Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 07-11; MORRISON RESIDENCE; PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION; 2018-02-06111'f:/Ulf} TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING, INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PRELIMINARY SOILS INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 4338 HIGHLAND DRIVE PARCEL 3 OF PM 11553 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (CDP07-11) PREPARED FOR KEVIN MORRISON 4336 HIGHLAND D~ CARLSBAD, CA 92008 FEBRUARY 6, 2008 (Revised) PROJECT NO. TE-1195 111f:llllfi TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING, INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Kevin Morrison 4336 Highland Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUB.JECT: Preliminary Soils Investigation Proposed Single Family Dwelling 4338 Highland Drive Parcel 3 of PM 11553 Carlsbad, California CDP07-11 Dear Mr. Morrison: Project No. TE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised In response to your request, we have performed a Preliminary Soils Investigation for the subject project. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the suitability of the site for the proposed development and make recommendations with regard to site grading and foundation design. Briefly, our investigation revealed that past cut/fill grading was performed at the site to construct a near level pad. Grading has generated undocumented fill soils that mantle the immediate building site between 1 foot and 6 feet in depth. These fill soils should not be relied on for support of structures and will require removal and recompaction during future earthwork construction. The second concern that impacts the site is the presence of a 20 foot high ascending natural bluff that is located along the northwest property line. The upper half (top II feet) of the bluff is scouered and is at vertical to near vertical inclinations. The bottom portion of the bluff is covered \\'ith earthen debris deposited by sloughing and erosion of the c1iffface. The soil make up of the bluff consists of dense silty-sandstones of the Coastal Terrace Deposits succeeded by very dense fomlational sandstone. The bluff appears stable to date \\lth relation to deep seated rotational failure. However, surficial fmIure/sloughing \vill be the main concern and vi,'ill need to be mitigated to protect the proposed structure andlor surface improvements. (i.e. slough safety wall.) In our opinion. the site \\ill be suitable for the proposed residence provided recommendations set forth in the attached report are adhered to. P. O. Box 301061 • Escondido, CA 92030 • (760) 740-0826 FAX (760) 741-6568 : LfllUAfJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PToject~o. 11E-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submittecL Terra Technology Engineering, Inc. ~K~-__ Ronald K. Adams President RKA:paj cc: (4) submitted Dale R. RegJi : l:ft!G.!lfJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 7.) TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose and Scope Location and Description of Site Field Investigation Soil Conditions Laboratory Soil Testing Recommendations and Conclusions A.) Grading B.) Foundations C.) Slopes D.) Retaining Walls E. ) Slough Safety Wall F. ) Estimated Paving Sections G.) Seismic Design Considerations H.) Review of Grading Plan Uncertainty and Limitations APPENDIX Appendix A: Exploration Legend & Unified Soil Classification Chart Page 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 Plate No. One Plate No. Two thru Seven Plate No. Eight Test Pit Location Plan (1 tI = 40' scale of grading plan) Exploration Logs Tabulation of Test Results Appendix B: Recommended Grading Specifications Appendix C: Site topography slope analysis prepared by Skyline Engineering Appendix D: References 111f:lllln I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING. INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Project~o. 11E-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 1 The purpose of the investigation was to detennine if the site is suitable for the proposed single family dwelling. The scope of the investigation was to: 2. A. B. Determine the physical properties and engineering characteristics of the surface and subsurface soils. Provide design information v,ith regard to grading. site preparation. and foundation design of the proposed structure(s). LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is located at 4338 Highland Drive (bebind 4336 Highland Drive) and is in the city of Carlsbad, California. The legal designation of the site is Parcel 3 of Parcel Map ~o. 11553. Access into the site is provided by a 25 foot wide access and utility easement that parallels the south property line off Highland Drive. The .5 acre irregular shaped property is bordered by residential properties to the northwes~ wesL east, and south. Past cut/fill earthwork construction was performed at the site to construct a near level pad. Fill soils generated from grading, mantle the immediate building site and vary between 1 foot to 6 feet in depth. These undocumented fill soils are inlaid with asphalt debris and should not be relied upon for support of structures in their present condition. A rounded cut/natural slope descends from the west property line to the existing pad elevation of 120 feet MSL. The slope is approximately 20 feet high at inclinations varying from 1.5: 1 and 2: 1 horizontal to vertical units. Shallow fill slopes constructed to maximum heights of 4 feet at inclinations of2:1 descend from the southeast edge fo the existing pad. A portion of the fill slope extends off-site to the east. A 20 foot high natural bluff ascends from the existing pad elevation to the northwest property line. The upper half (top 11 feet) of the bluff is scoured and is at vertical to near vertical inclinations. The bonom portion of the bluff is cloaked with earthen debris deposited by sloughing and erosion of the c1iffface. With the exception of surficial erosion and sloughing. evidence of deep seated failure is not apparent to date. :Lfl!!~1j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project No. TE-1195 February 6,2008 Revised Page 2 The total difference in elevations at the property is approximately 32 feet and varies between 110 feet and 142 feet MSL. Sheet flow drainage at the site is directed to the east and southeast portions of the property. On-site slope analysis with regard to site topography was prepared by Sk-yline Engineering of Oceanside. California, and is attached herewith as Appendix 'C'. Site vegetation at the existing pad elevation consists of sparse native grasses. The upper portion of the existing cut/natural slope is covered with coastal brush and the bluff is draped with isolated areas of ice plant. 3. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was perfonned on February 26, 2007 and included an inspection of the site and the excavation of six exploratory trenches, with a backhoe to depths of 10 feet. Location of test pits are shown on the attached Plate No. One, entitled "Test Pit Location Plan". As excavation proceeded, representative bulk samples were collected. In place natural densities and moisture contents were determined at different depths in the excavations and are included on Plate No.'s Two through Seven. Subsequent to obtaining soil samples, our exploratory excavations were backfilled. 4. SOIL CONDITIONS Test Pit No. One was excavated into the face of the existing cut slope along the westerly property line approximately 6 feet above the toe of the slope. Slope materials were comprised of brown- orange dense cemented silty-sandstone of the Coastal Terrace Deposit. The Coastal Terrace Deposit was underlain by a 3 foot stratum of olive-gray dense to very dense fonnational clayey- sandstone succeeded by pale gray to yellow very dense silty-sandstone (see Plate No. Two). Test Pit No. Two was excavated into the face of the bluff approximately 6 feet above the toe of the slope. Native slope materials were comprised of brown-orange dense silty-sandstone (Coastal Terrace Deposit) to depths of 8 feet. A 1 foot stratum of dense olive-gray clayey- sandstone was horizontally inter-bedded with in the Terrace Deposit from 4 feet to 5 feet in depth. The Terrace Deposit was succeeded by pale gray to yellow very dense fonnational silty- sandstone (see Plate No. Three). Loose compressible top soils (bro\\'Il silty-sands) consisting of undocumented fill and/or plowed ground were found to be 6 feet. 2 feet. 2 feet and 1 foot in depth in Test Pit No:s Three, Four, I I Lf!G!AfJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project No. TE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 3 Five and Six, respectively. Fill soils were inlaid with asphalt debris. Underlying native formational soils were dense to very dense silty-sandstones pale gray to yellow beige in color (see Plate No.'s Four thru Seven). The predominate soils at the site (silty-sands and sandstone) were found to have an expansion index of less that 10 and are classified as being "very low" in expansion potential. However, the stratums of olive-gray c1ayey-sands~one encountered in Test Pit No.' s One and Two were found to have an expansion index of 49 and are classified as being "low to moderate" in expansion potential. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of our in\'estigatio~ nor did caving of exploratory trenches occur. In addition, due to the dense nature of the underl)ing sandstone formation at the site, it is our opinion, soil liquefaction is unlikely to occur in the event grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations set forth in this report. 5. LABORATORY SOIL TESTING All laboratory test were performed on typical soils in accordance with accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Tests conducted include: A). Optimum Moisture & Maximum Density (ASTM D-1557) B). Direct Shear (Remold) (ASTM D-3080) C). Sieve Analysis (ASTM D-1140) D). Field Density & Moisture (ASTM D-1556) E). Expansion Potential (FHA Standard) Test results are tabulated on the attached Plate No.'s Two through Eight entitled '''Exploration Log" and "Tabulation of Test Results". 6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLllSIONS General It is our understanding, the proposed dwelling will consist of two-story wood frame construction utilizing slab on grade foundations. In addition, masonry retaining walls will be constructed alom! the access/utility easement and at the base of the westerly 2: 1 cut/native slone that I ILF;!YAfJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PToject~o, llE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 4 descends to pad elevation. Furthennore, to protect the development and occupants from future earthen debris sloughing from the face oftbe existing bluff, a masonry slough safety wall is planned, The wall will be constructed approximately 15 feet inside the property line in front of the bluff at pad elevation. The wall will be designed to contain existing slough debris and entrap future earthen debris behind the wall. It is our understanding that the structures will not be built directly under the bluff with the exception of the slough containment wall. The diagonal setback at the closest point from the feee of the bluff to the northwest building comer will be in the order of 40 feet. It should also be noted that the adjacent 2:1 cut/native slope descends into the site protruding past the face of the bluff and should help shield and/or contain slough debris directed toward the proposed dwelling. In our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed dwelling. Recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into the planning, design and construction phases ofthe subject project. 6A. Grading General Limited grading at the site will be perfonned to remove and recompact undocumented fill soils within the footprint of the proposed structure and/or major surface improvements. In addition, excavations along portions of the driveway easement and at the base of the 2:1 cut/natural slope will be made to accommodate the proposed retaining walls, Site grading will not be performed on the face of the bluff. Due to the property line condition, the bluff and neighboring property will remain undisturbed. Future sloughing and erosion of the bluff will be contained by the slough safety wall. In our opinion, the proposed development will not interfere with the existing geologic condition of the bluff, All grading should be performed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and the Recommendations/Specifications presented in this report. Subsequent to site demolition, loose surficial soils (plowed ground/old fin), as indicated on the attached Plate No's Four thru Seven. should be removed to firm native ground and recompacted in accordance with the attached Appendix 'B' entitled "Recommended Grading Specification". Firm native ground may be determined as undisturbed soil having an insitu density of greater than ninety percent (90%) of maximum dry density_ Limits of grading should extend under and a minimum of 5 feet beyond the building footprint and/or major surface improvements where applicable. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project No. TE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 5 To reduce differential settlement across the proposed dwelling, we recommend the building area be over-excavated a minimum of 3 feet below finish pad grade and recompacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of maximum dry density. The removal area should extend under and a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed building footprint. Footings for the proposed retaining walls and/or slough safety walls will be required to extend a minimum of 18 inches into formational sandstone. Therefore, removal and recompaction of their footing bearing soils will not be required. In the event fill slopes are planned, shear keys should be excavated a minimum of 2 feet into firm native ground, inclined back into slope, and have a minimum width of 15 feet. We should be contacted to document keyways were properly constructed prior to placing fill. All fill soils generated from earthwork construction should be placed in conformance with the attached Appendix 'B' entitled, "Recommended Grading Specifications". If required, soils to be imported should be non-expansive (less than 2% swell) and granular by nature, having strength parameters equal to or greater than the prevailing on-site soils. We should be contacted to inspect anlOT test imported soils prior to hauling then on-site to assure they will be suitable for the proposed construction. Particles of asphalt and concrete debris, having a diameter of greater than 6 inches, will not be suitable fill material and should be separated from fines during grading and hauled off-site. If encountered, leach lines and/or pipes should be removed. Concrete pipes may be crushed in place. Trench lines should be recompacted in accordance with Appendix 'B'. All grading and retaining wall backfill operations should be inspected and tested by our firm to assure compliance with the above recommendations. Prior to placing fill, the bottom of over- excavations and/or removals should be inspected by our firm. 6B. Foundations General The majority of on-site soils encountered during our investigation were classified as being "very low" in expansion potential. However, some stratums of clayey-sandstones were encountered I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project No. TE-I 195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 6 within the formation and are classified as being "low" in expansion potential. Therefore, the following preliminary foundation design parameters are with regard to low expansion potential: For One-and Two-Story Construction: Continuous footings having a minimum width of 15 inches and founced a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade will have an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot. Isolated square footings having a diameter of 18 inches and founded a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade will have an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1500 pounds per square foot. All continuous footings are to be reinforced with one #5 bar top and bottom. Steel should be positioned 3 inches above bottom of footing and 3 inches below top of footing. Interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars on 18 inch centers both ways at mid-point of slab thickness. Slab underlayment should consist of 4 inches of washed concrete sand with a visqueen moisture barrier installed at mid-point of sand (2 inches sand, visqueen, 2 inches sand). Sand should be tested in accordance with ASTM D-24l9 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Foundation set-backs from top of slopes should be a minimum of 8 feet. If this cannot be achieved, footings near or on adjacent slopes should be founded at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the bottom outside edge of footing to the face of the slope is a minimum of8 feet. All foundations for the proposed retaining walls and/or slough walls should protrude through compressible top soils and/or slough debris and bear a minimum of 18 inches into fonnational sandstone. Prior to pouring of concrete. Terra Technology Engineering~ Inc. should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6C. Slopes PToject~o. 1lE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 7 Minor cut and compacted fil1 slopes will be constructed to provide positive surface drainage at the site. ~ew cut and compacted fill slopes constructed at inclinations of 1.5:1 and 2:1, respectively, to maximum heights of 10 feet will be stable with relation to deep seated failure, prcvided they are properly maintained. Existing cut and compacted fill slopes are stable as constructed with relation to deep seated failure, provided they will be properly maintained. Positive drainage away from top of all slopes should be provided. Slopes should be planted with light ground cover indigenous to the area Landscaping and irrigation should be provided in accordance with the local grading ordinance. Our analysis was performed utilizing Taylor's Charts for cut and compacted fill slopes and a safety factor of 1.5 6D. Retaining Walls For static conditions, the prevailing soils will have an allowable equivalent passive fluid pressure of 320 psf, increasing 320 psf per foot in depth. Allowable pressures assume walls are backfilled with a non-expansive sand a distance behind the wall equivalent to two-thirds the retained height. Allowable active pressures may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 42 pef for unrestrained wa1ls. These va1ues assume a vertical, smooth wall, and a level, drained backfill. Should these conditions not be met, we should be contacted for new values. Allowable active pressures for restrained walls may be assumed to be equiva1ent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 42 pef, plus an additional uniform lateral pressure of SH. H=height of retained soils above top of wa1I footing in vertical feet. Allowable active pressures for retaining wa1Is with 2: 1 inclinations of sloping surcharge may be assumed to be equiva1ent to a pressure of fluid weighing 60 pef. (Use 76 peffor 1.5:1 inclinations of sloping surcharge.) The coefficient of friction of concrete to soil may be assumed to be .35 for resistance to horizontal movement. All walls should be provided with drains behind and at the base of the wall. To provide a well drained condition, Miradrain 6000 and/or its equivalent is recommended. Drains should be I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PToject~o. llE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 8 constructed in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. Back of walls should be water- proofed (when applicable) per the project structural engineers recommendations. 6E. Slougb Safety Wall The slough safety wall should be designed in accordance with the above retaining wall design criteria. However, existing slough debris have accumulated at the base of the slope at inclinations as steep as 1.5: 1 horizontal to vertical units. Therefore, we recommend that the wall be designed with regard to a 1.5:1 sloping surcharge. Allowable active pressures for 1.5:1 sloping surcharge are equivalent to a pressure of fluid weighing 76 pounds per cubic foot. In addition, a minimum of 6 feet of free standing wall space should be maintained behind the wall from the top of the existing slough debris measured vertically to the top of the wall. Per the project structural engineer, the wall should also be provided with a continuous drain behind and at the base of the wall to assure a well drained condition is maintained. The drain should be wrapped in filter fabric to reduce siltation. In addition, we recommend the drain have a minimum of one percent (1 %) fall towards their outlets. To provide safety, the project owner may consider securing access to the area behind the wall by chain link fencing, (i.e. trespassing, children playing), etc. Posting warning signs should also be considered. 6F. Estimated Paving Sections Structural section for asphaltic paving for the proposed driveways and parking area are based on an estimated R-Value of 40. The following section is provided for bid purposes only. Actual sections should be determined subsequent to completion of grading operations. Assumed Traffic Index = 4.5 (Light Vehicular Traffic) 3 inches of asphaltic paving on 4 inches of select base coarse on 12 inches ofrecompacted native subgrade. I ILf(!G.~fJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project No. TE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 9 All materials and construction for asphaltic paving and base should conform to the Standard Specifications of the State of California Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Transportatio~ Sections 39 and 26, respectively. Class II base material should have a minimum R-Value of 78 and a sand equivalent of30. All materials should be compacted to a minimum of ninety-five percent (95%). Rigid Concrete Paving: 5 inches of concrete reinforced with #3 bars on 18 inch centers, both ways, on 12 inches of recompacted native subgrade soils compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density. NOTE: All concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 3250 psi. 6G. Seismic Design Considerations (Soil Parameters) A.) Soil Profile = SD (Table 16-1 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code) B.) Type 'B' Fault (Rose Canyon) C.) Distance = 8 Ian (California Department ofConservatio~ Division of Mines and Geology [maps], in conjunction with Tables 16-S and 16-T of the 1997 Uniform Building Code) 6H. Review of Grading Plan We have reviewed the most recent grading plans (CDP07-11) prepared by Skyline Engineering and found them to be prepared in substantial conformance with the recommendations presented in this revised preliminary soils report. Therefore, we recommend plans be submitted to the City of Carlsbad as scheduled. 7. UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS Surface and subsurface soils are assumed to be uniform. Therefore. should soils encountered during construction differ from those presented in this report, we should be contacted to provide their engineering properties. 111f:1l1lJ} I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING, INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Project~o. llE-1195 February 6, 2008 Revised Page 10 It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to carry out recommendations set forth in this report. During our investigation of the subject site, evidence of faulting was not encountered. Subsequent to reviev,' of available geologic literature, we feel any faulting in the vicinity of the site may be classified as inactive. Hov.;ever, it should be noted that San Diego County is located in a high seismic area with regard to earthquake. Earthquake proof projects are economically unfeasible. Therefore. damage as a result of earthquake is probable and we assume no liability. We assume the on-site safety of our personnel only. \Ve cannot assume liability ofpersonneJ other than our (lwn. It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance \\ith regulations governed by CAL-OSHA and/or local agencies. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Terra Technology Engineering, Inc. ~k~-­ Ronald K. Adams President RKA:paj cc: (4) submitted 111f:U n I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING. INC I EXPLORATION LEGEND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL DESCRIPTION l. COARSE GRAINED: More than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size. GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size, but smaller than 3". GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SANDS CLEAN SANDS More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES (appreciable amount of fines) II. FINE GRAINED: More than half of material is smal1erthan No200 sieve size. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit less than 50 SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GROUP SYMBOL GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT us -Undisturbed, driven ring sample or tube sample CK -Undisturbed chunk sample BG -Bulk sample ~ -Water level at time of excavation or as indicated APPENDIX 'A' TYPICAL NAMES Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines. Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel- sand-silt mixtures. Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand, cIay mixtures. Well graded sand, gravely sands. lit1le or no fines. Poorly graded sands, gravely sands. lit1le or no fines. Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silt mixtures. Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and cIay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clayey- silt-sand mixtures with slight plasticity. Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravely clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty cIay s oflow plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous find sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Inorganic clays ofhigb plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Peat and other highly organic soil~. 111f:llllfi TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING, INC TERRA TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING, INC. Soil Testing and Inspection Services TEST PIT LOCATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Single Family Dwelling Highland Drive Carlsbad, California ~ \\'\ r : LEGEND FOR NOTES o EXISTING EARTHEN LANDSLIDE DEBRIS []] SITE RETAINING WALL \ \ \ ~ ~ >or ,g' j Jr--~------' '\\ \ /' , \!/ ."II!/ ). \ rnsTlHC kD'JSf ~ I 4 \ // .. [£] SIT£ SAFTY SLOUGH WALL o SKI? IT] EXISTING PCC PAVING I \ [£] PROPOSED A.C. PAVING. SEE SOILS REPORT o PROPOSED 6' WOODEN fENCE _ " 0 6-DlA. YARD DRAIN Wfm GRATE AND 6-DIA. PVC PIPE, UNO OJ LANDSCAPE YARD BY OVrNER, AT MINIMUM PLANT GRASS fJ1 OVfREXCAVAT£ AND RECOMPACT BUILDING PAD ~ REMED1A TE DRIVfWA Y PER SOILS REPORT o MINOR FILL AS NEEDED PROJECT NO. TE-1195 PLATE NO. O~ E 111f:1l1lJ} I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING. INC I EXPLORATION LOG I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NAME: Highland Drive, Carlsbad DATE LOGGED: 02126/07 ELEVATION: __ ~1=26~Fe=e=t.=.::M=S~L~ _____ TEST PIT NO. _-",O=NE-=-__ Depth Sample Dry Moisture Passing Sample Soil Description & Remarks (Feet) Type Density Content #200 Depth Classi- (pef) (%) Sieve fication SM Brown-Orange, Humid, Dense, Silty- Sandstone 1- (Finn Native / Coastal Terrace Deposit) 2- BG (Cemented) 3-CK II 8.3 5.4 27.8 3' 4- 5- SC Olive-Gray, Moist. Dense. Clayey- BG 39.3 Sandstone 6-CK 117.8 13.4 6' (Fonnational Sandstone) (Bedded Horizontal) 7- (Small Rounded Cobblestone) (Streaks of Orange) 8- SM Pale Gray to Yellow, Moist. Very Dense, Silty-Sandstone 9-CK 119.8 10.1 32.3 9' (Cemented) 10------ Bottom of TeSl Pit PROJECT NO. _--"T~E~-1=1=9=5 __ PLATE NO., __ T:....\.:..:.V~O~ __ 111l:lflln TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING. INC I EXPLORATION LOG I PROJECT NAME: ---,H~l~' g=hl=a=nd~Dri=·:..:..;ve=,_~C=ar~ls=b=ad=--_ DATE LOGGED: 02126/07 I I ELEVATION: ____ ~1=26~Fe=e=t=M=S=L~ ______ __ TEST PIT NO. _~T--!..W~O~_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I Depth Sample Dry Moisture Passing (Feet) Type Density Content #200 (pef) (%) Sieve J- 2- 3- 4-CK 113.9 14.3 5- 6- 7- 8- 9-CK 117.6 7.7 10- PROJECT NO. _----'T'-!:E=---.:o..;l1~9:...:::5 __ Sample Soil Description & Remarks Depth Classi- fication SM Brown-Orange, Humid, Dense. Silty- Sandstone (Finn Native I Coastal Terrace Deposit) (Cemented) 4' SC Ollve-Gray. Dense, Moist, Clayey- Sandstone (Bedded Horizontal) SM Brown-Orange, Humid, Dense Silty- Sandstone (Firm Native I Coastal Terrace Deposit) (Cemented) SM Pale Gray to Yellow. Humid, Very Dense. Silty-Sandstone 9' (Sandstone Fonnation) - Bottom of Test Pit PLATENO., ___ T~H==RE==E ___ _ :l:f5.~fJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPLORATION LOG PROJECT NAME: -:H=ig;>:.::hl=an=d=-=D.=ri:....:..ve=,_---=C=ar=ls=b=ad=--_ DATE LOGGED: 02/26/07 ELEVATION: __ ...:::1=20~Fe=e=t=M=S=L"__ _____ TEST PIT NO. THREE Depth Sample Dry Moisture Passing Sample Soil Description & Remarks (Feet) Type Density Content #200 Depth Classi- (pet) (%) Sieve fication SM Brown, Humid, Loose. Silty-Sand 1-(Undocumented Fill) 2- (Remove and Recompact) (Asphalt Debris) 3- 4-BG 22.2 5- 6- SM Pale Gtay to Yellow-Beige, Moist, Very Dense, Silty-Sandstone 7-CK 114.5 9.9 (Formation) 8- Bottom of Test Pit PROJECT NO. _---=T=-=:E=--=11=9=.5 __ PLATE NO._---"'-F~O~U~R~ __ ~nUJlJ} I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING. INC I EXPLORATION LOG I PROJECT NAME: --,H=i<.l:;:g=h1=an=d~D=riv..!....:e:::1,_--=C=ar=ls=b=ad~_ DATE LOGGED: 02/26/07 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ELEVATION: __ -"'1=20.::.....=...F=ee=t=M=S=L~ _____ TEST PIT NO. FOUR Depth Sample Dry Moisture Passing Sample Soil Description & Remarks (Feet) Type Density Content #200 Depth Classi- (pef) (%) Sieve fication SM Brown, Loose, Humid, Silty-Sand (Plowed Ground I Fill) 1- (Remove and Recompact) 2- SM Pale Gray to Yellow-Beige, Humid. Very Dense, Silty-Sandstone 3- (Formation) (Cemented) 4- Bottom of Test Pit PROJECT NO. _---=T:...::::E~-=1l=9-=-5 __ PLATE NO._--=-F-=...IV.;....:E=--__ 111'f:lllln TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING. INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPLORATION LOG PROJECT NAME: -'H=ig=hl=a=nd=-=D=ric.,:...ve= __ --=C=ar=ls=b=ad=---_ DATE LOGGED: 02/26/07 ELEVATION: __ ~1=20~F~e=e=t=M~S=L~ _____ TEST PIT NO. FIVE Depth Sample Dry Moisture Passing Sample Soil Description & Remarks (Feet) Type Density Content #200 Depth Classi- (pef) (%) Sieve fication SM Brown, Dry, Loose, Silty-Sand (Undocumented Fill) 1-(Asphalt Debris) (Remove and Recompact) 2--------- SM Yellow-Beige, Humid. Very Dense Silty-Sandstone ... CK 119.8 4.6 17.8 3' (Formation) .)- BG (Cemented) 4- Bottom of Test Pit PROJECT NO. _--=Tc.::E==--I::...eI=9..:::.5 __ PLATE NO._-=S=IX...::..· __ _ I nf:lllln I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING, INC I EXPLORATION LOG I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NAME: Highland Drive, Carlsbad DATE LOGGED: 02126/07 ELEVATION: __ ~1=20~F=ee=t..=.:M=S=L:::-_____ TEST PIT NO. _~SIX~_ Depth Sample Dry Moisture Passing Sample Soil Description & Remarks (Feet) Type Density Content #200 Depth CIassif- (pef) (%) Sieve ication SM BTO\s,ll, Dry, Loose, Silty-Sand (Remove and Recompact) (Undocumented Fill) I- SM Yellow-Beige, Humid, Very Dense Silty-Sandstone 2- Cemented I Fonnation) 3- Bottom of Test Pit PROJECT NO. _--=T::...::E:!--=11=9.::;:.5 __ PLATE NO •. _---==:S=Ec...:..VE~N'__ __ 111f:UD TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING, INC I TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OPTIMUM MOISTURE!MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE Brown Orange Silty-Sandstone PI @ 3' Olive Gray Clayey-Sandstone P1 @ 6' Brown Silty-Sand (Old Fill) P3 @ 4' Yellow Beige Silt)'-Sandstone P5 @ 3' MAX. DRY DENSITY (LB. CU. FT) 128.4 123.0 124.6 116.9 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE NO. Condition Initial Moisture (%) Air Dry Moisture (%) Final Moisture (%) Dry Denstiy (PCF) Load (PSF) Swell (%) Expansion Index SAMPLE NO. Condition Angle Internal Friction Cohesion Intercept (PCF) PI @3' PI@6' P3 @4' Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90% 10.7 11.8 10.8 2.2 8.2 3.0 16.4 21.5 17.1 115.5 110.7 112.4 ISO ISO 150 1.0 4.9 .5 10 49 5 DIRECT SHEAR PI ((i) 3' PI (@, 6' P3 @4' Remold 90% Remold 90% Remold 90%, 28 22 30 100 200 100 PROJECT NO. TE-1l95 PLATE NO. EIGHT OPT. MOISTURE (% DRY WT) 10.5 12.2 10.5 10.5 P5@3' Remold 90% 10.4 1.9 19.7 105.2 ISO .000 Less than 5 P5 (ij) 3' Remold 90t;,o 25 100 111f:1l1lJ) I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING. INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS (General Provisions) INTENT The intent of these specifications is to provide procedures in accordance with current standard practices regarding clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to receive fill, and placing and compacting offill soil to the Jines, grades, and slopes delineated on the project plans. Recommendations set forth in the attached "Prelimlnary Soils Investigation" report or special provisions are a part of the "Recommended Grading Specifications" and shall supercede the provisions contained hereinafter in case of conflict. 2. INSPECTION & TESTING A qualified soils engineer shall be employed to inspect and test the earthwork in accordance v.ith these specification and the accepted plans. It will be necessary that the soils engineer or his representative be allowed to provide adequate inspection so that he may certify that the work was or was not accomplished as specified or indicated. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the soils engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes, new information and dates, and new unforeseen soils conditions so that he may make these certifications. If substandard conditions (questionable soils, adverse weather, poor moisture control, inadequate compaction, etc.) Are encountered, the soils engineer will be empowered to either stop construction until conditions are remedied or recommend rejection of the work. Soil tests used to detennine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with the follmving American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods: 3. *f\.1aximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D-1557-78) * Density of Soil In..:Place (ASTM D-1556 or ASTM D-2922 & 3017) MATERIALS Those soils used as fill will have a minimum of forty percent (40%) passing a #4 sie\'e. They \\iII be free ofyegetable matter or other deleterious substances and contain no rock over 6 inches in size. Should unsuitable material be encountered. the soils engineer will be contacted to provide recommendations. APPENDIX 'B' 11l1:lllln I TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING, INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. PLACING AND SPREADING OF Fll..L The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which when compacted will not exceed 6 inches in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the spreading to insure uniformity of material in each layer. When moisture content of the fill material is below that recommended by the soils engineer~ water shall then be added until the moisture content is as specified to assure thorough bonding during the compacting process. When the moisture content of the fill materials is above that recommended by the soils engineer. the fill material shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. 5. COMPACTION After each layer has been placed, mixe~ and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than ninety percent (90%) relative compaction. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers multiple-wheel pneumatic tired rollers or other types of rollers. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling each layer shall be continuous over it's entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has been obtained. The fill operation shall be continued in 6 inch compacted layers, or as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades sho\\'1l on the project plans. 6. W ALL BACKFILL Backfill soils should consist of non-expansive san~ Compaction should be achieved with light hand-held pneumatic tampers to avoid over compaction and hence cause structural damage. Wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of maximum density. 7. TRENCH BACKFILL All trench backfill located within structural areas should be compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of maximum density. APPENDIX 'B' In1:lllln TECHNOLOGY I ENGINEERING, INC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Site Slope Analysis (Topography) Appendix IC' , ....a >-oc D ( , ! '0 ;z \~ ,-I o to less then 15% slope 15% to less than 25% slope 25% to 40% slope Slope greater - than 40% NZ.--~ i PROJECT NO. TE-1195 TERRA TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERING, INC. AAA AA 'II/; , \ ( r f l Soil Testing and Inspection Services \ . \ lIP APPENDIX IC' : r;f!G.~fJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) 7.) 8.) 9.) REFERENCES Slope design: "Taylor's Charts" for cut and compacted fill slopes The 1997 Edition of the Uniform Building Code California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, maps of known active faults near source zones dated FebruaI)' 1998 State of California Department of Transponation Highway Design Manual Sloping Surcharge -Equivalent Fluid Pressure. Ref: City of San Diego Building Newsletter, 23-3 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations by Vesic in H. F. Winterkom and T. Y. Fang editions, Foundation Engineering Handbook, 1975 Table 22.4, Soil Engineering by Spangler and Handy, 4th Edition Site Slope Analysis prepared by Skyline Engineering, and was not dated Preliminary Site and Grading Plan prepared by Skyline Engineering. CDP07-11 APPENDIX'D'