^
\\
— - — .
\
\
• — .
\
•~i1
10,000
Yd
Initial
93.0
MC
Initial
24.8
MC
Final
27.8
H20
1000
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Project: SCI. ENT.
Number: 3401 -A-SC
Date: September 2002 Figure D-3
STRAIN, %<
•
1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
1
•
— .<
(
^
•\
—
\.
-^
^^
<
~«
x
^^^
\,
\\
>\
30 1,000
STRESS, psf
Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification
B-4 5.0 Sandy Clay
GeoSoils, Inc.
^M • 5741 Palmer Way
DfKlfe. Carlsbad, CA 92008
<«** Telephone: (760)438-3155
Fax: (760)931-0915
\
N
"~-~^
i
\
- — ^
\
\
• — .
\
- — .
^
)
10.000
%
Initial
112.7
MC
Initial
13.3
MC
Final
16.9
H20
1000
CONSOLIDATION TEST
Project: SCI. ENT.
Number: 3401 -A-SC
Date: September 2002 Figure D-4
L
\
a<
0
•
60
50
5 40
'
I
20
10
0I
/
CL-ML
3
Sample
B-1
/
S
/
/
CL
., H
/
ML
CH
/
/
MH
/
/
/
/
/
'
/
/
20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Depth/El.
0.0
LL
48
PL
18
PI
30
Fines Classification
GeoSoils, Inc.
^3UE|& Carlsbad, CA 92008
'•WlflFA Telephone: (760)438-3155
Fax: (760)931-0915
ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
Project: SCI. ENT.
Number: 3401 -A-SC
Date: September 2002 Figure D-5
M. J. Schiff & Associates, Inc.
Consulting Corrosion Engineers - Since 1959 1308 Monte Vista Avenue, Suite 6
Upland, CA 91786-8224
Phone: 909/931-1360
Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
SciEnt
Your #3401-A-SC, MJS&A K02-0921LAB
20-Sep-02
Sample ID
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
PH
Electrical
Conductivity
Units
ohm-en
ohm-en
mS/cm
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium
magnesium
sodium
Anions
carbonate
bicarbonate
chloride
sulfate
Other Tests
ammonium
nitrate
sulfide
Redox
Ca2+
Mg2+
Nal+
CO32'
HC03
U
Cl1'
so4
2-
NH41+
NO3''
S2'
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
qual
mv
B-l
@0-5'
4,400
435
5.9
1.13
629
153
271
ND
52
195
2,375
na
na
na
na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract,
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
Page 1 of 1
Figure D-6
APPENDIX E
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 of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede
the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. 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 specifications. The project soil engineer and
engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide
observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration 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 testing 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 testing and observation so that determination
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It 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 excavations, 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 Field 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 intervals of
approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria
would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and
frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing, site preparation, 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. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground
surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread,
moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the
soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material considered
unsatisfactory 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. Existing 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 conditions, 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, septic
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 otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot
adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to 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 relative compaction as specified in
these guidelines.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory 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 optimum 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. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue
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
conditions, the recommended minimum width of the 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 of the 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 until
design grades (elevations) are attained.
COMPACTED FILLS
Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized 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 by the soil
engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength
characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require
blending with other soils to serve 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 operations should not result
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
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 greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location
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
of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material
should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet
horizontally of slope faces.
To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation
excavations, 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 testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate
compaction 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 compaction.
Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum 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 until the fill
materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be
uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by
ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer.
Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed
for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of
compaction.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until 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 configuration. Testing
shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction 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 determination of fill slope compaction should
be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill
slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a
higher minimum relative compaction, 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 compaction 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 continuously 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 compaction 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 compaction operations.
4. After completion 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 testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm
compaction after grid rolling.
5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to
achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
Rle:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
engineer in compliance with ordinances of the 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 locations 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 conditions.
The location 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 construction 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 potential adverse geologic
conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate,
evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope
buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering
geologist, whether anticipated 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. Additionally, 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 of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 6
GeoSoils, Inc.
COMPLETION
Observation, testing and consultation 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 specifications.
After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have
finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review
by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be
undertaken without prior notification 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 practical 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 considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer
construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on
grading and construction 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 times. To achieve our goal of avoiding
accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be
maintained.
In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the
following precautions 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 regularly
scheduled and documented safety meetings.
Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at
all times when they are working in the field.
Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field 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.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing
amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing.
While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher
on the vehicle shall be activated.
In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following
the above, we request that it be brought to the attention 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
excavation of the 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 adriveable condition. 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 testing 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 vibration which typically decreased test results.
When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the
test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope.
The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation
distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing.
The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible
following testing. 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 of the above, the technician is required, by company
policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors
representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the
interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can
be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
Rle:e:\wpA3400\3401a.pge Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
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 attention and notify this
office. Effective 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
It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction
testing 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 conditions 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 compaction testing, 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
excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice
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.
SCI Enterprises, LLC Appendix E
File:e:\wp7\3400\3401a.pge Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
TYPE A
PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL
NATURAL GROUND
TYPICAL BENCHING
SEE ALTERNATIVES
TYPE_I3
PROPOSED COMPACTED RLL
•NATURAL GROUND
COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM 1REMOVEJ ,x
•/J
^W^s
TYPICAL BENCHING
t
BEDROCK
ALTERNATIVES
NOTE: ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION 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
FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT."
/LINEAR FT. 6' 4 ABS OR PYC PIPE OR APPROVED
SUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 11/4" 0 PERFS.
LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE.
ASTM 02751. SDR 35 OR ASTM 01527, SCHD, 40
ASTM D3034. SDR 35 OR ASTM 01785* SCHD. 40FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FT.
USE 8'tf PIPE
6" MINIMUMB-1
FILTER MATERIAL.
SIZE
1 INCH
3/4 INCH
3/8 INCH
NO. 4
NO. 8
.NO. 30
"NO. 50
NO. 200
PERCENT PASSING
,100
90-100
40-100
25-40.
18-33
-.5-15
.0-7
0-3
ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND.FILTER FABRIC
MINIMUM OVERLAP
6- MINIMUM COVER
4- MINIMUM BEDDING
6- MINIMUM OVERLAP
4* MINIMUM BEDDING
A-2 GRAVEL'MATERIAL 9 FTVLINEAR 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
BACKCUTVvARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS.
BACKCUT ^VKSHOULD BE MADE NO
STEEPER-THAJfco:l OR AS NECESSARY
FOR SAFETY
^^^
ONSIDERATIONS
COMPACTED FILL
ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE
ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL
DEPTH PER SOIL ENGINEER.
PROVIDE A 111 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF
SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED
REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AMD/OR
LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS.
REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL
ADJOINING CANYON RLL
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL
COMPACTED RLL LIMITS LINE
TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL
FOR DRAINAGE ONLY
Oaf
IEXISTING..COMPACTED RLL)
, Qal ITO BE REMOVED) %' —*"8B^
0 BE REMOVED BEFORE
PLACING ADDITIONAL
COMPACTED FILL
/* LEGEND
Qaf ARTIFICIAL RLL
Qal ALLUVIUM
PLATE EG-3
UJ
Q
LL.
CO
COUJo:
o
CO
2
CL
h-
PLATE EG-4
1
•~^
11 —
UJ
Q
Z[
~3^^j^^^^o:ION / BUTTRESS SUBDU MINIMUM OF FIVE FP/LINEAR Fl OF PIPF |h- -*~^ K
•< S
N <
-J <r— . UJ
DO £
CO
§— I^><
LLO
UJm•
_i
^in
_j<
IT
UJ
K-
^<r
UJi-
MM
n"
z /• o
2 2 S
P m in< _j mo ^ ^c 5 Q-
S a zlil O ^
5i u S
0 Ul g
1 °0 ? UJ
-1 nl t
LL 2 UJuj < g;
X K —
H 0 W
NEAR Fl OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARELIEU OF FILJER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE•**
&
j Z: s 2
o: ui K
1 CE. 7^'e ^ I>- ui5 3 ™0 CJ _1
0 oo oO v- ^.0 I I
*~ 0 oOl -J-
"T" ^BW
log
CJ Z 2
^M— -» co
n en
PROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRICFl HO OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC'ED A MINIMUM OF 12' ON ALL JOINTS.ETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM D-2751. SDR 35a- < n 2:< £ < <z z -j a
a ui ui •5 m CD M
M* •«•in- _j _i •*•< _l _l =3
0 < < 2E•z- a: at =ui in in —
Ul_ xo n in J±
T ? T 7 T Urin oo in o o <-»(NT- QJ
J
Iin
O _j
** " r> S 5 UJ. • f^1 >
S S d d d 2z z z _ « o:^ ^ Z {3
27 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM D-303A.M D-17B5 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHINGI.OOO POUNDS MINIMUM. AND A MINIMUM OFPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPEH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE.T UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2%E. OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO- »_ *- in £ < Q.
T < | S * | =
Jt, JJJ {^ "^ •*• ^^* ^* m «5 • ti «•» C3 ^^
2 *•»•« 5 2 H g^t 0^ fu ^™ i^^ f* *•*C CC ""s ui ^*
K Q. 1- 3 Z ? 2O W) W CD — OL H-
U
0 S0 ^ Inz ^ mo , ^p uj .a.
o > zLI 5 UJ
oa.^
Ul LU g
Si Q Q.1/1 LUo > m
Z 0 N
it55
0 0. uj^* ^r ^^_j ^. • >
O Z —LL < W
in
LL
O
2
o 2
° in « Z
Z
LU
; ~"*
^ 3.O OS
Z -» 0 3
"~ . CN O
fN O . UJ
»- ^ ^ Q
.Z ^^~~ z
in
WITH TEE OR ELBOW.•CH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLEDiON-SITE SOIL.DRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BEFED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN.DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BEIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILSIEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.Ul ZT-5-rf*"LlJ31*:>
Si uij-ooi23:oo
CL trE<o££oUiz
_ h-^m-JLL-lCEUJz
< _•CC
S idm |_
=3 5M Z
.
CH -
^^^^^ 2 nnwrniH^z |
i|V S /$-— *'NV Z
Oa.
h-
f (
3
Z
Z
Z<
y .*. -rr• «• • i:-:.-:-fl
1.4
PLATE EG-5
a
UJ
LL
PLATE EG-6
LU
Q
O
LLl
O
_J
01
az
< aa z
S 8I Icj a
X Z
LU LU
LU £Ea
a E
Q.O 5 S
U) LU {Z
UI UI I/)
* 5 IUI
O UI £z =c ^
O »~ 0!
K m 50 a °"0- ui H-1- H- 52n < o0=0
UI < OX > UII- UI U
• •UIt-oz
PLATE EG-7
52s §Ul -I« s sHb o cr
CO
S*
O
LU cr cro ° iu
* i? I— Q. O
EC O ZUl -J uiUl W3* eg
3 § S
LU a
g G <
a u. ui
iti ~ Zui < ui
z »2 5ui H w
Wl T*
>- I
OB Ul
a *uj ui
S 3Ul vt
ui ac
ui £ z
Ul r~ 5
z s «u
uj
tA
= I
o tui S
QB ^^— z>
Ula
ui ui <
vt
Ul
Ul Ul
-C X
X &W I-? ifc <
S 5a
_ < o> x iur t- a
LU
O
PLATE EG-8
Oa:o
a:
LL.
PLATE EG-9
Ul
CJ
CO
3U)
auitooa.xUl
auiin
m
aui
UII-
Ula
uim
03
>
OC
tninuiuuiz
auiz
z
CC
Ul
Ula
u.
uiz
K
ui inn_ 5
ui °.D oa ui_i o
> z M K? Ul Ulin a z uii- cc 2 zZ 3 I- 3ui m u zz cr < 5
g 2 5 ui1 £ s jE-
ui o n| eeK w> « 2-^ w S 75
5 o o K
>• S 5 SS " ^ z* a < 3
a 5 ° zz < x ui
< £ w ui
z o K =i
1 Ig 8a a °aa z a uto o < xw o a. H
uiH
O
PLATE EG-10
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION)
NATURAL GRADE
COMPACTED FILL OYEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
0*W\\V^\M>^^ 3*MINIMUM*
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
CUT-RLL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION)
PAD GRADE
NATURAL GRADE
*™*£**
fa-s' MINIMUM
COMPACTED FILL 0*
&&OVEREXCAVATE
AND RECOMPACT ^
*
X UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
TYPICAL BENCHING
NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-RLL TRANSITION AREAS.
PLATE EG-1T
SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL
2'X 2'X I/A" STEEL PLATE
^STANDARD 3/4" PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP
^*^\ OF PLATE.
^~ —• 3/4- X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE
N. THREAD STOP AND. BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS
N. THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5'
X INCREMENTS.
•3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN
5* INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS.
RNAL GRADE
T
j MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
_i_^. MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL
LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND
ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5*
VERTICAL WITHIN A 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE.
BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT
PROVIDE A MINIMUM V 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 SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE
APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER.
3. AFTER S'tYERTICALJ OF RLL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 51RADIUS
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
FINISH GRADE
k-6- DIAMETER X 3 1/2* LENGTH HOLE
3/8' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH
CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT
CONCRETE BACKFILL
PLATE EG-15
TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM
SIDE VIEW
mm TEST RT msP-
( NOT TO SCALE )
TOP VIEW
100 FEET
APPROXIMATE CEHTfeK
OF TEST PIT
{ NOT TO SCALE )
PI ATP EG—16
OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL
VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
)' MINIMUM (E)
CO OO
15* MINIMUM (A)
20'MINIMUM
oo
_^J 5* MINIMUM U
ao
oo
(G)
fe*MINIMUM (C)
CO
AWxX^X^^^BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE
PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
I
I
10* MINIMUM (E),100* MAXIMUM tBLi-
-jljr-1-V --^^-rr3 0OGO3QOOOOO0C?
15* MINIMUM I* MINIMUM (G)
FROM
BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL
NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.
(B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SEE AND TYPE OF
EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100'MAXIMUM.
1C) 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. ~
(D) 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.
IE) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS.
IF) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED.
(G) 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 FILLED IN. PLATE RD~1
ROCK DISPOSAL PITS
VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH
AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN.
FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER
ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT
! <T.i.
GRANULAR MATERIAL
SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE
COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE |
ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS
GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS.
DENSIRED BY FLOODING ^ .
*T*LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH U
COMPACTED FILLx wumi-Auicu I-IU.
^- jf _i.T?*-^7l^^Xr.">r~Xrf—»CVP—«^.
I'PROPOSED FINISH GRADE
10' MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIU
PROFILE ALONG LAYER
LOPE FACE
L
FILL
\ 1
SLOPE
\ }\*
_j
i
CLEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM
LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH
PLATE RD-2