The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 05-19; CARLSBAD MEDICAL VILLAGE; INTERIM GRADING REPORT; 2007-03-12Cl- PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 7715 CONVOY COURT, SAN DIEGO,. CALIFORNIA 92111 TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 CARLSBAD MEDICAL VILLAGE, LP 9225 Dowdy Drive, Suite 106 San Diego CA 92126-6364 March 12, 2007 Work Order 401071 Attention: Mr. Russ Ries Subject: Interim Grading Report for Carlsbad Medical Village Project, in the City of Carlsbad, California References: See Appendix A Gentlemen: This report presents Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.'s (PSE) geotechnical data and compaction test results pertaining to the completion of grading for Units 1 through 10 of the Carlsbad Medi- cal Village Project, in the City of Carlsbad, California. Cut and fill grading operations were utilized to develop the Carlsbad Medical Village project. Data and test results developed during project grading are summarized in the text of this report, on the enclosed 20-scale grading plans prepared by Partners Planning and Engineering. Geo- logic data, removal bottom elevations and compaction test locations are presented on Plate 1. Cuts, fills and processing of original ground covered by this report have been completed under PSE's testing and observation. Based on the testing and observation, the work is considered to be in general compliance with the City of Carlsbad grading code, the approved 20-scale grading plans (Drawing No. 443-4A), and the referenced geotechnical reports. Slopes are considered surficially and grossly stable and will remain so under normal conditions. To reduce exposure to erosion, landscaping of graded slopes should be accomplished as soon as possible. Drainage berms and swales should be established and maintained to aid in long-term slope protection. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS LOS ANGELES COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY TEL: (714) 220-0770 TEL: (310) 325-7272 or (323) 775-6771 TEL: (951) 582-0170 TEL: (714) 730-2122 FAX: (714) 220-9589 FAX: (714) 220-9589 FAX: (951) 582-0176 FAX: (714) 730-5191 Work Order 401071 Page 2 March 12, 2007 1.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 1.1 Geologic Units The geologic units encountered during the grading of the subject site include un- documented artificial fill (afu), topsoil (No Map Symbol) and terrace deposits (Map Symbol Qt). The as-graded distribution of these units, in addition to the limits of compacted fill reported herein, is presented on Plate 1. The following is a brief description of these units. Removal bottom elevations were determined by representatives of PSE based upon available.field data. PSE has transferred the removal elevations onto Plate 1. . 1.1.1 Artificial Fill-Undocumented (Map Symbol afu), Artificial fill associated with Carlsbad Village Drive was encountered at the northern boundary of the site. This fill consisted of silty to clayey sands, which are moist to slightly moist and moderately to medium dense. The undocumented fills ranged from approximately one (1) to five (5) feet thick. Within the limits of this report, this fill was removed to competent terrace deposits prior to the placement of compacted fill reported herein. 1.1.2 Topsoil (No Map Symbol) A thin layer. of topsoil blanketed most of the subject site. This material consisted of light orange-brown sandy silt to silty sand, which is dry and loose to moderately dense. Topsoil was completely removed prior to the placement of artificial fill. Thickness ranged from one-half (0.5) to one (1) foot. 1.1.3 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol Qt) Terrace deposits occur below the thin topsoils and the undocumented arti- ficial fills onsite. The terrace deposits onsite consist of silty sandstone that is red brown with shades of gray and black, moderately hard to hard and moist to wet. The upper one (1) to two (2) feet of this formation was PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 Page 3 March 12, 2007 highly weathered and was removed prior to the placement of compacted fill. 1.2 Structure The terrace deposits are relatively flat lying. Based upon geologic mapping litera- ture research (references), aerial photographic analysis and geologic mapping, faulting is not known to be present onsite. 1.3 Corrective Grading Corrective grading in the form of stabilization fills and/or buttresses was not re- quired. 1.4 Subdrains No subdrains were required during the grading of the Carlsbad Medical Village project. 1.5 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in our exploratory excavations during our prelimi- nary geotechnical investigation. The groundwater level ranged from sixteen (16) to seventeen (17) feet in depth from the existing ground surface. However, due to shallow depth of the excavations performed during grading, no groundwater was encountered. - 1.6 Conclusions From an engineering geologic viewpoint, the Carlsbad Medical Village site, in the City of Carlsbad, California is considered suitable for the intended commercial use. 2.0 PROJECT GRADING 2.1 Compaction Test Results Compaction test results are presented in Table I (Appendix B). Approximate 1- cations are shown on the enclosed 40-scale grading plans (Plate 1). Compaction testing was conducted utilizing the Sand Cone Method (ASTM:D 1556-02) and Campbell Pacific Nuclear Test Gauges (ASTM:D 2922-05 and D 3017-05). PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. Work Order 401071 Page 4 March 12, 2007 2.2 Removals 2.2.1 The removal of unsuitable materials was accomplished to competent ter- race deposits in structural fill areas during the grading of the subject site. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the exposed surface was scarified, moisture conditioned to a minimum of near optimum moisture or slightly above and compacted in-place to a minimum of 90 percent of the labora- tory maximum density (ASTM:D 1557-02). 2.2.2 Removals, excavations, cleanouts and processing in preparing fill areas were observed by PSE's representative prior to placement of fill reported herein. • 2.3 Compacted Fill Placement Fill consisting of the soil types indicated in Table I was placed in thin lifts [ap- proximately six (6) to eight (8) inches], moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture or slightly above and compacted a minimum of 90 percent of the labora- tory maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557-02). This was accomplished utilizing self-propelled, rubber-tired and sheepsfoot compactors, along with heavy earth moving equipment. Each succeeding fill lift was treated in a similar manner. During mass grading, fill materials placed on slope gradients steeper than 5 hori- zontal to 1 vertical were keyed and benched into the terrace deposits (Qt).. 2.4 Depth of Fill Compaction testing was performed for each one (1) to two (2) feet (approxi- mately) of fill placed. The approximate maximum vertical depth of fill placed within the site is on the order often (10) feet beneath Units 1 through 4. A lot-by- lot summary of the depth of fill placed during grading is presented in Table II (Appendix B). 2.5 Fill Slope Construction 2.5.1 The fill slopes were built on-grade and compacted with heavy earth mov- ing equipment. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 Page 5 March 12, 2007 2.5.2 Finish slope surfaces have been probed and/or tested and are considered to satisfy the project requirements and the grading codes of the City of Carls- bad. The soil materials utilized to construct the fill slopes are subject to . erosion. As such, landscaping and irrigation management are important elements in the long-term performance of slopes and should be established and maintained as soon as possible and maintained through the life of the • project. 2.6 Overexcavation of Building Pads The following overexcavation requirements were conducted for the grading of the various building pads on. the site. These overexcavation recommendations were . conducted in general conformance to PSE's recommendations (PSE, 2004). All five (5) building pads (units 1 through 10) were overexcavated in cut and shal- low fill areas a minimum of four (4) feet and replaced with compacted fill. The overexcavation extended a minimum often (10) feet outside the building foot- print. 3.0 . PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is PSE's understanding that the subject site will support five (5) one-story office build- ings and associated improvements. The buildings will be supported by conventional shallow slab-on-grade foundation systems. The structures will be wood- framed struc- tures. 4.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS For preliminary foundation design purposes, the following recommendations are pre- sented herein. Final design should be based upon the as-graded soil conditions. 4.1 Structural Design Sampling of the post-grading conditions of the sheet-graded areas was conducted to determine the expansion index per UBC 1997, Standard No. 18-2. That evalua- tion revealed "very low" expansion material on the subject site. Laboratory test data are presented in Table 4.1. Foundation design should consider the expansion PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 Page 6 March 12, 2007 ( n Ll potential of the near surfade soils; the depth and the variance in depth of fill below the respective pads, the physical properties of the underlying materials, and the potential influence of adjacent structures. The project geotecimical consultant for the development of the site should con- duct an evaluation and sampling, of the near-surface post-graded soil conditions. Further, it is suggested that once final building layouts and designs are known,'the project geotecimical consultant should provide site specific foundation design pa- rameters and recommendations based upon the "as-grade" soils conditions. 'TABLE .4.1 Expansion Index Tests Locattn R xi •ai ARE W NN Or F5 ExpansionRotentiaI Unit 1 - 3 El-i 8 Very Low Unit 4 - 6 EI-2 10 . Very Low Unit 7 and 8 EI-3 12 Very Low 9andi0 [Eit EI4 7 VeryLow 4.2 Foundation Design Parameters Commercial structures can be supported on conventional shallow slab-on-grade foundation systems. The design of foundation systems should be based on the as- graded expansion potential as determined by post-grading testing of near-surface soils. The following values may be used in foundation design. Allowable Bearing: 2500 ibs./sq. ft. (assuming a minimum em- bedment depth of 12 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches). Lateral Bearing: 250 lbs./sq ft. per foot of depth to a maxi- mum of 2000 lbs./sq. ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.35 Settlement: Total = 3/4- inch Differential= 3/8- inch in 20 feet The above values may be increased as allowed by code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic. Building code and structural design considerations may govern. Depth and reinforcements should be evaluated by the structural engineer. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. S Wori Order 401071 Page 7 March 12, 2007 o 4 3 Conventional Slab Recommendations Based upon the onsite soil conditions and information supplied by the UBC-97, conventional foundations can be designed based upon the values presented in Sec- 0, tion 4.2 and Table 4.2. 0• TABLE -4.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION DESIGN PARAMETERS S Expansion Potential f Very Low Soil Category :FóotingDépth Below Lowest AdjacëntFinishGtade Two-Story Interior . 12 inches Two-StoryE*tenOr 0 18 inches Three-Story Interior 24.inches Three-Story Exterior 24 inches Footing Width 0 Two-Story 0 0 15 inches 0 Three-Story 0 0 18 inches Footing Reinforce- 0 , No. 4 rebar 0 one (1)ontop ment 0 0 one (1) on bottom 0 SlabThickness .,. 4 inches (actual) 0 Slab Reinforcement0 ' No. 3 rebar spaced 18 inches on center, 0 0 0 each way Under-Slab Require- 0 0 2 inches of clean sand 0 0 over 10-mil Visqueen, 0 men i. underlain with 2 inches of clean sand Slab Subgrade Mois- Minimum of 110 percent 0 0 0 of optimum moisture 0 ture . priorto placing concrete. Footing EmbedmentNext to Swales and' Slopes 0 If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five (5) feet horizontally of the swale, the footing shouldbe embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that at least five (5) feet are pro- vided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slope. Garages 0 0 0 A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This gradebeam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. A thick- ened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6) inches deep. Footing depth, width and reinforcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness, reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING INC. 0 Work Order 401071 Page 8 March 12, 2007 4.4 Seismic Desi2n Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code require- ments and the parameters presented in Table 4.3. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, a Type "B" fault, located ap- proximately five and three-tenths (5.3) miles west of the project. TABLE 4.3 • UBC (1997) SEISMIC PARAMETERS Soil Profile PGA Z C N, N Type Sc 0.27g 0.4 0.40 Na 0.56N 1.0 1.06 4.5 Seismically Induced Liquefaction or Dynamic Settlement Based upon PSE's observations during grading, the complete removal of com- pressible material to competent bedrock, and the thickness and density of the compacted fill, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction or dynamic set- tlement is considered to be "very low". 4.6 Retaining Wall Design Retaining walls should be founded on compacted fill or bedrock. Foundations may be-designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.2. In general, conventional walls can be designed to retain either native materi- als or select granular backfill, although the design for non-"free-draining" and ex- pansive native material will produce a relatively costly wall system. Due to the fact that some of the native onsite soils are relatively fine-grained and expansive, specifications for the quality of backfill soils should be defined. It should be an- ticipated that suitable backfill material will have to be imported or selectively produced from onsite sources. Conventional walls constructed with select granular backfill can be designed to resist lateral pressures that are developed by a fluid as presented on Table 4.4. As depicted on the accompanying retaining wall detail (Figure 1), the select material S PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 Page 9 March 12, 2007 should extend a minimum width (behind the wall) of one-half (1/2) the wall height and should be capped with a layer of approximately one (1) foot thickness of native soil. Other Design and Construction Considerations > The design loads presented in Table 4.4 are to be applied on the retaining wall in a horizontal fashion. Friction between wall and retained soils should not be allowed in the retaining wall analyses. > Additional allowances should be made in the retaining wall design to ac- count for the influence of construction loads, temporary loads, and possible nearby structural footing loads. Unit weight of 125 pcf and 130 pcf may be used to model the, dry and wet density of onsite compacted fill materials. > Select backfill, imported or granular, should be granular, structural quality backfill with a sand equivalent of 20 or better and an ASCE very low to low expansive materials should be used. The backfill must encompass the full active wedge area. > No backfill should be placed against concrete until minimum design strengths are achieved in compression tests of cylinders. > Footing excavations for retaining walls should be observed by the project soil engineer or his representative. > Backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density at or slightly above optimum moisture as per ASTM:D 1557-02. It should be noted that the bearing capacity and passive resistance values pre- sented in Section 4.2 are based on level conditions at the toe. Modified design pa- rameters can be presented for retaining walls with sloped conditions at the toe. TABLE 4.4 SELECT BACKFILL Rankine Equivalent Fluid Level Backfill Coefficients Pressure (psf/lin.ft.) Coefficient of Active Pressure: Ka = 0.31 40.0 Coefficient of Passive Pressure: K = 3.25 423.0 Coefficient of at Rest Pressure: K0 = 0.47 61.0 El PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. Page 10 Rankine Equivalent Fluid 2 :1 Backfill . Coefficients Pressure Coefficient of Active 'Pressure: Ka = 0.47 61.0 Coefficient of Passive Pressure: . . .. . Ascending K (+) = 8.62 1121.0 Descending . K (-) = 1.23 .160.0 Coefficient of At'Rest Pressure: K,: = 0.76 94.0 RETAINING. WALL BACKFILL ,N.T.S. PROVIDE DRAINAGE SWALE BACKFILL T ' •H/2 MIN. 12 IN. MIN. w. NATIVE OR SELECT BACKFILL I . SELECT . d 'BACKFILL DRAIN LATERALLY-,1 OR PROVIDE WEE. -P 1 AS REQUIRED ' AND TO DRAIN . [ ;:..:.•':.: OR AS MODIFIED BY A * SPECIFIC REPORT 4. INCH PERFORATED PVC, SCHEDULE 40, SDR 35 OR APPROVED ALTERNATE, PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUND WITH 4 CU. FT. PER FT.OF 34 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED ALTERNATE AND MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 40l07l Page 11 March 12, 2007 5.0 SLOPE STABILITY AND MAINTENANCE During mass grading, the design and construction of slopes are created to possess both stability against rotational failure and stability, against, surficial slumping and "pop-outs". However, certain factors are beyond the control of the project soil engineer and geologist. These include the following: 5.1 Onsite Drainage No water should be allowed to flow over any slope. No alteration of pad gradi- ents should be allowed which will prevent pad and roof run-off from being expe- diently directed to approved disposal areas. Positive drainage away from struc- tures should be provided and maintained. 5.2 Planting and Irrigation It is strongly recommended that slope planting consist of ground cover, shrubs and trees, which possess deep, dense rooted structures and which require mini- , mum irrigation. It should be the responsibility of the landscape architect to pro- vide such plants initially and the owner to maintain such planting. Alteration of such planting scheme is at the owner's risk. The owner is responsible for proper irrigation, maintenance and repair of properly installed irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage. Overwatering with consequent wasteful run-off and ground saturation must be avoided. 5.3 Burrowing Animals Owners should implement a program for the elimination of burrowing animals in slope areas. This should be an ongoing program in order to protect slope stability. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401.07 1 Page .12 March'12, 2007 60 OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.1 Exterior Slabs and Walkways 6.1.1 Subgrade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, dnveways, patios, etc should be moisture c6nditionedto'a minimum of 11.0 percent of optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement. 6.1.2 Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork and driveways should be designed utilizing four-'(4) inch minimum thiclthess. . 6.1.3 Control Joints ' Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of ap- proximately ten (10) 'feet. Exterior slabs -should be designed to withstand shrinikage'of the concrete. . 6.1 .4 Flatwork Reinforcement Consideration should be given to reinforcing exterior flatwork as follows IExpasionPötentiiiJ Very Low 6 inches by 6 inches, No: 10 by No. 10 Welded Wire Mesh 7.0 OTHER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTibN.CONSIDERATIONS '.1,. 'Positive drainage away from stiuctiirès should be provided and maintained. 7.2 Utility trench backfill shall be accomplished in accordance with the prevailing cri- teria.of the City-of Carlsbad. , '7.3 Seismic design should be based on current and applicable building code require- ments. ' • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ' , Work Order 401071 Page 13 March 12, 2007 8.0 OWNER CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES During and upon completion of mass grading of the subject site, representative soil sam- ples were tested for expansive soil characteristics and soluble sulfate concentrations. The results of these tests are presented in Section 4.1 (Table 4.1) and in Appendix C of this report, respectively. In addition, certain portions of the site contain manufactured slopes within or adjacent to building pad areas. All of these conditions should be considered in design, construction, and maintenance of owner improvements. The owners should be advised of certain responsibilities they must accept in consideration of these factors. Suggested information to educate the owners regarding these responsibilities is presented in Appendix D. We suggest that this information be provided to the owners as part of an information packet during the sales process. 9.0 FUTURE PLAN REVIEWS This report represents the grading of the subject site in accordance with the current design as presented in the 20-scale grading plans prepared by Partners Planning and Engineer- ing. However, additional grading and improvements will be required to complete the project. As the project design progresses, site specific geologic and geotechnical issues need to be incorporated into design and construction of the project.-*Consequently, future plan reviews may be necessary. These reviews may include reviews of: Foundation plans. These plans should be forwarded to the project geotechnical engineer for evaluation and comment(s), as necessary. S S S PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 Page 14 March 12, 2007 - This report presents information and data relative to the mass grading and placement of compacted fill at the subject site. A representative of this firm conducted periodic tests and observations during the progress of the construction in an effort to determine whether compliance with the project drawings, specifications and Building Code were being ob- tained. The presence of our personnel during the, work process did not involve any direc- tion or supervision of the contractor. Technical advice and suggestions were provided to the owner and/or his representative based upon the results of the tests and observations. Completed work under the purview of this report is considered suitable for the intended use. Conditions of the reference reports remain applicable unless specifically superseded herein. Respectfully submitted, J ESS/C PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Reviewed by: By/OI Civil Enginee 76~52N C 7 0 6 3 3 UJ .6130/09 - LU No. 2314 107 F 33 Manager of Geote ervices * Reviewed by: 1 Dist: (6) Addressee 0B/JAC/DAM/JAH:bm:401071, March 12, 2007 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. 10 APPENDIX A fl i. 10 19 10 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 Ll REFERENCES California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seis- mic hazards in California: Department of Conservation, special publication 117, 74 p. ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California: International Conference of Building Officials, 3 volumes. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2006, Update Letter for the Carlsbad Medical Village, Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive (South Corner), Carlsbad, CA, dated October 11, 2006 (Work Order 401071). Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Sea View Office Village, Carlsbad Village Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, California, dated April 15, 2004 (Work Order 400979). Tan, S. S. Kennedy, M. P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. • • Ll • PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. . fl . APPENDIX B . fl PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 TABLE I Soil Type Laboratory Maximum Density ASTM:D 1557-02 Soil Type & Description B - Reddish Brown Silty Sand Optimum Maximum Moisture Dry Density (% dry wt.) (lbs./cu.ft.) 8.3 131.8 Ll LEGEND Non-Designated Test - Indicates test taken in compacted fill. Test Location - See Plate 1. fl Elevation - Indicated by approximate field elevation (feet) above mean sea level. TEST TYPE N - Indicates test by Campbell Pacific Nuclear Test Gauge (per ASTM:D 2922-05 . and D 3017-05). fl fl fl eb:401071, March 12, 2007 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 TABLE I (contd) Test Moisture Unit Dry Density Rel. Soil Test Proj. Date Number Test Location Elev. Opt. Field Max. Field Comp. Type Type Spec. 2/7/07 101 Plate 1 133.0 8.3 10.4 131.8 118.9 90 B N 90 102 Plate 1 134.0 8.3 9.7 131.8 121.4 92 B N 90 103 Plate 136.5 8.3 10.0 131.8 120.1 91 B N 90 104 Plate 1 135.0 8.3 9.4 131.8 121.2 91 B N 90 105 Plate 1 138.0 8.3 9.9 131.8 119.1 90 B N 90 106 Plate 1 136.0 8.3 10.1 131.8 120.5 91 B N 90 2/12/07 107 Plate 1 131.0 8.3 10.4 131.8 119.9 90 B N 90 108 Plate 1 131.0 8.3 9.9 131.8 121.3 92 B N 90 109 Plate 1 130.5 8.3 9.7 131.8 120.2 91 .B N 90 110 Plate 1 133.0 8.3 10.1 131.8 120.5 91 B N 90 111 Plate 1 132.0 8.3 10.7 131.8 119.0 90 B N 90 2/13/07 112 Plate 1 134.0 8.3 9.4 131.8 123.1 93 B N 90 113 Plate 1 134.0 8.3 10.6 131.8 118.8 90 B N 90 114 Plate 1 134.0 8.3 10.2 131.8 119.2 90 B N 90 115 Plate 1 . 135.0 8.3 . 9.9 131.8 121.1 91 B N 90 116 Plate 1 135.5 8.3 10.7 131.8 119.1 90 B N 90 117 Plate 1 136.0 8.3 9.4 131.8 122.9 . 93 B N 90 118 Plate 1 - 135.0 8.3 9.9 131.8 120.4 91 B N 90 119 Plate 1 136.0 8.3 10.3 131.8 120.1 91 B N 90 120 Plate 1 137.0 8.3 9.7 . 131.8 121.4 92 B N 90 121 Plate 1 137.0 8.3 9.1 131.8 121.1 91 B N 90 122 Plate 1 138.0 8.3 10.6 131.8 120.2 91: B N 90 2/20/07 123 Plate 1 134.0 8.3 9.1 131.8 125.8 95 B N 90 124 Plate 1 137.0 8.3 8.9 131.8 120.2 91 B N 90 125 Plate 1 138.0 8.3 9.6 131.8 119.6 90 B N 90 126 Plate 1 134.0 8.3 10.2 131.8 118.9 90 B N 90 127 Plate 1 136.0 8.3 8.8 131.8 121.4 92 B N 90 1 eb:401071, March 12, 2007 . . . .. Work Order 4O1O71 March 12, 2007 TABLE I (contd) Test Moisture Unit Dry Density Rel. Soil Test Proj. Date Number Test Location Elev. Opt. Field Max. Field Comp. Type Type Spec. 2/20/07 cont. 128 Plate 1 138.0 8.3 9.5 131.8 120.7 91 B N 90 129 Plate 1 138.0 8.3 9.6 131.8 119.8 90 B N 90 2/21/07 130 Plate 1 137.0 8.3 9.4 131.8 121.3 92 B N 90 131 Plate 1 139.0 8.3 9.9 131.8 120.5 91 B N 90 132 Plate 1 138.5 8.3 8.8 131.8 123.0 93 B N 90 133 Plate 1 139.0 8.3 10.4 131.8 120.2 91 B N 90 134 Plate 1 139.0 8.3 9.7 131.8 121.5 92 B N 90 135 Plate 1 140.0 8.3 9.4 131.8 120.6 91 B N 90 136 Plate 1 140.0 8.3 10.2 131.8 120.4 91 B N 90 137 Plate 1 . 140.0 8.3 10.9 131.8 118.9 90 B N 90 138 Plate 1 140.0 8.3 9.9 131.8 121.4 92 B N 90 2/22/07 139 Plate 1 137.83 8.3 9.0 131.8 121.4 92 B N 90 140 Plate.1 137.83 8.3 8.4 131.8 124.2 94 B N 90 141 Plate 1 137.83 8.3 8.7 131.8 121.8 92 B N 90 142 'Plate 1 137.83 8.3 9.6 131.8 120.2 91 B N 90 143 Plate 1 138.33 8.3 9.2 131.8 121.5 92 B N 90 144 Plate 1 140.33 8.3 8.8 131.8 122.9 93 B N 90 145 Plate 1 140.33 8.3 10.1 131.8 120.0 91 B N 90 146 Plate 1 140.33 8.3 9.4 131.8 121.7 92 B .N 90 147 Plate 1 140.33 8.3 9.7 131.8 120.3 91 B N 90 148 Plate 1 140.33 8.3 8.9 131.8 120.5 91 B N 90 2 eb:401071, March 12, 2007 joM dDEPHiiofI t)J T LE IJ4 1 10 Sc . 2 10- Sc 3 10 Sc 4 .10 . S - 5... 9. - Sc .6 6 - - Sc .7 .. . . Sc 8 Sc 9 . . . 5 . S 10 . 4 Sc PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX C. O 1-1 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. :.. ica ANALYTICAL TESTING CORPORATION : 17461 Derian Avenue. Suite 00.. nine, CA 92614 (949) 261-1022 Faa:(949) 260-3297 LABORATORY REPORT Prepared For: Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc: Project: 401071 7715 Convoy Court . . . . . . . . . SanDiego,CA921Il Attention: Ron Buckley Sampled: 02/22/07 0• . . . . Received: 02/28/07 Issued: 03/12/07 10:18 NELAP #01 IO8CA California ELAP#1 197 CSDLAC #10256 The results listed within this Laboratory Report pertain only to the samples tested in the laboratory. The analyses contained in this report . were performed in occordance with the applicable certifications as noted. All soil samples are reported on a wet weight basis unless otherwise noted in the report. This Laboratory Report is confidential and is intendedfor ihe sole use of TestAmerica and its client. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written permission from TestAme,ica. The Chain of Custody, / page, is included and is an integral pert-of this report. - This entire report was reviewed and approvedfor release. - .. . . . . . SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE :- SUBCONTRACTED: No analyses were subcontracted to an outside laboratory. LABORATORY ID CLIENT:!D ' MATRIX •- 1QB3148-01 El-I Unit (1-3) Soil 1QB3148-02 . El-2 Unit 5(4-6) Soil ..-, . 1QB3148:03 El-3 Unit 7(7-8) . . Soil lQB3148-04 EI-3 Unit 9(9-10) Soil Reviewed By: • S ' •TestArnerica - Irvine, CA Lisa Reightley.For Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager 1(1/13 14S' of 5> 0 Te-StAmerica'. ANALYTICAL TESTING CORPORATION 17461 Derian Avenue. Suite 100. Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 261-1022 Fax-:(949) 260-3297 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. Project ID: 401071 7715 Convoy Court Sampled: 02/22/07 San Diego, CA 92111 Report Number: 1QB3 148 Received: 02/28/07 Attention: Ron Buckley INORGANICS • Reporting Sample Dilution Date Date Data Analyte Method Batch Limit Result Factor Extracted Analyzed Qualifiers Sample ID: 1QB3148-01 (El-1 Unit 2 (1-3) - Soil) Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0 7C0 1080 0.00050 0.0023 1 3/1/2007 3/1/2007 . Sample ID: lQB3148.02 (El-2 Unit 5(4-6) - Soil) , Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 3000 7C01080 0.00050 0.0019 0.998 3/1/2007 3/1/2007 Sample ID: 1QB3148-03 (El-3 Unit 7 (7-8) - Soil) Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0 7C01080 0.00050 0.0027' 0.998 3/1/2007 3/1/2007 • Sample ID: 1QB3148-04 (EI-3 Unit 9(9-10) - Soil) Reporting Units: % Soluble Sulfate EPA 300.0 7C01080 0.00050 0.0018 1 3/1/2007 3/1/2007 I. TestAmerica - Irvine, CA Lisa Reightley For Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager lb. '',/t 0-,,.; OIl/I HI//IVI.II'I/'/H' ,'-i.J si, iii' /,/,n-,II,-I' Tbj.,,,es 'il/Il is? Is ',-s,,n',s, Isa-s's /48 </,: 2 11"UstAmerica ANALYTICAL TESTING CORPORATION 17461 Derian Avenue. Suite 100. Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 261-1022 Faa:(949) 260-3297 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. Project ID: 401071 7715 Convoy Court Sampled: 02/22/07 San Diego, CA 92111 Report Number: IQB3 148 Received: 02/28/07 Attention: Ron Buckley fl METHOD BLANK/QC DATA INORGANICS Reporting Spike Source %REC RPD Data Analyte Result Limit Units Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Qualifiers C Batch: 7C01080 Extracted: 03/01/07 Blank Analyzed: 03/01/2007 (7C01080-BLK1) . fl Soluble Sulfate ND 0.00050 LCS Analyzed: 03/01/2007 (7C01080-BSI) Soluble Sulfate 0.00985 0.00050 Matrix Spike Analyzed: 03/01/2007 (7C01080-MSI) Soluble Sulfate 0.0113 0.00050 Matrix Spike Dup Analyzed: 03/01/2007 (7C01080-MSDI) Soluble Sulfate 0.0112 0.00050 0.0100 98 90-110 Source: JQC000I-01 0.0100 0.0012 101 80-120 Source: IQC000I-01 0.00998 0.0012 100 80-120 I 20 fl 71 TestAmerica - Irvine, CA Lisa Reightley For Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager i/i. '.,,n,p4' !t''O', /h, the /,z/'u,',i,,,'r' 77,/c ,'..,,, ,/u,/I ii,,! I', e/r.'cIiu,'c / ,.,; ,, /0/).' 1./S </ivt i,f c> Ll TestAmerica ANALYTICAL TESTING CORPORATION 17461 Ocrian Avenue. Suite 100. Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 261-1022 Fax:(949) 260-3297 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. Project ID: 401071 7715 Convoy Court Sampled: 02/22/07 San Diego, CA 92111 Report Number: IQB3148 Received: 02/28/07 Attention: Ron Buckley DATA QUALIFIERS AND DEFINITIONS ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit or MDL, if MDL is specified. RPD Relative Percent Difference 1-1 TestAmerica - Irvine, CA Lisa Reightley For Sushmitha Reddy Project Manager The ,', 's,,!, j'.'eee;ee es/i see dw ',fln;eIe', f,.,,( II, !/,,' /,,/,,,,-,,;,u', liii, e;ysss' 11111/1"' I,,' e'jes'.s. lest '5 eiil;,,i;!i,I,•j,',',, /5,•e/e,'s'iu'•'e55i I TOS,-m-erica...' ANALYTICAL TE5TING COPORinTION 7461 Di.rian Aenui. Suite 100 Irvine. CA 92614 (949).261-1022 '61 10 1a (949) 260-3297 Pacific SoilsEuigineering, Inc. Project ID: 401071 7715 Convoy Court '•. - S. I Sampled: 02/22/07 San Diego, CA 92111 Report Number: IQB3 148 Received: 02/28/07 Attention: Ron Buckley 'S TestAmerica Irvine, CA Method Matrix Nelac California EPA 300:0 Soil X X ' Nevada and NELAP-provide dnalyte specific accreditations. Analjte-spec?/Ic information for TestAmerica may be obtained by contacting the laboratory or visiting our webs ite at www.testamericainc.com /5 5 :.-. 0 TestAmerica - Irvine, CA Lisa Reighiley For SLlshmitha Reddy Pro cci Manager •.. '• S i' :1:,' 'rn-b': 'a -i/-ill ii:' /,:/::ni,i:r:- 7/ic :,7c::v c/hz/I i:-: /--r,-,:',-:: -. - •.---:,':c ;--. hi/.ini tnt,', 1,,',ci'cbn' ii---,: 7, LI/n,'t'i,:,.' - ' IB., 5 / ,c> •• APPENDIX D fl PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 rj OWNER MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT CONSIDERATIONS General The owner purchasing property must assume a certain degree of responsibility for owner im- provements and for maintaining conditions around structures. Of primary importance are main- taining drainage patterns andminimizing the soil moisture variation below all lot improvements. Such design, construction and owner maintenance provisions may include: • Employing contractors for owner improvements who design and build in recognition of local building codes and specific site soils conditions. Establishing and maintaining positive drainage away from all foundations, walkways, drive- 0 ways, patios, and other hardscape improvements. Avoiding the construction of planters adjacent to structural improvements. Alternatively, planter sides/bottoms can be sealed with an impermeable membrane and drained away from the improvements via subdrains into approved disposal areas. Sealing and maintaining construction/control joints within concrete slabs and walkways to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. Utilizing landscaping schemes with vegetation that requires minimal watering. Watering should be done in a uniform manner, as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, keeping the soil "moist" but not allowing the soil to become saturated. Maintaining positive drainage away from structures and providing roof gutters on all struc- tures with downspouts that are designed to carry roof runoff directly into area drains or dis- charged well away from the foundation areas. Avoiding the placement of trees closer to the proposed structures than a distance of one-half the mature height of the tree. Observation of the soil conditions around the perimeter of the structure during extremely , hot/dry or unusually wet weather conditions so that modifications can be made in irrigation programs to maintain relatively uniform moisture conditions. Ll 40 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 Sulfates The owner should be cautioned against the import and use of certain inorganic fertilizers, soil amendments, and/or other soils from offsite sources in the absence of specific information relat- ing to their chemical composition. Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfate compounds into soils otherwise containing "negligible" sulfate concentrations and increase the sulfate con- centrations to potentially detrimental levels. In some cases, concrete improvements constructed in soils containing high levels of soluble sulfates may be affected by crystalline growth or mm- eral accumulation, which may, in the long term, result in deterioration and loss of strength. Site Drainage The owner should be made aware of the potential problems that may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, paved walkways; or other hardscape im- provements. Ponded water, drainage over the slope face, leaking irrigation systems, over- watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation must be avoided. • No water should be allowed to flow over the slopes. No alteration of pad gradients should be allowed that would prevent pad and roof runoff from being directed to approved disposal ar- eas. . • As part of site maintenance by the owner, all roof and pad drainage should be directed away from slopes and around structures to approved disposal areas. Drainage patterns have been established at the time of the fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the structure. No alterations to these drainage patterns should be made unless designed by quali- fied professionals in compliance with local code requirements and site-specific soils condi- tions. Slope Drainage Owner should be made aware of the importance of maintaining and cleaning all interceptor ditches, drainage terraces, downdrains, and any other drainage devices, which have been in- stalled to promote slope stability. • Subsurface drainage pipe outlets may protrude through slope surfaces and/or wall faces. These pipes, in conjunction with the graded features, are essential to slope and wall stability and must be protected in-place. They should not be altered or damaged in any way. [1 PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 Planting and Irrigation of Slopes Seeding and planting of the slopes should be planned to achieve, as rapidly as possible, a well-established and deep-rooted vegetal cover requiring minimal watering. It is the responsibility of the landscape architect to provide such plants initially and of the residents to maintain such planting. Alteration of such a planting scheme is at the owner's risk. The owner is responsible for proper irrigation and for maintenance and repair of properly in- stalled irrigation systems. Leaks should be fixed immediately. Sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of wa- ter usage and overlap. Overwatering with consequent wasteful runoff and serious ground saturation must be avoided. If automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for sea- sonal and natural rainfall conditions. Burrowing Animals The owner must undertake a program to eliminate burrowing animals. This must be an ongo- ing program in order to promote slope stability. Owner Improvements Owner improvements (retaining walls, planters, etc.) should be designed to account for the ter- rain of the project, as well as expansive soil conditions and chemical characteristics. Design considerations on any given area may need to include provisions for differential bearing materi- als, ascending/descending slope conditions, bedrock structure, perched (irrigation) water, and special geologic surcharge loading conditions, expansive soil stresses, and long-term creep/settlement. n LA PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Work Order 401071 March 12, 2007 All owner improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals utilizing appropriate design methodologies, which account for the on-site soils and geologic conditions. Each proposed improvement shouldbe evaluated on an individual basis. Setback Zones Fill slopes have been manufactured on site to maximum heights of approximately eight (8) feet. Manufactured slopes maybe subject to long-term settlement and creep that can manifest itself in the form ofbothhorizontal and vertical movement. These movements typically are produced as a result of weathering, erosion, gravity forcçs,. and other natural phenomenon. A setback adja- cent to slopes is required by most building codes, including the Uniform Building Code. This zone is intended to locate and support the residential structures away from these slopes and onto soils that are not subject to the potential adverse effects of these natural phenomena. The owner may wish to construct walls, walkways, planters, etc. within this zone. Such facilities s may be sensitive to settlement and creep and should not be constructed within the setback zone unless properly engineered. It is suggested that plans for such improvements be designed by a professional engineer who is familiar with hillside grading ordinances and design and construc- tion requirements associated with hillside conditions. In addition, we recommend that the de- signer and contractor familiarize themselves with the site specific geologic and geotechnical conditions on the specific lot. PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. p5" SCREEN — / \ - -- ' 443 - \pLTPENED 4 "WG 'çCE IM!. 11 kYDEø1LA ;: 'fl=t2M5 ox A -I• MOD, ?l 2F 'B /3RD1 V OI?C/I W/ EX7ENM17 WALL P&? SD/?SO 0-7 C06RETE SHAlL BE FARM TONED fl M?76M ?r VISUAL I!PACT RETAINING 1LI., PciH 6' 02.191 PER C- PARKING LOT SLOPE W4&S 43 i&Li1QL4E4 NOT TO SCALE /4 6' SCREEN WALL —\ 2 AIQIA 7}1E 9' L'ROW DITCH i/ EXThWPEO / ;iiu we sosv D-2,5 OONOR7E / SHALL DE EARTH 1iNED TO 4I/i7(M iF 2 14SII14L IMPACT— Sp RETAIN/NC WALL -- LEGEND Ii Qafc ARTIFICIAL FILL — COMPACTED FILL 21 01 Qafu ARTIFICIAL FILL — UNDOCUMENTED Qt TERRACE DEPOSIT (BRACKETED WHERE BURIED) — — — - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT 3' MIN 101 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF COMPACTION TEST CD APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF REMOVAL BOTTOM INDICATES CAP PAD LIMITS OF REPORT NiiAiiPw NOT A PART OF THIS REPORT ' F 3UX/2l OPEN/NC 1 IN WAU o io' aa PROPOSE!) 2 ALtWC E,1/71RE LEN(fll/ ,/6' MOD FENCE / CRASS-LINED S WALE .011 / SEE DETAIL il//S SHEET — I 2'MJV_ ( r b * —3"A VA ' 6SD -i 6 ' 1 F 1• •••'•• .•• I-I • I • • I NOT 10 5C.41t. ..flLLII ISLE WALL DETAILS ON SHEET? 1 NOT TO SCALE L • 8'REi!A/ W411 3"XI2M OPEN/NC — /NWAU/(YO.C. \ ALONG ff11/RE LEA'G1/f ' OF WALL 2' CRASS LANOSCA P/NC 3X12M OPEN/NC IN WALL O1O'CW. ALONG Eu/liRE LENC 71/ Or NOT TO SCALE .TLL.EW1QN_EZE NOT TO SOALE GRASS-1110 SWALE WERE INO/CA TEL) ON PLAN ffRfiffl L NOT TO SCALE GRAPHICAL SCALE 1 ALL ROOF DRAINS 2V DRAIN TO CL/RB AND WT177? 144 4 PVC S.D. D/RE0711VC DRAIN,4CE TO Il/f DET(8170N MC/LIYX NO ROOF DRAINS S44LL RE DIRECTED TIlE THE 4" PRI4 TE PVC SD. 1, 0911 AS @ AND j OF STORM DRAIN DATA TABLE. 2. ACCESS AISLES DES/ONO IW7H TRAFFIC /NDEX OF 5.0 TO CITY STANDARDS. 3 QiiAN1711E5 SHO!W ON S/lEfT 1 ARE ff511414 TES FOR PEI?MI1718G PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR FINAL CONTRACTOR PA V Q/JAN7177E5. DESCRIP170N: BRASS D/Sl( AfAf?KED LS 6.2151F ..21. PLATE I LOCATiON: NOM SIDE CUR/3CARLSB4I0 MW VII1ACEIJR/J 1PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. H/CIILA,V[) W AND 711 FT ILST OF 111 ,11V I1nf74V 74f f'ItkIIr%/ iriir Akt rtr'i f'A 44.4 L'UI .iJi t I V '.J I '..#%J U I I %7m lm IJI '..It L I I I ELEVATiON: 129.30 HSL DAh1/M: CLS&-122 I TELEPHONE: (858) 560-1713, FAX: (858) 560-0380 L W.O. 401071 DATE: 03-12-07 PAT Hi t. .t 4l... Afltfl11 ..L' 0_nW PLATE I _.I... ririi Uiiii i.ii3 1U¼V11 UT UI rLMIL £.UW9 REQUIRED TREA ThIEN T CONTROL BUP_TABLE DESCRIPTION QL/AN 7Th' DETENTION AND SETTLING 1 FA. FOSSIL FlUE!? 3 EA. 010 FIL iRA 77Q/l/ :~~?] STORM DRAIN A TALE (PRIVATE) Na DiTA,'R • LENO1II REMARK 1 N4515"W ______ 1053' I/LIFE 2 ••5O w F'_ • 18's //Op 3 . "W 42.9. 18" WE 4 ______ __ .• 5Z 64' 11 1" HOPE 5 N56V2'/SME 1L33' JM PVCSDR-35 6 N5$2'/5'5 &Y3' M 3 P SDR-35 7 33'45'O1E 35.58' 5 PVC SDR-35 8 S5$V2'Otw • 15.38' 9 w s5ai4''s' 16.47' 10 5V851W .4.88' " : _: • 12 NOT U5E0. 13 /3J7'50't 115JL2' 14 N5V2Vfl ____• ____ J.501 _________ ________ 15 5"W 9$62' " le 4V55 0 It 17 f/J4V535' W . .. • 18 S5554V . O . 70 20 $345'42t' 10M9' 27 N5356E 1591. N337'54'W 6" PVC MR-J5 22 100.00' 48 (241/' * 2J .N56V2'15 L3? 3PVCSLW-35 ' ALUMINIZED ME II CMI'. 16 CAGE 4114N114C7Z/REO BY COMM STW41I11ER SOLUYIONS INC, ,Ss/\ • Exp, 6-30-07 ____ ___________________________ _____ ____ ____ ••••_•••••• _.••__••••••••_ __•• ._ •-•_••-._ .• "AS BUILT" _____ _ _ SPECTOR _DATE SHEET CITY OF CAR L1 AO HEETS 3 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ___ ..•.__.. . ... ••.••.. .. ___ __ GRADING PLANS FOR: CARLSBADMDICALVILLAOE GRADING AND WRAINIAGE PLAN ___________..•_•..--• .••....• • __•_•.•• ____ ___ ••.•••.• ••____ •• •- •••.. ...•. APPROVEQ. / CONRADCHAMMANN -_- CITY GiNgE EXPIRES Qf3o/o8 DATE _PE33O _••• ____ ••.• __ PROJECT NO. _CTOS-1 443-4A DRAWING NO. DWN?: fc, E JIL IYATC—IfUlAl- REVISION DESCRIPTION "DATE iNrnA DATE INITIAL OTHER /ppr APPROVAL